Jump to content

Recommended Posts

Posted
50 minutes ago, Mr Peabody said:

Seems odd but so did Arizona taking less for Chychrun

IIRC, it wasn’t that they took less. I believe we had an offer, Ottawa made a slightly better offer, and then the Coyotes didn’t give the opportunity for us to make a better offer after. 

Posted

I don't care who the messenger is (ex. Peters).  I do tend to believe there is some truth to the sentiment.  Either GMKA overvalues his assets and other teams don't waste their time dealing with him or something else....but his record speaks for itself and there has not been enough change for the good.

  • Like (+1) 2
  • Agree 1
Posted
13 minutes ago, sabresparaavida said:

IIRC, it wasn’t that they took less. I believe we had an offer, Ottawa made a slightly better offer, and then the Coyotes didn’t give the opportunity for us to make a better offer after. 

Possibly but I seem to remember saying he tried and offered more than they got from Ottawa.   Now it could be that it was close and Arizona honored Chycrun’s wish.  KA would do the same if it was close. 

Posted (edited)

Oh good.

I've been pissed off at the Sabres lately and even more after my buddy told me it didn't seem like anybody wanted to trade with them, so I called Petey to vent about it.

I thought it was a little weird he didn't ask me who I was before he Tweeted it out, but I'm glad he did.

 

Edited by dudacek
  • Haha (+1) 5
  • Awesome! (+1) 2
Posted

Honestly is the Sabres are being blackballed because we dared to hold onto Eichel until the zenith point to get more assets then the rest of league needs its head checked. What, are we in Buffalo only supposed to take loss and deal with it? In that case get proof of it Sabres and sue the league for improper business practices and false advertising.

Posted
2 hours ago, Mr Peabody said:

Seems odd but so did Arizona taking less for Chychrun

Unless I missed something, there was never any confirmation of this. What Adams hinted at was that Arizona wanted Savoie rather than our first and that he wasn’t going to do that. So Arizona took Ottawa’s first, which at the time was looking like it would be higher than ours (and it was). There was never an indication, that I recall, that Arizona was willing to take less from Ottawa than what we were offering. 
 

 

Posted
2 hours ago, GoPuckYourself said:

So a caller called in and told him this and he took is as gospel? I don't really get the context here and find this really hard to believe yet he's made trades in the past.

Don't be so pedantic. If you listen to their show, they don't do "open phones". Peters and Rivet are still quite connected with the NHL if their guest list is any indicator. He's referring to someone whom he was talking to. Peters is also always first to say the rumours and chit-chat he gets from where ever are just that: rumours and chit-chat - just like he did in that tweet.

  • Agree 1
Posted

I'm calling BS on this one. If anything teams should love trading with us. Just look at the history of the guys we've moved out. ROR traded & his team wins the Cup. Eichel gets traded & they win the Cup. Reinhart gets traded & they win the Cup. Seems teams would be chomping at the bit, to poach us of our talent. What would make more sense is that the players themselves don't want to come here... and who could blame them?

Posted
7 minutes ago, ... said:

Don't be so pedantic. If you listen to their show, they don't do "open phones". Peters and Rivet are still quite connected with the NHL if their guest list is any indicator. He's referring to someone whom he was talking to. Peters is also always first to say the rumours and chit-chat he gets from where ever are just that: rumours and chit-chat - just like he did in that tweet.

I'm just surprised anyone is listening to Peters & Rivet, good on you guys I guess? 

Posted
Posted
Just now, ... said:

No objection here. They just sometimes do this cryptic stuff now and again acting like they're in the know with no substance (I know they've done this in the past with players I just can't recall who). And since I'm being so padantic and all do you have the entire tweet he's talking about? 

Posted
3 hours ago, RochesterExpat said:

I think you were right with your earlier assertion about NTC/NMC. I’m guessing GMs don’t want to ask about Buffalo or ask if players are willing to waive. 

As said above, I think it’s a consequence of NMC/NTCs and GMs not willing to lean on players to get them to waive. Which, honestly, is probably good practice for GMs since they deal with the same agents for multiple players and you don’t want to risk blowback.

If anything, the NMC/NTC hurdle theory supports other GMs being competent. In fact, it explains a lot. Occam’s razor.

It's true, in most cases players do not have to submit their list unless the team asks for it (meaning they want to try to trade you) and they wouldn't want to ask for it unless they were sure. 

  • Like (+1) 1
Posted
1 hour ago, ... said:

Peters sent out a tweet saying no one wants to deal with Buffalo after 4 separate teams completed trades with them, so yes this is evidence to the contrary. 
 

Not liking the trade doesn’t change the fact that Washington was willing to make a deal with Buffalo. 

 

 

  • Awesome! (+1) 1
Posted
37 minutes ago, PerreaultForever said:

It's true, in most cases players do not have to submit their list unless the team asks for it (meaning they want to try to trade you) and they wouldn't want to ask for it unless they were sure. 

I thought that every contract containing a M NTC or partial no trade list has a yearly deadline when the list needed to be submitted by the agent to the NHL Central Registry. 

Friedman and Marek discussed this on a pod and Marek wondered if there would ever be a day when the no trade lists are made public on a site such as Cap Friendly. Friedman quickly shot that down 

 

 

  • Like (+1) 1
Posted
1 hour ago, Brawndo said:

Peters sent out a tweet saying no one wants to deal with Buffalo after 4 separate teams completed trades with them, so yes this is evidence to the contrary. 

Not liking the trade doesn’t change the fact that Washington was willing to make a deal with Buffalo. 

I see. So, before Peters it's Adams overpays for an underwhelming player and therefore pundits with no league insight can caterwaul over how Adams is in over his head and has put the team in a position where it must overpay because GMs aren't willing to - wait for it - make a deal with the Sabres.

And after Peters tweets out feedback he received from one of his league connections that GMs aren't willing to "deal" with the Sabres it's oh no! We can't have that! Certainly it must not be true! Why, look, Adams did indeed complete a trade. Never mind that it's not a bargain, and that we overpaid for a player of questionable utility, by God Adams executed a transaction.

 

crazy cuckoo GIF

  • Haha (+1) 1
  • Thanks (+1) 1
Posted
1 hour ago, Brawndo said:

I thought that every contract containing a M NTC or partial no trade list has a yearly deadline when the list needed to be submitted by the agent to the NHL Central Registry. 

Friedman and Marek discussed this on a pod and Marek wondered if there would ever be a day when the no trade lists are made public on a site such as Cap Friendly. Friedman quickly shot that down 

 

 

You could be right but I didn't think that was the case. I know the Bruins asked Ullmark to submit his list at the end of the season. 

Do the teams get full access to what's in the central registry?

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...