Offseason Trade Targets | Page 64 | HFBoards - NHL Message Board and Forum for National Hockey League

Offseason Trade Targets

  • If you are having issues logging in, we have found opening the log in page in a new tab/window rather than using the pop out should resolve these issues. We are working to get this resolved and thank you for patience.
  • Due to the increased volume of league transactions, the Trade Rumors and Free Agent Talk section is temporarily restricted to where threads may only be started by moderators and sponsors. We anticipate that this restriction will be lifted some time after the first round of the draft.
Larkin wasn't injured at trade time. Neither was Copp. You seem to have an agenda to re-write the history.

Did I say they were injured? We had no top line LW. Copp isn't a true 2C, Kane is questionable in the top 6 (he should be a 3rd line PP specialist), Chiarot was our 2LD and obviously 2RD was a hole.

We entered the line TDL with poor underlying metrics, a history of choking and 4-5 holes at the top of our lineup (4 if you're a fan of Kane, 5 if you think he should have been slotted lower). So even after the trade and before any injuries we were missing 3 or 4 key pieces and were trending downwards.
 
  • Like
Reactions: taliababa
On the trade time Red Wings were playoff team and 9th best at NHL.
3rd in the Atlantic.

It's bad because they didn't make the playoffs and collapsed. The strategy wasn't ever to acquire and redeal Faulk later. It's bad asset management; sure, but it's because the original plan/idea of making the playoffs and building something wasn't met, it's not like we made a move to make another move for more value later. That wasn't really the 'goal' of trading for Faulk.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: r0bert8841
People get it, they also understand where the pick actually ends up is actually it's value and what matters.
Who is “people”?

@SirloinUB is maybe the only person here who has a leg to stand on with this criticism, even if I don’t personally agree with it.

Overwhelming attitude around here was that it was a move that needed to be made and the price to make it happen was palatable relative to the market.

Now history is being revised where people, and I won’t be calling anyone out specifically, are acting like it was an unjustifiable move when they were happy to justify it just a few months ago.
 
Who is “people”?

@SirloinUB is maybe the only person here who has a leg to stand on with this criticism, even if I don’t personally agree with it.

Overwhelming attitude around here was that it was a move that needed to be made and the price to make it happen was palatable relative to the market.

Now history is being revised where people, and I won’t be calling anyone out specifically, are acting like it was an unjustifiable move when they were happy to justify it just a few months ago.

I still think it was the right move at the time, but I also think it's totally fine for opinions to change based on how things played out
 
HFB logic:
* Byram is worth 4OA
* Larkin is twice the player as Byram
* Larkin is worth 2OA
* Misa was taken 2OA
* Larkin is worth Misa

Am I doing it right? :D

1782261823229.png
 
Sabres probably gonna draft like verhoeff f***. He’d be my pick in the 4-5 range. Think he’s gonna be a good one. Anyways buffalo will find they’re d replacement who’s like 7 yrs younger

We’re trading up from 15 to 8-9 to get smits or Cullen right ? … oh rightttt
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Ad

Ad