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

The Roster Building Thread Pick a Peck of Preferred Players

Closed Thread
 
Thread Tools
Old
05-30-2013, 04:21 AM
  #401
dma0034
Registered User
 
dma0034's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: Buffalo, NY
Posts: 4,324
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by stokes84 View Post
There were rumblings that Minnesota initially offered Granlund in the Pominville deal but that Darcy preferred Larsson. Who knows how true that is, but I've read it a few times around here.
It was the exact opposite. Darcy wanted Granlund, 1st and 2nd. Minnesota said no and offered Larsson instead. Hackett and the 4th were added to balance it out.

dma0034 is offline  
Old
05-30-2013, 04:52 AM
  #402
Ness
New Age Retro Hippie
 
Ness's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: Denver
Country: United States
Posts: 2,553
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by TheNumber4 View Post
7th Overall Pick

for

Myers
To move one spot up in the draft? No thanks.

Ness is online now  
Old
05-30-2013, 05:40 AM
  #403
is the answer jesus
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Tonawanda, NY
Posts: 3,010
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Crow View Post
To move one spot up in the draft? No thanks.
I think he meant the 7th overall pick for Myers straight up. We'd keep both of our other 1st rounders. I'd think about that deal depending on who was left on the board @ 7.
As far as Yandle for Miller is concerned Phoenix goes nowhere near that deal

is the answer jesus is offline  
Old
05-30-2013, 10:00 AM
  #404
koarl
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: Graz / Austria
Country: Austria
Posts: 266
vCash: 500
To get Yandle for Miller, Darth Regier would need to gain more power to trick their GM into that deal, lol.

And why the hell are so many people here giving up on Myers so early? Myers for a 7th overall pick that has the potential to be as good in at least 5 years, seriously? If the Sabres trade Vanek and Miller, there is absolutely no reason to reduce salary.

koarl is offline  
Old
05-30-2013, 11:50 AM
  #405
is the answer jesus
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Tonawanda, NY
Posts: 3,010
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by koarl View Post
To get Yandle for Miller, Darth Regier would need to gain more power to trick their GM into that deal, lol.

And why the hell are so many people here giving up on Myers so early? Myers for a 7th overall pick that has the potential to be as good in at least 5 years, seriously? If the Sabres trade Vanek and Miller, there is absolutely no reason to reduce salary.
I wouldn't say trading him for a 7th overall pick in a deep draft is giving up on him. It's simply hitting the reset button in a sense. Makes us worse for the next couple of years which helps us rebuild and also let's the young guys play some more. As far as what that pick might become it's anybody's guess. The player could be better or worse than Myers will turn out to be. I'd be willing to take the risk because I think it's possible we could draft 2 defenseman at 8 and 16 (like in chain's mock draft) and both could end up being better than Myers. Since his rookie year Myers hasn't shown me anywhere near enough to make me believe he'll ever be a legitimate 1st pairing guy.

is the answer jesus is offline  
Old
05-30-2013, 12:12 PM
  #406
Sabretip
Registered User
 
Sabretip's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: Phoenix, AZ
Country: United States
Posts: 9,087
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by is the answer jesus View Post
As far as Yandle for Miller is concerned Phoenix goes nowhere near that deal
Quote:
Originally Posted by koarl View Post
To get Yandle for Miller, Darth Regier would need to gain more power to trick their GM into that deal, lol.
Even if Smith is seeking $5M per season, it's less than what Miller costs - and Maloney has repeatedly said how confident and comfortable the organization is with Smith. He considered this an off-year by Smith and said re-signing Tippett and Smith as his two greatest priorities. Unless Smith wants to leave Phoenix, I don't see any smoke in the "Miller-to-Phoenix" theories.

Sabretip is offline  
Old
05-30-2013, 12:52 PM
  #407
Djp
Registered User
 
Djp's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Location: Seattle,WA
Country: United States
Posts: 9,934
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by dma0034 View Post
It was the exact opposite. Darcy wanted Granlund, 1st and 2nd. Minnesota said no and offered Larsson instead. Hackett and the 4th were added to balance it out.

Where did you hear this from?

Djp is offline  
Old
05-30-2013, 01:13 PM
  #408
JLewyB
Registered User
 
JLewyB's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2013
Location: Pegulaville
Country: United States
Posts: 1,315
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sabretip View Post
Even if Smith is seeking $5M per season, it's less than what Miller costs - and Maloney has repeatedly said how confident and comfortable the organization is with Smith. He considered this an off-year by Smith and said re-signing Tippett and Smith as his two greatest priorities. Unless Smith wants to leave Phoenix, I don't see any smoke in the "Miller-to-Phoenix" theories.
I think the Miller trades are assuming retaining 50% of his salary put his cap/salary hit at 3.125m a year.

JLewyB is online now  
Old
05-30-2013, 01:37 PM
  #409
JLewyB
Registered User
 
JLewyB's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2013
Location: Pegulaville
Country: United States
Posts: 1,315
vCash: 500
Speaking of retaining 50% salary/cap hit, has anyone considered talking to Vanek and/or Miller into agreeing to a contract extension in principle if we were to trade them.

So let's say Minnesota wants Vanek but wants him locked up for more than 1 year. So here's how we get Vanek to agree to a contract extension to do this. We grossly overpaying him to the tune of 2yr/18m. So now he's locked up for 3 years. We then trade him to Minnesota and agree to retain 50% of the salary/cap hit. Minnesota gets Vanek at average cap hit of 4.2mil or so(a steal IMO). Vanek get 25m for 3 years(that's near Crosby figures). And we theoritically get a better return and don't mind given up that type of cap room for next 3 years during a rebuild.

Edit: I've thrown this scenario out before and I didn't get any response. I just want to know if I'm crazy or not in thinking this is a good idea. If it's a good idea, how much more can we get for Vanek and Miller.

JLewyB is online now  
Old
05-30-2013, 02:34 PM
  #410
Jame
Dream '16
 
Jame's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Florida
Country: Pitcairn Islands
Posts: 41,094
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by JLewyB View Post
Speaking of retaining 50% salary/cap hit, has anyone considered talking to Vanek and/or Miller into agreeing to a contract extension in principle if we were to trade them.

So let's say Minnesota wants Vanek but wants him locked up for more than 1 year. So here's how we get Vanek to agree to a contract extension to do this. We grossly overpaying him to the tune of 2yr/18m. So now he's locked up for 3 years. We then trade him to Minnesota and agree to retain 50% of the salary/cap hit. Minnesota gets Vanek at average cap hit of 4.2mil or so(a steal IMO). Vanek get 25m for 3 years(that's near Crosby figures). And we theoritically get a better return and don't mind given up that type of cap room for next 3 years during a rebuild.

Edit: I've thrown this scenario out before and I didn't get any response. I just want to know if I'm crazy or not in thinking this is a good idea. If it's a good idea, how much more can we get for Vanek and Miller.
Nothing wrong with being the first team to the trough (that's not really the right metaphor).... teams found ways to exploit the previous CBA....

Jame is online now  
Old
05-30-2013, 03:24 PM
  #411
JLewyB
Registered User
 
JLewyB's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2013
Location: Pegulaville
Country: United States
Posts: 1,315
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jame View Post
Nothing wrong with being the first team to the trough (that's not really the right metaphor).... teams found ways to exploit the previous CBA....
With this 50% rule, we can also act like a bridge between a team and player. We call up GMs and say we are willing to sign players, retain 50% salary, and then trade them to that GM. For example, let's say a cap stricken team liked Alexander Semin last year but couldn't fit his contract in at 1y/7m. We reach agreement with Semin and the Gm that we will cover 50% and trade Semin to the team for a 3rd round pick. In reality, a 3rd round pick is not worth 3.5m in cash but it would show us that Pegula is serious about his sole purpose being to win the stanley cup. Because money shouldnt be the issue if thats the case.

JLewyB is online now  
Old
05-30-2013, 04:20 PM
  #412
Sabretip
Registered User
 
Sabretip's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: Phoenix, AZ
Country: United States
Posts: 9,087
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by JLewyB View Post
I think the Miller trades are assuming retaining 50% of his salary put his cap/salary hit at 3.125m a year.
Regier isn't going to agree to retaining half of Miller's salary unless he's getting the better end of the deal in terms of players - and when other teams may not have as big a problem with 1 year of Miller's current salary.

This isn't the Luongo situation, where no team will take on 100% of his current contract.

Sabretip is offline  
Old
05-30-2013, 04:28 PM
  #413
Beerz
Registered User
 
Beerz's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Country: United States
Posts: 23,355
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by JLewyB View Post
Speaking of retaining 50% salary/cap hit, has anyone considered talking to Vanek and/or Miller into agreeing to a contract extension in principle if we were to trade them.

So let's say Minnesota wants Vanek but wants him locked up for more than 1 year. So here's how we get Vanek to agree to a contract extension to do this. We grossly overpaying him to the tune of 2yr/18m. So now he's locked up for 3 years. We then trade him to Minnesota and agree to retain 50% of the salary/cap hit. Minnesota gets Vanek at average cap hit of 4.2mil or so(a steal IMO). Vanek get 25m for 3 years(that's near Crosby figures). And we theoritically get a better return and don't mind given up that type of cap room for next 3 years during a rebuild.

Edit: I've thrown this scenario out before and I didn't get any response. I just want to know if I'm crazy or not in thinking this is a good idea. If it's a good idea, how much more can we get for Vanek and Miller.
I like that idea.

Beerz is offline  
Old
05-30-2013, 05:48 PM
  #414
Der Jaeger
O'Reichelainenhart
 
Der Jaeger's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: Texas
Country: United States
Posts: 3,659
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by JLewyB View Post
Speaking of retaining 50% salary/cap hit, has anyone considered talking to Vanek and/or Miller into agreeing to a contract extension in principle if we were to trade them.

So let's say Minnesota wants Vanek but wants him locked up for more than 1 year. So here's how we get Vanek to agree to a contract extension to do this. We grossly overpaying him to the tune of 2yr/18m. So now he's locked up for 3 years. We then trade him to Minnesota and agree to retain 50% of the salary/cap hit. Minnesota gets Vanek at average cap hit of 4.2mil or so(a steal IMO). Vanek get 25m for 3 years(that's near Crosby figures). And we theoritically get a better return and don't mind given up that type of cap room for next 3 years during a rebuild.

Edit: I've thrown this scenario out before and I didn't get any response. I just want to know if I'm crazy or not in thinking this is a good idea. If it's a good idea, how much more can we get for Vanek and Miller.
Not a bad idea. I'd rather do this with Vanek than Miller. Considering the current goaltender market, that's too much of a risk.

Der Jaeger is online now  
Old
05-30-2013, 08:54 PM
  #415
sonnEbunny
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2012
Posts: 140
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Crow View Post
To move one spot up in the draft? No thanks.
I think he meant exchange Myers for the 7th overall not 8 and Myers for 7. I would probably do that trade though.

sonnEbunny is offline  
Old
05-30-2013, 09:27 PM
  #416
Workensons
doginthebathtub
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Posts: 1,375
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by sonnEbunny View Post
I think he meant exchange Myers for the 7th overall not 8 and Myers for 7. I would probably do that trade though.
Suppose we got #7 for Myers. Would the 7th and 8th picks be enough to move into the top 4?

Also, would Michael Ryder be of any interest? Not too old. Underrated goalscorer. Would you be willing to sign him for 3 yrs/10.5-12 mil?


Last edited by Workensons: 05-30-2013 at 09:34 PM.
Workensons is offline  
Old
05-30-2013, 09:36 PM
  #417
DemsIsGirglingSounds
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Posts: 178
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by JLewyB View Post
Speaking of retaining 50% salary/cap hit, has anyone considered talking to Vanek and/or Miller into agreeing to a contract extension in principle if we were to trade them.

So let's say Minnesota wants Vanek but wants him locked up for more than 1 year. So here's how we get Vanek to agree to a contract extension to do this. We grossly overpaying him to the tune of 2yr/18m. So now he's locked up for 3 years. We then trade him to Minnesota and agree to retain 50% of the salary/cap hit. Minnesota gets Vanek at average cap hit of 4.2mil or so(a steal IMO). Vanek get 25m for 3 years(that's near Crosby figures). And we theoritically get a better return and don't mind given up that type of cap room for next 3 years during a rebuild.

Edit: I've thrown this scenario out before and I didn't get any response. I just want to know if I'm crazy or not in thinking this is a good idea. If it's a good idea, how much more can we get for Vanek and Miller.
I think that's a smart idea if we were going to trade Vanek or Miller but aren't getting good offers. I probably wouldn't have thought of this, and although many people wouldn't want to give Darcy credit for anything, I'd be willing to bet this has already been discussed and analyzed within the organization. This is their job after all.

It all comes down to whether the player would be willing to forgo the opportunity to get a long-term deal with the team of his choice a year from now. It would have to be a massive annual salary for those three years in order for the player to consider it.

This is yet another advantage Pegula's ownership gives the team. It may be hard to see now, in the midst of yet another long off-season, but eventually these little advantages and lots of others we don't think of are going to start paying off.

DemsIsGirglingSounds is offline  
Old
05-30-2013, 09:55 PM
  #418
JLewyB
Registered User
 
JLewyB's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2013
Location: Pegulaville
Country: United States
Posts: 1,315
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Der Jaeger View Post
Not a bad idea. I'd rather do this with Vanek than Miller. Considering the current goaltender market, that's too much of a risk.
Quote:
that the aggregate amount of AA retained by a Club does not exceed 15% of the Upper Limit (e.g., 15% of $70.2 million or $10.53 million in Year 1; 15% of $64.3 million or $9.645 million in Year 2; or $12 million if the Upper Limit equals $80.0 million
Alright I knew I missed something. Looks like you can retain salary up to 15% of the salary cap ceiling of each year. Not a big deal this year since we should be under 9.645. But you can only estimate what the upper limit is going to be from year to year after that. So with that in mind, I would only do this with one of the two as well just to make sure we don't get penalized by being over that 15%. And I would think we would get move value by extending Vanek over Miller as well.

Footnote: I had another idea with this rule. You could also agree to trade for an overpaid player for a 7th round pick or a prospect who has no chance of making the big league then trade him back and retain 50% of his salary/cap hit and get a 3rd in return.

I would love to see transactions like this on the NHL website:
To CBJ: 7th round - To Buf: Marian Gaborik
To Buf: 3rd round - To CBJ: Marian Gaborik*

The lay person would be freaking out. there would be some name calling.

JLewyB is online now  
Old
05-30-2013, 10:22 PM
  #419
Jacob582
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2012
Posts: 4,669
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by JLewyB View Post
Footnote: I had another idea with this rule. You could also agree to trade for an overpaid player for a 7th round pick or a prospect who has no chance of making the big league then trade him back and retain 50% of his salary/cap hit and get a 3rd in return.

I would love to see transactions like this on the NHL website:
To CBJ: 7th round - To Buf: Marian Gaborik
To Buf: 3rd round - To CBJ: Marian Gaborik*
Interesting way to bend the rules on the new CBA. I would have to think that this trade is either not allowed under the rules or would be voided by the NHL.

As a side note: I know your transaction was just an example, but a 7th round draft pick
plus $3.75M should net more than a 3rd round draft pick.

Jacob582 is offline  
Old
05-30-2013, 10:39 PM
  #420
Gabrielor
Registered User
 
Gabrielor's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: Buffalo, NY
Country: United States
Posts: 1,777
vCash: 500
Appears unless I'm looking at an outdated list, Mike Fisher is a UFA this year.

Not that I want to spend a tough of money, but any interest? There was 3-4 years ago. Don't know if he's still that same player.

We have a lot of youth at center, still. This concerns me.

Gabrielor is offline  
Old
05-30-2013, 10:43 PM
  #421
ZZamboni
Puttin' on the Foil
 
ZZamboni's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: Buffalo, NY
Country: United States
Posts: 11,846
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by DYaeger89 View Post
Appears unless I'm looking at an outdated list, Mike Fisher is a UFA this year.

Not that I want to spend a tough of money, but any interest? There was 3-4 years ago. Don't know if he's still that same player.
Mike Fisher? Is this the same Mike Fisher that wanted to play for Nashville because his wife Carrie Underwood is based in Nashville? That Mike Fisher?

Yea, he will probably retire a Predator.

ZZamboni is offline  
Old
05-30-2013, 10:46 PM
  #422
Gabrielor
Registered User
 
Gabrielor's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: Buffalo, NY
Country: United States
Posts: 1,777
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by ZZamboni View Post
Mike Fisher? Is this the same Mike Fisher that wanted to play for Nashville because his wife Carrie Underwood is based in Nashville? That Mike Fisher?

Yea, he will probably retire a Predator.
Talk about our center depth. The large quantity of youth for successive years doesn't concern you?

Gabrielor is offline  
Old
05-30-2013, 10:50 PM
  #423
dotcommunism
Moderator
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 2,375
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by DYaeger89 View Post
Talk about our center depth. The large quantity of youth for successive years doesn't concern you?
The point was that he's not leaving Nashville. And he's certainly not this year since he's signed through 2015

dotcommunism is offline  
Old
05-30-2013, 10:52 PM
  #424
Gabrielor
Registered User
 
Gabrielor's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: Buffalo, NY
Country: United States
Posts: 1,777
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by dotcommunism View Post
The point was that he's not leaving Nashville. And he's certainly not this year since he's signed through 2015
Thanks for the clarification. I'll clarify:

That was a general question, non-specific to Fisher.

Gabrielor is offline  
Old
05-30-2013, 10:57 PM
  #425
ZZamboni
Puttin' on the Foil
 
ZZamboni's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: Buffalo, NY
Country: United States
Posts: 11,846
vCash: 500
Sure it's concerning, if you want our current centers to do damage next year

Bringing in a veteran or two to help the young centers would be great. But the veteran(s) don't necessarily need to be a center. Also, if you have the mindset that next year will be equally painful to watch as this year. Let the youth develop thru the good and bad. By season 2014-2015 IF all goes good on the development front, the youth will look much better. As long as Regier acquire a few nice pieces to compliment the youth. In a perfect world, maybe Regier will grab a big name top line forward. I am not concerned about the center youth only in the fact that I EXPECT next year to be a train wreck like this year was. Development and time will make our current centers better NHLers.

ZZamboni 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 07:11 PM.

monitoring_string = "e4251c93e2ba248d29da988d93bf5144"

vBulletin Copyright ©2000 - 2016, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
HFBoards.com is a property of CraveOnline Media, LLC, an Evolve Media, LLC company. 2016 All Rights Reserved.