26CornerBlitz Posted March 5, 2014 Report Share Posted March 5, 2014 Bob McKenzie reporting what HF has listed on their website: Nicolas Deslauriers isn't playing defense this season, he's playing LW. Kings writeup on that change: http://kings.nhl.com...s.htm?id=696613 There's a lot more to read about this guy before we assume we know where he fits. @SabresProspects Have to think that Sabres will keep Deslauriers at LW. D cupboards still full, LW still a need (as mentioned when Carrier acquired) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IKnowPhysics Posted March 5, 2014 Report Share Posted March 5, 2014 Scooped 'em! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
shrader Posted March 5, 2014 Report Share Posted March 5, 2014 I agree that it's odd, although probably more from the Kings' perspective than from the Sabres'. It does seem more like a draft-day deal. Not a big deal either way though I think. If nothing else, they get defensive depth for their playoff run. We know about that need all too well. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Trettioåtta Posted March 5, 2014 Report Share Posted March 5, 2014 You are hardly the only one saying this, but this reflects the whole "winning the trade deadline" mentality that really doesn't get us anywhere. If the Sabres got the best prospect, what does it matter where he was drafted? I don't mind 'losing' a trade, but trading a lot for a guy who isn't a 'star' prospect and no-one valued 10 months ago just seems dubious. I also want Moulson, Ehrhoff, Stewart and Halak traded so this seems like an unusual step. There is a lot that HAS to be done, but we did this Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
26CornerBlitz Posted March 5, 2014 Report Share Posted March 5, 2014 Scooped 'em! That you did General...That you did. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Eleven Posted March 5, 2014 Report Share Posted March 5, 2014 It was 10 months ago!!! I get it that picks can be good in later rounds, but in the modern NHL how many truely good players have been hit on past the third round? Also how much can he improve in 10 months. We are talking about going from a lower 2nd liner on his team to the team star in 10 months It's really not that different than the second round. Look at some recent drafts (I looked at 2007 and 2008); I think you're likely to see nearly as many hits in the 4th as in the 2d. And again, who cares where he was drafted? We're dealing with what kind of player he is now, and not what kind of player people thought he'd be when he was still in high school. (Which also likely affected where he went in the draft. He came from USHDP and not CHL.) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
biodork Posted March 5, 2014 Report Share Posted March 5, 2014 WTF... I don't know anything about the guys coming back, but it sounds like we essentially swapped prospects except we also gave away two 2nd round picks?? Whatinthehell for? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Johnny DangerFace Posted March 5, 2014 Report Share Posted March 5, 2014 This was a "hockey trade" made between people who know hockey. It may not be flashy, or I get it's thought to look past draft rounds last year, but this was a hockey trade. You may not agree that fasching is worth 2 2nd rounders, but that IS what he is worth. Because that's what an nhl gm wanted and what nhl gm was willing to pay Let's hope there's more Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nfreeman Posted March 5, 2014 Report Share Posted March 5, 2014 Fine by me. I was never nearly as impressed with McNabb as many around here...I think he's basically Weber with a better shot. This is also the type of deal that many had begged Regier to make for years: trade prospects from a strength to fill a weakness in the organization. And trade them while they still have some value -- i.e. before it becomes apparent that they can't cut the mustard. Any news on which 2nd-rounders the Sabres gave up? (I hope ones they traded for -- so lower in the 2nd round). Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
That Aud Smell Posted March 5, 2014 Report Share Posted March 5, 2014 It just seems like a waste. We are meant to have the best scouting department but didn't spot him. GMTM is meant to be a good talent evaluator but didn't spot him. How much can really change in 10 months? He is a forward - the easiest position to draft. Not comparable to goalies Dude. There's no point in trying to analyze this trade on that level, since no one here has a crystal ball. TM and his staff have their list, their values, their priorities. It's clear that TM wanted the college kid, and wanted him enough to pay a modest premium. The kid was a 4th rounder when selected, but sounds as though he's grown by leaps and bounds since. We won't know if this was a good idea for a while. Moving on. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Robviously Posted March 5, 2014 Report Share Posted March 5, 2014 I don't mind 'losing' a trade, but trading a lot for a guy who isn't a 'star' prospect and no-one valued 10 months ago just seems dubious. I also want Moulson, Ehrhoff, Stewart and Halak traded so this seems like an unusual step. There is a lot that HAS to be done, but we did this He actually might be a "star prospect" now. In the last 10 months he's been VERY strong in college *and* in the WJCs, two levels he'd never played at before. He was scouted as a 17 year old. It's not crazy to think he'd come into his own as an 18 year old. We have to hope he does or else we just traded a lot for nothing. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
That Aud Smell Posted March 5, 2014 Report Share Posted March 5, 2014 WTF... I don't know anything about the guys coming back, but it sounds like we essentially swapped prospects except we also gave away two 2nd round picks?? Whatinthehell for? This was a "hockey trade" made between people who know hockey. It may not be flashy, or I get it's thought to look past draft rounds last year, but this was a hockey trade. You may not agree that fasching is worth 2 2nd rounders, but that IS what he is worth. Because that's what an nhl gm wanted and what nhl gm was willing to pay Let's hope there's more it's perfect that they appeared in sequence. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Trettioåtta Posted March 5, 2014 Report Share Posted March 5, 2014 This was a "hockey trade" made between people who know hockey. It may not be flashy, or I get it's thought to look past draft rounds last year, but this was a hockey trade. You may not agree that fasching is worth 2 2nd rounders, but that IS what he is worth. Because that's what an nhl gm wanted and what nhl gm was willing to pay Let's hope there's more Bishop for Conacher was also a hockey trade made by GMTM. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Derrico Posted March 5, 2014 Report Share Posted March 5, 2014 Yes, and certainly not worth giving up picks as well. Especially not two of them. Were most of us not thrilled when Murray came in for his ability to evuate talent?? Then he goes and identifies a couple guys he wants and pulls the trigger. This isn't Darcy where u have to win every trade at face value. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
biodork Posted March 5, 2014 Report Share Posted March 5, 2014 This was a "hockey trade" made between people who know hockey. It may not be flashy, or I get it's thought to look past draft rounds last year, but this was a hockey trade. You may not agree that fasching is worth 2 2nd rounders, but that IS what he is worth. Because that's what an nhl gm wanted and what nhl gm was willing to pay Let's hope there's more I guess we'll find out... not upset to see McNabb go, just seems like overpayment by a lot. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Johnny DangerFace Posted March 5, 2014 Report Share Posted March 5, 2014 For all we know the guys we got may end up being bust and what we gave up may end up being great. But oh well! Mcnabb obviously wasn't in there plans but had some value, and we got wingers! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TrueBlueGED Posted March 5, 2014 Report Share Posted March 5, 2014 WTF... I don't know anything about the guys coming back, but it sounds like we essentially swapped prospects except we also gave away two 2nd round picks?? Whatinthehell for? I think you're looking at it wrong. We basically accelerated the development of two future 2nd round picks by turning them into prospects closer to the NHL, and the price of doing so was McNabb. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
That Aud Smell Posted March 5, 2014 Report Share Posted March 5, 2014 Were most of us not thrilled when Murray came in for his ability to evuate talent?? Then he goes and identifies a couple guys he wants and pulls the trigger. This isn't Darcy where u have to win every trade at face value. Amen. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IKnowPhysics Posted March 5, 2014 Report Share Posted March 5, 2014 (edited) For comparison: Hudson Fasching 12G-15A-27P in 31 games played for Gophers. JT Compher 11G-17A-28P in 30 games played for Wolverines. Both freshmen. This kid could be the ######. Edited March 5, 2014 by IKnowPhysics Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Trettioåtta Posted March 5, 2014 Report Share Posted March 5, 2014 Dude. There's no point in trying to analyze this trade on that level, since no one here has a crystal ball. TM and his staff have their list, their values, their priorities. It's clear that TM wanted the college kid, and wanted him enough to pay a modest premium. The kid was a 4th rounder when selected, but sounds as though he's grown by leaps and bounds since. We won't know if this was a good idea for a while. Moving on. Shall we just close this forum now then? Obviously it is clear the GM wanted him, he paid a ######-ton for the guy. That doesn't mean it makes sense. Raycroft for Rask was once a trade. Just because GMs want a player or don't want another doesn't mean we (I) should just sit there and nod and say thank you. I do like us filling our HUGE prospect gap in wing by trading a defenceman Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Johnny DangerFace Posted March 5, 2014 Report Share Posted March 5, 2014 (edited) For comparison: Hudson Fasching 12G-15A-27P in 31 games played for Gophers. JT Compher 11G-17A-28P in 30 games played for Wolverines. Both freshmen. This kid could be the ######. Both could end up top six forwards. Really excited for their future Edited March 5, 2014 by Numark Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
biodork Posted March 5, 2014 Report Share Posted March 5, 2014 I think you're looking at it wrong. We basically accelerated the development of two future 2nd round picks by turning them into prospects closer to the NHL, and the price of doing so was McNabb. That's a good way to look at it. Seems much more even when you word it that way, lol. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Eleven Posted March 5, 2014 Report Share Posted March 5, 2014 I think you're looking at it wrong. We basically accelerated the development of two future 2nd round picks by turning them into prospects closer to the NHL, and the price of doing so was McNabb. Yep. Enough with the picks already. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ubkev Posted March 5, 2014 Report Share Posted March 5, 2014 For comparison: Hudson Fasching 12G-15A-27P in 31 games played for Gophers. JT Compher 11G-17A-28P in 30 games played for Wolverines. Both freshmen. This kid could be the ######. Boom! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bob_sauve28 Posted March 5, 2014 Report Share Posted March 5, 2014 Dude. There's no point in trying to analyze this trade on that level, since no one here has a crystal ball. TM and his staff have their list, their values, their priorities. It's clear that TM wanted the college kid, and wanted him enough to pay a modest premium. The kid was a 4th rounder when selected, but sounds as though he's grown by leaps and bounds since. We won't know if this was a good idea for a while. Moving on. Really, who would ever think an 18 year old would get bigger? lol Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.