Do You Like The JJP for Kesselring/Doan Trade RIGHT NOW?

[bob_sauve28]

That's it, no, "Well it depends" craps. No, "well, I want to wait ten years and see how it plays out" garbage.  Man up, (Or person up, whatever) and just vote. 

 

No one will hold your vote against you, ok? 

[Huckleberry]

Don't really hate it , but can't love it right now.   LIke I said I wanted at least 9th for 4th swap in there too.

[Weave]

[LGR4GM]

21 minutes ago, bob_sauve28 said:

That's it, no, "Well it depends" craps. No, "well, I want to wait ten years and see how it plays out" garbage.  Man up, (Or person up, whatever) and just vote. 

 

No one will hold your vote against you, ok? 

Hmm... I'll lean yes. 

[bob_sauve28]

4 minutes ago, LGR4GM said:

Hmm... I'll lean yes. 

Ok, ok, smart guy, I'm call a bench minor. 

[WhenWillItEnd66]

Like it

[jad1]

Like the players, but hate the trade for so many reasons.  

Pretty much par for the course for the Adams reign-of-error.

[BullBuchanan]

Reinhart-level disaster.

[GASabresIUFAN]

I like the addition of Kesselring, but giving up JJP for him was much too high a price.  

[Cityo'Rasmii]

It's the "didn't want to be here" bell...

And yes, there are palm trees in Utah.

[DarthEbriate]

Utah is adding a player to their top 6, PP, and with the extension, you could reasonably expect him to be top-3 on their franchise in goals scored over the course of the next 5 seasons (125-150ish goals). That's a big-time acquisition.

The Sabres are getting a 3/4 wing who could become a 2nd-liner in a very pleasant scenario. They're also getting a player who fits into the top 4, but as the roster is currently constructed, you would expect him to be the 4th overall in time-on-ice amongst defensemen, with little to no PP time, and minimal expected point production - he does not have a long-term deal.

This is worth the exchange of top-of-1st-round picks. The Sabres needed to also get first choice of potential "offensive" chips in this outcome.

Don't like it.

 

Getting Kesselring, who could be bridged into UFA, with Strbak, etc. already in the pipeline --- don't draft a RHD at 9. No Mrtka, please. Get a forward. You're going to need scoring.

[Thorny]

If you ran this poll yesterday afternoon and asked if you’d be ok with that return how do we think the poll results read differently right now? 
 

be honest 

Consensus good deal? Like the poll says right now? Right now the poll shows overwhelming win for Adams. 

Edited 5 hours ago by Thorny

[SABRES 0311]

If Kesselring brings some physicality to the Power pairing that’s a plus. Maybe power will grow some balls too if he sees his partner being a man.

[Thorny]

37 minutes ago, LGR4GM said:

Hmm... I'll lean yes. 

You told me you’d redo it if given the option no more than a couple hours ago haha 

So you’d redo the trade, wipe it from the record, but consider it, right now, a trade you like. Do I have that right? 

[elijah]

People heard the buzz names all offseason from the media and the rumors, names and picks surrounding Peterka and instantly reacted negatively because these weren’t familiar names

You subtracted a great offensive player (a surplus on this team) who severely lacked defense (the main issue on this team) and added two guys that play responsible defense, most significantly finally adding a Power partner that we’ve needed for years. The value is probably a little lacking in what we were expecting, but the team got better. 

 

Consider me a fan of the trade

[Thorny]

3 minutes ago, elijah said:

People heard the buzz names all offseason from the media and the rumors, names and picks surrounding Peterka and instantly reacted negatively because these weren’t familiar names

You subtracted a great offensive player (a surplus on this team) who severely lacked defense (the main issue on this team) and added two guys that play responsible defense, most significantly finally adding a Power partner that we’ve needed for years. The value is probably a little lacking in what we were expecting, but the team got better. 

 

Consider me a fan of the trade

So true. When you put it that way- I was just too stupid to get it. These guys are always one step ahead, admittedly 

 

[Porous Five Hole]

1 hour ago, bob_sauve28 said:

That's it, no, "Well it depends" craps. No, "well, I want to wait ten years and see how it plays out" garbage.  Man up, (Or person up, whatever) and just vote. 

 

No one will hold your vote against you, ok? 

Here comes the craps. 

I can’t answer until I see what the Sabres do with the acquisition of more than 5MM in cap space.
Great, got a RD and physicality. But they moved the better player. The key to determining if this was a good trade or not is how the Sabres spend the savings. Like, if they got Robertson now…good trade!
 

And if they don’t spend it?  Well, they flipping better. 

Edited 5 hours ago by Porous Five Hole

[LGR4GM]

9 minutes ago, Thorny said:

You told me you’d redo it if given the option no more than a couple hours ago haha 

So you’d redo the trade, wipe it from the record, but consider it, right now, a trade you like. Do I have that right? 

Yes. You asked if I wanted more in a trade. I do. 

Now this asks if I like the trade. 

It's 2 different questions. 

[Thorny]

7 minutes ago, LGR4GM said:

Yes. You asked if I wanted more in a trade. I do. 

Now this asks if I like the trade. 

It's 2 different questions. 

But then don’t trade him - you reiterated multiple times leading up to today “we simply don’t have to trade him”. And then said you would not do it for less than Robertson

so we did it for less than Robertson, and we didn’t have to do it - those are your stated suppositions. We did the trade for less than you said you’d be willing to, but are saying it’s a good trade when you specifically said it’s less value than you’d be willing to do the trade for 

 

Correct? You would have said no to the deal, but you like the deal for our team 

cause, it’s not “well I want more but I do like it” - at least I don’t see how a deal you’ve stated you wouldn’t make falls under the category of a trade you like when there’s no requirement to make the deal 

Edited 5 hours ago by Thorny

[LGR4GM]

3 minutes ago, Thorny said:

But then don’t trade him - you reiterated multiple times leading up to today “we simply don’t have to trade him”. And then said you would not do it for less than Robertson

so we did it for less than Robertson, and we didn’t have to do it - those are your stated suppositions. We did the trade for less than you said you’d be willing to, but are saying it’s a good trade when you specifically said it’s less value than you’d be willing to do the trade for 

 

Correct? You would have said no to the deal, but you like the deal for our team 

Yea, that's pretty accurate. This thread asked for a hard decision and I decided to lean yes and answer yes. This trade could very very easily blow up in buffalo's face. I wanted the sure fire win, hence Robertson. So I'm both disappointed and still ok with the return. Yes, I recognize the juxtaposition of it. 

[Night Train]

I voted Yes, with the thought Byram will bring a return that will fill the JJ slot. We'll see. If so, then it's a good beginning. 

[Thorny]

3 minutes ago, LGR4GM said:

Yea, that's pretty accurate. This thread asked for a hard decision and I decided to lean yes and answer yes. This trade could very very easily blow up in buffalo's face. I wanted the sure fire win, hence Robertson. So I'm both disappointed and still ok with the return. Yes, I recognize the juxtaposition of it. 

I suppose I’d understand the distinction more if a trade was strictly necessary - was just struggling with the idea the option of making the deal could be construed as good when the option to keep what we’ve deemed as better remains viable 

I do think there’s some trickiness in the poll options as they aren’t equal from centre - “hate” is further one way than “good”

Edited 5 hours ago by Thorny

[jad1]

7 minutes ago, SABRES 0311 said:

If Kesselring brings some physicality to the Power pairing that’s a plus. Maybe power will grow some balls too if he sees his partner being a man.

At this point, we don't even know if Kesselring can handle top 4 minutes. 

And that's why this deal kind-of sucks.  It's a production vs projection deal, and Adams was on the wrong side of it (because he claims he's in win now mode). 

If Kesselring craps out of a top 4 role (like Clifton did), we're looking at a giant bust of a deal.

 

[LGR4GM]

Just now, Thorny said:

I suppose I’d understand the distinction more if a trade was strictly necessary - was just struggling with the idea the option of making the deal could be construed as good when the option to keep what we’ve deemed as better remains a viable option 

I think that's fair. 

I guess the real heart of the question is, is Buffalo better with this Peterka trade than if they just kept Peterka. I'm not sure because part of me thinks Peterka isn't what we need but part also thinks we didn't get enough. In the end, I might bet well be wrong, in fact it's probably more likely the Sabres are worse off right now than with Peterka. But there's still this part of me that thinks they're better. 

[ASlugAbove]

The problem is that we have another young, promising, drafted player asking for a trade out. Which lowers value in the trade market too, and thus return. That’s the problem with this trade and why I don’t like it whatsoever. Especially with so many other avenues they could’ve gone with JJ.