Detroit interested in Marleau

[RyanBarnes! 293]

I don't think the Sharks have any intentions whatsoever to trade their captain and best playoff performer. He'd be great to have but the Wings cannot afford to trade Kronwall for him (and Carle is taking a couple steps backwards in having to repeat a couple years of development). If a sweetener along the lines of Grigorenko/McGrath/2nd rd pick/etc... isn't enough to bump up from Datsyuk, then I don't think there's a trade there to be had.

Fine, it's my humble opinion that a deal like that would have absolutely no shot at landing Marleau whatsoever -if available. It would make no sense for the Sharks.

[norrisnick 1]

And tossing in Kronwall makes no sense for the Wings.

I know he's Swedish and thus drops a couple notches in your view of him , but he's good and all we have for under 30 year old defensemen.

[rage 24]

And tossing in Kronwall makes no sense for the Wings.

I know he's Swedish and thus drops a couple notches in your view of him , but he's good and all we have for under 30 year old defensemen.

I agree. I don't think Kronwall should be a part of any trade.

[RyanBarnes! 293]

And tossing in Kronwall makes no sense for the Wings.

I know he's Swedish and thus drops a couple notches in your view of him , but he's good and all we have for under 30 year old defensemen.

I disagree.

I resent that remark. I have every bit as much hope in Kronwall as you do, but I've come to terms with the fact that the standard "LGW" package of Lang, Williams, Hudler etc plus picks will not land anything of significance. It will not help change the design of this team. Something that I believe is necessary at the moment. So please, spare me this nonsense.

Trading Kronwall would hurt us only in the short run in my opinion, since Carle has the potential to become every bit as good as Kronwall a few years from now. In the meantime we have Lidstrom and Schneider as offensive defensemen. Defensemen like Kindl and Quincey are on their way. In Marleau Detroit would get a playoff performer at a key position. One that is not slated for free agency next season.

Also keep in mind that Carle can step in as a 5th defenseman this season. He is ready. I admit trading Kronwall is a gamble but so is he with his injuries.

[norrisnick 1]

I disagree.

I resent that remark. I have every bit as much hope in Kronwall as you do, but I've come to terms with the fact that the standard "LGW" package of Lang, Williams, Hudler etc plus picks will not land anything of significance. It will not help change the design of this team. Something that I believe is necessary at the moment. So please, spare me this nonsense.

Trading Kronwall would hurt us only in the short run in my opinion, since Carle has the potential to become every bit as good as Kronwall a few years from now. In the meantime we have Lidstrom and Schneider as offensive defensemen. Defensemen like Kindl and Quincey are on their way. In Marleau Detroit would get a playoff performer at a key position. One that is not slated for free agency next season.

Also keep in mind that Carle can step in as a 5th defenseman this season. He is ready. I admit trading Kronwall is a gamble but so is he with his injuries.

I'm sorry you resent it. It was meant tongue in cheak, but with a hint of truth mixed in. If Kronwall were a Canadian there's no way you'd so easily toss him in. You have a mental block/fear about the number of Swedes on the Wings. Doesn't matter that for the most part they're quality players. And I'll remind you that we're not working with the standard "LGW" package here. Datsyuk + has considerably more value than the trio you named, and Kronwall far more beyond Pavel.

So Carle can jump in at the #5 spot. Great. I fully expect Kronwall to take hold of the #2 spot. We're taking steps backwards at a more important position (defense) to further enhance what already is a strength (center). By the time Carle gets to where Kronwall is now Marleau is due a raise and a huge part of his value will go down.

Gambling on Kronwall's injury is the same gamble we're taking with every single other player on the team. He caught a bad rut in '03-'04 at Staples and had his knee smashed against the boards in the waning seconds of a period of an exhibition game last fall. He let up on the play and Hinote (battling for a roster spot) didn't. Anyone could have fallen to those injuries. It's not like his style of play is constantly getting him knocked out of the lineup with various injuries.

[SwedeLundin77 460]

I'm sorry you resent it. It was meant tongue in cheak, but with a hint of truth mixed in. If Kronwall were a Canadian there's no way you'd so easily toss him in. You have a mental block/fear about the number of Swedes on the Wings. Doesn't matter that for the most part they're quality players. And I'll remind you that we're not working with the standard "LGW" package here. Datsyuk + has considerably more value than the trio you named, and Kronwall far more beyond Pavel.

So Carle can jump in at the #5 spot. Great. I fully expect Kronwall to take hold of the #2 spot. We're taking steps backwards at a more important position (defense) to further enhance what already is a strength (center). By the time Carle gets to where Kronwall is now Marleau is due a raise and a huge part of his value will go down.

Gambling on Kronwall's injury is the same gamble we're taking with every single other player on the team. He caught a bad rut in '03-'04 at Staples and had his knee smashed against the boards in the waning seconds of a period of an exhibition game last fall. He let up on the play and Hinote (battling for a roster spot) didn't. Anyone could have fallen to those injuries. It's not like his style of play is constantly getting him knocked out of the lineup with various injuries.

Very well put, losing Kronwall for Marleau would be a very bad decision. I want Marleau here, but not at the cost of someone like that. Kronwall is part of the future here. It really is a toss up, cause getting Marleau would be great, but you also never really know how Datsyuk will react to disgruntled fans and critics of his playoff disappareances, and you know you're getting the same production during the season too, so that's a good thing. I would trade Marleau for Datsyuk and Hudler/Grig/1st rounder, but not for Kronwall, it's silly. We have plenty of scoring on this team to go around if we distribute it right, if it had to come to that. Zetterberg, Datsyuk, Lang, Samuelsson, Williams, Holmstrom. That's our top 6 whom should each put up 20+ goals at the least, and 3 of those players will put up 30 to 40 goals or more.

[RyanBarnes! 293]

I'm sorry you resent it. It was meant tongue in cheak, but with a hint of truth mixed in. If Kronwall were a Canadian there's no way you'd so easily toss him in. You have a mental block/fear about the number of Swedes on the Wings. Doesn't matter that for the most part they're quality players. And I'll remind you that we're not working with the standard "LGW" package here. Datsyuk + has considerably more value than the trio you named, and Kronwall far more beyond Pavel.

So Carle can jump in at the #5 spot. Great. I fully expect Kronwall to take hold of the #2 spot. We're taking steps backwards at a more important position (defense) to further enhance what already is a strength (center). By the time Carle gets to where Kronwall is now Marleau is due a raise and a huge part of his value will go down.

Gambling on Kronwall's injury is the same gamble we're taking with every single other player on the team. He caught a bad rut in '03-'04 at Staples and had his knee smashed against the boards in the waning seconds of a period of an exhibition game last fall. He let up on the play and Hinote (battling for a roster spot) didn't. Anyone could have fallen to those injuries. It's not like his style of play is constantly getting him knocked out of the lineup with various injuries.

Dr NorrisNick,

I know what you meant, but I can't have you undermining my credibility with a cheapshot like that. I'm not taking trading Kronwall lightly by any means. I didn't just "toss him in". I'll trade anyone if it would make the team better. I wouldn't trade Lidstrom because there's simply no way it could improve the team. Kronwall is simply the player that best fit the needs of San Jose and one they'd be willing to trade for. I'd rather give up Schneider but in reality there's not a trade to be made involving him and Marleau.

It's not the standard "LGW" package in the sense that it actually involves giving up a quality player and not a bunch of "leftovers" that for one reason or the other displeases the fans. Still we're talking about Datsyuk and a throw in (Grigorenko, Hudler or whoever) that has absolutely no value to a deep team like the Sharks. Bell gives the Sharks the option to trade for something else than a centre, by which logic wouldn't they try and address some real needs? Namely an experienced offensive defenseman?

Like I said before in my opinion Marleau + Carle exceeds the value of Datsyuk + Kronwall. Doesn't matter if Kronwall is better than Datsyuk or not. Carle could very well be the next Kronwall, and truth be told I'm not sure the Sharks would consider dealing Carle at this point. However I'm hoping that Kronwall's experience in the NHL and internationally would attract their interest.

I doubt that Kronwall will be the clear cut number 2 at the start of the season, plus with the group of defensemen currently in Detroit I don't think Carle will hurt us one bit if he was number 4. Carle is perfectly capable to log minutes in PP etc. He has the potential to be where Kronwall is now, only a year from now. The centre position is hardly a strength of ours during the playoffs. Marleau would provide something the team is sorely lacking; size and scoring touch. From a Red Wings perspective the centre position is equally if not more important than defense.

And what happened in 2003-04? Point being, a case could always be made since he has been plagued by injury during both of his NHL seasons.

[FunkyBlueFish203 0]

Like I said before in my opinion Marleau + Carle exceeds the value of Datsyuk + Kronwall.

No, at this point it doesn't. While Marleau is better than Datsyuk and we would need to send an additional pick or player to balance it out, including Kronwall in this deal makes this a deal far too favorable for the Sharks.

I am familiar with Carle's game, he's a USNTDP boy. He's similar to Kronner in the sense that he's not very big either but plays a physical game. He is solid at both ends of the ice, great skater, and makes an excellent first pass. I think he is going to spend 1 more yeat at Denver, and after that might spend a year or so in the AHL. In any other trade, I am all over Carle, but not in exchange for Kronwall.

Looking at our defensive prospects, especially a guy like Kindl who is still a ways away from making the team, and looking at the age of guys like Lidstrom and Schneider, we need Kronwall. If not for a couple of freak injuries to him the past couple of seasons, his name would've never come up in such a trade. He is our most valuable roster player right now behind Zetterberg. Key word: Right now.

Carle can't be right now for us, hence, can't do.

[Systemfel 33]

I think he is going to spend 1 more yeat at Denver, and after that might spend a year or so in the AHL.

He won't return to Denver. He signed an entry-level deal in the end of the 05/06 season and played 23 games for the Sharks as a rookie. He might actually QB San Jose's first PP unit this year. Edited September 11, 2006 by Systemfel

[Guest GordieSid&Ted]

No, at this point it doesn't. While Marleau is better than Datsyuk and we would need to send an additional pick or player to balance it out, including Kronwall in this deal makes this a deal far too favorable for the Sharks.

I am familiar with Carle's game, he's a USNTDP boy. He's similar to Kronner in the sense that he's not very big either but plays a physical game. He is solid at both ends of the ice, great skater, and makes an excellent first pass. I think he is going to spend 1 more yeat at Denver, and after that might spend a year or so in the AHL. In any other trade, I am all over Carle, but not in exchange for Kronwall.

Looking at our defensive prospects, especially a guy like Kindl who is still a ways away from making the team, and looking at the age of guys like Lidstrom and Schneider, we need Kronwall. If not for a couple of freak injuries to him the past couple of seasons, his name would've never come up in such a trade. He is our most valuable roster player right now behind Zetterberg. Key word: Right now.

Carle can't be right now for us, hence, can't do.

I'm curious to know how or why Patrick Marleau is considered by some (around here only) to be better than Datsyuk.

On a one-on-one comparison, other than being a much larger player than Datsyuk, why is Marleau better overall? Is it because he's faster? Is it because he's 10 months younger? Or is it solely his playoff production that makes him the "better player"

It can't be because of his regular season production. He is a career 45-50 point player. He has topped 60 points just once in 8 seasons. Datsyuk has played only 4 seasons and has topped 60 twice already. Datsyuk's regular season points per game is .848 to Marleau's .645. Marleau's 3 best offensive seasons were his last 3 in which he was a minus player every year, whereas Datsyuk is a +44 over the same period.

Datsyuk pretty much owns Marleau in every category possible except for playoff success. That being said, Marleau's playoff point production is far superior than Datsyuk's. By the way Marleau's point production is far better than Joe Thornton's as well. Does that make him better than Joe Thornton as well? By the way Fernando Pisani's playoff production is almost as good as Marleau's and better than both Jumbo Joe's and Datsyuk's. Is that supposed to mean Pisani is better than Datsyuk?

I have no problem with the idea of trading Datsyuk for Marleau straight up. I have no problem with anybody wanting to cut ties with Dats for not producing in order to get a guy who is a proven playoff performer. But player to player, skill level to skill level, Datsyuk is the better player hands down he just hasn't had the same success in the playoffs.

Datsyuk for Marleau is fine by me. Datsyuk and a 1st rounder or a top prospect for Marleau??? WTF is that all about. Are we so desperate for one playoff performer that we'd give ourselves the short end of a player swap? People have thrown in Carle and Kronner's names as well which is another bad idea. But maybe Grigs and Dats for Marleau and Carle isn't too bad. I just don't understand the straight up Dats + 1st or top prospect just for Marleau. Furthermore I don't get how anyone thinks that player to player, Marleau is better. Datsyuk can be an elite level player that can single-handedly break teams down. Marleau is just a good, solid player. He is not an elite player.

[norrisnick 1]

I'm curious to know how or why Patrick Marleau is considered by some (around here only) to be better than Datsyuk.

On a one-on-one comparison, other than being a much larger player than Datsyuk, why is Marleau better overall? Is it because he's faster? Is it because he's 10 months younger? Or is it solely his playoff production that makes him the "better player"

It can't be because of his regular season production. He is a career 45-50 point player. He has topped 60 points just once in 8 seasons. Datsyuk has played only 4 seasons and has topped 60 twice already. Datsyuk's regular season points per game is .848 to Marleau's .645. Marleau's 3 best offensive seasons were his last 3 in which he was a minus player every year, whereas Datsyuk is a +44 over the same period.

Datsyuk pretty much owns Marleau in every category possible except for playoff success. That being said, Marleau's playoff point production is far superior than Datsyuk's. By the way Marleau's point production is far better than Joe Thornton's as well. Does that make him better than Joe Thornton as well? By the way Fernando Pisani's playoff production is almost as good as Marleau's and better than both Jumbo Joe's and Datsyuk's. Is that supposed to mean Pisani is better than Datsyuk?

I have no problem with the idea of trading Datsyuk for Marleau straight up. I have no problem with anybody wanting to cut ties with Dats for not producing in order to get a guy who is a proven playoff performer. But player to player, skill level to skill level, Datsyuk is the better player hands down he just hasn't had the same success in the playoffs.

Datsyuk for Marleau is fine by me. Datsyuk and a 1st rounder or a top prospect for Marleau??? WTF is that all about. Are we so desperate for one playoff performer that we'd give ourselves the short end of a player swap? People have thrown in Carle and Kronner's names as well which is another bad idea. But maybe Grigs and Dats for Marleau and Carle isn't too bad. I just don't understand the straight up Dats + 1st or top prospect just for Marleau. Furthermore I don't get how anyone thinks that player to player, Marleau is better. Datsyuk can be an elite level player that can single-handedly break teams down. Marleau is just a good, solid player. He is not an elite player.

He's bigger, faster, stronger, better defensively (a + is far easier to attain on the Wings than it is in San Jose), a better goalscorer (which is what we need most up front), healthier, younger, and a FAR better playoff performer.

Datsyuk's style of play is prettier but in no meaningful way is he a better or more elite player.

Oh and as an aside, given a choice of San Jose's centers I'd take Marleau without hesitation.

[Guest GordieSid&Ted]

He's bigger, faster, stronger, better defensively (a + is far easier to attain on the Wings than it is in San Jose), a better goalscorer (which is what we need most up front), healthier, younger, and a FAR better playoff performer.

Datsyuk's style of play is prettier but in no meaningful way is he a better or more elite player.

Oh and as an aside, given a choice of San Jose's centers I'd take Marleau without hesitation.

Bigger: Yes

Stronger: Yes

Better defensively: Prove that one? Those San Jose teams were playoff teams, they were good teams and yet Marleau is always a minus. Want more analysis? In 2005 every Sharks player with at least 25 points was a PLUS player. Only Alyn McCauley and Patrick Marleau were minuses. Furthermore Marleau was the WORST +/- on the entire Sharks team. In 2004 Marleau lead the Sharks in points and of their top 10 scorers only Marleau, Scott Thornton and Damphousse were minus players. Nils Eckman finished 2nd in team scoring and was a +30 to Marleau's -5. Coincidentally Marleau's +/- was tied for 2nd worse on the team. Only in 2003 were the Sharks as a team poor at +/-. The last 2 seasons they've been good and Marleau has not been. So how is he not only a good defensive player but better than Datsyuk?

Faster: Yes

One on One: No

Passing: No

Playmaking: No

PPG: No

Shooting %: No

Faceoffs: No

Ice Time: Yes, he gets more ice time and produces less. Which qualifies as not being in his favor.

Playoff PPG: Yes

Age: he's 10 months younger. Since people give Sidney Crosby NO credit for being 2 years younger than Ovechkin I don't know that 10 months qualifies as a noteworthy statistic.

Like I said in another post, even though I think Datsyuk is by far the more talented player and that he'll consistent produce more than Marleau I might actually do a straight up trade Dats for Marleau. I like Marleau's qualities alot. That being said, whereas Marleau may be a better fit for us, he is NOT the talent that Datsyuk is and any trade involving us giving the Sharks more players or a draft pick in excess of just Dats for Marleau straight up is an out and out fleecing of us by the Sharks.

As an aside: Can you find a single reputable publication that ranks Marleau ahead of Datsyuk? THN maybe? I've never seen one.

Edited September 11, 2006 by GordieSid&Ted

[haroldsnepsts 4,826]

I'm curious to know how or why Patrick Marleau is considered by some (around here only) to be better than Datsyuk.

On a one-on-one comparison, other than being a much larger player than Datsyuk, why is Marleau better overall? Is it because he's faster? Is it because he's 10 months younger? Or is it solely his playoff production that makes him the "better player"

It can't be because of his regular season production. He is a career 45-50 point player. He has topped 60 points just once in 8 seasons. Datsyuk has played only 4 seasons and has topped 60 twice already. Datsyuk's regular season points per game is .848 to Marleau's .645. Marleau's 3 best offensive seasons were his last 3 in which he was a minus player every year, whereas Datsyuk is a +44 over the same period.

Datsyuk pretty much owns Marleau in every category possible except for playoff success. That being said, Marleau's playoff point production is far superior than Datsyuk's. By the way Marleau's point production is far better than Joe Thornton's as well. Does that make him better than Joe Thornton as well? By the way Fernando Pisani's playoff production is almost as good as Marleau's and better than both Jumbo Joe's and Datsyuk's. Is that supposed to mean Pisani is better than Datsyuk?

I have no problem with the idea of trading Datsyuk for Marleau straight up. I have no problem with anybody wanting to cut ties with Dats for not producing in order to get a guy who is a proven playoff performer. But player to player, skill level to skill level, Datsyuk is the better player hands down he just hasn't had the same success in the playoffs.

Datsyuk for Marleau is fine by me. Datsyuk and a 1st rounder or a top prospect for Marleau??? WTF is that all about. Are we so desperate for one playoff performer that we'd give ourselves the short end of a player swap? People have thrown in Carle and Kronner's names as well which is another bad idea. But maybe Grigs and Dats for Marleau and Carle isn't too bad. I just don't understand the straight up Dats + 1st or top prospect just for Marleau. Furthermore I don't get how anyone thinks that player to player, Marleau is better. Datsyuk can be an elite level player that can single-handedly break teams down. Marleau is just a good, solid player. He is not an elite player.

If you think Dats is hands down the better player, why would you be okay trading with him for Marleau?

what categories do you think he owns Marleau in? Passing. Fancy dekes. What else?

Datsyuk is not an elite player either. He's got amazing moves and great regular season scoring, but that big donut in the playoff goals keeps him from being considered close to elite in my book. I can't really think of a time where he's strapped the team on his back and taken control of a game.

If you had set your threshold 8 points higher at 68 instead of 60, Dats has only done it once in his career too. They've both clearly benefitted from the new NHL. I don't think the gap in scoring is as large as you're making it out to be.

Dats has had 87, 68, 51, and 35 points the last 4 seasons to Marleau's 86, 57, 57, 44. He's actually got more points than Dats over the same time period. And I don't put much stock in comparing a player's plus/minus between teams. I don't think it's particularly telling as there are so many other variables involved.

So you take similar regular season production, Marleau's better speed, MUCH better size, MUCH better playoff performance, and seemingly better defensively. Then consider how desperately the Wings need more size up front, and it makes sense to want Marleau.

And honestly if you put the question up around the league as to who's a better player, I don't think it's only the people here on LGW that think Marleau would be better. Not to mention we're not just talking about them as players, it's also their contract situations.

Edited September 11, 2006 by haroldsnepsts

[norrisnick 1]

Bigger: Yes

Stronger: Yes

Better defensively: Prove that one? Those San Jose teams were playoff teams, they were good teams and yet Marleau is always a minus. Want more analysis? In 2005 every Sharks player with at least 25 points was a PLUS player. Only Alyn McCauley and Patrick Marleau were minuses. Furthermore Marleau was the WORST +/- on the entire Sharks team. In 2004 Marleau lead the Sharks in points and of their top 10 scorers only Marleau, Scott Thornton and Damphousse were minus players. Nils Eckman finished 2nd in team scoring and was a +30 to Marleau's -5. Coincidentally Marleau's +/- was tied for 2nd worse on the team. Only in 2003 were the Sharks as a team poor at +/-. The last 2 seasons they've been good and Marleau has not been. So how is he not only a good defensive player but better than Datsyuk?

Faster: Yes

One on One: No

Passing: No

Playmaking: No

PPG: No

Shooting %: No

Faceoffs: No

Ice Time: Yes, he gets more ice time and produces less. Which qualifies as not being in his favor.

Playoff PPG: Yes

Age: he's 10 months younger. Since people give Sidney Crosby NO credit for being 2 years younger than Ovechkin I don't know that 10 months qualifies as a noteworthy statistic.

Like I said in another post, even though I think Datsyuk is by far the more talented player and that he'll consistent produce more than Marleau I might actually do a straight up trade Dats for Marleau. I like Marleau's qualities alot. That being said, whereas Marleau may be a better fit for us, he is NOT the talent that Datsyuk is and any trade involving us giving the Sharks more players or a draft pick in excess of just Dats for Marleau straight up is an out and out fleecing of us by the Sharks.

As an aside: Can you find a single reputable publication that ranks Marleau ahead of Datsyuk? THN maybe? I've never seen one.

+/- in and of itself is meaningless as a measure of defensive ability. Shanahan +29, Draper +3, Maltby -9, etc...

Why would I want to reference a reputable publication?

http://hfboards.com/showthread.php?t=285507

Datsyuk plays prettily. Marleau plays effectively.

[bringback91 2]

what categories do you think he owns Marleau in? Passing. Fancy dekes. What else?

I thought he did a good job detailing his thoughts on the subject.

+/- in and of itself is meaningless as a measure of defensive ability. Shanahan +29, Draper +3, Maltby -9, etc...

Itself yes, while I don't believe it to be "meaningless", it weighs heavily on things such as the Selkie.

[haroldsnepsts 4,826]

Bigger: Yes

Stronger: Yes

Better defensively: Prove that one? Those San Jose teams were playoff teams, they were good teams and yet Marleau is always a minus. Want more analysis? In 2005 every Sharks player with at least 25 points was a PLUS player. Only Alyn McCauley and Patrick Marleau were minuses. Furthermore Marleau was the WORST +/- on the entire Sharks team. In 2004 Marleau lead the Sharks in points and of their top 10 scorers only Marleau, Scott Thornton and Damphousse were minus players. Nils Eckman finished 2nd in team scoring and was a +30 to Marleau's -5. Coincidentally Marleau's +/- was tied for 2nd worse on the team. Only in 2003 were the Sharks as a team poor at +/-. The last 2 seasons they've been good and Marleau has not been. So how is he not only a good defensive player but better than Datsyuk?

Faster: Yes

One on One: No

Passing: No

Playmaking: No

PPG: No

Shooting %: No

Faceoffs: No

Ice Time: Yes, he gets more ice time and produces less. Which qualifies as not being in his favor.

Playoff PPG: Yes

Age: he's 10 months younger. Since people give Sidney Crosby NO credit for being 2 years younger than Ovechkin I don't know that 10 months qualifies as a noteworthy statistic.

Like I said in another post, even though I think Datsyuk is by far the more talented player and that he'll consistent produce more than Marleau I might actually do a straight up trade Dats for Marleau. I like Marleau's qualities alot. That being said, whereas Marleau may be a better fit for us, he is NOT the talent that Datsyuk is and any trade involving us giving the Sharks more players or a draft pick in excess of just Dats for Marleau straight up is an out and out fleecing of us by the Sharks.

As an aside: Can you find a single reputable publication that ranks Marleau ahead of Datsyuk? THN maybe? I've never seen one.

Datsyuk had the honor of being one of the only Red Wings with a negative +/- when he was on a line with Hull (who was the other player sharing that honor). Plus/minus doesn't make a strong argument for me when comparing two players on two different teams. I can't say for sure he's better defensively than Dats. At most it's a wash.

Shooting % I could care less about, as long as the puck ends up in the net. In my opinion, Dats doesn't take nearly as many shots as he should.

How do you define playmaking exactly? If it's the same as passing, then I'd give it to Dats. If it's purely making things happen and driving the offense, then it's up for grabs.

Age is a wash.

do you have stats on the faceoff percentage? I can never find that info when I look for it, so I have no idea how they match up. Dats used to be pretty bad, but has definitely improved the last couple seasons.

You skipped overall playoff goals. That is such a massive massive difference between the two. Marleau had 9 goals in 11 games last season. 17 playoff goals in 28 games over the last four years, 2 of which they weren't in the playoffs. I don't think I need to list Dats' playoff performance over the same time period. Marleau is clutch. That means a ton in my opinion.

Check out NNick's link. Seems I was right about the league wide opinion of the two. It's actually more skewed towards Marleau than I expected.

Dats is the more talented player, but I'll take the guy who does more with less.

As for the straight up trade and potential fleecing, the reasons like Marleau being a better fit for us and the Wings needing size are exactly the same reasons why it would take more than a straight up trade to get him. We need a player like Marleau more than they need one like Datsyuk.

I thought he did a good job detailing his thoughts on the subject.

then why chime in on a post that wasn't directed at you?

Gordie is more than knowledgeable enough to speak for himself.

(and I was working on my post when he put his up. He answered the question while I was asking it)

[norrisnick 1]

Itself yes, while I don't believe it to be "meaningless", it weighs heavily on things such as the Selkie.

Not that much. Brind'Amour was tied for 67th in +/- for forwards at +8.

do you have stats on the faceoff percentage? I can never find that info when I look for it, so I have no idea how they match up. Dats used to be pretty bad, but has definitely improved the last couple seasons.

nhl.com is handy (it's under RTSS stats)

Pavel won 53.1% of 1059 draws.

Patrick only 46.8% of 1216 draws.

[Guest GordieSid&Ted]

Hey Harold,

couple of reasons why i'd take Marleau even though I think Dats is better.

1. as you said, contract situation. I don't think Marleau will ever command the money Datsyuk does. Sort of goes hand in hand with my opinion that Dats is better.

2. Maybe you didn't catch it in my post but I said i'd do a str8 up swap because Marleau may be a better fit for us. I'm not one for just having the best guy, its the best fit for the team. I freely admit he might be a better fit I just wouldn't overpay in a trade for him.

As for their playoff records, in an earlier post I pointed out how much better Marleau has been so I didn't short change that fact.

As for their regular season production, Marleau has played 8 full seasons to Datsyuk's 4. Look at his career numbers, Marleau has had one good season, the rest of his career he's a 45-50 point guy like I said. You can't argue historical statistics, that is what it is. Now maybe he'll become a consistent 80 point guy. Great! I just think Dats is going to be a consistent 90-100 point guy. Hence the "i think he's better and more talented"

As for +/-, I can't believe you of all people could still shun that statistic based on how much info I gave you. To look solely at a +/- with no context doesn't give you the whole story. But when I dig up as much info as I did and you still don't put stock in it? I'm stunned. How do you explain that every point producing player on the Sharks for the past 2 years is a + player while Marleau is a MINUS player? Shouldn't Marleau's linemates be MINUS players also? Why is Marleau consistently the only top player on the Sharks who can't get on the plus side?

If you can link a list from any source that has Marleau ranked higher than Dats i'd love to see it.

MY BAD HAROLD, I mixed up my responses. The +/- comments are for NN. Now I expect a retort NN, and I want it now dammit!!!

Edited September 11, 2006 by GordieSid&Ted

[Guest GordieSid&Ted]

+/- in and of itself is meaningless as a measure of defensive ability. Shanahan +29, Draper +3, Maltby -9, etc...

Why would I want to reference a reputable publication?

http://hfboards.com/showthread.php?t=285507

Datsyuk plays prettily. Marleau plays effectively.

guess i'm sort of nitpicking the choice of wording by people. I checked the HF boards links and wasn't surprised at all. People for the most part consider their playoff performances to be the #1 determining factor as to who is better. Marleau's playoff success still doesn't mean he is better at any of the skills I outlined earlier. Fernando Pisani isn't in Datsyuk's league as a player but produces far more in the playoffs. Marleau is close to Datsyuk as far as talent but Dats is a step above is my point.

If we took out all of their skills, stats and attributes and just looked at playoff performance there's no question that Marleau is the man. But in a tale of the tape matchup Datsyuk is the better player. Better at just about everything IMO. Better shot, better vision, better passer, better offensive instincts, at least as good if not better defensively, etc.....

Look at it this way, if Marleau was a playoff bust. Would you consider him, based on all you've seen of the two, their attributes, historical stats, etc..... would you still think Marleau was the better player?

[norrisnick 1]

Hey Harold,

couple of reasons why i'd take Marleau even though I think Dats is better.

1. as you said, contract situation. I don't think Marleau will ever command the money Datsyuk does. Sort of goes hand in hand with my opinion that Dats is better.

2. Maybe you didn't catch it in my post but I said i'd do a str8 up swap because Marleau may be a better fit for us. I'm not one for just having the best guy, its the best fit for the team. I freely admit he might be a better fit I just wouldn't overpay in a trade for him.

As for their playoff records, in an earlier post I pointed out how much better Marleau has been so I didn't short change that fact.

As for their regular season production, Marleau has played 8 full seasons to Datsyuk's 4. Look at his career numbers, Marleau has had one good season, the rest of his career he's a 45-50 point guy like I said. You can't argue historical statistics, that is what it is. Now maybe he'll become a consistent 80 point guy. Great! I just think Dats is going to be a consistent 90-100 point guy. Hence the "i think he's better and more talented"

As for +/-, I can't believe you of all people could still shun that statistic based on how much info I gave you. To look solely at a +/- with no context doesn't give you the whole story. But when I dig up as much info as I did and you still don't put stock in it? I'm stunned. How do you explain that every point producing player on the Sharks for the past 2 years is a + player while Marleau is a MINUS player? Shouldn't Marleau's linemates be MINUS players also? Why is Marleau consistently the only top player on the Sharks who can't get on the plus side?

If you can link a list from any source that has Marleau ranked higher than Dats i'd love to see it.

MY BAD HAROLD, I mixed up my responses. The +/- comments are for NN. Now I expect a retort NN, and I want it now dammit!!!

Could it be that Marleau is the only top player that is consistently matched up against the top line of the opposition? How is it that Maltby managed to be -9 when he's clearly one of the Wings' strongest defensive forwards? +/- never answers a question, it never points at a reason, it only ever creates more questions.

guess i'm sort of nitpicking the choice of wording by people. I checked the HF boards links and wasn't surprised at all. People for the most part consider their playoff performances to be the #1 determining factor as to who is better. Marleau's playoff success still doesn't mean he is better at any of the skills I outlined earlier. Fernando Pisani isn't in Datsyuk's league as a player but produces far more in the playoffs. Marleau is close to Datsyuk as far as talent but Dats is a step above is my point.

If we took out all of their skills, stats and attributes and just looked at playoff performance there's no question that Marleau is the man. But in a tale of the tape matchup Datsyuk is the better player. Better at just about everything IMO. Better shot, better vision, better passer, better offensive instincts, at least as good if not better defensively, etc.....

Look at it this way, if Marleau was a playoff bust. Would you consider him, based on all you've seen of the two, their attributes, historical stats, etc..... would you still think Marleau was the better player?

I guess I just don't follow this line of reasoning. Why does it matter if Datsyuk has more skill if he seems to be unable to do anything with them when it matters?

Athletic competition, more than anything, ought to be results/performance driven, no?

This isn't ice dancing. There are no points awarded for artistic presentation...

[haroldsnepsts 4,826]

Hey Harold,

couple of reasons why i'd take Marleau even though I think Dats is better.

1. as you said, contract situation. I don't think Marleau will ever command the money Datsyuk does. Sort of goes hand in hand with my opinion that Dats is better.

Really? I'm not disagreeing, I'm just not sure. I'd think Marleau's qualities would bring him Datsyuk-like money when he re-signs. And Dats' stock may be falling if he doesn't put up some postseason numbers.

2. Maybe you didn't catch it in my post but I said i'd do a str8 up swap because Marleau may be a better fit for us. I'm not one for just having the best guy, its the best fit for the team. I freely admit he might be a better fit I just wouldn't overpay in a trade for him.

As for their playoff records, in an earlier post I pointed out how much better Marleau has been so I didn't short change that fact.

Honestly I'm probably more willing to do this trade because it's purely fictional. I can't imagine this trade ever happening. I'd love to have a guy like Marleau on the team and would give up a considerable amount to get him, but it is always easier to gamble with play money.

As for their regular season production, Marleau has played 8 full seasons to Datsyuk's 4. Look at his career numbers, Marleau has had one good season, the rest of his career he's a 45-50 point guy like I said. You can't argue historical statistics, that is what it is. Now maybe he'll become a consistent 80 point guy. Great! I just think Dats is going to be a consistent 90-100 point guy. Hence the "i think he's better and more talented"

Agreed. But I'd be more than willing to trade some regular season goals, even if it means a lower playoff seed, if it means we'd get more postseason goals. And Marleau has been terrific there.

[

As for +/-, I can't believe you of all people could still shun that statistic based on how much info I gave you. To look solely at a +/- with no context doesn't give you the whole story. But when I dig up as much info as I did and you still don't put stock in it? I'm stunned. How do you explain that every point producing player on the Sharks for the past 2 years is a + player while Marleau is a MINUS player? Shouldn't Marleau's linemates be MINUS players also? Why is Marleau consistently the only top player on the Sharks who can't get on the plus side?

like I said, I just don't put much weight on comparing plus minuses of players, even with some context. When Dats was -2, one of the only players that were negative on the team, did that mean he's a bad defensive player? No. but having a guy like hull on his wing, and even the way he played when he was with Hull apparently did something to affect his +/-. I just put much more stock in seeing a guy play over the season than in +/-.

If you can link a list from any source that has Marleau ranked higher than Dats i'd love to see it.

I was referring to you saying that it was only here at LGW where people think Marleau is better than Dats.

NNick's link shows it's a more widespread opinon, that's all.

[Guest GordieSid&Ted]

Could it be that Marleau is the only top player that is consistently matched up against the top line of the opposition? How is it that Maltby managed to be -9 when he's clearly one of the Wings' strongest defensive forwards? +/- never answers a question, it never points at a reason, it only ever creates more questions.

Why aren't Marleau's linemates minus players also? Take for instance last season

Thornton +31

Cheechoo +23

Marleau -12

Eckman +20

Michalek +1

Bernier +4

McCauley -3

Smith +3

It's the same story if you go back to the 2004 season. Marleau is consistently the only top forward on San Jose who can't post a Plus rating.

You're right though, +/- can be misleading in some cases. In this case I don't know how to frame it any other way. When all of your teams good players, who play against top opposition are plus players and you're the only guy who is a minus, well..........

it ain't a big deal. Marleau is a great player and potential better fit for us. If we traded Dats for him I would be fine with it. If we traded Dats and Grigs or Dats and a 1st rounder I would go from Holland's biggest supporter to putting him on my "people to kill" list.

j/k about the list, don't really have one........................yet.

[haroldsnepsts 4,826]

Look at it this way, if Marleau was a playoff bust. Would you consider him, based on all you've seen of the two, their attributes, historical stats, etc..... would you still think Marleau was the better player?

No. I'd still like the guy because of his size and abilities. But for me it's definitely the clutch playoff performance that puts him over the top.

[Guest GordieSid&Ted]

Could it be that Marleau is the only top player that is consistently matched up against the top line of the opposition? How is it that Maltby managed to be -9 when he's clearly one of the Wings' strongest defensive forwards? +/- never answers a question, it never points at a reason, it only ever creates more questions.

I guess I just don't follow this line of reasoning. Why does it matter if Datsyuk has more skill if he seems to be unable to do anything with them when it matters?

Athletic competition, more than anything, ought to be results/performance driven, no?

This isn't ice dancing. There are no points awarded for artistic presentation...

The line of thinking goes back to why I was even posting on this topic: Its one thing to claim a guy is a playoff performer and another is a playoff bust. Its another to take playoff success or lackthereof and translate that into who is better. In some cases it can mean that one guy is indeed the better player. I just don't think so in this case.

On another note: Why claim that +/- can't be measured between 2 different players on 2 different teams but give total credit to playoff goals between the same? All i'd have to do is go back and say how Datsyuk had to play with slow, fat Hull who he always tried to feed the puck to or that the Wings get ousted in round one every year because nobody showed up, including Datsyuk, etc.....

My point is we can't cherry pick which stats we want to use. You go to playoff performance and Marleau dominates over a smaller sample size. You go the regular season, larger sampling size, take into account that one player has played twice as much NHL hockey as the other and Datsyuk is clearly the better guy.

Better for the Wings?? Hell, we've spent so much time on this topic i'm convinced that Marleau is the better guy. So now i'm f***ed. At least we can laugh it all off because Dats is going nowhere and neither is Marleau. Holland isn't going to trade Datsyuk.

No. I'd still like the guy because of his size and abilities. But for me it's definitely the clutch playoff performance that puts him over the top.

Thanks for your honesty Harold.

That was my point all along, I truly think Datsyuk is the better player. But if we just want to look at who has been clutch when it counts, Marleau truly blows Datsyuk out of the water.

Personally, if they were both coming into the league as rookies right now, i'd take Marleau too primarily for his great size and speed.

[FunkyBlueFish203 0]

Why aren't Marleau's linemates minus players also? Take for instance last season

Thornton +31

Cheechoo +23

Marleau -12

Eckman +20

Michalek +1

Bernier +4

McCauley -3

Smith +3

Look at the numbers closely. The only guys on that list who are not two-way forwards are Thornton and Cheechoo, and they are the only ones with a high +/- rating. Perhaps reflective of their crazy chemistry, which also resulted in a crazy number of points. Save Eckman, no one has a high enough +/- rating being a two-way forward. Guys like Marleau and McCauley constantly go up against the best forwards of the opposition, which results in them being on ice for more goals against, hence their weak +/- rating. In any case, there isn't a big difference between -3 and + 3.

+/- can be a useful stat but in this discussion it doesn't help determine who is the better player. San Jose was on an awful skid until Thornton came to town, while Datsyuk's team pretty much coasted during the regular season.