jame
-
Posts
651 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Events
Posts posted by jame
-
-
Solid trade. Fair amount of risk/reward.
It will be interesting to see where/how they try to fit Montour in. Burke nailed it in describing him as unpredictable... and having that be a great trait when it's viewed through the prism of your opponent, but a terrible trait when understood in terms of your teammates, especially your D partner.
Dahlin-Montour probably won't work because of that. More likely it's McCabe-Montour or Scandella-Montour in the near term. Which probably puts Risto on the trade block this summer.
I'm surprised how many people love this trade... given how much hate there is for Murray's tenure. This is a Tim Murray trade, minus the additional tertiary asset.
-
16 minutes ago, North Buffalo said:
Tampa has a couple guys in Cirelli and Erne. Simmons has some of that fire too. Okposo though done imo had it.
Cirelli is untouchable
Paquette and Erne would be interesting restricted free agent targets since Tampa will have such a tight cap next year
-
2
-
-
5 minutes ago, pastajoe said:
They offered Carrier so Vegas wouldn’t take Ullmark. The only one of those I wanted to keep was DLo. But their issue isn’t forechecking, it’s playing soft in the D zone, especially in front of the net, and that’s on the D men.
He could’ve just protected Ullmark, and kept Carrier.
-
1 hour ago, SABRES 0311 said:
Well we better do something. Who else might be available other than Wilson that can score and actually fills out their cup and jock strap?
Good question, dying breed
William Carrier leads the league in hits by a wide margin, and is one of the most physical players in the league... but Botts gave him away.
Hits: Carrier #1, Foligno #12, Kane #26, Deslauriers #27.... all players Botts got rid of. We’re soft because of him.
-
7 minutes ago, LGR4GM said:
That trade was: Hanifin and Lindholm FOR Hamilton, Fox Ferland.
What would be the Sabres equivalent?
ROR is significantly better/more valuable than Hamilton
so... ROR, McCabe, Guhle?
ROR, Scandella, Nylander?
ROR, Ristolainen?
-
7 hours ago, GASabresIUFAN said:
Obviously you didn't read my post. No one who wants Scandella is going to do a hockey trade with us for a piece we need. If Jbot trades Scandella he may get picks or prospects he can then utilize with other assets in another deal to get the piece he needs, but there won't be a one for one trade involving Scandella that nets us a 2nd line center or 2nd pairing RHD.
3rd line center
-
1 hour ago, SABRES 0311 said:
I’ve said it before and I’m almost certain I will get carpet bombed. Here goes. Target Tom Wilson for acquisition or someone like him. Tough guy who can score and finishes hits (even when he shouldn’t). Put him on the second line with Sam and Mitts.
Go after a defensive minded forward who is good enough to play on the third line with ERod and TT so he doesn’t get relegated to the fourth line.
Bring up Olofsson. First line and move Pommers to the fourth with Girgs and Larry.
This makes Sheary and Sobotka expendable.
This is only my quick answer. I have not done any analysis or math or advanced stats or witch craft to determine how to get Wilson or who the other acquisition would be. I have not taken into account locker room presence affect or anything else which may lead to a life altering decision or argument to prove I am wrong and unworthy of posting. I also have not taken into account the sensitivities of other people and their friendships with other posters so if my tone is hurting someone’s feelings it is a casualty of free thought.
There’s pretty much no one else like Tom Wilson and the Capitals would never trade him.
I agree, Tom Wilson is a major difference maker
-
9 minutes ago, ... said:
I think Phil is smarter than a lot of people give him credit for. He knows what kind of people he's dealing with. Until now, calling them out wouldn't have been prudent IMHO.
His in game tactics seriously strain the credulity of that statement.
vlad Sobotka was on the ice down by a goal with 4 minutes left. Like the only way that’s acceptable is if 3 forwards are in the lockerroom with injuries.
-
5 minutes ago, ... said:
They need to adopt the attitude that no one is safe. The guys on WGR just made the point: the same players who go back to Bylsma need to be gone. Some of these players are the constant. The TYPE of players that these players are is a constant.
That’s the nightmare scenario right... one where you’ve changed every part, turned over every player, and after 11 years it turns out it was him all along.
-
1 hour ago, Brawndo said:
For the record I am not a fan of the ROR Trade
Botterill’s Ask from Carolina in a potential ROR Trade included Elias Lindholm, once he was traded to Calgary Botterill moved on.
His ask from Montreal was initially 3OA, when that was refused he asked for Ryan Poehling plus. Montreal moved on.
Arizona Calgary and The Islanders where other reported teams who called about him.
Botts should’ve beaten Calgary’s offer.
-
Just now, Sabre1974 said:
Well all in all a pretty uninspiring homestead with two sore defeats in there to Blackhawks and rangers. Wonder what Botts is thinking now leading up to the deadline. Still think he will remain patient until the draft and free agency but part of me wants him to be busy at the deadline. Just gutted after tonight.
Presumptuous
?
-
Just now, SwampD said:
Sure you do.
Because I know it all.
-
1 minute ago, SwampD said:
Dude, you’ve already stated that you don’t care if you come across as a know-it-all dickweed. Don’t pretend that it is on us.
I don’t know what you think I’ve put on you?
-
19 minutes ago, PASabreFan said:
Jame, there's nothing wrong with your posts or tone. You're adding a lot to the board. But you threaten the coffee klatch that is SabreSpace. I honestly feel bad for the abuse you're going to take. I should know.
Here comes the passion play.
I mean... I get it, there’s a really tight knit group of old timers who converse over tea and crumpets or something (it’s a joke laugh a little).
this is how everyone I’ve ever known talks about sports. At the bar, around the dinner table, in the arena... everywhere. It’s passionate and combative. No one takes offense, it’s the norm.
I’m going to continue to be someone who actively participates passionately, brings different viewpoints, and gets into it when there are disagreements... I’m never going to sit down for tea and crumpets. That’s not me. So I’ll either be accepted or booted. It’s all good.
-
1
-
4
-
-
9 minutes ago, Thorny said:
See above post. It comes to the same point.
Maybe, just maybe, all the folks who vote for MVP understand it’s the most valuable player TO their team (not relative to the rest of the team’s roster composition).
Maybe these voters have read the plain language of the award, interpreted as it is written, and voted for Crosby’s over Tavares’s for years... and maybe you’re just wrong.
nah... never mind... you’ve found the hidden meaning, that everyone else has been missing.
-
That’s not good
-
Just now, Thorny said:
The award is not "most valuable". It's most valuable "TO HIS TEAM'. The relativity, compared to the other guys on said team, and towards what others are providing to THEIR teams, is built in.
I honestly don't think you were aware that the award is for the value a player provides specifically to his team. Relativity in this case isn't wrong, it's necessary.
I’m certain you don’t know the definition of relative
-
4 minutes ago, Thorny said:
But this post points towards exactly what I'm saying. I'm not arguing that Jack WILL win the award. The Hart generally just goes to the best player, anyways. If that's your argument, that's fine. But I made it clear I was arguing based under the ACTUAL definition of the award, which no one seems to do for some reason, and the fact you don't want to read the specifications of my posts renders the whole dialogue needlessly frustrating.
The definition does not say “relative” to their team... that’s a definition you invented.
-
Damn KO got tagged
-
7 minutes ago, Thorny said:
The Hart trophy is value relative to their team. Do you know this?
Yea remember all the Hart trophies Tavares won over Crosby, Malkin, Kane, Ovie, Perry....
your false insertion of the term “relative” did not go unnoticed. Clever, but wrong.
-
1 minute ago, Thorny said:
Ouch. So I've already got your down to your 'B" argument, I see..how many you got?
Duchene isn't even leading HIS OWN TEAM in points production.
Again, you are out to lunch.
Yea I could go A-Z on arguments that counter your “eichel is an mvp candidate because it feels right” argument
-
1 minute ago, Thorny said:
Said the priest to Galileo. I'm sure logic seems like wizardry to you, but that's only because it's so incredibly foreign to you.
Here’s your argument exposed:
Echel 1.15 points per game
Duchene 1.13 points per game
imagine how bad Ottawa would be without Duchene, therfore Duchen is an MVP candidate
-
8 minutes ago, Thorny said:
Of course the whole thing is a hypothetical, presumption. We can't begin to understand the value a player brings to a team, if we don't try to understand what they team would be without said player.
This is logic 101.
Lol logic 101 isn’t just making stuff up.
Seriously, you’re argument is that Matt Duchene is an MVP candidate...
-
4 minutes ago, Thorny said:
This is two sides of the same coin. If fact it's saying the exact same thing dude.
We are talking the difference between a player being in the lineup, or not being in the lineup.
It’s really not. One is a presumption (Sabres would be really bad without Eichel), the other is a fact (the Bruins are really good with Bergeron).
By the way, Bergeron missed some time this year... he’s playing at a 40 goal /106 point pace at 41 games this year.
Official:Trade Brandon Montour to Buffalo for 1st and Guhle
in The Aud Club
Posted
The last 8 months, the fan based... largely in lock step with Botts... railed against Murray's spending of futures for young, prime aged, NHL talent. And praised the direction Botts was taking (acquiring picks, build through draft). This move is essentially 1st, Armia, Lemiuex for Kane. Just kind of shows that Botts has acquired some teflon without actually accomplishing anything.
I like this move. I recognize the flaws Montour has. He's not a true top pairing guy. He's a guy who needs to be "partnered up". But I like the deal... I don't overvalue late 1sts and mid tier prospects. I'd rather convert coin flips to prime aged certainty every time.
Montour is a much better fit for our system than say Jake McCabe. And that gives him much more value to us. But in a systemless vaccuum, they are relatively equal. How would everyone like the trade if it was viewed in those terms? Brandon Montour is to puck moving defensemen what Jake McCabe is to stay at home defensemen....
Futures for young talent.
This is essentially 1st, Lemieux, Armia for Kane.... same trade.