LastPommerFan

I'm sorry Taro, but If either of those teams was facing a collapsed bridge, it's the one that had Rory Fitzpatrick and Doug Janik as the second pairing.

Closest to the cup, not teams talented enough to win the cup. 2 wins away is closer than 5. every. time. :flirt: (can I get a judges ruling on this?)

I really wish they didn't have their balls out while making my whiskey.

I was simultaneously correcting both of you. :P

ok, I contend that this is what is commonly referred to as "tanking" selling current assets for futures without regard for the negative effect on the current season. As opposed to the false definition of tanking which is, "losing on purpose".

Both times we've played in the finals, we had "generational talent" One time because we got lucky. Another because we won the draft lottery. And Bio, The Penguins have finished 1st or 2nd in their division every year since Crosby's sophomore season. They have always been relevant in April with him on the roster, May and June, OTOH... The second bold is directly contradicted by the first, IMO. You can't trade away top 6/4 players and say you're letting 'em play.

#11 fills this role in '75

It's not about McDavid and Eichel. It's about selling the future assets (picks/prospects) for more wins now, holding pat and watching talent walk away at the end of the year, or selling current assets before they expire for future assets. The first is win mode, the second is silly, IMO, and the third is tank mode. We are not in win mode yet.

He's an above average second line winger. I'd be fine with a 3-4 year extension. But I think Samson and Zemgus are the bigger levers in the equation. They could very well score 60pts each this season, unlikely, but I wouldn't be totally shocked.

There it is. This is what it takes to be completely 100% anti-tank. You have to be willing to make the organization measurably worse off in 2015-16 in favor of wins this year. Good for you, I can't get there yet. I'll take the 2's with absolutely no intention of making the picks. They get packaged with prospects/other picks to fill out any potential holes in our roster for the 2015-2016 season. Of course, crazy shite could happen and we're in 2nd in the Atlantic in February and I'd have to reevaluate my position.

I expect we will win 4 games this year, which would put us top 5. I'd be prepared to trade the first 3 picks in both 2015 and 2016 to move up to get him. He reads the field and makes the throws better than any freshman I've ever seen.

Win what? Fan Love? No one wins playoff games with wide receivers. Watkins doesn't make the team better this season, and he doesn't make the team better next season if he cost us Jameis Winston.

I will grant you Mitchell. Stafford and Stewart will be in you top six, both in terms of lines and points. Meszaros will be you #3 D-man in minutes. since neither of the goalies are good enough to rise to "most important", those three are by definition in your "top 10 most important Sabres" for this season. And unless the goalies sign, they have to be on the block 3.2.15 as well. All assets generate a return. No one can leave for nothing if at all possible. I'd love it if Stewart decided to sign a deal before the deadline, but if not, would you agree he has to be traded? Regarding a "hockey trade" for Stafford, we need Wingers. No playoff team is going to trade a winger of comparable talent with term left for a guy heading to UFA. We don't have use for a guy without term left, so there really isn't a hockey trade to be had. (if only because we already have Snow's first 2 picks next year!)

They can't let those four guys walk for nothing. They just can't, and I believe you support that logic. Therefore, given that not one of them is in the long term plans (too much talent pressure from below on meszaros, Mitchell, and Stewart, too much stained history on staff) they must be traded with 18 games remaining. They can only be traded for futures, as playoff teams don't part with current assets. I think you, and the others, support this. This is tanking. It may be tank-lite compared to last season, but it is tanking none the less.

If i remember those last few weeks correctly, it's not so bad for the male.

It strikes me that the consensus is that under no circumstances should we be attempting to make the team short term better (Trade picks/prospects for current talent) on 3/2/2015. There is also a consensus that any players that can return pick/prospect value that are not in the long term plans should be traded prior to 3/2/2015. I hate to break it to the board, but we have consensus to take all the legal actions of a tank. Sell short term assets for futures. Suffer the consequences. This is what tanking is all about in the NHL. Put it this way: The Rangers will likely finish in the top 10 next season. When this happens they will have gone from 2011 through 2015 with exactly TWO picks in the top 50, none better than 15th. Their cupboard will be bare. They will have approximately 3-4 years to win the cup before they fall back to mediocrity. This is win mode. We will likely finish with two draft picks between 5-15 next season, plus a pick in the 20-25 range plus 2 picks in the first half of Round 2. In the time that the Rags picked two players in the top 50, we will have chosen 17 in the top 50 (an amazing 8 in the top 16). One player short of an ENTIRE SKATER ROSTER. If we can manage to turn some combination of Meszaros/Stafford/Stewart/Mitchel into another first round pick, we will have that 18. This is tank mode.

I thought of that after I hit "post". It's actually going to severely depress the market on 3/2 as well. Everyone on the outside except the islanders, rangers, and blues is going to be burning the house down.

I don't think it'd be that bad to be on the cusp with 18 games remaining. We could easily go 3-15 in that span if we trade those 4 guys and the better performing goalie. That would slide us nicely into the bottom 3.

I get it. He's not a terrible fit because of last year's stats. He's a terrible fit because of his style and strength/weakness profile. Also, thanks to that moronic trade in april, we have no choice but to give him a longer look.

It's not about the intention to be bad, I don't really care about where the sabres draft pick lands, I fully expect Garth to provide Jack Eichel. If Meszaros, Stafford, Stewart, and Mitchell are not part of the future, and you don't trade them, they walk for nothing on 7/1. Tanking isn't about telling the guys to lose. It rarely is about getting rid of players for nothing because they might cause you to win. It's about trading current assets for futures. The opposite of tanking, in this case, is giving away, potentially, a late first and 1-2 second round picks in favor of 6 more games in April. Do you let that happen in favor of (maybe) making the playoffs?

The only thing that should matter in these cases is whether you've decided to extend them and they have agreed. Can't let them walk if you can get ANYTHING in return. Not one of them is worth that risk.

granted. If we're on the bubble, it's likely that most of those players are having seasons worthy of a good return.

Even if I'm fighting for a playoff spot, I'm not trading picks for players in March, and I'm entertaining all offers for pending UFAs, including goalies. So even if I'm not in favor of losing, my team gets significantly worse (minus Stafford, Meszaros, Stewart, Mitchell, possible Enroth and Neuvirth) for the final 6 weeks of the season. Should be enough "tank". Would any of the "I want to be excited now" crowd like to offer their thoughts on what should be done at the deadline in 2015 (buy/hold/sell)?

That's the question, was this the weakest draft class in 2 decades? or was at a mediocre class sammiched between two strong classes? Was the class weak in depth, or weak in top end talent? It's not impossible, it is just strongly weighted toward Samson playing all season in B&G.