[NYR/VGK] Who won the Reaves for 2022 3rd trade?

[Buck Naked]

Yet if someone traded a 1st you'd know it was a losing trade? How bout if it was 2 1sts? 3? I don't get why you're pretending to be confused here when you definitely do get that picks have immediate value based on potential. So to put numbers on it, if you squander a value of 50 on a player who's value is 20, you can lose the trade bc you should've gotten say Reaves and a 4th.

If that pick turns out to be worth 0 in the end though, did NYR win the trade because they actually got an NHL player?

Also, the value will always be what a team is prepared to pay if you mix numbers into this. Reaves' value is 50, not more, not less, because that was the cost of acquiring him.

The Rangers squandered so much immediate value here that it can be considered a loss. If you value Reaves that highly then that's your evaluation of him as being worth the immediate value(based on potential)a 3rd possesses

So what better options did they have if they were looking to spend a 3rd round pick on this perticular need they felt they had?

I don't value Reaves at all. I wouldn't give a 7th round pick to get him.

 

[Gospel of Prospal]

VGK. Reaves isn't worth a third rounder. I'm happy he's a Ranger, but I'm sure Drury could've gotten him for less.

 

[Gospel of Prospal]

Rangers because Wilson. And the organization will get much more viewership.

Rangers don't need more viewership. They're the most popular NHL team in the United States and the most valuable franchise in the entire NHL.

 

[Hi ImHFNYR]

If that pick turns out to be worth 0 in the end though, did NYR win the trade because they actually got an NHL player?

I don't value Reaves at all. I wouldn't give a 7th round pick to get him.

A pick can never be worth 0. Ever. Every pick has immediate value before its made. The player later on can lose all his value but the pick, before its made, always has a range of value based on its round. You can squander that value . You literally just admitted you feel they did squander that value.

I said it before, they should've gotten Reaves and a 4

 

[Buck Naked]

A pick can never be worth 0. Ever. Every pick has immediate value before its made. The player later on can lose all his value but the pick, before its made, always has a range of value based on its round. You can squander that value .

Yes, a pick has value before it's made. No one ever argued anything else. So has a spin at the roulette wheel with all money on 12. If the ball lands on 23 though, that pick no longer has any value and you would've been a winner if you just kept the money.

You literally just admitted you feel they did squander that value.

Yep, but NYR felt they need this player and they were prepared to pay a third for him. That still makes it his value, whether I agree or not.

 

[Hi ImHFNYR]

Yes, a pick has value before it's made. No one ever argued anything else. .

Then, in the context of this discussion the following point is objectively wrong/irrelevant

"If that pick turns out to be worth 0 "

 

[Buck Naked]

Then, in the context of this discussion the following point is objectively wrong/irrelevant

"If that pick turns out to be worth 0 "

It's also the reason for why it's dumb to discuss winner and losers of trades before anyone even played a second.

 

[EdJovanovski]

Even, but this trade coming right after the Rangers comical slew of grit over skill moves makes it look worse. They should've just made this trade and not traded Buch for Blais, singing Tinordi, Goodrow, etc.

 

[Stewie Griffin]

Vegas cleared up cap space, got a 3rd, and literally got better on the ice by making this trade.

 

[LuckyBoeser]

Considering Vegas got rid of Reaves who provided negative value for them and likely improve with him gone is great for them. Now acquiring a 3rd round pick is cherry on the top (even if the odds of an nhler is low). Reaves is a below replacement player and adding toughness for Rangers does not make up for it nor will it solve their "Tom Wilson issues". Vegas deserves the W for this trade.

 

[Hi ImHFNYR]

It's also the reason for why it's dumb to discuss winner and losers of trades before anyone even played a second.

No it's not. It's literally the reason why it makes sense lol.

At this point I have to assume you just have an ego issue where you can't actually admit you're wrong even though you're so lost that I was able to just quote your response in two different spots and have you contradicting yourself so effectively that you were arguing against your own dumb points

 

[Fataldogg]

There are no winners. But Tom Wilson is the loser of this deal.

I'm sure Rangers top brass will tell him to pummel him multiple times per game.

 

[Voight]

They’ll have to move him next summer to make room for all the RFAs coming up. The cap is so tight for most teams that 1.75 makes a difference.

That 1.75 can go to two good depth players. Tampa showed us how important it is to have depth.

Sure, but they didn't and that won't affect the outcome of this trade. Does VGK win now because you assume that a 3rd round pick could've granted NYR a better player? What if VGK spend that pick on a player that never reaches the NHL? Did NYR win the trade then?
.

Vegas wins because with that 3rd they can acquire a much better player than Reaves with that asset. Rags overpaid because Wilson walked all over them once.

 

[Buck Naked]

No it's not. It's literally the reason why it makes sense lol.

At this point I have to assume you just have an ego issue where you can't actually admit you're wrong even though you're so lost that I was able to just quote your response in two different spots and have you contradicting yourself so effectively that you were arguing against your own dumb points

LOL what? You've been nitpicking my responses by twisting my words. "A pick can never be worth 0 before it's made". Yeah, no one said it was. The whole point was the value after the pick was made or used for something else. Did it amount to anything or not and thereby generated any value to the team acquiring it.

 

[Buck Naked]

Vegas wins because with that 3rd they can acquire a much better player than Reaves with that asset. Rags overpaid because Wilson walked all over them once.

I hear you. Vegas wins right now.

 

[HanSolo]

Vegas dumped salary and gets to keep the Reaves option away from DeBoer in wasting a roster spot on a guy that can't play the game anymore and got a third as compensation for trading a fan favorite.

To me there's no question.

 

[PatriceBergeronFan]

Seems fair to me. This is not the Bruins trading a 3rd for half a season of Rinaldo.

 

[Hi ImHFNYR]

LOL what? You've been nitpicking .

LOL what? I pointed out your main point was nonsense. You'd have to explain how that's a nitpick but if it's anything like your other explanations in this thread it's going to be full of holes and contradict something you said earlier

 

[Poppy Whoa Sonnet]

Reaves, as apparently Vegas made extending Reaves a condition of the trade.

 

[Lays]

The trade was basically Howden+3rd for Reaves+4th. Rangers win for getting rid of Howden and dropping a round to pick up Reaves who this locker room needs

 

[Canadiens Ghost]

Did it? Reaves on the Pens did nothing to stop Wilson. Same thing with Vegas in the finals against the Caps

You need a Matt Cooke type player to punish Wilson's teammates, then you send Reaves over the boards to fight.

I see you've been out of the loop...

False Narrative Surrounding the Rangers and Tom Wilson

 

[WetcoastOrca]

Vegas.
The house always wins.

 

[KirkAlbuquerque]

All I know is the rebuild is completely ruined

 

[SK13]

It's an overreaction to Tom Wilson but I don't think Ryan Reaves for a 3rd is going to have a "loser".

 

[aufheben]

Am I missing something interesting about this trade? Weird poll.