dudacek Posted May 3, 2017 Report Share Posted May 3, 2017 Your chance to say who you would target, what you would pay, and how stupid the other guy's proposal is. I'll start: Evander Kane, Justin Bailey and pick 8 For Cam Fowler and pick 26 Depends on how the playoffs unfold, but there is a good chance that the Ducks look at Theodore and Montour and say "Cam's great, but do we really need to pay him $7 million?" Each team trades from a position of strength to fill a position of weakness. Contract situations match Solves the Ducks expansion problem. Fire away. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mustache of God Posted May 3, 2017 Report Share Posted May 3, 2017 Jack Eichel for a Erik Karlsson Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TrueBlueGED Posted May 3, 2017 Report Share Posted May 3, 2017 My preferred targets would be two of Fowler, Trouba Ekholm, Ellis. I don't expect any of them to be moved, so combining my preferences with expectations, I arrive at players more like Vatanen and Brodin. Kane and a 3rd for Brodin. #8, Bailey/Baptiste, Girgensons for Vatanen and #27. Brodin-Risto McCabe-Vatanen Guhle-Antipin Falk Bogo banished somewhere. Anywhere. Gorges in the A. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Swedesessed Posted May 3, 2017 Report Share Posted May 3, 2017 My preferred targets would be two of Fowler, Trouba Ekholm, Ellis. I don't expect any of them to be moved, so combining my preferences with expectations, I arrive at players more like Vatanen and Brodin. Kane and a 3rd for Brodin. #8, Bailey/Baptiste, Girgensons for Vatanen and #27. Brodin-Risto McCabe-Vatanen Guhle-Antipin Falk Bogo banished somewhere. Anywhere. Gorges in the A. I like these thoughts Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
thewookie1 Posted May 3, 2017 Report Share Posted May 3, 2017 My preferred targets would be two of Fowler, Trouba Ekholm, Ellis. I don't expect any of them to be moved, so combining my preferences with expectations, I arrive at players more like Vatanen and Brodin. Kane and a 3rd for Brodin. #8, Bailey/Baptiste, Girgensons for Vatanen and #27. Brodin-Risto McCabe-Vatanen Guhle-Antipin Falk Bogo banished somewhere. Anywhere. Gorges in the A. Like the 1st trade, still disinterested in Vantenen though. Rather go after the cheaper Trevor Van Reimdyke Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TrueBlueGED Posted May 3, 2017 Report Share Posted May 3, 2017 Like the 1st trade, still disinterested in Vantenen though. Rather go after the cheaper Trevor Van Reimdyke Vatanen certainly had a tough year, but I think he's classic "square peg round hole" for Carlyle. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
inkman Posted May 3, 2017 Report Share Posted May 3, 2017 Is there anyway in hell Anaheim trades Fowler? He's there best dman and maybe best player. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TrueBlueGED Posted May 3, 2017 Report Share Posted May 3, 2017 Is there anyway in hell Anaheim trades Fowler? He's there best dman and maybe best player. It'd have to be a Godfather offer. They'll flip Vatanen and use that money to extend Fowler. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GASabresIUFAN Posted May 3, 2017 Report Share Posted May 3, 2017 Your chance to say who you would target, what you would pay, and how stupid the other guy's proposal is. I'll start: Evander Kane, Justin Bailey and pick 8 For Cam Fowler and pick 26 Depends on how the playoffs unfold, but there is a good chance that the Ducks look at Theodore and Montour and say "Cam's great, but do we really need to pay him $7 million?" Each team trades from a position of strength to fill a position of weakness. Contract situations match Solves the Ducks expansion problem. Fire away. Love the topic and love Cam Fowler, but is he a fit here? His job in Ana is primary PP qb and top pairing puck mover. We already have one of those and ours is bigger, more physical and at a better contract price going foward. Also there appears to be cliff in this draft after the 23rd prospect. I did a review of 10 recent top 31 draft lists from good sources like TSN, ISS, McKeens etc.. and 23 names appeared in at least 8 of 10 lists. The next level guys appear in 50% or less of the lists. I'll make a counter ANA proposal. Kane for Vatanen and Stoner. The money is similar between just Kane and Vatanen, but Kane only has one year left while Vatanen has 3. The sweetener is our taking of Stoner, who has one year left at 3.25, who should be back and healthy for next season. Stoner is a cheaper and imho better skating version of Gorges. He'd give us additional proven NHL depth and by taking him we are giving budget oriented Ana additional needed and wanted cap and salary relief. The reason for Vatanen is that he is a R hand D who can move the puck, add some offense and slot directly behind Risto as the focus of the 2nd pair. His three years will give us time to rebuild the D pipeline and for Guhle to develop into the role. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sabills Posted May 3, 2017 Report Share Posted May 3, 2017 (edited) Brodin and a 3rd from Minnesota for #8. Minnesota according to this :http://www.hockeysfuture.com/team-rankings/fall-team-rankings-2015-16/page/3(which is a year old, but is probably still fairly applicable since its post draft), their prospect line is very weak. They have no picks in rounds 1 or 2 this year, and none in round 2 next year. They are an aging team, and losing Brodin for nothing to the Expansion Draft as some predict would be rough. Sabres get a solid, young second line D-man (he was playing ~20 minutes a night for Minnesota last year) in a year with a weak-ish draft, and would have 2 seconds and 3 thirds this year, which is some decent ammo if they want to move up or grab another player. Minnesota gets some return for a guy they could lose anyways, and a chance to add a solid prospect. Edited May 3, 2017 by sabills Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
I-90 W Posted May 3, 2017 Report Share Posted May 3, 2017 (edited) Our #8 to LA for Derek Forbort. Former 2010 first round lhd dman. Has been having a hard time cracking LA lineup since being drafted due to their depth. Played well in LA last year, played a full season. Big boy, 6'4", 25 yo. Same birthday as me, but eleven years younger haha. LA would make that trade in a heartbeat, and we improve our blue line now. Edited May 3, 2017 by Saratoga Sabres Fan Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GASabresIUFAN Posted May 3, 2017 Report Share Posted May 3, 2017 Brodin and a 3rd from Minnesota for #8. Minnesota according to this :http://www.hockeysfuture.com/team-rankings/fall-team-rankings-2015-16/page/3(which is a year old, but is probably still fairly applicable since its post draft), their prospect line is very weak. They have no picks in rounds 1 or 2 this year, and none in round 2 next year. They are an aging team, and losing Brodin for nothing to the Expansion Draft as some predict would be rough. Sabres get a solid, young second line D-man (he was playing ~20 minutes a night for Minnesota last year) in a year with a weak-ish draft, and would have 2 seconds and 3 thirds this year, which is some decent ammo if they want to move up or grab another player. Minnesota gets some return for a guy they could lose anyways, and a chance to add a solid prospect. [ This is a very reasonable proposal and I can see Minn going for it. What about no trade at all now that we should be signing Antipin. With Vik, we now have Antipin, Bogo, Risto, McCabe, Guhle, Falk and Gorges under contract for next season. Since Antipin can play RD, you have the makings of a balanced D group already. McCabe Risto Guhle Antipin Gorges Bogo Falk Pick up a couple of inexpensive vets for depth next season and see what happens Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TrueBlueGED Posted May 3, 2017 Report Share Posted May 3, 2017 [ This is a very reasonable proposal and I can see Minn going for it. What about no trade at all now that we should be signing Antipin. With Vik, we now have Antipin, Bogo, Risto, McCabe, Guhle, Falk and Gorges under contract for next season. Since Antipin can play RD, you have the makings of a balanced D group already. McCabe Risto Guhle Antipin Gorges Bogo Falk Pick up a couple of inexpensive vets for depth next season and see what happens You spent all season making excuses for Bylsma because of the blue line, and you're okay going into next season with that? C'mon man! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Huckleberry Posted May 3, 2017 Report Share Posted May 3, 2017 Vatanen certainly had a tough year, but I think he's classic "square peg round hole" for Carlyle. He was paired with Bieksa the most, so no wonder he had a rough year :p Our #8 + bailey for Hanifin Or Reinhart for Hanifin Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GASabresIUFAN Posted May 3, 2017 Report Share Posted May 3, 2017 (edited) You spent all season making excuses for Bylsma because of the blue line, and you're okay going into next season with that? C'mon man!I never excused DD, I just said I didn't know if DD was the problem because he didn't have a real team to coach. I never said I was ok with that group, but it is an option based on the contracts already signed. Compared to last year it is an upgrade both in terms of cost, speed, puck moving skill and upside potential. Do I want Gorges to return? H-ll no. I don't want Bogo back either. I want a serious upgrade, just look at my earlier proposal. However, what if the new GM can't find the right trade? This maybe plan B. If Guhle and Antipin step up and play well and Bogo returns to the form he showed in the 2nd half last year, this group could be pretty solid. Edited May 3, 2017 by GASabresFan Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TrueBlueGED Posted May 3, 2017 Report Share Posted May 3, 2017 I never excused DD, I just said I didn't know if DD was the problem because he didn't have a real team to coach. I never said I was ok with that group, but it is an option based on the contracts already signed. Compared to last year it is an upgrade both in terms of cost, speed, puck moving skill and upside potential. Do I want Gorges to return? H-ll no. I don't want Bogo back either. I want a serious upgrade, just look at my earlier proposal. However, what if the new GM can't find the right trade? This maybe plan B. If Guhle and Antipin step up and play well and Bogo returns to the form he showed in the 2nd half last year, this group could be pretty solid. The thread is about what you would try to do. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dudacek Posted May 3, 2017 Author Report Share Posted May 3, 2017 Rasmus Asplund for Ryan Murray. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Radar Posted May 3, 2017 Report Share Posted May 3, 2017 Right now I would be looking for teams not able to protect defensemen in expansion draft. Next I look for deals after the entry draft. We're not going to draft a defenseman who will help us now. I think Kane is a tradeable asset to immediately improve our defense if we really don't think we can sign him we really need to get out now while he's had a good season. I'm last of all looking at free agency but that's in most cases overpaying. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GASabresIUFAN Posted May 3, 2017 Report Share Posted May 3, 2017 I'll make a counter ANA proposal. Kane for Vatanen and Stoner. The money is similar between just Kane and Vatanen, but Kane only has one year left while Vatanen has 3. The sweetener is our taking of Stoner, who has one year left at 3.25, who should be back and healthy for next season. Stoner is a cheaper and imho better skating version of Gorges. He'd give us additional proven NHL depth and by taking him we are giving budget oriented Ana additional needed and wanted cap and salary relief. The reason for Vatanen is that he is a R hand D who can move the puck, add some offense and slot directly behind Risto as the focus of the 2nd pair. His three years will give us time to rebuild the D pipeline and for Guhle to develop into the role. The thread is about what you would try to do. Does the above proposal not qualify? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Crusader1969 Posted May 3, 2017 Report Share Posted May 3, 2017 [ This is a very reasonable proposal and I can see Minn going for it. What about no trade at all now that we should be signing Antipin. With Vik, we now have Antipin, Bogo, Risto, McCabe, Guhle, Falk and Gorges under contract for next season. Since Antipin can play RD, you have the makings of a balanced D group already. McCabe Risto Guhle Antipin Gorges Bogo Falk Pick up a couple of inexpensive vets for depth next season and see what happens Right now I would be looking for teams not able to protect defensemen in expansion draft. Next I look for deals after the entry draft. We're not going to draft a defenseman who will help us now. I think Kane is a tradeable asset to immediately improve our defense if we really don't think we can sign him we really need to get out now while he's had a good season. I'm last of all looking at free agency but that's in most cases overpaying. are we still that desperate for Dmen after adding Guhle and Antipin? I don't think they should be. If I'm making a trade im contacting a team like Nashville who have Subban, Elkholm, Josi and Ellis worth protecting. Will you be able to pry one of them out at a discount? I always thought Ellis would be the guy, especially with a couple of prospects ready to make the move to the NHL. Not so sure with the way he has been playing in the Playoffs. They have Arvidsson and Johansen as RFA's. Mike Fischer as an UFA. Maybe Elkholm and his $3.75Mill may be too expensive for them (even though its a great deal). Ellis is making 2.5M over the next 2 seasons. Im not trading the 8th overall pick, I think that is completely reckless. Why trade away a guy who has a good chance to become a top pair or Top 6 dman (and cheap) for a guy who is my 3 or 4 dman. Makes no sense to me. Sabres won't be a cup contender next season so I am not making moves out of desperation. Im also not trading Kane, unless you know he will not sign an extension or if he is starting to alienate his teammates. Is he one of the ones Jack was talking about when he said "you can't be just happy to play in the league"? You may be able to get a team with a cap crunch to take a couple of draft picks and not have to trade away a top prospect. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thorny Posted May 3, 2017 Report Share Posted May 3, 2017 (edited) You spent all season making excuses for Bylsma because of the blue line, and you're okay going into next season with that? C'mon man! C'mon man, indeed. Compare and contrast the D corps you assembled versus the one assembled by GA. Imagine how much better our D looks with Brodin and Vatanen instead of Gorges and Bogosian. Or even one of the two players from the former proposal. The price you mentioned in the proposals for Brodin and Vatanen is more than reasonable considering how much better our D immediately becomes. Edit: I do now see your proposal GA and appreciate the clarification of your position. He was paired with Bieksa the most, so no wonder he had a rough year :pOur #8 + bailey for Hanifin Or Reinhart for Hanifin 8 + Bailey = Yes Reinhart = No Edited May 3, 2017 by Thorny Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Radar Posted May 3, 2017 Report Share Posted May 3, 2017 (edited) In my post I'm not advocating trading our #8 pick, in fact I am against that. After the draft some teams will make trades they wanted to wait to see how the draft unfolds first. I have a feeling Kane will not sign here for a contract amount and term we're going to agree on. If he will fetch a young #2 type defenseman I do it. Antipin and Guhle look promising but not ready to say their going to turn this defense around. In the above post Baily and #8 for Hanifin I would maybe do that. Edited May 3, 2017 by Radar Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thorny Posted May 3, 2017 Report Share Posted May 3, 2017 are we still that desperate for Dmen after adding Guhle and Antipin? I don't think they should be. If I'm making a trade im contacting a team like Nashville who have Subban, Elkholm, Josi and Ellis worth protecting. Will you be able to pry one of them out at a discount? I always thought Ellis would be the guy, especially with a couple of prospects ready to make the move to the NHL. Not so sure with the way he has been playing in the Playoffs. They have Arvidsson and Johansen as RFA's. Mike Fischer as an UFA. Maybe Elkholm and his $3.75Mill may be too expensive for them (even though its a great deal). Ellis is making 2.5M over the next 2 seasons. Im not trading the 8th overall pick, I think that is completely reckless. Why trade away a guy who has a good chance to become a top pair or Top 6 dman (and cheap) for a guy who is my 3 or 4 dman. Makes no sense to me. Sabres won't be a cup contender next season so I am not making moves out of desperation. Im also not trading Kane, unless you know he will not sign an extension or if he is starting to alienate his teammates. Is he one of the ones Jack was talking about when he said "you can't be just happy to play in the league"? You may be able to get a team with a cap crunch to take a couple of draft picks and not have to trade away a top prospect. That's the thing: I'm not sure how likely it is that the D man we hypothetically get at 8 actually becomes a top pair D man, and to my mind the chances he does is favourably offset by the added benefits of adding a bona-fide top 4 D talent who, A - can step in right away and increase the chances of maximizing the young careers/contacts of guys like Jack and Sam (and even maximizing the primes of guys like ROR and Okposo), rather than have to wait several years for that drafted D to make an impact. And B - is still relatively young, and able to grow with our young core, and not be purely a "win now" guy. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MattPie Posted May 3, 2017 Report Share Posted May 3, 2017 Bogo and a 5th for Arizona's 2nd round pick. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dudacek Posted May 3, 2017 Author Report Share Posted May 3, 2017 Bogo and a 5th for Arizona's 2nd round pick. Ooh, addition by subtraction. I like. 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.