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

[biodork]

It's the mini-van line!

 

:w00t: :clapping:

[darksabre]

It's the mini-van line!

 

Perfect. :worthy:

[frissonic]

It's the mini-van line!

 

:clapping:

[bills_fan_in_raleigh]

It's the mini-van line!

i have said for a while ennis, gerbial and vanek would be a great pairing let vanek play with best center on the team

[Ghost of Dwight Drane]

It's the mini-van line!

 

oof.....I have to stop using you in my mental "me-time" rolodex now that I know you are Paul Peck.

[spndnchz]

oof.....I have to stop using you in my mental "me-time" rolodex now that I know you are Paul Peck.

 

Who is Paul Peck? or is that a joke?

[Ghost of Dwight Drane]

Who is Paul Peck? or is that a joke?

 

Nevermind.....

[Weave]

I agree. If we aren't dealing for a center we shouldn't upgrade any other position on the team. Center is the only position that should be upgraded. :rolleyes:

 

If I could get Nash by moving any combo of players other than Myers I do it and expect to have two 40 goal scorers on our #1 line next year. Maybe two 50 goal scorers depending on the center we get in the off season. ;) Really, if you can get another natural scorer with the combo of misfits we have why in the hell would you not do it? Not being a center is not a good excuse for passing him up. It isn't Nash or a center. Obtaining Nash and obtaining a center is not mutually exclusive.

[Bmwolf21]

I agree. If we aren't dealing for a center we shouldn't upgrade any other position on the team. Center is the only position that should be upgraded. :rolleyes:

 

If I could get Nash by moving any combo of players other than Myers I do it and expect to have two 40 goal scorers on our #1 line next year. Maybe two 50 goal scorers depending on the center we get in the off season. ;) Really, if you can get another natural scorer with the combo of misfits we have why in the hell would you not do it? Not being a center is not a good excuse for passing him up. It isn't Nash or a center. Obtaining Nash and obtaining a center is not mutually exclusive.

 

Good post.

[X. Benedict]

I agree. If we aren't dealing for a center we shouldn't upgrade any other position on the team. Center is the only position that should be upgraded. :rolleyes:

 

If I could get Nash by moving any combo of players other than Myers I do it and expect to have two 40 goal scorers on our #1 line next year. Maybe two 50 goal scorers depending on the center we get in the off season. ;) Really, if you can get another natural scorer with the combo of misfits we have why in the hell would you not do it? Not being a center is not a good excuse for passing him up. It isn't Nash or a center. Obtaining Nash and obtaining a center is not mutually exclusive.

 

As unlikely as getting Nash is at the deadline......having Vanek on the Left and Nash on the Right, might make getting UFA center more likely. What Center wouldn't want a crack with that line?

[darksabre]

As unlikely as getting Nash is at the deadline......having Vanek on the Left and Nash on the Right, might make getting UFA center more likely. What Center wouldn't want a crack with that line?

 

Those two on the wing could make ME look serviceable.

[TrueBlueGED]

I agree. If we aren't dealing for a center we shouldn't upgrade any other position on the team. Center is the only position that should be upgraded. :rolleyes:

 

If I could get Nash by moving any combo of players other than Myers I do it and expect to have two 40 goal scorers on our #1 line next year. Maybe two 50 goal scorers depending on the center we get in the off season. ;) Really, if you can get another natural scorer with the combo of misfits we have why in the hell would you not do it? Not being a center is not a good excuse for passing him up. It isn't Nash or a center. Obtaining Nash and obtaining a center is not mutually exclusive.

 

First, I don't think we sniff Nash without Myers. Second even assuming we do, I think the logic is: we only have a finite amount of players to move in a deal for a player like Nash, so if we acquire him then we don't have the pieces to get a center. Let's just assume we can get Nash without Myers...it's probably going to be Kassian, McNabb and a 1st plus whatever to make the salaries work. What in the blue hell do we have left to trade for a center after that deal? I guess at that point you have to move Myers for the #1 center. Talk about an "all in" series of trades to win the Cup in the next 2 years. And back on planet reality: unless Pegula gets involved and makes this happen, would you even bet a nickel on Regier being THAT aggressive?

 

As unlikely as getting Nash is at the deadline......having Vanek on the Left and Nash on the Right, might make getting UFA center more likely. What Center wouldn't want a crack with that line?

 

It would, but there's no #1 center on the market this year and somewhere along the way we'd have to unload contracts even if there was one available. Hypothetically we'd have about $30 million tied up in 5 wingers alone (Vanek, Pominville, Nash, Leino, Stafford).

[Weave]

First, I don't think we sniff Nash without Myers. Second even assuming we do, I think the logic is: we only have a finite amount of players to move in a deal for a player like Nash, so if we acquire him then we don't have the pieces to get a center. Let's just assume we can get Nash without Myers...it's probably going to be Kassian, McNabb and a 1st plus whatever to make the salaries work. What in the blue hell do we have left to trade for a center after that deal? I guess at that point you have to move Myers for the #1 center. Talk about an "all in" series of trades to win the Cup in the next 2 years. And back on planet reality: unless Pegula gets involved and makes this happen, would you even bet a nickel on Regier being THAT aggressive?

 

 

I don't think we sniff Nash without Myers too, so what I posted is very hypothetical but.......

 

I agree that getting Nash is at the sake of huge opportunity cost. And that needs to be heavily considered. But, IMO holding out for a "could be" #1 center trade is not a good excuse. Mostly because at this point I don't believe we are going to be able to trade for a #1 center. If one was out there at a price the organization could live with I think he'd already be wearing the crossed swords. At this point I am of the belief that we are going to have to staff center ice with a combo of #2 and #3 centers obtained through free agency. And the only opportunity cost swe need to keep in mind there is the salary cap.

[nbash]

Miller for Kane, straight up. Miller just isn't playing like a goalie who can get us wins in a scoring drought. Address center in the off-season since this season is cooked.

[LGR4GM]

Miller for Kane, straight up. Miller just isn't playing like a goalie who can get us wins in a scoring drought. Address center in the off-season since this season is cooked.

Kane has played most of this season at center... just fyi and you would prob need at least a pick thrown in there.

[BetterDays06]

Vanek-Kane-Nash = WOW thats like a 22 million dollar line

[thesportsbuff]

Kane has played most of this season at center... just fyi and you would prob need at least a pick thrown in there.

 

Actually Kane played center for roughly two months and it wasn't really working out. He has played most of the season at wing, w/ maybe a little at center here and there.

 

Miller for Kane, straight up. Miller just isn't playing like a goalie who can get us wins in a scoring drought. Address center in the off-season since this season is cooked.

 

Not even close to fair value.

[deluca67]

I would hate for the Sabres to miss out on opportunities while they sit around waiting for Myer's potential to be realized. It is very possible that he has already topped out as a player.

 

Looking at what a Rick Nash could do for this roster is exciting. If a deal would be made you are looking at going into next season with the right-side looking like :

 

Nash

Pominville

Kassian

Kaleta (if re-signed, more than likely you are looking Stafford as the 4th RW if they can't move him.)

 

That looks pretty good. You take some of your assets on the blue-line and move them to secure the right-side. IMO, that's how you build a winner.

[thesportsbuff]

I don't think we sniff Nash without Myers too, so what I posted is very hypothetical but....... I agree that getting Nash is at the sake of huge opportunity cost. And that needs to be heavily considered. But, IMO holding out for a "could be" #1 center trade is not a good excuse. Mostly because at this point I don't believe we are going to be able to trade for a #1 center. If one was out there at a price the organization could live with I think he'd already be wearing the crossed swords. At this point I am of the belief that we are going to have to staff center ice with a combo of #2 and #3 centers obtained through free agency. And the only opportunity cost swe need to keep in mind there is the salary cap.

 

I'd love for them to make a play for Nash, but I don't see Nash being moved to a non-contender or a on-the-cusp team... with Toronto being the only exception.

 

 

unrelated:

 

The guys on WGR made several good points this morning on the radio.. the first of which being that we hear again and again how there are "lots of buyers and not enough sellers" from sources around the league. So BE a seller. Over charge for players. There are teams out there that will trade for our "garbage."

 

They also mentioned how Ruutu was supposed to be one of the premier names available at the deadline... and now he is injured until after the deadline. He's off the market. Maybe a team wants a Drew Stafford or a Derek Roy just THAT much more now that Ruutu isn't available.

 

The problem is.. both of those very true and valid points would mean following a very different route than the one we're discussing now. We would be selling our assets and not bringing in a Rick Nash or Bobby Ryan.

[TrueBlueGED]

I don't think we sniff Nash without Myers too, so what I posted is very hypothetical but.......

 

I agree that getting Nash is at the sake of huge opportunity cost. And that needs to be heavily considered. But, IMO holding out for a "could be" #1 center trade is not a good excuse. Mostly because at this point I don't believe we are going to be able to trade for a #1 center. If one was out there at a price the organization could live with I think he'd already be wearing the crossed swords. At this point I am of the belief that we are going to have to staff center ice with a combo of #2 and #3 centers obtained through free agency. And the only opportunity cost swe need to keep in mind there is the salary cap.

 

Can't really disagree with that. I'm just hesitant to blow our "asset wad" on Nash and his awful contract, although I'm not completely opposed depending on what we could do with the rest of the roster to supplement the move--I think most would agree we're more than a Nash away from a deep playoff run. I'd much prefer to pursue Parise in free agency who only costs us money as opposed to assets, and I think getting him to agree to come here is about as likely as convincing Nash to waive his no trade clause for us.

 

 

I would hate for the Sabres to miss out on opportunities while they sit around waiting for Myer's potential to be realized. It is very possible that he has already topped out as a player.

 

Looking at what a Rick Nash could do for this roster is exciting. If a deal would be made you are looking at going into next season with the right-side looking like :

 

Nash

Pominville

Kassian

Kaleta (if re-signed, more than likely you are looking Stafford as the 4th RW if they can't move him.)

 

That looks pretty good. You take some of your assets on the blue-line and move them to secure the right-side. IMO, that's how you build a winner.

 

Genuine questions: How close do you think we are to being a legitimate Cup contender? I'd be surprised if you thought that acquiring Nash morphs our team into a deep playoff contender, so how many more moves (that could actually be made) would be required to make us legitimate? If we include Myers as trade bait, we really only have the assets to pull off 2 big trades, everything else would have to be done through small moves or free agency. Are you willing to bet the next 5 years of the franchise that we can win in the next 2? Because given the age of our top players and some of the contracts, in a couple more years it's going to have to be blown up and started all over again with a crippled pipeline, whether it works or not. If we could get a Cup in those 2 years I'd do it in a heartbeat and deal with the fallout, I'm just not sold on Nash as the centerpiece of that approach.

[TrueBlueGED]

I'd love for them to make a play for Nash, but I don't see Nash being moved to a non-contender or a on-the-cusp team... with Toronto being the only exception.

 

 

unrelated:

 

The guys on WGR made several good points this morning on the radio.. the first of which being that we hear again and again how there are "lots of buyers and not enough sellers" from sources around the league. So BE a seller. Over charge for players. There are teams out there that will trade for our "garbage."

 

They also mentioned how Ruutu was supposed to be one of the premier names available at the deadline... and now he is injured until after the deadline. He's off the market. Maybe a team wants a Drew Stafford or a Derek Roy just THAT much more now that Ruutu isn't available.

 

The problem is.. both of those very true and valid points would mean following a very different route than the one we're discussing now. We would be selling our assets and not bringing in a Rick Nash or Bobby Ryan.

 

Well sort of. For starters, we'd have to move at least Roy or Stafford in addition to the expected trade of Boyes to even free up the space for Nash's contract. Plus, if we got decent returns for Roy and Stafford (top-6 prospects / 1st round picks) it would significantly reduce the sting of the assets we'd be giving up for Nash. It's a setup for next season really. A series of moves like that makes acquiring Nash much more attractive to me personally (although I still don't give up Myers, and I'm fully aware of the gamble I'm taking with that stance).

[X. Benedict]

For the record...I'm fine with collecting 2nd rounders. The first round of the draft looks like a great year for defense. Which isn't a priority in Buffalo at the moment.

 

I think there will be some very functional centers available throughout the 2nd round. Pick a few ....maybe find a gem.

[Weave]

I'd love for them to make a play for Nash, but I don't see Nash being moved to a non-contender or a on-the-cusp team... with Toronto being the only exception.

 

 

unrelated:

 

The guys on WGR made several good points this morning on the radio.. the first of which being that we hear again and again how there are "lots of buyers and not enough sellers" from sources around the league. So BE a seller. Over charge for players. There are teams out there that will trade for our "garbage."

 

They also mentioned how Ruutu was supposed to be one of the premier names available at the deadline... and now he is injured until after the deadline. He's off the market. Maybe a team wants a Drew Stafford or a Derek Roy just THAT much more now that Ruutu isn't available.

 

The problem is.. both of those very true and valid points would mean following a very different route than the one we're discussing now. We would be selling our assets and not bringing in a Rick Nash or Bobby Ryan.

 

This will be the second season in a row where a bunch of pundits are claiming that there are "lots of buyers and not enough sellers". Last seasons' deadline we screwed the pooch and ended up with Boyes. I'll be really disappointed if we blow the opportunity to be in a sellers' market this time around.

[Weave]

Can't really disagree with that. I'm just hesitant to blow our "asset wad" on Nash and his awful contract, although I'm not completely opposed depending on what we could do with the rest of the roster to supplement the move--I think most would agree we're more than a Nash away from a deep playoff run. I'd much prefer to pursue Parise in free agency who only costs us money as opposed to assets, and I think getting him to agree to come here is about as likely as convincing Nash to waive his no trade clause for us.

 

I don't mind chasing Parise but if you pass on Nash, Parise is certainly not a given to come to Buff. You risk losing both. And Nash brings something Parise doesn't that we lack. Size in the top 6. In the end, I guess the choice between Parise and Nash comes down to what kind of team do you want to build, a speed/finesse team or a a bigger team. Personally, I'd prefer Nash.

 

In my ideal end of the season and FA world I'd see Nash and Brassard or Vermette come to Buffalo and get Jarrett Stoll as an FA. We end up with Ennis, Brassard (vermette), and Stoll as our top 3 centers and we get to see if Nash and Vanek can work together on the top line. Can we afford all that? I dunno. I have no idea what Stoll is going to command on the open market. I assume we'll have to clear additional salary space to make it happen. If it is a sellers' market this season at the deadline maybe making that space is do-able?

 

Boyes isn't the problem. He doesn't create his own shot and requires service. He needs a centerman to get him the puck in goal scoring positions. Considering we've had Boyes himself at center off and on it's no wonder he can't buy goals. Boyes is a symptom, not the problem.

 

That wasn't my point. My point was we should have been sellers last season instead of Buyers picking up Boyes.

[LGR4GM]

So, this was a random brain fart from today. What are the chances that Pittsburgh would shop Crosby as a broken asset? Obviously that would be a huge red flag that he's permanently screwed up but it also frees up cap space for the Pens and gets them back pieces. Crosby hasn't played in forever and if they could move him for pieces that they could turn into a Cup you'd have to wonder if they'd think about it. What would you hypothetically give up for Crosby in his current state?

Nothing and just so everyone's clear this ^ didn't come from me.

 

Actually Kane played center for roughly two months and it wasn't really working out. He has played most of the season at wing, w/ maybe a little at center here and there.

The season started on October 6 and it is now February 15 so its exactly 4 months and 9 days since the begining of the season... according to you he played 2 months at center and some here and there... so MOST of the season he has spent at center or I can't do math and this conversation is superfluous because we arent getting Kane or Nash or anyone else. Regier has never traded for a top player since the lockout ended... wake up ppl unless we draft the center of our dreams we will never get one.