HFBoards

Go Back   HFBoards > NHL Eastern Conference > Atlantic Division > Buffalo Sabres
Mobile Hockey's Future Become a Sponsor Site Rules Support Forum vBookie Page 2
Notices

"Banking" Value in Trades

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old
02-21-2012, 03:31 PM
  #1
drinking bleach irl
don't be so serious
 
drinking bleach irl's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Country: Ras al-Khaimah
Posts: 11,566
vCash: 436
"Banking" Value in Trades

It seems with the Sabres in a selling mode HF has produced a great number of proposals for Buffalo players and would-be acquisitions. In some cases, these hypothetical deals are at face value rejected from the Sabres POV as they don't meet the organizational needs (specifically center, of course). I think, however, that there is something conceptually flawed with this perspective. For example:

Team 1 offers Sabres player X for Roy. X is a very highly regarded wing prospect (think top-15 league-wide skaters prospect), but Team 1 is in win-now mode.

Team 2 offers Sabres player Y. Y is a well regarded center prospect, but not in the league of X. As a center, however, Y is more valuable to the Sabres than 2, who is comfortable from an organizational perspective.

While Y would be instantly more useful to the Sabres' needs than X, I feel the Sabres would be remiss not to take the former deal. If X's value in a vacuum is superior to Y's, it follows that moving X in a separate deal could garner Y+.

On a greater scale, I'd argue that as the Sabres will 99% miss the playoffs this year, they would do better to "bank" the best overall value they could for their expiring contracts, even if that means picking up NHL-ready D prospects and top-9 wingers . At the draft and in the offseason, maximize the value of these assets in separate deals to receive greater overall value for the players traded at the deadline.

Then again I'm just a glitter cat and there are holes to this philosophy. What say ye?

drinking bleach irl is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
02-21-2012, 03:38 PM
  #2
Chainshot
Global Moderator
Give 'em Enough Rope
 
Chainshot's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Costa Rica
Country: Costa Rica
Posts: 56,740
vCash: 500
Awards:
Try to maximize return for all sold assets.

__________________
It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it. - Aristotle
Chainshot is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
02-21-2012, 03:47 PM
  #3
jBuds
pretty damn valuable
 
jBuds's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: NYC Suburbs
Country: Lord Howe Island
Posts: 27,376
vCash: 500
I think there's a happy medium to all that's being discussed. You can retool without a complete rebuild that overhauls the entire roster and managerial staff. I expect trades of both kinds, and a much more active Regier than we've ever seen. I think we'll see a few NHL bodies come back our way that are younger with upside, you'll see picks and prospects yet to be NHLers come back, even a vet on a good contract in order to move someone we have.

jBuds is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
02-21-2012, 03:52 PM
  #4
cardiffgiant
Race to the bottom!
 
cardiffgiant's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Country: United States
Posts: 2,031
vCash: 500
This organization needs more wingers. I won't be happy until the usher of my season ticket section is a converted winger.

In the example above, I think that you get the best asset that you can for Roy and work out a separate deal for player Y. I don't know a lot about player Y, but given Regiers history, something along the lines of a 2nd rounder.

cardiffgiant is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
02-21-2012, 03:58 PM
  #5
jBuds
pretty damn valuable
 
jBuds's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: NYC Suburbs
Country: Lord Howe Island
Posts: 27,376
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by cardiffgiant View Post
This organization needs more wingers. I won't be happy until the usher of my season ticket section is a converted winger.

In the example above, I think that you get the best asset that you can for Roy and work out a separate deal for player Y. I don't know a lot about player Y, but given Regiers history, something along the lines of a 2nd rounder.
I think you keep Roy and trade from a position of depth, not vacancy/absence.

jBuds is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
02-21-2012, 04:18 PM
  #6
New Sabres Captain
ForFriendshipDikembe
 
New Sabres Captain's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Country: United States
Posts: 39,131
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fatal System Ehrhoff View Post
It seems with the Sabres in a selling mode HF has produced a great number of proposals for Buffalo players and would-be acquisitions. In some cases, these hypothetical deals are at face value rejected from the Sabres POV as they don't meet the organizational needs (specifically center, of course). I think, however, that there is something conceptually flawed with this perspective. For example:

Team 1 offers Sabres player X for Roy. X is a very highly regarded wing prospect (think top-15 league-wide skaters prospect), but Team 1 is in win-now mode.

Team 2 offers Sabres player Y. Y is a well regarded center prospect, but not in the league of X. As a center, however, Y is more valuable to the Sabres than 2, who is comfortable from an organizational perspective.

While Y would be instantly more useful to the Sabres' needs than X, I feel the Sabres would be remiss not to take the former deal. If X's value in a vacuum is superior to Y's, it follows that moving X in a separate deal could garner Y+.

On a greater scale, I'd argue that as the Sabres will 99% miss the playoffs this year, they would do better to "bank" the best overall value they could for their expiring contracts, even if that means picking up NHL-ready D prospects and top-9 wingers . At the draft and in the offseason, maximize the value of these assets in separate deals to receive greater overall value for the players traded at the deadline.

Then again I'm just a glitter cat and there are holes to this philosophy. What say ye?
It depends on how risk averse you are. Bird in the hand and all that stuff. Also there is imperfect valuations: You might believe X is worth more than Y, but other GMs may not, and those who do not aren't going to make the second deal.

New Sabres Captain is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
02-21-2012, 04:20 PM
  #7
drinking bleach irl
don't be so serious
 
drinking bleach irl's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Country: Ras al-Khaimah
Posts: 11,566
vCash: 436
Lol, Tampa just did this.

drinking bleach irl is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
02-21-2012, 04:27 PM
  #8
cardiffgiant
Race to the bottom!
 
cardiffgiant's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Country: United States
Posts: 2,031
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by jBuds View Post
I think you keep Roy and trade from a position of depth, not vacancy/absence.
I wouldn't trade Roy to trade him, but we're talking about a top 15 winger. I don't want to cop out and say that it depends on the player, but I interpret this example as being:
-a "winning" trade for a top 15 winger
-a center that could be had with a different offer

Make both deals. If you're worried about the perception of dealing from a position of need, then do the second deal first. Or, convince your trading partner that you are not a rational GM and that you are happy to just continue to fill your center positions with wingers.

cardiffgiant is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
02-21-2012, 04:41 PM
  #9
jBuds
pretty damn valuable
 
jBuds's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: NYC Suburbs
Country: Lord Howe Island
Posts: 27,376
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by cardiffgiant View Post
I wouldn't trade Roy to trade him, but we're talking about a top 15 winger. I don't want to cop out and say that it depends on the player, but I interpret this example as being:
-a "winning" trade for a top 15 winger
-a center that could be had with a different offer

Make both deals. If you're worried about the perception of dealing from a position of need, then do the second deal first. Or, convince your trading partner that you are not a rational GM and that you are happy to just continue to fill your center positions with wingers.
Vanek and Pominville are just fine manning the wings. Leino is here to stay, and Kassian, Foligno, Armia, and a few others are waiting. We don't need wingers.

I understand the notion of wanting a top15 guy. But I view Vanek as one, and don't see us getting better by adding a top 15 winger and not only failing to add a center, but getting rid of your only one in the process?????

jBuds is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
02-21-2012, 05:00 PM
  #10
cardiffgiant
Race to the bottom!
 
cardiffgiant's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Country: United States
Posts: 2,031
vCash: 500
I'm not looking for some heated debate here, and one question mark is generally fine.

How could the team acquire a center better than Roy? I'm assuming that other pieces would need to be moved. All I'm saying is that I wouldn't close the door to trading Roy for the right winger.

Obviously, we could never have enough wingers. We haven't even discussed player Z yet.

cardiffgiant is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
02-21-2012, 05:03 PM
  #11
Jame
Dream '16
 
Jame's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Palm Harbor, FL
Country: Pitcairn Islands
Posts: 34,228
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by jBuds View Post
Vanek and Pominville are just fine manning the wings. Leino is here to stay, and Kassian, Foligno, Armia, and a few others are waiting. We don't need wingers.

I understand the notion of wanting a top15 guy. But I view Vanek as one, and don't see us getting better by adding a top 15 winger and not only failing to add a center, but getting rid of your only one in the process?????
Firing Ruff+Trading Roy=Getting Better

recognize

Jame is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
02-21-2012, 05:06 PM
  #12
jBuds
pretty damn valuable
 
jBuds's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: NYC Suburbs
Country: Lord Howe Island
Posts: 27,376
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by cardiffgiant View Post
I'm not looking for some heated debate here, and one question mark is generally fine.

How could the team acquire a center better than Roy? I'm assuming that other pieces would need to be moved. All I'm saying is that I wouldn't close the door to trading Roy for the right winger.

Obviously, we could never have enough wingers. We haven't even discussed player Z yet.
My reply was hardly resembling any intent of a heated debate. Don't take things so personally when you state something that people disagree with and get pushback. It comes with the territory.

I think we proved the past two seasons that you can, indeed, have enough wingers, no? (????? )

I wouldn't close the door on trading Roy either. But I'd close the door on trading him for a winger and not getting a center in return. Or if we did a complete retool, somehow acquiring two other centers (serviceable ones at that) - and then proceeded to trade Roy for a winger.

I won't take underpayment or equal value for our only center. And I wouldn't deal him without having the position addressed in that same deal (highly unlikely) or a deal prior (pretty unlikely)

jBuds is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
02-21-2012, 05:14 PM
  #13
jBuds
pretty damn valuable
 
jBuds's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: NYC Suburbs
Country: Lord Howe Island
Posts: 27,376
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jame View Post
Firing Ruff+Trading Roy=Getting Better

recognize
You want to dump Roy for sake of change. I want to show a slight sign of intelligence in this retool, and take facts into consideration.

Fire Ruff. Trade Roy. Centers then become.... Nobody. Sundher? Catenacci? Address the position. Don't weaken it for sake of change.

jBuds is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
02-21-2012, 05:21 PM
  #14
Jame
Dream '16
 
Jame's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Palm Harbor, FL
Country: Pitcairn Islands
Posts: 34,228
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by jBuds View Post
You want to dump Roy for sake of change. I want to show a slight sign of intelligence in this retool, and take facts into consideration.

Fire Ruff. Trade Roy. Centers then become.... Nobody. Sundher? Catenacci? Address the position. Don't weaken it for sake of change.
keep going trade EVERYONE for picks!!!!

Trade Miller to Tampa for their 1st
Trade Roy for a 1st
Trade Vanek for a 1st
Grigorenko + Galchenyuk+Gaunce 2012!!!
Mackinnon 2013

2015-2025 CUP CONTENDERS!!!

So easy

Destroy it... its the only cure

Jame is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
02-21-2012, 07:13 PM
  #15
cardiffgiant
Race to the bottom!
 
cardiffgiant's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Country: United States
Posts: 2,031
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by jBuds View Post
My reply was hardly resembling any intent of a heated debate. Don't take things so personally when you state something that people disagree with and get pushback. It comes with the territory.

I think we proved the past two seasons that you can, indeed, have enough wingers, no? (????? )

I wouldn't close the door on trading Roy either. But I'd close the door on trading him for a winger and not getting a center in return. Or if we did a complete retool, somehow acquiring two other centers (serviceable ones at that) - and then proceeded to trade Roy for a winger.

I won't take underpayment or equal value for our only center. And I wouldn't deal him without having the position addressed in that same deal (highly unlikely) or a deal prior (pretty unlikely)
Don't abuse punctuation and expect no pushback. It comes with the territory.

I agree that the outgoing phone calls should be addressing acquisition of center(s), and I'm concerned that the only players that are popping up in trade talks are the only two NHL centers that we have. However, if someone calls offering a rugged a first line winger for Roy, I'm not hanging up.

Also, we absolutely need more wingers. I'm convinced that we're only 9 or 10 NHL wingers away from having the perfect team. I won't be happy until we are so deep at wing that Jerome Iginla is working the lot that I park in.

cardiffgiant is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
02-21-2012, 07:28 PM
  #16
Sabretip
Registered User
 
Sabretip's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: Phoenix, AZ
Country: United States
Posts: 7,927
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by jBuds View Post
I think there's a happy medium to all that's being discussed. You can retool without a complete rebuild that overhauls the entire roster and managerial staff. I expect trades of both kinds, and a much more active Regier than we've ever seen. I think we'll see a few NHL bodies come back our way that are younger with upside, you'll see picks and prospects yet to be NHLers come back, even a vet on a good contract in order to move someone we have.
I hope you're right but my gut is telling me that come 3PM next Monday, Boyes and Gragnani will be the only two gone for low round draft picks.

Sabretip is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
02-21-2012, 07:29 PM
  #17
Sabretip
Registered User
 
Sabretip's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: Phoenix, AZ
Country: United States
Posts: 7,927
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by cardiffgiant View Post
I'm convinced that we're only 9 or 10 NHL wingers away from having the perfect team.
You forgot the

Sabretip is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
02-22-2012, 05:40 AM
  #18
jBuds
pretty damn valuable
 
jBuds's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: NYC Suburbs
Country: Lord Howe Island
Posts: 27,376
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by cardiffgiant View Post
Don't abuse punctuation and expect no pushback. It comes with the territory.

I agree that the outgoing phone calls should be addressing acquisition of center(s), and I'm concerned that the only players that are popping up in trade talks are the only two NHL centers that we have. However, if someone calls offering a rugged a first line winger for Roy, I'm not hanging up.

Also, we absolutely need more wingers. I'm convinced that we're only 9 or 10 NHL wingers away from having the perfect team. I won't be happy until we are so deep at wing that Jerome Iginla is working the lot that I park in.
Okay - Jarome, by the way, as you're trying to educate someone who writes for a living on what qualifies as "punctuation abuse".

Adding multiple question marks in reply to a questionable comment - for emphasis - isn't abuse.

But we clearly disagree, no big deal. I'm not listening to offers for our only center unless we address the need elsewhere first, or in that same deal (which is near impossible given the market [or lack of] for centers).

And I can't tell if you're kidding or not with your 9 wingers comment... Would you mind clarifying? Or is it as absurdly straightforward as it appears? Or, better yet, are you sarcastically yet unintentionally proving my point?

????? <------- see what I did there?


Last edited by jBuds: 02-22-2012 at 05:47 AM.
jBuds is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
02-22-2012, 09:44 AM
  #19
Jame
Dream '16
 
Jame's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Palm Harbor, FL
Country: Pitcairn Islands
Posts: 34,228
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by jBuds View Post
Okay - Jarome, by the way, as you're trying to educate someone who writes for a living on what qualifies as "punctuation abuse".

Adding multiple question marks in reply to a questionable comment - for emphasis - isn't abuse.

But we clearly disagree, no big deal. I'm not listening to offers for our only center unless we address the need elsewhere first, or in that same deal (which is near impossible given the market [or lack of] for centers).

And I can't tell if you're kidding or not with your 9 wingers comment... Would you mind clarifying? Or is it as absurdly straightforward as it appears? Or, better yet, are you sarcastically yet unintentionally proving my point?

????? <------- see what I did there?
i chuckled a bit

Jame is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
02-22-2012, 10:18 AM
  #20
cardiffgiant
Race to the bottom!
 
cardiffgiant's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Country: United States
Posts: 2,031
vCash: 500
Check out these line combos:

Vanek / Player X / Pominville
Ennis / Jerome-Jarome / Stafford
Kassian / Leino / Gerbe
McCormick / Player Y / Kaleta

Bobby Ryan / Zack Parise
Rick Nash / ?????
Foligno / Player Z

Enron
Alexander Semin

In the example above, I've assumed that we could trade all of our defensemen for Player Y. This still leaves room for Shane Doan to come over and work in the ticket booth at the arena.

We agree on some points. The team definitely needs centers so badly that the number of wingers that come up in trade discussion here, on the call in shows, and elsewhere just boggles my mind. Why Regier hasn't addressed it, or why our only two centers are the ones popping up in trade talks also has me scratching my head.

However, I can't say that there isn't a single winger in the NHL that I wouldn't trade Derek Roy for just because Roy plays a position of immediate need.

Ideally, Derek Roy isn't the only piece of this core moved. The center position has to be addressed. Hopefully it's addressed through a combination of trade, UFA, and the draft in ways that improve the club long term.

cardiffgiant is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Forum Jump


Bookmarks

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 08:06 AM.

monitoring_string = "e4251c93e2ba248d29da988d93bf5144"
Contact Us - HFBoards - Archive - Privacy Statement - Terms of Use - Advertise - Top - AdChoices

vBulletin Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
HFBoards.com is a property of CraveOnline Media, LLC, an Evolve Media, LLC company. 2014 All Rights Reserved.