jame
-
Posts
651 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Events
Posts posted by jame
-
-
1 hour ago, Taro T said:
Really hoping Dahlin's next contract is $8x8. That would mean he's looking like he'll live up to the hype and that there's a few extra $'s available to get him, Eichel, & the rest some higher talent to help the cause.
If he's so studly that his next deal is between Eichel's & McClavicle's, that means he's close to exceeding the hype and would actually be a good problem to have and they'll work around it. But REALLY hoping his REAL breakout year is #4, rather than #3.
Why would Dahlin get 20% less than Eichel got... especially after 3 years of cap growth?
Dahlin’s rookie year has been significantly better than Eichel’s
-
3 minutes ago, LGR4GM said:
The Crosby, Malkin, Letang, Fleury core didn't win a Stanley Cup for 6 years... because they didn't draft well... yea, that's some opinion... that's for sure. Dan Bylsma is with you on this one.
-
30 minutes ago, LGR4GM said:
You certainly like bastardizing people's words. I explained why and how they won. Funny you mention Kessel because of a big component of that trade (Kapanen) was a 1st round draft pick. It all starts with the draft and Buffalo does not have the luxury to trade away picks when they are rebuilding a broken pipeline.
You did nothing of the sort.
-
3 minutes ago, LGR4GM said:
I don't agree. I have explained why I don't agree. Pittsburgh drafts better than Buffalo which is why they have been able to make some of the trades you are advocating for. It is as simple as that. They didn't win anything for years because they didn't have the players they needed and traded away picks. They then developed a bunch of internal talent and bam, won again.
Yea drafting Guentzel is why they won, not They acquisition of Dumoulin, Kessel, Hornqvist, Bonino, etc
(Insert the worlds biggest eye roll)
-
10 minutes ago, LGR4GM said:
They won a cup in 2009 I think because they drafted well. They then won cups in 2016/17 I think because they drafted well.
Your bolded is just flat out wrong. Guentzel, Matta, Murray were all draft picks and helped them win cups. So what if they weren't 1st or 2nd round guys? It shows the importance of drafting well regardless. There is a list of other players they drafted and traded who helped them add pieces to win cups. It all starts with drafting. All of it.
We are talking about building through the draft within the context of trading top assets (1st round picks, 1st round prospects).
Guentzel and Murray are lottery tickets, not "building through the draft". You would NOT agree if I said, "hey, we can trade our first rounders and still build through the draft... look at Pittsburgh, they built through the draft with Guentzel, Murray, and Rust"
Matta is god awful at hockey
And you're also dead wrong about 2009.... look at all the talent they traded for, signed, and rented to support Crosby/Malkin. They didn't draft Bill Guerin, Sergei Gonchar, Kunitz, Dupuis, Fedotenko, Satan, Eaton, etc and that's just the 2009 cup team.
From the minute Pittsburgh had it's young core in place (Crosby, Malkin, Letang, Orpik, Staal)... they've been aggressively building through trade and free agency. They haven't "built through the draft" since 2006.
-
Just now, LGR4GM said:
Okay but that isn't worth burning multiple assets for.
to the bolded, why wouldn't it? Maybe he values a cup run more. In that case he could sign in Tampa for pennies. I don't think spending 3 months in Buffalo is going to drastically alter his mind. Sure you have a point about him learning the lockerroom and seeing if it is a fit but again, that isn't worth trading multiple assets for.
It's worth the assets to improve the team now, win now, etc
The impact on the ability to re-sign him is an additional benefit.
-
19 minutes ago, LGR4GM said:
And the best and most effective way to get talent is finding it in the draft. That is how you navigate the Salary Cap Era.
LA is screwed for a long time. They have 3 forwards under 25, their youngest defender is 26, and their best and only really good prospect is Rasmus Kupari. I wouldn't want to be LA right now.
LA is screwed for a long time... and has two cups. I'll take a decade of being screwed for 1 cup.
The Pens have been winning cups without doing much of anything with the draft for a decade... the last time they drafted a 1st or 2nd round player that was meaningful... was Jordan Staal in 2006.
This idea that one way is more successful than another is hogwash.
It's all about acquiring talent... whether through the draft, trade, or signings. The only thing that matters is making good decisions on who those players are.
-
7 minutes ago, LGR4GM said:
Staal isn't going to be a "big name" UFA. He isn't Stamkos or Tavares or Parise level. Those guys were all under 30 looking to get paid.
I will rephrase because I think you have it wrong, they stay with the team that drafted them. Staal has moved around on. This is comparing apples to oranges. He isn't at the same point in his career as the other guys. There is no reason to avoid Buffalo, because Buffalo. Money is probably going to dictate where Staal goes next and little else. He's got another 2-4 years in the league probably.
No you are wrong. Here is proof. Why didn't Staal stay with the Rangers? https://www.nhl.com/news/eric-staal-agrees-to-three-year-contract-with-minnesota/c-281092002
Answer because NYC? Your logic is flawed and the idea we have to acquire Staal or else is also wrong. If Botterill wants Staal (which I doubt) then he can acquire him for free this offseason and not piss away first round picks.
He's made over 80 million in his career... not sure why you think money will dictate his next location.
It has less to do with avoiding Buffalo, and more to do with Buffalo having nothing more than hope and money to offer. There's a huge difference between having built in relations with a coaching staff, lockerroom and community, along with an informed view of the team's real potential vs Buffalo just being another team with a contract offer out there.
-
41 minutes ago, Scottysabres said:
Your relying on a stats sight, not actually watching the games.
Whichever way you want to play this... you’re still wrong.
your statement didn’t align with what I’ve seen, i stated that . You stood by your statement. I validated that you were wrong with TOI stats, along with timelines, and some organizational facts.
-
24 minutes ago, Thorny said:
The argument was never that 1st line centres are easy to aquire, though.
My original point was that second line centres are easier to acquire than first line centres. Why anyone would take issue with a statement like that I have no idea.
Even accepting your assertion that you need a 1st line centre on your second line, if you want to contend for a cup, does little to oppose the fundamental, obviously apparent point of my original argument: that this Sabres team down the middle is easier fixed that those Roy/Vanek teams: If we need another 1st line centre now, like you say, then that team needed 2.
Fair
-
1
-
-
2 minutes ago, Scottysabres said:
Except, I watch a great deal of Anaheim games, Rakell has played center, not wing, a majority of his time there. Yes, he's been shifted to wing, sometimes for extended periods, but not predominantly.
As for the offer, two 1st's, two 2nd's, not something that is far off in my earnest opinion. It starts the conversation, as I said.
Factually speaking, your statement is incorrect. Over the last 3 seasons, Rakell has played 2/3 of his ES TOI with Getlzaf. He has NOT played a majority of his time at center. He HAS predominantly played wing.
there was a 4 week stretch in February-March 2017 when he got some run at center behind Getz, but pretty soon they put him back on wing.
they followed that up by acquiring Henrique and signing him long term (effectively ending Rakell’s long term usage as a top 6 center for the foreseeable future
in the two seasons since his 4 week run at center, he’s continued to get short stints there, but that has been largely due to injuries to Getz, Kesler, and Henrique.
your original statement was backwards... he’s largely been a winger through his career... but has been tried at center and continues to fill in there when injuries call for it.
He could still be a center in the future for sure.
-
55 minutes ago, Scottysabres said:
Schenn or Zibby, either would help the Sabres. The question of cost does come in to play, but I wouldn't be targeting either of those guys if the price is a piece to far.
With that said, I am not beyond over paying a bit if the player warrants it. I don't see the Rangers moving Zibby, as his age and contract are right in the pigeon hole, so to speak, on certain other elements of their roster, that 24 to 28 age range. The Rangers aren't known for tear downs and rebuilds, more like retooling and adding high end assets on the brink of their prime/twilight yrs. He won't be made available in my humble opinion.
Schenn however is a different animal all together. 1 yr left at just over 5 mil, 27 yrs old already, he's going to be looking for that locked in 6 yr or more deal, and he'll most likely get it. Good skater, not great foot speed though. I'd pass, but, it's not just a wave of the hand pass.
As for other notables,
Kevin Hayes, back the Rangers pool. I don't know, he's already cresting at just over 5 mil, and he'll be 27 with UFA status for his next deal. To risky for me, but, as with the 2 above, not a wave of the hand pass.
Charlie Coyle, sorry, doesn't move the meter for me. His consistency in production throws up red flags.
Mikael Granlund, you have my attention, injuries hamper him from time to time, but his production is a bit more stable. Unfortunately, 26 yrs old, 1 yr left at just over 5 mil. Same boat as these others.
You see the pattern developing here duds? They all look like a good fit, but at what price? Not only the price were giving up to acquire the asset, but the price to retain them as they enter that UFA yrs contract right in the middle of their prime. It just never seems to end well, or very rarely.
Players that do interest me are 23 to 25 yr olds, on longer than a yr or 2 contracts, Center and at least 1 RHD and/or 1 top 6 winger. Just my take is all dudacek.
Agree on most fronts regarding those players (especially Hayes, his next contract is scary). Which is why I find the Staal rental scenario so much more appealing. Costs less to acquire, a short term extension is a reasonable potential expectation. Sure, there’s risk that it’s only a rental, from which the benefits could be reaped via impact on the roster/outcomes this season
-
7 minutes ago, Scottysabres said:
Absolutely
Now that that is settled and we both understand the obvious (we are giving our opinions)...
your proposal doesn’t serve your point very well if said proposal is outlandish.
Removing the vagueness of trading our futures by saying, “i’d trade 4 first rounders for mcdavid”, is not really making much of a point.
-
2 minutes ago, Scottysabres said:
These aren't offers made, you realize this correct? The point of the post obviously went a little to far for you.
First off, any player can be traded, below, at or above market value, so the 0% chance nonsense...…………...save that for the dinner table.
The point of the post was an offer can be made. What? Do you honestly believe it works like this:
GM - A: I have two 1sts and two 2nds for player X and Y, do you accept?
GM - B: Why no, you couldn't even get X's jock strap for that, and you want me to add Y? dialtone……………
Contrary to your obvious skewed view of things, most deals take time, a great deal of time.
The point of the post was plausibility to a deal unto itself, as in, Botterill has already started any conversations, long ago, for anything that may bare fruit.
You should be aware, these event's don't happen in a vacuum in almost all cases. They are living conversations, relationships and require a great deal of back and forth. There is no "chart" that lays this out. I'm sorry, but your view of the ROR trade, is dead on incorrect, inaccurate and speaks volumes to the plunge head first in to what "I THINK SHOULD HAPPEN" category. But the reality is, your not an NHL executive for one of the clubs, and their knowledge of the inner workings of their own teams and their visions of what moves to make far exceed yours.
And yours
-
6 hours ago, LGR4GM said:
Yes
So you’ve established that big name UFAs stay where they are, go home, or chase a massive contract... the only scenario that would get Staal here is the “staying where they are” scenario which requires acquiring him in advance.
-
2 minutes ago, erickompositör72 said:
Scandella may have some value to the right GM- someone who thinks he just needs a "change of scenery" (which very well might be the case, in reality)
I agree. I think we can get a 2nd rounder for him at the deadline. A team needing a 5-6, and happy to have the additional year.
but at the same time, I value D depth. You need 8... in a healthy season, so even though he’s played terrible this year, I don’t mind keeping him.
-
1 hour ago, Scottysabres said:
This is a fair statement.
So, I will try not to be vague in my attempt to trade not one, but two 1st's.
To Buffalo:
Rickard Rakell, 25 yrs old, primarily 0lays center but has shifted to wing from time to time. $3,789,444 x 3 yrs
Brandon Montour, 24 yrs old, PM-RHD. $3,387, 500
To Anaheim:
St. Louis 1st rd pick
Buffalo 2019 1st rd pick
St. Louis 2021 2nd rd pick
Buffalo 2021 2nd rd pick
Why Anaheim does this, aging core, draft picks coincide with needed replenishment.
Why Buffalo does this, 2 key assets on very reasonable contracts that fill needs. Further draft picks can be accumulated as the seasons progress, no significant losses.
You have to give to get, championships are not won by those who are faint of heart. If you can substantially better the team now, you do it. I've waited 50 yrs for a cup, ÷=%/ waiting another 5 yrs for "potential". If we can add and go for it in the next 18 months, then do it.
Rakell is primarily a winger and has played the majority of his career there.
theres a zero % chance that 4 years of his well below market, prime age contract would be traded for a handful of draft picks
and we get Mountour too?
-
7 minutes ago, dudacek said:
Lack of a top asset is relative, isn’t it?
Id rather have Nylander and Scandella than a pick in the 20s, but you might disagree.
Brayden Schenn to me is a better player than Zibby and he went for what became picks 19 and 27 and Philly had to take on Lehtera’s contract.
I just don’t think a competent GM would accept the ROR package for Zib.. and that’s what your scandella (Sobotka), Nylander (Thompson), 1st (1st) is....
-
2 minutes ago, dudacek said:
Wennberg? Bennett? Fabbri? Fiala? Zacha? Roslovic? Colin White?
Mark Jankowski? Coyle? Bjugstad? JT Miller?
I’m just spitballing names without thinking their situations through, or what I am willing to give up. But they are the type of players that might add some substance to the middle six for a few years without giving up the farm, and could conceivably be better than they’ve shown.
Those guys were all high picks, but that doesn’t have to be a factor. I’d rather identify someone more under the radar and unearth the next William Karlsson.
No one on that list appeals to me in terms of filling the 2C hole. Most of them aren’t even true centers.
Wennberg - contract is terrifying, too much risk
Bennet - bottom 6 winger
fabbri - damaged goods
Fiala - we have a LW logjam, would love to add, but doesn’t address center issue
zacha - are you willing to trade Mittelstadt for him?
roslovic - we should just call up nylander or Olofsson
Jankowski - why would Calgary trade their 3rd line center?
Coyle - he’s a center and his contract is a perfect short term fit. He’s always been a fairly underwhelming player.
Bjugstad - huge pass on that contract
jt miller - not a center, too much term.
-
21 minutes ago, dudacek said:
That’s what I’d like to find out. We need a team that has a hole on defence and an unproven young centre that they might have trouble signing.
You weren’t getting Ryan Johansen from Columbus for that kind of package, but you probably could have picked up Mika Zibenajad from Ottawa.
Zibenajad was traded for an established top 6 center, Ottawa Didn’t make a futures trade when they moved him, so hard to imagine they’d have done that deal
however... New York is rebuilding...and Zib has 3 year and a full NMC about to kick in next year. Could be a good target, but the lack of a top asset has the offer coming up well short
-
5 minutes ago, dudacek said:
You don’t think that’s enough for Staal?
?
Lol
What team (besides Buffalo) is trading a prime aged top 6 center with term for that package?
-
13 minutes ago, dudacek said:
Let’s stop talking about rentals like Staal when Botterill has said that’s not happening.
Instead, let’s focus on what he said - acquiring younger players with term, or team control - look at the roster and figure out what might be more likely. And I see our biggest need as a middle six centre and our most replaceable assets as our high picks and our depth on defence. Trading Scandella or Guhle would have been unimaginable a year ago. Now it almost seems prudent.
Scandella/Nylander/1st or something similar could get us the type of player we need, under the right circumstances.
Given the fact most teams will be keeping middle six centres until the cap forces them to make a move, and the fact that we aren’t really a committed buyer or seller, I think we are far more likely to be making a draft-day deal than a deadline deal. I’m not expecting Botterill to do something beyond the fringes of the roster.
That said, guys like Scandella are in demand at the deadline. And there is always the possibility of a Hodgson/Kassian type hockey trade.
Not sure Scandella/Nylander/1st gets us what we need...
-
20 minutes ago, PerreaultForever said:
I'm just going to say one thing.
Rule #1 of building a successful nhl team, you never trade away your first round picks. You avoid trading away any picks, but you never trade firsts.
Rule #1of building a dynasty , you try to acquire extra first and second round picks and you use them wisely.
A structure based on good scouting and a strong development program at all levels is the rest of the equation. That's it.
Rule #1 of building a successful team/dynasty : There are no rules in how you do it, but acquiring talent is the ONLY rule.
whether you methodically draft and wait a decade like Winnipeg, or you trade 1sts and top prospects and turn it around immediately LA... the only thing that matters is the amount of talent you acquire.
-
4 hours ago, Mustache of God said:
These decisions landed us Dahlin, so I'll allow it.
Yea, in hindsight it’s brilliant...
Picks, Prospects, or Players???
in The Aud Club
Posted
Not that I think a points metric is wise in comparing C/D... but given that in year 4, Eichel is on a 97 point pace (82 games) and Dahlin's rookie season currently projects to score almost 80% of what Eichel produced his rookie year... would you then project Dahlin to be a 77 point defensemen?
You realize 44 points would put him in the top 5 for rookie defensemen scoring over the last 20 years?
And none of those guys did it as 18 year olds.
Dahlin is a generational talent. Eichel is a franchise center.
Phaneuf 49 points / Draft + 2
Myers 48 points / Draft + 1
Werenski 47 points / Draft + 1
Butcher 44 points / Draft + 4
Shattenkirk 43 points / Draft + 4