Trade ideas and speculation

[Hoss]

I wanna see hwo we develop the kids. We are suffering for 2 years to get these amazing players. I wanna see them play. We didnt suck in order to get great players as trade-bait. Who says that Reinhart isn't putting up numbers like Malkin in a few years. We haven't even seen many of those guys getting a shot in the NHL and we are already trading them in our minds for proven players. Develop proven players yourself... much cheaper...

Small complaint here, but this is off. Just because they're traded doesn't mean they're trade-bait. The phrase itself is defined as somebody who is used to entice a team to make a deal or a player that is traded, but I look at the term more as a player or asset that teams dangle to others for a deal. It's not like we're sending an email to the league saying "what can we get for Reinhart?" We didn't suck so we could trade them, we obviously sucked so we can play them. But when a huge opportunity presents itself Murray will obviously consider it.

 

I'm not saying they should make the deal. I don't think they should after initially thinking otherwise. But the argument above has nothing to do with it.

Edited June 6, 2015 by Hoss

[Tondas]

GMTM is comitted to youth.  I think any trade/aquisition will have to be a 24 year old or younger player.  I wouldn't expect him to bring in anyone older than that.

[Hoss]

GMTM is comitted to youth.  I think any trade/aquisition will have to be a 24 year old or younger player.  I wouldn't expect him to bring in anyone older than that.

I think this is taking the idea too far. I do believe, based on what he has said, they'll be more aggressive in targeting players that are in their mid-to-low 20s, but I fully expect him to consider and even acquire at least one older player.

Edited June 6, 2015 by Hoss

[thewookie1]

I think this is taking the idea too far. I do believe, based on what he has said, they'll be more aggressive in targeting players that are in their mid-to-low 20s, but I fully expect him to consider and even acquire at least one older player.

 

I think the only exception would probably be Patrick Sharp seeing as if they win this year he'd have three rings and would be useful.

[Hoss]

I think the only exception would probably be Patrick Sharp seeing as if they win this year he'd have three rings and would be useful.

I'm sure there is potential for more than just Patrick Sharp coming to Buffalo as far as players over 24 go... 

[K8prisoner]

trade our second pick this year and evander kane for a boatload of future picks and prospects... i think we were finally learning the ettiquete of the tank

Edited June 6, 2015 by K8prisoner

[nfreeman]

For the record: if the proposal is Reinhart, Risto and #21 for Malkin, I think Pittsburgh says no, not GMTM.

[Bob Malooga]

Yes. If it's Reinhart, Zadorov, 21 and a prospect (as long as it's not Eichel) then I do that deal.

 

Over a PPG player. No reason to think he won't keep that up for another 4-5 years. Worst case is he does keep it up and then slowly moves to a 60 point player for a few years. We would be able to contend within 2-3 years if Eichel performs early on. We're talking about a top five player in the league.

 

 

I'm not 100% set on doing that deal. My immediate reaction is "yes." We're in a weird spot to make a move like that, but Malkin is one of the best. He would be the best non-goalie we've had since Perreault.

 

 

 

Dave Molinari @MolinariPG

 

Agent JP Barry, on Malkin-wants-traded speculation: "I don't know where this is coming from. Not from me or Geno. I'm trying to ignore it."

Top-5? Crosby, Ovechkin, Toews, Kane, Stamkos...I'd take all them over Malkin in a heartbeat. (Top 7-10 is more like it.)

 

But, I rather use assets like that, which are some of our best, for somebody younger.

Edited June 6, 2015 by Bob Malooga

[TrueBlueGED]

For the record: if the proposal is Reinhart, Risto and #21 for Malkin, I think Pittsburgh says no, not GMTM.

This is part of why I don't think we see a Malkin trade: I don't think there's a hockey trade out there that makes Pittsburgh better, helps them capitalize on the rest of Crosby's prime, and is palatable to the other team involved. And I sure as heck don't think the Sabres and Pens work a deal of any kind--just really bad trade partners.

[WildCard]

This is part of why I don't think we see a Malkin trade: I don't think there's a hockey trade out there that makes Pittsburgh better, helps them capitalize on the rest of Crosby's prime, and is palatable to the other team involved. And I sure as heck don't think the Sabres and Pens work a deal of any kind--just really bad trade partners.

Very true. I think there are about 3-4 potential trade partners for Pitt in a Malkin deal: NYR, Montreal, Minnesota, and St.Louis. All teams on the cusp and with some ammo to get a deal done. I really, really want this trade to happen, it would be awesome. 

[TrueBlueGED]

Very true. I think there are about 3-4 potential trade partners for Pitt in a Malkin deal: NYR, Montreal, Minnesota, and St.Louis. All teams on the cusp and with some ammo to get a deal done. I really, really want this trade to happen, it would be awesome.

Minnesota...now there's an interesting one. They're pretty much in win now mode, but have some pieces Pittsburgh would want and they could part with without being crippled. Something with Granlund/Pommer/Dumba maybe?

[WildCard]

Minnesota...now there's an interesting one. They're pretty much in win now mode, but have some pieces Pittsburgh would want and they could part with without being crippled. Something with Granlund/Pommer/Dumba maybe?

Minnesota is actually my least likely on that list. I think they believe they aren't that far off, and don't need a player like Malkin for his cost. I mention them because Hoss had the idea in the 'Around the NHL' thread; he had a similar proposal to yours in that thread. 

[TrueBlueGED]

Minnesota is actually my least likely on that list. I think they believe they aren't that far off, and don't need a player like Malkin for his cost. I mention them because Hoss had the idea in the 'Around the NHL' thread; he had a similar proposal to yours in that thread.

Hmmm. Rangers? Nash/Stepan/Hagelin or something like it? Cap would probably be a problem there, however. I don't think Montreal had the pieces to make it happen, because let's face it, Subban isn't going to be involved. St. Louis could do a quantity for quality deal, but at what cap ramifications for Pittsburgh? Stastny or Backes /Oshie/something ends up costing more money than Malkin, and Pitt is already up against it.

Edited June 6, 2015 by TrueBluePhD

[LaLaLaFontaine]

For the record: if the proposal is Reinhart, Risto and #21 for Malkin, I think Pittsburgh says no, not GMTM.

Thanks, I also think that also if we add Grigorenko Pittsburgh may say no.

 

We overvalue our prospects on this board in my opinion. When Malkin is on fire in the playoffs he single handedly can win it four you, like he did for Pittsburgh.

[Bob Malooga]

Trade Ideas:

 

Grigorenko, Zadorov, Hodgson (salary retained), pick #21...for Ryan O'Reilly.

 

2016 first round pick, 2017 2nd round pick, 2016 third round pick...for Tyler Toffoli.

 

It might seem a lot for Toffoli, but that is what it will cost the Sabres for an offer sheet anyways. This way they can negotiate a better deal with him, instead of having to overpay just to get him AND give up the draft picks. So, instead of signing him to a $6M/year deal to get him away from LA, they could maybe give him something closer to what he's worth, say $4.5M/year.

 

Kane - Eichel - Ennis

Moulson - Reinhart - Toffoli

Foligno - O'Reilly - Girgensons

Deslauriers - Larsson - Kaleta?

 

Sekera? - Bogosian

Gorges - Ristolainen

McCabe - Pysyk

 

Sign me up for the playoffs with that team...as long as they have a decent goalie.

 

(The more I look at it, we don't need both, do we? I think I would rather have O'Reilly over Toffoli, but it's a tough call. I really like both of them, and they both seem to fit what Murray is trying build this team with...just hate to lose Zadorov.)

Edited June 6, 2015 by Bob Malooga

[nfreeman]

Thanks, I also think that also if we add Grigorenko Pittsburgh may say no.

 

We overvalue our prospects on this board in my opinion. When Malkin is on fire in the playoffs he single handedly can win it four you, like he did for Pittsburgh.

 

Yes indeedly.

[TrueBlueGED]

Thanks, I also think that also if we add Grigorenko Pittsburgh may say no.

 

We overvalue our prospects on this board in my opinion. When Malkin is on fire in the playoffs he single handedly can win it four you, like he did for Pittsburgh.

With respect, no player can single handedly win a Cup for you. Saying Malkin dragged Pittsburgh to that Cup belittles the rest of the team, especially Fleury, who was spectacular in that run.

 

As far as overvaluing prospects goes, I think you're right. But I also think people overrate fading stars.

[Brawndo]

@CraigCustance: Three teams have expressed interest in moving into the Coyotes spot at No. 3 in the draft. Arizona, with wide range of needs, listening.

[deluca67]

@CraigCustance: Three teams have expressed interest in moving into the Coyotes spot at No. 3 in the draft. Arizona, with wide range of needs, listening.

The Sabres would have to move up twice, imo, to take a shot at #3. I would think they would have to at least move into the top ten then take a run at #3. Looks way too expensive. 

Can someone explain why some seem to think Grigorenko was significant trade value. I get that he is a former 1st round pick. Nothing he has shown since that day screams NHL Player. I'm willing to listen. I see posters add Grigorenko into trade discussions and the first thought in my mind is why would the other make any significant investment to acquire Grigorenko. IMO, his value at this point is of a middle round draft pick. 4th or 5th round in return. I think a 3rd would be a generous return at this point. Again, I'm willing to listen.

[Hoss]

I don't believe anybody is arguing that Grigorenko has significant trade value. The idea is just that he's got value as a secondary piece in deals.

 

On the Sabres getting to 3: I don't believe they're one of the three teams pursuing it. This thread isn't for Sabres ideas/speculation only. It's for the entire league, which is why (I assume) Brawndo posted it.

[LabattBlue]

Why does anyone think the Kings would trade Toffoli?  Offer sheet him?  They will match and then dump cap space.  See next sentence.  He is the youth they need to inject into their core replacing Richards, Brown and possibly even Williams.  They need to reload and make another run at the Cup in 15-16, not stockpile draft picks or prospects who are a year or more away from becoming serious contributors to the team.

[deluca67]

I don't believe anybody is arguing that Grigorenko has significant trade value. The idea is just that he's got value as a secondary piece in deals.

 

On the Sabres getting to 3: I don't believe they're one of the three teams pursuing it. This thread isn't for Sabres ideas/speculation only. It's for the entire league, which is why (I assume) Brawndo posted it.

If #3 is in play and the Sabres were not at least making inquiries I would be deeply disappointed.

 

I'm not even sure how much secondary trade value Grigorenko has.   

[LabattBlue]

If #3 is in play and the Sabres were not at least making inquiries I would be deeply disappointed.

 

I'm not even sure how much secondary trade value Grigorenko has.   

I'd be disappointed if they are.  Taking Eichel is a no brainer.  Quality over quantity.  Taking calls on #2 is a waste of TM's time, unless he is seeking humor in the middle of the day.

Edited June 6, 2015 by LabattBlue

[Hoss]

If #3 is in play and the Sabres were not at least making inquiries I would be deeply disappointed.

 

I'm not even sure how much secondary trade value Grigorenko has.   

I'm sure they'll inquire. Custance saying three teams are in on it probably means there are three teams that have had more than just preliminary inquiries into what it would take.

I'd be disappointed if they are.  Taking Eichel is a no brainer.  Quality over quantity.  Taking calls on #2 is a waste of TM's time, unless he is seeking humor in the middle of the day.

He wasn't insinuating that they should be making a deal of two for three. He was saying that they should look to acquire three on top of two.

[LabattBlue]

I'm sure they'll inquire. Custance saying three teams are in on it probably means there are three teams that have had more than just preliminary inquiries into what it would take.

He wasn't insinuating that they should be making a deal of two for three. He was saying that they should look to acquire three on top of two.

..and how would that happen without giving away the farm?