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

Trading Up Part II: The Midnight Barkov

Closed Thread
 
Thread Tools
Old
06-12-2013, 10:57 AM
  #101
Jame
Dream '16
 
Jame's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Palm Harbor, FL
Country: Pitcairn Islands
Posts: 33,744
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by haseoke39 View Post
Odds are like, at least 80% that we're picking 8th. "Wanting" to move up and seriously making offers with enough assets to do so are different things. I don't see Regier moving enough of his top assets to win any kind of bidding war for a top pick.


tell me more

Jame is offline  
Old
06-12-2013, 11:07 AM
  #102
AirBriere48
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Posts: 758
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Zip15 View Post
I'm surprised nobody has noted that he compared Barkov to Kopitar. Pretty solid endorsement.



It sounded equally like the teams possibly willing to trade down did not want to move out of the top-3 or 4, so Buffalo would have to get there first, which is going to be difficult.



He essentially called him the best Euro other than Barkov. Is that not enthusiastic enough for you?

The question was posed to him as who, other than Barkov and Nichushkin, are the top European players. Devine mentioned Elias Lindholm is probably the best, followed by Ristolainen and then he mentioned Nichushkin again. That leads me to believe that he has at least Lindholm ranked ahead of Nichushkin.
My sense from his comments is that he has it 1) Barkov 2) Nichuskin 3) Lindholm as far as Euros go, based on the order in which he discussed them throughout the interview (i.e. discussed Barkov, then Nichuskin earlier on, and then when Simon asked who are the next best Euros, he mentioned Lindholm). Even more so than that, however, was the cursory description he gave of Lindholm ("well the next guy after that would be probably Lindholm, the Swedish center") vs. his descriptions of Barkov and Nichuskin where he talked in much greater depth about their skill sets and offered glowing NHL comparisons (Kopitar and Malkin, respectively).

Then there was also this line: "It's not a real good year from Sweden."

Could be reading too much into it, but that's definitely the sense I came away with.

AirBriere48 is offline  
Old
06-12-2013, 11:16 AM
  #103
Dunkster19
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2013
Posts: 756
vCash: 500
So, if you had to include one of Grigorinko or Hodgson in a package to move up which one stays and which one goes. I move Grigorinko and hang on to Hodgson.

Dunkster19 is offline  
Old
06-12-2013, 11:17 AM
  #104
Zip15
Registered User
 
Zip15's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Posts: 17,280
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by AirBriere48 View Post
My sense from his comments is that he has it 1) Barkov 2) Nichuskin 3) Lindholm as far as Euros go, based on the order in which he discussed them throughout the interview (i.e. discussed Barkov, then Nichuskin earlier on, and then when Simon asked who are the next best Euros, he mentioned Lindholm). Even more so than that, however, was the cursory description he gave of Lindholm ("well the next guy after that would be probably Lindholm, the Swedish center") vs. his descriptions of Barkov and Nichuskin where he talked in much greater depth about their skill sets and offered glowing NHL comparisons (Kopitar and Malkin, respectively).

Then there was also this line: "It's not a real good year from Sweden."

Could be reading too much into it, but that's definitely the sense I came away with.
I think you're reading too much into it. I think the comment re: Sweden was about the class as a whole. If anything, I think that bodes poorly for those who are hoping guys like Burakowsky, de la Rose, Hagg, et al. end up in Buffalo. It also sounded like he had Wennberg #4 on that list of Euros.

Even if he has Lindholm below Nichushkin, there's still a good chance that Lindholm would be a great pick at #8, and that they think the same.

Zip15 is offline  
Old
06-12-2013, 11:21 AM
  #105
Gabrielor
14-15 Goal: McDavid
 
Gabrielor's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: Buffalo, NY
Country: United States
Posts: 728
vCash: 500
I do the precise opposite. I keep Grigorenko.

I'd like to keep Girgensons, but everyone else on the table for me. And if girgs is what we need to secure MacKinnon, let it be done.

Pessimism is usually my first response, but I'm leaning optimistic for this one. I think we will trade into the top of the draft and take one of the centers there. I personally think/hope it'll be Mac. If its Barkov, I won't be upset at all. Either way, Darcy knows he needs to be bold. We have A LOT of resources. Do it.

Gabrielor is offline  
Old
06-12-2013, 11:26 AM
  #106
Jacob582
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2012
Posts: 3,436
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dunkster19 View Post
So, if you had to include one of Grigorinko or Hodgson in a package to move up which one stays and which one goes. I move Grigorinko and hang on to Hodgson.
I move Hodgson.

Jacob582 is offline  
Old
06-12-2013, 11:32 AM
  #107
Dunkster19
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2013
Posts: 756
vCash: 500
Grigorinko concerns me. A player who lacks the aggressive puck pursuit and plays timid rarely can change his internal make up. Girgs on the other hand is a keeper. It would be interesting to know if Patrick Roy wants Grigorinko, that would speak volumes if he was not interested. Hodgson is a fitness freak and sets a good example for the others. Hopefully Tyler Myers clues in...

Dunkster19 is offline  
Old
06-12-2013, 11:37 AM
  #108
Rob Paxon
⚔Z E M G U S⚔
 
Rob Paxon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: corfu, ny
Country: United States
Posts: 18,115
vCash: 500
Send a message via AIM to Rob Paxon
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dunkster19 View Post
Grigorinko concerns me. A player who lacks the aggressive puck pursuit and plays timid rarely can change his internal make up. Girgs on the other hand is a keeper. It would be interesting to know if Patrick Roy wants Grigorinko, that would speak volumes if he was not interested. Hodgson is a fitness freak and sets a good example for the others. Hopefully Tyler Myers clues in...
It'd say something if he were/weren't interested but I'm not sure it'd speak volumes if he weren't just because Colorado has so much going on at center right now. It'd probably speak volumes if he were interested despite that.

Rob Paxon is offline  
Old
06-12-2013, 11:43 AM
  #109
WhoIsJimBob
Circle the Bandwagon
 
WhoIsJimBob's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Rochester, NY
Country: United States
Posts: 16,276
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by DYaeger89 View Post
Sounds like we're doing / prepared to do just that.
The way Devine answered it, I have my doubts.

He said they talked internally about what they would be willing to part with to move up. That didn't sound like they are willing to give up anything to move up.

For instance, maybe Colorado will want the 3rd or 4th pick plus Grigorenko for the 1st and the Sabres feel like Grigorenko is an untouchable right now....

Devine was defensive on the question about how Grigorenko did this year.

WhoIsJimBob is offline  
Old
06-12-2013, 11:45 AM
  #110
WhoIsJimBob
Circle the Bandwagon
 
WhoIsJimBob's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Rochester, NY
Country: United States
Posts: 16,276
vCash: 500
What if Colorado wants Grigs, Girgs, 8, and 16 for 1?

Basically 4 1sts between 8 and 16 for the 1st overall.....

WhoIsJimBob is offline  
Old
06-12-2013, 11:49 AM
  #111
Dunkster19
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2013
Posts: 756
vCash: 500
I would rather give up some veterans than all those picks and prospects so my answer would be no.

Dunkster19 is offline  
Old
06-12-2013, 11:50 AM
  #112
Rowley Birkin
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Country: England
Posts: 3,122
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jame View Post
And the level of competition at the current stage of development should be a factor in your projections.
Firstly, you can only play against whoever your competition is.

You seem to see the fact that playing in the juniors/CHL is flat out negative. Who knows what these guys in junior leagues could do in the Finnish or Swedish pro leagues ? The fact is they haven't had the opportunity, yet you seem to hold this against them.

Secondly, players develop at vastly different rates - and while player A may be better than player B against elite competition at this very moment, that does not mean that player B will not be more effective than player A in the long run as an NHL player.

Surely this is simple - tell me I am not crazy....

Quote:
It's your choice to ignore pertinent factors... all it does it make your views less relevant
I am not ignoring them. They are factors but nowhere near as important as you obviously make them out to be.

And obviously - because someone disagrees with something you say (and TBH, I am not even disagreeing since we both rate Barkov pretty highly anyway) their opinion is automatically less relevant.

Rowley Birkin is offline  
Old
06-12-2013, 11:51 AM
  #113
Rowley Birkin
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Country: England
Posts: 3,122
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by LegomyLeggio View Post
What if Colorado wants Grigs, Girgs, 8, and 16 for 1?

Basically 4 1sts between 8 and 16 for the 1st overall.....
This is about as far as I go for MacKinnon. Maybe its even too much - and yet for Colorado may not even be enough.

Rowley Birkin is offline  
Old
06-12-2013, 11:51 AM
  #114
WhoIsJimBob
Circle the Bandwagon
 
WhoIsJimBob's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Rochester, NY
Country: United States
Posts: 16,276
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dunkster19 View Post
I would rather give up some veterans than all those picks and prospects so my answer would be no.
Devine indicated that the team s above them in the draft order only want their young players, so giving up Miller, Vanek, Stafford, etc. to move up doesn't appear to be realistic.

WhoIsJimBob is offline  
Old
06-12-2013, 11:53 AM
  #115
stokes84
Registered User
 
stokes84's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: Charleston, SC
Country: United States
Posts: 7,157
vCash: 500
Send a message via AIM to stokes84
Quote:
Originally Posted by LegomyLeggio View Post
The way Devine answered it, I have my doubts.

He said they talked internally about what they would be willing to part with to move up. That didn't sound like they are willing to give up anything to move up.

For instance, maybe Colorado will want the 3rd or 4th pick plus Grigorenko for the 1st and the Sabres feel like Grigorenko is an untouchable right now....

Devine was defensive on the question about how Grigorenko did this year.
The question put him on the defensive. Why would he criticize a player they are trying to trade for high value? He certainly wouldn't want the buyer to know he didn't meet their expectations.

stokes84 is offline  
Old
06-12-2013, 11:54 AM
  #116
Rowley Birkin
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Country: England
Posts: 3,122
vCash: 500
And it should be blindingly obvious that the likes of Vanek/Miller won't yield top ten picks/moving up in the draft.

They should be targeting contenders with these guys, who need that one piece to finish the puzzle.

Rowley Birkin is offline  
Old
06-12-2013, 11:54 AM
  #117
WhoIsJimBob
Circle the Bandwagon
 
WhoIsJimBob's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Rochester, NY
Country: United States
Posts: 16,276
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rowley Birkin View Post
This is about as far as I go for MacKinnon. Maybe its even too much - and yet for Colorado may not even be enough.
I'm guessing that Colorado won't be willing to move all the way back to 8.

They'll likely tell Regier they want a pick at least as high as ___ and then add [young player x] & [another pick or prospect] or something like that.

I don't see the Sabres getting that high because how many teams can they get to make deals before the draft starts and before teams see if "their guy" falls to them?

Why would Tampa or Nashville trade back to 8 right now?

I think that is the tougher nut to crack than getting from 3 or 4 to 1.

WhoIsJimBob is offline  
Old
06-12-2013, 11:55 AM
  #118
Rowley Birkin
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Country: England
Posts: 3,122
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by LegomyLeggio View Post
I'm guessing that Colorado won't be willing to move all the way back to 8.

They'll likely tell Regier they want a pick at least as high as ___ and then add [young player x] & [another pick or prospect] or something like that.

I don't see the Sabres getting that high because how many teams can they get to make deals before the draft starts and before teams see if "their guy" falls to them?

Why would Tampa or Nashville trade back to 8 right now?

I think that is the tougher nut to crack than getting from 3 or 4 to 1.
Agree with this completely.

Rowley Birkin is offline  
Old
06-12-2013, 11:56 AM
  #119
stokes84
Registered User
 
stokes84's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: Charleston, SC
Country: United States
Posts: 7,157
vCash: 500
Send a message via AIM to stokes84
Quote:
Originally Posted by LegomyLeggio View Post
Devine indicated that the team s above them in the draft order only want their young players, so giving up Miller, Vanek, Stafford, etc. to move up doesn't appear to be realistic.
He didn't say "only", but in addition to would be the very least. We aren't moving up without giving up a young stud.

stokes84 is offline  
Old
06-12-2013, 11:56 AM
  #120
WhoIsJimBob
Circle the Bandwagon
 
WhoIsJimBob's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Rochester, NY
Country: United States
Posts: 16,276
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by stokes84 View Post
The question put him on the defensive. Why would he criticize a player they are trying to trade for high value? He certainly wouldn't want the buyer to know he didn't meet their expectations.
The way he answered the question came across as completely genuine.

Plus, scouts tend to love their picks far longer than say the player development side of the house will.

Devine is still in the honeymoon phase of getting Grigorenko where he did last year.

WhoIsJimBob is offline  
Old
06-12-2013, 12:01 PM
  #121
stokes84
Registered User
 
stokes84's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: Charleston, SC
Country: United States
Posts: 7,157
vCash: 500
Send a message via AIM to stokes84
Quote:
Originally Posted by LegomyLeggio View Post
The way he answered the question came across as completely genuine.

Plus, scouts tend to love their picks far longer than say the player development side of the house will.

Devine is still in the honeymoon phase of getting Grigorenko where he did last year.
You may be right, but I think this goes for the lower level scouts more than Devine.

stokes84 is offline  
Old
06-12-2013, 12:02 PM
  #122
Jame
Dream '16
 
Jame's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Palm Harbor, FL
Country: Pitcairn Islands
Posts: 33,744
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rowley Birkin View Post
Firstly, you can only play against whoever your competition is.
you're blowing my mind here...

Quote:
You seem to see the fact that playing in the juniors/CHL is flat out negative.
Wrong

Quote:
Who knows what these guys in junior leagues could do in the Finnish or Swedish pro leagues ?
Who knows?

Quote:
The fact is they haven't had the opportunity, yet you seem to hold this against them.
Wrong

Quote:
Secondly, players develop at vastly different rates - and while player A may be better than player B against elite competition at this very moment, that does not mean that player B will not be more effective than player A in the long run as an NHL player.
You figured this out on your own? Or did you ask someone?

Quote:
Surely this is simple - tell me I am not crazy....
...

Quote:
I am not ignoring them. They are factors but nowhere near as important as you obviously make them out to be.
How important do I make them out to be?

Quote:
And obviously - because someone disagrees with something you say (and TBH, I am not even disagreeing since we both rate Barkov pretty highly anyway) their opinion is automatically less relevant.
when it's mostly full of nonsense... yes

Jame is offline  
Old
06-12-2013, 12:07 PM
  #123
Girgenburger
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Posts: 914
vCash: 500
Reading the last few pages of this thread, I can't shake the notion that a lot of big things are about to happen.

Regier must look to the future and ask himself if having any combination of Hodgson, Grigorenko, Girgensons, Ennis, Myers etc. is better than having MacKinnon or Barkov. Those are a lot of assets to throw at the chance to draft one player.

I'm not a prospect junkie, but it's sounding more and more like this draft is going to yield quite a few stars/superstar. The big question for me is: would I want 3 or 4 stars, or 1 superstar? I'm leaning towards having a superstar. Briere was the closest thing to a superstar that we've had in the last decade (I guess that's more of an opinion than fact based on how you look at it). Teams who have superstars like Malkin, Toews, Crosby, Giroux etc. seem to make it further into the playoffs.

This might be pointless jibber jabber on my part, but I'm tired of having 4-6 good forwards and the rest being average. We need a superstar; a franchise player. Vanek is not that, and Miller never was that.

I truly think this year is the year Regier needs to throw all his chips on the table come draft time. And it's sounding like everyone from Pegula and on down the line agrees. Now is not the time to be hesitant.

Girgenburger is offline  
Old
06-12-2013, 12:13 PM
  #124
Der Jaeger
Registered User
 
Der Jaeger's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: Northern Virginia
Country: United States
Posts: 2,006
vCash: 500
The "Darth Regier" scenario:

Regier trades 8, 52, and Sekera to Carolina for 5.

Carolina is looking to add a roster play.

Regier trades 5, 16, Grigorenko, Vanek or Miller at 50% (maybe more) to Colorado for 1.

Roy gets one of (Jones, Drouin, Barkov, Lindholm) at 5, his pupil from Quebec, and another first rounder. Miller to Colorado is shades of his deal, and Vanek gives him a legit scorer.

Second scenario:

Regier trades 8, 52, Vanek at 50% to Nashville for 4.

Nashville wants a big four now (Weber, Josi, Rinne, Vanek) and thinks a center will drop to 8.

Regier trades 4, 16, Grigorenko, Miller to Colorado for 1.

Roy gets one of (Jones, Drouin, Barkov) at 4, his pupil from Quebec, and another first rounder. Miller to Colorado is shades of his deal.


A Darth Regier off-season.

Der Jaeger is offline  
Old
06-12-2013, 12:15 PM
  #125
Dunkster19
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2013
Posts: 756
vCash: 500
Possibly what Devine was saying is that teams are looking for something more than just vets to convince them to move down. It is probably not all young guys or all vets but a mix. I hesitate to throw Vanek in on these proposals because I think on his own he gets you a 2013 first and a good prospect from a team like Washingon.

Dunkster19 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 01:28 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.