HFBoards

Go Back   HFBoards > General Hockey Discussion > Trade Rumors and Free Agent Talk
Mobile Hockey's Future Become a Sponsor Site Rules Support Forum vBookie Page 2
Notices

Trade Rumors and Free Agent Talk Trade rumors, transactions, and free agent talk. Rumors must use the RUMOR prefix in thread title. Proposals must contain the PROPOSAL prefix in the thread title.

Buffalo/Calgary or Carolina

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old
06-17-2013, 08:10 AM
  #1
krt88
Registered User
 
krt88's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Fayetteville, NC
Posts: 2,860
vCash: 500
Send a message via AIM to krt88
Buffalo/Calgary or Carolina

to Calgary/Carolina:
38th overall pick, 2014 2nd (highest of Buffalo's 3 [Buffalo, LA, Minnesota]) and any one prospects from both list A and list B:
List A:
Mikhail Grigorenko, Joel Armia, Johan Larsson, Zemgus Girgensons, Mark Pysyk

List B:
Logan Nelson, Daniel Catenacci, , Justin Kea, Jake McCabe, Chad Ruhwedel, Jerome Gauthier-Leduc, Nick Crawford, Corey Tropp, Christian Isackson, Jacob Lagace, Riley Boychuk

To Buffalo:
5th or 6th overall pick



Objective wise: The Sabres are trying to obtain another top 10 pick, to package with the 8th and 16th pick to move into the top spot. Colorado wants more than the just the 8th and 16th, so perhaps the 6th, 8th and 16th picks plus a prospect might land them the #1 pick.

Calgary or Carolina get two prospects of their choosing plus two second round draft picks.


Last edited by krt88: 06-17-2013 at 08:29 AM.
krt88 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-17-2013, 08:12 AM
  #2
Gary83*
 
Join Date: May 2011
Posts: 2,287
vCash: 500
Value isn't even close to there.

Gary83* is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-17-2013, 08:14 AM
  #3
Sabreality
Registered User
 
Sabreality's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: Atlanta, GA
Country: Scotland
Posts: 4,810
vCash: 50
so to get #1 it will cost #6, #8, #16, #38, 2nd, Grigorenko, Armia, Catenacci & McCabe?

9 pieces for MacKinnon

13 days to go folks

Sabreality is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-17-2013, 08:21 AM
  #4
KingHab
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2012
Posts: 166
vCash: 500
If I'm Carolina or Calgary i'd offer my 1st + 2nd for 16th armia and grigorenko and run

KingHab is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-17-2013, 08:29 AM
  #5
krt88
Registered User
 
krt88's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Fayetteville, NC
Posts: 2,860
vCash: 500
Send a message via AIM to krt88
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sabreality View Post
so to get #1 it will cost #6, #8, #16, #38, 2nd, Grigorenko, Armia, Catenacci & McCabe?

9 pieces for MacKinnon

13 days to go folks
No, I said one prospect from each list.

krt88 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-17-2013, 08:32 AM
  #6
MayDayMayDay
Registered User
 
MayDayMayDay's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Location: Carol Stream, IL
Country: United States
Posts: 1,149
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by krt88 View Post
to Calgary/Carolina:
38th overall pick, 2014 2nd (highest of Buffalo's 3 [Buffalo, LA, Minnesota]) and any one prospects from both list A and list B:
List A:
Mikhail Grigorenko, Joel Armia, Johan Larsson, Zemgus Girgensons, Mark Pysyk

List B:
Logan Nelson, Daniel Catenacci, , Justin Kea, Jake McCabe, Chad Ruhwedel, Jerome Gauthier-Leduc, Nick Crawford, Corey Tropp, Christian Isackson, Jacob Lagace, Riley Boychuk

To Buffalo:
5th or 6th overall pick



Objective wise: The Sabres are trying to obtain another top 10 pick, to package with the 8th and 16th pick to move into the top spot. Colorado wants more than the just the 8th and 16th, so perhaps the 6th, 8th and 16th picks plus a prospect might land them the #1 pick.

Calgary or Carolina get two prospects of their choosing plus two second round draft picks.
Man... I really, REALLY want Mack, but when ya break it down like this, I don't know if there is any way it'd be worth it in the long run.

MayDayMayDay is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-17-2013, 08:47 AM
  #7
Method Man
Bring the Pain
 
Method Man's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2012
Location: Alberta
Country: Canada
Posts: 32,398
vCash: 50
The Flames won't consider moving down from 6th

Method Man is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-17-2013, 08:51 AM
  #8
tsujimoto74
Moderator
 
tsujimoto74's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2012
Location: Rochester
Country: United States
Posts: 14,532
vCash: 500
Please no.

tsujimoto74 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-17-2013, 08:54 AM
  #9
tsujimoto74
Moderator
 
tsujimoto74's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2012
Location: Rochester
Country: United States
Posts: 14,532
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by KingHab View Post
If I'm Carolina or Calgary i'd offer my 1st + 2nd for 16th armia and grigorenko and run
Yeah, no way in hell Reiger would do that. That's Buffalo's hands-down 2 top prospects and a mid 1st in a deep draft. For what.. one prospect who projects a little bit better than Armia/Grigs and a 2nd?

tsujimoto74 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-17-2013, 09:29 AM
  #10
UnknownAvenger
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2012
Posts: 250
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sabreality View Post
so to get #1 it will cost #6, #8, #16, #38, 2nd, Grigorenko, Armia, Catenacci & McCabe?

9 pieces for MacKinnon

13 days to go folks
You can't include the #6 there if you include what was traded to get the #6 as well...

It'd be more:

#8, #16, #38, 2nd and say Grigorenko, McCabe

for

MacKinnon.

6 pieces, not 9.

UnknownAvenger is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-17-2013, 09:47 AM
  #11
tmack224
Registered User
 
tmack224's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Buffalo, NY
Posts: 1,485
vCash: 500
Not worth it. Sabres need to stop talking about getting the top pick. Go after the 3rd pick from Tampa. Will cost way to much to get the number 1 pick. With the depth we now have at Center we need to get some scoring Wingers. We drafted Grigorenko to be the number 1, we traded Kassian to get Hodgson to be our number 2. Gergensons might be able to play wing in the top 6 and Larsson can be the third line center. Not to Mention Kea, Nelson, and Catanacci. We need wingers.

8, 16 + for 3rd pick. Thats were Im hoping the Sabres go.

tmack224 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-17-2013, 10:13 AM
  #12
jc17
Registered User
 
jc17's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2013
Posts: 1,608
vCash: 90
I don't do this from a buffalo perspective. 2 2nds grigorenko and mccabe for linholm or nichushkin would be too much. I would offer armia and a 2nd or two seconds at the most.

jc17 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-17-2013, 10:51 AM
  #13
LongWayDown37
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Posts: 705
vCash: 500
I think people on these boards are completely out of touch with what it costs to move up to the top in the draft. Yes, its expensive, but the offers thrown around are from outer space. Its completely a case of fans reacting to other fans who will just say no way.

Take a look at the top picks that have actually been traded (1-3). Its typically a swap of 1st round picks, with another good pick thrown in - a 2nd and maybe a prospect. In the case of buffalo, they have a little ways to go to get into the Top 3 from 8 - but it is not going to cost multiple 1sts in addition to 3 blue chip prospects or someone like Tyler Myers.

My guess is it costs buffalo both 1sts, a second and a b prospect - someone like Larsson. This is based on trades that have happened - not based on my or someone else's incoherent emotion.

This board has been a slobbering mess of outlandish proposals for weeks.

LongWayDown37 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-17-2013, 10:59 AM
  #14
Skobel24
#Ignited
 
Skobel24's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2008
Location: Winnipeg
Country: Canada
Posts: 12,444
vCash: 50
While I'd love to have Armia with the Flames, I wouldn't move the 6th overall to do so.

Skobel24 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-17-2013, 10:59 AM
  #15
Timbo Slice
Captain Eich
 
Timbo Slice's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: Rochester
Country: United States
Posts: 15,902
vCash: 500
Hahahaha oh GOD no. Please stop.

Timbo Slice is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-17-2013, 11:01 AM
  #16
Dunkster19
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2013
Posts: 864
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by LongWayDown37 View Post
I think people on these boards are completely out of touch with what it costs to move up to the top in the draft. Yes, its expensive, but the offers thrown around are from outer space. Its completely a case of fans reacting to other fans who will just say no way.

Take a look at the top picks that have actually been traded (1-3). Its typically a swap of 1st round picks, with another good pick thrown in - a 2nd and maybe a prospect. In the case of buffalo, they have a little ways to go to get into the Top 3 from 8 - but it is not going to cost multiple 1sts in addition to 3 blue chip prospects or someone like Tyler Myers.

My guess is it costs buffalo both 1sts, a second and a b prospect - someone like Larsson. This is based on trades that have happened - not based on my or someone else's incoherent emotion.

This board has been a slobbering mess of outlandish proposals for weeks.
You are right, lots of crazy proposals on here. The truth of the matter is any of the teams with the top 3 picks want young NHL ready prospects to fill oles now. Sure they want some high picks as well but not only draft picks. Tampa has big salary cap troubles so taking salary bqck would be a huge help. Carolina is in cap trouble as well you may very well be able to get to Carolina's pick at #5 for something like our 16th, Sekera and another lower prospect. You would have to take some salary off their hands as well.

Dunkster19 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-17-2013, 11:05 AM
  #17
krt88
Registered User
 
krt88's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Fayetteville, NC
Posts: 2,860
vCash: 500
Send a message via AIM to krt88
Here's what we know:

1. Buffalo wants the #1 pick
2. Colorado is willing to move to pick but wants two top 10 picks in return.
3. Buffalo has 2 1st rounders (8, 16), 2 2nd rounder, plus 3 2nd rounders next year
4. Colorado turned down Calgary offer of their 3 1st rounders this year (6, 22, 28)

The Sabres could pull this deal off IF they can acquire another top 10 pick, and Calgary or Carolina at #5, 6 would likely be the target pick.

Therefore offering Calgary or Carolina Grigs, McCabe (I'd hate that), the 38th overall pick and the highest of Buffalo's 2nd next year for that #5 or 6 pick, then flipping all three first round picks could yield them that #1 pick.

The really funny part is Buffalo blew their chances of this by winning 8 of their last 12 games when they were sitting third from the bottom.

krt88 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-17-2013, 11:07 AM
  #18
Dunkster19
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2013
Posts: 864
vCash: 500
If the Sabres can't get Colorado to part with #1, I would see about working on the two teams in Cap trouble, Tampa and Carolina. Pick #3 and #5 wold be pretty nice and probably more doable than #1.

Dunkster19 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-17-2013, 11:07 AM
  #19
krt88
Registered User
 
krt88's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Fayetteville, NC
Posts: 2,860
vCash: 500
Send a message via AIM to krt88
Quote:
Originally Posted by jc17 View Post
I don't do this from a buffalo perspective. 2 2nds grigorenko and mccabe for linholm or nichushkin would be too much. I would offer armia and a 2nd or two seconds at the most.
you miss the point, Buffalo uses the 5th ot 6th pick with their other two first rounders to net the first overall pick.

The Sabres want that first pick and they are willing to lose a couple of picks and prospects to get it.

krt88 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-17-2013, 11:24 AM
  #20
Dunkster19
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2013
Posts: 864
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by krt88 View Post
you miss the point, Buffalo uses the 5th ot 6th pick with their other two first rounders to net the first overall pick.

The Sabres want that first pick and they are willing to lose a couple of picks and prospects to get it.
But that is just it, Colorado wants more than just picks. They want young guys that are not rookies that are ready to step in now. Sure some of the rookies can start this coming season but they want guys that have been in the league for a couple of years not just picks. Sure they want the picks too. A package of 3 2013 first rounders is not as attractive as a package of say Pysyk, Grigorenko, and a first rounder in the 4-7 range plus a 2nd rounder.

Dunkster19 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-17-2013, 11:30 AM
  #21
AirBriere48
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Posts: 766
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by krt88 View Post
Here's what we know:

1. Buffalo wants the #1 pick
2. Colorado is willing to move to pick but wants two top 10 picks in return.
3. Buffalo has 2 1st rounders (8, 16), 2 2nd rounder, plus 3 2nd rounders next year
4. Colorado turned down Calgary offer of their 3 1st rounders this year (6, 22, 28)

The Sabres could pull this deal off IF they can acquire another top 10 pick, and Calgary or Carolina at #5, 6 would likely be the target pick.

Therefore offering Calgary or Carolina Grigs, McCabe (I'd hate that), the 38th overall pick and the highest of Buffalo's 2nd next year for that #5 or 6 pick, then flipping all three first round picks could yield them that #1 pick.

The really funny part is Buffalo blew their chances of this by winning 8 of their last 12 games when they were sitting third from the bottom.
Since when do we know this?

AirBriere48 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-17-2013, 12:36 PM
  #22
jc17
Registered User
 
jc17's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2013
Posts: 1,608
vCash: 90
Quote:
Originally Posted by krt88 View Post
you miss the point, Buffalo uses the 5th ot 6th pick with their other two first rounders to net the first overall pick.

The Sabres want that first pick and they are willing to lose a couple of picks and prospects to get it.
And I don't particularly like the that idea given how much it would cost. Obviously Mackinnon is going to be very good, but I think if buffalo makes the correct draft picks( which is easier said than done) they would have a lot better value than mackinnon. Keeping grigorenko and our other prospects along with the potential draft picks could end up being more valuable.

Again I know its difficult to hit on the right guys at the draft outside of the top 3, but with this deep draft I think they could. In every draft there are probably a combination of 3 players that are better than the top few picks individually, they are just harder to find. Instead of giving a lot for 1 pick, I think we could be more successful with 2 or 3 relatively high picks in this draft particularly.

jc17 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-17-2013, 12:55 PM
  #23
Dunkster19
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2013
Posts: 864
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by jc17 View Post
And I don't particularly like the that idea given how much it would cost. Obviously Mackinnon is going to be very good, but I think if buffalo makes the correct draft picks( which is easier said than done) they would have a lot better value than mackinnon. Keeping grigorenko and our other prospects along with the potential draft picks could end up being more valuable.

Again I know its difficult to hit on the right guys at the draft outside of the top 3, but with this deep draft I think they could. In every draft there are probably a combination of 3 players that are better than the top few picks individually, they are just harder to find. Instead of giving a lot for 1 pick, I think we could be more successful with 2 or 3 relatively high picks in this draft particularly.
That is not a bad idea. Especially since we should come away with another first round pick in the Vanek trade. You could end up with something like Nurse or Lindholm at 8, Erne or Pulock at 16 and someone like Manha with another pick in the 20's. pretty nice haul and that's only round 1.

Dunkster19 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-17-2013, 01:35 PM
  #24
sabrescupbound
Registered User
 
sabrescupbound's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Country: United States
Posts: 2,636
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by krt88 View Post
to Calgary/Carolina:
38th overall pick, 2014 2nd (highest of Buffalo's 3 [Buffalo, LA, Minnesota]) and any one prospects from both list A and list B:
List A:
Mikhail Grigorenko, Joel Armia, Johan Larsson, Zemgus Girgensons, Mark Pysyk

List B:
Logan Nelson, Daniel Catenacci, , Justin Kea, Jake McCabe, Chad Ruhwedel, Jerome Gauthier-Leduc, Nick Crawford, Corey Tropp, Christian Isackson, Jacob Lagace, Riley Boychuk

To Buffalo:
5th or 6th overall pick



Objective wise: The Sabres are trying to obtain another top 10 pick, to package with the 8th and 16th pick to move into the top spot. Colorado wants more than the just the 8th and 16th, so perhaps the 6th, 8th and 16th picks plus a prospect might land them the #1 pick.

Calgary or Carolina get two prospects of their choosing plus two second round draft picks.
First take Zemgus Girgensons off the list. Second, if it's not a done deal to move up I wouldn't trade Armia either.

sabrescupbound is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
06-17-2013, 02:06 PM
  #25
Prospector74
Registered User
 
Prospector74's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2011
Location: Hollywood, MD
Country: United States
Posts: 752
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by krt88 View Post
...

The really funny part is Buffalo blew their chances of this by winning 8 of their last 12 games when they were sitting third from the bottom.
I absolutely hate the draft pick order setting process. Each team that doesn't make the playoffs should have an equal shot at the #1 overall pick and pick order be drawn in similar fashion (all non-playoff teams equal at each slot) until you hit the playoff teams.

WRT the trade proposal, it probably takes something like that to make it happen but I would prefer Buffalo not make the deal.

Prospector74 is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

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 11:04 AM.

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.