Flyers/Sabres Deal

Good post.

Just for the record i'm pretty sure the OV deal was challanged.

It still had to be voted on if it was challenged, so the onus is still on the other GMs.

I think skwid has drawn a conclusion that is a clear logical fallacy, that I was complaining about Joe's deal.

Because I claimed I would not make the Ovechkin deal in a million that somehow I was angry it was not vetoed. There is a clear gap in logic there. As though 1+2 could equal anything if it sort of makes half sense.

I didn't challenge it because I thought it wasn't challenge worthy. Myself, however, would never have made the deal.

The area inbetween analysis and conclusion is oft the most overlooked.

Don't flatter yourself, Jake...this wasn't about 'you'.

The direction of the conversation leading up to your comment was what fueled my post. Whether you would have challenged it or not is a moot point.

He has a goalie that, for two SDHL seasons, can be of great help to another team, or serve as a great backup for him. (Or even a starter, for that matter)

He wants to trade him, as he's managed to secure a more long term solution to his goaltending.

He's let it be known that Biron is available.

Rather than deal him for a 3rd round pick, as I'm sure is about the most popular offer, he would rather keep him until someone comes along really needing a goalie.

Enter the other Mark.

Buffalo made the mistake of mishandling their goaltending situation, and is now in a tough spot. He's willing to make the payment he made, he has no issue with it.

What's the problem here? The Flyers had the advantage...they had something the Sabres wanted...nay...NEEDED. It's called supply and demand. A seller's market, if you will.




That's the only part I disagree with. In terms of short term SDHL ratings, Biron isn't any better than Mason. Biron is not the "missing piece" here, he's just a depth acquisition.

Avalanche GM wrote:

bure_HOF wrote:

someone want to explain to me how a 30+yr old 2nd-3rd string G is worth a future 1st?!

The same way Zdeno Chara is worth nothing?...care to explain that one please

at some point, ellay, you're going to have to demonstrate at least a double digit IQ.

Minnesota Wild wrote:

I would not have made that Ovechkin trade in a million years

and in a million years i wouldnt have traded datsyuk and lidstrom for semin and campbell. and then turned around and traded campbell for s. niedermayer. ummm, why not just keep lidstrom? anyway...

Quote :

The Ovechkin deal was posted and while many weren't happy with how cheap he went for (yes, Joe, it was a steal) the bottom line is that no one challenged it.

no, skwid, it actually wasnt a steal unless every single trade involving crosby or ovechkin in the SDHL were steals. i know it seems like ovechkin shouldnt go for less than my 8 best players and next three 1st round picks, but that just isnt reality. yes, he's arguably the greatest player in the world, but he is only one player. not to mention his prohibitive contract combined with the fact that he has basically no room to improve at all ratings wise, unlike the players that were sent in return for him. even if he scores 70g next year he's still going to be a 99sc, just like he is now. in fact, chances are he takes a slight dip in one or two ratings categories like maybe CK, for example.

three top 6 Fs, a 1st, two 2nds and a 3rd as well as the significant D upgrade of mccabe for morris is not a steal. havlat and ryder are in their primes while wheeler showed significant promise as a rookie. havlat is now the go to guy in minny as well. he's 78ov now and has a pretty good chance of improving given his new role on the wild. not to mention he's going to have about a $3.5M cap hit on his next contract.

the difference between the types of trades i do and the types of trades some other GMs do is that i send quality roster players instead of mediocre roster players combined with a bunch of minor leaguers who, at best, are future 4th liners.

processed