Jump to content

All Activity

This stream auto-updates

  1. Past hour
  2. I was trying to avoid the "if everything goes right" scenario and focus on the context of what the actual roster needs. Go back to your earlier post of it being a template: most of us like the idea of adding a centre, a physically strong defensive defenceman and hard-to-play against winger. You said the upgrade offered by those three pieces won't get us into the playoffs. How good does our upgrade need to be?
  3. The bolded is reasonable, and the opinions are why we are here. But if you are presuming that any given deal is desperation then you are coming at it from the wrong perspective. Is it aggressive? Yes. Of course. But aggressive =\= desperate, also of course. The primary difference here is that a bunch of us see this as the right time for aggressive moves to fill out the roster. We have more assets than we can keep, giving us a fairly unusual opportunity to be a bully with them to get what we need. IMO failure to do so by the GM would be negligent.
  4. Hardly. There are multiple conversations underway. None of them are related to the other conversations, except for the “would you do this” pretense. They all kind of have a similar presumption.
  5. In all likelihood the focus of attention for the GM relates to redoing the lower lines. (That's what he has stated.) That caliber of player/s is available. Overpaying in assets is not the right way to pursue this level of talent. I'm open to all sensible options. And that includes trading our first pick. But I'm opposed to dispatching that valuable pick for the proposed UFAs. That makes no sense to me.
  6. Yes, if Thompson and Cozens combine for 70 goals and Byram is the player that we hope and Quinn and Samuelsson both play 75 plus games and Benson jumps to 45-50 points and the PP isn’t terrible and UPL is still good, then we will be in the playoffs. But, if these things happen we make the playoffs with Krebs and Joker and pick a UFA 4th line winger (Carrier, Lafferty). It was the conversation until some people changed it to a fantasy world where this was the one and only option.
  7. An organization that acts out of desperation instead of measured calculation is a sign that the organization continues to ineptly handle its business. That's not how you attract players; it's how you continue to make players shun your franchise. There are deals to be made this offseason. The proposed deal is an example what not to do. There is a myth here that no one wants to come here. That's far from the case. Buffalo certainly is not appealing to a lot of players. That doesn't mean that other players can't be brought in. Players can be added through trades and free agency. If option A isn't attainable, then go to option B-Z.
  8. In a world with better options, everyone takes the better option. I mean, duh. But that isn’t really the conversation. The conversation is, would you do Joki, Krebs, 11 for those 3 players? It kind of has to presume that a better deal isn’t there.
  9. The initial proposal wasn’t laid out as a scenario where this was the one and only option for the Sabres to upgrade their roster this off-season. As I said, in a mythical world where there is no other option, then sure I would do the trade. Im not sure who our 4th line centre is in this mythical world, or who is going to play up if Cozens or Thompson are injured, but sure, if this is the one and only deal that could be made, let’s do it. In the real world where there are other and better options which are, frankly, far more realistic, I would pass.
  10. OK. But what if you add Byrum replacing EJ to that context? Thompson and Cozens bouncing back? The health of Quinn and Samuelsson? How much of an upgrade of those 3 departing players do we need to win 5 more games next year?
  11. Don’t let perfect be the enemy of better.
  12. If this is a scenario where no other deal is possible and there is no negotiation on the price, then sure. I don’t agree that it makes us a playoff team though. These 3 players are replacing Mitts, Okposo and Joker from last year. I don’t think these three players out perform Mitts, Okposo and Joker to the degree that it puts us in the playoffs.
  13. Buffalo is NOT a desirable location for players to come at this time. That's just a fact due to the ineptitude. If you want that to change you have to make a splash and send a strong message that things are changing. A move like this signals that earth shaking change. Once you make that move maybe other people start to give Buffalo a second look, like Tanev's brother. Maybe Kane. Others. If you continue to evaluate everything in "value" and try to win trades and over rate what you have it's going to take years and years and years still and during those years so many things can still go wrong. It's time for this team to change the narrative, and to make sure that happens they are going to have to "lose" some trades to get what they need and/or make some overpays in free agency. If they don't, Cozens will be back in the Worlds and we will be looking at the draft lottery again and again and again.
  14. Today
  15. Ugh. Why does this have to be a desperation deal? It makes sense standing on its own if the goal is improving the roster in specific areas. And frankly, I don’t see how desperation can be a dirty word here when we are on the cusp of a 3rd rebuild if this roster filling out doesn’t push the core in the right direction.
  16. But, we aren’t talking about some other mythical deal. We are talking about this mythical deal. In that context, and in the context of improving the team being more important than winning the trade, the only asset I consider of value is that #11. Sure, if there is a better deal, do it. But if KA is set to make a decision about this mythical deal, wouldn’t it have to presume that a better mythical deal isn’t on the table?
  17. If Dickinson slips to 11 we’d have to grab him. I don’t think he lasts that long but I think he projects to be Owen Power with a ton more nastiness
  18. If the proposed deal was for Sam Bennett, I would be open to it. I'm adamantly opposed to giving up assets, that includes our #11 pick, for three UFAs. That makes no sense to me. Acting out of desperation is putting yourself in a vulnerable position when getting involved in the trade market. We can do better in the market.
  19. I would replace Quinn with Savoie and Joker. Unfortunately I don’t think Brady is coming here
  20. I respectfully but strenuously disagree. You are making an assumption that getting those three UFAs will be the difference in making the playoffs or not. There is also another false assumption regarding that proposed trade that alternative options for other players won't be collectively as good if not better than the proposed trade. I feel strongly that if you are going to deal your valuable #1 pick, that you can get a better return in a different deal for players that more likely will not be one-year rentals.
  21. Getting Gourde and Tanev without salary retention is a non-starter for me. If they were UFA there is no way in he.. that we'd give Gourde 5+ and 3.5 to Tanev. They aren't worth it. Sending the 11th over pick for them and Larsson is a terrible deal. None are worth that kind of consideration in part or as a group. Why do y'all want declining players nearing the end of their careers anyway when there are UFAs who are just as good if not better and who can be signed for less money? Even in trade there are better options. Alex Kerfoot has one year left at 3.5. He's only 29 and is a better player right now than Gourde is. Why not trade for him? If we are going to throw significant assets at someone, why not Sam Bennett? Here's the good news, Larsson, Tanev and Gourde at have M-NTCs. Hopefully, if KA even offers a trade for these guys, they'll save KA from himself and turn us down.
  22. By the way, while Punch valued toughness, he also valued skill. He traded grit for the likes of Rene Robert, Jacques Richard and the like and he let Dudley walk because he thought he could replace him with Norm Gratton.
  23. Imlach thought that Abrahammson would be better than Salming. If I remember correctly, the sticking point was Abrahammson wanted his brother, a goalie, included in the deal.
  24. I’d argue the Joki and Krebs are not part of a playoff solution, and therefore aren’t much of an asset to give up. The only valuable asset in that proposal is the #11. If that’s what it takes to get the monkey off the teams’ back, it’s not an overpayment.
  25. True. But when you watch the playoffs you see we are missing a lot that can only added it with trades and UFAs.
  26. Two years ago we got: Breakout/career years from Thompson, Skinner, Tuch, Cozens, Mittelstadt, Olofsson and Dahlin And disappointing years from nobody of consequence. Last year we got: Breakout/career years from Luukkonen and Peterka And disappointing years from Thompson, Skinner, Tuch, Cozens, Olofsson, Quinn, Samuelsson and - to a lesser extent - Power. Of course I want Adams to make adds, but in my opinion the success or failure of the coming year rests largely on what versions we get of players already on the roster. Thompson, Cozens, Quinn and Power in particular.
  27. What has the league suggested that the Sabres do?
  1. Load more activity
×
×
  • Create New...