PASabreFan Posted February 17, 2011 Report Share Posted February 17, 2011 When was their last rental? The year they got Zubrus they traded Biron and got the #1 pick in the second round. Same thing with Moore & Kotalik, Torres & MacArthur. He makes more lateral UFA for UFA moves to change the makeup, never rentals. I'd expect more of the same this year. Juneau. What's your definition of a rental? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lanny Posted February 17, 2011 Report Share Posted February 17, 2011 Juneau. What's your definition of a rental? I've been looking, perhaps Conklin counts? Brad Brown? Obviously Bob Corkum. I suppose the net of trades made equating to a long term asset for a short term asset (remainder of the season). Just seems like we should get it right when beating up on him regarding all the rental type trades he's made. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sabresnutinphoenix Posted February 17, 2011 Report Share Posted February 17, 2011 Let's trade Darcy Regier for Ken Holland.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Two or less Posted February 17, 2011 Report Share Posted February 17, 2011 I don't understand how you can figure that Moore, Torres, Zubrus were not rentals? Because we gave up something to get them? Who cares, thats the way the league works when you want something, you give up something. A rental to my understanding, is a player who is a UFA and you get him just for the stretch run. Maybe i've been wrong all these years, but i'm pretty sure im not in the minority on that one. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bunomatic Posted February 17, 2011 Report Share Posted February 17, 2011 LOL "not a fan of rental players" what irony. How long has it been since Darcy made a trade other than a deadline day trade? Is this Darcy's way of saying they will be sellers? Its Darcys way of saying he's not doin nothing as usual. No improvements. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Eleven Posted February 17, 2011 Report Share Posted February 17, 2011 What is the value of Enroth to the Sabres? His only value is in the trade market. Problem is, that he will never get the starts needed to up his trade value playing in this organization. My overall comment was not directed solely at you. It just seems that you can't have a actual discussion about possible trades without someone reacting much like you did. Others do it as well. Bring up possibly trading Miller, Stafford or Myers and people go nuts. Why? The Sabres are not in a position as an organization to have any untouchables. They have a couple of really good players (Vanek,Myers,Miller) some young prospects (Ennis, Weber,Kassian) and a lot of holes in the roster. No one knows Enroth's value yet, which is why the team won't get much for him right now. The best hope for Enroth as a Sabre is either (1) he succeeds Miller, after MIller's career comes to an end, and does as well, or (2) does so well so soon that he enables the Sabres to trade MIller, for whom they will get an amazing return. (Imagine if Hasek hadn't been able to dictate the terms of his trade. The Sabres could find themselves in nearly as strong a position, but they're not there yet.) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Weave Posted February 17, 2011 Report Share Posted February 17, 2011 I don't understand how you can figure that Moore, Torres, Zubrus were not rentals? Because we gave up something to get them? Who cares, thats the way the league works when you want something, you give up something. A rental to my understanding, is a player who is a UFA and you get him just for the stretch run. Maybe i've been wrong all these years, but i'm pretty sure im not in the minority on that one. His premise is that we gave up rentals to another team and replaced them with Moore, Torres, Zubrus via trades from different teams. I understand where he's coming from but its just a semantics argument IMO. Tomaytoe - tomahtoe. Rentals either way. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lanny Posted February 17, 2011 Report Share Posted February 17, 2011 I don't understand how you can figure that Moore, Torres, Zubrus were not rentals? Because we gave up something to get them? Who cares, thats the way the league works when you want something, you give up something. A rental to my understanding, is a player who is a UFA and you get him just for the stretch run. Maybe i've been wrong all these years, but i'm pretty sure im not in the minority on that one. He's giving up something for a rental, and then sending his own rental player away to another team. The net is zero. He's not so much renting a player, he's more doing nothing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LabattBlue Posted February 17, 2011 Report Share Posted February 17, 2011 He's giving up something for a rental, and then sending his own rental player away to another team. The net is zero. He's not so much renting a player, he's more doing nothing. ...and IMO he should have traded Kotalik and MacArthur and kept the picks. The Sabres were going nowhere fast the last couple of years and should have been doing everything they can to stockpile picks. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
X. Benedict Posted February 17, 2011 Report Share Posted February 17, 2011 What is the value of Enroth to the Sabres? You did see he helped get 2 points this week. BTW...I think Enroth makes the perfect backup. Bigger goaltenders usually need more work. The spritely small active goaltenders seem to be able to step in better with less work in my opinion. He is the #2 goaltender for all purposes right now. Lalime is the emergency goaltender. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
spndnchz Posted February 17, 2011 Report Share Posted February 17, 2011 Word is the LA Kings tried to get Vanek. Sabres refused. #theList Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PASabreFan Posted February 17, 2011 Report Share Posted February 17, 2011 Word is the LA Kings tried to get Vanek. Sabres refused. #theList Source? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Taro T Posted February 17, 2011 Report Share Posted February 17, 2011 ...and IMO he should have traded Kotalik and MacArthur and kept the picks. The Sabres were going nowhere fast the last couple of years and should have been doing everything they can to stockpile picks. And if he does that 'he's throwing away the season.' And probably the next one as well as draft picks rarely become everyday players at 18. There is no way that the team was going to allow that to be the message heading into the stretch run nor the next season's ticket sales drive. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
spndnchz Posted February 17, 2011 Report Share Posted February 17, 2011 Source? Sorry. GR550 said it, not sure where they heard it. Wayne Simmonds and some other 'stuff' involved. I guess not enough. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
X. Benedict Posted February 17, 2011 Report Share Posted February 17, 2011 Sorry. GR550 said it, not sure where they heard it. Wayne Simmonds and some other 'stuff' involved. I guess not enough. I'm salvating a little. Wayne Simmonds makes perfect sense for this team. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LabattBlue Posted February 17, 2011 Report Share Posted February 17, 2011 And if he does that 'he's throwing away the season.' And probably the next one as well as draft picks rarely become everyday players at 18. There is no way that the team was going to allow that to be the message heading into the stretch run nor the next season's ticket sales drive. I disagree in terms of the season being "thrown away". It's not like Kotalik and MacArthur were going to be the difference in terms of a deep cup run nor(at least in the case of Kotalik) were going to be re-signed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LabattBlue Posted February 17, 2011 Report Share Posted February 17, 2011 Sorry. GR550 said it, not sure where they heard it. Wayne Simmonds and some other 'stuff' involved. I guess not enough. ...it all depends on what was the "other stuff". Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Taro T Posted February 17, 2011 Report Share Posted February 17, 2011 I disagree in terms of the season being "thrown away". It's not like Kotalik and MacArthur were going to be the difference in terms of a deep cup run nor(at least in the case of Kotalik) were going to be re-signed. We'll have to disagree on that one then as I don't see any way that the folks at GR and the Snooze don't have a field day inciting the 'they're not even standing pat, they're moving backwards; they know this season is a lost cause' mobs if the Sabres did only move current assets for future assets. I don't see that selling when they're on the cusp of the playoffs (year they traded away Kotalik) and I absolutely don't see the Sabres being able to sell a future for present attitude when they're in 1st in their division. (MacArthur trade) Granted, in reality Torres was no upgrade, but on paper he provided something the Sabres were lacking and MacArthur was something they seem to have a plethora of. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Eleven Posted February 17, 2011 Report Share Posted February 17, 2011 Sorry. GR550 said it, not sure where they heard it. Wayne Simmonds and some other 'stuff' involved. I guess not enough. I don't remember them talking about any other stuff. Sounded like Simmonds for Vanek, which is ridiculous. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lanny Posted February 17, 2011 Report Share Posted February 17, 2011 I'm salvating a little. Wayne Simmonds makes perfect sense for this team. Simmonds is a nice player, but if a 3rd line winger is the main player coming back for Vanek, no thanks. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Calvin Posted February 17, 2011 Report Share Posted February 17, 2011 Simmonds is a nice player, but if a 3rd line winger is the main player coming back for Vanek, no thanks. How about Miller & Vanek for Quick, Kopitar and Simmonds/prospect? (haven't looked at cap hits, contracts, etc) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LGR4GM Posted February 17, 2011 Report Share Posted February 17, 2011 You have to factor in their contracts, Fisher is signed for next season and Connolly is not. Same with Versteeg. Of course you have to factor in their contracts but in some ways connolly's contract is more attractive to some teams because in 3months hes gone or if you really like you can resign him. Hecht is interesting because he still has time left on his contract and is a veteran even if he is playing like garbage this year. The point is that with all of the players traded so far a 1st round pick for connolly is not as ludicrous as it might have been a month ago because players similar to him are going for that and more. Desperate teams are willing to trade a pick for a guy that could make them a better team. The sabres should sell given the high market and the need for this team to stop wallowing in mediocrity (just making the playoffs barely) and start being a contender (as in making the playoffs and sustaining a run deep in) A team like dallas for instance if richards is injured could trade for a connolly because they really only need him to help them in their playoff bid. It depends more on the team i feel then the contract. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LGR4GM Posted February 17, 2011 Report Share Posted February 17, 2011 First Vanek for anything other than a first round pick a current decent player and a good prospect is worthless. Second our favorite trading partners San Jose have 4 amazingly skilled centers, Marleu (yes ik he plays wing too) Thorton, Pavelski, and Couture. What if we trade them Connolly and a 2rnd or later pick for pavelski or even maybe couture. We need a strong agressive center Because even with roy we are weak in the middle. Lets throw down and trade for a guy who is still young and plays well. He would definately be a better option then connolly or hecht. Granted SJ would have to be willing to trade and idk if they would be but we need to focus on teams with strong centers and find one. FA is going to have some slim pickings and I dont think the sabres could trade for a high enough draft pick to get a starter for next year. What do you think? Pavelski for Connolly and 3rd or 2nd pick? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Two or less Posted February 17, 2011 Report Share Posted February 17, 2011 Sorry. GR550 said it, not sure where they heard it. Wayne Simmonds and some other 'stuff' involved. I guess not enough. Los Angeles has been very active on the trade front, with reports claiming Lombardi has inquired about New York Rangers right wing Marian Gaborik and Buffalo Sabres sniper Thomas Vanek. While neither Gaborik nor Vanek appear to be on the market, Lombardi is looking elsewhere and is believed to be dangling the likes of Wayne Simmonds as trade bait. Link- http://www.thefourthperiod.com/news/lak110209.html :thumbsup: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LGR4GM Posted February 17, 2011 Report Share Posted February 17, 2011 due to the earlier discussion about the sabres and rentals this article from the fourth period might be interesting as it indicates regier will not trade for rental players Sabres will not get rentals It suggests that the sabres are shopping Connolly who might be interesting for columbus which just lost brassard. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.