Neal/niskanen To Pittsburgh For Goliogoski

[mad dog]

Just embarassing. If you're going to trade away one of your bright young talents, you MUST get more than this. Apparently the GM thinks that what Dallas REALLY needs is an undersized, unproven, turnover prone "offensive" d-man who is a liability in our own zone. Go ahead, google "Alex Goliogowski turnovers" and read any of the first ten results. Even his homers admit he is a turnover fueled defensive breakdown waiting to happen.

Neal is more than a top flight prospect, he is a total package power forward who still hasn't reached his ceiling, and is worth more offensively than any blueliner. Newie just made this team worse at both ends of the ice, and mortgaged his team's future to do so. This is why the Pens are playing for the cup and we're a long shot to make the playoffs.

[UNTflyer]

Disappointed.

[Rudy]

Just another crappy move from a crappy GM. I'm hoping Joe learns his lesson before it kills this franchise. Nothing about this move makes sense. I agree, we need help on the blue line, but at the cost of one of your future stars, and possibly a future LEAGUE STAR?! Just when I think maybe Joe knows what he is doing, he does something like this. This move will be the equivalent of Armstrong's Lagenbrunner/Neiuwendky for Arnott/McClain, McKay trade.

Im still at a loss with this trade. Its just unreal.

If you watched the game on Versus tonight, they discussed the trade. They are not going to say that Newy got hosed by the Pens GM. But it was VERY painfully clear from their commentary, that Pittsburgh got a real steal on "The Real Deal".

Edited February 22, 2011 by Rudy

[Green Mean]

I love Neal and Nisky but we have been in dyer need of defense on this team. I think Newy has been a great GM considering what he's had to work with. Remember this team doesn't have the depth it should have and deserve since they are 10+ million under the cap and lets all thank Hicks for that.

[meanJewGreen]

I love Neal and Nisky but we have been in dyer need of defense on this team. I think Newy has been a great GM considering what he's had to work with. Remember this team doesn't have the depth it should have and deserve since they are 10+ million under the cap and lets all thank Hicks for that.

*dire.

[Rudy]

I love Neal and Nisky but we have been in dyer need of defense on this team. I think Newy has been a great GM considering what he's had to work with. Remember this team doesn't have the depth it should have and deserve since they are 10+ million under the cap and lets all thank Hicks for that.

If you trade one of your possible cornerstone players for a defenseman, and YOU STILL NEED ANOTHER DEFENSEMAN, its a bad trade. Throw in they he got NOTHING for Niskanen, and it becomes a joke. I know the ownership situation doesn't help, but that excuse only goes so far. His first move, very FIRST move, was to fire Tippitt. What does Tippitt have to work with in Phoenix? Hell, I don't even know if they have an owner yet. He had them in the playoffs last year, and are leading the division right now. I hate to say it, but I have to warn everyone, get ready to hear about Richards being traded on/before Monday.

Oh, by the way, the league, and its writers are laughing at Joe for that trade. Joe can't have many more bridges to burn here in Dallas. He is already dead to at least half of the fans.

[UNTFan23]

I love Neal and Nisky but we have been in dyer need of defense on this team. I think Newy has been a great GM considering what he's had to work with. Remember this team doesn't have the depth it should have and deserve since they are 10+ million under the cap and lets all thank Hicks for that.

*dire.

I thought he had just misspelled "dryer."

[Rudy]

I thought he had just misspelled "dryer."

Maybe he was thinking about ice cream.

[UNTP1]

Jamie Benn is much more of a "future cornerstone of the team" guy. We have plenty of depth at forward both in prospects and in already established players. What we had in Niskanen was a defenseman who didn't like contact and therefore didn't fit the mold of what Crawford wants from his defense. What we got was a PROVEN "puck moving" defenseman who isn't afraid of contact instead of a SUPPOSED "puck moving" defenseman. Also, Goliogoski has 31 points on the season so far and Neal only has 39 even though he has been on the top line all season where Richards tees it up for his linemates every game. Good trade in my opinion.

[Quoner]

Jamie Benn is much more of a "future cornerstone of the team" guy. We have plenty of depth at forward both in prospects and in already established players. What we had in Niskanen was a defenseman who didn't like contact and therefore didn't fit the mold of what Crawford wants from his defense. What we got was a PROVEN "puck moving" defenseman who isn't afraid of contact instead of a SUPPOSED "puck moving" defenseman. Also, Goliogoski has 31 points on the season so far and Neal only has 39 even though he has been on the top line all season where Richards tees it up for his linemates every game. Good trade in my opinion.

Good...not great trade, but the people freaking out about this are basically the ones you expect -- those still pissed Marty Turco isn't in goal and Mike Modano's handsome mug isn't flapping down the ice on the third line for all to see with 8 goals and 15 assists with the season winding down.

When you spend less on defense than all but two teams in hockey, your blueline is going to suck. I was a little bummed we didn't use Neal to start a conversation with the Blues before Eric Johnson got traded, but the Avs ultimately could give them more because they had a defensive prospect to give back -- which we don't.

If you have any warm feelings for Niksanen, I can only assume you've never watched him play his position by himself. He can't make an outlet pass and he can't keeep anyone out of the crease. He has one less assist than the freaking goalie. He may have started strong in that last playoff run, but the fact that we were able to shed his salary is a plus (even if it's annoying to talk salary when the team is willingly $10M under the cap because the owner sucks.)

Robidas is the best D guy on the team -- and he should be a 3. No one trade was going to completely solve 5 seasons of total neglect for the position. Throw in Neal's slumps, conditioning issues (why do you think he started fast and then diddled himself the last 2-3 months each season) and unwillingness to play a consistent two-way game, and he was the most expandable to go. He'll do well with Crosby and I hope -- like Turco and a few others who had to go -- he wins a cup or two. Meanwhile, this opens the top line for Benn (who is a real superstar) and he can keep growing into a complete, dominant player.

I know I'll be in the minority on this, but unless they finalize a sale in the next two days, trade Richards for at least another top 4 D-man and a RW. Maybe you can sign him in the offseason, but the rebuild will go a lot quicker if they keep redistributing resources into the blueline. What they've done this year is the equivalent of the 2004 Rangers making a run at contending despite what was a god awful pitching rotation. The only solution is to build it from the back up.

Oh, and we should have drafted Fowler and I will always be pissed we didn't.

[mad dog]

I agree with a lot of what Quoner said. I understood and agreed with the Turco and Modano decisions - it was just time for them to go. And, to be honest, among your three bright young talents (Benn, Erickson, and Neal), Neal was probably the most expendable. I'd have dealt just about anyone else but those three, but if you could get a top shelf blueliner for him, I could part with James Neal.

The problem is that we didn't. Goligoski is a one-trick pony - he is great on the power play. He has struggled (per the Penguins fansite, who watch him a heck of a lot more than we do) with all aspects in the defensive end, gives the puck away alot (and doesn't offset that at all with takeaways) and, at his size, cannot be counted on as a physical contributor. He isn't a big panic guy like Nisky, but the fact remains that he is a borderline #4/#5 defenseman. On our squad, maybe he's good enough to play on the second line. Point for point, though, you're ending up with a net loss between he and Neal. So offensively and defensively you're losing something in the deal.

I also agree with the fact that you always want to deal from a position of strength to a position of weakness. However, considering we currently have Stephane Robidas and Trevor Daley as guys who are at home in either end of the ice, and a young guy in Philip Larsen who looks like he may develop that skill set, I'm not sure if that's what we really did. Where we are weakest is in defensive minded defenders who can keep the slot clear, take good angles, and not allow high-percentage shots on goal. Just watch the kind of goals we give up, and you'll be shocked how many of them can be attributed to defensive breakdowns.

Niskanen was a throw in, and I'm not even close to arguing that we could have gotten anything substantial back for him. In fact, as Bob Sturm said on the radio yesterday, including him in the deal probably hurt it to some degree. I'm alright with that. I just think, at the end of the day, we got fleeced by a guy who is regarded as one of the shark-iest managers in the business. Again, that is why (in addition to stable ownership) Pittsburgh is a cup contender now and we're a middling squad with way more questions than answers.

You do not get better by trading your young stars for anything but the best talent. That is what was so disappointing for me.

[Quoner]

I agree with a lot of what Quoner said. I understood and agreed with the Turco and Modano decisions - it was just time for them to go. And, to be honest, among your three bright young talents (Benn, Erickson, and Neal), Neal was probably the most expendable. I'd have dealt just about anyone else but those three, but if you could get a top shelf blueliner for him, I could part with James Neal.

The problem is that we didn't. Goligoski is a one-trick pony - he is great on the power play. He has struggled (per the Penguins fansite, who watch him a heck of a lot more than we do) with all aspects in the defensive end, gives the puck away alot (and doesn't offset that at all with takeaways) and, at his size, cannot be counted on as a physical contributor. He isn't a big panic guy like Nisky, but the fact remains that he is a borderline #4/#5 defenseman. On our squad, maybe he's good enough to play on the second line. Point for point, though, you're ending up with a net loss between he and Neal. So offensively and defensively you're losing something in the deal.

I also agree with the fact that you always want to deal from a position of strength to a position of weakness. However, considering we currently have Stephane Robidas and Trevor Daley as guys who are at home in either end of the ice, and a young guy in Philip Larsen who looks like he may develop that skill set, I'm not sure if that's what we really did. Where we are weakest is in defensive minded defenders who can keep the slot clear, take good angles, and not allow high-percentage shots on goal. Just watch the kind of goals we give up, and you'll be shocked how many of them can be attributed to defensive breakdowns.

Niskanen was a throw in, and I'm not even close to arguing that we could have gotten anything substantial back for him. In fact, as Bob Sturm said on the radio yesterday, including him in the deal probably hurt it to some degree. I'm alright with that. I just think, at the end of the day, we got fleeced by a guy who is regarded as one of the shark-iest managers in the business. Again, that is why (in addition to stable ownership) Pittsburgh is a cup contender now and we're a middling squad with way more questions than answers.

You do not get better by trading your young stars for anything but the best talent. That is what was so disappointing for me.

I think you're underestimating Goligoski's game. If he was just a power play specialist, he wouldn't lead the team in +/-. I agree he is not a number one, but I think a young top 4 defensemen is worth more today than ever before. Richards might - MIGHT - bring you a number one -- that's about it unless you're ready to bundle a big group of players, picks and talent. I also cannot think of a single team that would have given us a top defensemen for Neal. To get Johnson -- who I consider top flight -- it took a proven young NHL scorer and a top D prospect. If I gave up Larsen and Neal together, I'd want freaking Lidstrom in his prime.

I'm also glad you brought up Robidas and Daley. They are playing top 3 minutes and still can't match what this kids done as basically the 5th d-guy in Pittsburgh. His game needs to mature -- experience should take care of that -- and he can become a top guy here. I disagree that we need the same snarl that everyone used in the 90s. Who on Detroit, SJ, TB, VAN, WAS or Phoenix goes out and rings people up every shift? The Stars already have two D guys in the top 30 in hits (Grossman and Robi.) I argue it's not making that big a difference.

Most of the top guys skate and keep it away from the other team -- I think that's how you win now. I'm not saying it's a dead art, but I think the game is more about keep away than ever before, and outside of Zubov, that's something no one for the Stars has ever been able to do on the back line.

In the end, Pittsburgh had a ton of defensemen and we had extra wingers. The trade matched. It's not always a fleecing. I liked the way the kid played last night and I think both teams will ultimately feel good about making this trade.

[mad dog]

This good natured sports debate has gone on a little too long. I think I'm probably well overdue for some good old-fashioned reductio ad absurdum and straw man fallacy, with perhaps some ad hominem "Communist" thrown in for good measure.

So... you're a communist.

That said, I've heard over and over about his plus/minus. We can debate the value all day about whether or not it is a useful stat or not, but far more knowledgeable people that you or I have butted heads on it with no resolution. So let's just assume for a moment that it is a valid stat

But, since it is awarded to all players on the ice regardless of whether they had anything to do with the play, that it is more a measure of a team than an individual. That is, a player on a bad team is going to have a lower plus/minus than a player on a good team. A bad goalie, playing against inferior competition, or a meltdown by someone on your own team 60 feet away can all distort what, exactly this is. If you can go with me on that, then it is worth nothing that Pittsburg's +/- is 18 points higher than ours as a team. If we were to normalize for this variance, you're going to show a very different picture of the guy.

If we are using +/- as the ultimate arbiter of a player's on-ice worth, a young Sergei Zubov had 31 points in about half a season's worth of games in 92-93. His p/m was -1, the exact same as Matt Niskanen is on the year.

Anyway, this is essentially trying to lend some sort of objective analysis to something that, frankly, is really tough to measure. Like offensive line play, it really must be witnessed to draw any meaningful conclusions. I haven't seen the guy play a lot, but those who have were far more frustrated by his turnovers and lack of defense than they were encouraged by his eye-popping offensive stats.

Goligoski might well end up being the next Zubov. I hope he is. But, based on everything I read about him, he's great on the power play and terrible defensively. From a production standpoint, we was a little worse than Neal, and, last I checked, goals counted the same regardless of who is scoring them. I would not have done the deal for Neal, and only time will tell if I'm right.

[Quoner]

I love you and was quite enjoying this. You're a smart, savvy man of great learning.

I'm also glad you called out +/-. I don't think it tells a whole story by any means, but I think the guy your describing sounds way more Sheldon Souray than what he is. The significant part to me was that he managed to lead a team in it while playing 5th D-man minutes. It's not perfect and is partly a function of playing with a good checking line, but Orpik and Letang get to skate with some of the best players in the world. It's by no means a measure of his full value, but it shows he has something -- just like I think it's significant Grossman's is high for us.

As for giveaways, in 60 games in PIT, he had 31. In 60 games with DAL, Daley had 36. I assume they haven't played the same minutes, but it's not like he's running around handing the puck to other teams. Unlike Daley, he has only played 2 full seasons so far and is still growing.

As for Niksanen, did you see his exciting Pittsburgh debut?

I know riding the D corp is a hobby for good teams. Remember how much people hated Matvichuk, Hatcher, even Zubov at times? When you're good, every mistake is magnified. When you have the injury problems Pittsburgh had and are struggling to score, he gets even more magnified. When they were healthy and rolling, I didn't see many criticisms of his play.

Goals may count the same, but Neal gave up his share of goals as well, and keeping the puck out of the net through posession is just as important. Starting breakouts are important. Not wearing down your goalie with 30 shots a night in part because you refuse to back check is important. Not pouting when you don't score for a few games is important.

Finally, w agree he's not going to be a number one. He's a 3 or best case a 2. We need more and we need a reasonable investment in our D from whoever takes over this thing. I know we're agreeing to disagree at this point, but this was good time hockey fun, you freaking commie, gas-guzzling jackwagon.