Hypothetical: make a move for 1st overall, 2015

[krt88]

The assumption here that this is a one guy draft, it's McDavid or bust and let's be accurate, it's not.

Yes there is a gap between McDavid and Eickel and the rest of the field, but that gap isn't canyon sized and the next 8-10 guys were all top 4 players in this draft. The drop off to that third tier of talent happens outside the top 10. As a result, why would the Sabres have to give away 3 first round picks and 2/4 other assets when there is talent to be drafted. I think I'd rather have two top 10 picks this year than just the #1 overall. Ideally, I'll take both the top pick and a top 10 pick.

Therefore, I wouldn't trade anyone to get the #1 pick. I MIGHT trade away a top 10 pick and two players/prospects (not RR, NZ, SR) to get the #2 pick, if we were picking #4 and #8.

 

[Takeo]

The Sabres have a bunch of good/above average prospects. But none of them are special per se and quantity (even with picks added in) just wouldn't cut it in trying to get that truly elite player.

 

[Push Dr Tracksuit]

Yes I have a limit. I don't know where it is but I do know what it will take to even start the conversation and that's already beyond my limit.

I think #4 + our current assets = McDavid - assets required to acquire him, in terms of what the next 10 years look like.

 

[LottoPlease]

Honestly, with our embarrassment of prospect riches and young talent, our THREE 1sts in a very deep draft and two 2nds likely to be early in the round, I don't make any move for first.

I'd rather see our team stacked through roof for years and go through the eventual Pominville- and Vanek-level trades that some of these young guys are sure to bring.

Additionally, with the abundance of talent we'll have in the coming years, Buffalo could be a very attractive place to play for UFA and NTC/NMC star players who never gave us a look before.

McEichel or BPA, we can use picks to move up a bit but for what it might take to get into that 1-2 spot I say no go.

 

[Jim Bob]

When you start talking about trading away Ristolainen or Reinhart PLUS 3 1sts, you lose me.

I'd rather just complain about the Sabres not stinking bad enough to finish 30th and use the picks.

Yes, McDavid a great player and I want him on the Sabres.

But, not at any cost.

The Penguins don't win their Cup if they traded away Malkin+ for Crosby.

 

[stokes84]

Use the Lindros trade as a template. What sort of comparables do we have? How much do we still have left in the cupboard?

Yes, Lindros forced the trade which makes it different, but looking back, Quebec/Colorado won that trade by a mile. If you throw the kitchen sink at a team, maybe they will think about this.

 

[brian_griffin]

Use the Lindros trade as a template. What sort of comparables do we have? How much do we still have left in the cupboard?

Yes, Lindros forced the trade which makes it different, but looking back, Quebec/Colorado won that trade by a mile. If you throw the kitchen sink at a team, maybe they will think about this.

<confused>
Citing the Lindros case and QUE/COL winning the trade by a mile argues against the Sabres throwing the proverbial kitchen sink at a team to move to #1. (???)

Morevoer, QUE did not want to trade the rights to Lindros, they were being blackmailed by the Lindros family. So the transaction wasn't between a "willing buyer and a willing seller". (???)

 

[stokes84]

<confused>
Citing the Lindros case and QUE/COL winning the trade by a mile argues against the Sabres throwing the proverbial kitchen sink at a team to move to #1. (???)

Morevoer, QUE did not want to trade the rights to Lindros, they were being blackmailed by the Lindros family. So the transaction wasn't between a "willing buyer and a willing seller". (???)

It leads me to believe you could get a willing seller. Someone who thinks they are pulling off the Herschel Walker/Lindros trade. The question for us is, do we have enough assets, unlike maybe the Flyers did, so that when we throw the kitchen sink at them we still win the trade (or both teams can say they won)?

I'm not enough of a historian to do this properly, but it might be something like:

4th overall (2015) + Enroth + Hodgson + Foligno + 10th overall (2015) + 2016 1st + Compher

I think I am missing some parts, but it was a massive trade like this.

 

[LottoPlease]

I'm not enough of a historian to do this properly, but it might be something like:

4th overall (2015) + Enroth + Hodgson + Foligno + 10th overall (2015) + 2016 1st + Compher

So essentially 4 1st rounders, 2 promising young players, and a prospect considered by many to be a future core piece and by some to be on the "untouchables" list?

I'd rather keep our cupboards overstocked.

 

[stokes84]

So essentially 4 1st rounders, 2 promising young players, and a prospect considered by many to be a future core piece and by some to be on the "untouchables" list?

I'd rather keep our cupboards overstocked.

Yes. For a player who many think will be a top 3-5 player for 15 years.

And the great thing is, even after you move all of that, we still the best prospect pool in the league.

 

[stokes84]

What is the point of having an overstocked cupboard if not to move it as currency when a great opportunity arises?

 

[Samsonite23]

What is the point of having an overstocked cupboard if not to move it as currency when a great opportunity arises?

That wouldn't be the only opportunity though. There are other possible moves that could be made to get different high end players. Ones that would cost much less.

Or we could just keep what we have and make more "minor" moves (grouping multiple picks/prospects for 1 specific player), such as the Fasching trade (but for a player NHL ready). That #4 overall pick is still going to be a stud player (and #10 could very well be one too in this years stacked draft).

 

[Husko]

It leads me to believe you could get a willing seller. Someone who thinks they are pulling off the Herschel Walker/Lindros trade. The question for us is, do we have enough assets, unlike maybe the Flyers did, so that when we throw the kitchen sink at them we still win the trade (or both teams can say they won)?

I'm not enough of a historian to do this properly, but it might be something like:

4th overall (2015) + Enroth + Hodgson + Foligno + 10th overall (2015) + 2016 1st + Compher

I think I am missing some parts, but it was a massive trade like this.

Do you think that gets them to the table? I feel like they're going to want better pieces, like a Risto or Zads. You also have to think Reinhart is involved somehow. That trade you listed doesn't seem like THAT hard a pill to swallow, which makes me immediately think it's not enough. If you're gonna get McDavid, it's got to hurt, bad.

 

[stokes84]

Do you think that gets them to the table? I feel like they're going to want better pieces, like a Risto or Zads. You also have to think Reinhart is involved somehow. That trade you listed doesn't seem like THAT hard a pill to swallow, which makes me immediately think it's not enough. If you're gonna get McDavid, it's got to hurt, bad.

Honestly, that's why I was putting it out there. I don't know enough about where those players were in their careers for the Lindros trade.

But put together something that looks ridiculous. And then when you are done, check what our organizational depth looks like, and chance are, we are still in GREAT shape. But now we are in great shape with the best prospect in 10 years.

Reinhart + 4 overall + 10 overall + Hodgson + Zadorov

McDavid
Grigorenko
Ristolainin
McCabe
Pysyk
Armia
Baptiste
Fasching
Compher
Lemieux
Larsson
Blues 1st

All still in the system. Plus the Hurley's, Bailey's, etc...

 

[brian_griffin]

It leads me to believe you could get a willing seller. Someone who thinks they are pulling off the Herschel Walker/Lindros trade.

If I understand your reasoning, you're thinking that BUF might believe if they up the ante enough, they'd have a willing seller of the #1 pick, similar to QUE agreeing to the Lindros rights trade, despite the fact QUE was a reluctant seller (read: had poor leverage) and ultimately had the trade awarded by an arbiter. I just don't see that.

Since QUE was not a willing seller, one might hold the true TRADE value for Lindros was higher. One might similarly hold the trade was ultimately in QUE/COL favor, not PHI. So, fast-forwarding to present, a BUF / 2015 Rd1#1 analogous scenario would, by logical extension, have BUF pay more assets for a deal which does not work out in their favor. Unless you believe the 2015 Rd1#1 in no way has a chance of being as "bad" an outcome as Lindros was for PHI. I don't see the logic in that either.

The question for us is, do we have enough assets, unlike maybe the Flyers did, so that when we throw the kitchen sink at them we still win the trade (or both teams can say they won)?

I'm not enough of a historian to do this properly, but it might be something like:

4th overall (2015) + Enroth + Hodgson + Foligno + 10th overall (2015) + 2016 1st + Compher

I think I am missing some parts, but it was a massive trade like this.

Really not getting the analogy to the Lindros / PHI situation. PHI could have thrown more assets at QUE and Lindros would have worked out better for PHI ????

BUF should pay / overpay for 2015 Rd1#1 more than PHI did for Lindros, because it will work out better for BUF than PHI did for Lindros????

(I ignore the particulars of the trade because I beleive the underlying premise as an analogy / 2015 update to Lindros events is flawed.)

 

[stokes84]

If I understand your reasoning, you're thinking that BUF might believe if they up the ante enough, they'd have a willing seller of the #1 pick, similar to QUE agreeing to the Lindros rights trade, despite the fact QUE was a reluctant seller (read: had poor leverage) and ultimately had the trade awarded by an arbiter. I just don't see that.

Since QUE was not a willing seller, one might hold the true TRADE value for Lindros was higher. One might similarly hold the trade was ultimately in QUE/COTL favor, not PHI. So, fast-forwarding to present, a BUF / 2015 Rd1#1 analogous scenario would, by logical extension, have BUF pay more assets for a deal which does not work out in their favor. Unless you believe the 2015 Rd1#1 in no way has a chance of being as "bad" an outcome as Lindros was for PHI. I don't see the logic in that either.



Really not getting the analogy to the Lindros / PHI situation. PHI could have thrown more assets at QUE and Lindros would have worked out better for PHI ????

BUF should pay / overpay for 2015 Rd1#1 more than PHI did for Lindros, because it will work out better for BUF than PHI did for Lindros????

(I ignore the particulars of the trade because I beleive the underlying premise as an analogy / 2015 update to Lindros events is flawed.)

Are we playing chess against each others here, or trying to come up with fun hypotheticals?

It doesn't need to be so complicated. The last time a prospect of McDavid's value was traded, it was Lindros. Makes sense to me to look at what they got for him.

It also seems to me that someone might think that the idea of getting a huge return is appealing.

It doesn't translate perfectly? Nothing ever does.

 

[brian_griffin]

Are we playing chess against each others here, or trying to come up with fun hypotheticals?

It doesn't need to be so complicated. The last time a prospect of McDavid's value was traded, it was Lindros. Makes sense to me to look at what they got for him.

It also seems to me that someone might think that the idea of getting a huge return is appealing.

It doesn't translate perfectly? Nothing ever does.

Fair enough. As someone once malapropped, "In the land of the kings, the one-eyed man is blind."

Comparing to the Flyer's Lindros package, your proposal is not bad, but I think it's still light on player talent / potential and made up for with the qty 3 #1 picks. I think a seller would sincerely kick the tires on Reinhart in addition to, or in lieu of, one of the #1 picks.

In which case, I think BUF shouldn't make the deal, because the idea is to get center depth. So why give Reinhart +++++ in order to get McEichel with no additional young center depth?

 

[Jim Bob]

Shouldn't the Lindros trade be the argument AGAINST the Sabres trading a boatload for one kid?

The same thing goes for the Walker trade.

You could be trading away 2/3 of a 1st line, 1/2 of a top D pair + for a franchise player.

I'd rather go the route of depth. Not every hot shot prospect will pan out the way we hope. That's why the prospect depth is so key.

 

[Jacob582]

Shouldn't the Lindros trade be the argument AGAINST the Sabres trading a boatload for one kid?
.

Maybe, but we have the depth to trade. As long as we don't give up the best player in trade like Philly did.

 

[Paxon]

Maybe, but we have the depth to trade. As long as we don't give up the best player in trade like Philly did.

It's pretty arguable that Philly gave up the best player. Lindros was a dominant force at his peak. I think if you switched teams and had Lindros playing off Sakic and Forsberg playing on a mostly mediocre Flyers team things would look a bit different. Both guys had serious injury problems throughout their careers but Lindros' were worse.

 

[stokes84]

Shouldn't the Lindros trade be the argument AGAINST the Sabres trading a boatload for one kid?

The same thing goes for the Walker trade.

You could be trading away 2/3 of a 1st line, 1/2 of a top D pair + for a franchise player.

I'd rather go the route of depth. Not every hot shot prospect will pan out the way we hope. That's why the prospect depth is so key.

Every trade is a gamble. But again, even when you trade what appears to be a RIDICULOUS amount of youth, look at how many good prospects we still have left.

Trade away Reinhart + 3 1sts (2015) + McCabe + Compher + Larsson + Hodgson

That would be ridiculous, right?

We'd still have:

Risto, Zadorov, Myers, Pysyk

Grigorenko, Girgensons, Ennis, Armia, Fasching, Baptiste, Lemieux, Bailey, Hurley, Cornel

And the crown jewel, best prospect in 10 years as icing on the cake.

 

[Jacob582]

It's pretty arguable that Philly gave up the best player. Lindros was a dominant force at his peak. I think if you switched teams and had Lindros playing off Sakic and Forsberg playing on a mostly mediocre Flyers team things would look a bit different. Both guys had serious injury problems throughout their careers but Lindros' were worse.

I figured I could state that without too much argument since Forsberg is in the Hall of Fame.

But you're right, who knows how it would have turned out if Lindros played with Sakic, didn't play against Scott Stevens, and didn't burn bridges along the way maybe he would be in the Hall of Fame before Forsberg.

 

[Jame]

It leads me to believe you could get a willing seller. Someone who thinks they are pulling off the Herschel Walker/Lindros trade. The question for us is, do we have enough assets, unlike maybe the Flyers did, so that when we throw the kitchen sink at them we still win the trade (or both teams can say they won)?

I'm not enough of a historian to do this properly, but it might be something like:

4th overall (2015) + Enroth + Hodgson + Foligno + 10th overall (2015) + 2016 1st + Compher

I think I am missing some parts, but it was a massive trade like this.

Oh we can get the best prospect of the decade, for a bunch of pieces that don't "hurt"... Uh huh.

If your "hypothetical" doesn't include at least 2 of Reinhart, Risto, Girgensons, and Zadarov... before adding in all the filler... Then you're not being serious.

 

[Jim Bob]

Every trade is a gamble. But again, even when you trade what appears to be a RIDICULOUS amount of youth, look at how many good prospects we still have left.

Trade away Reinhart + 3 1sts (2015) + McCabe + Compher + Larsson + Hodgson

That would be ridiculous, right?

We'd still have:

Risto, Zadorov, Myers, Pysyk

Grigorenko, Girgensons, Ennis, Armia, Fasching, Baptiste, Lemieux, Bailey, Hurley, Cornel

And the crown jewel, best prospect in 10 years as icing on the cake.

I'd keep the picks.

That depth won't look as good 4 years from now. Grigorenko and Armia might never pan out as impact top 6 forwards and guys like Fasching, Baptiste, and Lemieux could top out as 3rd liners.

There is no way that you build a consistent contender by moving the 2nd overall pick in 2014, the 4th overall pick in 2015, the 10th overall pick in 2015, the 25th overall pick in 2015, plus four guys that you expect to be contributors for ONE PLAYER.

Honestly, I wouldn't give up Reinhart alone to move up from 4 to 1 in 2015. Giving up a half-dozen or more key pieces for McDavid isn't the way to build a solid team long term.

 

[BowieSabresFan]

I'd keep the picks.

That depth won't look as good 4 years from now. Grigorenko and Armia might never pan out as impact top 6 forwards and guys like Fasching, Baptiste, and Lemieux could top out as 3rd liners.

There is no way that you build a consistent contender by moving the 2nd overall pick in 2014, the 4th overall pick in 2015, the 10th overall pick in 2015, the 25th overall pick in 2015, plus four guys that you expect to be contributors for ONE PLAYER.

Honestly, I wouldn't give up Reinhart alone to move up from 4 to 1 in 2015. Giving up a half-dozen or more key pieces for McDavid isn't the way to build a solid team long term.

Honestly, this is where I'm at. We have 3 first round picks in the deepest draft (by all accounts) in years, so use them. What we would have to pay to get the #1 pick (if we don't lottery into it) just isn't worth it.

Of course, this is all hypothetical, because I can't see any team trading the #1 overall pick next year.