Comments for The Anatomy of a Trade: Brodeur for Eriksson at http://hockey.dobbersports.com , comment 1 to 9 out of 9 comments http://hockey.dobbersports.com Thu, 23 May 2013 01:53:40 +0100 FeedCreator 1.7.3 http://hockey.dobbersports.com/index.php/jeff-angus/3824-the-anatomy-of-a-trade-brodeur-for-eriksson#comment-15237 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. - Rhys Richards Thu, 14 Jul 2011 03:58:21 +0100 http://hockey.dobbersports.com/index.php/jeff-angus/3824-the-anatomy-of-a-trade-brodeur-for-eriksson#comment-15235 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. - Shoeless Thu, 14 Jul 2011 02:02:13 +0100 http://hockey.dobbersports.com/index.php/jeff-angus/3824-the-anatomy-of-a-trade-brodeur-for-eriksson#comment-15232 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. - Jeff Angus Wed, 13 Jul 2011 12:44:08 +0100 http://hockey.dobbersports.com/index.php/jeff-angus/3824-the-anatomy-of-a-trade-brodeur-for-eriksson#comment-15231 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 [b]volume[/b]. 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. :) - Rad64 Wed, 13 Jul 2011 10:55:18 +0100 http://hockey.dobbersports.com/index.php/jeff-angus/3824-the-anatomy-of-a-trade-brodeur-for-eriksson#comment-15230 Yes, we use Yahoo...but like I mentioned, there aren't very many goaltending options that are [i]available[/i]. 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. - Tim Lucarelli Wed, 13 Jul 2011 10:01:40 +0100 http://hockey.dobbersports.com/index.php/jeff-angus/3824-the-anatomy-of-a-trade-brodeur-for-eriksson#comment-15229 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!? - Pengwin7 Wed, 13 Jul 2011 09:55:45 +0100 http://hockey.dobbersports.com/index.php/jeff-angus/3824-the-anatomy-of-a-trade-brodeur-for-eriksson#comment-15228 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. - Tim Lucarelli Wed, 13 Jul 2011 09:40:03 +0100 http://hockey.dobbersports.com/index.php/jeff-angus/3824-the-anatomy-of-a-trade-brodeur-for-eriksson#comment-15227 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, [b]Burmistrov[/b] LW: Vanek, Clowe, Kulemin, Gagne, [s]Stalberg[/s] RW: Backes, Okposo, Voracek, [b]Caron, Niederreiter[/b], [s]Setoguchi[/s] D: Pronger, Visnovsky, Liles, [s]Carle[/s], [b]Bogosian, Blum, Del Zotto[/b] G: Halak, Brodeur, Giguere, [s]DiPietro, Emery, Elliott[/s], [b]Dekanich, Martin Jones[/b], [s]Joacim Eriksson[/s] [s]Strikethrough [/s]= non-keepers [b]bold [/b]= 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. - Tim Lucarelli Wed, 13 Jul 2011 09:38:52 +0100 http://hockey.dobbersports.com/index.php/jeff-angus/3824-the-anatomy-of-a-trade-brodeur-for-eriksson#comment-15225 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. - Pengwin7 Wed, 13 Jul 2011 09:07:54 +0100