2012 Trade RUMOR Thread. (Keep the deadline thread for substantiated stuff).

Weave · February 19, 2012

The Flyers have made moves ths past decade that have floored the league with their ballsiness. I love that about them.

Yep. Kinda makes a fella want to be a Flyers fan.

deluca67 · February 19, 2012

Yep. Kinda makes a fella want to be a Flyers fan.

You have to respect a move like that when it's made. I hope they make the deal, it would be great to see Nash more often.

TrueBlueGED · February 19, 2012

You don't pass on a player of that caliber.

Nash is only 27. He helps now and and in the future.

Schenn is of that caliber. And he's a lot younger and cheaper. If it were simply a matter of throwing money at Nash I'd have a much different opinion. But I don't give up arguably the best prospect in the entire league AND other valuable assets for Nash when my offense is already the most potent in the NHL. A team like the Rangers I feel makes infinitely more sense, as I think 1 more offensive option is the only thing that's holding them back from being as close to a sure thing as you can get in the playoffs. If I'm the Rangers and I can get Nash for Dubinsky/Stepan, Kreider and a 1st I'd have made that trade 3 times already. And I'll say it again, the only winger in NHL history to score 70+ points each season from age 28-33 is Gordie Howe. So for all the talk about Columbus holding him back, league history says his production really isn't going to get better on a better team at his age. If my team is a Nash-type away from the Cup, I sell the future and chase the Cup. But that simply isn't the situation the Flyers are in.

How weird is it that in Buffalo, where we have NEVER seen a championship in basically ANY professional sport (AFL aside back in the dark ages when there were three teams), the fans don't get behind the kind of bold (some might say unheard of), moves made by those guys in Philly, seeing that they are merely trying to win NOW, every time they make those moves, and instead embrace this whole, "We need to make sure we have a solid competitor for years to come" pussyfoot rhetoric.

How many championships have the Flyers won recently with their bold moves? Bold moves are exciting, they're fun to talk about, but bold is not a synonym for smart. A bold move can be smart, but it can also be stupid. If I see a girl I want at bar and she's with her huge boyfriend, it would be quite bold for me to go up and hit on her. Smart? Not so much. I LOVED what the Flyers did in the offseason--they recognized they had topped out with Richards and Carter (and probably wanted them out of the locker room if reports are true, which may have been the true driver of the trades), so they set out and got fantastic returns for them, and managed to fix their goaltending all at the same time (or appeared to at the time anyway). They got younger, cheaper, fixed a huge hole, and loaded their roster with fantastic growth potential. It was bold, it was ballsy, and it was smart. On the flip side, the Kings were equally as bold and ballsy in acquiring Penner and Richards. Smart? Well they may miss the playoffs, and they've scored fewer goals than the Sabres. They shredded their future for "known commodities" and now what?

nbash · February 19, 2012

Re the boldness of the Flyers, it ties into the fact that there is a shelf-life to players who never quite get over the top. All these guys we've watched go from kids to promising young players to underperforming adults in their prime -- Goose, Roy, Hecht, at this point even Miller -- are now begging us to blow the thing up. If Darcy can't part with his babies, then he should hit the road too.

Last place is as last place does. you are what your record says. Light the fuse.

Two or less · February 19, 2012

Eric Francis, of the Calgary Sun, was just on HNIC intermission show "the hotstove" and said there is NO TRUTH to the Kane/Miller rumor. None at all. Said he spoke to Hawks front office who told him they havn't discussed any deals about Kane and won't this season or any time in the near future. So, we can all kill that rumor...

bunomatic · February 19, 2012

Eric Francis, of the Calgary Sun, was just on HNIC intermission show "the hotstove" and said there is NO TRUTH to the Kane/Miller rumor. None at all. Said he spoke to Hawks front office who told him they havn't discussed any deals about Kane and won't this season or any time in the near future. So, we can all kill that rumor...

Cab drivers in Buffalo just let out a collective sigh of relief.

Robviously · February 19, 2012

How many championships have the Flyers won recently with their bold moves? Bold moves are exciting, they're fun to talk about, but bold is not a synonym for smart. A bold move can be smart, but it can also be stupid.

How many teams win championships without bold moves? The Bruins traded a star for a first round pick, then ended up drafted Tyler Seguin and winning the Cup. They have a championship banner and a franchise player to build around for the next decade (at least). Must be pretty nice.

The New York Giants won their last two Super Bowls because they were bold enough to get the quarterback they wanted on draft day: Eli Manning.

The Red Sox won their first championship in 86 years by trading their franchise player, Nomar Garciaparra, in the middle of the season.

The Yankees won in 2009 because they dropped a baziilion dollars on C.C. Sabathia, Mark Teixierra, and A.J. Burnett the winter before.

The Anaheim Angels traded Mo Vaughn the winter before they won their first championship in 2002.

Do all bold moves work out? Of course not; only 1 team can win a championship each year. But on the whole, successful teams seem to make a bold move at some point that puts them on track. You could argue that the 2006 and 2007 Sabres were a result of Darcy's boldest trade: Chris Drury. (And even that wasn't *that* bold really.)

At the end of the day, it's not even about being bold. It's about having a plan. You have to figure out HOW you're going to win a championship, come up with a strategy to build the team you want, and then execute your strategy with (probably) a bold move or two along the way.

But that's the thing about Darcy:

1. I have no idea what his plan is, or ever was, to win the Stanley Cup. What is this team supposed to be? Do we even have an identity?

2. Even if Darcy has a plan, he doesn't make any moves that would indicate it. His biggest, boldest trade ever was for Chris Drury. And in 2007 -- the year we were supposedly trying to win the F***ing Stanley Cup -- his big trade deadline deal to put us over the top was Dainius Zubrus. If ever there was a time to be bold, that was it. And he blew it.

Our GM doesn't have a plan. And even if he did, he doesn't have the stones to execute it. We have 15 years of evidence of that now.

BetterDays06 · February 19, 2012

So there has been multiple deals in the last few days and sabres are still sitting silent. I think the sabres can get quite a bit out of goose, roy, staff and boyes by the way the market is looking.

Eleven · February 19, 2012

So there has been multiple deals in the last few days and sabres are still sitting silent. I think the sabres can get quite a bit out of goose, roy, staff and boyes by the way the market is looking.

Agreed.

lost in dc · February 19, 2012

what? nobody liked the miller for kane rumour?

Ross Rhea · February 19, 2012

what? nobody liked the miller for kane rumour?

sure, i liked it but it would take alot more roster turnover than that to fix what is wrong

shrader · February 19, 2012

How did I not notice the tags for this thread until now? :lol:

nfreeman · February 19, 2012

So there has been multiple deals in the last few days and sabres are still sitting silent. I think the sabres can get quite a bit out of goose, roy, staff and boyes by the way the market is looking.

I agree on Gaustad, Roy and Leopold (and Pommer and Vanek for that matter, if the Sabres are so inclined, although I don't expect them to be). Not so much on Boyes and stafford. At this point Boyes is just a depth player, and stafford is an expensive white elephant.

tom webster · February 19, 2012

I agree on Gaustad, Roy and Leopold (and Pommer and Vanek for that matter, if the Sabres are so inclined, although I don't expect them to be). Not so much on Boyes and stafford. At this point Boyes is just a depth player, and stafford is an expensive white elephant.

Disagree with you on Stafford. As much as we all have grown tired of waiting, he is still an attractive, in a hockey sense, young forward who scored over 30 goals last year and has a reasonable contract.

Eleven · February 19, 2012

what? nobody liked the miller for kane rumour?

Bucky actually made a good point in today's News: There might be too much pressure on Kane here.

Oh, and if you just walk to the Washington Monument, you usually can find your way home from there.

inkman · February 19, 2012

Eric Francis, of the Calgary Sun, was just on HNIC intermission show "the hotstove" and said there is NO TRUTH to the Kane/Miller rumor.

People really thought it was going to happen?

LGR4GM · February 19, 2012

I would say that if Moore is worth a 2nd than you could get that for Gaustad, or pretty close to it, considering his faceoff skills.

Robviously · February 19, 2012

I would say that if Moore is worth a 2nd than you could get that for Gaustad, or pretty close to it, considering his faceoff skills.

And his size (which a lot of people confuse with toughness).

Sabres should be stockpiling draft picks like mad this week. I know they're too dumb to actually do that, but that's what they *should* be doing.

TheChimp · February 19, 2012

I think one of my posts got deleted.

TrueBlueGED · February 19, 2012

How many teams win championships without bold moves? The Bruins traded a star for a first round pick, then ended up drafted Tyler Seguin and winning the Cup. They have a championship banner and a franchise player to build around for the next decade (at least). Must be pretty nice.

The New York Giants won their last two Super Bowls because they were bold enough to get the quarterback they wanted on draft day: Eli Manning.

The Red Sox won their first championship in 86 years by trading their franchise player, Nomar Garciaparra, in the middle of the season.

The Yankees won in 2009 because they dropped a baziilion dollars on C.C. Sabathia, Mark Teixierra, and A.J. Burnett the winter before.

The Anaheim Angels traded Mo Vaughn the winter before they won their first championship in 2002.

Do all bold moves work out? Of course not; only 1 team can win a championship each year. But on the whole, successful teams seem to make a bold move at some point that puts them on track. You could argue that the 2006 and 2007 Sabres were a result of Darcy's boldest trade: Chris Drury. (And even that wasn't *that* bold really.)

At the end of the day, it's not even about being bold. It's about having a plan. You have to figure out HOW you're going to win a championship, come up with a strategy to build the team you want, and then execute your strategy with (probably) a bold move or two along the way.

But that's the thing about Darcy:

1. I have no idea what his plan is, or ever was, to win the Stanley Cup. What is this team supposed to be? Do we even have an identity?

2. Even if Darcy has a plan, he doesn't make any moves that would indicate it. His biggest, boldest trade ever was for Chris Drury. And in 2007 -- the year we were supposedly trying to win the F***ing Stanley Cup -- his big trade deadline deal to put us over the top was Dainius Zubrus. If ever there was a time to be bold, that was it. And he blew it.

Our GM doesn't have a plan. And even if he did, he doesn't have the stones to execute it. We have 15 years of evidence of that now.

I have no interest in being bold for the sake of being bold. I know some fans crave boldness from the GM just because we've been so deprived of it, but I refuse to fall into that trap. And I think what your examples show is that boldness can come in many forms. It can come from trading proven commodities for youth and potential, or it can come from the opposite. Also, given the state of the Sabres, using the Giants is probably an awful example (a team whose coach was fired by fans and media at least 30 times in his tenure...even AFTER he won a ring). The most successful teams who have to work within a salary cap environment, build through the draft and supplement that with free agency and trades. What championship team has been built through trades and free agency, while sacrificing the draft and youth all the time? The Yankees? That's about it. The Red Sox were offseason champions last year and didn't even make the playoffs, and Epstein really did his best work when he wasn't busy trying to sign every big name player in the world. Go to the NBA, and the Heat made the boldest moves possible ever, and lost. And they may lose again this year to a team like the Thunder, built 95% through the draft. Hell the Sabres were bold this offseason, and it hasn't exactly worked out.

As to the bolded, I couldn't possibly agree more with that. I have no idea what the identity of the team is, or even that Regier himself knows what it is. It certainly doesn't appear he has an engame in mind as to the chemistry/construction of the team, and I want him fired as much as anybody else. The good GMs have a plan, and have a plan to execute that plan. Sometimes that involves acquiring a proven veteran, sometimes it involves shedding salary and veterans for youth and upside. It's not as simple as always adding a Nash, and it's not as simple as always waiting for your prospects to develop. The best GMs in the world know when to hold 'em and when to fold 'em, and unfortunately, Darcy knows how to do neither of those things.

Finally, about Nash....the Flyers won't give up Schenn, van Riemsdyk, Couturier or Bobrovsky....the Bruins won't give up Rask, and the Rangers won't give up McDonagh or Del Zotto. Guess I'm not the only one who thinks Nash's name is bigger than his game.

Robviously · February 19, 2012

Right. "Bold" itself isn't the solution. It's just required to implement the solution. Our goofy management doesn't have a solution and couldn't implement it if they did.

Trading for Nash is bold for the sake of bold. Nash is perfect for a contender, not us.

One nitpick:

Go to the NBA, and the Heat made the boldest moves possible ever, and lost.

In the Finals! The Sabres have made the Finals twice in 40 years. We wish we were the Miami Heat. (They won a Championship a few years back by boldly adding Shaq to play alongside D-Wade.)

Not to mention the Heat have a few more years to see how their bold moves 18 months ago are going to pay off. I wouldn't judge it based on one season where they were *only* the second best team in the league.

As to the bolded, I couldn't possibly agree more with that. I have no idea what the identity of the team is, or even that Regier himself knows what it is. It certainly doesn't appear he has an engame in mind as to the chemistry/construction of the team, and I want him fired as much as anybody else. The good GMs have a plan, and have a plan to execute that plan. Sometimes that involves acquiring a proven veteran, sometimes it involves shedding salary and veterans for youth and upside. It's not as simple as always adding a Nash, and it's not as simple as always waiting for your prospects to develop. The best GMs in the world know when to hold 'em and when to fold 'em, and unfortunately, Darcy knows how to do neither of those things.

Complete agreement here. Regier doesn't know when to completely "go for it" or when to completely tear apart and rebuild. And he's never really done either thing. 2007 was his year to go for it and he added.....Zubrus??? And we never really rebuilt even when it was clear it was time to rebuild after Black Sunday.

I could actually see him trading for Nash because he's delusional enough to think it's time to "buy" at a time like this.

Finally, about Nash....the Flyers won't give up Schenn, van Riemsdyk, Couturier or Bobrovsky....the Bruins won't give up Rask, and the Rangers won't give up McDonagh or Del Zotto. Guess I'm not the only one who thinks Nash's name is bigger than his game.

No, you're not.

TrueBlueGED · February 19, 2012

One nitpick:

In the Finals! The Sabres have made the Finals twice in 40 years. We wish we were the Miami Heat. (They won a Championship a few years back by boldly adding Shaq to play alongside D-Wade.)

Not to mention the Heat have a few more years to see how their bold moves 18 months ago are going to pay off. I wouldn't judge it based on one season where they were *only* the second best team in the league.

You're totally right, I was just trying to take a pot-shot at LeBron. I don't hate him for leaving Cleveland, I'm past "the decision".....I just hate him because as great as he is, he should be even better. He's the most physically talented basketball player ever born, but is only about 85% committed to being the best player he can be. If he had Kobe's or Jordan's killer instinct, he'd already have multiple championships. I hate wasted talent.

TheChimp · February 19, 2012

You're totally right, I was just trying to take a pot-shot at LeBron. I don't hate him for leaving Cleveland, I'm past "the decision".....I just hate him because as great as he is, he should be even better. He's the most physically talented basketball player ever born, but is only about 85% committed to being the best player he can be. If he had Kobe's or Jordan's killer instinct, he'd already have multiple championships. I hate wasted talent.

OMG, are you ever a fan of the wrong city's teams, then.....:P

Bmwolf21 · February 19, 2012

You're totally right, I was just trying to take a pot-shot at LeBron. I don't hate him for leaving Cleveland, I'm past "the decision".....I just hate him because as great as he is, he should be even better. He's the most physically talented basketball player ever born, but is only about 85% committed to being the best player he can be. If he had Kobe's or Jordan's killer instinct, he'd already have multiple championships. I hate wasted talent.

He's an idiot who is more concerned with being considered the best instead of actually being the best. He wants to constantly be recruited and told how good he is.

TrueBlueGED · February 19, 2012

OMG, are you ever a fan of the wrong city's teams, then..... :P

Haha I actually don't have a favorite basketball team, although I definitely have some I hate. I just really felt for Cleveland because that's definitely something that can happen to Buffalo sports.

He's an idiot who is more concerned with being considered the best instead of actually being the best. He wants to constantly be recruited and told how good he is.

Yes. As a fan of the game, it's infuriating.

Sign In

2012 Trade RUMOR Thread. (Keep the deadline thread for substantiated stuff).

Recommended Posts

Weave

deluca67

TrueBlueGED

nbash

Two or less

bunomatic

Robviously

BetterDays06

Eleven

lost in dc

Ross Rhea

shrader

nfreeman

tom webster

Eleven

inkman

LGR4GM

Robviously

TheChimp

TrueBlueGED

Robviously

TrueBlueGED

TheChimp

Bmwolf21

TrueBlueGED

Archived

Browse

Activity