Pretend GM: If you could get a Lindros-like haul for Dahlin, would you do it?

[That Aud Smell]

4 hours ago, PASabreFan said:

Wouldn't "obviously serious" about getting better describe virtually ever player out there? I think the key word is "deadly." What makes you think he is deadly serious about getting better? More than the average young player. Because he doesn't smile, joke around, celebrate goals or even smirk at cat goalkeeper videos?

Don’t parse my words, holmes.

I guess I meant obviously to modify deadly? I dunno. It’s just my take: That he’s in the top 5%~ when it comes to the mental drive to improve.

YMMV, as the saying goes, when it comes to the desire, drive, know-how to improve. An NHL player has already accomplished so much. I don’t blame them for stalling out a bit.

[Randall Flagg]

We can only know so much about that kind of thing (very little)

I do recall Jason or someone mentioning they sometimes have to shoo him out of the facilities hours after the players have finished for the day

[Stoner]

3 minutes ago, Randall Flagg said:

We can only know so much about that kind of thing (very little)

I do recall Jason or someone mentioning they sometimes have to shoo him out of the facilities hours after the players have finished for the day

"The Idea of Dahlin."

[thewookie1]

On 4/1/2020 at 3:50 PM, Randall Flagg said:

This is the kind of thing I was looking for. 

Ricci wasn't quite a point per game player, but he had nice production before going to Quebec. His first two years his stat lines were:
that's Games, goals, assists, points, PIM, plus minus. The season before the trade, Ricci was 120th in NHL scoring, but apparently was seen as a nice young player.

Duchesne looks even better than you remember:

A top five Norris finish earlier in his career, in his prime, coming off of five straight seasons over 50 points. He was 16th in defensive points per game in 91/92. He was 6th a few seasons prior. 

We'll say that Forsberg was viewed similar to how, maybe, Barkov was viewed had Barkov stayed in Finland? I know Forsberg eventually ended up becoming something of a legend, but we'll give him Barkov-level clout pre-NHL for the purpose of this exercise. 

Hextall: This was a pretty good goalie, about to enter his prime, right?

Huffman: The low-scoring defenseman that I think lou is referring to

Simon: a nice prospect, nothing crazy.

First round pick, cash. 

So, would a comparable trade be something like:

Dahlin to Vancouver for Gaudette (Ricci), Horvat (forward Duchesne), Brock Boeser (similar value to Forsberg pre-NHL?), Markstrom, Stetcher, a prospect, and a first rounder? 

No interest, unless Petersson or Hughes is in the return.

Dahlin to Tampa for Johnson (Ricci), McDonagh (Duchesne), Cirelli (Forsberg, less value but NHL proven), pretend they have a good goalie to give us, Coburn, a prospect, and a first rounder?

Not good enough, 2 of the good players are approaching the other end of their careers and only Cirelli is worth any real attention.

Dahlin to Carolina for Staal (Ricci), Pesce (Duchesne), Svechnikov (Forsberg), Mrazek, Gardiner, and a 1st? 

Staal is too old at this point, Pesce and Svechnikov are nice and the rest really isn’t useful. Gardiner is garbage defensively.

Dahlin to Colorado for Compher (Ricci), Rantanen (Duchesne), Makar (Forsberg), Grubauer, Zadorov and a 1st?

Id take the Colorado offer as it makes us better both in the short and long term. Essentially we switch Dahlin for a slightly “lesser” prospect in Makar and get Rantanen. 

These trades may be way off in comparison, but I'd make them all, and I don't think Dahlin would fetch anywhere near those returns. 
 

That being said I doubt any offer out there would be worth trading Dahlin for. Rarely do trades like that work out like the Lindros one did.

So no, I wouldn’t trade him short of that Colorado offer.

[Randall Flagg]

16 minutes ago, thewookie1 said:

That being said I doubt any offer out there would be worth trading Dahlin for. Rarely do trades like that work out like the Lindros one did.

So no, I wouldn’t trade him short of that Colorado offer.

I'm really not trying to build trades to judge on a "would you do this" base, but a "does this sort of resemble the Lindros return" base

[miles]

i put no because the 5 the sabres would end up with is 3 players like evan rodriguez and 1 sheary and 1 carter hutton (january version of hutton)

 

 

Edited April 2, 2020 by miles

[Eleven]

20 minutes ago, miles said:

i put no because the 5 the sabres would end up with is 3 players like evan rodriguez and 1 sheary and 1 carter hutton (january version of hutton)

 

 

I should clarify that I did mean the quality of players that Quebec received in the Lindros trade.  Not what Botterill would likely get, which may be this^

[That Aud Smell]

4 hours ago, Eleven said:

I should clarify that I did mean the quality of players that Quebec received in the Lindros trade.  Not what Botterill would likely get, which may be this^

Hmmm. That *is* interesting. *Super* hypothetical of course. But interesting.

Would you?

[Eleven]

45 minutes ago, That Aud Smell said:

Hmmm. That *is* interesting. *Super* hypothetical of course. But interesting.

Would you?

 

Wait until tomorrow, though...

Edited April 3, 2020 by Eleven

[Thorner]

On 4/1/2020 at 3:29 PM, Weave said:

I’ll go so far as to say I don’t need an all star coming back to make this trade.  A youngish good 2C, 2RW, top 4 d man, starting goalie, and an actual good prospect or two could really sway me.  Those additions would be game changers overall.

It would be freaking hilarious if we traded a franchise D man for a "good 2C" because we traded a "great" 2C for sh*t all. 

[Thorner]

On 4/1/2020 at 5:25 PM, Neo said:

The learned will add ..

1). Forsberg was a sixth over all viewed as over drafted at the time.  He put in two to sasons with MODO while a Flyer prospect where he excelld.  He’d yet to play an NHL game at the time of the trade.

2).  Ricci had two NHL seasons at 45 or so points per.  20/25 guy.   I thought he could be the best Flyer in the trade.

3). Duchesne was mid career and put up some big numbers (40 to 75 pt) earlier in his career while in LA with high scoring teams on defense!

4).  Huffman was a 4/6 defenseman.

5)   Hextall was a proven winner on some good Flyer team, mid career.  His numbers were “meh”, but that was a different era.

I thought Que fleeced Philly even before Forsberg became an all time great.

You thought Quebec fleeced Philly by sending out the "next one" for an over drafted 6th pick, a 45 point forward, a good D man, and bottom pair D man, and a good goalie? 

Meh. 

What if Lindros was Crosby and the pick was your average 6th overall? Cause that what the trade looked like at the time. 

Edited April 3, 2020 by Thorny

[Thorner]

On 4/1/2020 at 6:01 PM, dudacek said:

At the time of the trade:

Ricci was a highly-touted former top-5 draft pick, a two-way Centre about to enter his 3rd year -> PL Dubois

Forsberg was a former top-10 pick, an elite junior yet to play pro, a centre with an edge and a complete game, highly-regarded but not a consensus franchise player -> Dylan Cozens

Hextall was a legitimate #1 goalie in his prime, coming off two disappointing years -> Freddie Anderson? Martin Jones? Can’t really find a current guy between those two.

Huffman was just a guy, a mostly disappointing former late 1st round two-way D who had just finished his first full year in the NHL after bouncing back and forth from the minors for a few years -> Mirco Mueller

Simon was a pretty well-regarded power forward prospect (at a time when they were more valued) about to turn pro -> maybe Max Jones? or Nick Ritchie two or three years ago?

Duchesne was a proven offensive defenceman in his prime, bad defensively, but he put up a ton of points -> Tyson Barrie

 

It was an absolutely ridiculous haul then, even if Duchesne, Hextall and Ricci ended up disappointing somewhat, made even better by what Forsberg became.

Of course you do it.

It's only a ridiculous haul because Forsberg became the best player in the deal. Without that hindsight, it's not a deal I make. To use Crosby again:

Crosby for PL Dubois, Dylan Cozens, Martin Jones, Mirco Mueller, Nick Ritichie, and Tyson Barrie is a terrible trade for the team dealing Sid. 

[Sabres Fan in NS]

No.

That's all, sorry @Eleven.

[Thorner]

On 4/2/2020 at 9:58 AM, dudacek said:

The question wasn't "should we trade Dahlin?" it was "should we trade Dahlin for a Lindros type haul?"

Just to follow from my "approximate values" post, you don't think adding Dubois as a 2C and Anderson as a 1G fixes this team's two biggest holes? That a Alex Turcotte or Trevor Zegras drastically improves our stash of skilled forward prospects? That Mueller and Jones add low-cost depth with some upside?

All for the cost of downgrading Dahlin to a Tyson Barrie level defenceman?

A massive, massive downgrade. We are so jaded here because we are used to a GM incapable of filling holes, a normal way, even over periods of YEARS. How about we get a 2C and a goalie WITHOUT trading a Franchise D man and downgrading to a perhaps net-negative D man in his place. 

Edited April 3, 2020 by Thorny

[Thorner]

On 4/2/2020 at 11:09 AM, PASabreFan said:

No Lindros haul is coming for Dahlin. I can almost guarantee that the estimation of Dahlin by the typical Buffalo Sabres internet poster is higher than that of the typical NHL GM. Plus, Botterill is a soft touch in a position of tremendous weakness. GMs would be glad to take Dahlin off his hands, but the offer won't be historic.

Anywho, Terry would never approve it. Because, boy, can that kid skate.

As it is for every team's fans re: their own players. As it was for the Sabres and Eichel, until this year, when now everyone realizes he's a franchise player. 

Edited April 3, 2020 by Thorny

[Weave]

18 minutes ago, Thorny said:

It would be freaking hilarious if we traded a franchise D man for a "good 2C" because we traded a "great" 2C for sh*t all. 

Sure, if that was all I suggested in the trade, I agree.

[Thorner]

8 minutes ago, Weave said:

Sure, if that was all I suggested in the trade, I agree.

I don't care what else would be in the trade. It's not a trade we should be in the position of having to make, at all. A trade where we are, at the time of the deal, sending out the player with the most value. No thanks.

The scenario is a simple one: If the hypothetical trade is based on the perception of those involved *at the time of the trade*, it's a NO BRAINER "no", as we'd have to send out the "best" player.

If the hypothetical trade is somehow inclusive of us *knowing* we are getting the best player in the deal, it's a NO BRAINER "yes". Why wouldn't we trade a player for a better player, +? How is that even a question? If the hypothetical precludes we are getting the better player just the like original deal in question, I struggle to see where the dilemma is and struggle with the question on its face. 

Edited April 3, 2020 by Thorny

[Weave]

4 minutes ago, Thorny said:

I don't care what else would be in the trade. It's not a trade we should be in the position of having to make, at all. A trade where we are, at the time of the deal, sending out the player with the most value. No thanks. 

And that’s a valid opinion.  And would have been a valid response to my entire post, as opposed to singling out one portion of the deal as if that was the whole deal.

Edited April 3, 2020 by Weave

[Thorner]

4 minutes ago, Weave said:

And that’s a valid opinion.  And would have been a valid response to my entire post, as opposed to singling out one portion of the deal as if that was the whole deal.

I was making an obvious point - that we'd be trading the best player in the deal, for holes that could/should be filled in other ways. I wasn't leaving anything out. I highlighted the best piece we'd be getting back. 

Edit - I mean, it's a thread. I followed up with several posts. 

Edited April 3, 2020 by Thorny

[Neo]

23 minutes ago, Thorny said:

You thought Quebec fleeced Philly by sending out the "next one" for an over drafted 6th pick, a 45 point forward, a good D man, and bottom pair D man, and a good goalie? 

Meh. 

What if Lindros was Crosby and the pick was your average 6th overall? Cause that what the trade looked like at the time. 

I thought Lindros (prospect) > Forsberg (prospect).

I did not think he was Hextall, Duchesne, Ricci, Huffman, a first-round pick in the 1993 draft,  $15 million (1992), Chris Simon and a 1994 first round pick better.

 

 

 

[Thorner]

3 minutes ago, Neo said:

I thought Lindros (prospect) > Forsberg (prospect).

I did not think he was Hextall, Duchesne, Ricci, Huffman, a first-round pick in the 1993 draft,  $15 million (1992), Chris Simon and a 1994 first round pick better.

 

 

 

Obviously have to defer to your recollection/perception as that's what we are talking about here haha, but I've always understood it to be roughly a Crosby/Parise comparison. A no BS potential "next one" for an "average high pick". 

9 times out of 10 you get badly burned regardless of the other pieces. It's not like a team doesn't look to supplement those areas regardless. I just don't make that trade. 

Edited April 3, 2020 by Thorny

[Thorner]

On 4/1/2020 at 6:55 PM, #freejame said:

This is among the worst trade proposals in Sabrespace history. 

Wait, in what way?

[dudacek]

2 hours ago, Thorny said:

A massive, massive downgrade. We are so jaded here because we are used to a GM incapable of filling holes, a normal way, even over periods of YEARS. How about we get a 2C and a goalie WITHOUT trading a Franchise D man and downgrading to a perhaps net-negative D man in his place. 

It seems I have a different perception of Barrie than you.

Steve Duchene was not good defensively, but offensively he was consistently among the best in the league for an extended period of time. He was not a net-negative.

And with all due respect to Dahlin, Lindros was a McDavid-level prospect. Most people don’t have Rasmus on that level.

 

[Thorner]

5 minutes ago, dudacek said:

It seems I have a different perception of Barrie than you.

Steve Duchene was not good defensively, but offensively he was consistently among the best in the league for an extended period of time. He was not a net-negative.

And with all due respect to Dahlin, Lindros was a McDavid-level prospect. Most people don’t have Rasmus on that level.

 

I thought the trade was supposed to be the same in a relative sense. If the question is, hey, would you trade Dahlin for someone better than Dahlin? The answer is, well yes. 

As for Barrie, definitely. 

Edited April 3, 2020 by Thorny

[#freejame]

12 minutes ago, Thorny said:

Wait, in what way?

In return