deluca67 Posted February 1, 2011 Report Share Posted February 1, 2011 Richards doesn't go to Market IMO. Gagne would be an awful chance. Talbot is a depth player 3rd line, Fleishman has heart trouble IIRC, Zherdev is head case, but tempting, Eaves I've always liked but for the chances he's had I would say his production hasn't been good, But adding these guys would hardly signify a rebuilding posture IMO. Giving any of the above guys multiyear deals is not a great addition for the franchise in the offseason. That's why I really do think there will be moves at the deadline this year. As I stated it would just be the start. Each just one of many building blocks needed. You don't like Gagne, target another talented player. Again, it doesn't all have to happen this off-season. Just make sure that when a player does become available like Horton, Byfuglien or Cammalleri you are ready to be aggressive and get into the mix. The Summer is going to be fun tossing around names of GM's and players. :thumbsup: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Weave Posted February 1, 2011 Report Share Posted February 1, 2011 I'd think this issue of talking with "employees" before you own the company goes somewhat like talking to UFA's before July1. UR not supposed to do it, but it happens. Paul Hamilton talked this afternoon about TG discussing player movement with Darcy before he had officially taken over. I don't think there is anything expressly wrong with the new owner-to-be expressing his desire about moving/keeping his emplyees-to-be. I assume as long as the new owner has the understanding of the current owner its all good. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ROC Sabres Posted February 1, 2011 Report Share Posted February 1, 2011 Why would trading away players for picks and prospects kill any cap space? Didn't think about it in a pick basis. That's the only way it would kill cap space. But how much better would the team be to toss the trash and get players in the AHL? We might find that gem in there but even with 10 picks in the draft we probably shouldn't expect much to be starting in the next year or 2. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tom webster Posted February 1, 2011 Report Share Posted February 1, 2011 Not sure if this was already posted but found it interesting. http://www.theglobeandmail.com/sports/hockey/sabrespace/article1889581/ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SDS Posted February 1, 2011 Report Share Posted February 1, 2011 this is a bit of an evolution here at sabrespace. does the website maintain a written policy on the matter? there's a lot i could venture here about fair use, but i reckon it's easier to have a policy like this rather than argue with other online publishers about the issue. which brings me round to a question i infrequently ponder: sabrespace makes money, no? (i don't mean to be thick about it. at the office, i see few ads on the site; at home, i see many of them.) Whole or large parts would not be considered fair use. Specific quotes are fine. As a courtesy, always include a link. As for making money - TBD pays the bills around here. SS wouldn't cover the costs if it had to stand alone. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Weave Posted February 1, 2011 Report Share Posted February 1, 2011 I don't know who would disagree with you on this. Clearly we should try to eliminate our dead weight for picks. That gives DR or whoever replaces him the opportunity to either make the picks or use them to sweeten the deal on a potential trade or use them for a RFA signing. I'm talking about going further than just moving the pending UFA's. IMO if you can get fair value out of any of our vets I say "move 'em". Collect as many picks as we can and start the rebuilding in earnest in the days leading up to the draft. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LabattBlue Posted February 1, 2011 Report Share Posted February 1, 2011 I'm talking about going further than just moving the pending UFA's. IMO if you can get fair value out of any of our vets I say "move 'em". Collect as many picks as we can and start the rebuilding in earnest in the days leading up to the draft. Who is it that you want to move that will bring in this windfall of picks? Collecting additional drafts picks may help somewhat, but they aren't going to add up to a #1 overall pick, and even if it did, there is no Gretzky, Lemeiux, Crosby, etc... in the upcoming draft. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Weave Posted February 1, 2011 Report Share Posted February 1, 2011 Who is it that you want to move that will bring in this windfall of picks? Collecting additional drafts picks may help somewhat, but they aren't going to add up to a #1 overall pick, and even if it did, there is no Gretzky, Lemeiux, Crosby, etc... in the upcoming draft. IMO noone should be off limits. Each player needs to be evaluated against any potential return. I doubt we get decent players in return so I am expecting picks. And the picks are good for alot more than just the draft itself. They are great trade fodder for players on other teams or they can be bundled to move up in the draft too. Unless Buffalo intends to go out and chase down a legit #1 center and #1 RW I am fully prepared to support as much as a 50% turnover on this team in the offseason. If we do go after a couple #1 forwards I don't mind a smaller turnover. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cdexchange Posted February 1, 2011 Report Share Posted February 1, 2011 As for making money - TBD pays the bills around here. SS wouldn't cover the costs if it had to stand alone. Good to know. And thank you, Scott, for not peppering my eyeballs with ads when I come here. :thumbsup: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
That Aud Smell Posted February 1, 2011 Report Share Posted February 1, 2011 Whole or large parts would not be considered fair use. Specific quotes are fine. As a courtesy, always include a link. As for making money - TBD pays the bills around here. SS wouldn't cover the costs if it had to stand alone. thanks very much for the feedback, scott. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
shrader Posted February 1, 2011 Report Share Posted February 1, 2011 I'm talking about going further than just moving the pending UFA's. IMO if you can get fair value out of any of our vets I say "move 'em". Collect as many picks as we can and start the rebuilding in earnest in the days leading up to the draft. Those guys could very easily come into play as a part of a package deal in the offseason. They don't need to ship off everything right away next month. The UFAs are the obvious top priorities though if they do want a return. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Patty16 Posted February 1, 2011 Report Share Posted February 1, 2011 so trade away the pending FAs and dead weight, replace them with no one, and hoard picks for players that are years away from playing. How do we make the playoffs next year or the year after then? Hope that gerbe and ennis turn into superstars? ?? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Derrico Posted February 1, 2011 Report Share Posted February 1, 2011 so trade away the pending FAs and dead weight, replace them with no one, and hoard picks for players that are years away from playing. How do we make the playoffs next year or the year after then? Hope that gerbe and ennis turn into superstars? ?? No, we're not saying they actually have to make those picks. Draft picks always seem to be part of any future trade. You stock pile the picks then use them to try and make some trades happen (mainly because the crop of Free Agents this offseason doesn't look overly appealing). Also, if we were to make a play on a Restricted Free Agent then we'd be losing draft picks in order to do it. This ensures our farm system isn't completely bare if we were to take that approach. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Weave Posted February 1, 2011 Report Share Posted February 1, 2011 Those guys could very easily come into play as a part of a package deal in the offseason. They don't need to ship off everything right away next month. The UFAs are the obvious top priorities though if they do want a return. Agreed. It seems to me that we don't have much that could be packaged and traded straight up for upgraded players. That is why I am focusing on draft picks. They are easier to package and move for players. But what you are suggesting does essentially the same thing and I would be happy to see that happen too. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Weave Posted February 1, 2011 Report Share Posted February 1, 2011 so trade away the pending FAs and dead weight, replace them with no one, and hoard picks for players that are years away from playing. How do we make the playoffs next year or the year after then? Hope that gerbe and ennis turn into superstars? ?? Did you bother to read the whole post? This guy gets it: No, we're not saying they actually have to make those picks. Draft picks always seem to be part of any future trade. You stock pile the picks then use them to try and make some trades happen (mainly because the crop of Free Agents this offseason doesn't look overly appealing). Also, if we were to make a play on a Restricted Free Agent then we'd be losing draft picks in order to do it. This ensures our farm system isn't completely bare if we were to take that approach. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Patty16 Posted February 1, 2011 Report Share Posted February 1, 2011 Did you bother to read the whole post? This guy gets it: Yea ive read a lot of posts. Stockpiling picks sounds great. And yea we could go after a RFA with some picks, sure. But any RFA worht going after will cost 1st rounds picks a la Vanek (remember how many he would have cost). So are you intimating we have players who are going to get us 1st or 2nd round picks that we can flip for an RFA? or saying we are gonna stockpile 3rd rounders to trade for that franchise building block?? I get the gist of the posts, and the ideas are great if we were playing ps3 or xbox. But to say we should trade dead weight for picks, then turn them into RFA's and subsequent trades is unrealistic. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BuffalOhio Posted February 1, 2011 Report Share Posted February 1, 2011 Haven't read any previous posts. Would like to be on record as saying I'd like to see the Sabres resign Montador. He's brought a lot of toughness, grit, and passion to the Sabres, and he's been solid except for some bad gaffes, which all defensemen make from time to time. Buh - bye : Connolly Niedermayer Grier Rivet Lalime Who else is going to be a UFA? Hecht? I think Stafford will be given a reasonable offer. Not sure he will take it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Weave Posted February 1, 2011 Report Share Posted February 1, 2011 Yea ive read a lot of posts. Stockpiling picks sounds great. And yea we could go after a RFA with some picks, sure. But any RFA worht going after will cost 1st rounds picks a la Vanek (remember how many he would have cost). So are you intimating we have players who are going to get us 1st or 2nd round picks that we can flip for an RFA? or saying we are gonna stockpile 3rd rounders to trade for that franchise building block?? I get the gist of the posts, and the ideas are great if we were playing ps3 or xbox. But to say we should trade dead weight for picks, then turn them into RFA's and subsequent trades is unrealistic. Torres was worth a 2nd. Moore was worth a 2nd. Surely we have guys worth what Torres and Moore were worth. And if I have collected two 2nd rounders in addition to my normal 2nd rounder I now have options. I could give up my 1st rounder to go after an RFA. I could package the three 2nds in a trade for a contracted player. I could trade those 2nd's to get back into the 1st round too. Multiply that by the 5 UFA's we have and a couple vets under contract and you've got alot of flexibility for bringing in talent. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
X. Benedict Posted February 1, 2011 Report Share Posted February 1, 2011 I think Stafford will be given a reasonable offer. Not sure he will take it. Which would mean arbitration. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Patty16 Posted February 1, 2011 Report Share Posted February 1, 2011 Torres was worth a 2nd. Moore was worth a 2nd. Surely we have guys worth what Torres and Moore were worth. And if I have collected two 2nd rounders in addition to my normal 2nd rounder I now have options. I could give up my 1st rounder to go after an RFA. I could package the three 2nds in a trade for a contracted player. I could trade those 2nd's to get back into the 1st round too. Multiply that by the 5 UFA's we have and a couple vets under contract and you've got alot of flexibility for bringing in talent. They'll certainly have some cap room. extra picks cant hurt either. If you are looking for major improvement relatively fast, player fro player is really the only way to do it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Weave Posted February 1, 2011 Report Share Posted February 1, 2011 They'll certainly have some cap room. extra picks cant hurt either. If you are looking for major improvement relatively fast, player fro player is really the only way to do it. I'd have to go and look at trade history over the last couple years but my sense is that there isn't much player A for player B type trades that happen anymore in the league thanks to the salary cap. I think it is more draft pick for player A or prospect for player A type trades these days. I really believe that player for player trades are going to be much more difficult to pull off than picks/prospects for player trades. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Weave Posted February 1, 2011 Report Share Posted February 1, 2011 Which would mean arbitration. :wacko: After the Kennedy and MacArthur arbitration debacles.. DO. NOT. WANT. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
X. Benedict Posted February 1, 2011 Report Share Posted February 1, 2011 :wacko: After the Kennedy and MacArthur arbitration debacles.. DO. NOT. WANT. MacArthur was Atlanta's choice. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
spndnchz Posted February 1, 2011 Report Share Posted February 1, 2011 I'd have to go and look at trade history over the last couple years but my sense is that there isn't much player A for player B type trades that happen anymore in the league thanks to the salary cap. I think it is more draft pick for player A or prospect for player A type trades these days. I really believe that player for player trades are going to be much more difficult to pull off than picks/prospects for player trades. Haven't had a chance to look at the numbers but I'd think with the salary cap issues of most teams, they are looking to unload players more often than trade p4p. Accumulating picks isn't a poor idea when it comes to getting players from those teams close to the cap. Teams far away from the cap won't care as much and be lookin' 4 players IMO. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Weave Posted February 1, 2011 Report Share Posted February 1, 2011 MacArthur was Atlanta's choice. I was referring to the arbitration award amounts. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.