Trade ideas and speculation

[TrueBlueGED]

I'm really perplexed by this notion that 4 isn't a major step up from 8. In my view, Tkachuk and Dubois are significantly better prospects than any forward likely to be available at 8. Keller is likely the guy available there, and even though he's getting hyped up around here lately, and he's certainly a good prospect, he's not seen on the same level as those other 2, particularly due to his small stature.

 

On the other hand, if Murray is targeting a D, definitely no sense moving up. I guess it depends what he's after.

 

If he wants a forward, whether he's interested in moving up will depend on how big he views the gap between Tkachuk/Dubois and Keller. I think I'm clearly in the small minority here in thinking the gap is substantial, just what I've taken away from the scouting info I've read.

 

It'll be interesting to see what Murray does and how it all plays out.

Yea, I just don't think the jump from Nylander et al to Tkachuk/Dubois is that big. It exists, but not worth a costly trade to me.

 

Is part of your love of Tkachuk how perfectly he would seem to complement Jack, or do you think his individual talent really is that much greater? IMO part of the reason to get a player like Eichel is so you don't have to worry so much about who he plays with.

Is your disdain, for the contract, his style of play, his knack for getting nicked up easily? All of the above?

 

Yes. I dislike his game, he's a shoe-in to miss ~20 games per season, and he's expensive. It's all of those things put together that drives my hatred.

If his small stature is a main reason why he's below those other guys, then I absolutely want him. That really means nothing. I'm so glad our GMs passed on Tyler Johnson, Marty St. Louis, Gaudreau, etc because of how small they are. Someone mentioned earlier he's no smaller than Pat Kane, so what is the big deal about his size, why would that be an issue when by far the best player in hockey this year was the same size?

From what I can tell, some aren't convinced he quite has that elite quickness that helps small scorers translate to the NHL.

[Sabres Fan in NS]

Just wondering if all (well, maybe just one and you know who you are) the Bogo haters would take Myers back instead of having Bogo?

[TrueBlueGED]

Just wondering if all (well, maybe just one and you know who you are) the Bogo haters would take Myers back instead of having Bogo?

Yes.

 

At the very least, Myers' contract expires a year sooner :lol:

Edited May 22, 2016 by TrueBlueGED

[Sabres Fan in NS]

Yes.

 

I rest my case.

 

You're fired!!

 

Turn in your PhD and fancy stats machine at the door.

[Rasmus_]

Yea, I just don't think the jump from Nylander et al to Tkachuk/Dubois is that big. It exists, but not worth a costly trade to me.

 

Is part of your love of Tkachuk how perfectly he would seem to complement Jack, or do you think his individual talent really is that much greater? IMO part of the reason to get a player like Eichel is so you don't have to worry so much about who he plays with.

 

Yes. I dislike his game, he's a shoe-in to miss ~20 games per season, and he's expensive. It's all of those things put together that drives my hatred.

 

From what I can tell, some aren't convinced he quite has that elite quickness that helps small scorers translate to the NHL.

 

He does definitely lack the quick step, and he gets beat to the outside at times.  I like his physicality and he is straight forward.  He was drafted too high, based on his potential.  I would say to me, I've been more and more annoyed by his play the longer I've seen him in Buffalo.  He's a good room guy for sure.   If you could get decent value, trade him and move on.  

Just wondering if all (well, maybe just one and you know who you are) the Bogo haters would take Myers back instead of having Bogo?

 

Nah, I don't miss Myers one bit.  I thought I would when he was traded, but the more time that has gone on, I don't think he's more than a third defensemen. 

Edited May 22, 2016 by TheCerebral1

[TrueBlueGED]

I rest my case.

 

You're fired!!

 

Turn in your PhD and fancy stats machine at the door.

You can't fire me! I quit!!!

[Thorner]

If his small stature is a main reason why he's below those other guys, then I absolutely want him. That really means nothing. I'm so glad our GMs passed on Tyler Johnson, Marty St. Louis, Gaudreau, etc because of how small they are. Someone mentioned earlier he's no smaller than Pat Kane, so what is the big deal about his size, why would that be an issue when by far the best player in hockey this year was the same size?

  

There certainly are small players that become successful, don't get me wrong. But it's an added variable to the equation, something that makes it just a little bit more difficult for Keller to succeed in the NHL. Not saying he can't do it, but when other players like Tkachuk and Dubois have the skill AND the size, and are consistently ranked higher in prospect lists, my thinking is they would be worthy adds.

 

Yea, I just don't think the jump from Nylander et al to Tkachuk/Dubois is that big. It exists, but not worth a costly trade to me.

Is part of your love of Tkachuk how perfectly he would seem to complement Jack, or do you think his individual talent really is that much greater? IMO part of the reason to get a player like Eichel is so you don't have to worry so much about who he plays with.

 

From what I can tell, some aren't convinced he quite has that elite quickness that helps small scorers translate to the NHL.

I am more sold on Nylander, I would be less inclined to trade up if he would be there at 8, but I highly doubt he will be. I think the all-around skill difference between Tkachuk and Keller is significant, but I also think the fact he would seem to compliment Eichel so well is an added plus if it can be had. The point about not needing that talent, necessarily, because we have Eichel is well taken and makes sense, but that doesn't mean it wouldn't be an added bonus to have high-level talent on the wing too, if it can be aquired for a reasonable price. I suppose it depends what the cost would be.

 

For an example, as much as Kane is given credit for Panarin's great season, we can't discount how talented Panarin is, and the fact that Kane had a career year when Panarin's was added to his line. You don't have to put a top winger on Eichel's line, but there's nothing wrong with doing so.

 

It just comes down to how we want to spend our assets. If we are planning on spending our pick on a forward at 8 anyways, to me it makes sense to get a better one at 4 if possible, if we don't have to sell the farm. If we are giving up Bogo and his contract as the price, I think I am good with that.

[dudacek]

Re: moving up

According to our GM there is a pretty definable tier from 4 to 9 where the players are relatively equal.

Why would he give up a Fasching or a Pysyk or something similar to get a roughly equal player, let alone more?

[TrueBlueGED]

There certainly are small players that become successful, don't get me wrong. But it's an added variable to the equation, something that makes it just a little bit more difficult for Keller to succeed in the NHL. Not saying he can't do it, but when other players like Tkachuk and Dubois have the skill AND the size, and are consistently ranked higher in prospect lists, my thinking is they would be worthy adds.

 

 

I am more sold on Nylander, I would be less inclined to trade up if he would be there at 8, but I highly doubt he will be. I think the all-around skill difference between Tkachuk and Keller is significant, but I also think the fact he would seem to compliment Eichel so well is an added plus if it can be had. The point about not needing that talent, necessarily, because we have Eichel is well taken and makes sense, but that doesn't mean it wouldn't be an added bonus to have high-level talent on the wing too, if it can be aquired for a reasonable price. I suppose it depends what the cost would be.

 

For an example, as much as Kane is given credit for Panarin's great season, we can't discount how talented Panarin is, and the fact that Kane had a career year when Panarin's was added to his line. You don't have to put a top winger on Eichel's line, but there's nothing wrong with doing so.

 

It just comes down to how we want to spend our assets. If we are planning on spending our pick on a forward at 8 anyways, to me it makes sense to get a better one at 4 if possible, if we don't have to sell the farm. If we are giving up Bogo and his contract as the price, I think I am good with that.

Yea, I don't think Nylander will be there either, though there's a (small) chance. If I were as convinced as you are that Tkachuk is clearly a major cut above, I'd do the trade.

 

How would you tier this draft? I'd imagine you think Tkachuk and Dubois are closer to Puljujarvi than the next group? Something like:

 

Matthews-Laine

Puljujarvi-Tkachuk-Dubois

Nylander & the Dmen

Keller-Jost

Re: moving up

According to our GM there is a pretty definable tier from 4 to 9 where the players are relatively equal.

Why would he give up a Fasching or a Pysyk or something similar to get a roughly equal player, let alone more?

Well, if you disagree that 4-9 are basically equal, then it makes a lot of sense.

[Thorner]

Yea, I don't think Nylander will be there either, though there's a (small) chance. If I were as convinced as you are that Tkachuk is clearly a major cut above, I'd do the trade.

How would you tier this draft? I'd imagine you think Tkachuk and Dubois are closer to Puljujarvi than the next group? Something like:

Matthews-Laine

Puljujarvi-Tkachuk-Dubois

Nylander & the Dmen

Keller-Jost

 

Well, if you disagree that 4-9 are basically equal, then it makes a lot of sense.

Yup that's close to how I rank it, except I do see a clear gap between Puljujarvi and Tkachuk//Dubois, but then also one between Tkachuk/Dubois/Nylander and the Dmen. I rank Nylander almost up near Tkachuk and Dubois. I also think Laine is closer to Puljujarvi than Matthews. It's a combination of Matthews being pretty much equivalent to Eichel and Puljujarvi being an all around talent. So I'd rank it:

 

Matthews

Laine-Puljujarvi

Tkachuk-Dubois-Nylander

Dmen-Keller

Jost

 

I wouldn't be as interested in moving up for Tkachuk if I really felt Nylander was in play, as I quite like him as a prospect. But we agree he's likely not.

[kas23]

Re: moving up

According to our GM there is a pretty definable tier from 4 to 9 where the players are relatively equal.

Why would he give up a Fasching or a Pysyk or something similar to get a roughly equal player, let alone more?

That's if you believe him. When it comes to discussing 1st talent in relation to the Sabres pick therein, GMTM usually speaks with his mouth full of sour grapes. It's likely he was trying to save face based on the lottery pick we were likely going to get. "Look, we didn't need to move up, they're all the same anyways"

[TrueBlueGED]

Yup that's close to how I rank it, except I do see a clear gap between Puljujarvi and Tkachuk//Dubois, but then also one between Tkachuk/Dubois/Nylander and the Dmen. I rank Nylander almost up near Tkachuk and Dubois. I also think Laine is closer to Puljujarvi than Matthews. It's a combination of Matthews being pretty much equivalent to Eichel and Puljujarvi being an all around talent. So I'd rank it:

 

Matthews

Laine-Puljujarvi

Tkachuk-Dubois-Nylander

Dmen-Keller

Jost

 

I wouldn't be as interested in moving up for Tkachuk if I really felt Nylander was in play, as I quite like him as a prospect. But we agree he's likely not.

 

I will say I'm increasingly looking at forward in the draft over the Dmen, which makes trading up more appealing if we're concerned with speed-to-contribution factor. Although I'm still not sure Tkachuk/Dubois are a head above the rest, I do think they're in the NHL in a year, whereas someone like Keller may be two years out (and who knows with the defensemen). On the other hand, do we have a better chance of landing a legit top pairing Dman for the long term than this draft? Possibilities endless!

 

With respect to #4 in particular, I'm concerned that Edmonton isn't actually shopping the pick. Chiarelli can say everything he wants, but when was the last time a top-5 pick was dealt? Seems to me that GMs in that slot are always looking for a Godfather offer that never comes. Secondly, while we talk about Tkachuk being a perfect fit for Eichel...isn't he precisely what the Edmonton forward group is missing on the wing? If I'm Chiarelli, I'm looking at drafting Tkachuk/Dubois and trading say Eberle as the centerpiece for Vatanen. Is Tkahcuk/Dubois and Vatanen > Chychrun/Juolevi/Sergachev/Brown/Keller and Pysyk? I think that it is, and if Chiarelli is thinking like I am, I'm not sure there's a package we can put together to get it done. Are you willing to go #8, Pysyk, and Girgensons? Because I don't think Pysyk gets it done.

[Thorner]

You are right, I was never hopeful about getting #4 because I didn't feel like we were a great trade partner for Edmonton, particularly in light of who would be available for them at 4 and like you said, what forward may then be made available for a trade, and the potential return it would yield.

 

That's why I was surprised to see the Bogo and 8 to Edmonton for 4 and Griffhart rumour, and because of my thoughts on Tkatchuk it's a deal I think I would be inclined to do.

 

We don't wanna be the team to give that "ideal offer" that Chiarelli will be looking for.

 

8, Girgs and Pysyk seems a bit of an overpayment, meaning that's probably what it would take.

 

Your "Possibilities endless!" statement rings true, as I find myself flip flopping within my head as much as a politician running for a nomination, with regards to what I think the plan of action should be this offseason. There's too many variables right now to come up with my personal equation.

[Derrico]

I might consider the deal TBG threw out there.  I just don't trust the D in the draft.  Maybe it's all the nitpicking that happens before the draft.  Ofcourse we need D more then F but unless the D we actually take can turn into a top 2 player in a couple of years I'd rather find my D elsewhere. 

 

Also no thanks to Edmonton's Reinhart.  Guy has now played 4 post draft seasons and still can't crack Edmonton's horrendous lineup.  Not to mention I've heard Sam and Jack have built a pretty tight relationship.  I don't want the potential for 3's a crowd to pop up between them.

[TrueBlueGED]

I might consider the deal TBG threw out there. I just don't trust the D in the draft. Maybe it's all the nitpicking that happens before the draft. Ofcourse we need D more then F but unless the D we actually take can turn into a top 2 player in a couple of years I'd rather find my D elsewhere.

 

Also no thanks to Edmonton's Reinhart. Guy has now played 4 post draft seasons and still can't crack Edmonton's horrendous lineup. Not to mention I've heard Sam and Jack have built a pretty tight relationship. I don't want the potential for 3's a crowd to pop up between them.

That's what she said.

[Derrico]

That's what she said.

:lol:

 

This isn't 2006 TBG, update your list of meme

[TrueBlueGED]

:lol:

 

This isn't 2006 TBG, update your list of meme

Nonsense. That's what she said is timeless.

[3putt]

I might consider the deal TBG threw out there.  I just don't trust the D in the draft.  Maybe it's all the niyou.wanting that happens before the draft.  Ofcourse we need D more then F but unless the D we actually take can turn into a top 2 player in a couple of years I'd rather find my D elsewhere. 

 

Also no thanks to Edmonton's Reinhart.  Guy has now played 4 post draft seasons and still can't crack Edmonton's horrendous lineup.  Not to mention I've heard Sam and Jack have built a pretty tight relationship.  I don't want the potential for 3's a crowd to pop up between them.

There are very few places where you get top 2 d other than by drafting them.  Otherwise you get someone's cast offs and slot them in your top pair.  If you want them you usually have to draft and develop them yourself alla Risto.

[Derrico]

There are very few places where you get top 2 d other than by drafting them.  Otherwise you get someone's cast offs and slot them in your top pair.  If you want them you usually have to draft and develop them yourself alla Risto.

I guess part of it is I don't think any of the 3 will turn into a top 2 d.  Sure we can pick a d based on need but if they aren't good enough prospects to develop into a top pairing then we're still SOL. 

[3putt]

I guess part of it is I don't think any of the 3 will turn into a top 2 d.  Sure we can pick a d based on need but if they aren't good enough prospects to develop into a top pairing then we're still SOL. 

I think Sergachev has that ability.  The other 2 are a bit more iffy.  I concur that drafting for perceived need is a bad idea, I just think many are underestimating the difficulty faced when trying to fix a hole in the top 4.

[Marvelo]

I wonder if M.A. Fleury will become available now that Murray has become the Pen's go-to guy in net. Not that I'd want him and his $5.75 mil salary. An expensive back-up for the Pens.

[Eleven]

I wonder if M.A. Fleury will become available now that Murray has become the Pen's go-to guy in net. Not that I'd want him and his $5.75 mil salary. An expensive back-up for the Pens.

 

Available?

 

Yeah, he's about as available as GW Bush was in January 2009.  He's done.  Cooked. Of no use. Kaput.  Wish I had more.

[beerme1]

I wonder if M.A. Fleury will become available now that Murray has become the Pen's go-to guy in net. Not that I'd want him and his $5.75 mil salary. An expensive back-up for the Pens.

 

This is crackpipe theory right?

Sorry. le crack pipe!

[Huckleberry]

Anyone interested in bringing Enroth back as a back up ?

I don't think you can have a more solid back up goalie than him, he knows the team well and if anything happens to Lehner he can step in as #1.

[WildCard]

Very interested