TrueBlueGED Posted June 19, 2017 Report Share Posted June 19, 2017 With a side deal: Moulson Without a side deal: Carrier Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
msw2112 Posted June 19, 2017 Report Share Posted June 19, 2017 With a side deal: Moulson Without a side deal: Carrier This looks about right to me. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
I-90 W Posted June 19, 2017 Report Share Posted June 19, 2017 I voted Matty Mo; partially wishful optimism also simply because they'll need a guy like him to get to the cap. Also there's that in law-ish connection so who knows. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mustache of God Posted June 19, 2017 Report Share Posted June 19, 2017 I voted Moulson which was two parts optimism and one part of me believing that. I see the expansion draft as a big "first-test" for JBOT, this is a chance for him to get rid of one of Murray's horrible contracts he handed out like candy during the tank years. Given Moulson's connection to McPhee, and his performance last season (when he was used on the PP) he's shown he can still produce. I'm wondering if Buffalo can sweeten the deal be retaining some of his salary? Is that an option? My second guess is naturally Carrier. I don't mind the idea of losing him as much as I mind the idea of being married to the money wrapped up in Bogo, Moulson, and Ennis. As I said above, this is a true test for Botteril, if he manages to part ways with one of those he's going to be off to quite the start in Buffalo. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
darksabre Posted June 19, 2017 Report Share Posted June 19, 2017 With a side deal: Moulson Without a side deal: Carrier Yup. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brawndo Posted June 19, 2017 Report Share Posted June 19, 2017 With a side deal: Moulson Without a side deal: Carrier Winner Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
inkman Posted June 19, 2017 Report Share Posted June 19, 2017 I have idea what agreements are in place, but I read one opinion stating that we left Carrier unprotected (and protected Ennis instead) based on an agreement with LV that they would not take Ullmark if we left Carrier unprotected so that they could take him. Given the surprise to most that we protected Ennis and not Carrier leads me to believe that this opinion is plausible and that they will probably take Carrier. He's a legitimate prospect - has speed, size and some grit. He hasn't show the ability to finish, but that's why he's still a prospect - he's still developing and the scoring touch may come. Even if it doesn't, he still has the speed, size and grit and teams need guys on the 3rd and 4th lines too. As a side note, I hope they don't take Bogo. I think that he can improve with the new coaching staff and if he becomes a top-4 D, his contract won't be so out of line. Paul Hamilton said this exact scenario on Howard and Jeremy this morning. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Scottysabres Posted June 19, 2017 Report Share Posted June 19, 2017 (edited) I think its Bogo. They are going to wheel deal a D man they take for picks. Bogo fills a couple of needs for them. His age allows them some experience with talent, his contract allows them cap floor help while the 1st year of their picks that do join the big club over these next 3 years ELC's don't force them to take less desirable contracts. I don't believe their taking any UFA's from us. Why would they when they can wait to July 1st to talk to them anyways. And why protect Beaulieu over Bogosain if there was already a deal in place? I'm not buying it. Nothing reported solid. Edited June 19, 2017 by Lucky E Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
qwksndmonster Posted June 19, 2017 Report Share Posted June 19, 2017 With a side deal: Moulson Without a side deal: Carrier Might Carrier be part of the side deal? Maybe Carrier plus a pick and they take Moulson? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
matter2003 Posted June 19, 2017 Report Share Posted June 19, 2017 Might Carrier be part of the side deal? Maybe Carrier plus a pick and they take Moulson? Paul Hamilton seems to think Carrier is on there instead of Ennis so they leave Ullmark alone... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LGR4GM Posted June 19, 2017 Report Share Posted June 19, 2017 Might Carrier be part of the side deal? Maybe Carrier plus a pick and they take Moulson? That's what I am thinking. Moulson Carrier and our 2nd for their 2nd or something like that. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
matter2003 Posted June 19, 2017 Report Share Posted June 19, 2017 (edited) I have idea what agreements are in place, but I read one opinion stating that we left Carrier unprotected (and protected Ennis instead) based on an agreement with LV that they would not take Ullmark if we left Carrier unprotected so that they could take him. Given the surprise to most that we protected Ennis and not Carrier leads me to believe that this opinion is plausible and that they will probably take Carrier. He's a legitimate prospect - has speed, size and some grit. He hasn't show the ability to finish, but that's why he's still a prospect - he's still developing and the scoring touch may come. Even if it doesn't, he still has the speed, size and grit and teams need guys on the 3rd and 4th lines too. As a side note, I hope they don't take Bogo. I think that he can improve with the new coaching staff and if he becomes a top-4 D, his contract won't be so out of line. I'd like to think BOGO will be a late bloomer like Soupy was but I am not counting on it....I just think he would have shown more by now if he was Edited June 19, 2017 by matter2003 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Taro T Posted June 20, 2017 Report Share Posted June 20, 2017 Paul Hamilton seems to think Carrier is on there instead of Ennis so they leave Ullmark alone... Seems to make more sense that he's there as the sweetener to entice Vegas to trade one of the D that Vegas' ll end up getting or to get Moulson snagged in a trade. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ogre Posted June 20, 2017 Report Share Posted June 20, 2017 I can't vote in good conscience. I can't bring myself all the way around to seeing LV taking the best from each team available with the hopes they can trade away what they can't ice. It'll be interesting to see. I don't see a guy they couldn't live without in our group. Everyone has presented good arguments and have almost talked me out of my gut feeling. Which is....something unspectacular. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nfreeman Posted June 20, 2017 Author Report Share Posted June 20, 2017 I can't vote in good conscience. I can't bring myself all the way around to seeing LV taking the best from each team available with the hopes they can trade away what they can't ice. It'll be interesting to see. I don't see a guy they couldn't live without in our group. Everyone has presented good arguments and have almost talked me out of my gut feeling. Which is....something unspectacular. This isn't Sophie's Choice here, my friend. Just take a guess and predict something. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
3putt Posted June 20, 2017 Report Share Posted June 20, 2017 Carrier. That's the Ulmark deal piece. Jmho Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GASabresIUFAN Posted June 20, 2017 Report Share Posted June 20, 2017 (edited) To make Freeman happy, I wrote this is the expansion speculation thread. Lets be honest. We are losing 1 player; 1. No one they take will effect the ultimate trajectory of this team; even Ullmark. We are keeping all our top players: Risto, McCabe, Baloo, Jack, Sam, ROR, Lehner, Okposo and KaneWe are keeping all our top prospects: Bailey, Baptiste, Nylander, Guhle, Fasching, Asplund, Pu, Borgen, Smith and Fitzgerald.We are also keeping most of our marginal players: Antipin, Foligno, Larsson, and GirgensonsThey are choosing from 1) Ullmark - a former 6th rd pick who likely won't be a starter for at least another 2-4 years2) Carrier - a former 2nd rd pick who has only scored 28 goals in 168 pro games. 3) Bogo - a highly overpaid 3rd pairing D with a injury history4) Moulson - an overpaid fading slow former scorer, who is now a PP specialist.5) Gorges - an overpaid, slow faded D who is likely a 7th D in LV.6) Kulikov - UFA who gave us 5 pts for 4 million.If we lose Ullmark it actually might convince Peterson to sign with us, we still have Johansson and Nilsson can be re-signed to serve as Lehner's backup. Not exactly a tragedy. Bottomline: Who cares who they take, we won't notice they are missing. Sure we all pray we can get some cap relief, but what are you willing to give up to get it? How about they take Moulson and we trade them Carrier for a 6th rd pick. Edited June 20, 2017 by GASabresFan Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PotentPowerPlay22 Posted June 20, 2017 Report Share Posted June 20, 2017 I think Mike Harrington of the Buffalo News had it exactly right. Vegas probably told Buffalo that they would take Ullmark. The Sabres asked what would you need to leave Ullmark alone? The Sabres can't afford to lose Ullmark since they are not deep at goaltender and are likely to lose Cal Petersen to free agency. The answer from Vegas was we will take Carrier. As a result, the Sabres protected Ennis and left Carrier unprotected to satisfy Vegas. Carrier is easier to lose than Ullmark at this point. This explains why the Sabres protected Ennis instead of Carrier. There is no way Vegas is taking one of the Sabres' bad salaries! (Ennis, Moulson or Bogo) Vegas looks like they could have a goalie and defense better than Buffalo next year. It will be interesting nontheless. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nfreeman Posted June 20, 2017 Author Report Share Posted June 20, 2017 I think Mike Harrington of the Buffalo News had it exactly right. Vegas probably told Buffalo that they would take Ullmark. The Sabres asked what would you need to leave Ullmark alone? The Sabres can't afford to lose Ullmark since they are not deep at goaltender and are likely to lose Cal Petersen to free agency. The answer from Vegas was we will take Carrier. As a result, the Sabres protected Ennis and left Carrier unprotected to satisfy Vegas. Carrier is easier to lose than Ullmark at this point. This explains why the Sabres protected Ennis instead of Carrier. There is no way Vegas is taking one of the Sabres' bad salaries! (Ennis, Moulson or Bogo) Vegas looks like they could have a goalie and defense better than Buffalo next year. It will be interesting nontheless. The only problem with this theory is that both Harrington and Hammy are advocating it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sabre fan Posted June 20, 2017 Report Share Posted June 20, 2017 but I do think it is right...no way we protect Ennis unless it is to expose someone vegas will take instead of Ullmark who we just signed and obviously do not wish to lose at this point... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sabel79 Posted June 20, 2017 Report Share Posted June 20, 2017 It could be the case that the last protected slot had to go somewhere, and the veritable conucopia of meh available to JBOT means that Ennis gets it because why not? I also firmly believe that we're coming dangerously close to "Concept of Carrier" territory. Plenty of other questionably talented rookies willing to skate through walls... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LGR4GM Posted June 20, 2017 Report Share Posted June 20, 2017 (edited) I don't get the Carrier love. I like him but my eye test said Bailey was better. Carrier looks like a Foligno replacement. Nothing wrong with that but I'm not gonna cry if he gets taken. Edited June 20, 2017 by LGR4GM Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rakish Posted June 20, 2017 Report Share Posted June 20, 2017 Moulson and #38 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LGR4GM Posted June 20, 2017 Report Share Posted June 20, 2017 (edited) Moulson and #38 Would you give up that to get rid of Moulson and protect Ullmark/Carrier? Edited June 20, 2017 by LGR4GM Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rakish Posted June 20, 2017 Report Share Posted June 20, 2017 Would you give up that to get rid of Moulson and protect Ullmark/Carrier? Me? I thought this was just a prediction thread. Getting two years of a bad contract gone allows you to add another player. Maybe you're right, the #38 is a bit high, but if I'm Vegas, the #57 seems a bit low. 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.