SalarySwishSalarySwish
Forums/Armchair-GM

Rebuilding the HURRICANES! (BIG AND COMPLICATED TRADE!!)

Créé par: Mr_cap
Équipe: 2016-17 Hurricanes de la Caroline
Date de création initiale: 24 nov. 2016
Publié: 24 nov. 2016
Mode - plafond salarial: Basique
Description
TRADE REASONING:
----------------------------
CAR-NSH:
Canes= good 24 yr old NHLer in Sissons, cap dump in Irwin and 4th
Preds= good top 9 versatile player and a 7th

CAR-BUF-DAL:
Canes= 21 yr old C in Reinhart, cap dump from Dallas in Hemsky (out for 5-6 months and he's got 1 yr left at 4 mill), a good prospect in Hansson, and a 2nd and a 6th.
Sabres= get a 24 yr old sniper in Skinner to play with Eichel, and a 2nd,3rd,5th
Stars= get E.Kane (low risk-high reward, close swap of money deal between Kane and Hemsky)

CAR-ARI:
Canes= got Schenn and White to stay above the cap floor, and a 3rd
Yotes= got a 5-7 D-man but has potential to be top 4

CAR-MTL:
Canes= get Desharnais to stay above the cap floor (1 yr left), and a 7th
Habs= get rid of Desharnais, but get a cheap backup 4th line center, and a 2nd
Transactions
1.
CAR
  1. Irwin, Matt
  2. Sissons, Colton
  3. Choix de 4e ronde en 2017 (NSH)
NSH
  1. Stempniak, Lee
  2. Choix de 7e ronde en 2018 (CAR)
2.
CAR
  1. Kane, Evander
  2. Reinhart, Sam
  3. Choix de 6e ronde en 2017 (BUF)
Détails additionnels:
***THREE-WAY TRADE***

- E.Kane gets flipped to Dallas
BUF
  1. Skinner, Jeff
  2. Choix de 2e ronde en 2018 (CAR)
  3. Choix de 3e ronde en 2019 (CAR)
  4. Choix de 5e ronde en 2019 (CAR)
Détails additionnels:
***THREE-WAY TRADE***
3.
CAR
  1. Hansson, Niklas
  2. Hemsky, Ales
  3. Choix de 2e ronde en 2017 (DAL)
Détails additionnels:
***THREE-WAY TRADE***
DAL
  1. Kane, Evander
Détails additionnels:
***THREE-WAY TRADE***
4.
CAR
  1. Schenn, Luke
  2. White, Ryan
  3. Choix de 3e ronde en 2019 (ARI)
5.
CAR
  1. Desharnais, David
  2. Choix de 7e ronde en 2018 (MTL)
MTL
  1. Ryan, Derek
  2. Choix de 2e ronde en 2017 (NYR)
Rachats de contrats
Repêchage1e ronde2e ronde3e ronde4e ronde5e ronde6e ronde7e ronde
2017
Logo de CAR
Logo de CAR
Logo de DAL
Logo de CAR
Logo de NJD
Logo de CAR
Logo de NSH
Logo de BOS
Logo de CAR
Logo de BUF
Logo de CAR
2018
Logo de CAR
Logo de CAR
Logo de CAR
Logo de CAR
Logo de CAR
Logo de MTL
2019
Logo de CAR
Logo de CAR
Logo de ARI
Logo de CAR
Logo de CAR
Logo de CAR
TAILLE DE LA FORMATIONPLAFOND SALARIALCAP HITEXCÉDENTS Info-bulleBONISESPACE SOUS LE PLAFOND SALARIAL
2373 000 000 $44 046 668 $0 $5 365 000 $28 953 332 $
Ailier gaucheCentreAilier droit
6 000 000 $6 000 000 $
C, AG
NMC
UFA - 7
894 167 $894 167 $ (Bonis de performance2 650 000 $$3M)
AD
UFA - 2
894 167 $894 167 $ (Bonis de performance850 000 $$850K)
AG, AD
UFA - 1
925 000 $925 000 $ (Bonis de performance850 000 $$850K)
C
UFA - 3
2 000 000 $2 000 000 $
C
UFA - 6
2 700 000 $2 700 000 $
C, AD
UFA - 2
1 275 000 $1 275 000 $
AG, AD
UFA - 2
625 000 $625 000 $
C, AD
UFA - 3
912 500 $912 500 $
C, AD, AG
UFA - 1
811 667 $811 667 $ (Bonis de performance32 500 $$32K)
AG, AD
UFA - 1
1 200 000 $1 200 000 $
C
UFA - 1
2 800 000 $2 800 000 $
C
UFA - 1
1 500 000 $1 500 000 $
AG, AD
UFA - 1
1 000 000 $1 000 000 $
C
UFA - 1
Défenseur gaucherDéfenseur droitierGardien de but
1 416 667 $1 416 667 $
DD
M-NTC
UFA - 1
4 150 000 $4 150 000 $
DD
UFA - 4
3 300 000 $3 300 000 $
G
M-NTC
UFA - 2
925 000 $925 000 $ (Bonis de performance850 000 $$850K)
DG
UFA - 2
809 167 $809 167 $ (Bonis de performance132 500 $$132K)
DD
UFA - 2
1 375 000 $1 375 000 $
G
UFA - 2
750 000 $750 000 $
DG
UFA - 1
1 250 000 $1 250 000 $
DD
UFA - 2
700 000 $700 000 $
G
UFA - 1
Laissés de côtéListe des blessés (IR)Liste des blessés à long terme (LTIR)
4 000 000 $4 000 000 $
AG
M-NTC
UFA - 1
4 000 000 $4 000 000 $
AD
UFA - 1

Code d'intégration

  • Pour afficher cette équipe sur un autre site Web ou blog, ajoutez ce iFrame à la page appropriée
  • Personnalisez les dimensions dans le code IFrame ci-dessous pour adapter votre site de manière appropriée. Minimum recommandé: 400px.

Texte intégré

Cliquer pour surligner
24 nov. 2016 à 17 h 39
#1
CanesPens Fan
Avatar de l'utilisateur
Rejoint: févr. 2016
Messages: 135
Mentions "j'aime": 5
Not totally crazy and it seems like you put some thought into this, which is more than what most people do on here. I like these moves personally and think this would be beneficial to the Canes.
24 nov. 2016 à 18 h 15
#2
Avatar de l'utilisateur
Rejoint: juin 2016
Messages: 2,426
Mentions "j'aime": 365
We wont get rid of Kane at the expense of Reinhart. We would rather wait 2 years and let him become a FA
24 nov. 2016 à 18 h 18
#3
Habs93
Avatar de l'utilisateur
Rejoint: mars 2016
Messages: 162
Mentions "j'aime": 5
Hm, as a Habs fan I would say make the trade straight on Ryan for DD, no picks.
24 nov. 2016 à 19 h 55
#4
Démarrer sujet
NBABound
Avatar de l'utilisateur
Rejoint: oct. 2016
Messages: 5,655
Mentions "j'aime": 1,392
Quoting: Jack_Eichel
We wont get rid of Kane at the expense of Reinhart. We would rather wait 2 years and let him become a FA
What? At the expense of Reinhart? This is a three-way trade, hence why I emphasized it. Meaning that Kane goes straight to Dallas. Example:

From CAR: Skinner ----> BUF
From BUF: Reinhart---> CAR
From BUF: Kane--------> DAL

These are all different trades, I just had to group them together because I couldn't use multiple teams in this scenario.
24 nov. 2016 à 19 h 57
#5
Démarrer sujet
NBABound
Avatar de l'utilisateur
Rejoint: oct. 2016
Messages: 5,655
Mentions "j'aime": 1,392
Quoting: marc
Hm, as a Habs fan I would say make the trade straight on Ryan for DD, no picks.
Yeah that's probably fair, I'm just not too sure how the Habs value Desharnais. (Thought he was a little bit better than just cap dump)
24 nov. 2016 à 20 h 21
#6
Avatar de l'utilisateur
Rejoint: mai 2015
Messages: 19,660
Mentions "j'aime": 6,786
Quoting: Mr_cap
Quoting: Jack_Eichel
We wont get rid of Kane at the expense of Reinhart. We would rather wait 2 years and let him become a FA
What? At the expense of Reinhart? This is a three-way trade, hence why I emphasized it. Meaning that Kane goes straight to Dallas. Example:

From CAR: Skinner ----> BUF
From BUF: Reinhart---> CAR
From BUF: Kane--------> DAL

These are all different trades, I just had to group them together because I couldn't use multiple teams in this scenario.


Personnally, I feel Dallas isn't giving enough to be part of this 3 way, Buffalo isn't getting enough and Carolina is just about right.

The problem is you're overvaluing Hanssen and undervaluing Reinhart.

If you break down every single part of the trade into a player for player format (as much as possible) you'll see that something doesn't work here.
24 nov. 2016 à 20 h 23
#7
Habs93
Avatar de l'utilisateur
Rejoint: mars 2016
Messages: 162
Mentions "j'aime": 5
Quoting: Mr_cap
Quoting: marc
Hm, as a Habs fan I would say make the trade straight on Ryan for DD, no picks.
Yeah that's probably fair, I'm just not too sure how the Habs value Desharnais. (Thought he was a little bit better than just cap dump)


In my opinion he is better than just a cap dump. But Habs need the free cap space for at least a top 4, maybe even a top 2 LH D at the trade deadline.
24 nov. 2016 à 20 h 39
#8
Démarrer sujet
NBABound
Avatar de l'utilisateur
Rejoint: oct. 2016
Messages: 5,655
Mentions "j'aime": 1,392
Quoting: F50marco
Quoting: Mr_cap
Quoting: Jack_Eichel
We wont get rid of Kane at the expense of Reinhart. We would rather wait 2 years and let him become a FA
What? At the expense of Reinhart? This is a three-way trade, hence why I emphasized it. Meaning that Kane goes straight to Dallas. Example:

From CAR: Skinner ----> BUF
From BUF: Reinhart---> CAR
From BUF: Kane--------> DAL

These are all different trades, I just had to group them together because I couldn't use multiple teams in this scenario.


Personnally, I feel Dallas isn't giving enough to be part of this 3 way, Buffalo isn't getting enough and Carolina is just about right.

The problem is you're overvaluing Hanssen and undervaluing Reinhart.

If you break down every single part of the trade into a player for player format (as much as possible) you'll see that something doesn't work here.
Well ok I'll break it down, but remember that Kane isn't that good anymore (has potential to be better but obviously hasn't used it).

Lets say... As an example that..

Reinhart and Skinner= same value
Kane and Hemsky/Hansson= is obviously not fair if you use their previous years as a 'starting point', BUT.. it's clear that the Sabres don't want Kane anymore which means that his value with them takes a hit, and if you add in the 2nd going towards the Canes then it starts to even itself out. It's pretty clear, like all trades, that one team will do better but when doing a trade it's usually about needs. And so Dallas would benefit from using Kane (with no added money going towards them) and Canes benefit from a pretty good prospect and a 2nd. And I personally think that Buffalo is getting fair value (or as close as it gets in term of needs) because when you subtract Reinhart for Skinner, then it's basically a 2nd, a 3rd, and a 5th for Kane, which might be a little under what he should get but I'd say it's about there.
24 nov. 2016 à 20 h 42
#9
Démarrer sujet
NBABound
Avatar de l'utilisateur
Rejoint: oct. 2016
Messages: 5,655
Mentions "j'aime": 1,392
Quoting: marc
Quoting: Mr_cap
Quoting: marc
Hm, as a Habs fan I would say make the trade straight on Ryan for DD, no picks.
Yeah that's probably fair, I'm just not too sure how the Habs value Desharnais. (Thought he was a little bit better than just cap dump)


In my opinion he is better than just a cap dump. But Habs need the free cap space for at least a top 4, maybe even a top 2 LH D at the trade deadline.
Yeah that's true. (I think, 3C/4C on a good team but at 3.5 is just too much for a team that still doesn't have all the right pieces)
24 nov. 2016 à 21 h 12
#10
Avatar de l'utilisateur
Rejoint: mai 2015
Messages: 19,660
Mentions "j'aime": 6,786
Quoting: Mr_cap
Quoting: F50marco
Quoting: Mr_cap
Quoting: Jack_Eichel
We wont get rid of Kane at the expense of Reinhart. We would rather wait 2 years and let him become a FA
What? At the expense of Reinhart? This is a three-way trade, hence why I emphasized it. Meaning that Kane goes straight to Dallas. Example:

From CAR: Skinner ----> BUF
From BUF: Reinhart---> CAR
From BUF: Kane--------> DAL

These are all different trades, I just had to group them together because I couldn't use multiple teams in this scenario.


Personnally, I feel Dallas isn't giving enough to be part of this 3 way, Buffalo isn't getting enough and Carolina is just about right.

The problem is you're overvaluing Hanssen and undervaluing Reinhart.

If you break down every single part of the trade into a player for player format (as much as possible) you'll see that something doesn't work here.
Well ok I'll break it down, but remember that Kane isn't that good anymore (has potential to be better but obviously hasn't used it).

Lets say... As an example that..

Reinhart and Skinner= same value
Kane and Hemsky/Hansson= is obviously not fair if you use their previous years as a 'starting point', BUT.. it's clear that the Sabres don't want Kane anymore which means that his value with them takes a hit, and if you add in the 2nd going towards the Canes then it starts to even itself out. It's pretty clear, like all trades, that one team will do better but when doing a trade it's usually about needs. And so Dallas would benefit from using Kane (with no added money going towards them) and Canes benefit from a pretty good prospect and a 2nd. And I personally think that Buffalo is getting fair value (or as close as it gets in term of needs) because when you subtract Reinhart for Skinner, then it's basically a 2nd, a 3rd, and a 5th for Kane, which might be a little under what he should get but I'd say it's about there.


Hmm still trying to visualize it i guess. I'm starting to see it now. Hmm I think after digesting it a bit more, that its Kane who might be under sold here a little bit. Yes he's definitely taken a hit in his value but I'd have to think he'll garner more than what is being offered here. Overall though its pretty creative. Good job!

Btw the DD trade we do in a heartbeat. Which generally means its too lopsided in our favor. Drop the 2nd rounder and it makes a little more sense.
24 nov. 2016 à 21 h 18
#11
Démarrer sujet
NBABound
Avatar de l'utilisateur
Rejoint: oct. 2016
Messages: 5,655
Mentions "j'aime": 1,392
Quoting: F50marco
Quoting: Mr_cap
Quoting: F50marco
Quoting: Mr_cap
Quoting: Jack_Eichel
We wont get rid of Kane at the expense of Reinhart. We would rather wait 2 years and let him become a FA
What? At the expense of Reinhart? This is a three-way trade, hence why I emphasized it. Meaning that Kane goes straight to Dallas. Example:

From CAR: Skinner ----> BUF
From BUF: Reinhart---> CAR
From BUF: Kane--------> DAL

These are all different trades, I just had to group them together because I couldn't use multiple teams in this scenario.


Personnally, I feel Dallas isn't giving enough to be part of this 3 way, Buffalo isn't getting enough and Carolina is just about right.

The problem is you're overvaluing Hanssen and undervaluing Reinhart.

If you break down every single part of the trade into a player for player format (as much as possible) you'll see that something doesn't work here.
Well ok I'll break it down, but remember that Kane isn't that good anymore (has potential to be better but obviously hasn't used it).

Lets say... As an example that..

Reinhart and Skinner= same value
Kane and Hemsky/Hansson= is obviously not fair if you use their previous years as a 'starting point', BUT.. it's clear that the Sabres don't want Kane anymore which means that his value with them takes a hit, and if you add in the 2nd going towards the Canes then it starts to even itself out. It's pretty clear, like all trades, that one team will do better but when doing a trade it's usually about needs. And so Dallas would benefit from using Kane (with no added money going towards them) and Canes benefit from a pretty good prospect and a 2nd. And I personally think that Buffalo is getting fair value (or as close as it gets in term of needs) because when you subtract Reinhart for Skinner, then it's basically a 2nd, a 3rd, and a 5th for Kane, which might be a little under what he should get but I'd say it's about there.


Hmm still trying to visualize it i guess. I'm starting to see it now. Hmm I think after digesting it a bit more, that its Kane who might be under sold here a little bit. Yes he's definitely taken a hit in his value but I'd have to think he'll garner more than what is being offered here. Overall though its pretty creative. Good job!

Btw the DD trade we do in a heartbeat. Which generally means its too lopsided in our favor. Drop the 2nd rounder and it makes a little more sense.
Yeah like I said previosly, the Kane deal BUF-DAL might be a little bit under valued, but yeah you're right he would garner more than what I offered here. Thanks.
25 nov. 2016 à 14 h 47
#12
Avatar de l'utilisateur
Rejoint: juin 2016
Messages: 2,426
Mentions "j'aime": 365
Quoting: Mr_cap
Quoting: F50marco
Quoting: Mr_cap
Quoting: F50marco
Quoting: Mr_cap
Quoting: Jack_Eichel
We wont get rid of Kane at the expense of Reinhart. We would rather wait 2 years and let him become a FA
What? At the expense of Reinhart? This is a three-way trade, hence why I emphasized it. Meaning that Kane goes straight to Dallas. Example:

From CAR: Skinner ----> BUF
From BUF: Reinhart---> CAR
From BUF: Kane--------> DAL

These are all different trades, I just had to group them together because I couldn't use multiple teams in this scenario.


Personnally, I feel Dallas isn't giving enough to be part of this 3 way, Buffalo isn't getting enough and Carolina is just about right.

The problem is you're overvaluing Hanssen and undervaluing Reinhart.

If you break down every single part of the trade into a player for player format (as much as possible) you'll see that something doesn't work here.
Well ok I'll break it down, but remember that Kane isn't that good anymore (has potential to be better but obviously hasn't used it).

Lets say... As an example that..

Reinhart and Skinner= same value
Kane and Hemsky/Hansson= is obviously not fair if you use their previous years as a 'starting point', BUT.. it's clear that the Sabres don't want Kane anymore which means that his value with them takes a hit, and if you add in the 2nd going towards the Canes then it starts to even itself out. It's pretty clear, like all trades, that one team will do better but when doing a trade it's usually about needs. And so Dallas would benefit from using Kane (with no added money going towards them) and Canes benefit from a pretty good prospect and a 2nd. And I personally think that Buffalo is getting fair value (or as close as it gets in term of needs) because when you subtract Reinhart for Skinner, then it's basically a 2nd, a 3rd, and a 5th for Kane, which might be a little under what he should get but I'd say it's about there.


Hmm still trying to visualize it i guess. I'm starting to see it now. Hmm I think after digesting it a bit more, that its Kane who might be under sold here a little bit. Yes he's definitely taken a hit in his value but I'd have to think he'll garner more than what is being offered here. Overall though its pretty creative. Good job!

Btw the DD trade we do in a heartbeat. Which generally means its too lopsided in our favor. Drop the 2nd rounder and it makes a little more sense.
Yeah like I said previosly, the Kane deal BUF-DAL might be a little bit under valued, but yeah you're right he would garner more than what I offered here. Thanks.


Ummm Reinhart will be way better then skinner and Reinhart isnt avaiable
25 nov. 2016 à 20 h 25
#13
Démarrer sujet
NBABound
Avatar de l'utilisateur
Rejoint: oct. 2016
Messages: 5,655
Mentions "j'aime": 1,392
Quoting: Jack_Eichel
Quoting: Mr_cap
Quoting: F50marco
Quoting: Mr_cap
Quoting: F50marco
Quoting: Mr_cap
Quoting: Jack_Eichel
We wont get rid of Kane at the expense of Reinhart. We would rather wait 2 years and let him become a FA
What? At the expense of Reinhart? This is a three-way trade, hence why I emphasized it. Meaning that Kane goes straight to Dallas. Example:

From CAR: Skinner ----> BUF
From BUF: Reinhart---> CAR
From BUF: Kane--------> DAL

These are all different trades, I just had to group them together because I couldn't use multiple teams in this scenario.


Personnally, I feel Dallas isn't giving enough to be part of this 3 way, Buffalo isn't getting enough and Carolina is just about right.

The problem is you're overvaluing Hanssen and undervaluing Reinhart.

If you break down every single part of the trade into a player for player format (as much as possible) you'll see that something doesn't work here.
Well ok I'll break it down, but remember that Kane isn't that good anymore (has potential to be better but obviously hasn't used it).

Lets say... As an example that..

Reinhart and Skinner= same value
Kane and Hemsky/Hansson= is obviously not fair if you use their previous years as a 'starting point', BUT.. it's clear that the Sabres don't want Kane anymore which means that his value with them takes a hit, and if you add in the 2nd going towards the Canes then it starts to even itself out. It's pretty clear, like all trades, that one team will do better but when doing a trade it's usually about needs. And so Dallas would benefit from using Kane (with no added money going towards them) and Canes benefit from a pretty good prospect and a 2nd. And I personally think that Buffalo is getting fair value (or as close as it gets in term of needs) because when you subtract Reinhart for Skinner, then it's basically a 2nd, a 3rd, and a 5th for Kane, which might be a little under what he should get but I'd say it's about there.


Hmm still trying to visualize it i guess. I'm starting to see it now. Hmm I think after digesting it a bit more, that its Kane who might be under sold here a little bit. Yes he's definitely taken a hit in his value but I'd have to think he'll garner more than what is being offered here. Overall though its pretty creative. Good job!

Btw the DD trade we do in a heartbeat. Which generally means its too lopsided in our favor. Drop the 2nd rounder and it makes a little more sense.
Yeah like I said previosly, the Kane deal BUF-DAL might be a little bit under valued, but yeah you're right he would garner more than what I offered here. Thanks.


Ummm Reinhart will be way better then skinner and Reinhart isnt avaiable
But that's not the point of the trade. Buffalo doesn't need Reinhart at C unless he decides to play wing. They've got Eich and Ryan at 1C/2C. What they need is a dominant sniper winger and you have that in Skinner. He'd be the perfect combo with Eichel. Reinhart might be better long term but he's gonna have to play wing and it might limit his capabilities. But like I said with Skinner, that having him can make for a better combo with Eichel.
26 nov. 2016 à 9 h 28
#14
Avatar de l'utilisateur
Rejoint: juin 2016
Messages: 2,426
Mentions "j'aime": 365
Quoting: Mr_cap
Quoting: Jack_Eichel
Quoting: Mr_cap
Quoting: F50marco
Quoting: Mr_cap
Quoting: F50marco
Quoting: Mr_cap
Quoting: Jack_Eichel
We wont get rid of Kane at the expense of Reinhart. We would rather wait 2 years and let him become a FA
What? At the expense of Reinhart? This is a three-way trade, hence why I emphasized it. Meaning that Kane goes straight to Dallas. Example:

From CAR: Skinner ----> BUF
From BUF: Reinhart---> CAR
From BUF: Kane--------> DAL

These are all different trades, I just had to group them together because I couldn't use multiple teams in this scenario.


Personnally, I feel Dallas isn't giving enough to be part of this 3 way, Buffalo isn't getting enough and Carolina is just about right.

The problem is you're overvaluing Hanssen and undervaluing Reinhart.

If you break down every single part of the trade into a player for player format (as much as possible) you'll see that something doesn't work here.
Well ok I'll break it down, but remember that Kane isn't that good anymore (has potential to be better but obviously hasn't used it).

Lets say... As an example that..

Reinhart and Skinner= same value
Kane and Hemsky/Hansson= is obviously not fair if you use their previous years as a 'starting point', BUT.. it's clear that the Sabres don't want Kane anymore which means that his value with them takes a hit, and if you add in the 2nd going towards the Canes then it starts to even itself out. It's pretty clear, like all trades, that one team will do better but when doing a trade it's usually about needs. And so Dallas would benefit from using Kane (with no added money going towards them) and Canes benefit from a pretty good prospect and a 2nd. And I personally think that Buffalo is getting fair value (or as close as it gets in term of needs) because when you subtract Reinhart for Skinner, then it's basically a 2nd, a 3rd, and a 5th for Kane, which might be a little under what he should get but I'd say it's about there.


Hmm still trying to visualize it i guess. I'm starting to see it now. Hmm I think after digesting it a bit more, that its Kane who might be under sold here a little bit. Yes he's definitely taken a hit in his value but I'd have to think he'll garner more than what is being offered here. Overall though its pretty creative. Good job!

Btw the DD trade we do in a heartbeat. Which generally means its too lopsided in our favor. Drop the 2nd rounder and it makes a little more sense.
Yeah like I said previosly, the Kane deal BUF-DAL might be a little bit under valued, but yeah you're right he would garner more than what I offered here. Thanks.


Ummm Reinhart will be way better then skinner and Reinhart isnt avaiable
But that's not the point of the trade. Buffalo doesn't need Reinhart at C unless he decides to play wing. They've got Eich and Ryan at 1C/2C. What they need is a dominant sniper winger and you have that in Skinner. He'd be the perfect combo with Eichel. Reinhart might be better long term but he's gonna have to play wing and it might limit his capabilities. But like I said with Skinner, that having him can make for a better combo with Eichel.


If you have ever seen Eichel and Reinhart play together they are very good. Reinhart is better at wing then C in the NHL
26 nov. 2016 à 9 h 56
#15
Démarrer sujet
NBABound
Avatar de l'utilisateur
Rejoint: oct. 2016
Messages: 5,655
Mentions "j'aime": 1,392
Quoting: Jack_Eichel
Quoting: Mr_cap
Quoting: Jack_Eichel
Quoting: Mr_cap
Quoting: F50marco
Quoting: Mr_cap
Quoting: F50marco
Quoting: Mr_cap
Quoting: Jack_Eichel
We wont get rid of Kane at the expense of Reinhart. We would rather wait 2 years and let him become a FA
What? At the expense of Reinhart? This is a three-way trade, hence why I emphasized it. Meaning that Kane goes straight to Dallas. Example:

From CAR: Skinner ----> BUF
From BUF: Reinhart---> CAR
From BUF: Kane--------> DAL

These are all different trades, I just had to group them together because I couldn't use multiple teams in this scenario.


Personnally, I feel Dallas isn't giving enough to be part of this 3 way, Buffalo isn't getting enough and Carolina is just about right.

The problem is you're overvaluing Hanssen and undervaluing Reinhart.

If you break down every single part of the trade into a player for player format (as much as possible) you'll see that something doesn't work here.
Well ok I'll break it down, but remember that Kane isn't that good anymore (has potential to be better but obviously hasn't used it).

Lets say... As an example that..

Reinhart and Skinner= same value
Kane and Hemsky/Hansson= is obviously not fair if you use their previous years as a 'starting point', BUT.. it's clear that the Sabres don't want Kane anymore which means that his value with them takes a hit, and if you add in the 2nd going towards the Canes then it starts to even itself out. It's pretty clear, like all trades, that one team will do better but when doing a trade it's usually about needs. And so Dallas would benefit from using Kane (with no added money going towards them) and Canes benefit from a pretty good prospect and a 2nd. And I personally think that Buffalo is getting fair value (or as close as it gets in term of needs) because when you subtract Reinhart for Skinner, then it's basically a 2nd, a 3rd, and a 5th for Kane, which might be a little under what he should get but I'd say it's about there.


Hmm still trying to visualize it i guess. I'm starting to see it now. Hmm I think after digesting it a bit more, that its Kane who might be under sold here a little bit. Yes he's definitely taken a hit in his value but I'd have to think he'll garner more than what is being offered here. Overall though its pretty creative. Good job!

Btw the DD trade we do in a heartbeat. Which generally means its too lopsided in our favor. Drop the 2nd rounder and it makes a little more sense.
Yeah like I said previosly, the Kane deal BUF-DAL might be a little bit under valued, but yeah you're right he would garner more than what I offered here. Thanks.


Ummm Reinhart will be way better then skinner and Reinhart isnt avaiable
But that's not the point of the trade. Buffalo doesn't need Reinhart at C unless he decides to play wing. They've got Eich and Ryan at 1C/2C. What they need is a dominant sniper winger and you have that in Skinner. He'd be the perfect combo with Eichel. Reinhart might be better long term but he's gonna have to play wing and it might limit his capabilities. But like I said with Skinner, that having him can make for a better combo with Eichel.


If you have ever seen Eichel and Reinhart play together they are very good. Reinhart is better at wing then C in the NHL
Yes I have seen them play together, and yes they are very good together but Reinhart is labeled as a C and him playing there would benefit him long term. Eichel and Reinhart together on one line is short-term good but like I said Reinhart playing C is better long term for him but again he would be playing 3C in Buffalo and I don't think they would want that. Skinner would be perfect on a line with Eichel.
1 déc. 2016 à 14 h 56
#16
Avatar de l'utilisateur
Rejoint: juin 2016
Messages: 2,426
Mentions "j'aime": 365
Quoting: Mr_cap
Quoting: Jack_Eichel
Quoting: Mr_cap
Quoting: Jack_Eichel
Quoting: Mr_cap
Quoting: F50marco
Quoting: Mr_cap
Quoting: F50marco
Quoting: Mr_cap
Quoting: Jack_Eichel
We wont get rid of Kane at the expense of Reinhart. We would rather wait 2 years and let him become a FA
What? At the expense of Reinhart? This is a three-way trade, hence why I emphasized it. Meaning that Kane goes straight to Dallas. Example:

From CAR: Skinner ----> BUF
From BUF: Reinhart---> CAR
From BUF: Kane--------> DAL

These are all different trades, I just had to group them together because I couldn't use multiple teams in this scenario.


Personnally, I feel Dallas isn't giving enough to be part of this 3 way, Buffalo isn't getting enough and Carolina is just about right.

The problem is you're overvaluing Hanssen and undervaluing Reinhart.

If you break down every single part of the trade into a player for player format (as much as possible) you'll see that something doesn't work here.
Well ok I'll break it down, but remember that Kane isn't that good anymore (has potential to be better but obviously hasn't used it).

Lets say... As an example that..

Reinhart and Skinner= same value
Kane and Hemsky/Hansson= is obviously not fair if you use their previous years as a 'starting point', BUT.. it's clear that the Sabres don't want Kane anymore which means that his value with them takes a hit, and if you add in the 2nd going towards the Canes then it starts to even itself out. It's pretty clear, like all trades, that one team will do better but when doing a trade it's usually about needs. And so Dallas would benefit from using Kane (with no added money going towards them) and Canes benefit from a pretty good prospect and a 2nd. And I personally think that Buffalo is getting fair value (or as close as it gets in term of needs) because when you subtract Reinhart for Skinner, then it's basically a 2nd, a 3rd, and a 5th for Kane, which might be a little under what he should get but I'd say it's about there.


Hmm still trying to visualize it i guess. I'm starting to see it now. Hmm I think after digesting it a bit more, that its Kane who might be under sold here a little bit. Yes he's definitely taken a hit in his value but I'd have to think he'll garner more than what is being offered here. Overall though its pretty creative. Good job!

Btw the DD trade we do in a heartbeat. Which generally means its too lopsided in our favor. Drop the 2nd rounder and it makes a little more sense.
Yeah like I said previosly, the Kane deal BUF-DAL might be a little bit under valued, but yeah you're right he would garner more than what I offered here. Thanks.


Ummm Reinhart will be way better then skinner and Reinhart isnt avaiable
But that's not the point of the trade. Buffalo doesn't need Reinhart at C unless he decides to play wing. They've got Eich and Ryan at 1C/2C. What they need is a dominant sniper winger and you have that in Skinner. He'd be the perfect combo with Eichel. Reinhart might be better long term but he's gonna have to play wing and it might limit his capabilities. But like I said with Skinner, that having him can make for a better combo with Eichel.


If you have ever seen Eichel and Reinhart play together they are very good. Reinhart is better at wing then C in the NHL
Yes I have seen them play together, and yes they are very good together but Reinhart is labeled as a C and him playing there would benefit him long term. Eichel and Reinhart together on one line is short-term good but like I said Reinhart playing C is better long term for him but again he would be playing 3C in Buffalo and I don't think they would want that. Skinner would be perfect on a line with Eichel.


Again Reinhart plays better on the wing. He isnt the best at taking faceoffs at the NHL level and him and eichel have great chemistry. Reinhart is NOT going anywhere
6 déc. 2016 à 16 h 45
#17
Avatar de l'utilisateur
Rejoint: mai 2016
Messages: 389
Mentions "j'aime": 28
Interesting evaluation, can't see it happening. A better solution for the Canes is just to keep drafting and developing centers. For example Nic Roy is tearing up the Q this season.
 
Répondre
To create a post please Login or S'inscrire
Question:
Options:
Ajouter une option
Soumettre le sondage