HFBoards

Go Back   HFBoards > General Hockey Discussion > Trade Rumors and Free Agent Talk
Trade Rumors and Free Agent Talk Trade rumors, transactions, and free agent talk. Rumors must contain the word RUMOR in post title. Proposals must contain the word PROPOSAL in post title.

Buf-NYI

Closed Thread
 
Thread Tools
Old
07-31-2012, 10:15 AM
  #126
HiddenInLight
Registered User
 
HiddenInLight's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: 3,010
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jame View Post
You mean this thread :
http://hfboards.hockeysfuture.com/sh...mcnabb&page=14

The one where every Sabres post that includes offering McNabb, includes getting the #4 in return?

Again... Bailey for McNabb, was never a real discussion. It was always McNabb as the primary piece to acquire the primary piece #4... Bailey, and other pieces on both sides were added to try and make something work

Or this thread
http://hfboards.hockeysfuture.com/sh...&highlight=nyi

nope... don't see any sabres fans agreeing to Bailey for McNabb.... even though this was prosposed in the thread... i guess the poster assumed he could take out the picks and the Sabres fans would still be on board.... bad assumption on his part :
I generally hate to agree with Jame, but he is 100% correct here. The discussions you are referring to are all discussions about McNabb+ for 4th overall. It was never about aquiring Bailey. Basically the difference between Bailey and McNabb is large enough to cover the difference between the 4th overall pick and the 12th overall pick....HUGE.

HiddenInLight is offline  
Old
07-31-2012, 12:22 PM
  #127
Dan-o16
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Posts: 6,887
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by HiddenInLight View Post
I generally hate to agree with Jame, but he is 100% correct here. The discussions you are referring to are all discussions about McNabb+ for 4th overall. It was never about aquiring Bailey. Basically the difference between Bailey and McNabb is large enough to cover the difference between the 4th overall pick and the 12th overall pick....HUGE.
There is some question about what might called 'centered around'. For example, a person who valued draft picks over roster players might feel that #4 overall was the main piece in that trade. I feel differently. For example, I would certainly not be averse to including additional assets. Our stable of prospects is rather large both up front and in back. My motivation to try to acquire a defenseman would obviously increase if the Visnovsky trade is voided. That would put 2013 2nd round in play. I see a 2013 #2 + Prospect + Bailey as still being centered around Bailey, because I see him as the most valuable asset.

Moreover, I think the difference between 4th overall and 12th overall, in the context of the 2012 draft, is being overstated. I thought that going in, which is why I wanted to move down.

In sum, I don't think a difference in perspective is a reason to call someone stupid.

Cheers,

Dan-o

Dan-o16 is offline  
Old
07-31-2012, 06:43 PM
  #128
Tra La La
Registered User
 
Tra La La's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Buffalo, New York
Country: Ireland
Posts: 4,715
vCash: 500
How about Adam,Sekera,2013 2nd, for the Islanders 1st in 2013?

Tra La La is offline  
Old
07-31-2012, 11:19 PM
  #129
GerbeSonOfGloin
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2011
Posts: 397
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ghost Dog View Post
How about Adam,Sekera,2013 2nd, for the Islanders 1st in 2013?
Dear god, no. We're not giving up that much unless we know for certain that that's a lottery pick. Isles fans should take it as a compliment that I doubt it will be. And even if it were a lottery pick, we're done with the part of our rebuild where draft picks are worth roster players.

GerbeSonOfGloin is online now  
Old
07-31-2012, 11:41 PM
  #130
tsujimoto74
Registered User
 
tsujimoto74's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2012
Location: Virginia
Country: United States
Posts: 8,663
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by GerbeSonOfGloin View Post
Dear god, no. We're not giving up that much unless we know for certain that that's a lottery pick. Isles fans should take it as a compliment that I doubt it will be. And even if it were a lottery pick, we're done with the part of our rebuild where draft picks are worth roster players.
The only roster player we traded for a pick was Gaustad. As a rental. At the deadline.
I think it's a misconception that we're rebuilding (I guess HF logic is you're either a contender or you're rebuilding...Or you're the Flames), but really what Regier did was retool and inject the team with more youth, while stocking the cupboards a bit for the future.

tsujimoto74 is offline  
Old
08-01-2012, 01:09 AM
  #131
Sabretip
Registered User
 
Sabretip's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: Phoenix, AZ
Country: United States
Posts: 7,916
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by tsujimoto74 View Post
I think it's a misconception that we're rebuilding (I guess HF logic is you're either a contender or you're rebuilding...Or you're the Flames), but really what Regier did was retool and inject the team with more youth, while stocking the cupboards a bit for the future.
1000% in agreement with you there - I think the wave of those embracing a "rebuilding" are only wishing for it out of years of exasperation with the "Rochester core" that hasn't accomplished anything as a group. While those advocates may rather start from scratch and play all the young prospects while waiting 3-4 years to contend, it's not reality nor a path that ownership or management will take.

Sabretip is offline  
Old
08-01-2012, 02:58 AM
  #132
Girgenburger
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Posts: 888
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by blinkman360 View Post
How much for Pominville?
For Pominville realistically?

Nielsen and Hamonic. And you might have to add a 2nd or 3rd.

Don't like it? Well, Pommers is our captain. Sentimental value.

Girgenburger is offline  
Old
08-01-2012, 03:12 AM
  #133
RoseTintedVisor
Frans Nielsen?!?!?
 
RoseTintedVisor's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: bklyn
Country: United States
Posts: 4,312
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by wearegodawful View Post
For Pominville realistically?

Nielsen and Hamonic. And you might have to add a 2nd or 3rd.

Don't like it? Well, Pommers is our captain. Sentimental value.
Hamonic, as said, is number 2 on this teams DO NOT TRADE LIST.

Understand your sentimentality, but... no.

RoseTintedVisor is offline  
Old
08-01-2012, 05:48 AM
  #134
Tra La La
Registered User
 
Tra La La's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Buffalo, New York
Country: Ireland
Posts: 4,715
vCash: 500
Not rebuilding at all. But I think you can give Adam,Sekera,and a 2nd.And make challenge in 2013-14. It would be an early attempt to get a lottery pick. And a shot at Mackinnon.

Tra La La is offline  
Old
08-01-2012, 06:32 AM
  #135
GerbeSonOfGloin
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2011
Posts: 397
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by tsujimoto74 View Post
The only roster player we traded for a pick was Gaustad. As a rental. At the deadline.
I think it's a misconception that we're rebuilding (I guess HF logic is you're either a contender or you're rebuilding...Or you're the Flames), but really what Regier did was retool and inject the team with more youth, while stocking the cupboards a bit for the future.
Yeah, a retool is a better word than rebuild. We never expected/don't expect to miss the playoffs. It might still happen, but we're not accepting that as a foregone conclusion.

Before we managed to pull off the Hodgson trade, and even after that before we managed to draft two centers in the top half of the first round including Grigorenko, most would have been on board with trading a core player to draft a young stud center. That would be a classic rebuilding move, even if we're not doing an overall rebuild of our roster - and even if we didn't end up doing it, because we got lucky in a trade and the draft. Now that we have our young top six centers and our most tradeable core player has been traded, most would be against further moves like that. That's what I mean by we're past that stage.

@Dan-o16,

Not a single Sabres fan would agree to McNabb for Bailey. You're wasting your time right now.

GerbeSonOfGloin is online now  
Old
08-01-2012, 06:40 AM
  #136
HiddenInLight
Registered User
 
HiddenInLight's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: 3,010
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dan-o16 View Post
There is some question about what might called 'centered around'. For example, a person who valued draft picks over roster players might feel that #4 overall was the main piece in that trade. I feel differently. For example, I would certainly not be averse to including additional assets. Our stable of prospects is rather large both up front and in back. My motivation to try to acquire a defenseman would obviously increase if the Visnovsky trade is voided. That would put 2013 2nd round in play. I see a 2013 #2 + Prospect + Bailey as still being centered around Bailey, because I see him as the most valuable asset.

Moreover, I think the difference between 4th overall and 12th overall, in the context of the 2012 draft, is being overstated. I thought that going in, which is why I wanted to move down.

In sum, I don't think a difference in perspective is a reason to call someone stupid.

Cheers,

Dan-o

A lottery pick is worth WAY more then the player you are offering up. That's not an oppinion that is fact.

HiddenInLight is offline  
Old
08-01-2012, 10:53 AM
  #137
Dan-o16
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Posts: 6,887
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by HiddenInLight View Post
A lottery pick is worth WAY more then the player you are offering up. That's not an oppinion that is fact.
It's not a lottery pick, it's the difference between #4 and #12, which in my opinion is worth less than Josh Bailey.

I mean, come on. Do you have another straw man you'd like to burn? Jeebus.

Hugs,

Dan-o

Dan-o16 is offline  
Old
08-01-2012, 11:07 AM
  #138
HiddenInLight
Registered User
 
HiddenInLight's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: 3,010
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dan-o16 View Post
It's not a lottery pick, it's the difference between #4 and #12, which in my opinion is worth less than Josh Bailey.

I mean, come on. Do you have another straw man you'd like to burn? Jeebus.

Hugs,

Dan-o

Did you not say that the focal point of the deal was the player and not the number 4 pick? The focal point of a deal is the most valuable piece in the deal, so by saying the player is a focal point you implied he is more valuable then the pick. That is what I commented on, but keep trying to twist my comments it doesn't make your argument fallacious at ALL.

HiddenInLight is offline  
Old
08-01-2012, 12:41 PM
  #139
Dan-o16
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Posts: 6,887
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by HiddenInLight View Post
Did you not say that the focal point of the deal was the player and not the number 4 pick? The focal point of a deal is the most valuable piece in the deal, so by saying the player is a focal point you implied he is more valuable then the pick. That is what I commented on, but keep trying to twist my comments it doesn't make your argument fallacious at ALL.
From my point of view, it was. I won't even add that the deal involved a swap for #12 and #21. Indeed, from my point of view, #4 overall in 2012 was equal to #12 and #21 alone. The pick portion was a wash from my point of view.

Another way of putting it is that you should be thankful that Darcy Regier has a better gauge of value than some of your self-appointed experts.

Cheers,

Dan-o

Dan-o16 is offline  
Old
08-01-2012, 01:37 PM
  #140
Jame
Dream '16
 
Jame's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Palm Harbor, FL
Country: Pitcairn Islands
Posts: 33,214
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dan-o16 View Post
It's not a lottery pick, it's the difference between #4 and #12, which in my opinion is worth less than Josh Bailey.

I mean, come on. Do you have another straw man you'd like to burn? Jeebus.

Hugs,

Dan-o
if you look at it in a vacuum like that, i guess you would be susceptible to making such a mistake in trade value

Buffalo fans discussed moving up to #4, with a clear intention of targeting one of the top centers in the draft.

If you remove the NEED for a center, and the trade value of moving up into the top 5... what are you replacing that value with?

there is a HUGE difference between
1. Bailey, #4 for McNabb, #12 under the condition that Buffalo is in desperate need of a talent upgrade at center
AND
2. Bailey for McNabb after Buffalo has already solved the issue they would've been making the deal previously mentioned under

When you only see things from the "I really want McNabb" perspective, you tend to miss out on the other teams current situation, and then make a foolish proposal, and try to defend it by referring to a previous discussion that you clearly didn't understand the parameters of.

Jame is offline  
Old
08-02-2012, 06:36 AM
  #141
HiddenInLight
Registered User
 
HiddenInLight's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: 3,010
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dan-o16 View Post
From my point of view, it was. I won't even add that the deal involved a swap for #12 and #21. Indeed, from my point of view, #4 overall in 2012 was equal to #12 and #21 alone. The pick portion was a wash from my point of view.

Another way of putting it is that you should be thankful that Darcy Regier has a better gauge of value than some of your self-appointed experts.

Cheers,

Dan-o
If the picks for pick is a wash then why would Buffalo even be considering sending a blue chip prospect as a mere sweetener in that deal? Also if the picks were a wash why would NYI add to the deal, as they are the ones trading down? That makes no sense, and you clearly have no clue how trades work, so I'm not sure how you could even THINK about taking shots at ANYBODYS idea of trade value, as yours is the worst I have ever seen.

HiddenInLight is offline  
Old
08-02-2012, 06:38 AM
  #142
Chainshot
Global Moderator
Give 'em Enough Rope
 
Chainshot's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Costa Rica
Country: Costa Rica
Posts: 56,236
vCash: 500
Awards:
Seems all that is left is people being snarky. I think we're done here.

__________________
It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it. - Aristotle
Chainshot is offline  
Closed Thread

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 01:01 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.