Eleven Posted November 3, 2013 Report Share Posted November 3, 2013 Vanek with his first goal for the Islanders this evening. He always did dominate against the hated Bruins... still doing so with the Isles, I guess. :D As long as they don't slash his ankle and get away with no punishment, sure. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Iron Crotch Posted November 3, 2013 Report Share Posted November 3, 2013 (edited) Watching the replays of the Isles game, you can just see the joy on Vanek's face after his goal and his assist. It is obvious how happy he is to be out of Buffalo and playing on a real team. http://www.hockeybuzz.com/blog.php?post_id=55362#.UnWwUPnZg3Z Edited November 3, 2013 by Potato Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Eleven Posted November 3, 2013 Report Share Posted November 3, 2013 Watching the replays of the Isles game, you can just see the joy on Vanek's face after his goal and his assist. It is obvious how happy he is to be out of Buffalo and playing on a real team. There are at least two things wrong with this: (1) All hockey players show joy when they score. Even Vanek, as a Sabre, four goals down, would smile and hug his teammates. A first goal for a new team? That's naturally a BIG joy thing, no matter where from or where to. You can look at clips of Bernier if you need to. (2) The Islanders are not a "real team." There's only one "real team" in that entire division, actually, and it's mainly south, not mainly east, of here. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ghost of Dwight Drane Posted November 9, 2013 Report Share Posted November 9, 2013 Good News! If the season ended today, the Islanders would have the #8 and a lottery pick!!! We're in!!! Oh.....nevermind......... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dudacek Posted November 9, 2013 Report Share Posted November 9, 2013 I asked upthread and no one responded. If you were Snow and the Islanders pick eighth, would you defer the first rounder to next year? I'd have to be pretty damn sure of the player sitting at eight to give up a potential lottery pick in 2015. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ghost of Dwight Drane Posted November 9, 2013 Report Share Posted November 9, 2013 I asked upthread and no one responded. If you were Snow and the Islanders pick eighth, would you defer the first rounder to next year? I'd have to be pretty damn sure of the player sitting at eight to give up a potential lottery pick in 2015. The #8 pick this year is worth a #15-20 the next year.... At #8 your odds are what? 30-1 at getting the #1 pick? This is the point I hate so much when people quote the draft picks on trades. The Sabres could have traded Vanek and Miller a few months ago and added live bodies to this team TODAY...in a deep draft. Instead the numbers look pretty in accumulating 1st and 2nd round picks, but you may not see a live body in here for Vanek until October 2015....and it will be an 18 year old....and odds are it will take until 2020 for that player to have any sort of impact that could even rival Vanek's. If you are Snow and have a lottery pick...you defer until 2015 100% of the time. Only a total loser would give the 2014. You are hoping that you perform worse than a non-playoff team and are hoping for a 3% chance at the top pick? That's Sabres math....and that is why nobody should have 1 ounce of hope in the structure of this organization right now...... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dudacek Posted November 9, 2013 Report Share Posted November 9, 2013 In 2012: Deferring to pick Dumba at 7 costs the Wild their chance to get Pominville (or pick Zadorov). Deferring to pick Pouliot at 8 costs the Penguins their chance to get Iginla (or pick Klimchuk). ....or if the Hurricanes kept the pick, it would have cost them their chance to draft Lindholm. Deferring to pick Trouba at 9 costs the Jets their chance to draft Morrissey Deferring to pick Koekkoek at 10 costs the Lightning their chance to draft Drouin And, just because it's interesting, the 11th pick in 2012 was originally Colorado's and theoretically would have cost them MacKinnon. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ghost of Dwight Drane Posted November 9, 2013 Report Share Posted November 9, 2013 In 2012: Deferring to pick Dumba at 7 costs the Wild their chance to get Pominville (or pick Zadorov). Deferring to pick Pouliot at 8 costs the Penguins their chance to get Iginla (or pick Klimchuk). ....or if the Hurricanes kept the pick, it would have cost them their chance to draft Lindholm. Deferring to pick Trouba at 9 costs the Jets their chance to draft Morrissey Deferring to pick Koekkoek at 10 costs the Lightning their chance to draft Drouin And, just because it's interesting, the 11th pick in 2012 was originally Colorado's and theoretically would have cost them MacKinnon. If I lived in a world where my goal was to be in a sh!ttier situation each year....I'd be posting this from the bedroom of a bound and gagged Jessica Alba.... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Eleven Posted November 9, 2013 Report Share Posted November 9, 2013 The #8 pick this year is worth a #15-20 the next year.... At #8 your odds are what? 30-1 at getting the #1 pick? This is the point I hate so much when people quote the draft picks on trades. The Sabres could have traded Vanek and Miller a few months ago and added live bodies to this team TODAY...in a deep draft. Instead the numbers look pretty in accumulating 1st and 2nd round picks, but you may not see a live body in here for Vanek until October 2015....and it will be an 18 year old....and odds are it will take until 2020 for that player to have any sort of impact that could even rival Vanek's. If you are Snow and have a lottery pick...you defer until 2015 100% of the time. Only a total loser would give the 2014. You are hoping that you perform worse than a non-playoff team and are hoping for a 3% chance at the top pick? That's Sabres math....and that is why nobody should have 1 ounce of hope in the structure of this organization right now...... That's my problem with this style of rebuild. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SwampD Posted November 9, 2013 Report Share Posted November 9, 2013 That's my problem with this style of rebuild. Rebuild. :wallbash: I just can't believe that anyone bought this. I really can't. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Eleven Posted November 9, 2013 Report Share Posted November 9, 2013 Rebuild. :wallbash: I just can't believe that anyone bought this. I really can't. I should have said "haphazard roster restructuring," but we both get the point. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Robviously Posted November 9, 2013 Author Report Share Posted November 9, 2013 That's my problem with this style of rebuild. Everyone should have been traded before the draft last summer. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
shrader Posted November 9, 2013 Report Share Posted November 9, 2013 The islanders got that condition in the trade for one reason. It is insurance for them winning the lottery. The only way they keep the pick is if it winds up being #1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kristian Posted November 9, 2013 Report Share Posted November 9, 2013 That's my problem with this style of rebuild. Same here. You don't draft a bunch of kids, and just magically turn into a good team three years later. First, you need to draft the right players, not just the *best* ones. Secondly, you need to develop those players, perhaps barring one very high pick. Who's going to help these kids develop? Drew Freakin' Stafford, and Ville Lamo? For a succesful rebuild, you need a plan. So far, that plan appears to be unload-everyone-for-picks-except-the-really-expensive-and-really-bad-veterans-and-hope-to-god-you-strike-gold-in-the-draft-repeatedly. That isn't a rebuild, it's a game of complete chance. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Robviously Posted November 9, 2013 Author Report Share Posted November 9, 2013 The islanders got that condition in the trade for one reason. It is insurance for them winning the lottery. The only way they keep the pick is if it winds up being #1 Maybe, maybe not. If they really tank and end up with a top 5 pick, I think they'll keep it. It also depends how the draft shakes out (i.e. what happens in the WJC, and the junior seasons). Maybe there are 6 or 7 guys they really like. That said, if we end up with their 2015 1st round pick, I'm not horrified by that. It's supposed to be a stronger draft. Plus we took 6 guys in the first 3 rounds last year. I'm OK spacing out our big draft years a bit. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Koomkie Posted November 9, 2013 Report Share Posted November 9, 2013 Maybe, maybe not. If they really tank and end up with a top 5 pick, I think they'll keep it. It also depends how the draft shakes out (i.e. what happens in the WJC, and the junior seasons). Maybe there are 6 or 7 guys they really like. That said, if we end up with their 2015 1st round pick, I'm not horrified by that. It's supposed to be a stronger draft. Plus we took 6 guys in the first 3 rounds last year. I'm OK spacing out our big draft years a bit. that, and you have to assume that darcy will work his way into another 1st rounder this year with unloading Ott, Miller, possibly the Hoff. not saying he will get one straight up for these players (which i actually think he can) but i am sure he will trade up into the first round if the islanders decide to defer to next season. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Robviously Posted November 9, 2013 Author Report Share Posted November 9, 2013 that, and you have to assume that darcy will work his way into another 1st rounder this year with unloading Ott, Miller, possibly the Hoff. not saying he will get one straight up for these players (which i actually think he can) but i am sure he will trade up into the first round if the islanders decide to defer to next season. With the upcoming Ott, Miller, Moulson trades, plus the potential trades of Stafford and maybe someone young like Ennis or Myers, I'm hoping we get at least one more 2015 1st round pick (and hopefully a few more 2015 picks). Like I said, we loaded up on picks last year (in a strong draft year) and it wouldn't hurt to skip a year before seriously loading up again. We don't want everyone on our team to be the exact same age and we can target the next strong draft. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Eleven Posted November 9, 2013 Report Share Posted November 9, 2013 With the upcoming Ott, Miller, Moulson trades, plus the potential trades of Stafford and maybe someone young like Ennis or Myers, I'm hoping we get at least one more 2015 1st round pick (and hopefully a few more 2015 picks). Like I said, we loaded up on picks last year (in a strong draft year) and it wouldn't hurt to skip a year before seriously loading up again. We don't want everyone on our team to be the exact same age and we can target the next strong draft. What's wrong with acquiring players in return? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JJFIVEOH Posted November 9, 2013 Report Share Posted November 9, 2013 What's wrong with acquiring players in return? Nothing, we need more in return. It is possible to have too many picks, especially when you're already the youngest team in the league. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sabres Fan in NS Posted November 9, 2013 Report Share Posted November 9, 2013 Nothing, we need more in return. It is possible to have too many picks, especially when you're already the youngest team in the league. Oh, I don't know about that. Picks are assets that can be traded to another team that is also going into re-build mode to acquire good players who do not fit that teams re-build. Say, the Panthers, for example ......... :P Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TrueBlueGED Posted November 9, 2013 Report Share Posted November 9, 2013 What's wrong with acquiring players in return? Other than the fact that playoff rentals rarely, if ever, return players? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Eleven Posted November 9, 2013 Report Share Posted November 9, 2013 Other than the fact that playoff rentals rarely, if ever, return players? So trade them sooner. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hoss Posted November 9, 2013 Report Share Posted November 9, 2013 With the upcoming Ott, Miller, Moulson trades, plus the potential trades of Stafford and maybe someone young like Ennis or Myers, I'm hoping we get at least one more 2015 1st round pick (and hopefully a few more 2015 picks). Like I said, we loaded up on picks last year (in a strong draft year) and it wouldn't hurt to skip a year before seriously loading up again. We don't want everyone on our team to be the exact same age and we can target the next strong draft. I hope we get some prospects and 2015 picks as well. But I don't really care if we have picks in 14 or 15. I'm not saying you're of this thinking, but a lot of people want picks in 2015 because they think it's a great draft. Really, McDavid is the only reason this line of thinking exists. And it doesn't matter if you have 10 first rounders (obviously slightly enhances your chances in the lottery, but history suggests you're not getting that pick unless you're in the top two lottery slots). There is no sense in building up picks in hopes of a trade up either because nobody is trading the first pick of McDavid for anything. Not even ten first rounders. So trade them sooner. Mhm. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TrueBlueGED Posted November 9, 2013 Report Share Posted November 9, 2013 So trade them sooner. No doubt. But I think the time for that has passed. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Robviously Posted November 9, 2013 Author Report Share Posted November 9, 2013 What's wrong with acquiring players in return? Nothing. I want some top prospects too. When the Capitals had Forsberg to trade last year (and sent him to Nashville), we should have been all over that. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.