Trade Rumors and Free Agent TalkTrade rumors, transactions, and free agent talk. Rumors must contain the word RUMOR in post title. Proposals must contain the word PROPOSAL in post title.
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
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
