nfreeman Posted July 4, 2012 Report Posted July 4, 2012 With appreciation to AudSmell for the "if it hurts and causes shortness of breath, it's probably close to a fair trade," I submit the poll. My underlying assumptions, based on DR's presser last night, are: - the Sabres are interested in both Nash and Ryan. - the Sabres are not going to trade Hodgson or Ennis in any deal for Nash or Ryan. - the Sabres are also not going to trade Miller, Myers, Ehrhoff, Regehr or Ott in any deal, period. - Neither Anaheim nor Nashville is going to take Stafford, Sekera and a #2 for their guy (and neither was remotely interested in Roy). I also note that I would've worked in about 5 more of these into the poll, but the poll rules only allow 3 questions. I wonder if this might be adjustable? I voted yes on both Vanek deals and no on the Pommer deal.
Koomkie Posted July 4, 2012 Report Posted July 4, 2012 hamilton said myers and mcnabb are the only untouchable players on the roster. then darcy said he would not trade cody or ennis in the presser. also he said before that he was asked about a player but didnt want to break up chemistry, which lead people to believe the FES line is untouchable. so i would say ennis, hodgson, myers, foligno and mcnabb are not going anywhere. (and i assume ott as well) i am up for almost any other combination of the other players for nash. (except for grigs, girgs, and armia)
sabres13 Posted July 4, 2012 Report Posted July 4, 2012 For Nash it's going to take either Vanek or pommer and a prospect. Bobby Ryan is other story I think we could get him for less.
nfreeman Posted July 4, 2012 Author Report Posted July 4, 2012 hamilton said myers and mcnabb are the only untouchable players on the roster. then darcy said he would not trade cody or ennis in the presser. also he said before that he was asked about a player but didnt want to break up chemistry, which lead people to believe the FES line is untouchable. so i would say ennis, hodgson, myers, foligno and mcnabb are not going anywhere. (and i assume ott as well) i am up for almost any other combination of the other players for nash. (except for grigs, girgs, and armia) I've heard him say that, but I think when I heard it, it was Hamilton's opinion of who his (Hamilton's) untouchables would be -- not reporting on what DR's untouchables are.
billsrcursed Posted July 4, 2012 Report Posted July 4, 2012 I really like Nash, and although I don't want to overpay, I'd be pretty happy with just about any trade for him at this point. I voted no on the second poll for Nash, but I'd like a do-over... The Ryan deal seems a little lopsided to me, but it could be my inner homer trying to surface. I like both players and think they'd make our team much better, I'm just not sure what I'd be willing to part with in order to get them. Obviously our "less skilled" guys wouldn't get it done, so we'd have to give to get.
Robviously Posted July 4, 2012 Report Posted July 4, 2012 1. No. 2. No. 3. No. Look, I know we've all got the vapors for Rick Nash right now because he's a star player who is about to be traded but his points per game is .811, which is basically the same as Vanek's (.817) and Pominville's (.797). So he's not worth giving up McNabb for, even if you like him better than Vanek and Pominville. McNabb is basically our dream defenseman -- a huge guy who hits. We don't have anyone else in the pipeline like him and I can't remember the last time we developed someone like him. And if you check out how free agency has gone the last few years, guys like him rarely hit the open market (assuming he develops). So I'd rather hold onto McNabb and take my chances with Vanek/Pominville (and throwing in a first round pick is out of the question). EDIT: Misread the last option. I thought they were all for Nash. Doesn't really change my answer though.
dudacek Posted July 4, 2012 Report Posted July 4, 2012 No, no and no. I would trade Vanek for either of these players, but I would not include McNabb unless we were getting something in return. Not that those are unrealistic deals, I just don't think the upgrade is worth McNabb. Pysyk, Gauthier or even McCabe and a first instead of McNabb we have a deal.
bob_sauve28 Posted July 4, 2012 Report Posted July 4, 2012 I simply would not trade mcnabb, not even straight up for Nash
HopefulFuture Posted July 4, 2012 Report Posted July 4, 2012 For Nash it's going to take either Vanek or pommer and a prospect. Bobby Ryan is other story I think we could get him for less. I think we can get them both actually. We'd spend some assets sure, but it would lead to a better team overall.
spndnchz Posted July 4, 2012 Report Posted July 4, 2012 With appreciation to AudSmell for the "if it hurts and causes shortness of breath, it's probably close to a fair trade," I submit the poll. My underlying assumptions, based on DR's presser last night, are: - the Sabres are interested in both Nash and Ryan. - the Sabres are not going to trade Hodgson or Ennis in any deal for Nash or Ryan. - the Sabres are also not going to trade Miller, Myers, Ehrhoff, Regehr or Ott in any deal, period. - Neither Anaheim nor Nashville is going to take Stafford, Sekera and a #2 for their guy (and neither was remotely interested in Roy). I also note that I would've worked in about 5 more of these into the poll, but the poll rules only allow 3 questions. I wonder if this might be adjustable? I voted yes on both Vanek deals and no on the Pommer deal. I'm the opposite.
drnkirishone Posted July 4, 2012 Report Posted July 4, 2012 I am not sold on McNabb. I said it in another thread, but McNabb seemed to regress after his injury. He wasn't hitting and when he tried to he was missing, he looked lost in his own end or as I like to think of it he was looking Weberized, and his passing took a nose dive. I think he still has potential but I as of right now he is not apart of my plans for the sabres roster this coming season. If he comes into camp and proves me wrong great. But at the moment I think he just caught lightning in the bottle for a little over a year
deluca67 Posted July 4, 2012 Report Posted July 4, 2012 Yes! Yes! and Yes! Nash and Ryan are game changers. Pominville is what he is and Vanek spends too much time beating himself up.
LGR4GM Posted July 4, 2012 Report Posted July 4, 2012 1. No. 2. No. 3. No. Look, I know we've all got the vapors for Rick Nash right now because he's a star player who is about to be traded but his points per game is .811, which is basically the same as Vanek's (.817) and Pominville's (.797). So he's not worth giving up McNabb for, even if you like him better than Vanek and Pominville. McNabb is basically our dream defenseman -- a huge guy who hits. We don't have anyone else in the pipeline like him and I can't remember the last time we developed someone like him. And if you check out how free agency has gone the last few years, guys like him rarely hit the open market (assuming he develops). So I'd rather hold onto McNabb and take my chances with Vanek/Pominville (and throwing in a first round pick is out of the question). EDIT: Misread the last option. I thought they were all for Nash. Doesn't really change my answer though. pretty much this ^ Pommers is better than Ryan IMPO. Vanek is about equal to Nash so tossing in our #1 defensive prospect with Vanek is severe overpayment and if you then added a 1st to that I would cry. Robviously has it right, the ppga does not lie.
Bullwinkle III Posted July 4, 2012 Report Posted July 4, 2012 I agree with Robiously and dudacek above. I voted no, no, no. Look, we're talking about Nash & Ryan - both wingers. We need a 1st line center. I think that might be what Darcy is shooting for. Of course both of those guys can help us. But it will cost...a lot. We may not have the resources to find a nr. 1 center after landing Nash or Ryan. Then we're stuck with our current centers for the year. And if Grigs doesn't make the team, our centers are Ennis, Hodgson, and McCormick with Adam as a possible 4th. Yuck! or move Ott to C. So it seems we really need another C in the mix rather than overspend on Nash or Ryan. If we're going to make any trade, I'd be up for letting go of any of the following: Gerbe, Vanek, Stafford, Pomminstein, Kaleta (if he gets resigned), Leino (ha, ha), Adam, Weber, Sekera, Leopold, Leduc, Pysik, & Brennan. There is quality bait in that group. Hopefully Darcy can go fishing and come back with a marlin.
deluca67 Posted July 4, 2012 Report Posted July 4, 2012 I agree with Robiously and dudacek above. I voted no, no, no. Look, we're talking about Nash & Ryan - both wingers. We need a 1st line center. I think that might be what Darcy is shooting for. Of course both of those guys can help us. But it will cost...a lot. We may not have the resources to find a nr. 1 center after landing Nash or Ryan. Then we're stuck with our current centers for the year. And if Grigs doesn't make the team, our centers are Ennis, Hodgson, and McCormick with Adam as a possible 4th. Yuck! or move Ott to C. So it seems we really need another C in the mix rather than overspend on Nash or Ryan. If we're going to make any trade, I'd be up for letting go of any of the following: Gerbe, Vanek, Stafford, Pomminstein, Kaleta (if he gets resigned), Leino (ha, ha), Adam, Weber, Sekera, Leopold, Leduc, Pysik, & Brennan. There is quality bait in that group. Hopefully Darcy can go fishing and come back with a marlin. I think sometimes people are too focused on the #1 center idea. Almost every team needs centers and it would be great if the Sabres can find one. Problem is there just aren't many, if any, top tier centers available. IMO, the Sabres should be focused on those players that are currently available. Parise, Nash and Ryan are there for the taking. Any of the three will fill the Sabres biggest need, even bigger than center, which is top six skilled players that bring along a high level of compete.
wjag Posted July 4, 2012 Report Posted July 4, 2012 I voted Yes, Yes and Yes and I'd mix in Gerbe and Kaleta too if those choices were unacceptable. I'm ready for a new team..
26CornerBlitz Posted July 4, 2012 Report Posted July 4, 2012 I voted no to all three proposals as I consider each one to be an overpayment.
TrueBlueGED Posted July 4, 2012 Report Posted July 4, 2012 I think sometimes people are too focused on the #1 center idea. Almost every team needs centers and it would be great if the Sabres can find one. Problem is there just aren't many, if any, top tier centers available. IMO, the Sabres should be focused on those players that are currently available. Parise, Nash and Ryan are there for the taking. Any of the three will fill the Sabres biggest need, even bigger than center, which is top six skilled players that bring along a high level of compete. I agree with this. Teams with #1 centers drafted them, they didn't trade for them. Developing the guys we already have is the best way for the Sabres to get a #1, and I think one of the guys we have will develop that way. That said, I actually said yes to all 3 of these, but I don't think any of them make the Sabers appreciably better--it's more of a marginal improvement. So why would I trade McNabb? I'm not as sold on him as many are, and as of now I don't see a roster spot for him. Love the kid's toughness and hitting, but his foot speed is pretty bad and he did really struggle after his initial burst on the scene. At the end of the day I think it's easier to find another McNabb (again, I see him topping out as a 2nd pairing guy) than another Ryan or Nash.
LGR4GM Posted July 4, 2012 Report Posted July 4, 2012 I cant figure out how Pominville + McNabb = Ryan... Pominville alone is bettr than Ryan. But hey hits and goals matter more than all around good play, however anyone who says Pominville doesn't play hard ever shift doesn't watch enough hockey.
TrueBlueGED Posted July 4, 2012 Report Posted July 4, 2012 I cant figure out how Pominville + McNabb = Ryan... Pominville alone is bettr than Ryan. But hey hits and goals matter more than all around good play, however anyone who says Pominville doesn't play hard ever shift doesn't watch enough hockey. That's a very subjective statement. It's also worth noting that Ryan is 4 years younger and under contract for an extra season. And if the NHL opens back up again next season, his skating/speed combo is much better than Pommer's. And did anybody say Pommer doesn't play hard?
LGR4GM Posted July 4, 2012 Report Posted July 4, 2012 Pominville - 0.797ppga Ryan - 0.780ppga Pominville - 0.323gpga Ryan - 0.409gpga
deluca67 Posted July 4, 2012 Report Posted July 4, 2012 Pominville - 0.797ppga Ryan - 0.780ppga Pominville - 0.323gpga Ryan - 0.409gpga Ryan - 4 30+ goal campaigns in 3 3/4 seasons. Pominville - 2 30+ goal campaigns in 6 1/2 seasons. Ryan - 113 hits last season. Pominville - 110 hits over the last three seasons. Ryan - Younger, bigger and more physical Pominville - better shot blocker and penalty killer. Ryan fits what the Sabres need, a talented big bodied winger that is difficult to play against.
apuszczalowski Posted July 4, 2012 Report Posted July 4, 2012 I don't know if I would agree to the deals as written in the poll, I think there would need to be some tweaks for me to want to make the deal. #1 - Vanek & McNabb for Nash? The Blue Jackets would have to include atleast a 2nd round pick in that deal or a decent prospect for me to agree to it. I think Vanek for Nash is pretty fair, but it would need a little bit more (like a pick from Buffalo) to make a deal. If you add in McNabb, Buffalo should be getting something else in return cause thats making it a bit lopsided. Replace McNabb with a slightly lower level prospect, or maybe Weber or Leopold and I think its even. #2 - Vanek, McNabb & a 1st for Nash? I would say no, overpayment by Buffalo unless Columbus sweetens the deal and throws in Foligno #3 - Pominville & McNabb for Ryan? This one I would really have to think about. I think Pomminstein is a keeper and I liked his play as the captain last year. He might not be an elite skill player, but the guy is a very good well rounded player who always appears to be playing hard. I might be more willing to swap Vanek for Ryan straight up, or include someone else with McNabb for Ryan, but I don't know if I would find the deal as asked one I would make, unless Anaheim was sweetening the deal to include one of their top prospects
sabres13 Posted July 4, 2012 Report Posted July 4, 2012 Vanek, Mcnabb & 1st I would do in a heartbeat if we could get Nash & foligno.
TrueBlueGED Posted July 4, 2012 Report Posted July 4, 2012 Vanek, Mcnabb & 1st I would do in a heartbeat if we could get Nash & foligno. Yea, the more I think about it I'd probably reject deal #2 since I think it's a vast overpayment (especially if next year's draft is as stacked as I've read). I, too, would do it in a heartbeat if they added Foligno.
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.