jame
-
Posts
651 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Events
Posts posted by jame
-
-
2 minutes ago, Huckleberry said:
so that is 3 6th rounders this draft ? ?
Hopefully Botts knows what to do with a 6th rounder this time...
Just now, Huckleberry said:that 6th round is were the magic happens this year, he knows it.
it sure wasn't last year... lol
-
Botts turned a 3rd in to a 6th while giving up NHL Defensive Depth.... Botts has a plan though.
-
1 minute ago, ... said:
Me either.
I'm not even sure if I'm allowed to say that...
-
9 minutes ago, Samson's Flow said:
Maybe heed your own advice. We have given you plenty of facts and details that you have ignored as well. That's where the "fan who's always right" comments come from.
I haven't seen a single fact presented that supports the argument that Anaheim is doing a tear down. Maybe a quick recap would put me in my place.
-
1 minute ago, WildCard said:
Alright buddy lol I forgot I'm dealing with the fan that's never wrong
When confronted with the facts... this is where you always retreat. Maybe continue to refine your position?
I'm giving you evidence that disputes your claim that Anaheim is doing a tear down. What evidence do you have to support the claim, beyond the Montour trade?
1 minute ago, nfreeman said:Couple more like this and you're gone again.
It's been fun guys.
Go Sabres!
-
Just now, nfreeman said:
Historical validation is arguable, especially since Myers is going to get a huge contract this summer while Bogo may or may not get another NHL contract that is more than a "prove it" deal.
More to the point though, historical validation isn't relevant to what the discussion was, which was value given up in trade by TM vs value given up by JB at the time of the trade. There is no question that Myers was a much more valuable asset than Bogo was, or that Lemieux was a valuable chip at that time.
hmmm define "huge" contract?
Historical validation is important. It removes the hysteria.
There's a lot of question when those takes are not validated going forward.
-
Just now, LGR4GM said:
basically
Good thing we didn't include that 3rd asset... that would've ruined it.
-
1
-
-
1 minute ago, LGR4GM said:
No he was a middle 6 guy when he was drafted. He had 2nd line potential but being a 3rd liner with some scoring upside was also a reasonable eval of him going into that daft.
Is "middle 6" is what you label a prospect who you know doesn't have the skill to translate to the NHL at anything more than a role player?
-
7 minutes ago, Taro T said:
Phaneuf, Clarkson, &Datsyuk all had "untradeable“ contracts moved. There is no such thing as an immovable contract. Not saying it'll be easy nor that they will get moved, but it IS possible.
Phaneuf being the only relevant one on the list, traded to one of the few teams that was basically like, "***** it, we're screwed in another year anyways". Good luck finding 3 of those partners for Perry, Getzlaf, and Kesler.
-
2 minutes ago, Samson's Flow said:
Also how is Lemiuex a marginal prospect when he was drafted 33rd overall a year earlier? Talk about revisionist history now that we know he didn't pan out...
Not that draft position should matter in this case, but the 2014 draft was garbage, and the 2015 draft was an all time great draft class.
1 minute ago, LGR4GM said:He was a middle 6 guy when he was drafted and didn't improve on that.
In a bad evaluation sure.
-
Just now, Samson's Flow said:
Myers having almost twice as many points than Bogo says otherwise. Also Myers was significantly younger at the time.
It doesn't say anything like that....
-
Just now, LGR4GM said:
Guhle is also a marginal asset or at least on par with what Leamiux was.
I value the prospect potential of a D more than the potential of a depth/agitating winger.
Guhle was a much higher rated prospect for me. Higher than Armia ever was too.
-
1 minute ago, nfreeman said:
I'd say Armia was comparable to Guhle -- prospects seen to have had a high ceiling when drafted but who had lost some shine -- although you are right that Guhle probably has an edge due to position. But when you consider Lemieux -- who was seen as a valuable prospect and still quite early in his career -- Armia plus Lemieux is materially more valuable.
As to the first bolded -- absolutely not. Myers was seen as a very valuable asset -- probably the most precious trade chip the Sabres had -- while Bogo was seen as an albatross -- https://www.theglobeandmail.com/sports/hockey/report-evander-kane-traded-to-buffalo-in-seven-player-deal/article22909464/. Myers was the key part of the price they paid to get Kane.
As for the 2nd bolded -- you are probably right here, but the spread isn't high -- Kane was coming off of season-ending shoulder surgery and had accumulated a decidedly negative reputation. There were quite a few GMs who had zero interest in trading for him. And your point above about D being more valuable than W is applicable here as well.
There were major issues with Myers game. Myers/Bogo was a swap. The history of their play since them validates that position.
Lemiuex was a marginal asset, again validated through the last few years....
-
2 minutes ago, WildCard said:
And I said they can try and get rid of them in the summer. I agree with what a tear down is, and I stand by that's their intention
They can do a teardown. Your insistence that they can't simply because of see bad contracts can be proven wrong simply by looking at other teams that have moved worse contracts
Anaheim doesn't need playoff revenue. Don't act like they're being relocated without it
It's an interesting take.... team trades 24 year old defensemen, fans read the tea leaves as a tear down.....
That is after signing Henrique long term, and getting Rakell and Kase on bargain contracts through their prime.... and having an elite young netminder... But sure... they've got to tear it all down because of bad contracts.
-
Just now, WildCard said:
They just traded a 24 year old d man for a prospect and a late 1st. They're not rebuilding anything around that core, they're done with it
The fact remains those contracts are immovable. Lots of teams rebuild on the fly... the tear down phenomenon is not a standard by which all teams execute a rebuild.
Anaheim is a team that NEEDS playoff revenue. They will be rebuilding on the fly, while they try to grind out defensive hockey and the playoff wildcard while rebuilding. They've got the goaltender in place for the system.
They literally CANNOT do a teardown. So the will rebuild on the fly.
-
3 minutes ago, WildCard said:
No I don't. I expect those guys and any other player with value who doesn't fit into their window 2-3 years from now to be over the summer and next year
But Perry and Kesler have no value. Have you seen their contracts and their play? They are toast... no one is taking those contracts on for MULTIPLE years.
-
4 minutes ago, nfreeman said:
Well, I think Armia and, more importantly, the perceived (by WPG) spread of Myers over Bogo have to be considered part of the consideration for Kane -- which in turn supports those who disagree that this is a TM-style move.
I think whoever posted upthread that this is more of a measured JB move than a max-out-the-credit-card TM move -- i.e. a LOT of picks and prospects for a good player who is somewhat proven in the NHL but still young -- is right.
Bogo/Myers was always a wash.
I think you can make the case that Armia+Lemiuex isn't that far off value wise from Guhle (wing vs D value). We should also recognize that Kane was a higher value asset that was depreciated because of injury/lockerroom, than Montour at the time of the respective trades.
-
2 minutes ago, WildCard said:
Kessler, Perry, Getzlaf...yeah, they are
So you expect Kesler, Perry, and Getzlaf to be traded in the next hour? Or you expect them to wave their NMCs soon?
What do you think a tear down is?
-
Just now, IrwinNelson said:
How much of that is because they can’t get rid of their large, veteran contracts (Perry, Kesler, Getzlaf)? They just resigned Silferberg, but he’s a good piece for a rebuild. I think if you gave them the option of tearing it down, they would. They just can’t.
Right. So their approach is going to be to stay afloat and make playoff appearances (revenue), while rebuilding on the fly. They will not do a tear down. The reason you trade a young Montour, is not because of timing, or cap or any of that... it's because they are going to pivot to a defensive model, playing low scoring, mistake free hockey... and Montour just doesn't fit that style at all.
1 minute ago, Taro T said:A 1st & a prospect that seems to have stagnated for a 2nd pairing D isn't a Tim Murray trade. Throw in a 2nd or Nylander & that's TM to a T.
Minutae
Multi futures from the top rung of our future assets....
-
2 minutes ago, WildCard said:
All rebuilds are not at the same point. Montour is perfect for our window, but Anaheim is just beginning their tear down and they need 2-3 years for it to turn around
Anaheim is not doing a tear down
-
3 minutes ago, GASabresIUFAN said:
Montour is being traded because of money pure and simple. Ana is a budget team, already was long-term contracts with D for over 15 mill and 2 prospects, Larsson and Pettersson, with similar skill sets ready for NHL duty.
Montour is under contract next year for 3.3
This was not a budget/cap trade at all.
Montour was traded because of the system based changes Anaheim needs to make to remain competitive/playoff capable during their aging roster turnover/rebuild.
Just now, Samson's Flow said:I think you answered your initial question in the bulk of your post.
Montour's play style didn't align with how a Randy Carlisle team plays, where as he fits ideally with a Housley uptempo attacking defense. Anahiem recognized that isn't the type of player they want to invest in, and acted accordingly.
Correct. It was meant to counter a false cap/rebuild argument.
-
1 minute ago, Samson's Flow said:
the first bold - The Anaheim team as a whole is headed into a re-building phase, and while Montour is young, he only has 1 year before an RFA payday that a re-building team isn't going to want to pay for. If you are expecting to compete in the next few years (like the Sabres expect to) then that fits perfectly in the competitive window.
Anaheim is trading him to align their team to the expected competitive window, which is why a 21 yr old defenseman and a RD1 pick is more valuable to them.
Why would a rebuilding team not want to pay a 25 year old defensemen?
Montour is a huge risk taker, and when his style is reigned in, it becomes less effective. Anaheim rcognizes their cap scenario, age, etc require them to shift their game to a defensive model, as they rebuild. The reason Anaheim trades Montour is because they recognize they won't be good enough to sustain his risk/reward style, and he doesn't fit the necessary systematic changes they need to make to compete while they rebuild.
Buffalo, however, is building an uptempo team that Montour seems ideal for.
-
2 minutes ago, GASabresIUFAN said:
A 1st rd pick and a prospect for a young vet.
That said. This is nothing like a TM trade. First this player is healthy (unlike Lehner, Bogo and Kane). This player isn’t being cast off from his team for being injured or a problem in the locker room unlike Kane, Lehner or ROR. Also he doesn’t with a huge cap hit unlike Kane, Bogo and ROR.
Also this isn’t Jbot sacrificing the teams future to rush a rebuild. This is a considered trade for an asset which we don’t have in our system (puck moving RHD) at the cost of a failing prospect and a late rd 1st that likely won’t contribute for 3-4 years.
First bold: Ask yourself why this player is being cast off then?
Second bold: All of Tim Murray's big trades can be described in exactly those terms.
-
1 minute ago, WildCard said:
I mean it makes sense, I can definitely see the comparison to the deal. People were upset with GMTM for rushing moves though. This doesn't have the feel of that though IMO because the team is in a different spot
That's a fair differentiator
Trade: Beaulieu to Winnipeg for 6th rounder
in The Aud Club
Posted
Ironically, last year Botts chose "nothing"
It's not his job to do favors...