deluca67 Posted June 12, 2016 Report Share Posted June 12, 2016 Trading the #8 pick for extra picks in the second round is A) counter productive B) taking quantity to quality C) Lazy. The draft is what it is. The strength after the top #3, is D. You take what you feel is the best fit long term. Whether that's Juolevi, Chychrun, Sergachev, Bean, McAvoy. Or you take a forward like Nylander, Keller, Jost, etc. You are using a singular asset on a player that you have limited information on compared to a drafted prospect who likely has some NHL experience or at least some AHL games on their resume. Murray has stated he prefers more established prospects. You can then package those eight 2nd and 3rd rounders for more NHL ready talents. There is nothing lazy about asset management. I do. Your original suggestion did not mention that the prospect would be NHL-ready, is all. A top 6 player is what I expect out of a #8 pick. You're not getting a top six with the #8. Calgary is amassing a great deal of talent. it would depend on what Murray considers the greater value. Bennett is the ideal choice but unlikely. The Flames do have some quality winger prospects to choose from. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LGR4GM Posted June 12, 2016 Report Share Posted June 12, 2016 (edited) You're not getting a top six with the #8. Calgary is amassing a great deal of talent. it would depend on what Murray considers the greater value. Bennett is the ideal choice but unlikely. The Flames do have some quality winger prospects to choose from. Lol you're not? Please prove that we can't get a top 6 forward in this draft at 8. I would love to hear this logic. Also Bennett is worth more than #8 and #38 let alone with 3 2nds. So unlikely, try not a snowballs chance in hell. You're talking like what Shinkaruk 2nds maybe. It's just not wOrth it at all. Edited June 12, 2016 by LGR4GM Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WildCard Posted June 12, 2016 Report Share Posted June 12, 2016 I think you do get a top 6 at #8 in this draft Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pi2000 Posted June 12, 2016 Report Share Posted June 12, 2016 You're not getting a top six with the #8. I think you do get a top 6 at 8. Looking at the last 10 years of forwards drafted at #8... Burmistrov Couturier Couture (#9) Boedker Glennie (bust) Pouliot Nylander Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Claude_Verret Posted June 12, 2016 Report Share Posted June 12, 2016 Any GM who trades #8 for three seconds should be immediately fired. Insanity. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TrueBlueGED Posted June 12, 2016 Report Share Posted June 12, 2016 Any GM who trades #8 for three seconds should be immediately fired. Insanity. Don't forget the Bailey-level prospect!!! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Claude_Verret Posted June 12, 2016 Report Share Posted June 12, 2016 As someone else mentioned GMTM tried to package our three seconds to get back into the first two years ago, reportedly he was targeting Dylan Larkin. No dice. I'm sure there is an NHL draft pick value chart somewhere, I'd be shocked if three seconds totals even half the value of a top ten pick. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thorny Posted June 12, 2016 Report Share Posted June 12, 2016 The Sabres couldn't back into the late second round last year offering three seconds... Calgary isn't getting 8 unless that's a monstrous prospect. You are referring to 2 years ago, when Murray was supposedly trying to get back into the first for Larkin, right? I also love this tidbit, as it's something that confirms Murray's eye for talent. I think you do get a top 6 at #8 in this draft And in lots of drafts. As someone else mentioned GMTM tried to package our three seconds to get back into the first two years ago, reportedly he was targeting Dylan Larkin. No dice. I'm sure there is an NHL draft pick value chart somewhere, I'd be shocked if three seconds totals even half the value of a top ten pick. Beat me to it. Ya I think this is what Hoss was referring to. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pi2000 Posted June 12, 2016 Report Share Posted June 12, 2016 You are referring to 2 years ago, when Murray was supposedly trying to get back into the first for Larkin, right? I also love this tidbit, as it's something that confirms Murray's eye for talent. You could also argue that he didn't offer enough because he didn't rate Larkin as high as he should have. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thorny Posted June 12, 2016 Report Share Posted June 12, 2016 You could also argue that he didn't offer enough because he didn't rate Larkin as high as he should have. You could. But I wouldn't. At least he was offering a significant package. I doubt even he could have been so absolutely sure on Larkin at that point that he'd be willing to give up more than 3 picks. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ct fab Posted June 12, 2016 Report Share Posted June 12, 2016 If prospects are 2-3 years away it's the perfect time to trade for Nash. With a good offseason, the Sabres are ready to contend for a playoff spot now. Plus, Nash's contract ends when we have to sign RFAs like eichel and reinhart. Not saying it has to be Nash, but he's exactly the type of player you want to acquire to play RW on the Eichel line this offseason Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LGR4GM Posted June 12, 2016 Report Share Posted June 12, 2016 If prospects are 2-3 years away it's the perfect time to trade for Nash. With a good offseason, the Sabres are ready to contend for a playoff spot now. Plus, Nash's contract ends when we have to sign RFAs like eichel and reinhart. Not saying it has to be Nash, but he's exactly the type of player you want to acquire to play RW on the Eichel line this offseason You want to trade assets just to get 2 years from Rick Nash so we can make the playoffs, this is Darcy logic. You don't trade for Rick Nash, you trade for JT Miller or someone young, that way you didn't just waste assets for nothing. Nash isn't going to help them win it all next year so why trade 4 things to acquire him? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TrueBlueGED Posted June 13, 2016 Report Share Posted June 13, 2016 If prospects are 2-3 years away it's the perfect time to trade for Nash. With a good offseason, the Sabres are ready to contend for a playoff spot now. Plus, Nash's contract ends when we have to sign RFAs like eichel and reinhart. Not saying it has to be Nash, but he's exactly the type of player you want to acquire to play RW on the Eichel line this offseason Nash for cheap and with retained salary makes sense for a lot of reasons. But without salary retention, it's a no-go for me. You want to trade assets just to get 2 years from Rick Nash so we can make the playoffs, this is Darcy logic. You don't trade for Rick Nash, you trade for JT Miller or someone young, that way you didn't just waste assets for nothing. Nash isn't going to help them win it all next year so why trade 4 things to acquire him? Except the Rangers aren't going to trade Miller. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LGR4GM Posted June 13, 2016 Report Share Posted June 13, 2016 Blue, you know damn well miller is not the point of that post. Trading assets for Nash is dumb and short sighted. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ct fab Posted June 13, 2016 Report Share Posted June 13, 2016 Nash can be re-signed after 2 years if you wish. And if other pieces, like Stamkos, Vesey, Yandle, etc are added (not All of them, just examples) Nash can help you win a championship and teach the kids how to compete, etc. Having no veteran leaders leads a team to EDM Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Randall Flagg Posted June 13, 2016 Report Share Posted June 13, 2016 I am not totally against the Nash idea, as I do believe there's a chance he meets Blue's requirements, being had for cheap with some retention. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thorny Posted June 13, 2016 Report Share Posted June 13, 2016 Ya, with salary retention, I don't think adding Nash hurts, as an option secondary to some of the better options out there, provided we don't have to give up too much to get him. He probably is still good enough to contribute for a couple years. He can put the puck in the net. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TrueBlueGED Posted June 13, 2016 Report Share Posted June 13, 2016 Blue, you know damn well miller is not the point of that post. Trading assets for Nash is dumb and short sighted. Short sighted maybe, but dumb? I'd argue the intelligence of the move depends heavily upon price and alternatives. Could we get a better winger than Nash for a 2nd and 3rd round pick at $5.8 million? I'm not sure. And while you may believe that short sighted = bad, I think the face he's off the books in two years is an advantage and a reason to at least explore it. Gives proper development time for Bailey et al, help the team now, and doesn't negatively impact the cap long term. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hoss Posted June 13, 2016 Author Report Share Posted June 13, 2016 I would absolutely take Nash if we strike out on Stamkos and Okposo and the price is relatively low. His contract won't impact long-term plans in any way and he helps us keep competitive while grooming younger forwards in the system properly. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
beerme1 Posted June 13, 2016 Report Share Posted June 13, 2016 Getting Nash would be far from dumb. It would in fact be a shrewd move. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dudacek Posted June 13, 2016 Report Share Posted June 13, 2016 (edited) Like so many others, Nash depends on price. If we can acquire him for a third-rounder at a reduced salary and expose him in the expansion draft, then hell yeah. Edited June 13, 2016 by dudacek Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brawndo Posted June 13, 2016 Report Share Posted June 13, 2016 For those needing a good laugh on Monday. This tidbit from NHL Rumors. And yes I realize the site is pure BS. Once again, Reinhart Pysyk #8 all in play for Edmonton. Hall and #4 would be the main pieces but more could be headed back Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WildCard Posted June 13, 2016 Report Share Posted June 13, 2016 For those needing a good laugh on Monday. This tidbit from NHL Rumors. And yes I realize the site is pure BS. Once again, Reinhart Pysyk #8 all in play for Edmonton. Hall and #4 would be the main pieces but more could be headed back I mean, as much as that would never happen, I would be very tempted to do that deal. Does Reinhart have a better career than Hall? He's younger, and without the injury concerns thus far. Plus he has incredible chemistry with Jack Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WildCard Posted June 13, 2016 Report Share Posted June 13, 2016 I see a few people getting upset on twitter about "Reinhart trade rumors" :lol: Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thorny Posted June 13, 2016 Report Share Posted June 13, 2016 I would be pretty upset if we traded Reinhart. I highly doubt it will happen, but it would be pretty depressing, even if we did get a guy like Hall back. Really like Sam as a player. 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.