I don't care about returns, especially when the team has 3 former top ten picks (a 1oA and a 2oA and Kravtsov) who play the wing. He was never brining back a young 2C with a flat cap. It's Drury's job to complete the roster overhaul and round out the lineup. They have the firepower even without Buch what they didn't have were guys suited to play on the 3rd and 4th line effectively. Why was Blais unnecessary? Did you want to start the season with Kravtsov on the 4th line?
Speculation: Roster Building Thread - Part XXII
- Thread starter Krams
- Start date
-
Xenforo Cloud will be upgrading us to version 2.3.5 on March 3rd at 12 AM GMT. This version has increased stability and fixes several bugs. We expect downtime for the duration of the update. The admin team will continue to work on existing issues, templates and upgrade all necessary available addons to minimize impact of this new version. Click Here for Updates
- Status
I don't care about returns, especially when the team has 3 former top ten picks (a 1oA and a 2oA and Kravtsov) who play the wing. He was never brining back a young 2C with a flat cap. It's Drury's job to complete the roster overhaul and round out the lineup. They have the firepower even without Buch what they didn't have were guys suited to play on the 3rd and 4th line effectively. Why was Blais unnecessary? Did you want to start the season with Kravtsov on the 4th line?
When Buch was traded he could have netted us picks, prospects and/or players.
The first currency is what it is. A pick is a pick, it has objective value.
However — and it’s in this regard I think the “Buch trade” is a bit misunderstood — when it comes to prospects or players, its all about getting the right prospect or player for us, right now, right here.
This really limits the market for Drury. Nobody would have complained if we netted a top 10 pick for Buch. But what if like Lou calls Drury and offers Wahlstrom? We have no interest in any offer containing a scoring winger prospect or player, we have no interest in any offer containing a RD prospect or player, I don’t think we would have had interest in many LD prospects and the LD player would have have to be special. We also probably have little to no interest in a 3rd line center. And so forth, and so forth and so forth.
Drury cannot manufacture someone trading a high pick to us. Odds are that he had several offers — but how many included players or prospects that made sense for us?? So many “valuable” players or prospects don’t have a ton of value to us.
Ultimately it undoubtedly makes more sense for us to get a 2nd and a player in Blais that can help us than say a prospect RD that is D+2 and deemed to be more “valuable” for other teams, but that would have made less sense for us. But — this is of course conditional on Blais being able to contribute for us. If he is a “bust” who is around half a year before going to HFD or waivers or whatever, well it’s hard to support the trade.
The first currency is what it is. A pick is a pick, it has objective value.
However — and it’s in this regard I think the “Buch trade” is a bit misunderstood — when it comes to prospects or players, its all about getting the right prospect or player for us, right now, right here.
This really limits the market for Drury. Nobody would have complained if we netted a top 10 pick for Buch. But what if like Lou calls Drury and offers Wahlstrom? We have no interest in any offer containing a scoring winger prospect or player, we have no interest in any offer containing a RD prospect or player, I don’t think we would have had interest in many LD prospects and the LD player would have have to be special. We also probably have little to no interest in a 3rd line center. And so forth, and so forth and so forth.
Drury cannot manufacture someone trading a high pick to us. Odds are that he had several offers — but how many included players or prospects that made sense for us?? So many “valuable” players or prospects don’t have a ton of value to us.
Ultimately it undoubtedly makes more sense for us to get a 2nd and a player in Blais that can help us than say a prospect RD that is D+2 and deemed to be more “valuable” for other teams, but that would have made less sense for us. But — this is of course conditional on Blais being able to contribute for us. If he is a “bust” who is around half a year before going to HFD or waivers or whatever, well it’s hard to support the trade.
- Sep 17, 2007
- 24,928
- 22,849
You should be happy you didn’t have to deal with this shit.
Do you know how difficult it was trying to watch porn!? Or what happened to your connection when some called or picked up the phone?
I started even before that, with the Hayes 2400 baud x-modem, connecting to bulletin boards. I actually kind of miss those days.
Nemeth is also an X-factor to me. I’ve never been his biggest fan, has some mobility issues and can be a bit of a stiff at times. OTOH, it’s not like I’ve watched in daily the last years. If he is a good player for us it’s a positive surprise for me. Time will tell.
Honestly, I am a little afraid of that he was signed due to “advanced stats” that were inflated for some reason, usage or whatever,
Honestly, I am a little afraid of that he was signed due to “advanced stats” that were inflated for some reason, usage or whatever,
"I don't care about returns" - Um good for you? That doesn't really change much. So because we have other pieces, we shouldn't try to get the best deal we can out of our assets? That's the kind of logic that doesn't sound quite so, logical. And if you were in charge of pretty much any other business, that would sound.... like a bad way to do business.
Blais being "unnecessary" and Kravtsov playing the 4th line have nothing to do with one another unless you think we couldn't have added a 4th line RW other than Blais. Which is preposterous. Especially considering we signed Reaves, which was the point. Doesn't Reaves play RW? Is he going to be on our 3rd line? Maybe. But not necessarily. He could just as easily play on the 4th. Either way he's obviously a bottom 6 RW. And there are other bottom 6 RW's out there than just Reaves and Blais. We also have Gauthier and a couple of other bottom 6 players. I have no idea what the actual lines will look like, I don't think anyone does right now until we see more in preseason. But insinuating we HAD to deal Buch for Blais because we needed a bottom 6 winger is such a ridiculous argument.
NoQuitInNewMexico
it's okay cause it's all just the way it should be
Surprised he extended in Philly.
hopefully this helps the Zibanejad negotiations. Not that I’d want him for 8 years.
With his usage, they would have been bad if he performed poorly.
He's going to get bottom pair usage here, which is going to be a lighter load than what hes been getting the last few years.
Gauthier isn't a 4th line player, if you want to win you need the right 4th line players. That's the same problem the team had last year. Their bottom six was mismatched and filled with players who couldn't play in the top 6 but weren't bottom six guys. The skill doesn't match the purpose. And I never said we had to deal Buch for Blais, in fact in an early post I said the exact opposite. This was never Buch for Blais. This was moving Buch to accommodate Kakko and Kravtsov - two young offensive players that don't yet cost 5 million combined.
What would have been an appropriate return for Buch, not in a vacuum, but consider the roster, their needs, who needs more icetime, who needs to get paid, etc.?
TheBloodyNine
Pure Bred Soviet Savage
NoQuitInNewMexico
it's okay cause it's all just the way it should be
I think Gauthier is more likely to become a really good fourth line guy than he is to become an NHL scoring line player. Am I confident about it happening next year, no, and I wouldn't be confident even if we didn't make all those signings. David Quinn was probably right when he said Julien is the kind of guy who will need to go through a few organizations.
Waiting to see what Dahlin gets for the comparable
Fitzy
Very Stable Genius
- Jan 29, 2009
- 36,357
- 24,157
So between 7 x 8.5 and 5 x 10 you'd take the latter?
Think I might as well. 33-34 tends to often be the point where the decline starts accelerating for a lot of players.
Tob
Registered User
- Sep 16, 2017
- 16,899
- 37,842
Yeah, they're pretty easy to beat IMO.
- Sep 17, 2007
- 24,928
- 22,849
Lol. I don't remember that being a big part of bulletin boards, at least not the few I knew about. That was much more of a thing during the AOL/Prodigy days.
Tob
Registered User
- Sep 16, 2017
- 16,899
- 37,842
Makes me reminiscent of the height of the Online Sexual Predator Golden Age.
Like I said, a 1st round pick, likely a mid to late one and a player like Blais or at least a 4th line potential player/prospect. But you could literally just trade Buch for draft picks and still acquire a player you need elsewhere. You are creating a hypothetical situation where there's only one way to go about acquiring players or building a team.
As far as winning goes, it would be nice to win a Cup this year, but I would be absolutely shocked if that happened. Until our young players like Laf, Kakko, Chytil, Kravtsov, Sheisty, all our young Dmen aside from Fox, reach their potential or at least close to their potential, I don't think we can be too optimistic about going all the way. As far as I am concerned, this is still a semi-developmental year. It's on the upward trajectory rather than the downward trajectory, but still a developmental year. Anything extra would be the cherry.
You are really over-complicating things. It comes down to this, either you think we got enough in return for Buch or you don't. Maybe you love Blais that much and think he's worth way more than I and others do, in which case, there's an actual argument to be made. What I don't understand is accepting or agreeing that we should have or could have gotten a better return for Buch and still forcing yourself (not necessarily you) to "like" the trade. You don't have to like it to accept that it happened. And you can even like the acquisition of Blais but still think it was not enough in return for Buch. These things aren't mutually exclusive. But if you don't think we got enough for Buch, if you think he's worth more than what we got, than it's simple, you don't like the trade and are perhaps perplexed as to why the trade was made in such a hurry. I have to think the vast majority of people that saw that trade go down on that day, assumed that another big move was coming, which is why Drury needed to move Buch out so quickly. And then as days went by, and then weeks, and no such deal came about, people wondered more and more what the rush was all about. And it seemed like there was no reason to sell Buch below his "estimated" value. And since we have no idea what his actual market value would have been in the 3 months following the date that the deal went down, it's all speculative. Either you think we plausibly could have gotten more or you don't.
All this post-hoc rationalization is just unnecessary.
Last edited:
- Sep 17, 2007
- 24,928
- 22,849
Hey, I'm not judging your life choices.
Tob
Registered User
- Sep 16, 2017
- 16,899
- 37,842
The Flyers are such a weird team. Looking at their capfriendly page, I can't get a handle of what's good and what's bad.
- Status
Latest posts
-
Devils discussion (news, notes and speculation) - part III- Latest: SteveCangialosi123
-
