Vanek Traded to NYI for Matt Moulson, 1st in 2014 (or 2015!), 2nd in 2015; 4 Months Later: Moulson to MN for 2014/2016 2nd Rounders

[Koomkie]

I see no reason for Moulson to go back to the Isles. I could see him ending up a Ranger so he doesn't have to move his family. They're always looking for scorers.

only because his love affair with JT

[Kristian]

I think he'd land a first-round pick, and we all know a team can never have too many draft picks. I'm looking forward to the day where the team ices purely hypothetical players for an entire season. Think of the potential!

 

Yeah, it got out of hand fast, which is ultimately what lead to Regier getting the can, I think.

 

I wouldn't be surprised if a new GM try to turn some of all those 1st and 2nd rounders into actual players.

[Hoss]

only because his love affair with JT

 

That'll be irrelevant when money comes into play. The only reason playing with JT would be great for him is to increase his future pay. If he got offered similar or more money elsewhere then it comes down to what he values more: contributing to a winner or playing alongside a good player on a bad team.

[TrueBlueGED]

I think he'd land a first-round pick, and we all know a team can never have too many draft picks. I'm looking forward to the day where the team ices purely hypothetical players for an entire season. Think of the potential!

 

Is draft pick potential so much worse than the potential Moulson ever scores again? Problem with Moulson is if he's. It scoring, he's not adding anything. Doesn't skate well, doesn't play well defensively, isn't a playmaker...it's score or bust. I'll be far from upset when he's gone.

[Eleven]

Is draft pick potential so much worse than the potential Moulson ever scores again? Problem with Moulson is if he's. It scoring, he's not adding anything. Doesn't skate well, doesn't play well defensively, isn't a playmaker...it's score or bust. I'll be far from upset when he's gone.

 

So trade him for a young player who can contribute next season or in 2015-2016 rather than in 2017-2018 (or later). I don't want to see him go for another 2014 or 2015 draft pick. Also, keep in mind that the pick they'd be getting for Moulson isn't going to be from a team that's finishing near the bottom.

Edited December 14, 2013 by Eleven

[TrueBlueGED]

So trade him for a young player who can contribute next season or in 2015-2016 rather than in 2017-2018 (or later). I don't want to see him go for another 2014 or 2015 draft pick. Also, keep in mind that the pick they'd be getting for Moulson isn't going to be from a team that's finishing near the bottom.

 

I agree in principle, I just don't think the market coughs up that quality young player for a rental of Moulson. IMO the choice will be Moulson for a 1st or no trade at all.

[Eleven]

I agree in principle, I just don't think the market coughs up that quality young player for a rental of Moulson. IMO the choice will be Moulson for a 1st or no trade at all.

 

Then I'd resign him. He is better than whatever they're likely to get out of that 25th overall pick.

Edited December 14, 2013 by Eleven

[nfreeman]

Then I'd resign him. He is better than whatever they're likely to get out of that 25th overall pick.

 

I agree that he's better than what they'd get from #25, but I don't think I would want to give him what he would demand in order to re-sign with the Sabres. Someone will probably give him, say, a Pommer-type contract ($5.6MM x 5 years). I don't want the Sabres to be that team.

[Robviously]

I agree in principle, I just don't think the market coughs up that quality young player for a rental of Moulson. IMO the choice will be Moulson for a 1st or no trade at all.

I'd rather take a 2015 1st than a definite late 1st in 2014. It's more fun rooting for other teams to tank.

 

I also just want the best asset we can get, and I don't care how long it takes to develop. I'd rather have a very talented 18 year old that we draft next Summer than some other team's mediocre 22 year old.

[Eleven]

I agree that he's better than what they'd get from #25, but I don't think I would want to give him what he would demand in order to re-sign with the Sabres. Someone will probably give him, say, a Pommer-type contract ($5.6MM x 5 years). I don't want the Sabres to be that team.

 

They're going to have to reach the floor somehow, and I don't want Stafford or Leino here next year.

[TrueBlueGED]

They're going to have to reach the floor somehow, and I don't want Stafford or Leino here next year.

 

I do want Stafford here next year. Not that I want Stafford, but in the last year if his contract he can help us reach the floor without any long term commitment that somebody like Moulson would require.

[deluca67]

Yeah, it got out of hand fast, which is ultimately what lead to Regier getting the can, I think.

 

I wouldn't be surprised if a new GM try to turn some of all those 1st and 2nd rounders into actual players.

Are you including picks already made? IMO, if a new GM thinks he can turn around this team quickly, he will have to use some of the young kids like Girgensons and the two big d-men as trade bait.

[papazoid]

Thought there was no way this was true. Turns out it pretty much is.

 

In the NHL, pick deferral has to be decided TWO PICKS before the selection is made. That's ridiculously dumb.

 

At least that's what Columbus had to do: http://articles.chic...gs-scott-howson

 

the NBA does this all the time...it's called "lottery protected".....only in the NBA it can go on for 3-4 years.

 

the Islanders pick will likely be a top ten pick in both 2014 & 2015.

[Hoss]

the NBA does this all the time...it's called "lottery protected".....only in the NBA it can go on for 3-4 years.

 

the Islanders pick will likely be a top ten pick in both 2014 & 2015.

 

No. This is different. Protections in the NBA are clean-cut. If the pick is lottery protected then it the other team doesn't get the pick the second that team misses the playoffs. In this situation the team gets to make a decision while the draft is going on.

[tom webster]

 

 

No. This is different. Protections in the NBA are clean-cut. If the pick is lottery protected then it the other team doesn't get the pick the second that team misses the playoffs. In this situation the team gets to make a decision while the draft is going on.

 

I'm still not sure this is a hard fast NHL rule. I have been told that there is no set NHL rule and every trade sets its own parameters as to when the deferral is required. The article you cite doesn't really clarify this even though you continue to state it as fact.

[Hoss]

 

 

I'm still not sure this is a hard fast NHL rule. I have been told that there is no set NHL rule and every trade sets its own parameters as to when the deferral is required. The article you cite doesn't really clarify this even though you continue to state it as fact.

 

The only evidence we have is what Columbus was required to do. Are you going to start requiring multiple forms of evidence to everybody that says anything on here now?

 

According to some Islanders fans, the team can't make a decision until after the lottery takes place. At the point, they have until nobody KNOWS when. The only case of a deferral actually happening happened when Columbus had up until two picks before the selection in question happened. They decided to defer while the draft was going on. It makes a lot of sense from the team with the option to defer's standpoint. See who is on the board.

Edited December 15, 2013 by DStebb

[Marvelo]

I do want Stafford here next year. Not that I want Stafford, but in the last year if his contract he can help us reach the floor without any long term commitment that somebody like Moulson would require.

 

Must disagree. I want Stafford out of here yesterday. Keeping him is like keeping a seven year old moldy lemon around the kitchen. Stinks up the whole area.

[nfreeman]

 

 

I'm still not sure this is a hard fast NHL rule. I have been told that there is no set NHL rule and every trade sets its own parameters as to when the deferral is required. The article you cite doesn't really clarify this even though you continue to state it as fact.

 

I would guess that you are right that it's a negotiated point in the trade. It would seem like a strange item for a league rule.

[Hoss]

 

 

I would guess that you are right that it's a negotiated point in the trade. It would seem like a strange item for a league rule.

 

I doubt it's a league rule. I would think past examples would be used when putting these types of stipulations on it.

[tom webster]

 

 

I doubt it's a league rule. I would think past examples would be used when putting these types of stipulations on it.

 

Exactly but anytime someone asks about it, you jump in with a definitive answer. To answer your previous question, I don't require multiple forms of proof,

But don't link anecdotal evidence and call it proof. As a long time member of this board I have seen it before where mis-information is written enough times that it becomes factual and them we spend half a thread trying to dispel the mis-information.

I have sent e-mails to people that should know and should respond either confirming what I have been told, what you have written or something totally different. Trust me, I will acknowledge if you are correct. I have no trouble admitting when I'm wrong.

[Hoss]

Exactly but anytime someone asks about it, you jump in with a definitive answer. To answer your previous question, I don't require multiple forms of proof,

But don't link anecdotal evidence and call it proof. As a long time member of this board I have seen it before where mis-information is written enough times that it becomes factual and them we spend half a thread trying to dispel the mis-information.

I have sent e-mails to people that should know and should respond either confirming what I have been told, what you have written or something totally different. Trust me, I will acknowledge if you are correct. I have no trouble admitting when I'm wrong.

 

Sources.

[tom webster]

 

 

Sources.

 

Don't want to to turn another thread into a personal conversation but I have no idea if you are asking me or telling me something here

[Hoss]

Don't want to to turn another thread into a personal conversation but I have no idea if you are asking me or telling me something here

 

Don't worry about it. It didn't really mean anything. I was just noting that you're going to sources via email to check out this case.

[Huckleberry]

I do want Stafford here next year. Not that I want Stafford, but in the last year if his contract he can help us reach the floor without any long term commitment that somebody like Moulson would require.

 

What i been saying multiple times already, this will be the reason neither stafford or Leino (he might go we'll see in offseason what happens) will be bought out, they'll need to reach cap floor next year.

Moulson will sign with the islanders again to be with tavares again, but he'll sign it a "bargain" price cause he'll be happy to be playing with JT again.

[papazoid]

No. This is different. Protections in the NBA are clean-cut. If the pick is lottery protected then it the other team doesn't get the pick the second that team misses the playoffs. In this situation the team gets to make a decision while the draft is going on.

 

oh please.....NBA protection is NOT clean cut.....there are all kinds of caveats and machinations

 

http://basketball.realgm.com/nba/draft/future_drafts/detailed