jame

You know we have data on the Sabres performance with Eichel out on long term injuries right? and it’s not about how much a team suffers without a player, it’s about how much said player lifts them.

So you overrate eichel as much as the other guy underrates him.

How many Hart candidates do you think there are?

Hit the net!

Huh? I fully believe star player captains should be held to the highest standard on a shift to shift basis... that’s entirely different than defining our worst players

Who cares? Two young core pieces were available and they were interested in the player you were shopping. Do your job.

1. Yes 2. Yes, not as big of an issue as Buffalo media has retroactively magnified, and thus easily fixed with winning. 3. Your position assumes a competency Botts hasn’t earned. I said caroli a was willing to trade Hanifin and Lindholm. Fact. I said Carolina was interested in trade talks on ROR. Reported. A good GM makes good trades

It was pretty well reported that carolina was in on ROR trade talks...

So depressing... we could’ve been in such a better position.

Carolina was willing to trade Lindholm and Hanifin, wanted ROR... that’s how bad Botterill is. ps by setting an artificial deadline, the market was never fully established

Panarin was traded because he had to be, there was a real limitation placed on his trade value... and even still he returned a legitimate top 6 forward. Using that trade to justify the return on ROR is bizarre Skinner? Really? A pending UFA with a full NMC? Putting that trade on the same planet as the ROR shows there is a huge disconnect on trade value. These trades don’t belong anywhere in a ROR trade conversation... it’s apples and oranges Hamilton is a decent attempt... if you think hamilton is good (hint, he’s a #4 defensemen)

Gotta be better jack

Scandella for a 2nd is not a “hockey trade” a hockey trade, as colloquially referred, is a 1 for 1, or 2 for 2, or just a deal involving players of similar skill/age/term... not s trade of picks for rentals or futures for term. i didn’t ask for a 2nd line center... more of a mid range 3rd line center so similar age and term. AKA a hockey trade.

Beyond the use of “equivalency”... you also do not recognize the value of term. # of 1st line centers in your list... one ROR.

Pouliot, Tennyson, Griffith, Antipin, Josefson, Nolan, C.Johnson... are all players he signed and had on the opening day roster... that’s essentially 1/3 of the roster... and NONE of them are in the NHL today.

@PerreaultForever We traded ROR for dogshit, and the trade has nothing to do with the improvements we've seen this year. We know this because we went through the sad face lockeroom routine a few weeks ago, and Okposo came right out and said nothing has changed inside the room. What we do know that changed 1. More speed and skill added. Skinner, Sheary, Mittelstadt, Erod are all significant upgrades to the players they replaced. 2. Better, Deeper, Stronger Defense. Adding Dahlin and Pilut. While getting full season/performance from Bogo and Mcabe. 3. Stabilized goaltending. Bringing Hutton in, and Ullmark up. 4. Star Player growth. Eichel and Reinhart are producing more in their 4th year... no big shocker there. We lost the ROR trade... in a massive way. The team has improved by building a defense, solidifying in goal. Last year's team had enormous holes due to roster negligence by Botts, and due to a horrible run of injuries. This year's roster has been as healthy as can be, and has one massive self inflicted roster hole. It required an extreme example when the normal one (staring everyone right in the face) isn't obvious.

How are you unable to separate the two things? If Edmonton trades McDavid for a pencil sharpener... but then adds Crosby, Ovechkin, Lidstrom and Gordie Howe in separate moves... and suddenly gets better.... it doesn't mean that trading McDavid for a pencil sharpener was a good trade that made the team better.

That's looking for a reason to continue believing something....

That would be an interesting approach. What type of contract would you be willing to offer that would entice Reinhart to sign now, instead of putting another season on the table and having the negotiating leverage of arbitration 2020? If he put up a 2nd 60-70 point season, he'd be able to go to arbitration and ask for 7 million EASY. A couple years ago, you had 45-55 point guys settling pre-arbitration to 4-5 year deals in the 5.5 range... Zibanjed - 5 yrs / 5.3 per Tatar - 4 yrs / 5.5 per Palat - 5 yrs 5.3 per These guys are getting in the 7% range.... factor that % on an 85 million cap and your talking 6 million per... factor in the difference between a 45-55 player and a 60-70 player.... and basically, yea the bridge contract was a colossal error.

Their streak should be understood in it's context. St Louis was a team that was failing due to a single issue (bad goaltending), they fixed their issue... now they are winning. It's not that complicated. The Sabres streak and subsequent failing has nothing in common with St Louis (problem/problem solved). Trying to make the Buffalo streak relevant again, by comparing it to St Louis doesn't make a whole lot of sense.

Do you really think there's a difference (in their cases)?

What does it say about Botts if he thought 7.5 million for Sobotka and Berglund wasn't throwing money out the door?

I agree. And I believe it's within Botts job responsibilities to not only explain to Pegula what an artificial deadline will do (depreciate the trade return), but change his mind and allow Botts to trade (if Pegula has given a must trade direction) when the best possible offer is available. Pegula doesn't care about money... and besides Botts took back almost 7.5 million in garbage, so it wasn't about the money. IF Pegula gave a trade directive on ROR, it was Botts responsibility to ensure maximum return (i.e. the Colorado/Duchene playbook). The ROR trade is one of the worst trades any GM not named Chiarelli or Milbury has made in the last 25 years. He botched it on every level.

It’s a demonstrated behavior. But fair point. I’ll edit.

Toronto has paid Phil Kessel 4.8 million dollar to not only not play for them, but to play for an eastern conference rival over the last 4 seasons, and they will pay another 3.6 over the following 3 seasons. They spent 8.4 million to make a trade work for them. Numerous other teams have taken on cap dump level contracts when paid in assets to do so. Beyond the semantic difference of paying a Bonus, taking a cap dump, and retaining salary, the reality is that it is the same thing (paying for asset value). But you somehow have more knowledge on what “most if not all” NHL owners would do...