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

Trading Up Part II: The Midnight Barkov

Closed Thread
 
Thread Tools
Old
06-19-2013, 10:10 AM
  #701
Zip15
Registered User
 
Zip15's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Posts: 22,165
vCash: 50
Quote:
Originally Posted by stokes84 View Post
You presume just as much as I do.
Yet I'm far more rational. For example, I don't presume teams are just going to dump huge assets (Dumba, top-3 pick) just to alleviate cap issues when there are more suitable alternatives not including losing those prized assets.

Quote:
Originally Posted by stokes84 View Post
Who is going to want to trade for any of those players without going money in, money out?
You think they'd have a problem moving Teddy Purcell? I don't. Nor do I think they'd have much problem moving Brewer or Ohlund provided they don't expect much in return.

Quote:
Originally Posted by stokes84 View Post
Generally, non-cap issue teams are that way for a reason, they have internal budgets. They aren't just going to take on old, often injured players on big salaries without sending back a bunch of junk.
Malone is precisely the type of guy a non-cap team would take on right now, for the very reasons you mentioned. You made my argument for me. Malone is only owed $5m for two seasons. His warts aside, you don't think there are plenty of teams nowhere near the cap ceiling who'd be happy to sign him for 2yrs/$5m?

Quote:
Originally Posted by stokes84 View Post
Do you think teams that can smell a wounded animal aren't going to try to put the squeeze on?
Wounded animal? This is where your logic goes careening off the highway. I've stated several ways that Tampa can go about fixing their cap issues that don't include dealing the #3 pick. For some twisted reason, you think Tampa is going to say, "You know, instead of just moving someone or some combo of Purcell, Brewer, Malone, et al., I think we should deal out of #3." (Nevermind the fact that Vinny would never go for it.)

You think they're a wounded animal. I think they're a team perfectly capable of obtaining their cap relief through other, more rational avenues.

Quote:
Originally Posted by stokes84 View Post
You make it sound like teams are lining up to help them fix their problems.
No, I'm making it sound like some teams would gladly deal for some of their other assets, because those assets could make their team better.

Quote:
Originally Posted by stokes84 View Post
Also, nobody said they just give up the 3rd pick, it would be used as an asset in something larger. For example, instead of giving up Girgs + 8, you do the buyout + 8. It's simply a way to give up less in terms of actual players.
Tampa can't make Vinny accept a deal anywhere. And, for the billionth time, they can get cap relief that doesn't include trading Vinny or the 3rd overall pick in one of the best drafts in recent memory.

Zip15 is offline  
Old
06-19-2013, 10:12 AM
  #702
ADoubleD
Registered User
 
ADoubleD's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: Buffalo, NY
Country: United States
Posts: 1,851
vCash: 500
Just curious but does anyone think there's any chance Nashville might be interested in a package including Vanek for #4? I know they're a budget team, but trading away Erat opened up some cap space for them and leaves them needing a veteran top six forward. I'd think Vanek would be the most talented forward they've had in years. But then again you could argue so could Drouin or Barkov.

I don't necessarily think they would be interested in Vanek especially for the #4 pick but I'm just wondering what others think.

ADoubleD is offline  
Old
06-19-2013, 10:14 AM
  #703
Zip15
Registered User
 
Zip15's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Posts: 22,165
vCash: 50
Quote:
Originally Posted by stokes84 View Post
Also, the idea that he would nix the trade because it's Buffalo makes no sense. He knows he's getting bought out. Why would he care?
Because he wouldn't want to play in Buffalo, for starters, on a rebuilding team about to lose two of its top veteran players and in a city with a lackluster reputation. (I know, crazy notion.) I bet he'd prefer just getting bought out and picking his next destination.

Zip15 is offline  
Old
06-19-2013, 10:15 AM
  #704
haseoke39
**** Cycle 4 Eichel
 
haseoke39's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Posts: 9,724
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Zip15 View Post
Because he wouldn't want to play in Buffalo, for starters, on a rebuilding team about to lose two of its top veteran players and in a city with a lackluster reputation. (I know, crazy notion.) I bet he'd prefer just getting bought out and picking his next destination.
No, it would be Buffalo buying him out. That's the proposal.

All of your responses are pretty good reasons why no one would trade their top 3 pick, but they don't have anything really to do with the cap issue. It's not a buyout for #3 straight up. It's an almost good enough deal for #3, plus some sweetener. If Tampa would never want to trade their #3 pick anyways, that's one way to look at it, but as long as we're targeting top 3 picks, I don't see why a buyout couldn't be a component of a valuable trade with Tampa.

haseoke39 is online now  
Old
06-19-2013, 10:20 AM
  #705
Zip15
Registered User
 
Zip15's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Posts: 22,165
vCash: 50
Quote:
Originally Posted by haseoke39 View Post
No, it would be Buffalo buying him out. That's the proposal.

All of your responses are pretty good reasons why no one would trade their top 3 pick, but they don't have anything really to do with the cap issue. It's not a buyout for #3 straight up. It's an almost good enough deal for #3, plus some sweetener.
I see what you're saying, I still don't think Tampa ever goes for it, and definitely not for the "wounded animal" rationale Stokes keeps relying on. Their cap issues are overblown. They can draft Drouin/Jones at 3, and then turn around and trade one of their vets, and they'd be fine.

Zip15 is offline  
Old
06-19-2013, 10:27 AM
  #706
stokes84
Registered User
 
stokes84's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: Charleston, SC
Country: United States
Posts: 12,861
vCash: 500
Send a message via AIM to stokes84
If you don't think Tampa is willing to trade out of no. 3 at any cost, go ahead and say it. Because that's all it is, an additional asset to help move up. And for all of the hot air you just blew, there is no reason Tampa shouldn't consider it, especially since Vinny could re-sign with Tampa the very next day if he wanted to.

stokes84 is offline  
Old
06-19-2013, 10:27 AM
  #707
haseoke39
**** Cycle 4 Eichel
 
haseoke39's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Posts: 9,724
vCash: 500
Well, in the world where I'm trying to imagine what we have that would be of interest to any of the top 3 teams, any hint of a "free"* asset we could give them is better than nothing to me.

*"Free" meaning it doesn't cost anything to the rebuilding effort. Obviously, money is definitionally not free. I am aware.

haseoke39 is online now  
Old
06-19-2013, 10:29 AM
  #708
stokes84
Registered User
 
stokes84's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: Charleston, SC
Country: United States
Posts: 12,861
vCash: 500
Send a message via AIM to stokes84
Quote:
Originally Posted by Zip15 View Post
I see what you're saying, I still don't think Tampa ever goes for it, and definitely not for the "wounded animal" rationale Stokes keeps relying on. Their cap issues are overblown. They can draft Drouin/Jones at 3, and then turn around and trade one of their vets, and they'd be fine.
Keeps relying on? I said it once and it has NOTHING to do with the main point.

stokes84 is offline  
Old
06-19-2013, 10:35 AM
  #709
Selanne00008
Registered User
 
Selanne00008's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: NYC - UES
Posts: 3,812
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by stokes84 View Post
Also, the idea that he would nix the trade because it's Buffalo makes no sense. He knows he's getting bought out. Why would he care?
Yeah I think the point is that he wants to stay IN Tampa. He lives there, has donated and raised millions for the community, etc.

Selanne00008 is offline  
Old
06-19-2013, 10:38 AM
  #710
Zip15
Registered User
 
Zip15's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Posts: 22,165
vCash: 50
Quote:
Originally Posted by stokes84 View Post
Keeps relying on? I said it once and it has NOTHING to do with the main point.
It very much has to do with the main point that teams don't give up elite assets for financial help when they can alleviate any issue they may have through other avenues. Vinny is still a productive player, even if he misses 15 games per year. There's no reason to trade out of that spot (and down to #8), where you're going to get one of the guys pegged as a franchise player, just for some cap relief that can be achieved elsewhere.

Zip15 is offline  
Old
06-19-2013, 10:41 AM
  #711
stokes84
Registered User
 
stokes84's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: Charleston, SC
Country: United States
Posts: 12,861
vCash: 500
Send a message via AIM to stokes84
Quote:
Originally Posted by Selanne00008 View Post
Yeah I think the point is that he wants to stay IN Tampa. He lives there, has donated and raised millions for the community, etc.
Right. So if Buffalo buys him out, he can re-sign with Tampa the next day. If Tampa buys him out, he's a gonner. Even more incentive.

stokes84 is offline  
Old
06-19-2013, 10:43 AM
  #712
Zip15
Registered User
 
Zip15's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Posts: 22,165
vCash: 50
Quote:
Originally Posted by stokes84 View Post
Right. So if Buffalo buys him out, he can re-sign with Tampa the next day. If Tampa buys him out, he's a gonner. Even more incentive.
Not an incentive for Tampa, who'd be missing out on one of the Big Four for no real good reason.

Zip15 is offline  
Old
06-19-2013, 10:45 AM
  #713
stokes84
Registered User
 
stokes84's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: Charleston, SC
Country: United States
Posts: 12,861
vCash: 500
Send a message via AIM to stokes84
FYI

http://prohockeytalk.nbcsports.com/2...ng-bought-out/

stokes84 is offline  
Old
06-19-2013, 10:46 AM
  #714
Zip15
Registered User
 
Zip15's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Posts: 22,165
vCash: 50
Quote:
Originally Posted by stokes84 View Post
Notably absent of any mention of trading out of the top-3 in order to pass the burden off on another team.

Zip15 is offline  
Old
06-19-2013, 10:49 AM
  #715
Selanne00008
Registered User
 
Selanne00008's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: NYC - UES
Posts: 3,812
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by stokes84 View Post
Right. So if Buffalo buys him out, he can re-sign with Tampa the next day. If Tampa buys him out, he's a gonner. Even more incentive.
Mind Blown. I see what you mean. Like others are saying it's icing on the cake obviously not the reason to move out of the 3 spot. It's an interesting idea anyways.

Selanne00008 is offline  
Old
06-19-2013, 10:53 AM
  #716
stokes84
Registered User
 
stokes84's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: Charleston, SC
Country: United States
Posts: 12,861
vCash: 500
Send a message via AIM to stokes84
Quote:
Originally Posted by Zip15 View Post
Notably absent of any mention of trading out of the top-3 in order to pass the burden off on another team.
Why would that be in the article? Any time you'd like to have a positive contribution to the moving up discussion, feel free.

stokes84 is offline  
Old
06-19-2013, 10:54 AM
  #717
haseoke39
**** Cycle 4 Eichel
 
haseoke39's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Posts: 9,724
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Zip15 View Post
Notably absent of any mention of trading out of the top-3 in order to pass the burden off on another team.
Why the **** is that notable? It's a ****ing 250 word article that doesn't talk about any trade options.

haseoke39 is online now  
Old
06-19-2013, 11:15 AM
  #718
Zip15
Registered User
 
Zip15's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Posts: 22,165
vCash: 50
Quote:
Originally Posted by stokes84 View Post
Why would that be in the article? Any time you'd like to have a positive contribution to the moving up discussion, feel free.
Perhaps when you start coming up with ideas that may actually happen, and aren't simply offers wherein teams--wounded animals?--are relinquishing their top assets for some cap help.

Zip15 is offline  
Old
06-19-2013, 11:22 AM
  #719
haseoke39
**** Cycle 4 Eichel
 
haseoke39's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Posts: 9,724
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Zip15 View Post
Perhaps when you start coming up with ideas that may actually happen, and aren't simply offers wherein teams--wounded animals?--are relinquishing their top assets for some cap help.
You're just being purposefully obstinate now. If we said Grigorenko, 8 and 16 for #3, you'd say interesting proposal. But if we say Grigorenko, 8, 16 and a compliance buyout for #3, you say now who the hell are you kidding.

haseoke39 is online now  
Old
06-19-2013, 11:37 AM
  #720
Zip15
Registered User
 
Zip15's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Posts: 22,165
vCash: 50
Quote:
Originally Posted by haseoke39 View Post
You're just being purposefully obstinate now. If we said Grigorenko, 8 and 16 for #3, you'd say interesting proposal. But if we say Grigorenko, 8, 16 and a compliance buyout for #3, you say now who the hell are you kidding.
Except nobody has ever proposed such a deal, at least that I've seen. Stokes seems to believe that 8 + Lecavalier buyout gets it done. See below:

Quote:
Originally Posted by stokes84 View Post
You presume just as much as I do. Who is going to want to trade for any of those players without going money in, money out? Generally, non-cap issue teams are that way for a reason, they have internal budgets. They aren't just going to take on old, often injured players on big salaries without sending back a bunch of junk. Do you think teams that can smell a wounded animal aren't going to try to put the squeeze on? You make it sound like teams are lining up to help them fix their problems. Also, nobody said they just give up the 3rd pick, it would be used as an asset in something larger. For example, instead of giving up Girgs + 8, you do the buyout + 8. It's simply a way to give up less in terms of actual players.
My point is that a team isn't going to give up an elite asset (a top-3 pick) for what amounts to cap relief--especially when cap relief is achievable through other means--and a pretty good asset at #8.

Zip15 is offline  
Old
06-19-2013, 11:42 AM
  #721
haseoke39
**** Cycle 4 Eichel
 
haseoke39's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Posts: 9,724
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Zip15 View Post
Except nobody has ever proposed such a deal, at least that I've seen. Stokes seems to believe that 8 + Lecavalier buyout gets it done. See below:



My point is that a team isn't going to give up an elite asset (a top-3 pick) for what amounts to cap relief--especially when cap relief is achievable through other means--and a pretty good asset at #8.
No, really, that's your point?? I totally missed it the first 50 times.

If you think some individual poster proposed a deal without enough value, why don't you say, "that's not enough value. You're going to need to add X for them to be interested." That might be vaguely productive.

haseoke39 is online now  
Old
06-19-2013, 11:45 AM
  #722
stokes84
Registered User
 
stokes84's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: Charleston, SC
Country: United States
Posts: 12,861
vCash: 500
Send a message via AIM to stokes84
Quote:
Originally Posted by Zip15 View Post
Except nobody has ever proposed such a deal, at least that I've seen. Stokes seems to believe that 8 + Lecavalier buyout gets it done. See below:



My point is that a team isn't going to give up an elite asset (a top-3 pick) for what amounts to cap relief--especially when cap relief is achievable through other means--and a pretty good asset at #8.


I was making the point that it could be used in place of a hard asset (player/pick), not throwing it out as an actual proposal. I think you understood that

stokes84 is offline  
Old
06-19-2013, 11:47 AM
  #723
Zip15
Registered User
 
Zip15's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Posts: 22,165
vCash: 50
Quote:
Originally Posted by haseoke39 View Post
No, really, that's your point?? I totally missed it the first 50 times.

If you think some individual poster proposed a deal without enough value, why don't you say, "that's not enough value. You're going to need to add X for them to be interested." That might be vaguely productive.
Perhaps it might be helpful then for the poster with whom I was arguing not to be so steadfast that the buyout be sufficient for a team to trade out of a draft slot in which an elite player will be picked. That was what this debate was about from my perspective: Whether a team would trade from #3 to #8 because it has some cap issues, but where those issues could be fixed through means other than trading out of that draft slot.

Zip15 is offline  
Old
06-19-2013, 11:49 AM
  #724
haseoke39
**** Cycle 4 Eichel
 
haseoke39's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Posts: 9,724
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Zip15 View Post
Perhaps it might be helpful then for the poster with whom I was arguing not to be so steadfast that the buyout be sufficient for a team to trade out of a draft slot in which an elite player will be picked. That was what this debate was about from my perspective: Whether a team would trade from #3 to #8 because it has some cap issues, but where those issues could be fixed through means other than trading out of that draft slot.
Yeah, okay. That poster was real ****ing obstinate about that as a real proposal.

Quote:
Originally Posted by stokes84 View Post


I was making the point that it could be used in place of a hard asset (player/pick), not throwing it out as an actual proposal. I think you understood that

haseoke39 is online now  
Old
06-19-2013, 11:49 AM
  #725
Zip15
Registered User
 
Zip15's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Posts: 22,165
vCash: 50
Quote:
Originally Posted by stokes84 View Post


I was making the point that it could be used in place of a hard asset (player/pick), not throwing it out as an actual proposal. I think you understood that
I'm not sure how that was clear based on the section I bolded. You said "instead of Grigs + 8, we can do buyout + 8." Also, I'd dispute the notion that the buyout has the same value as Grigs, especially where, under your proposal, the Lightning would be bringing Vinny back on a market-value deal--I'd guess he could get $4.5m for 4 years, at least.

Zip15 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 10:09 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.