dudacek Posted January 21, 2019 Report Share Posted January 21, 2019 (edited) I am firmly in the trying to make the playoffs camp, but I don’t see a series win happening and I do see a lot of replaceable players on this roster. Are the deadline returns on these players - Scandella, Beaulieu, Sobotka, Elie, Wilson, Tennyson, Pominville, Okposo and even Rodrigues, Larsson and Girgensons - worth more than keeping them around? With guys like Olofsson, Smith, Nylander, Guhle Pilut pushing for time, can the Sabres be sellers at the deadline and still make a run? Edited January 21, 2019 by dudacek Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Weave Posted January 21, 2019 Report Share Posted January 21, 2019 41 minutes ago, dudacek said: I am firmly in the trying to make the playoffs camp, but I don’t see a series win happening and I do see a lot of replaceable players on this roster. Are the deadline returns on these players - Scandella, Beaulieu, Sobotka, Elie, Wilson, Tennyson, Pominville, Okposo and even Rodrigues, Larsson and Girgensons - worth more than keeping them around? With guys like Olofsson, Smith, Nylander, Guhle Pilut pushing for time, can the Sabres be sellers at the deadline and still make a run? I do not belive a wholesale insertion of kids is going to have a positive impact on a playoff run. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dudacek Posted January 21, 2019 Report Share Posted January 21, 2019 19 minutes ago, Weave said: I do not belive a wholesale insertion of kids is going to have a positive impact on a playoff run. I’d tend to agree. Question might be better phrased as “if someone offers, say, a 4th for Sobotka or 2nd for Scandella, do you take it? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Weave Posted January 22, 2019 Report Share Posted January 22, 2019 (edited) 9 minutes ago, dudacek said: I’d tend to agree. Question might be better phrased as “if someone offers, say, a 4th for Sobotka or 2nd for Scandella, do you take it? Depends on the standings and the trend of the team I guess. I honestly believe that a playoff series is more valuable right now than small odds for an NHL player in 3+ seasons. Edited January 22, 2019 by Weave 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sabres Fan in NS Posted January 22, 2019 Report Share Posted January 22, 2019 (edited) I really do not want the Sabres to be sellers regardless of the standings. Keep fighting to the bitter end for once in 7, or 8, years. Edited January 22, 2019 by New Scotland (NS) the 'o' and the 'i' are way too close on my keyboard ... 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hoss Posted January 22, 2019 Report Share Posted January 22, 2019 (edited) This team is confirmed to be the Sabres. Unfortunately, another reporter says the Sabres are having their scouting meetings in Vegas this week. Edited January 22, 2019 by Hoss Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
spndnchz Posted January 22, 2019 Report Share Posted January 22, 2019 By who? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hoss Posted January 22, 2019 Report Share Posted January 22, 2019 1 minute ago, spndnchz said: By who? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TrueBlueGED Posted January 22, 2019 Report Share Posted January 22, 2019 "Scouts are scouting" has to be my least favorite nonsense about approaching the trade deadline. I think I'd rather read Eklund. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hoss Posted January 22, 2019 Report Share Posted January 22, 2019 (edited) 4 minutes ago, TrueBlueGED said: "Scouts are scouting" has to be my least favorite nonsense about approaching the trade deadline. I think I'd rather read Eklund. I mean if a team has five scouts at a game it's notable. Usually. In this case it's likely just a group of scouts taking a seat where they can because they're in town anyways. Unless the Sabres scheduled their scouting meetings months ago as an intricate cover up of trade talk they're having with one of these teams. HMMMM!!! Minnesota is, once again, ripe for the picking, though. I have interest in Coyle or Granlund if either are available at all. Maybe Brodin or Spurgeon, again, if they're available. I'd give a very good amount for Granlund who was once the number one prospect while Cody Hodgson was number two. What a time. Give me Grandlund and Spurgeon for Risto, Girgensons and the SJ first (conditional on us making the playoff, if not it becomes out 2020 second). Edited January 22, 2019 by Hoss Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
... Posted January 22, 2019 Report Share Posted January 22, 2019 2 hours ago, dudacek said: I’d tend to agree. Question might be better phrased as “if someone offers, say, a 4th for Sobotka or 2nd for Scandella, do you take it? Would we miss them? I say no. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
thewookie1 Posted January 22, 2019 Report Share Posted January 22, 2019 3 hours ago, ... said: Would we miss them? I say no. Depends on who Not interested in even potentially helping teams in our division or nearby competition Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Scottysabres Posted January 22, 2019 Report Share Posted January 22, 2019 5 hours ago, Hoss said: I mean if a team has five scouts at a game it's notable. Usually. In this case it's likely just a group of scouts taking a seat where they can because they're in town anyways. Unless the Sabres scheduled their scouting meetings months ago as an intricate cover up of trade talk they're having with one of these teams. HMMMM!!! Minnesota is, once again, ripe for the picking, though. I have interest in Coyle or Granlund if either are available at all. Maybe Brodin or Spurgeon, again, if they're available. I'd give a very good amount for Granlund who was once the number one prospect while Cody Hodgson was number two. What a time. Give me Grandlund and Spurgeon for Risto, Girgensons and the SJ first (conditional on us making the playoff, if not it becomes out 2020 second). Granlund is a nice player, but, he's primarily a playmaker. Without snipers/finishers, I fear he'll just be spinning his wheels here. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hoss Posted January 22, 2019 Report Share Posted January 22, 2019 3 hours ago, Scottysabres said: Granlund is a nice player, but, he's primarily a playmaker. Without snipers/finishers, I fear he'll just be spinning his wheels here. What snipers is he playing with in Minnesota? He’s making players around him better. That’s the kind of player we need. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SABRES 0311 Posted January 22, 2019 Report Share Posted January 22, 2019 12 hours ago, New Scotland (NS) said: I really do not want the Sabres to be sellers regardless of the standings. Keep fighting to the bitter end for once in 7, or 8, years. Or until someone loses their love of the game. Seriously though I get excited the closer we get to the deadline. Sam for a real 2C as I said somewhere else. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sabres Fan in NS Posted January 22, 2019 Report Share Posted January 22, 2019 (edited) 2 hours ago, SABRES 0311 said: Or until someone loses their love of the game. Seriously though I get excited the closer we get to the deadline. Sam for a real 2C as I said somewhere else. Your proposal is what everyone would call a 'hockey trade', which I think all would welcome. I am not suggesting we trade Samson, but if he is part of a package to bring in a 2C then maybe. Although that would be trading one of our few good wingers, which would leave the Sabres with that problem compounded. If the powers that be still believe Mitts will develop into a 2C then JBOT will not be trading for one. I actually will be very surprised if he does. To me bringing in a 2C now smells of desperation and deviates from the plan. Edited January 22, 2019 by New Scotland (NS) not enough letters ... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LGR4GM Posted January 22, 2019 Report Share Posted January 22, 2019 (edited) 5 minutes ago, New Scotland (NS) said: Your proposal is what everyone would call a 'hockey trade', which I think all would welcome. I am not suggesting we trade Samson, but if he is part of a package to bring in a 2C then maybe. Although that would be trading one of our few good wingers, which would leave the Sabres with that problem compounded. If the powers that be still believe Mitts will develop into a 2C then JBOT will not be trading for one. I actually will be very surprised if he does. To me bringing in a 2C now smells of desperation and deviates from the plan. Why? What has Mittelstadt done to make you think he will be less than that or has stopped developing? Or are you surprised if Jbott trades for one? Edited January 22, 2019 by LGR4GM Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sabres Fan in NS Posted January 22, 2019 Report Share Posted January 22, 2019 1 minute ago, LGR4GM said: Why? What has Mittelstadt done to make you think he will be less than that or has stopped developing? Sorry ... to be clear I think Mitts will be a very good 2C for the Sabres. My second point in that sentence was about JBOT not trading for a 2C, which is what I would be surprised at ... if he does trade for a 2C. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
... Posted January 22, 2019 Report Share Posted January 22, 2019 (edited) 39 minutes ago, LGR4GM said: Why? What has Mittelstadt done to make you think he will be less than that or has stopped developing? Or are you surprised if Jbott trades for one? The subject of the first sentence winds up being JBot, therefore the question refers to JBot and not Mitts. I think NS is on the money with his thinking. If we go for a 2C, then that means the plan has been blown up and we're in for continued suffering. Edited January 22, 2019 by ... If I had a hammer. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Carmel Corn Posted January 22, 2019 Report Share Posted January 22, 2019 (edited) 1 hour ago, New Scotland (NS) said: Your proposal is what everyone would call a 'hockey trade', which I think all would welcome. I am not suggesting we trade Samson, but if he is part of a package to bring in a 2C then maybe. Although that would be trading one of our few good wingers, which would leave the Sabres with that problem compounded. If the powers that be still believe Mitts will develop into a 2C then JBOT will not be trading for one. I actually will be very surprised if he does. To me bringing in a 2C now smells of desperation and deviates from the plan. Some good points here. However, part of me thinks that JBOT's plan included a productive Berglund in the mix. Bringing in a 2C would not necessarily be a vote against Mittelstadt, but rather to replace another asset he thought would be in the lineup this year. That being said, I truly want Mittelstadt to be successful, but fear he may end up being another Grigorenko in the Sabres' long history of so-so 1st rounders. Edited January 22, 2019 by Carmel Corn Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
... Posted January 22, 2019 Report Share Posted January 22, 2019 3 minutes ago, Carmel Corn said: Some good points here. However, part of me thinks that JBOT's plan included a productive Berglund in the mix. Bringing in a 2C would not necessarily be a vote against Mittelstadt, but rather to replace another asset he thought would be in the lineup this year. That being said, I truly want Mittelstadt to be successful, but fear he may end up being another Grigorenko in the Sabres' long history of so-so 1st rounders. The bolded sounds right, but means that they would have intended on NOT using a pick to acquire a player at the deadline. Mitts' development aside, if they use a pick at the deadline and not at the draft then they likely have deviated from the plan. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
shrader Posted January 22, 2019 Report Share Posted January 22, 2019 5 minutes ago, ... said: The bolded sounds right, but means that they would have intended on NOT using a pick to acquire a player at the deadline. Mitts' development aside, if they use a pick at the deadline and not at the draft then they likely have deviated from the plan. I'd love to see a plan that actually works with zero deviations. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MakeSabresGrr8Again Posted January 22, 2019 Report Share Posted January 22, 2019 12 minutes ago, shrader said: I'd love to see a plan that actually works with zero deviations. I don't think it's about zero deviation. I'M also not convinced that JBot's plan necessarily included a "productive" Berglund (useful body filler in the line-up might be more appropriate). He was more a salary dump on us for the $7M owed to ROR. If Berglund were still in the line-up and we are in the same place we are now, nothing would be different except that we'd have a guy with a bad contract we'd be hoping to get rid of but likely can't. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Weave Posted January 22, 2019 Report Share Posted January 22, 2019 1 hour ago, shrader said: I'd love to see a plan that actually works with zero deviations. Apparently, this cannot be stated often enough. Plans change as the environment they are conceived in changes. We already know that 2C has not played out as expected and we have a hole where Berglund used to be. The plan should already have modifications made to it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
shrader Posted January 22, 2019 Report Share Posted January 22, 2019 2 hours ago, MakeSabresGrr8Again said: I don't think it's about zero deviation. I'M also not convinced that JBot's plan necessarily included a "productive" Berglund (useful body filler in the line-up might be more appropriate). He was more a salary dump on us for the $7M owed to ROR. If Berglund were still in the line-up and we are in the same place we are now, nothing would be different except that we'd have a guy with a bad contract we'd be hoping to get rid of but likely can't. You don't take on a guy with 3-4 years left on a contract (I forget the exact number) if you aren't planning on him being around for more than two months. They full expected him to be a part of this team for multiple seasons. Getting out from his deal was obviously not a part of any plan. 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.