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.

Sabres Attempting To Acquire The First Overall Pick

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old
06-12-2013, 03:19 PM
  #76
Aqualung
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: Oregon
Country: United States
Posts: 1,949
vCash: 500
Myers + Hodgson + 8th?

Not a fan of either team, Colorado may ask for more, Buffalo might say screw it.

Aqualung is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-12-2013, 03:20 PM
  #77
Jtown
Registered User
 
Jtown's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: Fairfax, Virginia
Posts: 10,255
vCash: 539
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pierce Hawthorne View Post
It wouldn't take the 8 for the Sabres to move from 3 to 1.



I could see Myers + 8 for #3. Then #3 + #16 for #1.
yes it would if you wanted mac. Obviously florida is going to draft Mac so the Avs can ask for whatever they want.

Jtown is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
06-12-2013, 03:21 PM
  #78
Oiltankjob Fail
Eakins GTFO
 
Oiltankjob Fail's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2013
Posts: 5,966
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by oilers4life5 View Post
I think it would take both first round picks and Grigs for a deal to get done for #1
That would not do it either Avalance have no need for another Center.

Oiltankjob Fail is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-12-2013, 03:22 PM
  #79
ThePsychicSaw
Registered User
 
ThePsychicSaw's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Posts: 994
vCash: 500
Vanek + hodgson PLUS?!

For a 4th overall pick?

Lmao what is wrong with all of you? That's an awful deal even if you already did know the future and your pixk turned out as good as vanek (which is nothing to scoff at)

Seriously shaking my head again at you HF Boards

ThePsychicSaw is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
06-12-2013, 03:28 PM
  #80
Chainshot
Global Moderator
Give 'em Enough Rope
 
Chainshot's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Costa Rica
Country: Costa Rica
Posts: 56,267
vCash: 500
Awards:
Quote:
Originally Posted by tsujimoto74 View Post
The most realistic-seeming path, at least to me, is via Nashville (Vanek+ for 4). Prior to this year, they've been a consistent playoff team in recent history, the bulk of their core is around Vanek's age, and as a small but growing market, I have to think management there is very eager to get back into the playoffs sooner than later.

Vanek + Hodgson (+ a more?) for 4th overall --> Nashville gets a top notch goal scorer who helps them get back to the playoffs next year and a young, cost-controlled center who he has some chemistry with to help more long term.

Then...4th + 8th for 1st?
Perhaps Hodgson and #8 get up to #4. Then #4+Grigorenko as the basis of the flip up to #1.

__________________
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
06-12-2013, 03:34 PM
  #81
penguins2946*
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Posts: 2,889
vCash: 500
This is just another case of HF boards overrating prospects. Contrary to belief here, NHL established players>prospects. You aren't going to get a young top-4 D, 2 1sts and a NHL ready center prospect for the #1 pick.

You can't demand a price on potential. Buffalo is taking all the risk in this deal. They could lose Myers, Grigorenko and 2 1sts for a bust. On the other side, even if both 1sts and Grigorenko bust (extremely less likely than 1 player busting), they still end up with a top-2 D in Myers.

Teams make trades because of potential, but they can't demand prices because of potential. Let's do a little analogy:

Let's say that your friend has stock in a new company. It's value right now is only at $100 per stock. However, it could become as valuable as $400 dollars, so he decides to try to sell it at that price. When he does that, the stock broker says, "Well, right now, it's only valued at $100 dollars, so why should you get $400 dollars for it?" You friend responds with, "It has the potential to be worth $400 dollars." The stock broker then replies with "But it isn't worth $400 dollars. When it is worth $400 dollars, you can sell it for $400 dollars. But it only has a value of $100 dollars right now, so that's what you will get for it."

Trades are made under value right now, not potential. You aren't paying for a superstar MacKinnon, you are paying for a prospect MacKinnon.

penguins2946* is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-12-2013, 03:36 PM
  #82
tucker3434
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Atlanta, GA
Country: United States
Posts: 4,567
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rainbow Crash View Post
How is it hypocritical? Do you even know what that means? It would be hypocritical if I would have said that, then demanded Crosby and Malkin for it.

And drop it with the "strongest draft in years" crap. We hear it every single year. It's no different this year than it was last.

If GMs value picks so highly, why wasn't Staal traded straight for the 8th overall pick? In fact, why wasn't the 8th overall pick even the biggest piece in the package? A draft pick is nothing more than a draft pick, a player doesn't have value for something he never did.

And how is MacKinnon better than any other prospect in this draft? There is no player that is head and shoulders above anyone else this year. If there was, he would be the consensus #1 pick.

The 8th pick and Myers is more than fair value. Take off your Avs glasses and realize that. They aren't trading for a superstar, they are trading for someone who can become a superstar. Is it fair for me to demand a return of a top-2 D for Derrick Pouliot (8.0 C)? No, because he isn't a top-2 D yet.
What?

tucker3434 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-12-2013, 03:40 PM
  #83
Avs44
Registered User
 
Avs44's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2011
Country: United States
Posts: 7,575
vCash: 3319
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rainbow Crash View Post
This is just another case of HF boards overrating prospects. Contrary to belief here, NHL established players>prospects. You aren't going to get a young top-4 D, 2 1sts and a NHL ready center prospect for the #1 pick.

You can't demand a price on
potential. Buffalo is taking all the risk in this deal. They could lose Myers, Grigorenko and 2 1sts for
a bust. On the other side, even if both 1sts and Grigorenko bust (extremely less likely than 1 player busting), they still end up with a
top-2 D in Myers.

Teams make trades because of potential, but they can't demand
prices because of potential. Let's do a little analogy:

Let's say that your friend has stock in a new company. It's value right now is only at $100 per stock. However, it could become as valuable as $400 dollars, so he decides to try to sell it at that price. When he does that, the stock broker says, "Well, right now, it's only valued at $100 dollars, so why should you get $400 dollars for it?" You friend responds with, "It has the potential to be worth $400 dollars." The stock broker then replies with "But it isn't worth $400 dollars. When it is worth $400 dollars, you can sell it for $400 dollars. But it only has a value of $100 dollars right now, so that's what you will get for it."

Trades are made under value right now, not potential. You aren't paying for a superstar MacKinnon, you are paying for a prospect MacKinnon.
So guess what the friend with the $100 stock says then? I'll keep my damn stock and hope it becomes worth $400.



Seriously, what an awful analogy. There is no incentive for the Avs to move their pick. You have to convince them to give it up and pass on MacKinnon's potential if you want it.

Avs44 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-12-2013, 03:50 PM
  #84
JoemAvs
Registered User
 
JoemAvs's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2011
Country: Germany
Posts: 2,823
vCash: 250
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rainbow Crash View Post
This is just another case of HF boards overrating prospects. Contrary to belief here, NHL established players>prospects. You aren't going to get a young top-4 D, 2 1sts and a NHL ready center prospect for the #1 pick.

You can't demand a price on potential. Buffalo is taking all the risk in this deal. They could lose Myers, Grigorenko and 2 1sts for a bust. On the other side, even if both 1sts and Grigorenko bust (extremely less likely than 1 player busting), they still end up with a top-2 D in Myers.

Teams make trades because of potential, but they can't demand prices because of potential. Let's do a little analogy:

Let's say that your friend has stock in a new company. It's value right now is only at $100 per stock. However, it could become as valuable as $400 dollars, so he decides to try to sell it at that price. When he does that, the stock broker says, "Well, right now, it's only valued at $100 dollars, so why should you get $400 dollars for it?" You friend responds with, "It has the potential to be worth $400 dollars." The stock broker then replies with "But it isn't worth $400 dollars. When it is worth $400 dollars, you can sell it for $400 dollars. But it only has a value of $100 dollars right now, so that's what you will get for it."

Trades are made under value right now, not potential. You aren't paying for a superstar MacKinnon, you are paying for a prospect MacKinnon.
Horrible analogy.
The better analogy would be a stock who might be worth $ 100 right now but has a very, very good chance to be worth atleast $ 1000 if you wait a year or two.
Would you laugh at the guy who demands $ 700 for it?

Oh and:
#1
Yakupov,RNH,Hall,Tavares, Stamkos, Pat Kane, Erik Johnson, Crosby, Ovechkin, Fleury

vs
#8

Derrick Pouliot,Couturier, Burmistrov, Scott Glennie, Boedker, Zach Hamill, Setoguchi, Mueller, Alex Picard, Coburn.


Jones and Mackinnon are probably in the middle of the pack when it comes to #1 prospects. MacKinnon is easier to compare to so I will use him:
He probably will be not Crosby, Ovechkin or even Stamkos good.
MacKinnon has a long way to go to reach Tavares.
I have him ahead of Kane, Yakupov, RNH and very close to Hall.

EJ is the obvious comparison for Jones. But I believe that he would be his worst case scenario. And EJ is still worth a ton. He is a top pairing D who is very good defensively..

So again.. How does HFBoards overrate prospects?
You won't have a shot in hell at atleast 6 of those 10 guys.
Those "ridiculous" proposals you refer to would not even begin to make the respective GM start thinking..

JoemAvs is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-12-2013, 03:56 PM
  #85
Pierce Hawthorne
Formerly Avsare1
 
Pierce Hawthorne's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2012
Location: Caverns of Draconis
Country: Canada
Posts: 6,567
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rainbow Crash View Post
This is just another case of HF boards overrating prospects. Contrary to belief here, NHL established players>prospects. You aren't going to get a young top-4 D, 2 1sts and a NHL ready center prospect for the #1 pick.

You can't demand a price on potential. Buffalo is taking all the risk in this deal. They could lose Myers, Grigorenko and 2 1sts for a bust. On the other side, even if both 1sts and Grigorenko bust (extremely less likely than 1 player busting), they still end up with a top-2 D in Myers.

Teams make trades because of potential, but they can't demand prices because of potential. Let's do a little analogy:

Let's say that your friend has stock in a new company. It's value right now is only at $100 per stock. However, it could become as valuable as $400 dollars, so he decides to try to sell it at that price. When he does that, the stock broker says, "Well, right now, it's only valued at $100 dollars, so why should you get $400 dollars for it?" You friend responds with, "It has the potential to be worth $400 dollars." The stock broker then replies with "But it isn't worth $400 dollars. When it is worth $400 dollars, you can sell it for $400 dollars. But it only has a value of $100 dollars right now, so that's what you will get for it."

Trades are made under value right now, not potential. You aren't paying for a superstar MacKinnon, you are paying for a prospect MacKinnon.

If the bolded were true, you would see players like Matt Hunwick traded for Top 10 picks.


The bolded is simply not true(At least not exactly, John Tavares has more value then a prospect even of Mackinnon's caliber. Matt Hunwick does not have more value then a prospect even of the 60th overall's caliber).



Anyways, you clearly don't understand how prospect and player value work, and there no point arguing with you because of your crazy ideas.

Continue to believe what you want, however false it may be.

Pierce Hawthorne is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-12-2013, 03:57 PM
  #86
penguins2946*
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Posts: 2,889
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Avs44 View Post
So guess what the friend with the $100 stock says then? I'll keep my damn stock and hope it becomes worth $400.
That was the entire point of my analogy. You won't get the return of a $400 dollar stock, so don't trade it until it is worth $400. You can't demand a return of $400 when it only has a value of $100. Either take the $100 (I wouldn't) or wait until it is worth $400, then sell it for $400.

You can't demand the max value of a prospect just because he COULD get there. That's why top prospects aren't traded all that often, they won't have full value until they develop. In the future, I can guarantee that Pittsburgh lost the Morrow deal and the Capitals lost the Erat deal. They traded a prospect who wasn't at their full value. The Pens got a 3rd line grinder who is going to walk after the season for a future top-4 OFD. If the Pens were trading based off his potential, don't you think he could have gotten more?

penguins2946* is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-12-2013, 04:03 PM
  #87
S E P H
@Krzysztof_WHL
 
S E P H's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: Avs Country!
Country: Poland
Posts: 4,222
vCash: 50
Quote:
Originally Posted by RSeen View Post
Gross overpayment.
You know trading for 1st overall in a draft this deep where top 2 and maybe top 4 players are definitely franchise players.

Overpayment is a must.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Aqualung View Post
Myers + Hodgson + 8th?

Not a fan of either team, Colorado may ask for more, Buffalo might say screw it.
If I was Sabres there is no way in hell I would trade Hodgson now.

8th+16th+Sekera+Grigorenko is decent value IMO.

Quote:
Originally Posted by HarrisonFord View Post
8 + 16 + Ryan Miller?
We have no need for Ryan Miller.


Last edited by S E P H: 06-12-2013 at 04:11 PM.
S E P H is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-12-2013, 04:03 PM
  #88
Lebanese Leaf
Registered User
 
Lebanese Leaf's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: Toronto, ON
Country: Lebanon
Posts: 6,277
vCash: 500
Yea why the **** not have the 3 best players in this years draft added to the 3 worst teams in the Leafs' new division. It's not like it's already stacked beyond belief of anything...

Needless to say, I would be pretty pissed if Buffalo got Mackinnon.

Lebanese Leaf is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-12-2013, 04:03 PM
  #89
stokes84
Registered User
 
stokes84's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: Charleston, SC
Country: United States
Posts: 6,590
vCash: 500
Send a message via AIM to stokes84
Quote:
Originally Posted by tsujimoto74 View Post
The most realistic-seeming path, at least to me, is via Nashville (Vanek+ for 4). Prior to this year, they've been a consistent playoff team in recent history, the bulk of their core is around Vanek's age, and as a small but growing market, I have to think management there is very eager to get back into the playoffs sooner than later.

Vanek + Hodgson (+ a more?) for 4th overall --> Nashville gets a top notch goal scorer who helps them get back to the playoffs next year and a young, cost-controlled center who he has some chemistry with to help more long term.

Then...4th + 8th for 1st?
Vanek + Hodgson for 4 is flat out {Mod Edit}. Again, I will point out what Jordan Staal returned last year.

stokes84 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-12-2013, 04:04 PM
  #90
JimEIV
Registered User
 
JimEIV's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Parts Unknown
Posts: 24,524
vCash: 500
Has anyone KNOWINGLY ever traded the 1st overall pick?

JimEIV is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-12-2013, 04:05 PM
  #91
tucker3434
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Atlanta, GA
Country: United States
Posts: 4,567
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rainbow Crash View Post
This is just another case of HF boards overrating prospects. Contrary to belief here, NHL established players>prospects. You aren't going to get a young top-4 D, 2 1sts and a NHL ready center prospect for the #1 pick.

You can't demand a price on potential. Buffalo is taking all the risk in this deal. They could lose Myers, Grigorenko and 2 1sts for a bust. On the other side, even if both 1sts and Grigorenko bust (extremely less likely than 1 player busting), they still end up with a top-2 D in Myers.

Teams make trades because of potential, but they can't demand prices because of potential. Let's do a little analogy:

Let's say that your friend has stock in a new company. It's value right now is only at $100 per stock. However, it could become as valuable as $400 dollars, so he decides to try to sell it at that price. When he does that, the stock broker says, "Well, right now, it's only valued at $100 dollars, so why should you get $400 dollars for it?" You friend responds with, "It has the potential to be worth $400 dollars." The stock broker then replies with "But it isn't worth $400 dollars. When it is worth $400 dollars, you can sell it for $400 dollars. But it only has a value of $100 dollars right now, so that's what you will get for it."

Trades are made under value right now, not potential. You aren't paying for a superstar MacKinnon, you are paying for a prospect MacKinnon.
I don't really get the stock reference. There are way to many variables with stocks to simplify it that much. Instead, lets say your friend holds a bond. The coupon rate is higher than market. If he goes to sell that bond, he gets a premium.

Essentially, the premium is paid because you have a greater shot at making more than market rate with this particular bond.

Same principle here. MacKinnon gives you a much better shot at a superstar than whatever is there at 8. You're going to have to pay a premium to get him.

tucker3434 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-12-2013, 04:07 PM
  #92
GamingGiant
Registered User
 
GamingGiant's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2011
Location: Colorado
Country: United States
Posts: 2,683
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sens Mile View Post
I personally think Myers/Minnesota 1st might get it done
It's going to take more than that. Keep adding.

GamingGiant is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-12-2013, 04:08 PM
  #93
DoubleDouble
The black cocaine.
 
DoubleDouble's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2013
Country: Canada
Posts: 1,466
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pierce Hawthorne View Post
As an Avs fan I still don't think anything happens. BUT. If it does Buffalo is the team I would bet on to make the move for 1st overall.


They easily have the best assets of the teams rumored to be interested.



#8 + #16 + Myers + Grigorenko


That's good enough for me. Some Sabres fans were at one point willing to do more then that. And Some Avs fans were wanting more then that.
I couldn't go on past this post...I'd love to have one of the big 3 but that is just crazy.

DoubleDouble is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-12-2013, 04:13 PM
  #94
penguins2946*
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Posts: 2,889
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by tucker3434 View Post
I don't really get the stock reference. There are way to many variables with stocks to simplify it that much. Instead, lets say your friend holds a bond. The coupon rate is higher than market. If he goes to sell that bond, he gets a premium.

Essentially, the premium is paid because you have a greater shot at making more than market rate with this particular bond.

Same principle here. MacKinnon gives you a much better shot at a superstar than whatever is there at 8. You're going to have to pay a premium to get him.
But the premium needed isn't what is being offered here. I don't think there's an issue with wanting more because of his high potential. It's just the offers here are way over that.

My point is that if you sell a bond or a stock before it has reached its full value, you won't get the full return for it. I view Myers+8th+16th+Grigorenko as being not that far off from a full return. Myers+8th and 8th+16th+Grigorenko are both close, but not all 4 added together.

Colorado would be better off just keeping the pick and letting the player develop. If they ever decide to trade him, they would get more from developing him then trading him.

penguins2946* is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-12-2013, 04:16 PM
  #95
Fourier
Registered User
 
Fourier's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Waterloo Ontario
Country: Canada
Posts: 8,672
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pierce Hawthorne View Post
As an Avs fan I still don't think anything happens. BUT. If it does Buffalo is the team I would bet on to make the move for 1st overall.


They easily have the best assets of the teams rumored to be interested.



#8 + #16 + Myers + Grigorenko


That's good enough for me. Some Sabres fans were at one point willing to do more then that. And Some Avs fans were wanting more then that.
That is way to much to give up.

Who would they pick?

Fourier is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-12-2013, 04:18 PM
  #96
The Zetterberg Era
Nyquist Explosion!
 
The Zetterberg Era's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Location: Ft. Myers, FL
Country: United States
Posts: 17,427
vCash: 515
If it is Buffalo you can count on Grigorenko being a part of the package, Roy absolutely loves him.

Flip Stastny for Nino and 15th overall.

The Zetterberg Era is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
06-12-2013, 04:23 PM
  #97
penguins2946*
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Posts: 2,889
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by JoemAvs View Post
Horrible analogy.
The better analogy would be a stock who might be worth $ 100 right now but has a very, very good chance to be worth atleast $ 1000 if you wait a year or two.
Would you laugh at the guy who demands $ 700 for it?
The thing is, I don't view these offers as asking for $700 on a potential $1000 stock. I see it as asking for close to full value on the stock. These proposals, imo, are asking for way too much. I still say that the 8th+16th+Grigorenko is enough for the top pick. As in fair value.

penguins2946* is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-12-2013, 04:28 PM
  #98
First round bust
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2013
Location: Calgary
Country: Canada
Posts: 394
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sens Mile View Post
I still believe Myers is one of the best in the league, I think he bounces back huge
He's not even close to the best in the league, 2 straight brutal years.

First round bust is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-12-2013, 04:32 PM
  #99
tsujimoto74
Registered User
 
tsujimoto74's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2012
Location: Virginia
Country: United States
Posts: 8,716
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by stokes84 View Post
Vanek + Hodgson for 4 is flat out {Mod Edit}. Again, I will point out what Jordan Staal returned last year.
Would be a much more relevant comparison if Nashville had the certainly of Vanek being a long-term core addition that Carolina had with Staal.

That said, I'm not sure I'd make that deal, just spitballing. I like the depth of our prospect pool and the idea of just adding more fuel to the fire (ie: just using all 4 of our 1st and 2nd rounders without any movement). If we're moving Vanek and Miller anyway, we'll suck plenty enough next year or few to get our top picks without needing to give away any of our valuable young players.

tsujimoto74 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-12-2013, 04:33 PM
  #100
LotteryForLife*
 
Join Date: Apr 2012
Country: United States
Posts: 1,275
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by HockeyGuruPitka View Post
So what Tyler Myers + Joel Armia + Minnesota 1st??
Colorado would never do this

LotteryForLife* 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 02:05 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.