thewookie1
-
Posts
6,778 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Events
Posts posted by thewookie1
-
-
16 minutes ago, GASabresIUFAN said:
What about UFA Matt Dumba? Physical, kills penalties, blocks shots, solid skater with a big shot. Projection is 3 years at 3 mill per season.
I am also a interested in trading for Alex Kerfoot and signing Michael Amadio. Kerfoot has one year left at 3.5. (also a M-NTC, but does he want to stay in Utah?). He is a playmaking center who I believe is a pretty solid 2 way player. Utah doesn't need picks (10 2nd rd picks in the next 3 seasons). They need players. They have no D under contract for next season. None!. Joki might be a very solid addition there. Samuelsson as well. No idea what a deal would look like, but maybe Joki for Kerfoot straight up? By the way, Kerfoot was one of the leading PK centers last season in TOI.
Amadio is a bit of a late bloomer with a some size at 6'1 204. He's had back to back 27 point seasons and has contributed in the playoffs. I'm not sure LV can afford to keep him with a projected 3 year 3.2 per season deal.
I'd also like to make a run at Blueger for 2-3 year deal. He hits, can create, and wins draws. I think he'd be a perfect fit for an elevated 4th line. I'd give him a 2-3 year deal at 2.75 per season.
JJP Tnt Tuch
Benson Cozens Quinn
Skinner Kerfoot Amadio
Krebs Blueger Greenway
Samuelsson Dahlin
Power Dumba
Byram Clifton
UPL Levi
I’ve read Dumba is just shot at this point
Zero interest in Amadio with those contract numbers. Same goes for Blueger.
-
Ah yes, laugh all you want Thorny; because obviously a guy who forced the letter C be on his jersey and then would turn around and demand a trade are sure signs of a high character individual.
Unlike Vegas, we don’t exactly have a group of vets who can more or less tell Tkachuk to grow up, stop being a problem child, and play hockey.
For us to improve the team doesn’t require us to just throw assets at a problem and pray it succeeds. You can still be smart with your moves even when possibly slightly overpaying. If a team will take a 2nd and a prospect for a player; you don’t need to give them a 3rd for giggles. Simultaneously when acquiring rental players you need to make sure they wouldn’t be Eric Staals
-
2 hours ago, NAF said:
No clue if the Brady Tkachuk rumors are valid but he’d be a fantastic addition. High character player that can play playoff style hockey — something this team is sorely lacking.
My offer would be:
Quinn + 11OA + Rosen
Sadly that remains doubtful; the captaincy was a part of his contract negotiations in Ottawa and asking out would make him as low character as a non-criminal can be.
-
1
-
-
29 minutes ago, GASabresIUFAN said:
I think you're missing the broader point. Acquiring diminishing vet players simply because they are vets is a failing strategy. How did signing Johnson or re-signing Okposo work out? We need to acquire players with tread left on the tire. Larsson ok, but as to the other 2, there are cheaper and better options.
Gourde is still a solid player and Tanev isn't exactly over the hill for 1 year. I wouldn't go so far as to extend Gourde for 4/5 years but both he and Tanev have another couple years of bot 6 play in them.
-
How far would Vancouver be from Florida?
I'd guess that would be the max possible
-
35 minutes ago, GASabresIUFAN said:
Gourde, age 32, 33 pts last year - contract 5.15
Tanev, age 32, 16 points last year - conttact 3.5
Larsson, age 31, 18 points last year - contract 4.0
Gourde and Tanev will add nothing to this team except cap expense at this point in their careers. If Seattle is willing to eat 50% of their contracts, I might be interested. Why does anyone have an interest in two forwards who no longer can play anywhere close to their contract cost.
Better current players, and probably younger as well, are available as UFA and for less money. Blueger, had 28 pts last year, is 29 on a 1.9 mill contract. Roslovic had 31 pts (in only 59 game) is 27 and could be signed for 3.5 to 4. I'd rather give a one year prove it deal to Kapanen then trade for Tanev.
Larsson I'd take over Joki in a minute for next season.
Kapanen is one of the softest players in the league. While overpriced we are also desiring that playoff experience and general veterancy
-
11 minutes ago, dudacek said:
Step away the value chart for a minute, and look at the big picture:
Jokiharju is not someone the team is likely to be able to afford to keep long-term. Given the cap, the Sabres probably will not be able to give him term. There is a very good chance he goes to arbitration this summer and is a UFA next summer. If he’s not traded this summer, this will probably be his last year as a Sabre.
Larsson is a better player and a better fit for next year’s team.
The future of Krebs is uncertain, but it is increasingly unlikely he will become more than a bottom 6 player. There’s a better chance he is merely a replaceable part than a core piece. There is a very good chance he will be passed on the depth chart and made redundant in the near future by one of the many prospects up front.
Gourde is a better player and a better fit for next year’s team.
Pick 11 has a ton of asset value. It is also 3 to 5 years before the NHL team will see a return if we invest that value in an 18-year-old, and another 2 before that value is fully realized.
Tanev is a better player and a better fit for next year’s team.
Johnson, Novikov, Komarov and Strbak - does it really matter if they are replacing Larsson in a year instead of Jokiharju? Savoie, Kulich, Rosen and Östlund - does it really matter if they are replacing Gourde and Tanev in a year instead of Krebs and Girgensons?
These are the pieces around the edges, not the core pieces. Good teams are constantly juggling them on a year-to-year basis in order to win now. You accumulate a rich cache of young players like the Sabres have in order to allow you to do that.
Would you rather trade Jokiharju and Krebs for draft picks next summer, or a better team right now? I don’t think there’s a debate there for most of us.
What this trade idea forces you to weigh is the possibility of #11 becoming a core piece in the future against the possibility of filling in the 3 biggest holes on next year’s roster in order to win now. In principle, it’s really no different than the Canucks trading a hefty bag of futures for pending FAs Hronek, Zadorov and Lindholm. In practice, the Sabres have a much larger cupboard of assets in place to bankroll such trades than the Canucks did. It’s time to spend some of those assets.
I agree with @Archie Lee that you might be able to accomplish the same thing at a cheaper cost. I also agree with @PerreaultForever that there are intangible gains to being good next year that should not be ignored.
Hence my counter proposal, I’m willing to “lose” some in the long term but just not straight up 11 and 2 RFAs for 3 UFAs especially without retention involved.
Effectively at full price I have no idea how we’d field a good team because we’d need to magically convince multiple quality 4th liners and bench players to sign to league minimum contracts.
-
1
-
-
1 minute ago, Thorny said:
Well I do feel my counter proposal is very fair still
-
2 hours ago, Thorny said:
Exactly. I’d imagine the winning has value in and of itself, probably great value. It’ll help the entire environment and it’s attractiveness to outside players
And if we still fail; then what?
-
4 hours ago, thewookie1 said:
First I’d want to keep 11 until Iginla is off the board and perhaps Eisserman. If both are gone; then I’m more open to trade down.
So my offer would be 11, Jokiharju, and Krebs
for
Gourde, Tanev, Larsson and 40
I’d throw in a 3rd next year for some retention on Gourde.
https://www.capfriendly.com/armchair-gm/team/5192733
Just so you know I'm getting good reviews for my slight alteration.
-
First I’d want to keep 11 until Iginla is off the board and perhaps Eisserman. If both are gone; then I’m more open to trade down.
So my offer would be 11, Jokiharju, and Krebs
for
Gourde, Tanev, Larsson and 40
I’d throw in a 3rd next year for some retention on Gourde.
https://www.capfriendly.com/armchair-gm/team/5192733
-
46 minutes ago, PerreaultForever said:
I'm curious what people here would think of this. Saw it proposed and approved of by several people on a Kraken website.
Krebs, Jokiharju and our 1st this year for their3 pending UFAs next year Gourde, Tanev and Larsson.
NTCs I suspect make this a non starter but if I was the Sabres I'd jump on this in a heartbeat.
I’d say no, but based on value and cap space. Essentially you are taking on 12.6mil cap for 30+ players with only 1 year apiece and sending a high 1st and 2 much younger players back.
Id offer next year’s 2nd with a playoff berth condition to become a 1st. But not 1 guy there is worth the 11th pick in the draft. However player wise I’d be interested just not at that exorbitant price.
Could we do it; with retention perhaps, but from a value standpoint we’d be getting screwed.
Another question would be could we get any of them to stay one or two more years at a reasonable cap hit
-
1
-
-
3 hours ago, PerreaultForever said:
That is simply not true. Some do some don't. Some can't handle the playoffs at all (Mitch Marner eg.). If you think the current team we have will simply elevate if they make the playoffs you are sadly mistaken.
Besides, Reinhart has been good all year. The intensity and push back comes from learning to play without fear.
The thing is we don’t know what our team will be like in the playoffs. Players always step up their game, but that doesn’t necessarily mean they can handle playoff hockey. Marner is one of many who have been found to have issues with playoff hockey. But nothing can truly predict playoff effectiveness. Patrick Kane is very similar to Marner in stature and actually less of a two way player; yet he has always been a clutch performer in the playoffs.
-
Worked from Joe's idea
-
13 minutes ago, LGR4GM said:
Again, I added to the trade so Tampa would have interest. You can't have it both ways. You can't be like "that's to much!" but then be like "Tampa wouldn't have interest in this other more legitimate trade."
Also, you don't have to sign those players to 4mil dollar offers. Jokiharju's QO is not 4million so idk where that comes from and Bryson is easily worth 1.5mil as a 7th defender.
My guess is Jokiharju will be looking for about 4mil AAV
Bryson would be a UFA is his qualifier isn't made and he'd be free to come back to Buffalo or go anywhere he wants.
Essentially I feel we give up too much while simultaneously Tampa gains two unneeded assets. For instance, let's say Jokiharju equals a 2nd but only a 3rd or 4th to Tampa. In that case we are better off getting the 2nd from elsewhere.
-
1 hour ago, Brawndo said:
Trade 1: Depending on the pick, sure
Trade 2: Hurts but sure
Trade 3: Nah, no thanks at that price; likewise I mentioned why Bryson wouldn't make sense for Tampa.
Draft: Not sure, he has the talent but lacks size and would be par the course with our drafts
3.5mil to find 3 subs seems doable. Since Bryson might still be open even with the trade; offer him 2/3x1.3mil
Give Brendan Smith 1mil
And Tyler Johnson or like vet F 1mil and your good to go.
-
11 minutes ago, Broken Ankles said:
Jeannot is not the key move to free cap for Stamkos. They have ~ $5m is projected cap space. Jeannot is $2.6m. Stamkos will surely sign for more $7.6M. Even with a hometown discount. Unless Tampa offered crazy term to artificially lower the AAV. I think the signing of McDonough signals that they are moving on from Stamkos. Unless some unforeseen move (Hedman) frees up a large amount of cap. As to your trade value for Jeannot, you are way off. While it’s no longer what they paid, it certainly hasn’t plummeted to a third. Somewhere in between. Maybe a late first, prospect and roster player on a low AAV. Or a mid first and a player. Every time I review the comments from Cap friendly on your trade offers they are littered with “decline”. Think about that for a second. @LGR4GM comes in with a proposal and you dismiss it. He’s offering a realistic view of what it will take to enhance the roster. Which I happen to think is spot on. If they can execute without moving JJP, Quinn or Savoie, have at it!
Jeannot is not worth anywhere near that, he has had 8 goals and 10 assists in 75 games with Tampa.
A -16 +/- which is kind of weird since he had a positive Relative Corsi and Fenwick this past season.
Comparatively he's a less offensive and slightly better defensive Girgensons that hits a lot. No where near a 1st rounder in value.
As for Tampa, every indication by Tampa and Stamkos has been he is returning next year; he's still skating with Kucherov and the Tampa GM has said they are working on it. To accomplish that even with Stamkos taking a pay cut into the 5 to 6mil range; they'd need to jettison Jeannot and Sheary and replace both with extremely cheap players. For instance more 800k guys.
13 minutes ago, LGR4GM said:I overpaid in my offer to make sure it got done and because there was nothing outside of Kulich we couldn't afford to part with. Sure, that proposal should probably be short Rosen but I ask myself where I put Rosen in the next 3 years and my answer is always 3rd line or lower, I can always trade for a player like that or sign one in UFA if allllll the other guys we have don't work out. Bryson might be nice to keep but in this scenario we can't afford him and he is being replaced by Johnson. Kulich, 11, and Joker is a solid trade for 7 years of Cirelli. Is it an overpay? Yes, in reality you probably include Kulich or 11 but not both and Rosen makes up the other part.
Cirelli +Jeanott for Kulich, Joker, Rosen, Bryson and our 2nd round pick is probably a better trade and more likely but in my scenario, I wanted to make sure it was done and I didn't get the response of "LMAO Tampa would say no and hang up the phone!" which we haven't.
The latter trade is far more legitimate in value however I don't see Tampa having any interest in Jokiharju or Bryson. (Effectively Jokiharju would end up a 4mil AAV 5th/6th Dman while Bryson would likely just walk since I can't see Tampa paying his Qualifier.
Meanwhile, Kulich would be thrust into Top 6 minutes due to Tampa's roster construction barring 2 more forwards being brought in.
Stamkos - Point - Kucherov
Hagel - Paul - *Kulich*
Sheary - Eyssimont - Glendening
XXX-XXX-Chaffee
Hedman - Sergachev
McDonagh - Cernak
Perbix - Raddysh
-
1
-
-
5 minutes ago, LGR4GM said:
I'll worry about Kulich scoring 40 when he does it in the AHL.
Outside of Kulich, would you even miss any of the rest of that? I wouldn't and winning is the goal, not trade values.
Aside Kulich, not much but I would feel "had"
-
4 minutes ago, sabresparaavida said:
I doubt Tampa would trade Jeannot for a 3rd, they paid nearly an entire draft’s worth of picks to get him, it would surprise me if they took less than a second to trade him.
I also don’t think this is more than the Eichel package, that package had 2 firsts (1st + Krebs) and Tuch who at that point was a good 2nd liner with one of the better contracts in the league, long term and less than 5 million a year, with his contract he more than made up the rest of the package here. I do think this is too much for Cirelli though, but also I don’t think we have the pieces Tampa would want. A three way trade is really the only way I could see a Cirelli trade happening.Tampa has to move Jeannot or lose Stamkos; they ***** up the trade with NSH. No reason we should feel any need to aid them in making up for their idiocy.
-
2 minutes ago, LGR4GM said:
Quick note, the value on Cirelli is hard to gauge. Most trades like this are a 1st round pick, a good prospect, and a decent or good roster player. I think the roster player part is lacking from Buffalo although I think a team would value Jokiharju especially since he is an RFA. I added both Kulich and Rosen because Kulich is a top prospect and I think Rosen does have value, this makes up for the lack of value with Joker. Bryson is there because I had to move him off the team and Tampa might be interested him as a cheap 8th defender option, he certainly is as good is anything else they have but he could be dropped from this trade. Jeannot is somewhat of a Tampa cap dump which keeps the value on Cirelli more manageable for Buffalo, or you can say Jeannot for Rosen and Bryson if that makes sense.
Jeannot isn't worth anywhere near that much in value. He's worth about a 4th or 3rd at best. Girgensons has arguably been a better player the past two years. As such it become massive overpay for Cirelli; plus no team is going to retain 500k for 7 years. Cirelli isn't worth 11, Rosen, Kulich and Jokiharju(2nd rounder) + Bryson
1. Kulich is not available for Tampa, Savoie and him strike me as highly likely to make us endlessly regret trading them to Tampa based on their team style and such. Kulich puts up 40 within 3 years if we deal him there.
2. Your offer is actually more value than what we got for Eichel. You effectively offered 3 1sts, 1 2nd and 1 4th/3rd for a low offense 2/3C(High end defensive player) and a nigh-cap dump that hits
-
1
-
-
Savoie might have an injury; he was randomly moved to wing and seems to have fewer minutes since the 1st game of the Memorial Cup. Most telling is his lack of production and face offs attempted
-
https://www.capfriendly.com/armchair-gm/team/5181290
Tried to fix the seeming issue with the Seattle trade.
-
14 minutes ago, French Collection said:
I would love Gourde, Tanev and Borgen but I doubt Joki, Rosen and a 3rd get that done. Seattle could push for Savoie and a better pick.
I just had a peek at Cap Friendly, Gourde and Tanev have NTCs.
They aren't getting a Top prospect for 3 UFAs
The max is Joki, Rosen, and a 2nd
I'd drop out Tanev but they aren't getting Joki(RFA), Rosen(ELC) and a 2nd for Gourde(UFA) and Borgen(UFA) Mostly because its hard to gauge Gourde's value because you could pole Seattle fans and get everything from 1st round picks to he's a cap dump
-
A rather conservative approach to redoing the Bot 6
Off-season Game Plan 2024
in The Aud Club
Posted
I couldn’t care less if players have power. In my opinion when you sign a contract with the captaincy either explicitly or effectively given to you as a part of the deal; the player has an obligation to stick through most if not the entire contract. Anything besides that, not including the team itself dealing the player against their wishes, is a sign of a lack of conviction and character.