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

Buffalo Trading up in the Draft

Closed Thread
 
Thread Tools
Old
05-22-2013, 05:00 PM
  #276
Sabresfansince1980
Registered User
 
Sabresfansince1980's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Location: from Wheatfield, NY
Country: Germany
Posts: 5,219
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by DarenPuppaLives View Post
Are you saying that Mac doesn't have much greater potential to be an elite player than these 9 guys? Know one knows anything for sure, but it seems like a pretty safe bet that he will outperform all of them actually.
No, you're missing the point and I don't feel like going through it again.

Sabresfansince1980 is offline  
Old
05-22-2013, 05:02 PM
  #277
Sabresfansince1980
Registered User
 
Sabresfansince1980's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Location: from Wheatfield, NY
Country: Germany
Posts: 5,219
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jame View Post
You seem to be having a difficult time with the difference.
You have a difficult time with people posting a reasonable counter argument. Go flame away at somebody else for a while, time for something more productive around here.

Sabresfansince1980 is offline  
Old
05-22-2013, 05:06 PM
  #278
Jame
Dream '16
 
Jame's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Florida
Country: Pitcairn Islands
Posts: 42,223
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sabresfansince1980 View Post
You have a difficult time with people posting a reasonable counter argument. Go flame away at somebody else for a while, time for something more productive around here.
Your counter argument against the PROVEN value of specific draft pick/players, was to use UNPROVEN draft picks/players...

This is really simple stuff... just say, "i get it now"... it's better than the "im so above this" path you want to go down.


Last edited by Jame: 05-22-2013 at 05:13 PM.
Jame is online now  
Old
05-22-2013, 05:08 PM
  #279
Jame
Dream '16
 
Jame's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Florida
Country: Pitcairn Islands
Posts: 42,223
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sabresfansince1980 View Post
BTW, a "success" as described by the lengthy post you cited is a FW that scored at least 45 pts in two seasons.

There's no way you or anybody else would call MacKinnon a "success", "sure thing", or "franchise player" if all he did was play solid two-way hockey and collect 50 pts. That's a good 2nd line C.
And with that measurement... think of how much worse that 42% looks for those picks in the 8-16 range...

it's pretty easy to look at the top 5 picks, and recognize that the among the 84% successes, there aren't many that are hitting the mark with 40 pt performance.

the #1 pick has a 90% success rate
Which of the #1 picks in the range measured, made the cut, buy being a 45 pt player or #4 defensemen?

Jame is online now  
Old
05-22-2013, 05:30 PM
  #280
MARCUS FOLlGNO PHD
~
 
MARCUS FOLlGNO PHD's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Country: Ras al-Khaimah
Posts: 13,167
vCash: 50
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jame View Post
and that's in your most optimal, prayer situations that defies the odds 3 times each time)
How's that? I just listed what actually happened over an 8 year span. No projection.


Last edited by MARCUS FOLlGNO PHD: 05-22-2013 at 05:46 PM.
MARCUS FOLlGNO PHD is offline  
Old
05-22-2013, 05:43 PM
  #281
Paxon
⚔Z E M G U S⚔
 
Paxon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: Laurel, MD
Country: United States
Posts: 24,791
vCash: 50
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sabresfansince1980 View Post
There's been so many different proposals that you should probably clarify what "those assets" are.
I'm with you on that. Jame's proposal of 8th, 16th, a 2nd, Myers, and whatever minor parts is fine by me and then some. The one that fella posted that gave up at least half of our worthwhile assets was way outside what's would be worthwhile.

Paxon is offline  
Old
05-22-2013, 05:58 PM
  #282
Jame
Dream '16
 
Jame's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Florida
Country: Pitcairn Islands
Posts: 42,223
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bucky Gleason View Post
How's that? I just listed what actually happened over an 8 year span. No projection.
With a pick in the 8-16 range, you have a 42% chance of landing a player that turns into a top 6 forward/top 4 defensemen... so your example is against the odds each of the 3 times...

You chose the players that succeeded... I chose the players that failed. History and Probability are on my side of the argument

Jame is online now  
Old
05-22-2013, 06:24 PM
  #283
struckbyaparkedcar
Zemgus Da Gawd
 
struckbyaparkedcar's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Upstate NY
Country: Cote DIvoire
Posts: 14,394
vCash: 500
Moving on from the "trade everybody for Mackinnon" thing for a second, Jame, you're high on Barkov, how much would you add to 8 + 16 for 4th overall (provided JMD is 1-3 in some order)?

struckbyaparkedcar is online now  
Old
05-22-2013, 06:29 PM
  #284
MARCUS FOLlGNO PHD
~
 
MARCUS FOLlGNO PHD's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Country: Ras al-Khaimah
Posts: 13,167
vCash: 50
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jame View Post
With a pick in the 8-16 range, you have a 42% chance of landing a player that turns into a top 6 forward/top 4 defensemen... so your example is against the odds each of the 3 times...

You chose the players that succeeded... I chose the players that failed. History and Probability are on my side of the argument
I included a range rather than the specific pick to compensate for you doing the same. I picked the best of 6-8, 11-13, and 15-17 to mirror best of 1-3.

Your statistical error comes in applying the greater trend as an applicable rule to each individual year rather than as reflective of the total. If every single 8-16 busted in 2014, that doesn't realistically lessen the chances of 2015 players panning out. It does, however, weigh into the success rate of players 2013-2015 as significant.

MARCUS FOLlGNO PHD is offline  
Old
05-22-2013, 06:35 PM
  #285
Jame
Dream '16
 
Jame's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Florida
Country: Pitcairn Islands
Posts: 42,223
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by struckbyaparkedcar View Post
Moving on from the "trade everybody for Mackinnon" thing for a second, Jame, you're high on Barkov, how much would you add to 8 + 16 for 4th overall (provided JMD is 1-3 in some order)?
I wouldn't add too much more on the high end side... probably one additional high end piece... and a filler or 2 (mid picks/prospects)

maybe, Larsson + 2014 2nd + JGL ?


That's kind of the difference... Even though I have serious doubts about Myers development. I would only trade him for the elite of the elite young prospect because Myers ceiling is still so high...

Jame is online now  
Old
05-22-2013, 06:36 PM
  #286
MARCUS FOLlGNO PHD
~
 
MARCUS FOLlGNO PHD's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Country: Ras al-Khaimah
Posts: 13,167
vCash: 50
I wonder if they'd bite on 8+16+Ennis

MARCUS FOLlGNO PHD is offline  
Old
05-22-2013, 06:38 PM
  #287
Jame
Dream '16
 
Jame's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Florida
Country: Pitcairn Islands
Posts: 42,223
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bucky Gleason View Post
I included a range rather than the specific pick to compensate for you doing the same. I picked the best of 6-8, 11-13, and 15-17 to mirror best of 1-3.

Your statistical error comes in applying the greater trend as an applicable rule to each individual year rather than as reflective of the total. If every single 8-16 busted in 2014, that doesn't realistically lessen the chances of 2015 players panning out. It does, however, weigh into the success rate of players 2013-2015 as significant.
Moving 4 top 16 draft pick assets with unknown futures for one #1 asset with an unknown future...... what's your analysis say? I can't wait to see the stats.

Jame is online now  
Old
05-22-2013, 06:41 PM
  #288
MARCUS FOLlGNO PHD
~
 
MARCUS FOLlGNO PHD's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Country: Ras al-Khaimah
Posts: 13,167
vCash: 50
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jame View Post
Moving 4 top 16 draft pick assets with unknown futures for one #1 asset with an unknown future...... what's your analysis say? I can't wait to see the stats.
Should the players bear out as they did from 2002-2009, I'd lean toward moving #8 #16 and Myers for a top-3 more often than not. More than that, no.

Incidentally, I'm low on Myers.

MARCUS FOLlGNO PHD is offline  
Old
05-22-2013, 08:44 PM
  #289
Jame
Dream '16
 
Jame's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Florida
Country: Pitcairn Islands
Posts: 42,223
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bucky Gleason View Post
Should the players bear out as they did from 2002-2009, I'd lean toward moving #8 #16 and Myers for a top-3 more often than not. More than that, no.

Incidentally, I'm low on Myers.
that's the part of the argument that I don't get... if you are willing to put a top 10, and top 20 1st in a "deep" draft... and arguably the highest potential young player the Sabres have... then who cares about the "additional"...

If your going putting those 3 assets on the table, then it is because AND ONLY BECAUSE you believe Mackinnon to be a cornerstone piece... are you really going to back off acquiring that cornerstone piece because you hope that Joel Armia isn't the next Lauri Tukonen.

If you are willing to go 8, 16, Myers... you should be willing to go deeper (within reason... unlike the one post someone had with like 16 assets in the offer)

Jame is online now  
Old
05-22-2013, 08:45 PM
  #290
Jame
Dream '16
 
Jame's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Florida
Country: Pitcairn Islands
Posts: 42,223
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bucky Gleason View Post
I wonder if they'd bite on 8+16+Ennis
I dont think they bite on any deal without Myers included

Jame is online now  
Old
05-22-2013, 08:56 PM
  #291
1972
"Craigs on it"
 
Join Date: Apr 2012
Location: Canada
Country: Canada
Posts: 9,090
vCash: 50
Their is no chance I deal #8 #16 Myers for Drouin or Jones. For MacKinnon I would think about it I guess

Myers and Jones are pretty similar when they are on their game

1972 is offline  
Old
05-22-2013, 10:07 PM
  #292
Sabresfansince1980
Registered User
 
Sabresfansince1980's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Location: from Wheatfield, NY
Country: Germany
Posts: 5,219
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jame View Post
Your counter argument against the PROVEN value of specific draft pick/players, was to use UNPROVEN draft picks/players...

This is really simple stuff... just say, "i get it now"... it's better than the "im so above this" path you want to go down.
No again. My counter argument was that the "proven" value of top picks simply isn't that proven. The thread people keep pointing to had a low threshold for "success", at least in comparison to the "franchise" tag you and some others have put on MacKinnon. That franchise tag is the unproven value that is supposedly justifying a heavy overpayment.

This really is simple stuff. It's "we have our opinions and have made a reasonable effort to back it up". That's never good enough for you though. You have to debate to the Nth degree, misconstrue others points to belittle their argument, and sometimes insult people or their ideas with words like "stupid", "foolish", etc. You break the first rule of this forum (no flaming) on a regular basis and I find it disappointing that mods don't take you to task in a more apparent way, because if they do it doesn't change anything. The vast majority of posters here can agree to disagree and be civil. You often don't, and even though I know that coming right back at you is a waste of time, I do it because you deserve it and I know other posters are tired of your act as well. When I bow out it's because I actually have something better to do than keep a 7+ posts per day average going, but you can chalk that up however you want to make you feel better.

Sabresfansince1980 is offline  
Old
05-22-2013, 10:35 PM
  #293
Jame
Dream '16
 
Jame's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Florida
Country: Pitcairn Islands
Posts: 42,223
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sabresfansince1980 View Post
No again. My counter argument was that the "proven" value of top picks simply isn't that proven. The thread people keep pointing to had a low threshold for "success", at least in comparison to the "franchise" tag you and some others have put on MacKinnon. That franchise tag is the unproven value that is supposedly justifying a heavy overpayment.

I'm wasn't even discussing your counter argument. It was a poor point, one that you latched onto after reading the 45 pt threshhold... which is really a threshhold for the rest of the draft.... the top 2 picks, over the time frame measured have a 95% success rate. But NONE of them are being considered a success by barely crossing that threshhold. NONE OF THEM.


The argument I was having was with this comment:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sabresfansince1980 View Post
No, I'm not playing both sides. I'm saying BOTH tiers of draft picks are still gambles, not just one. I'm also taking into account known commodities (the roster players) along with the unknown (later draft picks).

And don't start being ridiculous by twisting my words. I didn't say that I DON'T think MacKinnon is a franchise player. I said I (and all of us) don't KNOW. There is a difference, and I know that you know what I mean.

BTW, nice try but it's rather obvious why you stopped at 2009...

2010 - Burmistrov, Fowler, Tarasenko
2011 - Couturier, Ryan Murphy, Armia
2012 - Pouliot, Grigorenko, Tom Wilson

You're so transparently disingenuous
.
1. Both tiers are very different gambles, as the success rates indicate
2. The real laughing matter here was that you didn't seem to understand why I did NOT include the last 3 drafts in a post about the quality of those picks (in hindsight). Even when another poster quickly pointed out why for you... you called me disingenius, when that simply wasn't the case. You just didn't get that it is stupid to look at recent drafts when the context is in looking at how previous draft picks turned out. IT'S TOO EARLY...


Last edited by Bear of Bad News: 05-22-2013 at 10:42 PM. Reason: Gender slurs
Jame is online now  
Old
05-22-2013, 11:05 PM
  #294
DemsIsGirglingSounds
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Posts: 178
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sabresfansince1980 View Post
No again. My counter argument was that the "proven" value of top picks simply isn't that proven. The thread people keep pointing to had a low threshold for "success", at least in comparison to the "franchise" tag you and some others have put on MacKinnon. That franchise tag is the unproven value that is supposedly justifying a heavy overpayment.

This really is simple stuff. It's "we have our opinions and have made a reasonable effort to back it up". That's never good enough for you though. You have to debate to the Nth degree, misconstrue others points to belittle their argument, and sometimes insult people or their ideas with words like "stupid", "foolish", etc. You break the first rule of this forum (no flaming) on a regular basis and I find it disappointing that mods don't take you to task in a more apparent way, because if they do it doesn't change anything. The vast majority of posters here can agree to disagree and be civil. You often don't, and even though I know that coming right back at you is a waste of time, I do it because you deserve it and I know other posters are tired of your act as well. When I bow out it's because I actually have something better to do than keep a 7+ posts per day average going, but you can chalk that up however you want to make you feel better.
I'd like to express my support for all of this. Disagreement/discussion is fun. Participating in one poster's crusade to make the world bend in reverence to all his opinions, is not fun. I too wish there was a way to deal with it other than ignoring, going away, or responding with equivalent personal attacks.

I think one thing that sometimes gets overlooked when talking about a "rebuild" or whatever we want to call it, is that it's no guarantee of success. There's nothing that says if we sell off all our good players and replace them with younger players with good potential, that 5 years from now we'll be a contender. I'm not saying we shouldn't be rebuilding, I'd just like to do so in a way that acknowledges that risk by valuing the known assets we already have.

I can also see the value in adding a "franchise" type player. I mean, how could I argue against Crosby, Tavares, Stamkos, etc. But all of those players were taken by teams who had those picks because they were really bad. We aren't and never have been that bad. We can argue about whether we should get that bad on purpose or not, but my point is that it's one thing to have that pick, it's another to trade half your organization to acquire it.

DemsIsGirglingSounds is offline  
Old
05-22-2013, 11:13 PM
  #295
Sabresfansince1980
Registered User
 
Sabresfansince1980's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Location: from Wheatfield, NY
Country: Germany
Posts: 5,219
vCash: 500
It's too early? Even though you have three Fat Heads of Couturier in your house? Yeah...my points are "stupid", blah blah blah. Keep harping on every last detail to the hilt because you just can't accept that this trade scenario can be objectively viewed both for and against. You just can't accept that another poster won't give in to your avalanche of posts (quality vs quantity, right?). Sorry bud, the most I go for a trade with Col or Fla is #8, #16, Myers/Hodgson/whoever, and one more middle piece TBD by discussions behind closed doors. If you don't like it, you're going to have to try and play nice in the sandbox and let it go.

Sabresfansince1980 is offline  
Old
05-22-2013, 11:14 PM
  #296
Jame
Dream '16
 
Jame's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Florida
Country: Pitcairn Islands
Posts: 42,223
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by AdamsApple View Post

I think one thing that sometimes gets overlooked when talking about a "rebuild" or whatever we want to call it, is that it's no guarantee of success. There's nothing that says if we sell off all our good players and replace them with younger players with good potential, that 5 years from now we'll be a contender. I'm not saying we shouldn't be rebuilding, I'd just like to do so in a way that acknowledges that risk by valuing the known assets we already have
do you really think that gets "overlooked"? I'm pretty sure it's common sense, and that the conversation is always about the best probability.

Quote:
I can also see the value in adding a "franchise" type player. I mean, how could I argue against Crosby, Tavares, Stamkos, etc. But all of those players were taken by teams who had those picks because they were really bad. We aren't and never have been that bad. We can argue about whether we should get that bad on purpose or not, but my point is that it's one thing to have that pick, it's another to trade half your organization to acquire it.
I dont know, but it seems like that's what your trying to do....

Jame is online now  
Old
05-22-2013, 11:20 PM
  #297
Jame
Dream '16
 
Jame's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Florida
Country: Pitcairn Islands
Posts: 42,223
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sabresfansince1980 View Post
It's too early? Even though you have three Fat Heads of Couturier in your house? Yeah...my points are "stupid", blah blah blah.
be careful with strawmen

I am a big fan of Couturier.

Quote:
Keep harping on every last detail to the hilt because you just can't accept that this trade scenario can be objectively viewed both for and against.
Another pivot... I can see you are upset with my nitpicking of your statement. Please recall, it was this statement that you used to accuse me of being disingenuous.

I wasn't. The position from which I was arguing from was logical (Not using recent draft picks in a conversation about the success of draft picks)


Quote:
You just can't accept that another poster won't give in to your avalanche of posts (quality vs quantity, right?). Sorry bud, the most I go for a trade with Col or Fla is #8, #16, Myers/Hodgson/whoever, and one more middle piece TBD by discussions behind closed doors. If you don't like it, you're going to have to try and play nice in the sandbox and let it go.
I can accept that you don't want to give in. Down with the ship... i get it. it's a pride thing.

I like the "behind closed doors" bit... that's probably where they ask for one 1 high end prospect to go along with 8, 16, Myers... and it's behind those closed doors where you recognize that you were willing to go 8,16,Myers...because of what you believe Mackinnon will be (franchise defining player).... so when they ask for Armia, you realize... "yea, that ****ing ******* Jame was right"

or you go down with the ship... stubbornly

Jame is online now  
Old
05-22-2013, 11:22 PM
  #298
Sabresfansince1980
Registered User
 
Sabresfansince1980's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Location: from Wheatfield, NY
Country: Germany
Posts: 5,219
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by AdamsApple View Post
I think one thing that sometimes gets overlooked when talking about a "rebuild" or whatever we want to call it, is that it's no guarantee of success. There's nothing that says if we sell off all our good players and replace them with younger players with good potential, that 5 years from now we'll be a contender. I'm not saying we shouldn't be rebuilding, I'd just like to do so in a way that acknowledges that risk by valuing the known assets we already have.

I can also see the value in adding a "franchise" type player. I mean, how could I argue against Crosby, Tavares, Stamkos, etc. But all of those players were taken by teams who had those picks because they were really bad. We aren't and never have been that bad. We can argue about whether we should get that bad on purpose or not, but my point is that it's one thing to have that pick, it's another to trade half your organization to acquire it.
I've said before that I'd prefer to keep our best players, and look to the future by trading away the established players that are not our best (Stafford, Leino, maybe Myers) even if they won't return barely anything. It's a tough spot for Regier right now though, and if he would really trade a huge amount to move up...if it really meant that much to get a potential franchise player, why did they cling to being a respectable team down the stretch?? They could've traded certain players away to ensure a proper tank (which I know some people don't agree with) and then had that draft pick for free, and kept all those other assets. I don't see this draft as being the time to try it. They may very well have a better shot at a top 4 pick next June and have to trade much less to get to #1. Whatever, opinions and all...

Sabresfansince1980 is offline  
Old
05-22-2013, 11:31 PM
  #299
Sabresfansince1980
Registered User
 
Sabresfansince1980's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Location: from Wheatfield, NY
Country: Germany
Posts: 5,219
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jame View Post
be careful with strawmen

I am a big fan of Couturier.



Another pivot... I can see you are upset with my nitpicking of your statement. Please recall, it was this statement that you used to accuse me of being disingenuous.

I wasn't. The position from which I was arguing from was logical (Not using recent draft picks in a conversation about the success of draft picks)




I can accept that you don't want to give in. Down with the ship... i get it. it's a pride thing.

I like the "behind closed doors" bit... that's probably where they ask for one 1 high end prospect to go along with 8, 16, Myers... and it's behind those closed doors where you recognize that you were willing to go 8,16,Myers...because of what you believe Mackinnon will be (franchise defining player).... so when they ask for Armia, you realize... "yea, that ****ing ******* Jame was right"

or you go down with the ship... stubbornly
Jeeezus...you're gonna bring up who's stubborn?!?. A middle piece TBD means I don't pretend to know what little extras a certain GM might prefer (are they missing a 2nd rder from a previous trade? Need a AHL back-up goalie?, etc). This is what misconstruing someone's points is...precisely. Thanks for giving everyone another example of your 10th grade tactics. Keep your post rate up, I'm done because it's time for bed, and now you can claim victory because I "bowed out".

Sabresfansince1980 is offline  
Old
05-22-2013, 11:39 PM
  #300
Der Jaeger
O'Reichelainenhart
 
Der Jaeger's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: Texas
Country: United States
Posts: 4,424
vCash: 500
I think this comes down to what Sherman wants to do with O'Reilly and Stastny

Quote:
Originally Posted by Jame View Post
I dont think they bite on any deal without Myers included
I don't think that's completely true. Probable. But none of us really know since we're obviously not privy to Sherman's plan. But I do think it's possible to put a deal together that works into Sherman's plans. And I think it revolves around resigning Stastny and dealing with O'Reilly again.

From a Colorado perspective, I think Sherman's considering this:

He's got Duchesne, Stastny, and O'Reilly as centers going forward, with Landeskog and Parenteau as wingers.... the core of three good lines. But there's some issues. Sherman may view Stastny in the same light as Buffalo fans are currently viewing Vanek - need to move him before UFA, with limited trade value due to 2013-14 being his last season. And the O'Reilly saga may have Sherman wanting to move him at the trade deadline rather than deal with him prior to another RFA negotiation period. From that viewpoint, Sherman has one center going forward in Duchesne.

Sherman has two top six wingers, and Johnson on defense with some help coming up. Sherman needs both a top six LW and RW to make things work. Johnson, Barrie, and Elliott are all RHD, so a LHD might be appealing. And in goal, the team might be able to use someone to give Pickard more time if he's not sure Varlamov is the right guy going forward.

So, going forward, he's got, for sure, as pieces to build on:

Landeskog - Duchesne - Parenteau
Hishon

xxx - Johnson
Siemens - Elliott
xxx - Barrie
(pairing hypothetical)

Varlamov - Pickard

Sherman may have Stastny in the same spot that Reiger is in with Vanek and Miller. And Sherman might not want to go through a RFA negotiation with O'Reilly again, and might have plans to move him at the trade deadline.

With that said, if Regier offered 8, 16, Grigorenko, Armia, Sekera, add-ons, that might make him bite. He might even take Vanek or Miller on half salary, thinking he might get them to resign. Let's assume Sherman takes that package, sans Miller or Vanek. Here's what he's got now, in terms of building going forward:

Landeskog - Duchesne - Parenteau
xxx - Grigorenko - Armia
xxx - Hishon -xxx

Sekera - Johnson
Siemens - Elliott
xxx - Barrie
(same hypothetical)

Varlamov - Pickard

Sherman still has Stastny and O'Reilly to move for assets, and this does not include who he picks up at 8 and 16. And he can still maybe get O'Reilly to resign.

If we look at a trade with Myers in place of Grigorenko and Sekera, here's what that looks like:

Landeskog - Duchesne - Parenteau
xxx - xxx - Armia
xxx - Hishon -xxx

Myers - Johnson
Siemens - Elliott
xxx - Barrie
(same hypothetical)

Varlamov - Pickard

Sherman's defense looks better but he's still looking for a 2C if he's not comfortable that O'Reilly will resign, also assuming Stastny is out.

So here's where it hinges on Stastny and O'Reilly. If Sherman plans to resign Stastny and is up to going through O'Reilly's RFA again, Regier's deal is weak. Grigorenko is not an asset Sherman might want in the rebuild. But if Sherman is planning to move Stastny, and wants to part ways with O'Reilly in the future rather than dealing with him, Grigorenko is a good asset to get back.

TL;DR: If Sherman plans to keep Stastny and O'Reilly, Myers is the piece he wants. If that's not true, Grigorenko and Sekera might tempt him.


Last edited by Der Jaeger: 05-22-2013 at 11:49 PM.
Der Jaeger 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 03:43 PM.

monitoring_string = "e4251c93e2ba248d29da988d93bf5144"

vBulletin Copyright ©2000 - 2017, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
HFBoards.com is a property of CraveOnline Media, LLC, an Evolve Media, LLC company. 2017 All Rights Reserved.