Samson's Flow

Does the Sabres #21 + #31 + #51 beat that? I don't think so, but it is in the ballpark. We'd have to add a young dman or prospect. I'd much rather have Dougie Hamilton than Lehner (even though I like Lehner)

This is kind of what I was getting at. From my perspective, Lehner's NHL production is able to be predicted at, say, 80% certainty. The prospect we pick at #21 can only be predicted with less than 50% certainty. Even if the ceiling on the #21 prospect is higher, the range of expected outcomes is far wider. That and we need to wait three years for that prospect to even be in the NHL. It's a timeline issue above all else. That and the overlooked value is that Lehner is on a cost controlled contract with RFA status in 2 years. So we control his rights for at least through his next contract. RoR contract means we are paying market rate for his services (in addition to trade price). To have a cup winning team, you need quite a few players on small contracts that greatly out perform what you are paying them. That's the bonus of the Lehner trade if he turns out as good as GMTM thinks.

That package would give me an aneurysm. RoR is not worth anywhere near that to me.

:lol: I was just telling the story today of how the President at my old work had to use dictation software to use a computer and send emails. There's still a few dinosaurs out there...

Agreed. I would think the whole point of getting Hamilton is to have a defense stud on the same age timeline with Monahan and Bennett. Similar to the Sabres plan but further along IMO.

Now that's a trade I can get behind if I am Calgary. Glad to see him out of our division as well.

Yep. I know you got confused since it seems to have turned into the "Darcy Regier Dead Horse Thread" :nana:

Didn't we argue about this for months during this last tank season? It isn't happening folks. Nobody trades the 'next great one' without getting a package that no GM will be willing to offer. A Lindros type package isn't feasable anymore in today's NHL cap world. What the heck kind of reporting is "high-ish"? That's incredibly specific...

I think a lot of the hate for this trade is that people always overvalue potential and unknown of draft picks over actual tangible players. Fans look at the ceiling of all these 18 year old players and compare that against what they have seen of the current player. What is often overlooked is the probability of the 18 yr old prospect hitting that ceiling is relatively low. By comparison, the established prospect is much easier to project to a more reasonable value since they are further along. Fans see the best case scenario of taking, say, Zboril at #21 and compare his ceiling as an 18 year old against the more established Lehner as a 23 year old and see missed value. But it is just as likely (if not moreso) that Zboril never develops further and doesn't make the NHL in a few years. It is a perception bias that makes fans over value draft picks and new prospects.

Well I would rather have Lehner than Talbot, give age and potential, so there's that. If Talbot costs a 1st, then I'm less upset about the Lehner move.

Regardless of what you think of the trade, you have to love GMTM for his off-the-cuff quotes :beer:

I absolutely hated the value when I heard about this trade. Now that it has settled in that we aren't getting another piece, I still don't like it, but I understand it. I think GMTM was trying to trade up into the top 10/15 using #21, cause that's where I speculate he sees the talent cutoff. Since he couldn't find anyone willing to dance, he shifted to the mindset that #21 is roughly equal to #31 in terms of the player he will get. GMTM has been very focused on targeting young players already in the NHL in the 23-25yr old range, so that they all peak in the same year(s) for a cup run. Lehner fits perfectly in the time frame with our other guys (Kane, Bogo, Risto, Zemgus etc.). Now we can certainly argue that Lehner won't turn out to be as good as GMTM thinks, but he is the right age, right stage of development and cost controlled (RFA in 2 yrs). Those are all good things to prevent a cap issue in the future and allow him to grow into the team. Still think it is poor value but the player fits the blueprint of what I think we are trying to do.

Would you believe me if I told you I was really trying to type "Be wear" :thumbsup:

That's what I figured it just seemed kind of strange that you can have more than the allotted number of players based on the rules for OT. It's just not sitting right with me for some reason. :unsure:

So when there is a penalty in 3-3 overtime, the rules posted online state that the team then moves to 4 on 3 for the duration of the penalty. I assume when the penalty is over the penalized player then comes back on the ice making it 4 on 4 for a while until there is a stoppage in play. Then it goes back to 3 on 3? That's the only way it could work, but it seems very confusing. So you could actually have 5 on 4 or 4 on 4 for a pretty long duration in overtime if there are multiple penalties.

:lol: If only I had spent more time reading your post instead of counting the words within it.

Yeah - a lady killer... :flirt:

While a good theory in concept, I am always weary of the "cap will always go up" thought process. From an economy perspective, it is thinking like that which causes stock market crashes and housing bubbles. Be weary.

Sorry WildCard, but the first three words of your post makes me disbelieve the remaining 19. My point exactly. Me either.

That's exactly what that is. Total nonsense. It's talk like that which makes me not listen to WGR. They love to rile up the uninformed masses with mindless speculation so they have something to talk about for the next four hours. Reinhart is not being traded. If we didn't have Eichel he would be our #1 center going forward for the next 10 years. Since we have Ike, he gets to be a top notch #2 center.

My father sent me an Omaha Steaks package for Christmas last year. Steak, Pork, Burgers, Salmon all good stuff. The sides that came with it were decent but a little too processed/tv dinner style for my taste but gad damn the meat was good. Not sure I would have bought it myself as it was rather pricey, but it made for a great Christmas gift to use after I had just finished my kitchen remodel.

Back from my long hiatus: I got married last Saturday (6/13) and enjoyed the best two weeks of my life. Rehearsal dinner was amazing (yard games, drinking and food truck catering), shot the best round of the year on Friday (85, 6 strokes better than my average) and had the most amazing wedding day you could ask for. Beautiful weather, even more beautiful wife (!) and plenty of friends and family coming from all over the country to share in the moment. It was awesome. Just got back from our Jamaican honeymoon, which was pretty awesome in it's own right. Weather was perfect (no rainy days) and there's nothing like relaxing on the beach for a week and eating delicious food that takes the stress out of all that wedding planning. So what did I miss?

The line-up issue is a problem, I will admit. Although he was top three in points for the team in '12-13 and '13-14 seasons, so I am not ready to say he is completely useless just because of his poor season last year. Is it concerning? Yes. But he has the prospect pedigree and has demonstrated the ability to put up points in the NHL. If I was another NHL GM, he would be a "buy low" candidate for sure. I hope GMTM doesn't make that mistake. :w00t:

I did not even notice that, but that just further puts into perspective how dreadfully awful last year's squad was at scoring goals and putting up points. Hodgson is also a player that I feel is a little more reliant on having talented scorers around him, as his game is very passing/awareness driven.

Cody Hodgson will be in the top 6 in scoring forwards next season for the Buffalo Sabres. Last year will turn out to be a minor blip on the radar in his career as a top six player. If I am wrong you all can call me on it, but there is no way we should trade him away or give up now. (I've been waiting for this one) :thumbsup: