Make a trade

[French Collection]

1 hour ago, Pimlach said:

If I am Adans I am ALWAYS listening for trades and opportunities to improve the team.  The store is open.
 

 You need a plan but you can’t just assume that everything fits on your plans exact timeline.  Opportunities should be taken if they fit the plan and budget (cap). 

I would add putting out feelers. Just listening may mean that everyone else is aware of a player being available, adding competition and creating a bidding war.

Having target players who are “unavailable” but may be pried loose with the right offer is being on top of things.

[Refuting]

1 hour ago, Pimlach said:

No one in the NHL was offered Murray a position since his glorious rebuild of the Sabres.  But you can go ahead and be entertained.  

Thanks! 

You are actually mad lol 

5 hours ago, LGR4GM said:

If we had done a full rebuild in 2015, by 2019 we would have been playoff bound. 

There's no way of proving that 

4 hours ago, Curt said:

Murray had some hits and misses.

His ROR trade was great.  Some other trades looked good on paper, but Murray’s big downfall was that he ignored a lot of off ice/character issues.  He knew Lehner as well as anyone, being the AGM in Ottawa previously.  It’s now pretty well documented that Kane and Bogosian were not a good influence in a young locker room.  Cal O’Reilly was bullying (or whatever) the team’s top prospect down in the AHL.  The result was a fractured team that couldn’t get on the same page.

It’s ok for fans to say “that it looked good on paper “ or “how could we have known “ that these guys would have had issues, but that doesn’t fly for Murray.  As the GM, it was his job to know/find out these things.  He built a team on paper, but not in the locker room.

@Toilet_Mop this covers your reply as well.

Well said 

[Huckleberry]

Nah, I was fine with playing the kids this year and still am 🙂

[Refuting]

1 minute ago, Huckleberry said:

Nah, I was fine with playing the kids this year and still am 🙂

If they learn how to play defense (coaching) I'll be fine with it too 

[Pimlach]

1 hour ago, Toilet_Mop said:

Thanks! 

You are actually mad lol 

 

I am not mad at all.   But your take on building a team and on evaluating players and GMs is maddening.   I have been stating in other threads that I wished Adams would do something to accelerate the rebuild AND I think something can be done to improve the team and still keep the cap in mind.  So I can agree with you on that.  

If I am wrong I will apologize right now, but isn't Horvat a UFA in July?  Isn't that why Vancouver is shopping him? 

I would like to get a player like Horvat, but at the right price and considering all the factors involved in the contract.  

You suggested 2 first rounders and Mitts and Joker for Horvat.   Isn't that steep for a possible one year rental?  Then you threw in Quinn and Peterka and suggested giving up even more in a bundle trade to include Boeser and Schenn.    What sense does that make?  

 

[mjd1001]

5 minutes ago, Pimlach said:

I am not mad at all.   But your take on building a team and on evaluating players and GMs is maddening.   I have been stating in other threads that I wished Adams would do something to accelerate the rebuild AND I think something can be done to improve the team and still keep the cap in mind.  So I can agree with you on that.  

If I am wrong I will apologize right now, but isn't Horvat a UFA in July?  Isn't that why Vancouver is shopping him? 

I would like to get a player like Horvat, but at the right price and considering all the factors involved in the contract.  

You suggested 2 first rounders and Mitts and Joker for Horvat.   Isn't that steep for a possible one year rental?  Then you threw in Quinn and Peterka and suggested giving up even more in a bundle trade to include Boeser and Schenn.    What sense does that make?  

 

I'm going to ask the question I kinda brought up the other day that no one has really answered.

Why the hate on Mitts? Why do so many people say they are done with him? And if you trade him, you are creating a hole how do you fill?

He is on pace for 50 points. He is killing penalties and NOT making mistakes doing so to cause goals.  I mentioned I checked last week that as of then he was over 50% on faceoffs.  Reviewing all the goals the Sabres allowed, he has not been out of position or made major mistakes to cause many of them (unlike Krebs, Cozens, Quinn, and Peterka). He was/is 4th in ice time among forwards.  The only reason I can see for all the hate is people WANTING him to be on pace for 35+ goals whiile he is only on pace for 20.  But he is playing a role on this team that is above replacment value for sure.

[Refuting]

11 minutes ago, Pimlach said:

I am not mad at all.   But your take on building a team and on evaluating players and GMs is maddening.   I have been stating in other threads that I wished Adams would do something to accelerate the rebuild AND I think something can be done to improve the team and still keep the cap in mind.  So I can agree with you on that.  

If I am wrong I will apologize right now, but isn't Horvat a UFA in July?  Isn't that why Vancouver is shopping him? 

I would like to get a player like Horvat, but at the right price and considering all the factors involved in the contract.  

You suggested 2 first rounders and Mitts and Joker for Horvat.   Isn't that steep for a possible one year rental?  Then you threw in Quinn and Peterka and suggested giving up even more in a bundle trade to include Boeser and Schenn.    What sense does that make?  

 

You're going to have to overpay for any guy to come to Buffalo. And the team has been bad. Outside players know that. They'd rather play for a good team or in Florida. "Hey do you want to play for the Sabres AND shovel 8 feet of snow at the same time?" We had zero chance at Mathew Tkachuk. That's why he laughed it off.

That's where overpaying comes in. Who cares if it's a little "steep" What do you suggest? Underpay? Lol 

Horvat is a solid all around player. Trade some prospects and players to aquire him, then OVERPAY with the EXTRA CAP SPACE that they're NOT USING ANYWAY 

[Eleven]

15 minutes ago, Toilet_Mop said:

You're going to have to overpay for any guy to come to Buffalo.

This myth has been exploded on this board over and over again to the point that it's not worth it anymore.  I know you're new and I welcome you (hey that rhymes!) but this isn't a thing and I think it's been demonstrated enough.

[Refuting]

6 minutes ago, Eleven said:

This myth has been exploded on this board over and over again to the point that it's not worth it anymore.  I know you're new and I welcome you (hey that rhymes!) but this isn't a thing and I think it's been demonstrated enough.

That's fair enough but overpayment/slight overpayment guarantees you get the guy you want 

[Broken Ankles]

47 minutes ago, mjd1001 said:

I'm going to ask the question I kinda brought up the other day that no one has really answered.

Why the hate on Mitts? Why do so many people say they are done with him? And if you trade him, you are creating a hole how do you fill?

He is on pace for 50 points. He is killing penalties and NOT making mistakes doing so to cause goals.  I mentioned I checked last week that as of then he was over 50% on faceoffs.  Reviewing all the goals the Sabres allowed, he has not been out of position or made major mistakes to cause many of them (unlike Krebs, Cozens, Quinn, and Peterka). He was/is 4th in ice time among forwards.  The only reason I can see for all the hate is people WANTING him to be on pace for 35+ goals whiile he is only on pace for 20.  But he is playing a role on this team that is above replacment value for sure.

No ‘hate’ from me, just not the player I expected at age 23 and drafted 8OA.  I also look at the pipeline and can see younger players like Savoie easily filling his role as a 3C next year. And guys like Quinn/JJP are preferred over Mitts in a middle six role on the wing. Younger, cost controlled, and higher ceilings.  
  Just because he plays the PK doesn't mean he is good at it. I mean the Sabres are dead last in PK for November, and bottom 4 for the year. 
  His 5v5 stat line is bad.  Two points?  Kinda sad if 4th in ice time wouldn’t you say? 
   Projected for 50 points?  Are you assuming he can play 82?  Because that’s doubtful based on history.  Durability is another question mark.  
  And as noted in this thread and others, the Sabres lack grit. Hence the debate on picking up a guy like Horvat.  The Sabres need more guys like him than Mitts. 
  If we can sell his stock before it falls and get any help on the right side of the defense, I’m all in.  Krebs can fill in as 4C short term, and Asplund can move into a 3C.  

[PerreaultForever]

11 hours ago, Toilet_Mop said:

. Murray couldn't have known that Kane, Eichel and O'Reilly would be whiners who needed the spotlight. That was the down fall. Our "leaders" were all giant whiners 

That's just the key thing though isn't it? Murray destroyed whatever culture this team had left, and we haven't been able to restore yet since. 

The tank left us with a complete void so he needed character guys to be leaders. He didn't assess the personalities of these additions properly and guys like Eichel learned from drunks and ego centric party animals. His only good role model was a guy we shipped off to some obscure place eventually because we didn't even want him near our prospects in the ahl. Hell of a hockey culture he created and it's still not fixed. 

[Refuting]

1 minute ago, PerreaultForever said:

That's just the key thing though isn't it? Murray destroyed whatever culture this team had left, and we haven't been able to restore yet since. 

The tank left us with a complete void so he needed character guys to be leaders. He didn't assess the personalities of these additions properly and guys like Eichel learned from drunks and ego centric party animals. His only good role model was a guy we shipped off to some obscure place eventually because we didn't even want him near our prospects in the ahl. Hell of a hockey culture he created and it's still not fixed. 

Agreed 

Losing on purpose and not even getting the guy you wanted sunk the team from the start 

[LGR4GM]

37 minutes ago, Toilet_Mop said:

That's fair enough but overpayment/slight overpayment guarantees you get the guy you want 

How'd that work for Murray?

3 hours ago, Toilet_Mop said:

Thanks! 

You are actually mad lol 

There's no way of proving that 

Well said 

No one of proving Murray wasn't a ***** idiot

[Refuting]

Just now, LGR4GM said:

How'd that work for Murray?

You're stuck on Murray ain't ya 

1 minute ago, LGR4GM said:

 

No one of proving Murray wasn't a ***** idiot

Could you type that again 

[PerreaultForever]

4 hours ago, Pimlach said:

If I am Adans I am ALWAYS listening for trades and opportunities to improve the team.  The store is open.
 

 You need a plan but you can’t just assume that everything fits on your plans exact timeline.  Opportunities should be taken if they fit the plan and budget (cap). 

I agree, but that's also my reason for frustration. I think the KA plan is definitely build through the draft slowly and patiently. He believes in his analytics people and their recommendations and the focus is on drafting their own team. Whether they get those picks right or wrong remains to be seen. Yes, we have a great prospect pool (as we should with trading away top players for picks and finishing so poorly every year) but will they be great NHL players? No way to know for sure. 

In the meantime, he is fine to take pin steps forward and he's fine with steps back but we are not. At least I'm not. I'm tired of it. I want those trades. I want more balance on the roster. I want to win now. 

Don't trade them all away like Murray did, but a player here or there, a free agent that fits, strategic moves to fill holes and provide leadership. There simply is a middle ground for this "plan" which seems too extreme to me in it's long term focus.

AND who knows if these analytics people even get it right? Right now, although I too would have drafted Power, Beniers is by far the more impactful player. He's electric and he has helped Seattle improve tremendously. Hard to compare a D man to a forward, I get that, and in a few years Power might still turn out to be the best pick but right now, if Beniers was a Sabre we'd have that 2C and he'd currently be the 3rd best player on our roster with only Thompson and Dahlin ahead of him. 

Building through the draft is always the right plan, but building JUST with the draft takes a really long time, and getting every draft right is even harder. 

[mjd1001]

18 minutes ago, Broken Ankles said:

No ‘hate’ from me, just not the player I expected at age 23 and drafted 8OA.  I also look at the pipeline and can see younger players like Savoie easily filling his role as a 3C next year. And guys like Quinn/JJP are preferred over Mitts in a middle six role on the wing. Younger, cost controlled, and higher ceilings.  
  Just because he plays the PK doesn't mean he is good at it. I mean the Sabres are dead last in PK for November, and bottom 4 for the year. 
  His 5v5 stat line is bad.  Two points?  Kinda sad if 4th in ice time wouldn’t you say? 
   Projected for 50 points?  Are you assuming he can play 82?  Because that’s doubtful based on history.  Durability is another question mark.  
  And as noted in this thread and others, the Sabres lack grit. Hence the debate on picking up a guy like Horvat.  The Sabres need more guys like him than Mitts. 
  If we can sell his stock before it falls and get any help on the right side of the defense, I’m all in.  Krebs can fill in as 4C short term, and Asplund can move into a 3C.  

My point is he is pretty good at the PK.  Look at the goals against when he is on the ice for the PK or just watch him, he doesn't rotate out of position and is good at clearing the puck when there is a loose puck. Hes average or better at it.

Other will disagree with me, but I don't care too much if points come 5v5 or pp or sh. A point is a point, a goal is a goal. They count the same. They both count just as much toward a win.  So no, on this team I dont' think his production overall is sad for 4th in ice time among fowards, becasue to me I'm not going to cherry-pick even strength only to make my point.

Projected for 50 points has ZERO to do with me assuming he can play 82. "projected" is just a way of 'annualizing' what he is doing in a small sample to make reference to overall production easier. He might play 82, he might not, but that was not the point of what I said.

[PerreaultForever]

13 minutes ago, Toilet_Mop said:

You're stuck on Murray ain't ya 

Could you type that again 

Murray is an easy target. Attacking him is an easy way to make snide comments and pretend to look smart. What is much harder is to say what YOU (and I don't mean you personally, but rather whoever attacks Murray) would have done differently at the time (also not knowing you wouldn't win the lottery and so forth). You know, maybe Lehner wasn't worth a first, but would you NOT have traded for him? Would you have not snapped up the disgruntled Kane? Would you have NOT shipped out Stafford? Passed on ROR and saved that Tim Horton's from needing repairs? What was the better plan - again, NOT using hindsight which you didn't have at the time. 

I know I might have screwed it up too. I thought Eichel was going to be great and I thought Eichel-Kane had the potential to be a Hull and Oates level duo. I thought they overpaid for Lehner, but I thought he'd be okay too. I'm not sure I would have done any better really. 

[Refuting]

1 minute ago, PerreaultForever said:

Murray is an easy target. Attacking him is an easy way to make snide comments and pretend to look smart. What is much harder is to say what YOU (and I don't mean you personally, but rather whoever attacks Murray) would have done differently at the time (also not knowing you wouldn't win the lottery and so forth). You know, maybe Lehner wasn't worth a first, but would you NOT have traded for him? Would you have not snapped up the disgruntled Kane? Would you have NOT shipped out Stafford? Passed on ROR and saved that Tim Horton's from needing repairs? What was the better plan - again, NOT using hindsight which you didn't have at the time. 

I know I might have screwed it up too. I thought Eichel was going to be great and I thought Eichel-Kane had the potential to be a Hull and Oates level duo. I thought they overpaid for Lehner, but I thought he'd be okay too. I'm not sure I would have done any better really. 

Agreed 

Notice how LGR disappeared after he said that. He's going through all his analytical notes right now like a nerd desperate for an answer 

[JohnC]

5 hours ago, Pimlach said:

If I am Adans I am ALWAYS listening for trades and opportunities to improve the team.  The store is open.
 

 You need a plan but you can’t just assume that everything fits on your plans exact timeline.  Opportunities should be taken if they fit the plan and budget (cap). 

I agree with your argument of seizing opportunities to get better. However, those types of meaningful transactions usually happen at the trade deadline and offseason. I wouldn't rule out some fringe deals but I don't see KA going outside his often repeated mantra/strategy of building from within. I understand everyone's impatience but I just don't see any impactful transactions in the near future.  Unless there is a total collapse I'm fine with his approach.

[Thorny]

17 hours ago, Toilet_Mop said:

Feathers have been ruffled 

And no one has really listed a trade they'd like to see

I guess the Sabres are the best team in the league 

There's a common perception that a guy who was GM here 6 years ago "traded away" all our prospects and picks, even though he traded less away than his successor Botterill. IMO Murray's failure was significantly more about the timing of when he chose to bring in vet players who would dominate the room, and in particular that he failed at identifying players that would be good for the room. His error was that of aptitude. 

IMO people conflate this often with some sort of idea that any kind of trade while we are supposed to be in "wins don't matter" mode is "bad" just on it's surface as a strategy. 

Rightly or wrongly, you will find that beyond the obstacle of needing to put together a trade people think is fair (didn't seem like your suggested trade was a good one) - you better make it a trade that looks really, really safe for the Sabres because as mentioned, there is an underlying resistance against moves because of Murray seemingly ruling out that supplement your core strategy for the foreseeable future decades. 

17 hours ago, Quint said:

Tyson Jost just got cut by the Wild. He's a former 10th overall draft pick who's on the final year of a 2 year 4 million contract. He's 5'11 with limited production so far in the NHL.

Kevyn!

Edited November 19, 2022 by Thorny

[Thorny]

13 hours ago, PerreaultForever said:

He definitely did. Big time. But you know, at the time, I remember most people thought his plan was good at first. ROR was supposed to be a game changing 2 way 2C with McDavid (or Eichel, they were both supposed to be "generational") as the scoring 1C. It was supposed to be a Gretzky-Messier equivalent and many thought it was. Kane was supposed to be happy to be out of Winnipeg and would blossom into the ultimate sniper power forward he was supposed to be potting multi goals off McDavid/Eichel's passes. Bogo was supposed to have added tough D and Lehner was going to be the future goalie (which he sort of became for a bit, we just didn't know he had so many "issues"). A lot of it made sense at the time and it's kind of amazing how spectacularly it all went wrong. 

ROR was still a good trade

Kane not so

It's also amazing that the "spectacularly wrong" still led to a point total (81) we've failed to match since 

10 hours ago, LGR4GM said:

If we had done a full rebuild in 2015, by 2019 we would have been playoff bound. 

I think under a good GM, this could be true. 

There's no reason to suspect that Murray, who showed poor aptitude in identifying the players to add to the room re: culture, would have had the aptitude to successfully pull off a different strategy 

[Pimlach]

1 hour ago, Toilet_Mop said:

You're going to have to overpay for any guy to come to Buffalo. And the team has been bad. Outside players know that. They'd rather play for a good team or in Florida. "Hey do you want to play for the Sabres AND shovel 8 feet of snow at the same time?" We had zero chance at Mathew Tkachuk. That's why he laughed it off.

That's where overpaying comes in. Who cares if it's a little "steep" What do you suggest? Underpay? Lol 

Horvat is a solid all around player. Trade some prospects and players to aquire him, then OVERPAY with the EXTRA CAP SPACE that they're NOT USING ANYWAY 

The first risk is that he leaves anyway, even if you offer more than market value.  Then you wasted your prospects and lost the trade immediately.  The longer term risk assuming he stays is that you tie up cap money beyond his true value, making it  harder to sign others.    

1 hour ago, Toilet_Mop said:

That's fair enough but overpayment/slight overpayment guarantees you get the guy you want 

There are no guarantees he will sign.  

There are other options but I don't think would be receptive to them.  

[Thorny]

1 hour ago, PerreaultForever said:

The tank left us with a complete void 

Exactly. The poor drafting beforehand, leading into the tank, and the stripping down of any and all talent on the roster, created a franchise that was both lacking in system and on roster, creating an exceptionally high degree of difficulty in creating a good roster. Murray did not wheel and deal an inordinate amount of picks and prospects - he just didn't, I've run the numbers and posted them several times - it's just that he had no runway in making mistakes. He couldn't afford to miss if he made deals and...he certainly missed on a few. 

He wasn't a good GM. He failed because of it - but his poor aptitude doesn't sully all strategic attempts at supplementing a core with reasonable deals, forever more 

at least it shouldn't. Gotta find that balance 

[Curt]

2 hours ago, mjd1001 said:

My point is he is pretty good at the PK.  Look at the goals against when he is on the ice for the PK or just watch him, he doesn't rotate out of position and is good at clearing the puck when there is a loose puck. Hes average or better at it.

Other will disagree with me, but I don't care too much if points come 5v5 or pp or sh. A point is a point, a goal is a goal. They count the same. They both count just as much toward a win.  So no, on this team I dont' think his production overall is sad for 4th in ice time among fowards, becasue to me I'm not going to cherry-pick even strength only to make my point.

Projected for 50 points has ZERO to do with me assuming he can play 82. "projected" is just a way of 'annualizing' what he is doing in a small sample to make reference to overall production easier. He might play 82, he might not, but that was not the point of what I said.

So, for me, it’s kind of an issue of role with Mitts.

What is he going to be?  He hasn’t been good at ES, so he isn’t looking like a top-6 forward.  I don’t see him as someone you deploy in a checking line/shutdown matchup type role.  So what is he?  A guy you play on your worst/lowest ice time ES line and use some on the PP and PK?

I’m not sure that is going to be that valuable on this team.

Maybe he does round into a decent ES player, but I’m kind of getting the feeling that he is trending towards becoming a cast off.

Edited November 19, 2022 by Curt

[Refuting]

2 hours ago, Pimlach said:

There are no guarantees he will sign.  

 

Give him an offer he can't refuse