OMG67
Registered User
- Sep 1, 2013
- 10,785
- 6,942
It wasn’t ares’ quote. It was OMG67’s hypothetical arbitrary price from the previous thread. The Flint part clearly looked to be in jest judging by the at the end of the post.
To be clear, the point was not trading Timms for XY and Z. The point was would you rather trade Timms to open up a spot for a more highly valued OA Forward to save you having to deal Evangelista.
How this all ended up being about Timms is beyond me. The only part Timms plays is him leaving to open up a spot for a guy like Hancock or Brazeau or Saigon etc...
The question I was asking was...
Would you rather have:
Hancock and Evangelista
OR
Timms and Suzuki
This is all hypothetical regarding the actual player names involved coming to the Knights BUT it doesn’t change the fact that acquiring a player like Hancock will come at a price of just draft picks whereas a player like Suzuki will probably cost Evangelista plus similar picks.
Ottawa has two OA spots open and it is highly likely the 67’s fill those spots. As much as I would love to have a kid like Suzuki, it doesn’t make sense for us to go down that road until we fill the two OA spots with high alum OA’s.
I was thinking that with the addition of Keane combined with an overstock of D-Men, that trading an existing low value OA to open a spot for a high value OA may be a more economical way of filling your need up front.
Regarding Timms, make no mistake, he does have value. There are loads of team that would trade for him to help solidify their lineup. IT isn’t just about tanking for a draft pick. Many GM’s looking at the reality of finishing in the bottom half of the standings would still acquire a guy like that to help solidify their team and provide a little more veteran presence. Would they trade two 3rds? MAybe not but a 3rd and 4th or 3th and 6th? Meh, does it matter much?