Jump to content

Thorny

Members
  • Posts

    26,422
  • Joined

Profile Information

  • Location
    zombie, zombie, zombie

Recent Profile Visitors

5,285 profile views

Thorny's Achievements

Hall of Famer

Hall of Famer (8/8)

8.6k

Reputation

  1. I mean, if the ask is Cozens, Savoie, Quinn, 1st, Johnson of course it’s a “no” but I highly doubt the ask would be that extreme. Your option with VO instead that you listed first is probably closer to the mark, but even then that’s 5 assets. I could see it being the 1st, Johnson, and 2 of Cozens/Quinn/Peterka/Savoie but I’d think Cozens as an NHLer is off the table for Buffalo, so two of Quinn/Peterka/Savoie. Very steep price, basically 2 guys with close to Robertson ceilings, and a 1st and D prospect on top of that, too. For me, I’d be much more inclined if one of the 2 from the Quinn/Peterka/Savoie group was bumped down to a lower tier prospect. But that may be no bueno for Dallas. Quinn/Rosen/Johnson/1st. Buffalo or Dallas says no?
  2. Agree. Not advocating for Robertson specifically merely that a Robertson-type acquisition is feasible. If KA doesn’t make the deal it’s because he’s not enamoured with the player relative to the cost of acquisition, not because he’s ruled out the idea of trading prospects entirely.
  3. Stretches believability to the breaking point. KA has been in the accumulate assets stage. Just because that’s how the roster has been operated thus far, doesn’t mean the situation doesn’t/can’t change as time goes on. I’m not saying the time is now, but to rule out the possibility of KA ever making deals that include prospects because we haven’t really seen one yet is absurd. No GM exists in a scenario where deals for prospects are forevermore off the table and that would be a poor strategy to take. It has to be the *right* deal, but to rule it out full stop in absolute fashion is a bad tactic that bad GMs take. Dealing in absolutes. Just like what made Botterill’s draft strategy bad is that he avoided the CHL absolutely after the first round refusing ever to shift.
  4. Given the numbers we’ve already seen Robertson put up at such a young age, it’s more unlikely than likely that any one of our current prospects becomes that good. We also have a substantial prospect pool, full to the extent I’d argue the only way we’d truly maximize its potential is to trade some potential away for real talent: not every pick will, or even can, make it. This is where it pays to have a GM you trust. If you trust his evaluation skills, a Robertson trade would be very exciting because I’d likely trust Adams to have identified the prospects he felt comfortable moving. With our pool being what it is, with Robertson being as good as he is, while being this young/lined up w/our core, this is definitely a move that CAN be successfully pulled off with aptitude, with the sky being the limit for success rate. Robertson is real good. You don’t want to be in the business of depleting your prospect ranks for now players, but a swap or two, depending on depth of pool, moves from unwise, to possible, to beneficial and necessary over time. I’d be hesitant to deal Cozens and probably wouldn’t, because I feel he is a lock at C moving forward and that positional availability has high value. Obviously Power is off the board. We have a lot of prospective wingers.
  5. May try and check some of this one out alongside the Jays game if the stream is quick and painless
  6. Elevate and maintain aka develop. And they did that, and we now may again. But my point wasn’t really about that. It’s about a false perception.
  7. 2022 draft was a great one for system balance
  8. That Cozens appears to be more locked in at C is a positive for me. Thompson and Cozens are the guys there, to me, until Savoie passes one. Not to mention (but actually, yes, to mention) the fact I’ve been harping on this o-zone free flow thing for a while
  9. Without getting into the “what the season is about” thing, I agree on the distinctions you’ve made for the players re: how the organization sorted them. Dahlin’s question should have already been answered though unfortunately w/ the result being he’s in the Skinner/Thompson/Tuch grouping. It’s a shame imo our MVP is in a question marks category
  10. This is accurate. Rick provided his own category of entertainment. That category is just listed as “N/A” now. It’s not even a shot at Dan, it’s not his fault, we’ve just lost something that can’t be replaced. Do what?
×
×
  • Create New...