oddoublee Posted October 1 Report Posted October 1 Just now, Doohickie said: Forgot all about that guy. Confirms my suspicion. They probably offered him 7 or 8 and he wants 9 or 10. As a righty, if he can pot 30...he's gonna get paid. He's smart to bet on himself here 1 Quote
inkman Posted October 1 Report Posted October 1 1 hour ago, Flashsabre said: Nice. I like him and what he brings back there. One of Mrtka, Rudolph, Kleber have to become their top trade chip right now because the backend is locked in long term I don’t consider anyone outside of 26,25 & 23 as locked in roster spots. The other 5 spots are all up for grabs. While Zellweger or Metsa may fill a need for the time being, I’m certainly not married to any 5’9” defenseman. Quote
Carmel Corn Posted October 1 Report Posted October 1 Love this deal…..so much better IMHO vs. something else like a Logan Stanley extension (alternative). I’m rooting hard for him to become a top 4 caliber player for us. 2 Quote
Night Train Posted October 1 Report Posted October 1 ..and the core continues to be built. Very wise. Puts him in a good frame of mind in addition to sending a message to the rest of the roster. Quote
Pimlach Posted October 1 Report Posted October 1 33 minutes ago, PASabreFan said: Do you remember Clips Quips? 2 1 Quote
Night Train Posted October 1 Report Posted October 1 40 minutes ago, Doohickie said: Quinn is the obvious answer but I think he's betting on himself and will wait to the end of the season. I agree but also think he might be a trade chip prior to the deadline. Quote
Carmel Corn Posted October 1 Report Posted October 1 (edited) 53 minutes ago, JohnC said: The GM should be given credit for handling the Byram situation. He acknowledged the fact that he wouldn’t be able to re-sign him after this year. So he dealt him when he had value, getting Crevier and a high draft pick from Chicago that was used for a highly rated prospect. He also traded for Zellweger, so the unit shouldn’t be significantly impacted by the loss of a talented defenseman. In general, I have to give the GM credit for way he handled this situation. Agree on the handling of the Byram situation. I am still 50-50 on whether enough was done with the forwards though….the potential in what we already have is still there, but unproven. The Tuch hole is still looming large IMHO. I’d also still like to see a bigger heavy for our 4th line that can actually log productive regular minutes….other contending teams in our division have them somewhere in their lineups. Edited October 1 by Carmel Corn 2 Quote
Fansince70 Posted October 1 Report Posted October 1 Just now, Carmel Corn said: Agree on the handling of the Byram situation. I am still 50-50 on whether enough was done with the forwards though….the potential in what we already have is still there, but unproven. The Tuch hole is still looming large IMHO. I’d also still like to see a bigger heavy for our 4th line that can actually log productive regular minutes….other contending teams in our division have them somewhere in their lineups. "Tuch hole"? So many thoughts.... 1 Quote
Drag0nDan Posted October 1 Report Posted October 1 1 hour ago, tom webster said: Just because they are locked up doesn’t mean they will play out the duration of their careers in Buffalo. These are the kind of contracts that will be easily tradable should the prospects outperform them. It’s a win win unless they are wrong about five or six guys. Odds are good that they will at least be right about two. Signing him after the entire pre-season to me indicates that they were very happy with his game. 3 Quote
K-9 Posted October 1 Report Posted October 1 2 minutes ago, Drag0nDan said: Signing him after the entire pre-season to me indicates that they were very happy with his game. I suspect he has impressed Sabres brass in practices even more. 3 Quote
tom webster Posted October 1 Report Posted October 1 7 minutes ago, Drag0nDan said: Signing him after the entire pre-season to me indicates that they were very happy with his game. Of course, but getting him to sign such an easily movable contract played a role in getting it done. 1 1 Quote
GASabresIUFAN Posted October 1 Report Posted October 1 1 hour ago, Scottysabres said: Quinn and/or Kulich? I think n those are the last 2 RFA’s no? Helenius can be extended next July and Ellis if he plays 12 games (I think) As to Kulich and Quinn, both are wait and see. I agree Quinn is likely betting on himself and Jarmo will want to see where Kulich’s game is before even considering an extension. 1 Quote
Porous Five Hole Posted October 1 Report Posted October 1 53 minutes ago, inkman said: I don’t consider anyone outside of 26,25 & 23 as locked in roster spots. The other 5 spots are all up for grabs. While Zellweger or Metsa may fill a need for the time being, I’m certainly not married to any 5’9” defenseman. Size queen 1 1 Quote
PromoTheRobot Posted October 1 Report Posted October 1 22 minutes ago, Carmel Corn said: Agree on the handling of the Byram situation. I am still 50-50 on whether enough was done with the forwards though….the potential in what we already have is still there, but unproven. The Tuch hole is still looming large IMHO. I’d also still like to see a bigger heavy for our 4th line that can actually log productive regular minutes….other contending teams in our division have them somewhere in their lineups. They are a bit hamstrung because of the Skinner balloon buyout number due this season. Quote
Carmel Corn Posted October 1 Report Posted October 1 19 minutes ago, PromoTheRobot said: They are a bit hamstrung because of the Skinner balloon buyout number due this season. True….at least the good news is (I presume) that Crevier’s new deal doesn’t kick in until next season. I think he makes less than $1 million this year still? I know we still have more years left on that Skinner buyout, but at least much less so next season. 1 Quote
... Posted October 1 Report Posted October 1 1 hour ago, Fansince70 said: "Tuch hole"? So many thoughts.... Speaking of Clip Smith... Quote
Big Guava Posted October 1 Report Posted October 1 Zellweger and Crevier are still like 5 million combined less than Byram and we also got Dax Rudolph out of the deal 😂 Quote
CTJoe Posted October 1 Report Posted October 1 1 hour ago, PromoTheRobot said: They are a bit hamstrung because of the Skinner balloon buyout number due this season. these extensions don't affect this year's cap and next year they are looking very good cap wise 1 Quote
SabreFinn Posted October 1 Report Posted October 1 1 hour ago, Drag0nDan said: Signing him after the entire pre-season to me indicates that they were very happy with his game. That, and he probably is a person that fit in with the group and the culture Jarmo want to build a successful team around. Quote
CTJoe Posted October 1 Report Posted October 1 23 minutes ago, Big Guava said: Zellweger and Crevier are still like 5 million combined less than Byram and we also got Dax Rudolph out of the deal 😂 Yep - he's done well in handling the d situation. Goaltending will make or break this year 1 Quote
Nacho Libre Posted October 1 Report Posted October 1 (edited) 3 hours ago, dudacek said: He’s looked good in my viewings. Surprising, but it shouldn’t be given what we’ve seen from Jarmo. Having three studs locked up for at least 4 years on good deals, and two solid players with upside for at least 3, with two top 10 picks already in the pipeline might be the best blueline situation of any team in the league. Less a Jarmo thing than a reflection of a “this league is officially bonkers” type situation, imo what are we doing here lol (not saying “Crevier” at 4 is bad, I don’t really have an opinion on it. But it would seem to be a no-brainer type contract given what is being given out now - even if Logan Stanley would have gotten this contract last year and now barely got signed at all) 3 hours ago, JohnC said: The GM should be given credit for handling the Byram situation. He acknowledged the fact that he wouldn’t be able to re-sign him after this year. So he dealt him when he had value, getting Crevier and a high draft pick from Chicago that was used for a highly rated prospect. He also traded for Zellweger, so the unit shouldn’t be significantly impacted by the loss of a talented defenseman. In general, I have to give the GM credit for way he handled this situation. You have seen zero of the result yet (I want to live in your world where results aren’t a metric of note it seems really breezy - the interesting juxtaposition here being the phrasing that he “should be” (in the now) given credit because the unit “shouldn’t be” (something that remains to be seen) impacted. Whether or not it actually ends up being so need not apply, I guess? The important thing is he tried, regardless. I’d gladly pay you on Tuesday for a hamburger today.) Edited October 1 by Nacho Libre 1 1 Quote
Nacho Libre Posted October 1 Report Posted October 1 (edited) Formal petition for any negative reaction from the board’s resident “the moon landing was faked!” simpleton @_Q_ to count as a +1 on the official record Edited October 1 by Nacho Libre 2 Quote
JohnC Posted October 1 Report Posted October 1 35 minutes ago, Nacho Libre said: Less a Jarmo thing than a reflection of a “this league is officially bonkers” type situation, imo what are we doing here lol (not saying “Crevier” at 4 is bad, I don’t really have an opinion on it. But it would seem to be a no-brainer type contract given what is being given out now - even if Logan Stanley would have gotten this contract last year and now barely got signed at all) You have seen zero of the result yet (I want to live in your world where results aren’t a metric of note it seems really breezy - the interesting juxtaposition here being the phrasing that he “should be” (in the now) given credit because the unit “shouldn’t be” (something that remains to be seen) impacted. Whether or not it actually ends up being so need not apply, I guess? The important thing is he tried, regardless. I’d gladly pay you on Tuesday for a hamburger today.) What you are not acknowledging is that the Sabres were not going to be able to keep this impending URFA player. If you don’t believe he got good value back in the return, then we disagree. As I stated before, I believe the GM handled this situation very well. Quote
Nacho Libre Posted October 1 Report Posted October 1 (edited) 6 minutes ago, JohnC said: What you are not acknowledging is that the Sabres were not going to be able to keep this impending URFA player. If you don’t believe he got good value back in the return, then we disagree. As I stated before, I believe the GM handled this situation very well. This is exactly how the “what could so-and-so even have done?” narratives get created and parroted nonsensically. Give him credit when the deal works out. I’m not acknowledging we couldn’t keep him because it’s factually untrue. What you mean to say is that we “couldn’t have kept him at a cost I found appealing” which is…entirely different. Nm the fact he was under contract for this season IIRC. Just because the Online GM Simulator had a slider on that turns the value of the immediate season to “0” doesn’t mean the OGMS represents reality you can repeat the same thesis you use in every post all you want: the idea we need to start the analysis for literally every move we make at “first off, we had to make it” completely and illogically skews the discussion also, “UFRA” is a massive “this response was fed through AI” tip off you have to watch that Edited October 1 by Nacho Libre 2 Quote
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.