Sabres Trade the 11th pick to San Jose for 14th and 42nd Overall

[DarthEbriate]

15 minutes ago, Thorny said:

I guess Draft Pick 11 didn’t want to be here 

The number is retired anyway. 

[DarthEbriate]

I like the move. Nothing to add that hasn’t been said above.

Can still get a targeted player at 14 that you might think is a reach at 11. The 2nd is currency for a 2/3C trade with a year left on the contract. 

Edited Thursday at 07:01 PM by DarthEbriate

[sabremike]

4 minutes ago, LGR4GM said:

This tweet doesn't make sense to me. Jiricek and Emery will almost guaranteed be there at 14. 

If the guy we want is the guy SJ takes with the 11OA pick it would be freaking hilarious so bet on that happening.

[LGR4GM]

2 minutes ago, sabremike said:

If the guy we want is the guy SJ takes with the 11OA pick it would be freaking hilarious so bet on that happening.

If Adams made this trade the draft guys have already assured him that at 11 or 14 the options present similar upside. 

[TRIP65]

11 minutes ago, SDS said:

I appreciate you thinking through this and not just firing out some tiresome snark.

Moving to 14 does nothing for the Sabres now. Hold the pick for a Trade and if doesn't happen, then take the guy you have at Top on Board. Doesn't matter if the Sabres REACH. We have too many Prospects as is. Pick 11 is worth more in a Trade for a Veteran.

So what this tells me is there is NO TRADE available to the Sabres to make with draft pick for a Veteran Player. No one is Valuing this Draft apparently.

This again gives me the feeling Buffalo is gonna use Prospect Pool we have to get better. I don't see any Top Trades and doubt Freeagents that are any good will pick Buffalo unless we way over pay. Hence why Skinner might be cut!

3 minutes ago, sabremike said:

If the guy we want is the guy SJ takes with the 11OA pick it would be freaking hilarious so bet on that happening.

Never know

[WhenWillItEnd66]

Nygard should be there at 14...... I am in!!!!! Plus extra draft capital ..... Nice move!!!

[TRIP65]

7 minutes ago, DarthEbriate said:

I like the move. Nothing to add that hasn’t been said above.

Can still get a targeted player at 14 that you might think is a reach at 11. The 2nd is currency for a 2/3C trade with a year left on the contract. 

Are we not hoping the Sabres get good enough they will be drafting lower in the Future???

Why on Earth then are we moving back when we may not be 11 or Higher for at least 10 years, that is the plan right?

How is 14th pick worth more than 11th pick in trying to throw it in for a Veteran Deal?

Never heard another Team say, this player you want is worth 14th pick, not the 11th.

Adams LOVES his draft picks and prospect pools. Don't believe he can trade his drafted players for a Block Buster Deal. He just won't give them up.

[TRIP65]

37 minutes ago, Thorny said:

We’ve made 30 picks the last 3 drafts. We can’t just go up and make all the picks this year, we really can’t 

Apparently Adams wants more

Maybe Adams is playing 4D Chess?

40 minutes ago, stinky finger said:

I'll give you Torrence. I'm not in the mood to list the "not so good" nor is it the place.

Let's leave it at hockey.

 

Did you say this when Beane was brought up?

[Archie Lee]

54 minutes ago, SabreFinn said:

Never thought it that way, but it makes sence, the 2nd as a sweetener. And a trade is better than a buyout. Let's hope you are right.

I'm not great at valuing NHL talent v. draft picks.  There are players though who might be available, who would change the team dynamic and who shouldn't cost a first.  They aren't sexy names, but players like Laughton, Dowd, Iafallo, Mathieu Joseph, maybe Kakko, and others, might be had for post-1st-rd picks. Maybe we are grabbing an extra 2nd in order to make a move for a lesser player or two. 

My gut tells me that this isn't part of a larger plan (much like Byram for Mitts).  I think San Jose wanted to move up and were willing to meet our ask, and and since we had nothing going on for #11, we made the trade. 

[#freejame]

What’s the odds one of those pieces actually gets moved out? 25%? Like others have said, we can probably get one of the same players we had an eye on, but I just really don’t give a *****. Get better now. 

Edited Thursday at 07:15 PM by #freejame

[Thorny]

On 4/30/2021 at 8:09 AM, Thorny said:

Trading down to pick up an extra asset can also be a good strategy. Sometimes getting cute is thinking that you CAN outsmart everyone, particularly in later rounds, when in reality it's mostly a craps shoot. By avoiding the hubris and actively realizing the chances of YOU identifying the player in the 4th round that "everyone missed" is slim, you can end up with a replacement draft pick with similar odds of hitting, and another asset. Especially in a later round, it could make sense to make that type of swap. 

- - - 

An interesting article on some of this thinking:

https://hockeyandstuff.weebly.com/chaces-blog/how-bad-has-trading-up-been

 

On 4/30/2021 at 8:49 AM, LGR4GM said:

You don't trade down in the first or second round (maybe a late 2nd I suppose you could). 

If we trade down in this trade (we won't) then it should be to acquire picks in the 2022 draft. IE we trade from 65 to 85 but we also get that teams 3rd or 4th rounder next season. 

Have you shifted your stance on this? I’ve always gotten a hard time for supporting this

Edited Thursday at 07:15 PM by Thorny

[RochesterExpat]

In a vacuum, I don’t understand this trade. If we’re moving that 2nd (or the 1st for that matter) as a package, it makes a lot more sense.

[mjd1001]

51 minutes ago, CallawaySabres said:

Any other team in the draft, this is a good trade. Why our idiot would do this now. Makes no sense to me.

Possibly...you are lining up a trade for an actual player and the team you want is looking for an additional 2nd round pick to complete the deal?

[Thorny]

On 6/26/2023 at 2:21 PM, Thorny said:

I’ve read a lot of data that suggests the opposite, trading down in the NFL makes less sense because of the higher certainty of scouting whereas in the NHL it pays to pick up extra picks because much of it is crap shoot anyways 

the historical data on the difference in value between pick i dunno 13 and pick say 20 is a significantly less affecting variable than the quality of GM doing the pick. I’d be fine moving down a few spots in fact id advocate for it outright 

Mentioned trading 13 actually for this reason 

[SDS]

1 minute ago, Thorny said:

 

Have you shifted your stance on this? I’ve always gotten a hard time for supporting this is 

Why would you remember this?

[dudacek]

1 minute ago, Archie Lee said:

. 

My gut tells me that this isn't part of a larger plan (much like Byram for Mitts).  I think San Jose wanted to move up and were willing to meet our ask, and and since we had nothing going on for #11, we made the trade. 

They wouldn’t have made this deal if they were close to doing what we wanted: leveraging #11 into a good player.

To my mind it dims the hope for the type of trade we all want.

[TRIP65]

26 minutes ago, xzy89c1 said:

very odd. They need to pick as many players as they can and hope some hit...

Yes, San Jose should have moved back and Sabres moved up if they liked a Player.

 

This move does nothing for a Veteran Trade except weaken our Position

 

ONLY way this makes sense is if Adams has a Trade in Principle already for a Blockbuster Deal with Buffalo losing 4-5 Prospects. Then I could see Adams wanting more picks to replace what Amerks are losing.

[SDS]

1 minute ago, Thorny said:

Mentioned trading 13 actually for this reason 

The NHL draft pick value flattens out really quick.

[LGR4GM]

1 minute ago, Thorny said:

 

Have you shifted your stance on this? I’ve always gotten a hard time for supporting this

You dug up a post from 3 years ago? 

In this draft, yes it is fine. This draft is a bit odd and also, it depends on if they use that asset they got to improve the team now. I think trading down from 11 to 14 is very different than trading from 9 to 11 if that makes sense. In this particular draft however, I think there is a tier from about 8-16ish maybe even 18, so it doesn't bother me much. 

[Thorny]

Just now, SDS said:

Why would you remember this?

Because I remember almost eveything I have a photographic memory

Sorry, do you have an issue that I remembered it? I also remembered it because I’ve always been a big proponent of trading down and always got a lot of pushback and never any support on it  

[LGR4GM]

1 minute ago, Thorny said:

Because I remember almost eveything I have a photographic memory

Sorry, do you have an issue that I remembered it? I also remembered it because I’ve always been a big proponent of trading down and always got a lot of pushback and never any support on it  

Depends on the draft, what you get, how far you move down, etc. The draft value drops quick as you move back in the first round. 

[Thorny]

2 minutes ago, LGR4GM said:

You dug up a post from 3 years ago? 

In this draft, yes it is fine. This draft is a bit odd and also, it depends on if they use that asset they got to improve the team now. I think trading down from 11 to 14 is very different than trading from 9 to 11 if that makes sense. In this particular draft however, I think there is a tier from about 8-16ish maybe even 18, so it doesn't bother me much. 

I didn’t “dig up” anything. I asked in good faith because we’ve talked about this many times. I’m sorry you don’t remember our conversations like I do? I’m legitimately interested in understanding peoples opinions. I actually commit your comments to memory because I value them 

honestly I candidly find it sort of telling that “remembering other people’s viewpoints that they’ve painstakingly taken the time time derail” is seen as odd behaviour  

Edited Thursday at 07:21 PM by Thorny

[SDS]

1 minute ago, Thorny said:

Because I remember almost eveything I have a photographic memory

Sorry, do you have an issue that I remembered it? I also remembered it because I’ve always been a big proponent of trading down and always got a lot of pushback and never any support on it  

I couldn’t tell you three items I ate last week. I also couldn’t tell you what people posted earlier today, let alone yesterday, nor three years ago. That includes myself.

[Thorny]

1 minute ago, SDS said:

I couldn’t tell you three items I ate last week. I also couldn’t tell you what people posted earlier today, let alone yesterday, nor three years ago. That includes myself.

Ok. Maybe I’m in the wrong space if I’m annoying people by remembering past threads 

I could have never written for Star Wars, I retain too much continuity 

Edited Thursday at 07:23 PM by Thorny

[SDS]

3 minutes ago, Thorny said:

I didn’t “dig up” anything. I asked in good faith because we’ve talked about this many times. I’m sorry you don’t remember our conversations like I do? I’m legitimately interested in understanding peoples opinions. I actually commit your comments to memory because I value them 

honestly I candidly find it sort of telling that “remembering other people’s viewpoints that they’ve painstakingly taken the time time derail” is seen as odd behaviour  

If you have a photographic memory, you should have more empathy to those of us who have none. 😂

1 minute ago, Thorny said:

Ok. Maybe I’m in the wrong space if I’m annoying people by remembering past threads 

I could have never written for Star Wars, I retain too much continuity 

You are confusing annoyance with astonishment. I’m not annoyed that you remembered this, but astonished with a touch of incredulousness.