Jump to content

Recommended Posts

Posted

Trading the #8 pick for extra picks in the second round is A) counter productive B) taking quantity to quality C) Lazy.  The draft is what it is.  The strength after the top #3, is D.  You take what you feel is the best fit long term.  Whether that's Juolevi, Chychrun, Sergachev, Bean, McAvoy. Or you take a forward like Nylander, Keller, Jost, etc. 

You are using a singular asset on a player that you have limited information on compared to a drafted prospect who likely has some NHL experience or at least some AHL games  on their resume. Murray has stated he prefers more established prospects. You can then package those eight 2nd and 3rd rounders for more NHL ready talents. There is nothing lazy about asset management. 

I do.  Your original suggestion did not mention that the prospect would be NHL-ready, is all.

 

A top 6 player is what I expect out of a #8 pick.

You're not getting a top six with the #8. 

 

Calgary is amassing a great deal of talent. it would depend on what Murray considers the greater value. Bennett is the ideal choice but unlikely. The Flames do have some quality winger prospects to choose from. 

Posted (edited)

You're not getting a top six with the #8.

 

Calgary is amassing a great deal of talent. it would depend on what Murray considers the greater value. Bennett is the ideal choice but unlikely. The Flames do have some quality winger prospects to choose from.

Lol you're not? Please prove that we can't get a top 6 forward in this draft at 8. I would love to hear this logic.

 

Also Bennett is worth more than #8 and #38 let alone with 3 2nds. So unlikely, try not a snowballs chance in hell. You're talking like what Shinkaruk 2nds maybe. It's just not wOrth it at all.

Edited by LGR4GM
Posted

 

 

You're not getting a top six with the #8.

 

 

I think you do get a top 6 at 8. Looking at the last 10 years of forwards drafted at #8...

 

Burmistrov

Couturier

Couture (#9)

Boedker

Glennie (bust)

Pouliot

Nylander

Posted

As someone else mentioned GMTM tried to package our three seconds to get back into the first two years ago, reportedly he was targeting Dylan Larkin. No dice. I'm sure there is an NHL draft pick value chart somewhere, I'd be shocked if three seconds totals even half the value of a top ten pick.

Posted

The Sabres couldn't back into the late second round last year offering three seconds... Calgary isn't getting 8 unless that's a monstrous prospect.

You are referring to 2 years ago, when Murray was supposedly trying to get back into the first for Larkin, right? I also love this tidbit, as it's something that confirms Murray's eye for talent.

 

I think you do get a top 6 at #8 in this draft

 

 

And in lots of drafts.

 

As someone else mentioned GMTM tried to package our three seconds to get back into the first two years ago, reportedly he was targeting Dylan Larkin. No dice. I'm sure there is an NHL draft pick value chart somewhere, I'd be shocked if three seconds totals even half the value of a top ten pick.

Beat me to it. Ya I think this is what Hoss was referring to.

Posted

You are referring to 2 years ago, when Murray was supposedly trying to get back into the first for Larkin, right? I also love this tidbit, as it's something that confirms Murray's eye for talent.

 

You could also argue that he didn't offer enough because he didn't rate Larkin as high as he should have.   

Posted

You could also argue that he didn't offer enough because he didn't rate Larkin as high as he should have.

 

You could. But I wouldn't. At least he was offering a significant package. I doubt even he could have been so absolutely sure on Larkin at that point that he'd be willing to give up more than 3 picks.

Posted

If prospects are 2-3 years away it's the perfect time to trade for Nash. With a good offseason, the Sabres are ready to contend for a playoff spot now. Plus, Nash's contract ends when we have to sign RFAs like eichel and reinhart. Not saying it has to be Nash, but he's exactly the type of player you want to acquire to play RW on the Eichel line this offseason

Posted

If prospects are 2-3 years away it's the perfect time to trade for Nash. With a good offseason, the Sabres are ready to contend for a playoff spot now. Plus, Nash's contract ends when we have to sign RFAs like eichel and reinhart. Not saying it has to be Nash, but he's exactly the type of player you want to acquire to play RW on the Eichel line this offseason

You want to trade assets just to get 2 years from Rick Nash so we can make the playoffs, this is Darcy logic. You don't trade for Rick Nash, you trade for JT Miller or someone young, that way you didn't just waste assets for nothing. Nash isn't going to help them win it all next year so why trade 4 things to acquire him?

Posted

If prospects are 2-3 years away it's the perfect time to trade for Nash. With a good offseason, the Sabres are ready to contend for a playoff spot now. Plus, Nash's contract ends when we have to sign RFAs like eichel and reinhart. Not saying it has to be Nash, but he's exactly the type of player you want to acquire to play RW on the Eichel line this offseason

 

Nash for cheap and with retained salary makes sense for a lot of reasons. But without salary retention, it's a no-go for me.

 

 

You want to trade assets just to get 2 years from Rick Nash so we can make the playoffs, this is Darcy logic. You don't trade for Rick Nash, you trade for JT Miller or someone young, that way you didn't just waste assets for nothing. Nash isn't going to help them win it all next year so why trade 4 things to acquire him?

 

Except the Rangers aren't going to trade Miller. 

Posted

Nash can be re-signed after 2 years if you wish. And if other pieces, like Stamkos, Vesey, Yandle, etc are added (not All of them, just examples) Nash can help you win a championship and teach the kids how to compete, etc. Having no veteran leaders leads a team to EDM

Posted

Ya, with salary retention, I don't think adding Nash hurts, as an option secondary to some of the better options out there, provided we don't have to give up too much to get him. He probably is still good enough to contribute for a couple years. He can put the puck in the net.

Posted

Blue, you know damn well miller is not the point of that post. Trading assets for Nash is dumb and short sighted.

 

Short sighted maybe, but dumb? I'd argue the intelligence of the move depends heavily upon price and alternatives. Could we get a better winger than Nash for a 2nd and 3rd round pick at $5.8 million? I'm not sure. And while you may believe that short sighted = bad, I think the face he's off the books in two years is an advantage and a reason to at least explore it. Gives proper development time for Bailey et al, help the team now, and doesn't negatively impact the cap long term.

Posted

I would absolutely take Nash if we strike out on Stamkos and Okposo and the price is relatively low. His contract won't impact long-term plans in any way and he helps us keep competitive while grooming younger forwards in the system properly.

Posted (edited)

Like so many others, Nash depends on price.

If we can acquire him for a third-rounder at a reduced salary and expose him in the expansion draft, then hell yeah.

Edited by dudacek
Posted

For those needing a good laugh on Monday. This tidbit from NHL Rumors. And yes I realize the site is pure BS.

 

Once again, Reinhart Pysyk #8 all in play for Edmonton. Hall and #4 would be the main pieces but more could be headed back

Posted

For those needing a good laugh on Monday. This tidbit from NHL Rumors. And yes I realize the site is pure BS.

 

Once again, Reinhart Pysyk #8 all in play for Edmonton. Hall and #4 would be the main pieces but more could be headed back

I mean, as much as that would never happen, I would be very tempted to do that deal.

 

Does Reinhart have a better career than Hall? He's younger, and without the injury concerns thus far. Plus he has incredible chemistry with Jack

Posted

I would be pretty upset if we traded Reinhart. I highly doubt it will happen, but it would be pretty depressing, even if we did get a guy like Hall back. Really like Sam as a player. 

This topic is OLD. A NEW topic should be started unless there is a VERY SPECIFIC REASON to revive this one.

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Restore formatting

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
×
×
  • Create New...