I’ve had a fairly busy offseason in my head-to-head keeper league. I shipped out Justin Williams for Steve Ott last month, and last weekend I pulled the trigger in a bigger trade, moving out Martin Brodeur, John-Michael Liles, and a draft pick in our dispersal draft in September for Loui Eriksson and a lower pick in the same draft.

More information about the Ultimate Fantasy Pool is here.

My roster:

* We keep 17, and eight farm players.

* Farm limits are 200 NHL GP (meaning Ville Leino can hang out on my farm and doesn't take up a keeper spot)

12 team head-to-head league

Start: 3 C, 3 LW, 3 RW, 6 D, 2 G

Bench: 6

IR: 3

Forwards/Defensemen Stat Categories:

Goals (G), Assists (A), Plus/Minus (+/-), Penalty Minutes (PIM), Powerplay Points (PPP), Shorthanded Points (SHP), Game-Winning Goals (GWG), Shots on Goal (SOG), Faceoffs Won (FW), Hits (HIT)

Goaltenders Stat Categories:

Games Started (GS), Wins (W), Losses (L), Goals Against Average (GAA), Shots Against (SA), Saves (SV), Save Percentage (SV%), Shutouts (SHO)

My reasons:

1) Fill scoring categories first.

I always try to fill goals, assists, power play points, and so on with my star players. With the inclusion of PIM and hits, Eriksson’s value is less in this league than in many other league formats. However, I find it much, much easier to fill the peripheral statistical categories with waiver wire pickups and late round draft picks.

2) Fill weaknesses with strengths.

My defense is a strength, as Liles was probably the sixth defenseman on my depth chart (with Ekman-Larsson and Brendan Smith not very far off). He was the 51^st best defenseman in our league (12 teams starting six defensemen, so he has very good value), and he should see an increase as he goes to Toronto (and a coach that doesn’t dislike him). My right wing has always been a weak spot on my team – Gaborik and Franzen, my likely keepers, are both injury prone. I used to own David Clarkson, but he wasn’t producing enough of anything to justify holding on to.

3) Goaltending strategy switch.

Our league has a lot of goaltending categories, but there is a case of diminishing returns if you try to fill all of them (or at least that is what I have encountered). I don’t see a huge bounce back from Brodeur, as New Jersey hasn’t done all that much to upgrade their defense. Father time factors in, as well. I own both Vancouver goalies, and Roloson in Tampa Bay. I may try to secure both goalies on another team (perhaps drafting Mathieu Garon, or trying to go elsewhere with my picks).

Even being a huge Jamie Benn fan, I am a bit worried about a falloff for Eriksson without Richards. Eriksson did post his career-best in goals while playing with Mike Ribeiro, showing he can produce without Richards. Right now, I see the Dallas second line being Benn between Eriksson and Ott (leaving Michael Ryder to skate on the top unit). I own two of three, and used to own Jamie Benn as well. Alex Goligoski will have a very positive impact on the offense over the course of a full season.

Tim’s reasons:

Analyzing my keepers, I had a comfortable enough balance of forwards, but a blatant lack of defense and goaltending, while still having an abundance of RW. My RW (or RW eligible) consisted of Okposo, Eriksson, Voracek, Backes, Niederreiter, and Caron. If I could have moved one RW to address a solid need at one of my weaknesses, I wanted to do so.

Eriksson, who I love, was the most likely candidate to move because he provided the least amount of multi-scoring depth (no PIMs, no hits) and he was going to play without Brad Richards. I am still confident he'll be good without Richards, but I had to make a move.

Brodeur likely has only one year left, but if he returns to form like Thomas did, he'll be a steal. If he doesn't he'll at least get me plenty of starts, which I am desperate for after watching  Brian Elliott sign a two-way contract. My goaltending pre-trade consisted of Halak, Giguere, Elliott, Emery, DiPietro. I'll likely be letting DiPietro and Elliott (and Emery) go. If Brodeur plays well enough, I may actually attempt to flip him during the season to a contender. Without him, I have only one genuine starter and I would potentially be forfeiting a lot of matchups (min 3 games started each week).

I'm not a huge fan of Liles, but historically I've stayed away from investing in defense. The last two years it kept me out of the playoffs, so it was time for a change. Between my farm callups and my pro keepers, I'll have Pronger, Visnovsky, Liles, Del Zotto, Bogosian, and Blum next year.

When you can only start 3 RW, I was finding myself handcuffed with Okposo, Voracek, Backes, Eriksson, and Pavelski already on my roster, and having 2 more RW in the farm meant that I needed to make space for them.  Making this trade meant that I had to give up on Elliott, but he's likely 2-3 years away from ever becoming a starter (and that's if he even can). Quite frankly, if I could move one player from a position of strength to address two weaknesses, I felt I was on the right track. The fact that I moved up in the draft really helped solidify the deal for me, though I did want an earlier pick.

Comments (9)

Subscribe to this comment's feed

Rhys Richards said:

definitely a win-win I couldn't agree more with Shoeless. Goalies, even aging ones, are virtually impossible to acquire in this league without a huge overpayment. And Tim definitely needed another tender. As much as I love Eriksson and keep kicking myself for letting him go a year before he found his stride, the pick upgrade is huge and helps to balance out the trade for Tim. Liles could be the added bonus. Even if he underperforms moderately, he's still Tim's 2nd or 3rd dman going into the season. I only recently learned just how important D are to a successful team in a league that starts 6 dmen. From Angus' perspective, he dealt from positions of relative depth to strengthen his weakest position. Gotta' love this deal for both teams.

report abuse vote down vote up

July 14, 2011
Votes: +0

Shoeless said:

win - win I like this deal from both sides - given Angus' new found goalie strategy (which I heartily agree with) - he did well to add additional offense to his team and still maintain what he needed to in goal. From Tim's side, I think he may just have stolen a good deal if Liles produces like I think he might. Liles and that jump to a 2nd round pick may end up being fair value for Eriksson without Brodeur factored in. Replacing Eriksson's production is ultimately the easiest task Tim has. To often the focus is on who won the deal based on raw player values, instead of who made their team better. I think this is a case where they both did.

report abuse vote down vote up

July 14, 2011
Votes: +1

Jeff Angus said:

... Rad, I'd say that was my goaltending strategy last year. Didn't do me much good (although Brodeur's first half was largely to blame). Garon isn't a free agent, he is actually owned. I figured he was a free agent, so I'll have to try and trade for him now. I may also decide to go with a different team instead of TB. There are categories that you will automatically win if you start a ton of goalies - Saves, Wins, for sure. However, GAA, SV%, W (partly helped), skew more towards good teams/goaltenders. The beauty of H2H compared to roto is "specialization." Focusing on a few categories with drafts and trades and picking up the rest through the waiver wire. In Roto, I'd say the more balanced a player is, the better. In H2H, it depends how you construct your team.

report abuse vote down vote up

July 13, 2011
Votes: +0

Rad64 said:

... It's cool to see different points of view on a trade. Using Jeff's best player wins the trade, you have to go with Eriksson. However, goalies are a premium in the league. Many managers, myself included, are loathe to give up a starting tender. Starting 3 sub par tenders during the week can win many cats just on volume. It's pretty tough to come out ahead in the goalie cats with only 2 starters. Tim ends up with Brodeur and Halak who should get the bulk of the starts barring injury. Varlamov's injury history may result in Giguere getting quite a few starts in Colorado. It's H2H...all you have to do is make the play-offs. Brodeur gives Tim a shot. Next year, he's in the same boat, so he better dig up another expendable Eriksson. Jeff needs to pursue another tender, make sure he drafts Garon. An injury to Roloson would cost him the bulk, if not all the goalie cats per week with only the Vancouver duo. 12 teams where everyone wants at least 3 tenders = 36...supply and demand.

report abuse vote down vote up

July 13, 2011
Votes: +0

Tim Lucarelli said:

... Yes, we use Yahoo...but like I mentioned, there aren't very many goaltending options that are available. At least solidified goaltenders. Last year I ran with Halak and Elliott for most of the year but I am not guaranteed that Elliott will even be in the NHL this year. If I don't get at least three goalie starts per week, I'll forfeit ALL of the goalie categories. So, I absolutely needed at least one goalie who was going to get starts. I'll stockpile my farm with goalies as the season progresses and I already have two of the top six goalies (in terms of GAA) from the AHL last year. I'll definitely be able to add a goalie or two to my farm or trade another asset for one during the year. By no means am I done making moves, but it certainly helped me move in the right direction.

report abuse vote down vote up

July 13, 2011
Votes: +0

Pengwin7 said:

Rebuilding So - you are rebuilding... but decided to trade for Brodeur? You have to admit, it sounds a little counter-intuitive. I have Backes in one keeper league, Pavelski in another keeper league. Both Yahoo! When I saw the write-up above... I did not see Pavelski in your first paragraph RW list. When I read it in the last paragraph list - I assume you had traded him since. Do you guys use Yahoo!?

report abuse vote down vote up

July 13, 2011
Votes: +0

Tim Lucarelli said:

	Also Also, Pavelski and Backes were both RW eligible this year. If at least one of them is next year, I'll be fine. If both are, I'll be right where I want to be.
	report abuse vote down vote up

July 13, 2011
Votes: +0

Tim Lucarelli said:

... I'm pretty happy with the trade overall. Quite frankly, Eriksson wasn't going to be as valuable for me in the coming season as Brodeur and Liles will be. The other thing that was big to me, was the draft picks. I acquired pick #28 and gave up pick #50. I plan on calling up a few farm players after the draft, so really, I will end up needing only three pro spots, maybe four. In a six-round pro-draft (players need to play at least one NHL game), I have four of the top 28 picks now. I also have three picks after that to use however I wish, whether that be to gamble on some high risk, high return pro players or address future farm positions. After the trade my roster looks like this: C: M Richards, Berglund, Pavelski, Brassard, Burmistrov LW: Vanek, Clowe, Kulemin, Gagne, Stalberg RW: Backes, Okposo, Voracek, Caron, Niederreiter, Setoguchi D: Pronger, Visnovsky, Liles, Carle, Bogosian, Blum, Del Zotto G: Halak, Brodeur, Giguere, DiPietro, Emery, Elliott, Dekanich, Martin Jones, Joacim Eriksson Strikethrough = non-keepers bold = farm keepers I am obviously rebuilding, but I need to shift my roster to the point where I can have a more well balanced roster. Obviously I don't plan on going from 11th of 12 to 1st overall, but with the top picks I'll have on draft day, I like the skeleton (pre-keepers) that I have given myself. Everyone else's asking price for goaltenders was astronomical.

report abuse vote down vote up

July 13, 2011
Votes: +0

Pengwin7 said:

Backes Depending on where the league is hosted, Backes may be a C next year. That could leave Tim's team in a tricky position. Brodeur is almost certain to be in his final year. Typically, the top teams in a pool will have good goaltender. So - will one of them even need to trade FOR Brodeur down the stretch? There may not be a market for Brodeur among the top teams. I like this trade for Angus. I have doubts on the value of this trade for Tim. I would hesitate to call it a win-win.

report abuse vote down vote up

July 13, 2011
Votes: +0