"What about Timms?
Hypothetical...
Timms traded somewhere for a couple 3rds
London trades the two 3rds received for Timms + two 2nds and a 4th for Hancock
OR
London trades Evangelista + two 2nds for Suzuki
See where I am going here?"
I like what Hancock could bring to a club, playing on any line effectively. But that is a bit pricey for me. But I wouldnt be too upset.
Timms getting flipped for picks wouldnt hurt the club at all. ( i dont know if any1 would be upset lol)
Enough players on the back end to move the puck without the TOs.
Seems a fair price for a Suzuki type player for sure. Maybe even underpriced.
I would like the combo deal at first glance if they cone together. Grit n talent up front. And a fair deal.
Its really in Suzukis hands. He will get the choice from OS if he wants to move and he will pick his destination.
What I meant was you can trade Timms and a couple 2nds and a 4th for Hancock OR you can trade Evangelista and picks for Suzuki. To me, if you are dressing an OA D-Man on the 3rd pair and scratching capable defenders, maybe it would be better and cheaper to upgrade the OA spot instead of paying through the nose for a 19 year old forward that give you the same production.
I dont disagree in theory.
It also depends on cards left. Some say 1 some say 2. If its 2 Id pay the price for both deals (for any 2 players of that quality at that price)
If only 1 card is left, I dont care the price. Pay for the player you value more as an addition to your team. No time to bargain hunt. Prioritize and pay the price for what you want if only 1 card left.
Why do you think you would get two thirds for Timms in a buyer’s market when you gave up a third and fourth earlier this year ? Half the overage year is over and I don’t see a big marker for him amongst the buying group."What about Timms?
Hypothetical...
Timms traded somewhere for a couple 3rds
London trades the two 3rds received for Timms + two 2nds and a 4th for Hancock
OR
London trades Evangelista + two 2nds for Suzuki
See where I am going here?"
I like what Hancock could bring to a club, playing on any line effectively. But that is a bit pricey for me. But I wouldnt be too upset.
Timms getting flipped for picks wouldnt hurt the club at all. ( i dont know if any1 would be upset lol)
Enough players on the back end to move the puck without the TOs.
Seems a fair price for a Suzuki type player for sure. Maybe even underpriced.
I would like the combo deal at first glance if they cone together. Grit n talent up front. And a fair deal.
Its really in Suzukis hands. He will get the choice from OS if he wants to move and he will pick his destination.
Why do you think you would get two thirds for Timms in a buyer’s market when you gave up a third and fourth earlier this year ? Half the overage year is over and I don’t see a big marker for him amongst the buying group.
Would you classify Hancock as a downgrade enough to say it is a bargain hunt?
Personally, I think Hancock is a solid player, maybe even as good as Suzuki if you look only at OHL production and don't consider future NHL considerations etc.
Downgrade? Over Timms? Nope, huge upgrade in OA and esp on LK roster.
I said i like what he could bring to any team. He can play on any line effectively.
Im not comparing he to Suzuki. If only 1 card remains in London Mark has to prioritize what he wants more for this club is all I was getting at. Not my choice. I think both those "type" players could help London but Id prefer the player with more jam for this team.
And i dont disagree Hancock may be a better fit here for this team. I was just thinking the peice you suggested for an OA was high and for Suzuki was low. I could ve wrong. No worries.
Whenever the team adds a new player close to the deadline, I look forward to seeing them in action, and looking for the positives that they possibly will add. Gotta admit I was disappointed, but then am prepared to give some slack. #7 showed some ability, but did make some unforced turnovers in the defensive end. I'll chalk that up to this being his initial game without benefit of a practice, or the knowledge of the team's system, or players. I expect that his play will improve significantly.
Raaymakers did not look sharp initially, and that look was consistant for the entire game. Holiday hangover perhaps, or maybe he got the updated version of Grand Theft Auto for Christmas. Nelson appeared to be eager to start, and was rewarded for his work ethic.
Question : With 10 d-men, and 7 spots available, there is bound to be 3 departures. The other GM's see the situation for what it is, and I can't see how these 3 d-men will return in picks, what they ordinarily might fetch. One could possibly even get waived, with no return. I guess that all will be revealed soon enough, but it's very curious that addition of another d-man made that logjam all the more concentrated, and subtracted another card from the team's allottment.
Is there the possibility of a "package deal " being made to a team whose d-corps is in need of improvement ? Which team might that be ???
If you are going to throw out hypotheticals it might make sense to have some rationale behind it. Including who might care to trade for the player in question and why they would pay more than London did for a full year. Flint really doesn’t need An overage D for half a year when they are going to finish last so you can’t rip them off again. Quoting someone else doesn’t really excuse you for not having a valid case,Never said anyone would. Someone else brought it up as a hypothetical.
I used quotes from their post from a discontinued thread that reached its limit.
But stranger things have hapoened (see the Rowe returns from this years 2 deals )
If you are going to throw out hypotheticals it might make sense to have some rationale behind it. Including who might care to trade for the player in question and why they would pay more than London did for a full year. Flint really doesn’t need An overage D for half a year when they are going to finish last so you can’t rip them off again. Quoting someone else doesn’t really excuse you for not having a valid case,