HFBoards

Go Back   HFBoards > NHL Eastern Conference > Atlantic Division > Buffalo Sabres
Notices

Trading Up Part II: The Midnight Barkov

Closed Thread
 
Thread Tools
Old
06-19-2013, 08:21 PM
  #751
haseoke39
Brainfart 4 Reinhart
 
haseoke39's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Posts: 5,667
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by joshjull View Post
You're ranting and raving in multiple posts that....
I think I can reduce that entire post down to: there are many great players taken later in the draft. And I say yes, obviously, and we're drafting back there every year, along with 29 other teams, with very limited success.

Whereas if the goal is to get a top 20 player in the NHL, see my post just above, your odds are as good with picks 1 - 3 as with picks 4 - 210 combined. So I'm not all that impressed that Darcy has 8, 16, 38 and 52. Just spitballing it, I think if combine all those together and it's probably something like 10% as likely to produce a superstar as any of the top 3 picks on their own.

haseoke39 is offline  
Old
06-19-2013, 08:41 PM
  #752
sjci
Registered User
 
sjci's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Buffalo
Country: United States
Posts: 1,527
vCash: 313
There's a rumor right now that Edmonton has a deal in place with Toronto to trade the #7 pick to the Leafs that won't be announced till after the playoffs

sjci is offline  
Old
06-19-2013, 08:47 PM
  #753
DarcyTheTankEngine
#DraftASam
 
Join Date: Feb 2013
Location: Buffalo, NY
Country: United States
Posts: 74
vCash: 500
To paraphrase Matthew Coller on WGR, the Sabres got Grigorenko and Girgensons with picks 12 and 14 last year. Their picks this year are very similar. So, in regards to trading up, the real question is if you would pass up a chance at 2 comparables to Grigo and Girgo for the franchise type center in Mackinnon.

It's a tough call IMO, because Girgensons seems to have great character, and I agree with Coller when he said he has the potential to be a Bergeron type of player down the road. While getting a franchise center IS VERY difficult, so Is getting a quality two way center. Those two picks would yield two quality NHL players if they live up to expectations, especially in such a deep draft. People seem to be throwing the 8 and 16 picks away very easily in all of these proposals, and I just feel that the payoff from picking twice could be greater than just getting Mackinnon. Not a sure thing, but potentially greater, and Mackinnon isn't a sure thing at this point either.

DarcyTheTankEngine is offline  
Old
06-19-2013, 08:48 PM
  #754
ZZamboni
Puttin' on the Foil
 
ZZamboni's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: Buffalo, NY
Country: United States
Posts: 10,155
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by sjci View Post
There's a rumor right now that Edmonton has a deal in place with Toronto to trade the #7 pick to the Leafs that won't be announced till after the playoffs
I don't know if it's you or someone else, but someone keeps saying "I heard" "rumor has it" "I know a guy".


If you care enough to log in and type what you type... Please supply "rumor" with a link to the source of "rumor". It helps those of us that like to read it from the source. Thanks.

ZZamboni is offline  
Old
06-19-2013, 08:49 PM
  #755
DarcyTheTankEngine
#DraftASam
 
Join Date: Feb 2013
Location: Buffalo, NY
Country: United States
Posts: 74
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by sjci View Post
There's a rumor right now that Edmonton has a deal in place with Toronto to trade the #7 pick to the Leafs that won't be announced till after the playoffs
If true, who do the Leafs take? Lindholm? That would really suck.

DarcyTheTankEngine is offline  
Old
06-19-2013, 08:57 PM
  #756
Zip15
Registered User
 
Zip15's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Posts: 17,024
vCash: 50
Quote:
Originally Posted by sjci View Post
There's a rumor right now that Edmonton has a deal in place with Toronto to trade the #7 pick to the Leafs that won't be announced till after the playoffs
Seems to be pieced together based on a picture of Nonis and MacT chatting and a later rumor that the Oilers had some deals in place. I just don't know what Toronto has that bridges the gap between 7 and 21. Perhaps Gardiner, but the Oil already has Schultz--do they want their blueline to be a reflection of their forward corps?

I think MacT is going to be terrible, though, so it wouldn't surprise me if he traded 7 for something like 21 + 51 + Franson. It'd be a real kick in the stomach if the Leafs hop in front of Buffalo and nab Lindholm.

Zip15 is online now  
Old
06-19-2013, 08:57 PM
  #757
joshjull
Moderator
 
joshjull's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Hamburg,NY
Country: United States
Posts: 32,513
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by haseoke39 View Post
I think I can reduce that entire post down to: there are many great players taken later in the draft. And I say yes, obviously, and we're drafting back there every year, along with 29 other teams, with very limited success.
Nothing like snide dismissal instead of a counterpoint.


You are so lost in your statistical generalities about the draft that you don't seem capable of stepping back and breaking down this specific draft and what it holds.

If its as deep as the 2003 draft as many feel it is then many top players will be picked outside of the precious top 3 picks you so covet. Its not about diamonds in the rough as it is about having a deep draft with a lot of talent to be had. So in THAT context it wouldn't be the smartest move to massively overpay with picks from this draft, top prospects, top young players for the top pick.

Quote:
Whereas if the goal is to get a top 20 player in the NHL, see my post just above, your odds are as good with picks 1 - 3 as with picks 4 - 210 combined. So I'm not all that impressed that Darcy has 8, 16, 38 and 52. Just spitballing it, I think if combine all those together and it's probably something like 10% as likely to produce a superstar as any of the top 3 picks on their own.
Actually the goal is to build a team capable of winning the Cup. Thats why no team has EVER sold the farm for the top pick and then went on to win a Cup.

You do realize that the Pens, Hawks and Kings all won their Cups within 3-4 years of drafting their studs Crosby/Malkin, Toews/Kane and Doughty with picks in the top 3. The basic core structure was already in place and they were the last piece or pieces. They didn't have to trade away any assets to acquire these players. Thus they were able to quickly parlay these players into Cup success. They didn't build around them for years after gutting their organization.

joshjull is offline  
Old
06-19-2013, 08:58 PM
  #758
sjci
Registered User
 
sjci's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Buffalo
Country: United States
Posts: 1,527
vCash: 313
Quote:
Originally Posted by ZZamboni View Post
I don't know if it's you or someone else, but someone keeps saying "I heard" "rumor has it" "I know a guy".


If you care enough to log in and type what you type... Please supply "rumor" with a link to the source of "rumor". It helps those of us that like to read it from the source. Thanks.
Sorry, I'm on my phone. Supposedly Kypreos is telling people about it. Coming off the report in the Sun Media about Edm having 2 deals in place, just waiting till end of playoffs to announce

sjci is offline  
Old
06-19-2013, 09:01 PM
  #759
haseoke39
Brainfart 4 Reinhart
 
haseoke39's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Posts: 5,667
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by joshjull View Post
You do realize that the Pens, Hawks and Kings all won their Cups within 3-4 years of drafting their studs Crosby/Malkin, Toews/Kane and Doughty with picks in the top 3. The basic core structure was already in place and they were the last piece or pieces. They didn't have to trade away any assets to acquire these players. Thus they were able to quickly parlay these players into Cup success. They didn't build around them for years after gutting their organization.
Somehow the whole cup team was there except for these superstars, and yet the team was picking in the top 3 in the NHL draft.

Well, that either means the superstars are more valuable than I thought, or something's wrong with your generality, there.

haseoke39 is offline  
Old
06-19-2013, 09:03 PM
  #760
haseoke39
Brainfart 4 Reinhart
 
haseoke39's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Posts: 5,667
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by joshjull View Post
Actually the goal is to build a team capable of winning the Cup. Thats why no team has EVER sold the farm for the top pick and then went on to win a Cup.
Yeah, but there's only one example of that behavior that I'm aware of (Philly for the Lindros pick), and it's a terrible example, because Philly actually traded away the better player (Forsberg).

haseoke39 is offline  
Old
06-19-2013, 09:08 PM
  #761
haseoke39
Brainfart 4 Reinhart
 
haseoke39's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Posts: 5,667
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by joshjull View Post
You are so lost in your statistical generalities about the draft that you don't seem capable of stepping back and breaking down this specific draft and what it holds.
That's because stats are the best way to break down what's available at each pick over the long haul. We're all guessing when we try to imagine what's here in this draft. It hasn't happened yet. It's pretty fruitless to sit there and say, oh yeah, but in ten years, Risto and Lindholm together would be more valuable than MacKinnon alone. You have no ****ing clue. Acting like you get it because you're blindly speculating about a specific sample rather than looking at trends in a larger, observable population doesn't make you more reliable.

So I'll take the stats, thank you. They show a consistent pattern, and that pattern says it's clearly worth it to invest in a top pick, even at the expense of a dozen crapshoots later on.

haseoke39 is offline  
Old
06-19-2013, 09:08 PM
  #762
joshjull
Moderator
 
joshjull's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Hamburg,NY
Country: United States
Posts: 32,513
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by haseoke39 View Post
Yeah, but there's only one example of that behavior that I'm aware of (Philly for the Lindros pick), and it's a terrible example, because Philly actually traded away the better player (Forsberg).
Actually thats the point. Teams don't do this because is terrible asset management.

joshjull is offline  
Old
06-19-2013, 09:13 PM
  #763
haseoke39
Brainfart 4 Reinhart
 
haseoke39's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Posts: 5,667
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by joshjull View Post
Actually thats the point. Teams don't do this because is terrible asset management.
Take the 8th, 16th, 38th and 52nd pick from the 2000-2009 drafts, and imagine you traded them for the top forward taken in that draft. The vast majority of the time, you're getting a steal. Terrible asset management my ass.

2001: would you trade.....Leclaire, Umberger, and some guy named Tim Jackman for.....Rick Nash? Of course not! Terrible asset management!
2002: would you trade.....Bouchard, Klepis, Harding and an AHLEr for.....Rick Nash? Of course not! Terrible asset management!
2003: would you trade.....Brayden Coburn, Steve Bernier and Corey Crawford for.....Eric Staal? Maybe. This is the one year you get lucky with those numbers, but it's still close.
2004: would you trade..... Picard, CArolina's backup goaltender, and two AHLers for.....Alex Ovechkin? Of course not! Terrible asset management!
2005: would you trade.....Setoguchi and 3 AHLers for.....Sidney Crosby? Of course not! Terrible asset management!
2006: would you trade.....Peter Mueller and 3 AHLers for.....Jordan Staal? Of course not! Terrible asset management!
2007: would you trade.....4 guys you've never heard of with ~100 NHL games between them for.....Patrick Kane? Of course not! Terrible asset management!
2008: would you trade.....Boedker, Josi, and 2 guys who never played an NHL game for.....Steven STamkos? Of course not! Terrible asset management!
2009: would you trade.....Nick Leddy and 3 AHLers for.....John Tavares? Of course not! Terrible asset management!


Last edited by haseoke39: 06-19-2013 at 09:30 PM.
haseoke39 is offline  
Old
06-19-2013, 09:16 PM
  #764
joshjull
Moderator
 
joshjull's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Hamburg,NY
Country: United States
Posts: 32,513
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by haseoke39 View Post
Take the 8th, 16th, 38th and 52nd pick from the 2000-2009 drafts, and imagine you traded them for the top forward taken in that draft. The vast majority of the time, you're getting a steal. Terrible asset management my ass.
Then why doesn't it happen?

Lets see your trade proposal again for the top pick this year.

joshjull is offline  
Old
06-19-2013, 09:27 PM
  #765
JPurp26
Registered User
 
JPurp26's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2003
Country: United States
Posts: 5,210
vCash: 300
Quote:
Originally Posted by sabresfan97 View Post
If true, who do the Leafs take? Lindholm? That would really suck.
Not if we take MacKinnon with #1

JPurp26 is online now  
Old
06-19-2013, 09:29 PM
  #766
joshjull
Moderator
 
joshjull's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Hamburg,NY
Country: United States
Posts: 32,513
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by haseoke39 View Post
That's because stats are the best way to break down what's available at each pick over the long haul. We're all guessing when we try to imagine what's here in this draft. It hasn't happened yet. It's pretty fruitless to sit there and say, oh yeah, but in ten years, Risto and Lindholm together would be more valuable than MacKinnon alone. You have no ****ing clue. Acting like you get it because you're blindly speculating about a specific sample rather than looking at trends in a larger, observable population doesn't make you more reliable.
You have no clue either

And its going to take a hell of a lot more than just our top 2 picks in this years draft to move up to #1. So when I say its poor asset management. I'm talking about a massive overpayment that would include a couple of our prospects (Grigs, Girgs, Larsson, Pysyk, McNabb, etc), a couple of youngsters (Myers, Hodgson, Ennis, Foligno) in addition to those top two picks. Yes I think its easy to say that it would be poor asset management to trade all of that for the #1 pick. You really think I'm just arguing the value of #8 and #16 vs MacKinnon?

EDIT: I'm saying 1-2 from each group not all of them.
Quote:
So I'll take the stats, thank you. They show a consistent pattern, and that pattern says it's clearly worth it to invest in a top pick, even at the expense of a dozen crapshoots later on.
And I'll take the facts. No team has ever done this and won a Cup.

joshjull is offline  
Old
06-19-2013, 09:31 PM
  #767
Sabresfansince1980
Registered User
 
Sabresfansince1980's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Location: from Wheatfield, NY
Country: Germany
Posts: 2,609
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by joshjull View Post
Then why doesn't it happen?

Lets see your trade proposal again for the top pick this year.
I don't believe both 1sts and both 2nds would ever be enough to get the top pick anyway, so that's why it doesn't happen.

Sabresfansince1980 is offline  
Old
06-19-2013, 09:32 PM
  #768
Rob Paxon
Z E M G U S
 
Rob Paxon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: corfu, ny
Country: United States
Posts: 16,523
vCash: 500
Send a message via AIM to Rob Paxon
Quote:
Originally Posted by joshjull View Post
Then why doesn't it happen?

Lets see your trade proposal again for the top pick this year.
I think it's fair to say part of why it doesn't happen often, perhaps the biggest reason, is that the team with the top pick isn't interested. Further, only so many teams have multiple picks in the first two rounds in a given draft.

Edit: Just saw your lastest comment

Rob Paxon is online now  
Old
06-19-2013, 09:35 PM
  #769
Sabresfansince1980
Registered User
 
Sabresfansince1980's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Location: from Wheatfield, NY
Country: Germany
Posts: 2,609
vCash: 500
Rob and I are quoting Josh, but the response is really for Haseoke.

Sabresfansince1980 is offline  
Old
06-19-2013, 09:35 PM
  #770
Gabrielor
14-15 Goal: McDavid
 
Gabrielor's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: Buffalo, NY
Country: United States
Posts: 698
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by joshjull View Post


And I'll take the facts. No team has ever done this and won a Cup.
Traded a large package for the 1st-overall? Only one teams ever done it...

Gabrielor is offline  
Old
06-19-2013, 09:36 PM
  #771
Rob Paxon
Z E M G U S
 
Rob Paxon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: corfu, ny
Country: United States
Posts: 16,523
vCash: 500
Send a message via AIM to Rob Paxon
Quote:
Originally Posted by haseoke39 View Post
Yeah, but there's only one example of that behavior that I'm aware of (Philly for the Lindros pick), and it's a terrible example, because Philly actually traded away the better player (Forsberg).
It can be argued whether Forsberg was the better player. Both had serious injury problems but Lindros' ruined his career. Personally I go with Forsberg easily, but you can't just say in hindsight that Quelorado got the better player imo. What you can say is at the very least Philly gave up a lot of assets to get a more heralded prospect who turned out at best to not be much (if at all) better than the lesser-heralded prospect they gave up. We can further say Colorado became a champion out of the deal.

Rob Paxon is online now  
Old
06-19-2013, 09:37 PM
  #772
haseoke39
Brainfart 4 Reinhart
 
haseoke39's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Posts: 5,667
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by joshjull View Post
Then why doesn't it happen?

Lets see your trade proposal again for the top pick this year.
I would lead with Vanek, 8 and 16. I would add Ehrhoff and 38 if that didn't work. They need present help now, and we got Ehrhoff for nothing more than a fourth rounder and an inspirational speech.

I don't include anyone under 25, because I believe we need to stack the odds in favor of having great players in five years. If they push me, I consider substituting Hodgson or Grigorenko for Ehrhoff.

Look at what top 3 picks have gone for in the past. Not this much. If we can't do it with this, I have to get creative to try and do this without gutting our youth. But I will give up at least one piece of promising youth for one piece of ****ing lights out brilliant youth.

haseoke39 is offline  
Old
06-19-2013, 10:07 PM
  #773
joshjull
Moderator
 
joshjull's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Hamburg,NY
Country: United States
Posts: 32,513
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by haseoke39 View Post
I would lead with Vanek, 8 and 16. I would add Ehrhoff and 38 if that didn't work. They need present help now, and we got Ehrhoff for nothing more than a fourth rounder and an inspirational speech.

I don't include anyone under 25, because I believe we need to stack the odds in favor of having great players in five years. If they push me, I consider substituting Hodgson or Grigorenko for Ehrhoff.

Look at what top 3 picks have gone for in the past. Not this much. If we can't do it with this, I have to get creative to try and do this without gutting our youth. But I will give up at least one piece of promising youth for one piece of ****ing lights out brilliant youth.
I can't imagine 1 year of Vanek or taking on Ehrhoff's deal (because of the recapture rule) as having much value to the AVs. I would love it if Vanek and our firsts were enough to get it done.


Last edited by joshjull: 06-19-2013 at 10:12 PM.
joshjull is offline  
Old
06-19-2013, 10:18 PM
  #774
Rob Paxon
Z E M G U S
 
Rob Paxon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: corfu, ny
Country: United States
Posts: 16,523
vCash: 500
Send a message via AIM to Rob Paxon
Quote:
Originally Posted by joshjull View Post
I can't imagine 1 year of Vanek or taking on Ehrhoff's deal (because of the recapture rule) as having much value to the AVs. I would love it if Vanek and our firsts were enough to get it done.
I need to brush back up on the new CBA but isn't Buffalo who'd get penalized if Ehrhoff retires whilst his contract is still active.

Rob Paxon is online now  
Old
06-19-2013, 10:24 PM
  #775
joshjull
Moderator
 
joshjull's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Hamburg,NY
Country: United States
Posts: 32,513
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rob Paxon View Post
I need to brush back up on the new CBA but isn't Buffalo who'd get penalized if Ehrhoff retires whilst his contract is still active.
I believe it gets divided between the teams. I think the point of that was so teams couldn't easily trade their way out of the problem.


http://cdn.agilitycms.com/nhlpacom/P...ms-1-10-13.pdf

“For all existing SPCs with terms in excess of six (6) years (“long-term contracts”), a “Cap Advantage Recapture” provision will become applicable. Specifically, for years in which the Player under a long-term contract is no longer playing in the League … any “Cap Advantage” that may have been gained by a Club …will be “Recaptured,” and charged against the Club’s Upper Limit from year-to-year in equal amounts over the remaining term of the Player’s SPC.

If the contract in question is ever traded or assigned to one or more other Clubs in the League, each Club will be subject to being charged with any and all “Cap Advantage” amounts it receives while being obligated pursuant the contract.

The “Cap Advantage Recapture” provision will not apply to “Cap Advantage” amounts a Club may have gained prior to trading a Player’s contract, where such trade occurred before the execution of the new Agreement (including any binding MOU).“

joshjull 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 12:35 PM.

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.