kas23

Interesting. Another question: do you really think we "tanked"? Let's define "tank" as purposely losing. I think we can agree GMTM wanted to purposely lose, but do you think Teddy and the guys actually playing the games actually "tanked"?

Serious question: would you not tank and not have Eichel or tank and have Eichel?

There's no way this man survives that place alive. There's just no way a guy can coach such a horrible team for so long before getting the axe.

Oh gosh. Gorges is the best example of how this team should be playing?

Either way, it was an odd answer to the question. People in his position usually say stuff like "scoring my first goal", "adjusting to the new system", or "playing against tougher competition". He chose "bus cleaning" as the best answer to that question. Either there's some entitlement attitude or perhaps he is being hazed or he's dim.

That was such a beautiful story. Thanks for sharing.

And right there Murray just killed any residual trade value Kane hds. Who's going to want to trade for a player his GM is publicly saying he has serious concerns? This is from the BN article: "Murray also was hesitant to embrace a contract extension for Kane, who has another year on his deal. The GM is not ready to believe the left winger has put his off-ice issues behind him. Kane and the Sabres can talk extension beginning July 1. “I’d be open to that. I’m not sure I’m going to do that." Murray said. “There’s a lot of bridges to cross before that time. But would I be open to it in a scenario where a couple things he has going on off the ice go away and stuff like that, absolutely.” If the player's own GM has open doubts about trying to resign him, what GM in their right mind is going to offer up to get him? If I just see it now "Hey Timmy, why are you trying trade him? Did those off-ice issues you spoke about in March never disappear?"

The message is there's no I in team. The team isn't composed of one individual. And if he doesn't want to re-sign with us, it says if you don't want to be a Sabre, you'll get shipped out. And I agree, Kane likely has no real value. You can say Eaves went for a conditional 2nd. I'll pass on that every day of the week, unless we get a defensive player back.

I don't think it matters what he's done over the last eight seasons. The Ducks are gearing up for a playoff run and all that matters will be his production during the 16-17 playoffs. That said, his production this year has been awfully similar to Kane.

Geez. Are we really overinflating the value of Evander Kane on here?

Wouldn't the upcoming expansion draft be a reason for more trades? Teams may want to get value for players who would otherwise leave for nothing. There's also the angle of picking up an expansion draft decoy.

This is probably the best reason presented. Sure, a team looking to make a SC run may not want to give up productive contributors. But, when a team is stacked with D and has an anemic offense, they're going to want to balance that team out. Balanced teams with great depth are the ones that go deep into the playoffs.

Why are people saying Kane would best be dealt in the offseason? Wouldn't a desperate team be more likely to overpay during the season?

That, and I don't think his current pace is sustainable, from a skill point and injury point. It'll be a risky contract.

I think we need to ask ourselves: why is Kane the leading scorer on our team? We have other offensive firepower on this team, but for some reason they are not bearing fruit. Why is this? I don't know much about hockey as most on here, but I think it has something to do with DD's dump & chase system, which some say is a direct result of our subpar defense. So, if we improved our defense, like GMTM should've done during the offseason, will this lead to a more opened-up offense? Or, assuming we get a 1st-pair D, could the loss of Kane be offset by a more opened-up offense?

True. If they weren't sitting on their butts watching games, I'd wonder what they heck they actually do.

I'm glad this is coming up now before the deadline. What do you think we can get for Jack? Next year's 1st. Maybe a 1st and 2nd the following year? I kid, I kid.

Sounds like it. These are words directed at GMTM.

This is not a valid generalization. IIRC, we picked up Carrier and Fasching in 2 separate deadline trades.

Well, Moulson technically came back as an UFA. Franson was an UFA. Kuli was a hockey trade, but some would argue Pysyk was still young & developing. If we want to trade any of these above players in exchange for younger, developing players, then I'm all for it.

I think the Sabres view of how to win should be an evolving thing. It's one thing to watch a player perform on another team and another watching them play on your team. If you think a player you picked up isn't meshing with your system or "culture", I really don't think you should hesitate to move them. I understand we don't want to be shedding players just based on their top return value. But, if we don't see them in our long terms plans, we should get what we can from them before jettisoning them after the season's over.

What if management doesn't see them as part of the culture they want to build?

It's baffling there would even be any demand.

F5

It's interesting people are still anti-Tank around here. Eichel and Reino may be experiencing growing pains, but are they really that dispensable to people? Because that's where we would be without the Tank.