Silver Booster
  • Content count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won


Buppy last won the day on April 25

Buppy had the most liked content!

About Buppy

  • Rank

Profile Information

  • Gender

Recent Profile Visitors

10,234 profile views
  1. Even without any changes I think we'd have a top-9 spot for Hartnell. I'd go for him on a cheap one year deal. Maybe he could have a rebound year and become a deadline asset.
  2. Dallas's biggest need now is defense, so I don't think we would be a good fit. The only thing that would kind of make sense is like Dickie suggests; the #9 + something else good. Whomever we'd get at #3 probably won't be much better than what we'd get at #9.
  3. Got it...you think you know everything.
  4. "Right deal", implying that there is such a thing as the wrong deal... but when anyone else suggests that you say they're out of their mind.
  5. Take a look at Winnipeg's forward list. Not a whole lot they need to be worried about. They can easily go the 4d+4f route and be much better off whomever they lose than they'd be by trading Trouba for a prospect and a 2nd. Nyq already touched on your comparisons somewhat, so I'll just add a couple things. Schultz actually did ok in Edm, but he never seemed to get any recognition, plus he was having a poor year and that was a deadline move. He was undervalued enough that Pit didn't even give him a qualifying offer that summer, and signed him to a lowball UFA deal. I'm not sure if he ever talked to any other teams as a UFA, but it sure seems there was little interest for him. Trouba is pretty the exact opposite of that. Johansen and Hall are borderline elite players. Similar to Bobby Ryan, who went for a high 1st, plus a Svech-level prospect, plus another prospect. So I don't think either of those trades fits your theory. You also left out Hamilton (a high first plus two seconds) and Burns (Setoguchi, Coyle, and a low 1st with SJ also getting a 2nd. So roughly the equivalent of SJ giving up a high 2nd). I'll never understand how you can place so little value on prospects while also believing other GMs are just dying to give up their young stars to get them.
  6. I know I shouldn't bother answering, but no. No, he did not say exactly that. Just the line, "trouba price would likely be really high" is enough to tell you he's talking about a package scenario. (Of course, only an idiot would think in terms of a 1 for 1 Svech for Trouba deal, so you shouldn't need even that line, but...) In case that isn't enough, looking at the context, he was replying to LW saying "I'd send them Svech if needed" in reference to the question of whether or not the previously suggested package of Howard, Nyquist, and Ouellet was good enough. While it's not exactly clear what LW meant, it sounds like he was saying he would add Svech to that package, and that idea is what Nyq was responding to. Looking at the post as a whole, we can probably safely infer that he means that given our current situation and the plausibility of adding Trouba as a UFA within a few years, that it isn't worth the probable price we'd have to pay (which it goes without saying is a s*** ton more than just Svech). You are at best grossly over-simplifying and taking quotes out of context.
  7. I can't believe you're actually that dense, so I have to assume you're just being deliberately obtuse. Have fun with that.
  8. Straight 1 for 1 swap, yes he would. In a package, it depends on what the package is.
  9. Untouchable is one of those things people throw around, but don't mean literally. There isn't a person here who wouldn't trade everyone on their "untouchable" list if they thought the return would be something even better. All it really means is that you think there are better trade options. Sure, Svech and a 2nd would be good. So good that I don't think there's a chance in hell Cheveldayoff would go for it. Add Tatar and it's a much more realistic package, and also a much less clear answer. If you think it's likely that Trouba will take off like Burns did, you say yes, if not maybe you look at what you can get for just Tatar and a 2nd.
  10. Your original point is meaningless. It's like saying "if you can trade a $5 bill for a $100 bill you do it". Maybe you think you're stating some clever insight that no one else has thought of, but you're really just saying something so obvious that no one thinks it's even worth mentioning, since it's equally obvious that you can't do that. Svechnikov doesn't get you a player like Trouba; you need a package. And in that case the answer is not, "you do it and don't look back", it's "what is the rest of the package?". And the likely answer to that question is going to be something that makes it not worth it to also give up Svech.
  11. Wait, now...what? Your entire argument is that proven players are worth more than prospects, but now you're saying in this scenario that Svechnikov (a prospect) would be worth more than proven scorers Tatar or Nyquist? While I would say there are some scenarios where a team would have a higher interest in Svech than the others (a team starting a rebuild, or trying to shed cap, or wanting an asset they don't need to protect and/or is waiver exempt), that is not the same as having more value, nor does Winnipeg fit those situations. If anything, they are the exact opposite. The only reasons they might consider trading Trouba right now is either: They think doing so can make their team better, in which case they would prefer proven players, or they fear they will lose him for nothing, in which case they want whatever is the best they can get...(first choice likely being a direct replacement) which would again be proven players ahead of Svech at least. High draft pick would likely be acceptable. A package centering on Tatar or Nyquist maybe wouldn't do it (though it might if they were looking to trade him to add a scoring winger), but if it doesn't then a package centering on Svech for sure wouldn't either. And if you're just looking to add value to a package centering on something like our 1st-rounder, Trouba isn't worth that much. Neither is Fowler or Orlov. Or Dumba. Probably not Barrie or Faulk either. Hamilton probably would be. We shouldn't be looking at proven players unless the cost is low, which pretty much none of the players talked about would be. We should be looking at high-end prospects and under-utilized players, good young players who might be had without giving up significant future assets. For the most part the only proven players that get traded are those who have proven they aren't franchise cornerstones.
  12. I can respect that, and even tolerate the bias, as long as you're honest about it.
  13. Though I hope you'll have the decency to replace the Bull's cap with a laurel wreath.
  14. So you're more offended by the Klan association than the Nazi one? Even your indignation is biased against Euros. If you think bigotry is limited to maniacal hatred and violence, you are worse than I thought. Prejudice, even without any ill intent, still counts. I'm not sure if you're just trying to garner sympathy, or if you genuinely don't get it. I'm not talking about play style or player type (unless you really believe European/Swedish is a type/style). it is about you forming opinions about players based on their nationality, even in cases where you admit you have never even heard of the player. I don't have a problem with you wanting Tippett over Pettersson. I would too as a matter of fact. I have a problem with your anti-Euro bias and your attempt to hide it behind this bulls*** "finesse" facade.
  15. If the sheet fits... And bigotry doesn't have to be absolute. Liking Lidstrom doesn't mean you're not a bigot for your prejudice against Swedes in general. Bigots aren't noted for their rationality. Unbelievably, your attempt to prove that you aren't biased is so full of implied bigotry that it might as well be one of those hidden-3D-image pictures, where if you squint at it just right you see a bunch of swastikas with thumbs-up emojis. First, "same type of player/team". which we know means "European-style", which we know means soft/weak/gutless/etc. but that you like to hide behind your new code-word, "finesse". Either way it is factually inaccurate. The diversity of nationalities, size, and play style may not be all that everyone wants, but it inarguably exists. It is a hallmark of bigotry to exaggerate the influence of the object of that bigotry. That same point is also evident in your blaming our decline on "finesse". While there isn't sufficient data to make factual assertions, that alone is an indictment of your opinion. That you include that statement in the very same sentence as "first top 10 in forever" shows such ridiculous and willful disregard of the both the success of our strategy, and the well-known cyclical nature of sports, that I defy anyone to read that sentence without imagining a rimshot at the end. And in regards to the whole "finesse" thing, it seems to be widely accepted that the game has been trending toward speed and skill (finesse, one might say), and anecdotal evidence from discussions on hitting, fighting, the disappearance of enforcers, growing sentiment against stay-at-home-defensemen and defensive-specialist-forwards, and a strong movement toward analytics seems to support that conclusion. I'm not even sure you believe your finesse argument. Misusing our players has often been discussed here, and even you have done so; arguing that our grittier and less-skilled players are playing too much, at the expense of our finesse players. Your advocacy for Tippett (whose grittiness is hardly more than a footnote in his scouting report compared to his finesse attributes of skating and shooting) also suggest you are just using the term as a facade. Finally we have the sheer vehemence of your anti-"finesse" rhetoric suggesting an irrational bias. Here saying such a pick would be a waste, previously calling such a pick "non-impact", and the ultimate example of: ...in regards to Pettersson, who you later admitted you had never even heard of. And even though you have since been made aware that every scouting service believes Pettersson has elite potential, you still refuse to believe it. It might have done your argument some good if you had acknowledged his potential, and just said you felt there were better options. Too late for that now though. You can't get better if you don't recognize your faults. I'm doing this for your own good, pal.