Hoss Posted February 2, 2015 Author Report Share Posted February 2, 2015 Aye. I think the only way a trade happens is whichever GM holds the #1 picks values Eichel over McDavid. Or closely. I think we should accept by now that most if not all hockey minds in the game value McDavid more now. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Taro T Posted February 2, 2015 Report Share Posted February 2, 2015 It can't happen because you need two parties to make it happen and I don't believe for this draft you would get that. In one instance we lose our entire draft for 1 guy. In the other we get a bunch of pics we don't need. If the Sabres finish last and draft 1st/2nd they let Tim Murray walk up on stage and say Connor McDavid with the 1st overall selection or Jack Eichel with the 2nd overall selection. If you like I can say, I don't not believe there is a likely scenario where the 1st and 2nd overall picks swap outside of the lottery. You appear to be confusing CAN'T with WON'T. Considering there is absolutely no concensus on this board which package is more valuable, and GM's have been known to swing for the fences in the past, there is no reason to believe there is a structural impediment to making that trade. IF TM considers McDavid to be head & shoulders better (a big if), there is a reasonable expectataion that at least 1 GM would be willing to be a counter-party. The return would be possibly the best US born player ever plus 2-4 other top 60 picks (depending on whether it's just the 3 1sts or the entire draft). Different way of looking at it and the reason for the question was to see if you thought there would be something extra preventing that from happening. Your reply implies not. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LGR4GM Posted February 2, 2015 Report Share Posted February 2, 2015 (edited) never mind, you wanna argue semantics so sure, it could possibly happen, but it won't. Edited February 2, 2015 by LGR4GM Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Derrico Posted February 3, 2015 Report Share Posted February 3, 2015 If we win the lottery there's no way I'm trading down to two for two late round firsts. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
shrader Posted February 3, 2015 Report Share Posted February 3, 2015 If we win the lottery there's no way I'm trading down to two for two late round firsts. That scenario probably shouldn't even be thrown out there. Only 4 1st round picks have actually been moved in this draft and we have two of them. Tampa gets the Rags pick and Edmonton gets Pittsburgh's. I suppose some could move when the deadline approaches, but it's shaping up to where we are the only team that has 2 late round picks to move. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hoss Posted February 3, 2015 Author Report Share Posted February 3, 2015 never mind, you wanna argue semantics so sure, it could possibly happen, but it won't. Neither will just about every scenario discussed in this thread. If you're going to enter a conversation don't hide behind "it'll never happen." It's speculation. There's fun in it. Obviously there's an incredibly small chance it ever happens, but it's fun to discuss without taking it too seriously. That scenario probably shouldn't even be thrown out there. Only 4 1st round picks have actually been moved in this draft and we have two of them. Tampa gets the Rags pick and Edmonton gets Pittsburgh's. I suppose some could move when the deadline approaches, but it's shaping up to where we are the only team that has 2 late round picks to move. I believe you'll see a good number of first round picks traded from teams that know they're not in the lottery. They have the ultimate bargaining chip needed for somebody looking for a final piece to a contender: first round pick in a potentially historically deep draft. I wouldn't be shocked to see Vermette garner a first (from Montreal or Boston by the sounds of things right now). I would be shocked if Stewart garners a first, but his performance as of late has me thinking it's possible (from Boston or Nashville possibly). Mike Green might get the Caps a first. We'll see. This deadline should be fun. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dudacek Posted February 3, 2015 Report Share Posted February 3, 2015 (edited) I'm hoping he can pull of Stewart and a decent pick/prospect for better pick. Something like Stewart and the Islander 2nd for the Rangers first, or Stewart and Carrier for Montreal's first, that kind of deal. But I think its highly unlikely. What is more likely is he pays a high premium for a younger player he really likes in a way that raises our eyebrows - something like Stafford and two firsts for Kevin Fiala (I pulled Fiala out of hat) Edited February 3, 2015 by dudacek Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
beerme1 Posted February 3, 2015 Report Share Posted February 3, 2015 I'm hoping he can pull of Stewart and a decent pick/prospect for better pick. Something like Stewart and the Islander 2nd for the Rangers first, or Stewart and Carrier for Montreal's first, that kind of deal. But I think its highly unlikely. What is more likely is he pays a high premium for a younger player he really likes in a way that raises our eyebrows - something like Stafford and two firsts for Kevin Fiala (I pulled Fiala out of hat) I like your second scenario better. It will help us stop the crap quicker. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hoss Posted February 3, 2015 Author Report Share Posted February 3, 2015 (edited) These were Jon Vogl's projections for trade value of the Sabres' UFAs: Stafford – expect a 2nd round pick, though a 3rd and 5th are possible. Stewart – expect a 3rd round pick, but a 2nd is possible. Mitchell – might get a 4th or 5th round pick. Meszaros – might get a 5th round pick. Strachan and Benoit – don’t expect more than a 7th round pick. Toronto Sun reported that the Sharks are "expected to" trade Niemi by the trade deadline if no extension is in place. These reports are starting to get out of hand. I get that teams like to move their UFAs, but not every free agent to be is traded. Especially not on teams that are in the thick of the playoff hunt. Edited February 3, 2015 by Tank Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sicknfla Posted February 3, 2015 Report Share Posted February 3, 2015 These were Jon Vogl's projections for trade value of the Sabres' UFAs: Stafford – expect a 2nd round pick, though a 3rd and 5th are possible. Stewart – expect a 3rd round pick, but a 2nd is possible. Mitchell – might get a 4th or 5th round pick. Meszaros – might get a 5th round pick. Strachan and Benoit – don’t expect more than a 7th round pick. Toronto Sun reported that the Sharks are "expected to" trade Niemi by the trade deadline if no extension is in place. These reports are starting to get out of hand. I get that teams like to move their UFAs, but not every free agent to be is traded. Especially not on teams that are in the thick of the playoff hunt. The fact that he finds Stafford more valuable than Stewart is all you need to know that his projections are useless. Stewart will bring a first. He is playing well and many teams are looking at him. Probably be a '16 though. Stafford could bring a first if we include a 3rd or mid-level prospect. This might be the first "i wasn't expecting that" deal from Murray. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rasmus_ Posted February 3, 2015 Report Share Posted February 3, 2015 (edited) Wrong thread, voided that message. Stewart and Stafford are the obvious moving pieces. I still hope something bigger happens than the UFA chips. Edited February 3, 2015 by TheCerebral1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
inkman Posted February 3, 2015 Report Share Posted February 3, 2015 The fact that he finds Stafford more valuable than Stewart is all you need to know that his projections are useless. Stewart will bring a first. He is playing well and many teams are looking at him. Probably be a '16 though. Stafford could bring a first if we include a 3rd or mid-level prospect. This might be the first "i wasn't expecting that" deal from Murray. That's one way to immediately lose credibility. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LGR4GM Posted February 3, 2015 Report Share Posted February 3, 2015 The fact that he finds Stafford more valuable than Stewart is all you need to know that his projections are useless. Stewart will bring a first. He is playing well and many teams are looking at him. Probably be a '16 though. Stafford could bring a first if we include a 3rd or mid-level prospect. This might be the first "i wasn't expecting that" deal from Murray. Depends on what the market looks like and a 2016 first is currently devalued to a 2015 2nd so... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sicknfla Posted February 3, 2015 Report Share Posted February 3, 2015 Depends on what the market looks like and a 2016 first is currently devalued to a 2015 2nd so... I don't buy the devaluing thing. A first is a first. That is like saying that last year when we were accumulating firsts for Miller and Vanek that in reality they had the value of a second because we had to wait a year. That is crazy. I get the waiting a year longer to get in the system and develop crap but first round talent is first round talent. And second is second. So I don't get that logic. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LGR4GM Posted February 3, 2015 Report Share Posted February 3, 2015 I don't buy the devaluing thing. A first is a first. That is like saying that last year when we were accumulating firsts for Miller and Vanek that in reality they had the value of a second because we had to wait a year. That is crazy. I get the waiting a year longer to get in the system and develop crap but first round talent is first round talent. And second is second. So I don't get that logic. the logic is time, you devalue the pick because it pays off later. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Patty16 Posted February 3, 2015 Report Share Posted February 3, 2015 the logic is time, you devalue the pick because it pays off later. I believe GMTM said as much. A 1st today (for which you can better assess where it will be slotted) is worth more than a future unknown 1st rounder. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hoss Posted February 3, 2015 Author Report Share Posted February 3, 2015 I don't buy the devaluing thing. A first is a first. That is like saying that last year when we were accumulating firsts for Miller and Vanek that in reality they had the value of a second because we had to wait a year. That is crazy. I get the waiting a year longer to get in the system and develop crap but first round talent is first round talent. And second is second. So I don't get that logic. Agreed. It's not so clear cut as a first next year is a second this year. That's just some made up garbage that has become gospel here. A first next year doesn't have the value of a first right now for most teams but 9/10 a GM would trade this year's 2nd over next year's 1st. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dudacek Posted February 3, 2015 Report Share Posted February 3, 2015 Sylvester and Peters talking about Myers to Anaheim and throwing out the name of John Gibson. That's something I would entertain. This team is in desperate need of a goalie to anchor the rebuild. On a different goalie, would Winnipeg be a potential destination for Enroth? Agreed. It's not so clear cut as a first next year is a second this year. That's just some made up garbage that has become gospel here. A first next year doesn't have the value of a first right now for most teams but 9/10 a GM would trade this year's 2nd over next year's 1st. That's a football thing. I've never heard it in hockey, except on a few message boards. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Eleven Posted February 3, 2015 Report Share Posted February 3, 2015 Would you rather have a first-round pick this year or next? This year, of course (and not because it's a deep draft), which makes it more valuable. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dudacek Posted February 3, 2015 Report Share Posted February 3, 2015 Would you rather have a first-round pick this year or next? This year, of course (and not because it's a deep draft), which makes it more valuable. This year. Would you rather have the 46th pick this year, or the 16th next year? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Eleven Posted February 3, 2015 Report Share Posted February 3, 2015 This year. Would you rather have the 46th pick this year, or the 16th next year? Tough call. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nfreeman Posted February 3, 2015 Report Share Posted February 3, 2015 The fact that he finds Stafford more valuable than Stewart is all you need to know that his projections are useless. Stewart will bring a first. He is playing well and many teams are looking at him. Probably be a '16 though. Stafford could bring a first if we include a 3rd or mid-level prospect. This might be the first "i wasn't expecting that" deal from Murray. I don't buy the devaluing thing. A first is a first. That is like saying that last year when we were accumulating firsts for Miller and Vanek that in reality they had the value of a second because we had to wait a year. That is crazy. I get the waiting a year longer to get in the system and develop crap but first round talent is first round talent. And second is second. So I don't get that logic. You are completely out to lunch on both of these points. Sylvester and Peters talking about Myers to Anaheim and throwing out the name of John Gibson. That's something I would entertain. This team is in desperate need of a goalie to anchor the rebuild. Not me. 7 career NHL starts? That's a shot in the dark. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sicknfla Posted February 3, 2015 Report Share Posted February 3, 2015 Tough call. No it's not. If that was the logic we would have settled for NYI and St.Louis 2nds last year vs their 1st this year. No way anybody is going to convince me getting the 45th ranked player in'15 is better than the 16th ranked player in '16. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LTS Posted February 3, 2015 Report Share Posted February 3, 2015 Would you rather have a first-round pick this year or next? This year, of course (and not because it's a deep draft), which makes it more valuable. I disagree here. It's just not that cut and dry. If I have a top 5 pick this year, would I rather have another pick at 23 this year or would I prefer to have a pick in the top 10 next year? If I have a top 5 pick this year, and 2 more in the 1st round, would I rather have another pick in this year or a top 10 next year? I think it really depends on where the pick projects next year. While drafting 4 first round players in one year speeds up development it also brings about additional problem that are not as easily solved. Such as 4 players (assuming they hit) reaching RFA status, UFA status, etc. near the same time. Of course there are even more factors that go into it... I just couldn't blanket say that this year > next year. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Eleven Posted February 3, 2015 Report Share Posted February 3, 2015 No it's not. If that was the logic we would have settled for NYI and St.Louis 2nds last year vs their 1st this year. No way anybody is going to convince me getting the 45th ranked player in'15 is better than the 16th ranked player in '16. Depends on the team's time frame a bit, doesn't it? Both of those hypothetical players are going to require significant further development before playing in the NHL. I disagree here. It's just not that cut and dry. If I have a top 5 pick this year, would I rather have another pick at 23 this year or would I prefer to have a pick in the top 10 next year? If I have a top 5 pick this year, and 2 more in the 1st round, would I rather have another pick in this year or a top 10 next year? I think it really depends on where the pick projects next year. While drafting 4 first round players in one year speeds up development it also brings about additional problem that are not as easily solved. Such as 4 players (assuming they hit) reaching RFA status, UFA status, etc. near the same time. Of course there are even more factors that go into it... I just couldn't blanket say that this year > next year. I should have been more specific; would you rather have pick X this year or pick X next year? That's what I was driving at. 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.