Darcy nearly pulled off a blockbuster trade at the deadline?

[korab rules]

First I have heard of it. Did I miss something along the way? Any additional details?

 

snews article

 

"Rumors were rampant that he nearly pulled off a blockbuster at the deadline this year before making the swap for Boyes."

[Taro T]

First I have heard of it. Did I miss something along the way? Any additional details?

 

snews article

 

"Rumors were rampant that he nearly pulled off a blockbuster at the deadline this year before making the swap for Boyes."

WGR was saying that he nearly had a deal worked out for Spezza. I didn't hear what the Sabres were supposedly going to send back to Otterland.

[SabresFan526]

WGR was saying that he nearly had a deal worked out for Spezza. I didn't hear what the Sabres were supposedly going to send back to Otterland.

At the deadline, I heard that they almost worked out a trade for Hemsky from Edmonton. Spezza would have been a much better trade for Buffalo, but I think Hemsky would have been a small blockbuster, but not nearly as big as Spezza would have been.

[phildathrill83]

I'm glad someone brought this question up. I was wondering the same thing when I read the article...the comment was just thrown in their like it was no big deal

[carpandean]

This was discussed over four pages here.

 

There were a couple of rumors that came out around that time, some of the WGR guys seem to imply that they have inside knowledge about it but aren't allowed to talk about specifics, and I do remember Darcy saying that there were some big moves that they looked into around the deadline, but that the prices were too high due the time of year, and that they would be seeing if those players were available this summer.

 

As with most things that Darcy says, I don't doubt that all of that it true (they probably did make some offers, prices probably were higher than they should be because it was at the deadline, and they probably will look at those players again in the offseason), but being true doesn't really mean much. The big question has always been and will remain to be until this summer: will the changes in the front office allow Darcy to make these kind of moves, where he wouldn't have before, or are we going to hear those same excuses as we welcome a couple more "bargain" veterans/journeyman in July/August? Some will jump in and say that of course we will see the latter, which I would lean toward myself, but none of us knows it for sure. However, this summer really does need to be a put up or shu ... er ... get out situation. I hope we're all pleasantly surprised.

[Weave]

I have a vague memory of a quote from Pegula on the day after the trading deadline. He said something along the lines of, "we tried to land a bigger fish. It would have been a blockbuster deal, but it didn't work out."

[carpandean]

I have a vague memory of a quote from Pegula on the day after the trading deadline. He said something along the lines of, "we tried to land a bigger fish. It would have been a blockbuster deal, but it didn't work out."

You may be right that it was Pegs, not Darcy, but there definitely something about revisiting the deal(s) in the summer.

[DaGimp]

ya, we haven't heard this line for like 13 years now, have we

[carpandean]

ya, we haven't heard this line for like 13 years now, have we

As I said, I tend to lean toward the pessimistic side myself. However, pre-lockout, the playing field was different, but he still managed a few good deals; post-lockout, it's impossible to separate Darcy from Quinn/TG in order to assign blame. Well, now we have controlled for the ownership variable, selecting the best possible case for Darcy. We have no clear data on what Darcy can do in that kind of situation. He's not going anywhere before the summer, so you might as well sit back and see what we find out. The worst that happens is you are right and we find out if Pegula puts more weight on the "you don't just give up on your people" side or the "to those that are given much, much is expected" side?

[tom webster]

The impression I got from TP's quote after the deadline was that they felt the trade would have reaped short term benefits, I.e. helped the playoff push but wouldn't have necessarily good for their stated goal of winning the Cup.

[carpandean]

The impression I got from TP's quote after the deadline was that they felt the trade would have reaped short term benefits, I.e. helped the playoff push but wouldn't have necessarily good for their stated goal of winning the Cup.

Hmm ... I remember some discussion of trades of that nature, but didn't think that the two were directly related. In other words, there were some deals that they passed on because they were short-term only, but that there were also a (some?) blockbuster deal(s) that they were working on for longer-term benefit, which they passed on because the prices were inflated by the short-term benefit deadline market.

 

Besides, "blockbuster" is rarely a word that I would use to describe a short-term deadline deal. Kovy last year was the closest, but the Devils don't make that deal if they don't like their chance of re-signing him in the offseason.

[Punch]

You may be right that it was Pegs, not Darcy, but there definitely something about revisiting the deal(s) in the summer.

 

It was Ted Black not Pegula or Darcy, and I think he said it on camera for one of Jessie Pegula's blog videos. He was quick to point out that they did like Boyes but wanted to do more, if feasible.

 

Darcy did say he had agreed to revisit trade talks with some of the teams that he'd had discussions with at the deadline--- likely around the draft in June.

[Lanny]

I have a vague memory of a quote from Pegula on the day after the trading deadline. He said something along the lines of, "we tried to land a bigger fish. It would have been a blockbuster deal, but it didn't work out."

I recall the same thing, but thought it was Ted Black that made the statement that Boyes wasn't the biggest name they were after.

[nobody]

On the Spezza front - based on what they were saying on GR that day I mentioned it in the other thread - it sounded like that Ottawa was the one who backed out of the deal. I don't know if that was because Spezza didn't want to move to Buffalo or Ottawa decided at that point not to deal. They did also mention that Ottawa mentioned after the trade deadline that Spezza would not be traded now since they had made the other moves at the trade deadline. Be it truth or a way to increase his value will be seen.

[Two or less]

On the Spezza front - based on what they were saying on GR that day I mentioned it in the other thread - it sounded like that Ottawa was the one who backed out of the deal. I don't know if that was because Spezza didn't want to move to Buffalo or Ottawa decided at that point not to deal. They did also mention that Ottawa mentioned after the trade deadline that Spezza would not be traded now since they had made the other moves at the trade deadline. Be it truth or a way to increase his value will be seen.

 

I remember hearing the columnist from the Ottawa Sun on or just after deadline day and he mentioned a possible Sabres deal. I believe he said Zach Kassian was involved, as was Luke Adam and something else, i forget.

[tom webster]

Hmm ... I remember some discussion of trades of that nature, but didn't think that the two were directly related. In other words, there were some deals that they passed on because they were short-term only, but that there were also a (some?) blockbuster deal(s) that they were working on for longer-term benefit, which they passed on because the prices were inflated by the short-term benefit deadline market.

 

Besides, "blockbuster" is rarely a word that I would use to describe a short-term deadline deal. Kovy last year was the closest, but the Devils don't make that deal if they don't like their chance of re-signing him in the offseason.

 

By short term, the impression I got was that a package involving Roy would have definitely made them a better team this year, but not necessarilly long term.

[Drunkard]

Landing Spezza would be a great addition but I wouldn't be too happy about including Roy in the deal. Sure, it's an upgrade but his contract is for more money and we'd still be scrambling for another scoring line center.

[Braedon]

I remember hearing the columnist from the Ottawa Sun on or just after deadline day and he mentioned a possible Sabres deal. I believe he said Zach Kassian was involved, as was Luke Adam and something else, i forget.

 

Yikes, much like Newton going to the Panthers, I am happy with the end result despite it being beyond our control. If it's true that the Sens backed out of the trade AND it included Adam and Kassian, I would be none to happy if the deal got done. Then again, I'm not a huge Spezza fan.

[Punch]

I remember hearing the columnist from the Ottawa Sun on or just after deadline day and he mentioned a possible Sabres deal. I believe he said Zach Kassian was involved, as was Luke Adam and something else, i forget.

 

I recall reading that column--- it was Bruce Garrioch you're thinking of, and it's unlikely the report had any validity. He's proven to speculate as wildly as Ecklund, with the same penchant for stating opinions on trade rumors as facts. Evgeni Malkin to the Kings a year or two ago was a stone cold lock according to him. I don't think there's any chance the Sabres would include Kassian in a deal for Spezza, although I suppose the Sens may have asked for him.

[DaGimp]

WOW-i would not give up Kassian and Adams for a softie like Spezza!

[LGR4GM]

I thought the sabres backed out because Ottawa wanted Ennis? Its like mini-osama story here, we know some facts but then the rest is a big old mystery.

[PromoTheRobot]

I read somewhere it was Roy, Kassian & Adam for Spezza. It fell apart when they asked for Ennis instead of Adam.

 

PTR

[will]

in that case, thank you darcy.