SalarySwishSalarySwish
Avatar

KreiderToBuchnevich

The KZB
Member Since
Jul. 17, 2016
Favourite Team
New York Rangers
2nd Favourite Team
San Jose Sharks
Forum Posts
89
Posts per Day
0.0
Forum: Armchair-GMDec. 21, 2016 at 2:56 p.m.
Thread: Big DET DAL ideas
<div class="quote"><div class="quote_t">Quoting: <b>nashless</b></div><div><i><div class="quote"><div class="quote_t">Quoting: <b>KreiderToBuchnevich</b></div><div><i>Matt Puempel isn't even a center and the 3-person trades you keep suggesting are unbalanced and unrealistic. I mean really? Raanta for Niemi? Raanta is cheaper and arguably a better goalie than Niemi, and considering the rest of the pieces of the trade are AHLers, it really is not worth it for us to do. Also, I know your username is "nashless," but I really suggest stopping the "trade Nash" narrative because the returns you propose for him are always inferior. And you can't use his cap hit as an excuse for this one because the 2 NHL players you get in return have a combined cap hit of 9,850,000. Finally, the Pirri + Lindberg trade just has no purpose. Why bother giving up two perfectly fine depth players, of whom are centers, a position that we don't have an abundance of, for a depth left winger that we won't need upon Zibanejad's return? Stop with the 3 player trades and maybe then your deals will be more realistic and actually make some form of sense.</i></div></div> Clown. Puempel played center against NJ and looked good, whatever put him on the wing. Johns is not an Ahler, he's a freak of nature, look it up. Brilliant, let's keep Nash for the playoffs, where have you been? Not getting kids or picks for him, here is an idea, let's get playoff warriors instead! i.e. Marleau, Ward, Green... Remember 94 cup trades, clutch for soft players, before your time I guess. Come on, Oscar and Pirri come playoffs or D giant King? This team has NO balls! Ok, never mind the 3rd players in the trades if you can't understand the reasoning, no big deal. We're going for it this year. Man o man, everything you say is wrong. Ps don't bother retyping same argument.</i></div></div>

Saying stuff like "if you can't understand the reasoning, no big deal" and "don't bother retyping same argument" is the equivalent of saying "Please don't say that stuff again because I have no real argument against them and am going to attempt (poorly) to demean you to the point of you no longer wanting to question me as a way to hide the fact that I'm wrong."

The Devils have lost 6 straight and are playing so badly that even a defenseman playing center for a night could look "good." And you're making the EXACT mistake that this franchise has made for the past 3 years: trading players for aging veterans instead of youth and draft picks. Getting Joel Ward or Patrick Marleau won't fix anything, especially if you're just using them as a replacement for Nash. As for Dwight King, they L.A. Kings would never accept that trade. The New York Rangers are underpaying BIG TIME. Also Nash has had a fine season barring the recent injuries. Johns is VERY much an AHLer. He barely makes a whimper in the NHL, which I think you might already know, considering the fact that you've put him on the 3rd line. Now it's my turn to say that magic phrase to you: Please don't bother retyping the same argument.
Forum: Armchair-GMDec. 21, 2016 at 2:17 p.m.
Forum: Armchair-GMDec. 20, 2016 at 1:16 a.m.
Thread: Big DET DAL ideas
Matt Puempel isn't even a center and the 3-person trades you keep suggesting are unbalanced and unrealistic. I mean really? Raanta for Niemi? Raanta is cheaper and arguably a better goalie than Niemi, and considering the rest of the pieces of the trade are AHLers, it really is not worth it for us to do. Also, I know your username is "nashless," but I really suggest stopping the "trade Nash" narrative because the returns you propose for him are always inferior. And you can't use his cap hit as an excuse for this one because the 2 NHL players you get in return have a combined cap hit of 9,850,000. Finally, the Pirri + Lindberg trade just has no purpose. Why bother giving up two perfectly fine depth players, of whom are centers, a position that we don't have an abundance of, for a depth left winger that we won't need upon Zibanejad's return? Stop with the 3 player trades and maybe then your deals will be more realistic and actually make some form of sense.
Forum: Armchair-GMDec. 16, 2016 at 7:09 p.m.
Forum: Armchair-GMDec. 6, 2016 at 5:53 p.m.
Forum: Armchair-GMDec. 3, 2016 at 2:54 a.m.
Thread: Deadline
<div class="quote"><div class="quote_t">Quoting: <b>nashless</b></div><div><i><div class="quote"><div class="quote_t">Quoting: <b>KreiderToBuchnevich</b></div><div><i>We have like 4 different potentially good future goaltenders, not just Shestyorkin. Also giving up Sean Day could be close to the McDonagh for Gomez trade we did with Montreal, assuming he gets his act together (which he has in the minors recently).</i></div></div> Tanev is good and young. Day will be lucky to play in Ahl. Giving up Skjei is the problem.</i></div></div>

You'd better be 100% sure that Tanev is worth this trade, because you'll have to pay him just under $4.5 million for the next three years. Also you have no idea how Day is going to turn out so saying he might not even make the AHL is just dumb. The only thing I agree with you on here is that trading Skjei is a bad idea.
Forum: Armchair-GMDec. 3, 2016 at 2:49 a.m.
Thread: McDonagh Burns
<div class="quote"><div class="quote_t">Quoting: <b>nashless</b></div><div><i><div class="quote"><div class="quote_t">Quoting: <b>KreiderToBuchnevich</b></div><div><i>

Rid of Nash's money? He makes less than $2,000,000 more than Marleau and has over double the points. You also contradict yourself when saying you want to get rid of Nash because of his expensive contract because it still has a year left, while you want to pick up Burns, who will have a cap hit of $8,000,000 for over 5 years. I REALLY don't want Burns anymore, especially when you compare his high priced eventual decline to McDonagh's prime years at almost half of that price. And I don't "talk trash." I'm honest. Brutally honest sometimes, but honest. If your trade ideas are bad I'm going to call you out on them, and a lot of your trade ideas are bad.</i></div></div> Pretty much done here. Burns 8m over McD and his big future raise all day long. Marleau 1yr over Nash 2yrs, all day. No More Explaining. Look at Trade. You Don't Like It! WRONG</i></div></div>

McDonagh's future raise would be about equal to Burns' $8,000,000 (except we could make the contract shorter and not be forced to keep him until he's 38 like we would with Burns) , and we won't have a slowly declining Brent Burns by the time McDonagh needs re-signing (we have him for two more years after this season), Burns will be 33 and McDonagh will be 30. Next, Marleau for Nash is such a bad trade. It's practically giving up a player that, at the very least, could be traded this/next season for valuable assets, in exchange for an expensive, one-year, shoddy rental. The only person here who is "WRONG" is you, Nashless. Your logic in most of these trades is either backwards or just nonexistent.
Forum: Armchair-GMDec. 3, 2016 at 2:38 a.m.
Thread: Shedding Term Ideas
<div class="quote"><div class="quote_t">Quoting: <b>nashless</b></div><div><i><div class="quote"><div class="quote_t">Quoting: <b>KreiderToBuchnevich</b></div><div><i>

1. No one is lining up for Klein right now since he's played terribly.

2. If Nash keeps up the way he's playing right now, then there is no reason we should be trying to get rid of him for such a lousy price. And again, Lindberg for Donskoi would never happen.

3. What does that mean?</i></div></div> Ughhhhhh...</i></div></div>

You think <strong>you're</strong> frustrated with <strong>me</strong>? Really? Honestly, I don't get what's up with your stubborn obsession with trading Nash or trading for Marleau . Neither are a good idea, yet you, for some reason, seem convinced that those moves would win us the cup (they won't), or at the very least help us get closer (which they wouldn't be).
Forum: Armchair-GMDec. 2, 2016 at 12:25 p.m.
Thread: McDonagh Burns
<div class="quote"><div class="quote_t">Quoting: <b>nashless</b></div><div><i><div class="quote"><div class="quote_t">Quoting: <b>KreiderToBuchnevich</b></div><div><i><div class="quote"><div class="quote_t">Quoting: <b>nashless</b></div><div><i><div class="quote"><div class="quote_t">Quoting: <b>KreiderToBuchnevich</b></div><div><i>Marleau is at the end of his career. This only weakens our offense. McDonagh is about equal to Burns and 4 years younger. And why even bother with Donskoi? Our forward depth right now is incredible, and there is no reason to trade for him. All around terrible trade for the Rangers.

We look at the player-for-player comparisons and you get:

Nash (32) for Marleau (37)
McDonagh (27) for Burns (31)

and there is just no point in getting Donskoi and giving up Lindberg. It accomplishes nothing.</i></div></div> Have you ever seen Donskoi or Burns play, like last years playoffs? Lindberg will never be in our top 12 and Nash has to go this year, hopefully Before the POs.</i></div></div>

Why? Nash is having a fine season so far. No reason to trade him for someone close to retirement. I did watch them last year during the playoffs, but if getting rid of McDonagh is what it takes to exchange Lindberg for Donskoi, it just isn't worth it.

And even if you were right about any of what you said (which you mostly aren't), Marleau has a NMC, and Burns, McDonagh, and Nash all have Modified-NTCs. This trade is completely unfeasible. The only part that could be done is the Lindberg for Donskoi part, of which would never get accepted by the SJS.</i></div></div> You are from Bizzaro World! Complete opposite of reality. Rid Nash's $ for next year. Marleau instead of Nash for playoffs this year, why not!!! McD for Burns, we wish. Never mind ntc, not the Winnipegs of the world here. You're clueless for someone who talks trash</i></div></div>

Rid of Nash's money? He makes less than $2,000,000 more than Marleau and has over double the points. You also contradict yourself when saying you want to get rid of Nash because of his expensive contract because it still has a year left, while you want to pick up Burns, who will have a cap hit of $8,000,000 for over 5 years. I REALLY don't want Burns anymore, especially when you compare his high priced eventual decline to McDonagh's prime years at almost half of that price. And I don't "talk trash." I'm honest. Brutally honest sometimes, but honest. If your trade ideas are bad I'm going to call you out on them, and a lot of your trade ideas are bad.
Forum: Armchair-GMDec. 2, 2016 at 11:07 a.m.
Thread: Shedding Term Ideas
<div class="quote"><div class="quote_t">Quoting: <b>nashless</b></div><div><i><div class="quote"><div class="quote_t">Quoting: <b>KreiderToBuchnevich</b></div><div><i>You really haven't changed, Nashless...

1. Hurricanes won't accept Klein and Clendening in exchange for Hainsey and Murphy. Clendening is an unproven rookie and Klein is just bad.

2. I have no idea what your problem with Nash is, but that Sharks trade is abysmal. Firstly, Nash still has 1st line potential. Trading him for someone who you've put on the fourth line is just downright stupid. As for the second part of that deal, I have no idea how you think the Sharks would take Lindberg for Donskoi (and if you say because of the Nash/Marleau exchange, it isn't worth it).

3. The Avalanche aren't giving up Duchene, and if they were it definitely wouldn't be at that price.</i></div></div> 1. Murphy is not nhler, are they really going to resign Hainsey? Klein is having a hard time right now, but we all know gm's would line up for him at dl.
2. Contradicting yourself! Ps...it's all about the contracts, shed Nash from next year.
3. Whatever, keep him...</i></div></div>

1. No one is lining up for Klein right now since he's played terribly.

2. If Nash keeps up the way he's playing right now, then there is no reason we should be trying to get rid of him for such a lousy price. And again, Lindberg for Donskoi would never happen.

3. What does that mean?
Forum: Armchair-GMNov. 30, 2016 at 11:32 a.m.