HopefulFuture Posted January 20, 2012 Author Report Share Posted January 20, 2012 Not to nitpick, but Dreger was on WGR this morning. ooops, sorry there Labatt, working on 4 hours sleep here. I'll fix and thanks for pointing it out. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
shrader Posted January 20, 2012 Report Share Posted January 20, 2012 Yea he is. This isnt like the NFL, picks in hockey dont carry as much value. Roy is def worth more than a maybe kinda potential NHL player. Picks carry a ton of value, especially in the salary cap era. Nothing should be compared to football where 2 trades are made per season. But otherwise, yes, Roy has more value than that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
spndnchz Posted January 20, 2012 Report Share Posted January 20, 2012 Dreger on GR this morning: Problems with Sabres this year - Miller, acquisitions all having poor years, can't lean on players you usually lean on, look lost. Players need to embrace the level of compete, needs to come from a bigger group. No rumblings on LR getting fired. Some on Darcy. Darcy is "working the phones hard" Roy, Boyes and Stafford. Dreger doesn't think he'll get top 6 value for a top 6 player. There are 8-10 top six players available. Montreal has shown interest in Roy. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TrueBlueGED Posted January 20, 2012 Report Share Posted January 20, 2012 Darcy has never been able to set the market. He waits for the market to set itself then he tries to make a move. Reactive rather than proactive. And at a glacial speed. Not to completely abandon reality here but do you think not a single team is having discussions right now? Hey now, don't be so quick to hate on glaciers, I mean one did sink the Titanic! They're powerful! Unless of course, you want to view Regier as the glacier and the Sabres as the Titanic...in which case....uuuhhhh..... :bag: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HopefulFuture Posted January 20, 2012 Author Report Share Posted January 20, 2012 Hey now, don't be so quick to hate on glaciers, I mean one did sink the Titanic! They're powerful! Unless of course, you want to view Regier as the glacier and the Sabres as the Titanic...in which case....uuuhhhh..... :bag: I stand corrected, the iceberb for the Titanic came from the Greenland Ice Cap. :) But yes, people shouldn't hate on glaciers, they carved the world into the sculpture it is today. EDIT: and let the conversation flow to somewhat of a more interesting subject, the speed at which glaciers move and the receding arctic ice shelf that has icebergs in the Atlantic down some. Now this is worthy conversation. Does anyone have a live camera feed of a glacier, I think we should watch it to see when it moves, and then see if Darcy's done anything by that time :) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Patty16 Posted January 20, 2012 Report Share Posted January 20, 2012 Picks carry a ton of value, especially in the salary cap era. Nothing should be compared to football where 2 trades are made per season. But otherwise, yes, Roy has more value than that. I was only trying to compare the value of picks. A good number of NHL do not turn out and take a long time to develop. Giving away a top 6 forward who produces (at least in the past) for one 2nd rd isnt a deal. I think fans tend to overvalue the next big thing. Look at the recent article on Kassian, or when Enroth played a few games. We get excited and say trade the starters let the kids play....but you cant realistically run a competitive team that way. If you go that route you show that you are focused on the future and not winning short term. Not what Pegula is going for based on his offseason moves. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Claude_Verret Posted January 20, 2012 Report Share Posted January 20, 2012 The only thing that is going to increase the value of Roy, Stafford and Boyes at this point is the frenzy of deadline day. I wouldn't expect them to be moved until then. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TrueBlueGED Posted January 20, 2012 Report Share Posted January 20, 2012 An iceberg sand the Titanic, built up on the edge of the Arctic Ice Shelf, not on a glacier :) But yes, people shouldn't hate on glaciers, they carved the world into the sculpture it is today. Good point. I could try and save face by saying icebergs come from glaciers....but I think it's a bit late at this point. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HopefulFuture Posted January 20, 2012 Author Report Share Posted January 20, 2012 Good point. I could try and save face by saying icebergs come from glaciers....but I think it's a bit late at this point. lol, I caught it already, but Icebergs don't merely come from glaciers. I was stationed on board an ice breaker in the Navy back in my day, they also build up on the Edge of the Ice Shelf, from high winds and accumulating Ice layers. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BetterDays06 Posted January 20, 2012 Report Share Posted January 20, 2012 Eklund said Roy is gone to Montreal. Ik there has been speculation. Anyone have info on this? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TrueBlueGED Posted January 20, 2012 Report Share Posted January 20, 2012 The only thing that is going to increase the value of Roy, Stafford and Boyes at this point is the frenzy of deadline day. I wouldn't expect them to be moved until then. I don't expect a move to be imminent either, shortly after the all-star break would be the soonest in my estimation. But I don't think the value of our guys is getting hurt that much by this season, simply because the entire team is tanking. If only Roy, Stafford and Boyes were having bad years, then yes their value would plummett. But being that the entire team sucks, I think teams will put less weight onto this season. Roy in particular has value despite how much everybody hates him, and Boyes we'll probably never recover our 2nd round pick, but 3-4th maybe. Stafford it's hard to gauge, because he has a history of his 2 best seasons being contract years, and his current contract being for 3 years (after this one) can't help his value at all. He's probably the least moveable of the guys most fans want gone. lol, I caught it already, but Icebergs don't merely come from glaciers. I was stationed on board an ice breaker in the Navy back in my day, they also build up on the Edge of the Ice Shelf, from high winds and accumulating Ice layers. If there was an emoticon for raising the white flag, I would insert it here. Eklund said Roy is gone to Montreal. Ik there has been speculation. Anyone have info on this? Well now we can officially scratch Montreal off the list of possible destinations for Roy. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
shrader Posted January 20, 2012 Report Share Posted January 20, 2012 I was only trying to compare the value of picks. A good number of NHL do not turn out and take a long time to develop. Giving away a top 6 forward who produces (at least in the past) for one 2nd rd isnt a deal. I think fans tend to overvalue the next big thing. Look at the recent article on Kassian, or when Enroth played a few games. We get excited and say trade the starters let the kids play....but you cant realistically run a competitive team that way. If you go that route you show that you are focused on the future and not winning short term. Not what Pegula is going for based on his offseason moves. Trading him for a second wouldn't rule out the possibility of turning that second around for someone else. That's the one thing lost in this discussion that Darcy wants to move a top 6 guy for another top 6 guy. It doesn't need to be straight up. They can get a 3rd team involved to help make things work. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dEnnis the Menace Posted January 20, 2012 Report Share Posted January 20, 2012 Trading him for a second wouldn't rule out the possibility of turning that second around for someone else. That's the one thing lost in this discussion that Darcy wants to move a top 6 guy for another top 6 guy. It doesn't need to be straight up. They can get a 3rd team involved to help make things work. This is what I am envisioning, and is the most probable. I've stopped listening to the games...I checked the score at 1130 last night, and wasn't surprised. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wonderbread Posted January 20, 2012 Report Share Posted January 20, 2012 Dreger on GR this morning: Problems with Sabres this year - Miller, acquisitions all having poor years, can't lean on players you usually lean on, look lost. Players need to embrace the level of compete, needs to come from a bigger group. No rumblings on LR getting fired. Some on Darcy. Darcy is "working the phones hard" Roy, Boyes and Stafford. Dreger doesn't think he'll get top 6 value for a top 6 player. There are 8-10 top six players available. Montreal has shown interest in Roy. Thank you I was wondering what had transpired. I missed the interview as I got into an accident right as he was coming on. Don't worry I'm ok. The cars fender is a different story. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nfreeman Posted January 20, 2012 Report Share Posted January 20, 2012 I don't care how bad Roy is playing, with one more year left on a cap friendly contract and his resume, he is worth more than a 2nd round pick. Yea he is. This isnt like the NFL, picks in hockey dont carry as much value. Roy is def worth more than a maybe kinda potential NHL player. Picks carry a ton of value, especially in the salary cap era. Nothing should be compared to football where 2 trades are made per season. But otherwise, yes, Roy has more value than that. I don't disagree that the Sabres ought to be able to get more than a #2 for Roy, but I don't think the Habs are going to give up their #1. Looking at their roster, the only forward I would want is Pacioretty, and I doubt the Habs would give him up for Roy. So that leaves their #2. I suppose it could be buttressed with a prospect or another pick. Also, the Habs only have about $1.7MM in cap space, so the Sabres would need to take an NHL salary back in the trade. Frankly at this point there is nothing the Habs have to offer that would make a difference on the Sabres' roster. The hope would have to be addition by subtraction, both of Roy's personality and cap number. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LabattBlue Posted January 20, 2012 Report Share Posted January 20, 2012 yes.. I don't count that either. Moving Rene Bourque (a guy with a suspension history) for Cammalleri (He of the we are losers, quote) isn't much of a deal either, imo. The big trades aren't there yet... they are coming, I am sure. Give it the All-star break when GM's have a few days to do nothing but think and talk about what they want to do. Sorry. I didn't realize you had criteria for what you consider to be a trade. <_< I don't disagree that the Sabres ought to be able to get more than a #2 for Roy, but I don't think the Habs are going to give up their #1. Looking at their roster, the only forward I would want is Pacioretty, and I doubt the Habs would give him up for Roy. So that leaves their #2. I suppose it could be buttressed with a prospect or another pick. Also, the Habs only have about $1.7MM in cap space, so the Sabres would need to take an NHL salary back in the trade. Frankly at this point there is nothing the Habs have to offer that would make a difference on the Sabres' roster. The hope would have to be addition by subtraction, both of Roy's personality and cap number. What if the Sabres got their #1 for 2013, or a #2 this year and next year, or a #2 and a cneter prospect? C'mon Darcy...be creative! :) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nucci Posted January 20, 2012 Report Share Posted January 20, 2012 Eklund said Roy is gone to Montreal. Ik there has been speculation. Anyone have info on this? I thought Eklund rumors were banned on here. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
darksabre Posted January 20, 2012 Report Share Posted January 20, 2012 I thought Eklund rumors were banned on here. There should be a way to add his name to the swear filter at least. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BetterDays06 Posted January 20, 2012 Report Share Posted January 20, 2012 I understand 99% of his stuff is rumor, but when I look on hockeybuzz.com and he post someone has been traded its usually accurate... I bet it's true Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
inkman Posted January 20, 2012 Report Share Posted January 20, 2012 This sort of makes sense. I'd make sure McCormick and Stafford are gone as well. Why exactly do we need to trade a 4th line player who does everything his role calls for? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Iron Crotch Posted January 20, 2012 Report Share Posted January 20, 2012 Who would come back from the Habs in return from Roy? It'd have to be a center (although Darcy has shown us that he sees no need for true centers). Louis Leblanc from the Habs? Someone else? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dEnnis the Menace Posted January 20, 2012 Report Share Posted January 20, 2012 Who would come back from the Habs in return from Roy? It'd have to be a center (although Darcy has shown us that he sees no need for true centers). Louis Leblanc from the Habs? Someone else? again, as said above, it could be a three team deal. Honestly I'm not getting my hopes up for anything being done, until it's done. Also, the mods should DEFINITELY look to add Eklunds name to the swear filter! Good idea D4rk! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ross Rhea Posted January 20, 2012 Report Share Posted January 20, 2012 This sort of makes sense. I'd make sure McCormick and Stafford are gone as well. EDIT: I've put the key for me in bold. Stafford---yes McCormick---why??? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TrueBlueGED Posted January 20, 2012 Report Share Posted January 20, 2012 http://www.suntimes.com/sports/10112387-419/blackhawks-in-the-market-for-a-defenseman-and-a-veteran-center.html The Hawks have told teams what they’re seeking. A quality defenseman capable of playing on the second pairing is their top priority. The need for a veteran forward, preferably a center capable of being in the top six, is second. After successfully filling up his ranks via drafts, Bowman said he’s willing to part with picks, prospects and Rockford players to get what he wants I've been pimping Chicago as a sensible trade partner for awhile. Their organizational depth char looks like this: http://www.hockeysfuture.com/teams/chicago_blackhawks and they have about $4.9 million in cap space. Roy for one of Pirri, Kruger or McNeill and maybe a mid-round pick (2nd or 3rd if it's Pirri because he's the lowest ranked of the 3 prospects). They can absorb his full contract without sending money back (unless they insist on it). The defense is interesting, as I think Sekera definitely fits the bill for what they're looking for. That being said, I've really liked Sekera this year and I think he has a good contract, so I wouldn't be as enthusiastic about offloading him (not completely against it either though). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RazielSabre Posted January 20, 2012 Report Share Posted January 20, 2012 Stafford---yes McCormick---why??? Because his good at nothing, borderline NHL talent. Ok his a reasonable hitter but I can't remember the last time he actually put any emotion into his game (kind of important when you can't skate by on skill alone). Don't get me wrong his not pure-AHL like Ellis but his of average size and doesn't intimidate anybody. He could be improved and his contact is stupid. EDIT: Finley does his job better... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.