Trade for Quick - How did I do?

[mvlittle]

Yesterday, I finalized a deal for Quick. I sent E Kane, Markstrom, Forsberg, and the 39th pick in this year's draft for Quick and the 25th pick in this year's draft. In our keep 20 league, I would have kept Kane and Markstrom but I wouldn't have had room for Forsberg. This also also allows me to keep Schultz and Pietrangelo instead of having to choose.

Thoughts on how I did?

[Laendarian]

E Kane + Markstrom + 39th vs Quick + Schultz + 25th is how this boils down.

I'd take the Quick side.

[kevinsrangers]

i think the trade itself is not that great but adding in schultz makes it ok.

[jsuites]

You got Quick in a 20 team league. Time to party.

[mounD]

E Kane + Markstrom + 39th vs Quick + Schultz + 25th is how this boils down.

I'd take the Quick side.

This is exactly how you need to view this trade. Seems like you gave up a lot, but Markstrom is unproven on a young/developing team, and the addition of Schultz helps ease the loss of E Kane as a keeper.

Ultimately, I think you did very well on this deal -- and managing your available assets/keepers. Enjoy Quick

[dongjohnson]

Objectively, I think you may have lost but considering asset management, it was not a mistake at all. I think you made the right call here.

[shanny_drw]

its tough because in a 20 team league a good goalie goes very far... but you already have price and niemi.... I wouldnt have made the deal myself, but i dont think its a bad trade Quick Price and Niemi are top 5 fantasy goalies and you have them all, someone in your league may over pay for one later on

[mvlittle]

Just to clarify in the event it makes a difference in the opinions. My league is not a 20-team league. It's a keep 20 with 8 teams. I'm going for the win this year and I felt I needed an upgrade over Markstrom. The other benefit, in my mind, of this trade is that it opens up a spot on my roster for Yakupov.

[Pengwin7]

Trades should always be viewed as apples-to-apples.

Goalie + Forward
vs.
Goalie + Forward

Quick + Yakupov
vs.
Markstrom + E.Kane

It's a very hard trade to evaluate because it really depends a LOT on how much Florida uses Markstrom.

A typical goalie game is 33 shots, 30 saves (+6), 3 goals against (-3).
Markstrom might give up 3 goals against, +3. Win 2/5 games. .4 x 5 = 2pts. +5pts
Quick might give up 2 goals against, +4. Win 3/5 games. .6 x 5 = 3pts. +7pts

In other words, IF Markstrom & Quick both play the same number of games, Quick is likely to get +2pts MORE per game than Markstrom.

With your scoring, would/could E.Kane get more points per game than Yakupov?


I would love (if possible) to see the points-per-game output of these four players for last year.

I think it's a very close trade.
In "points-leagues", like these... goalies do not necessarily have much higher elevated value than skaters. They could be very close to the same.

Evander Kane is a very consistent, very solid producer.
Is the downgrade from E.Kane to Yakupov better-or-worse than Quick to Markstrom... I don't know?

This is a very hard one to evaluate... my gut tells me, with your depth of forwards... that you made the RIGHT move.

[mvlittle]

As always, very insightful information and thoughts pengwin. To respond regarding the points each player amassed last year, see below:

Kane - 137.1 / 2.86 ppg
Yakupov - 110.1 / 2.29 ppg
Markstrom - 99.2 / 4.31 ppg
Quick - 177.4 / 4.79 ppg

There was no doubt in my mind going into this trade there are a lot of "What ifs". Every player in this deal should improve upon last year's numbers, but I made the deal thinking Quick and Yakupov would see great improvement than Markstrom and Kane.