Taro T Posted July 8, 2014 Report Share Posted July 8, 2014 No. Both of these. Once more, with feeling: there is NFW that #1 or #2 overall in next year's draft is getting traded. There is ONE and only ONE way the top pick is traded. If the team w/ pick 1 truly considers McDavid & Eichel equivalent and the team w/ pick 2 is someone like an FLA based team or Calgary and the team at 2 desperately wants McDavid. It the becomes Barkov/Drouin/Bennett + Eichel for McDavid. I doubt it's gonna happen, and it would only be plausible w/ a very few (if any) teams at 1, but there's roughly the same chance of it happening as 14 had of getting drawn this year. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LastPommerFan Posted July 8, 2014 Report Share Posted July 8, 2014 I'd like him to combine a prospect(s) and pick for a current proven NHL'er to give them some sort of offensive foundation to start with. This year. I like the rest of the moves he's made. This is the only difference between your position and those ok with another year of terribility. We see more value in keeping the prospect and pick and getting the additional benefit of a better player with that pick. You think the talent is already on contract, and it's time to convert futures into real-time assets. No one hates winning, no one wants players to half ass it, no one is addicted to losing, no one has delusions that we're getting a parade next June. Just two reasonable options on what to do with the three different classes of NHL Team Assets (Picks, Prospects, Players) and how to assemble the best roster possible for 2015-2016 and beyond. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MattPie Posted July 8, 2014 Report Share Posted July 8, 2014 I'm pretty sure the majority supported the Pominville and Hodgson deals. Just because the team didn't go into immediate off-the-cliff tank mode, you can't use hindsight to say they should have done so then when the majority, at the time, supported what was going on. I'd like him to combine a prospect(s) and pick for a current proven NHL'er to give them some sort of offensive foundation to start with. This year. I like the rest of the moves he's made. I'd say a Moulson-equivalent is about the best we're going to get back in a trade. Do we need more of that type of player for the next 2-3 years? I doubt a player with 4+ years on his contract gets traded unless the contract is a bad one. In 2-3 years, ideally 3 of the 5 high picks we've taken make the NHL. Unless we've traded 1-2 of the more promising prospects away for Moulson-equivalent. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Claude_Verret Posted July 8, 2014 Report Share Posted July 8, 2014 I'm pretty sure the majority supported the Pominville and Hodgson deals. Just because the team didn't go into immediate off-the-cliff tank mode, you can't use hindsight to say they should have done so then when the majority, at the time, supported what was going on. When Pommers was traded that signaled that DR had finally given up on a failed core and the Sabres had entered tank mode, and with the season already lost and the Sabres sitting in the bottom five in the league what did they do? Win a bunch of meaningless games under RR that served no other purpose than to shut us out of the type difference makers we needed most in an extremely deep draft. Wasted, meaningless wins in an already lost season. At the time, there was much discussion and consternation on the board over this lost opportunity as I recall. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JJFIVEOH Posted July 8, 2014 Report Share Posted July 8, 2014 This is the only difference between your position and those ok with another year of terribility. We see more value in keeping the prospect and pick and getting the additional benefit of a better player with that pick. You think the talent is already on contract, and it's time to convert futures into real-time assets. No one hates winning, no one wants players to half ass it, no one is addicted to losing, no one has delusions that we're getting a parade next June. Just two reasonable options on what to do with the three different classes of NHL Team Assets (Picks, Prospects, Players) and how to assemble the best roster possible for 2015-2016 and beyond. I'd say a Moulson-equivalent is about the best we're going to get back in a trade. Do we need more of that type of player for the next 2-3 years? I doubt a player with 4+ years on his contract gets traded unless the contract is a bad one. In 2-3 years, ideally 3 of the 5 high picks we've taken make the NHL. Unless we've traded 1-2 of the more promising prospects away for Moulson-equivalent. I think we are so deep in prospects (even more so after next year) that we can afford to lose one and a pick to get another Moulson. He's a consistent mid 30 goal scorer which is tough to come by. He still managed to score 20+ this year while playing for three teams, half of that with the worst offensive team in 75 years. For the pro-tankers that shouldn't create that many more wins, but it will help to create some chemistry this year so the kids have something to gel with. Instead of expecting them to be the ones to create the chemistry when they get here. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LastPommerFan Posted July 8, 2014 Report Share Posted July 8, 2014 I think we are so deep in prospects (even more so after next year) that we can afford to lose one and a pick to get another Moulson. He's a consistent mid 30 goal scorer which is tough to come by. He still managed to score 20+ this year while playing for three teams, half of that with the worst offensive team in 75 years. For the pro-tankers that shouldn't create that many more wins, but it will help to create some chemistry this year so the kids have something to gel with. Instead of expecting them to be the ones to create the chemistry when they get here. I think with Moulson, Gionta, and Gorges, we have the vet leadership we need for now. Girgensons, Myers, Hodgson and Ennis provide some nice bridge expirience between the vets and the kids. I don't think we can get better than a low 20-goal scorer for anything short of ours or the isle first next year, and I think that's far too steep a price to pay for a guy who isn't going to help in the long term. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JJFIVEOH Posted July 8, 2014 Report Share Posted July 8, 2014 When Pommers was traded that signaled that DR had finally given up on a failed core and the Sabres had entered tank mode, and with the season already lost and the Sabres sitting in the bottom five in the league what did they do? Win a bunch of meaningless games under RR that served no other purpose than to shut us out of the type difference makers we needed most in an extremely deep draft. Wasted, meaningless wins in an already lost season. At the time, there was much discussion and consternation on the board over this lost opportunity as I recall. My point is, don't use hindsight from a vague timeframe to prove a point. It's counterproductive and lazy. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IKnowPhysics Posted July 8, 2014 Report Share Posted July 8, 2014 (edited) They may not have enjoyed losing, but they sure as hell enjoyed not winning. I hope that the GDT's this year don't get cluttered up with tank scenarios games after game after game. It's going to scare a lot of people off because it does get repetitive. Oh, they gonna. Or I'm just expressing my opinion like everybody else on this thread. Edited July 8, 2014 by IKnowPhysics Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Claude_Verret Posted July 8, 2014 Report Share Posted July 8, 2014 My point is, don't use hindsight from a vague timeframe to prove a point. It's counterproductive and lazy. Not following. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MattPie Posted July 8, 2014 Report Share Posted July 8, 2014 I think we are so deep in prospects (even more so after next year) that we can afford to lose one and a pick to get another Moulson. He's a consistent mid 30 goal scorer which is tough to come by. He still managed to score 20+ this year while playing for three teams, half of that with the worst offensive team in 75 years. For the pro-tankers that shouldn't create that many more wins, but it will help to create some chemistry this year so the kids have something to gel with. Instead of expecting them to be the ones to create the chemistry when they get here. I think with Moulson, Gionta, and Gorges, we have the vet leadership we need for now. Girgensons, Myers, Hodgson and Ennis provide some nice bridge expirience between the vets and the kids. I don't think we can get better than a low 20-goal scorer for anything short of ours or the isle first next year, and I think that's far too steep a price to pay for a guy who isn't going to help in the long term. I see it this way: the prospect and pick (at best the StL 1st) that go out for this 20-30 goal scorer will be locked up for at least 6-7 years as long as the Sabres do all the basic qualifying offers and whatnot. I'm not buying that trading away 4-5 years (after they establish in the NHL) of two probably good players for (as you admit) not many more wins this year and (hopefully) chemistry with the younger players is worth the trade. It's mortgaging the future for some (?) success today. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JJFIVEOH Posted July 8, 2014 Report Share Posted July 8, 2014 That 'probably my' applies to the first overall pick as well. There is no mortgaging the future to bring in a proven scorer when you have twenty 1st and 2nd round picks in a four year span. There won't be enough room for all of them as it is. At least trading for another Moulson, you know for a fact you have a proven NHL forward. I can see your point totally if we had limited draft picks, but that's not the case. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MattPie Posted July 8, 2014 Report Share Posted July 8, 2014 That 'probably my' applies to the first overall pick as well. There is no mortgaging the future to bring in a proven scorer when you have twenty 1st and 2nd round picks in a four year span. There won't be enough room for all of them as it is. At least trading for another Moulson, you know for a fact you have a proven NHL forward. I can see your point totally if we had limited draft picks, but that's not the case. Fair enough. I figure that those 1st-rounders are a 50% hit rate and the 2nd rounders are more like 25% (I don't even know if I'd go that far) so of the 20 we're only going to see 7 really good players, and I think we have at least 7 holes in the line-up to fill. :) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JJFIVEOH Posted July 8, 2014 Report Share Posted July 8, 2014 Fair enough. I figure that those 1st-rounders are a 50% hit rate and the 2nd rounders are more like 25% (I don't even know if I'd go that far) so of the 20 we're only going to see 7 really good players, and I think we have at least 7 holes in the line-up to fill. :) Sorry, I was wrong. We're down to 19 I forgot about the Gorges trade. I just wanna see a little veteran scoring is all. Let the pieces fall in place and see how the season turns out. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Crusader1969 Posted July 9, 2014 Report Share Posted July 9, 2014 mike schopp said it well today "this is the most important sabres season of our lives" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SabresBillsFan Posted July 9, 2014 Report Share Posted July 9, 2014 (edited) mike schopp said it well today "this is the most important sabres season of our lives" Yeah no kidding I'm thinking all these signings hurt us and I think the new front runners might be Arizona, Nashville, Carolina. It's going to be interesting. Wouldn't it be messed up that the guy that started the whole tank process ends up with McDavid! Edited July 9, 2014 by SabresBillsFan Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ghost of Dwight Drane Posted July 9, 2014 Report Share Posted July 9, 2014 The vaunted PP1 of Daigle-Bonk-Yashin-Berrard-Phillips Look it up kids.....look it up...... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bunomatic Posted July 9, 2014 Report Share Posted July 9, 2014 Man its going to be fun watching Garth Snows antics this year as he squirms under the pressure of potentially losing a generational talent. Hopefully the boneheaded moves continue. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Huckleberry Posted July 9, 2014 Report Share Posted July 9, 2014 Man its going to be fun watching Garth Snows antics this year as he squirms under the pressure of potentially losing a generational talent. Hopefully the boneheaded moves continue. here is to a nice injury riddled islanders season :beer: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PromoTheRobot Posted July 9, 2014 Report Share Posted July 9, 2014 The tank being over does not mark the end of losing, just the end of trying to lose. I also can envision the disappointment when don't get McDavid. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PASabreFan Posted July 9, 2014 Report Share Posted July 9, 2014 The tank being over does not mark the end of losing, just the end of trying to lose. I also can envision the disappointment when don't get McDavid. In two years, McDavid will be a villain. All the superstars get booed in Buffalo. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Claude_Verret Posted July 9, 2014 Report Share Posted July 9, 2014 (edited) In two years, McDavid will be a villain. All the superstars get booed in Buffalo. Yep. Only in Buffalo. <_< Edited July 9, 2014 by Claude_Verret Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MattPie Posted July 9, 2014 Report Share Posted July 9, 2014 Yep. Only in Buffalo. <_< Yeah, it's just Buffalo. It's not like the guys here in Philly on the radio said during the recent Giroux arrest, "Damn, why couldn't this have been Crosby." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Byebye Posted July 12, 2014 Report Share Posted July 12, 2014 (edited) Here is a scenario, that I believe to be very likely. I'm hoping that most of you will be happy with it, if not, please respond so I can post your name in "things I give zero fU©ks about“. Last part was a joke, laugh a little you uptight a§§HOLE! Contrary to what I believe to be as 60% of this boards opinion, the Buffalo Sabres will not tank this season! They will come out every game skating like they want to win! Thanks Nolan! Fortunately though, we will still finish last place. Thanks Darcy and Murray, well mostly Darcy. The fact of the matter is, that we are, in my opinion, icing the worst team in the NHL. Yes we have a ton of talent, just undeveloped at this point. Edited July 12, 2014 by Naulter8 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
inkman Posted July 12, 2014 Report Share Posted July 12, 2014 Contrary to what I believe to be as 60% of this boards opinion, the Buffalo Sabres will not tank this season! They were trying to win last season too. Well, the players were, minus Ehrhoff. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Byebye Posted July 12, 2014 Report Share Posted July 12, 2014 (edited) They were trying to win last season too. Well, the players were, minus Ehrhoff. Inkman, I must say, I am very disappointed in you... How can you forget to mention Leno! Concur with your statement though. Edited July 12, 2014 by Naulter8 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts