kas23

If any of the players above, plus Quinn, miss any appreciable time, we are in for another abysmal season. And another player is missing from that list too. We just don’t know who yet. And I also think one of these players will miss a good amount of time. It’s inevitable.

This is sort of a pa-tato/pat-ato argument. It really doesn’t matter who is a “prospect’” vs who is just very young. They are essentially equal. It doesn’t matter where they are playing. On a lot of team, Quinn and JJP would still be the AHL, Benson would still be in Juniors. As for Power, you take a player who played exactly like Power did and he would still be in the AHL. The reason why he’s on our roster because (1) were the Sabres and we don’t block and (2) he was 1OA. Edit: Or, this was written by a team trying to obtain these “prospects” and they exchanged this “story” for future leaks.

The plan to rebuild came well after he was initially injured and we know the trade request came before he was injured. Adams first year as GM, while Krueger was still coach, they went “all in” (in a Sabres sense) and signed Hall. This was done to appease a disgruntled Jack. There was no plan to rebuild at that time. In the beginning of that season Jack became injured and missed the majority of the season. It only then it became about the injury. Still, Jack being unhappy and wanting to leave came before the rebuild plan.

Gosh, do we really need to go through this again? Eichel asked for a trade well before he became injured. The injury was a red herring. I guess we could say, why did Eichel get to the point of asking for a trade, but that was before Kevyn’s time.

Big question about Farabee is still his health. I guess it’s true Jack didn’t bounce right back to his old self and I honestly don’t know if he’s now the same dynamic player we saw in Buffalo. I don’t watch him. But Farabee had issues last season and it’s not clear what they were. Here’s a quote: “From January 11 to March 14 — a 26-game span — Farabee was held without a goal and logged just four points.” Sounds like he would fit right in here. https://thehockeynews.com/nhl/philadelphia-flyers/analysis/flyers-thumbs-up-thumbs-down-joel-farabees-season-marred-aftereffects-neck-surgery

We forget Adams traded Eichel during his first year as GM. He was incredibly poised, didn’t panic, and didn’t get fleeced. LV arguably got the better of that trade, but Kevyn’s hands were tied. And it’s still too early to prognosticate; it depends if PPG Tuch comes back and Östlund develops. Who knows about Krebs.

Can we trade for this guy? Definitely grittier than Sabretooth.

Fair enough. It’s hard to get out of the mentality that we aren’t guaranteeing NHL spots to lose on this team. It seems like it’s been that way for a while.

Probably not, but it’s a bit disingenuous to say you only want to play in the NHL, but then you have other hidden stipulations. Just say you want to pick where you want to play. At least Vesey said that.

I wouldn’t want my team’s whole raison d’etre having an aging player beat a record. I want my team to focus on winning a Stanley Cup and I don’t think the Caps aren’t doing that. They would probably normally tear it down, but then Ovie would immediately go skate in Putin’s backyard. Either way, they can go this route because they’ll always have butts in the seats.

He reportedly only wanted to be traded to a team that had an immediate NHL spot for him, but just as long as it wasn’t in Buffalo. And there may be others on the list. He actually sounds like a more talented version of Vesey.

Is Kulich really going to be a C in the NHL? If not, move him to the wing now to make room for Konsta.

Not sure I’m even offering Walberg as part of a package for Zegras. We don’t have multiple Walbergs in our pipeline. The thing is, why a player is in need of a “change of scenery” or a reclamation project, you tend to offer a player in a similar situation. But, with Skinner gone, it doesn’t look like we have such a player right now. I certainly wouldn’t be offering the equivalent of 2 firsts (Walberg+next years pick) for a -24/-21 +/- player who management wants to move on from. Best I would do is a top-3 protected 2025 1st rounder.

I don’t know how it works either, but if it’s purely statistical and doesn’t consider the player’s value to a team, then they should just have a computer spit out the number. It would take out all emotions out of the process and nobody could really argue over it. Actually, the more I think about it, how does the processs value intangibles?

Malenstyn main argument going into arbitration: his game is so good - and the Sabres would agree - that he was acquired for a 2nd round draft pick.

No way. They can pry Benson out of my cold, dead hands.

I’ve taken my meds. I’m prepared.

I have no idea who Matt Kopnak is, but it seems if it comes from a Twitter link, this opinion is somehow better, or more informed, than the takes on here. But, I’m guilty of it. Sometimes I will scroll down to what Twitter is saying because somehow they have been better vetted, but this isn’t the case a lot of the times.

Of course Mitts is better. He’s now a 2C on a SC contender. A problem would existed for us. We couldn’t pay him what he would’ve deserved, which was an identical contract to TNT/Cozens. He took less from Colorado because there wasn’t any precedent for paying out that much.

Look what went down in Florida. The Sabres need 2 great goalies. You just never know what could happen. Sign him for 3-4 years and then reassess the situation.

Are you saying maybe we should cancel this party and dust off the pitchforks?

Let’s be serious here. Your team is down by 1 in the 2nd period of game 7 of the Stanley Cup Finals. Series is tied 3-3. Are you going to put in the best player on the planet or his not insignificant side kick, or are you going to put in McLeod. These numbers are meaningless.

Anyone know how Krebs compares?

Fantastic then. We now have competition. I don’t think he’s being written in as 3C right now. If Krebs wants it more, then he can play his ass of and take it. Either way, having 2 viable 3Cs, even if one is better than the other, is better than none.