Jump to content


Vanek and Miller trade ideas


  • Please log in to reply
82 replies to this topic

#1 Tank

Tank

    McDone

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 7,287 posts
  • Gender:Male

Posted 07 April 2013 - 10:29 AM

Everybody is talking about how they think these guys will be traded in the offseason, but what are we trading them for? Let's get some ideas.

Vanek is worth more than Pominville, so his deal is a starting point to go up from.
Miller still has high value. What do we get?

If you're committed to trading Miller, then you could make a move with LA:

Vanek for Bernier, Tyler Toffoli and Linden Vey. That'd be a VERY high price to pay, so you might have to ask for less than that, but that's a starting point.

I wouldn't mind trading Miller straight up for a good young forward. Or, if Miller would commit to an extension with them, we could trade Miller for a top five pick.

#2 waldo

waldo

    Third Liner

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2,457 posts
  • Gender:Not Telling

Posted 07 April 2013 - 11:31 AM

View PostDStebb, on 07 April 2013 - 10:29 AM, said:

Everybody is talking about how they think these guys will be traded in the offseason, but what are we trading them for? Let's get some ideas.

Vanek is worth more than Pominville, so his deal is a starting point to go up from.
Miller still has high value. What do we get?

If you're committed to trading Miller, then you could make a move with LA:

Vanek for Bernier, Tyler Toffoli and Linden Vey. That'd be a VERY high price to pay, so you might have to ask for less than that, but that's a starting point.

I wouldn't mind trading Miller straight up for a good young forward. Or, if Miller would commit to an extension with them, we could trade Miller for a top five pick.


How much do you think a one year rental is worth in the trade market ? Especially if his agent has no interest in extending his contract with the team he is traded to. Would you put Bernier on the table in that situation and/or a couple of first round picks?

Do you think teams that want to trade for a player like Vanek would probe first to see if they could resign him to a longer term contract before they decided what kind of weight to place on the table?

Edited by waldo, 07 April 2013 - 11:58 AM.


#3 nfreeman

nfreeman

    All I want is everything you got.

  • SS Mod Team
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 10,102 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Brooklyn

Posted 07 April 2013 - 12:09 PM

Not new thread-worthy.

#4 inkman

inkman

    Fledgling Member of TSC

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 14,053 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Fairport

Posted 07 April 2013 - 01:47 PM

View PostDStebb, on 07 April 2013 - 10:29 AM, said:

If you're committed to trading Miller, then you could make a move with LA:

Vanek for Bernier, Tyler Toffoli and Linden Vey. That'd be a VERY high price to pay, so you might have to ask for less than that, but that's a starting point.
Why does LA want Ryan Miller?

#5 Taro T

Taro T

    It leads you here despite your destination under the MW tonight.

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 8,252 posts
  • Gender:Male

Posted 07 April 2013 - 02:00 PM

View Postinkman, on 07 April 2013 - 01:47 PM, said:

Why does LA want Ryan Miller?
Because they've already got Quick & Bernier. :doh:

#6 Lanny

Lanny

    Third Liner

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,409 posts

Posted 07 April 2013 - 02:03 PM

View Postinkman, on 07 April 2013 - 01:47 PM, said:


Why does LA want Ryan Miller?

I assume the idea is that you're getting Bernier in return for Vanek to replace Miller, who is traded in a seperate transaction.

#7 inkman

inkman

    Fledgling Member of TSC

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 14,053 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Fairport

Posted 07 April 2013 - 02:32 PM

View PostLanny, on 07 April 2013 - 02:03 PM, said:

I assume the idea is that you're getting Bernier in return for Vanek to replace Miller, who is traded in a seperate transaction.
My reading comprehension was on hiatus earlier today

#8 qwksndmonster

qwksndmonster

    The 'd' is silent

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,794 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Horseheads

Posted 07 April 2013 - 03:10 PM

My favorite part of this thread was where Taro piled on and agreed with inkman's lack of reading comprehension.

Trade Miller to Philly for Bryz.

#9 Taro T

Taro T

    It leads you here despite your destination under the MW tonight.

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 8,252 posts
  • Gender:Male

Posted 07 April 2013 - 04:17 PM

View Postqwksndmonster, on 07 April 2013 - 03:10 PM, said:

My favorite part of this thread was where Taro piled on and agreed with inkman's lack of reading comprehension.

Trade Miller to Philly for Bryz.
B-)

#10 Heimdall

Heimdall

    Third Liner

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,850 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Brussels, Belgium

Posted 09 April 2013 - 07:19 PM

Why would you trade for bryzgalov ?  He is rumoured to be a buy out in the offseason, seeing the flyers got mason now.

And if we are rebuilding, maybe better to go for mike smith.

#11 Moulson26

Moulson26

    Blood and Guts

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 5,699 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Rochester, NY

Posted 09 April 2013 - 11:01 PM

Vanek to Colorado for their top-3 pick, since we're probably not gonna get it ourselves. Make them add some on their part and ship his ass.

#12 inkman

inkman

    Fledgling Member of TSC

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 14,053 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Fairport

Posted 09 April 2013 - 11:59 PM

View PostVanek-Man, on 09 April 2013 - 11:01 PM, said:

Vanek to Colorado for their top-3 pick, since we're probably not gonna get it ourselves. Make them add some on their part and ship his ass.
As I screamed at my radio today when The WGR pregame host said something similar, nobody trades out of the top 3.

#13 Moulson26

Moulson26

    Blood and Guts

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 5,699 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Rochester, NY

Posted 10 April 2013 - 12:50 AM

View Postinkman, on 09 April 2013 - 11:59 PM, said:

As I screamed at my radio today when The WGR pregame host said something similar, nobody trades out of the top 3.

Colorado is one of the youngest teams in the league, and their lack of age may be one reason why they are having some major issues right now. I wouldn't say "ever" but you're right about it being unlikely. Other Vanek destinations i think include Edmonton (if he agrees to go there, doubtful i would think) or Nashville.

#14 qwksndmonster

qwksndmonster

    The 'd' is silent

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,794 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Horseheads

Posted 10 April 2013 - 02:46 AM

View PostVanek-Man, on 10 April 2013 - 12:50 AM, said:

Colorado is one of the youngest teams in the league, and their lack of age may be one reason why they are having some major issues right now. I wouldn't say "ever" but you're right about it being unlikely. Other Vanek destinations i think include Edmonton (if he agrees to go there, doubtful i would think) or Nashville.
Why does it matter if Vanek agrees? And even if Colorado wanted to trade their pick, it would take more than Vanek.

#15 HopefulFuture

HopefulFuture

    Swords Forever

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,771 posts
  • Gender:Male

Posted 10 April 2013 - 05:03 AM

Miller + to Phoenix for Yandle (Myers partner)

Vanek + to Edmonton for Yakupov (a winger for Grigs)

the pluses could be prospects, picks or stafford, I really don't care which.

#16 LGR4GM

LGR4GM

    Poop Flavored Lollypop

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 11,630 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:The Myth, The Man, The Legend, Zemgus Destroyer of Worlds.

Posted 10 April 2013 - 07:17 AM

View PostHopefulFuture, on 10 April 2013 - 05:03 AM, said:

Miller + to Phoenix for Yandle (Myers partner)

Vanek + to Edmonton for Yakupov (a winger for Grigs)

the pluses could be prospects, picks or stafford, I really don't care which.
I'm sorry this trade is insane.  You want to trade a top LW players with years of experience + for Nail Yakupov.... the same thing goes for the Miller trade. If you move either of those two players the + side is coming from the team they go to.  Like Vanek to Edmonton for Yakupov, 1st, 2nd would probably start the conversation.

#17 Derrico

Derrico

    Second Liner

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,462 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Greater Toronto Area

Posted 10 April 2013 - 07:46 AM

View PostVanek-Man, on 09 April 2013 - 11:01 PM, said:

Vanek to Colorado for their top-3 pick, since we're probably not gonna get it ourselves. Make them add some on their part and ship his ass.

It's going to take a lot more than Vanek to get a top 3 pick.  Firstly, as someone else pointed out, those trades very rarely happen.  Even if Colorado was open to it Vanek only has one year left on his $7 million deal.  I'm sure he'll be looking for atleast that kind of dough come extension time.  They wouldn't even pay one of their own young key players (O'Reilly) so I doubt they'd be looking to pay big bucks for Vanek.  Cheap teams like Colorado are looking to draft good young players who they control financially for a few years.  IMO, I feel that unless we win the lottery, we aint getting to the top 3.

Best case scenario is we end up around 8 and Minni's pick is around 18.  Then we might be able to package the two to move up to maybe 5 if we wanted.   Or more than likely we use the 8 spot and then trade a 2nd along with our 18 to move up to something like 12 (similar to what we did last yr).

#18 716

716

    Third Liner

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,806 posts
  • Gender:Male

Posted 10 April 2013 - 08:00 AM

I don't think Vanek or Miller will get as much as we think. They're both flawed and they're both very expensive. Teams are smart. They scout. They know that Miller will play a spectacular 1/2 game and then give up 2 softies. They know Vanek gets tired or hurt or disappears for stretches of time. For $7 mil a year they'd rather get someone younger with upside. They're not going to give up a lot for their perceived superstardom. We might be surprised as to their lower than expected return. I see TPegs picking up salary when or if they're traded.

As for Terry Pegula, as much good as he's done for Buffalo, he's as clueless as the ultra-wealthy ex-billboard salesman Arte Moreno (Angels) as an owner. I think maddeningly the Sabres might  continue to hand out these mega contracts to these "superstars" in name only.

#19 Robviously

Robviously

    What You Don't See

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 5,367 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:North Texas

Posted 10 April 2013 - 08:21 AM

View PostLGR4GM, on 10 April 2013 - 07:17 AM, said:

I'm sorry this trade is insane.  You want to trade a top LW players with years of experience + for Nail Yakupov.... the same thing goes for the Miller trade. If you move either of those two players the + side is coming from the team they go to. Like Vanek to Edmonton for Yakupov, 1st, 2nd would probably start the conversation.
Well, that's definitely not happening.

If we trade Vanek, I'd want a blue chip prospect as the centerpiece coming back (a Filip Forsberg type).  We sort of went for quantity with the Pominville trade and I'd want one awesome prospect to build around this time.

#20 Sherman

Sherman

    Prospect

  • Members
  • Pip
  • 137 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:NJ

Posted 10 April 2013 - 08:22 AM

The rumor was Vanek to Philly so here are two different ideas:
1) Vanek for Courtier, McGinn, 2nd this year and a 2nd next year
2)Vanek for Simmonds, and a 2nd

Philly's 1st is too high for them to want to trade it.  I think the Sabres will have a hard time trading Miller.  Other goalies available will be Luongo, Bernier and probably someone from St.Louis.  I'm sure there is a deal but not the big splash you might expect.

#21 Robviously

Robviously

    What You Don't See

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 5,367 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:North Texas

Posted 10 April 2013 - 08:34 AM

View Post716, on 10 April 2013 - 08:00 AM, said:

I don't think Vanek or Miller will get as much as we think. They're both flawed and they're both very expensive. Teams are smart. They scout. They know that Miller will play a spectacular 1/2 game and then give up 2 softies. They know Vanek gets tired or hurt or disappears for stretches of time. For $7 mil a year they'd rather get someone younger with upside. They're not going to give up a lot for their perceived superstardom. We might be surprised as to their lower than expected return. I see TPegs picking up salary when or if they're traded.

As for Terry Pegula, as much good as he's done for Buffalo, he's as clueless as the ultra-wealthy ex-billboard salesman Arte Moreno (Angels) as an owner. I think maddeningly the Sabres might  continue to hand out these mega contracts to these "superstars" in name only.
Arte has actually been a spectacular owner.  He's renovated the stadium a couple times and the Angels are consistently ranked as one of the best fan experiences in pro sports.  The last 10 years have also been about as good as any in the team's history as a group, despite the team basically being an expensive disappointment these last few seasons.  I can't blame him for going for it though.  As far as "clueless", he bought the team for $184M in 2003 and it's worth more than three times that just 10 years later.  

The Angels and Sabres have (or had) a great corollary earlier this year with Scioscia and Ruff though.  Angels fans are constantly debating if it's time for Scioscia to move on, despite all his success years ago.

View PostDerrico, on 10 April 2013 - 07:46 AM, said:

It's going to take a lot more than Vanek to get a top 3 pick.  Firstly, as someone else pointed out, those trades very rarely happen.  Even if Colorado was open to it Vanek only has one year left on his $7 million deal.  I'm sure he'll be looking for atleast that kind of dough come extension time.  They wouldn't even pay one of their own young key players (O'Reilly) so I doubt they'd be looking to pay big bucks for Vanek.  Cheap teams like Colorado are looking to draft good young players who they control financially for a few years.  IMO, I feel that unless we win the lottery, we aint getting to the top 3.

Best case scenario is we end up around 8 and Minni's pick is around 18.  Then we might be able to package the two to move up to maybe 5 if we wanted.   Or more than likely we use the 8 spot and then trade a 2nd along with our 18 to move up to something like 12 (similar to what we did last yr).
I think we could move up like 3 spots within the top ten (e.g. from 9th to 6th) but even that would be an expensive trade (and we'd have to be really sure that it's worth it).  After Jones, Drouin, MacKinnon, and Barkov are gone, who'd be worth trading up for?

Trading up from Minnesota's pick to ~12th is weird too.  I'm still not sure that was the right move last year.  I keep reading about the draft and I'm not sure who would be available at 12 that would be significantly better than who we could get at 20th or so (wherever the Wild ends up, assuming they don't make the Finals).

#22 LGR4GM

LGR4GM

    Poop Flavored Lollypop

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 11,630 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:The Myth, The Man, The Legend, Zemgus Destroyer of Worlds.

Posted 10 April 2013 - 08:49 AM

View PostRobviously, on 10 April 2013 - 08:21 AM, said:

Well, that's definitely not happening.

If we trade Vanek, I'd want a blue chip prospect as the centerpiece coming back (a Filip Forsberg type).  We sort of went for quantity with the Pominville trade and I'd want one awesome prospect to build around this time.
I am aware that trading Vanek to Edmonton is highly unlikely.

View PostRobviously, on 10 April 2013 - 08:34 AM, said:

Arte has actually been a spectacular owner.  He's renovated the stadium a couple times and the Angels are consistently ranked as one of the best fan experiences in pro sports.  The last 10 years have also been about as good as any in the team's history as a group, despite the team basically being an expensive disappointment these last few seasons.  I can't blame him for going for it though.  As far as "clueless", he bought the team for $184M in 2003 and it's worth more than three times that just 10 years later.  

The Angels and Sabres have (or had) a great corollary earlier this year with Scioscia and Ruff though.  Angels fans are constantly debating if it's time for Scioscia to move on, despite all his success years ago.


I think we could move up like 3 spots within the top ten (e.g. from 9th to 6th) but even that would be an expensive trade (and we'd have to be really sure that it's worth it).  After Jones, Drouin, MacKinnon, and Barkov are gone, who'd be worth trading up for?

Trading up from Minnesota's pick to ~12th is weird too.  I'm still not sure that was the right move last year.  I keep reading about the draft and I'm not sure who would be available at 12 that would be significantly better than who we could get at 20th or so (wherever the Wild ends up, assuming they don't make the Finals).
Sean Monahan (yes there is an echo is here)

As for trading up with the Minn pick, if we finish say 7th it makes more sense to trade up to say 5th using that Minn. pick. It is more valuable than our 2nd

#23 Robviously

Robviously

    What You Don't See

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 5,367 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:North Texas

Posted 10 April 2013 - 08:49 AM

View PostLGR4GM, on 10 April 2013 - 08:48 AM, said:

I am aware that trading Vanek to Edmonton is highly unlikely.
The chances of them trading Yakupov AND a 1st AND a 2nd for anyone is highly unlikely.

#24 716

716

    Third Liner

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,806 posts
  • Gender:Male

Posted 10 April 2013 - 08:50 AM

View PostRobviously, on 10 April 2013 - 08:34 AM, said:

Arte has actually been a spectacular owner.  He's renovated the stadium a couple times and the Angels are consistently ranked as one of the best fan experiences in pro sports.  The last 10 years have also been about as good as any in the team's history as a group, despite the team basically being an expensive disappointment these last few seasons.  I can't blame him for going for it though.  As far as "clueless", he bought the team for $184M in 2003 and it's worth more than three times that just 10 years later.  

The Angels and Sabres have (or had) a great corollary earlier this year with Scioscia and Ruff though.  Angels fans are constantly debating if it's time for Scioscia to move on, despite all his success years ago.

I respectfully disagree with the spectacular part. Sure he's built the business to a great extent but has proven terrible at getting value on the field with his players, much as Pegula. He's tried to buy championships and has failed and continues to fail miserably. Disgruntled Angels and Sabres fans will just not continue to grumble, they'll dwindle, until these owners stop hiring or keeping flunky GMs and keeping stale, incumbent managers and come up with personnel people who actually have vision.  

I've been an Angels fan and Sabres fan since 1970 and I can see definite parallels between Moreno and Pegula, two nouveau riche types who are meddlesome with their rosters and awful when it comes to building a team. They are both clueless, believe me and it pains me to no end that these are the two sports teams I follow, having totally given up on da Bills.

Edited by 716, 10 April 2013 - 08:56 AM.


#25 Robviously

Robviously

    What You Don't See

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 5,367 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:North Texas

Posted 10 April 2013 - 08:51 AM

View Post716, on 10 April 2013 - 08:50 AM, said:

I've been an Angels fan and Sabres fan since 1970 and I can see definite parallels between Moreno and Pegula, two nouveau riche types who are meddlesome with their rosters and awful when it comes to building a team. They are both clueless, believe me and it pains me to no end that these are the two sports teams I follow, having totally given up on da Bills.
I've been an Angels fan since the 80's and they're probably the only reason I haven't given up on sports entirely.  (2002 changes everything.)

#26 LGR4GM

LGR4GM

    Poop Flavored Lollypop

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 11,630 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:The Myth, The Man, The Legend, Zemgus Destroyer of Worlds.

Posted 10 April 2013 - 08:53 AM

View PostRobviously, on 10 April 2013 - 08:49 AM, said:

The chances of them trading Yakupov AND a 1st AND a 2nd for anyone is highly unlikely.
thank you I am aware of that, however you do not trade a two time 40goal scorer and a top 3 winger for a just a prospect.

I don't know why I have this argument every time we talk trading one of the Sabres top guys, but the going rate as evident by just about every trade that has occurred with top players, is top prospect/prospects + usually a 1st/2nd pick + another pick.

#27 Derrico

Derrico

    Second Liner

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,462 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Greater Toronto Area

Posted 10 April 2013 - 09:24 AM

View PostRobviously, on 10 April 2013 - 08:34 AM, said:

I think we could move up like 3 spots within the top ten (e.g. from 9th to 6th) but even that would be an expensive trade (and we'd have to be really sure that it's worth it).  After Jones, Drouin, MacKinnon, and Barkov are gone, who'd be worth trading up for?

Trading up from Minnesota's pick to ~12th is weird too.  I'm still not sure that was the right move last year.  I keep reading about the draft and I'm not sure who would be available at 12 that would be significantly better than who we could get at 20th or so (wherever the Wild ends up, assuming they don't make the Finals).

This all depends on how the draft plays out. I understood the move last year because there was a huge run on Dmen and we were looking for a centre. We ended up taking a highly regarded centre with our first pick and the Sabres must have had Girgs ranked high enough on their board that they jumped to trade up.

We say now that we don't know who would be worth moving up from say 18th to 12th but if a guy like Monahan (just using him as an example for LGR) then we go for it. As casual fans we're grading the draft a certain way but if the Sabres scouts have a guy pegged at say 8th or 9th on their board sitting their at 12 or 13 and we can move up to take him, I want them to make that move.

#28 Robviously

Robviously

    What You Don't See

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 5,367 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:North Texas

Posted 10 April 2013 - 09:32 AM

View PostDerrico, on 10 April 2013 - 09:24 AM, said:

This all depends on how the draft plays out. I understood the move last year because there was a huge run on Dmen and we were looking for a centre. We ended up taking a highly regarded centre with our first pick and the Sabres must have had Girgs ranked high enough on their board that they jumped to trade up.

We say now that we don't know who would be worth moving up from say 18th to 12th but if a guy like Monahan (just using him as an example for LGR) then we go for it. As casual fans we're grading the draft a certain way but if the Sabres scouts have a guy pegged at say 8th or 9th on their board sitting their at 12 or 13 and we can move up to take him, I want them to make that move.
Agree 100%, especially the last part.  Trading up for Girgensons wouldn't have been my move but I definitely liked the Sabres trading up to get the guy they wanted.  I can appreciate a proactive team putting a plan into motion, and it felt like that's what we saw that day.

#29 nfreeman

nfreeman

    All I want is everything you got.

  • SS Mod Team
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 10,102 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Brooklyn

Posted 10 April 2013 - 09:47 AM

View PostLGR4GM, on 10 April 2013 - 07:17 AM, said:

I'm sorry this trade is insane.  You want to trade a top LW players with years of experience + for Nail Yakupov.... the same thing goes for the Miller trade. If you move either of those two players the + side is coming from the team they go to.  Like Vanek to Edmonton for Yakupov, 1st, 2nd would probably start the conversation.

Aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaahhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

#30 LGR4GM

LGR4GM

    Poop Flavored Lollypop

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 11,630 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:The Myth, The Man, The Legend, Zemgus Destroyer of Worlds.

Posted 10 April 2013 - 09:49 AM

View Postnfreeman, on 10 April 2013 - 09:47 AM, said:

Aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaahhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaahhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!




see I could do it too and would be just about as informative/thought provoking as your post.... except I added and extra ! :flirt:

#31 TrueBluePhD

TrueBluePhD

    First Liner

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 9,289 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Cheektowaga, NY

Posted 10 April 2013 - 09:54 AM

View Postnfreeman, on 10 April 2013 - 09:47 AM, said:

Aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaahhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Yyyyyyyyyyeeeeeeeeeessssssssssss!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

This forum needs more encouragement, not negativity, no matter how well deserved! ;)

#32 HopefulFuture

HopefulFuture

    Swords Forever

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,771 posts
  • Gender:Male

Posted 10 April 2013 - 10:15 AM

Actually, a young, speedy winger is exactly what Grigs is going to need, Yakupov fits the bill, but there are others.
And no, if your trading for young talent like that, Vanek + would start the conversation since Vanek only has a year left on his contract, and as some have pointed out, is not consistent enough.

Miller + for Yandle, once again, Miller only a year left and Yandle is absolutely the talent you want on the blue line.

Both Miller and Vanek are pricey, a bit overpaid in my opinion, but no matter, they are pricey none the less. You want to get, you have to give.
I'd give a great deal to get a D man like Yandle in Buffalo.

#33 ThirtyEight

ThirtyEight

    Second Liner

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,752 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Oxford, UK

Posted 10 April 2013 - 10:17 AM

View PostHopefulFuture, on 10 April 2013 - 10:15 AM, said:

Actually, a young, speedy winger is exactly what Grigs is going to need, Yakupov fits the bill, but there are others.
And no, if your trading for young talent like that, Vanek + would start the conversation since Vanek only has a year left on his contract, and as some have pointed out, is not consistent enough.

Miller + for Yandle, once again, Miller only a year left and Yandle is absolutely the talent you want on the blue line.

Both Miller and Vanek are pricey, a bit overpaid in my opinion, but no matter, they are pricey none the less. You want to get, you have to give.
I'd give a great deal to get a D man like Yandle in Buffalo.

Yandle is not great defensively and has an insane offensive start rate. He is a good offensive D-man. He is a bad all round D-man. Mike Green is better in his own zone

#34 waldo

waldo

    Third Liner

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2,457 posts
  • Gender:Not Telling

Posted 10 April 2013 - 10:30 AM

View PostLGR4GM, on 10 April 2013 - 08:53 AM, said:

thank you I am aware of that, however you do not trade a two time 40goal scorer and a top 3 winger for a just a prospect.

I don't know why I have this argument every time we talk trading one of the Sabres top guys, but the going rate as evident by just about every trade that has occurred with top players, is top prospect/prospects + usually a 1st/2nd pick + another pick.

+50
Right on the money... to add to your position... how many years left on the LW's contract? On your goaltenders contract? It diminishes their value further in some trade scenerios. Personally I hope they both escape and go to playoff teams. That would leave the fans here to watch another eight years more of  ever hopeful hockey..lol. and give us the chance to watch more x Buffalo players in the playoffs..( I am well used to that so it does not matter to me one way or the other.

View PostThirtyEight, on 10 April 2013 - 10:17 AM, said:

Yandle is not great defensively and has an insane offensive start rate. He is a good offensive D-man. He is a bad all round D-man. Mike Green is better in his own zone

thank you for noting that...

#35 LGR4GM

LGR4GM

    Poop Flavored Lollypop

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 11,630 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:The Myth, The Man, The Legend, Zemgus Destroyer of Worlds.

Posted 10 April 2013 - 10:37 AM

View PostHopefulFuture, on 10 April 2013 - 10:15 AM, said:

Actually, a young, speedy winger is exactly what Grigs is going to need, Yakupov fits the bill, but there are others.
And no, if your trading for young talent like that, Vanek + would start the conversation since Vanek only has a year left on his contract, and as some have pointed out, is not consistent enough.

Miller + for Yandle, once again, Miller only a year left and Yandle is absolutely the talent you want on the blue line.

Both Miller and Vanek are pricey, a bit overpaid in my opinion, but no matter, they are pricey none the less. You want to get, you have to give.
I'd give a great deal to get a D man like Yandle in Buffalo.
You are right Yakupov is the model of consistency...

#36 ThirtyEight

ThirtyEight

    Second Liner

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,752 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Oxford, UK

Posted 10 April 2013 - 10:42 AM

Very few players  (especially forwards) are actually consistent - we just don't realise it because we don't watch many games of other teams

#37 Robviously

Robviously

    What You Don't See

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 5,367 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:North Texas

Posted 10 April 2013 - 10:46 AM

View PostLGR4GM, on 10 April 2013 - 10:37 AM, said:

You are right Yakupov is the model of consistency...
He's 19.

#38 LGR4GM

LGR4GM

    Poop Flavored Lollypop

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 11,630 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:The Myth, The Man, The Legend, Zemgus Destroyer of Worlds.

Posted 10 April 2013 - 10:52 AM

View PostRobviously, on 10 April 2013 - 10:46 AM, said:

He's 19.
exactly.

back to the original point no sane GM trades Vanek + for Yakupov.

#39 Moulson26

Moulson26

    Blood and Guts

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 5,699 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Rochester, NY

Posted 10 April 2013 - 11:34 AM

View Postqwksndmonster, on 10 April 2013 - 02:46 AM, said:

Why does it matter if Vanek agrees? And even if Colorado wanted to trade their pick, it would take more than Vanek.

I wrote that assuming Vanek had a similar no-trade clause as Pominville did. No idea if he does or doesn't. If he does, i would be certain Edmonton is on his no-go list.

View PostDerrico, on 10 April 2013 - 07:46 AM, said:

It's going to take a lot more than Vanek to get a top 3 pick.  Firstly, as someone else pointed out, those trades very rarely happen.  Even if Colorado was open to it Vanek only has one year left on his $7 million deal.  I'm sure he'll be looking for atleast that kind of dough come extension time.  They wouldn't even pay one of their own young key players (O'Reilly) so I doubt they'd be looking to pay big bucks for Vanek.  Cheap teams like Colorado are looking to draft good young players who they control financially for a few years.  IMO, I feel that unless we win the lottery, we aint getting to the top 3.

Obviously it'd be bigger then just Vanek for the 3rd, but i am not sure if it's going to take "a lot more". I think Colorado wants Seth Jones. If he goes off the board early, why wouldn't they want a Vanek type forward? Pittsburgh didn't exactly pay an arm and a leg for MA Fluery a few years ago. It's a move up deal. Vanek + our first for a top 3 plus "a lot more" on their side to get it done.

#40 TrueBluePhD

TrueBluePhD

    First Liner

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 9,289 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Cheektowaga, NY

Posted 10 April 2013 - 11:40 AM

View PostThirtyEight, on 10 April 2013 - 10:42 AM, said:

Very few players  (especially forwards) are actually consistent - we just don't realise it because we don't watch many games of other teams

Correct.  Skimming through other teams' forums can be a very enlightening experience.