Curt Posted April 11, 2021 Report Share Posted April 11, 2021 2 minutes ago, Brawndo said: If this is true, you have to move him Sadly, I agree. That sucks. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LGR4GM Posted April 11, 2021 Report Share Posted April 11, 2021 1 minute ago, Curt said: Sadly, I agree. That sucks. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
darksabre Posted April 11, 2021 Report Share Posted April 11, 2021 I'm about to be upset Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Scottysabres Posted April 11, 2021 Report Share Posted April 11, 2021 Tough choice. But If the report is accurate on him testing UFA, you have to move him by tomorrow. The needs of the franchise outweigh the needs of the other franchises or the player. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
thewookie1 Posted April 11, 2021 Report Share Posted April 11, 2021 Just now, Scottysabres said: Tough choice. But If the report is accurate on him testing UFA, you have to move him by tomorrow. The needs of the franchise outweigh the needs of the other franchises or the player. Problem being we have zero capable players to replace him with and I refuse to send him to Toronto. I'd rather just keep him until he walks. 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Taro T Posted April 11, 2021 Report Share Posted April 11, 2021 5 minutes ago, Brawndo said: If this is true, you have to move him With all due respect, don't believe they can do that. IMHO, going ~0.500 the rest of the way while still holding exclusive rights to speak w/ him until the league year ends will be more valuable than a late 1st that won't help on the ice for 2-4 more years & a middling prospect and only winning 3 more games this season. They have to show the hockey world they are an NHL team to maintain any credibility, and minus Ullmark IMHO they simply can't do that. For the most part, yes, have the most assets possible heading into next season, but the return on Linus won't make up for all the intangibles that will go out the door with him. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Randall Flagg Posted April 11, 2021 Report Share Posted April 11, 2021 When the words "testing free agency" get uttered, I always see the stipulation that the player hasn't closed the door on returning. How often does the team wind up keeping the player when this word gets out? 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Scottysabres Posted April 11, 2021 Report Share Posted April 11, 2021 Just now, thewookie1 said: Problem being we have zero capable players to replace him with and I refuse to send him to Toronto. I'd rather just keep him until he walks. Ya, I wouldn't send him there either, but, there are other organizations looking to upgrade their goalie tandems. It would not be wise to let him round out the season and then walk for nothing, but, after years of asset mismanagement, that's just my take on it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Claude Balls Posted April 11, 2021 Report Share Posted April 11, 2021 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Taro T Posted April 11, 2021 Report Share Posted April 11, 2021 2 minutes ago, Claude Balls said: Do 2 hedging words "could" "possibly" make this as useful a statement as "you could save up to x or more" or even less useful? Would throwing "maybe" in there before or after "possibly" sell it better, or would that be too much? 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Norcal Posted April 11, 2021 Report Share Posted April 11, 2021 What about a goalie swap? If Ullmark goes, somebody is coming in I'm betting. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Taro T Posted April 11, 2021 Report Share Posted April 11, 2021 2 minutes ago, Norcal said: What about a goalie swap? If Ullmark goes, somebody is coming in I'm betting. Well, logistically, with Hutton currently broken, they almost definitely have to bring in a goalie should Ullmark leave tomorrow. But, logic also implies that if that guy was worth anything real, he wouldn't be coming back. Trading Ullmark means the guy that couldn't bring in 1 good goalie now needs to find 2 of them. Oh, please sign all of us up for that. <_< Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
steveoath Posted April 12, 2021 Report Share Posted April 12, 2021 Is Hutton's contract done this summer? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Weave Posted April 12, 2021 Report Share Posted April 12, 2021 Play to win the rest of the season, even if it means we don't get a return for Ullmark. We cannot afford to continue to allow losing to be acceptable to yet another generation of young players. Yet another price to be paid for the decisions that led us here. 3 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Taro T Posted April 12, 2021 Report Share Posted April 12, 2021 5 minutes ago, steveoath said: Is Hutton's contract done this summer? Mercifully, yes. His deal was designed to have him the #1 while Ullmark acclimated & then get picked by Seattle. Seattle sliding a year messed that up. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Flashsabre Posted April 12, 2021 Report Share Posted April 12, 2021 (edited) Classic Buffalo reporter reporting. You would think some of these guys would be plugged in a little but nope, always just posting links to other people reporting on the Sabres. Edited April 12, 2021 by Flashsabre Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Curt Posted April 12, 2021 Report Share Posted April 12, 2021 21 minutes ago, Taro T said: Do 2 hedging words "could" "possibly" make this as useful a statement as "you could save up to x or more" or even less useful? Would throwing "maybe" in there before or after "possibly" sell it better, or would that be too much? Hamilton has no information. He just read the same tweet that we did. 1 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Taro T Posted April 12, 2021 Report Share Posted April 12, 2021 Just now, Curt said: Hamilton has no information. He just read the same tweet that we did. Very likely that's a very accurate take. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Norcal Posted April 12, 2021 Report Share Posted April 12, 2021 15 minutes ago, Taro T said: Well, logistically, with Hutton currently broken, they almost definitely have to bring in a goalie should Ullmark leave tomorrow. But, logic also implies that if that guy was worth anything real, he wouldn't be coming back. Trading Ullmark means the guy that couldn't bring in 1 good goalie now needs to find 2 of them. Oh, please sign all of us up for that. <_< Rutherford has a good record with goaltenders, Adams has been in contact with him, perhaps that has been discussed? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PromoTheRobot Posted April 12, 2021 Report Share Posted April 12, 2021 24 minutes ago, Taro T said: Do 2 hedging words "could" "possibly" make this as useful a statement as "you could save up to x or more" or even less useful? Would throwing "maybe" in there before or after "possibly" sell it better, or would that be too much? Some real crackerjack reporting there, Jimmy Olsen. 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Curt Posted April 12, 2021 Report Share Posted April 12, 2021 2 minutes ago, Taro T said: Mercifully, yes. His deal was designed to have him the #1 while Ullmark acclimated & then get picked by Seattle. Seattle sliding a year messed that up. Technically I would say that Hutton being awful messed that up. No way Seattle was going to pick him as bad as he was last season. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Claude Balls Posted April 12, 2021 Report Share Posted April 12, 2021 29 minutes ago, Taro T said: Do 2 hedging words "could" "possibly" make this as useful a statement as "you could save up to x or more" or even less useful? Would throwing "maybe" in there before or after "possibly" sell it better, or would that be too much? Hamilton has terrible grammar and spelling. I don't know how is employed as a reporter. I just posted that for the Pagnotta story in the link. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Taro T Posted April 12, 2021 Report Share Posted April 12, 2021 3 minutes ago, Curt said: Technically I would say that Hutton being awful messed that up. No way Seattle was going to pick him as bad as he was last season. There is that. But Seattle screwed it up before Hutton's vision problem did. And even with the vision problem he still might have been the Sabre selected. They had to expose literally no one of any value. 7 Fs. 3D, & Ullmark. Anyone that couldn't squeeze into that was too young (Mittelstadt, Dahlin, Cozens, etc.) or a UFA (Montour, etc.). Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Curt Posted April 12, 2021 Report Share Posted April 12, 2021 8 minutes ago, Taro T said: Very likely that's a very accurate take. I think you mean, Could be very likely that’s a possibly very accurate take. 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Taro T Posted April 12, 2021 Report Share Posted April 12, 2021 8 minutes ago, Norcal said: Rutherford has a good record with goaltenders, Adams has been in contact with him, perhaps that has been discussed? Even if it has, that still won't happen before this team is looking (unreservedly IMHO) like they belong in the '75 Caps, '80 Jets, '92 (?) Otters, etc. Tough to sell any FA's on joining that mess, IMHO. Whereas finishing the year at ~0.500 (after starting that way prior to the Covid shutdown) gives people optimism that they may be that missing piece rather than being 1 of 6-7 missing pieces. Again, just MHO. 1 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.