Samson's Flow

Where did that come from?!

Right, IMO there is no contract that Kane would agree to sign where I would be happy with the terms long term. It's just going to cost too much from a team building perspective that I don't think we need more than one high cap wingers.

This was one of the few threads I didn't read here. I don't listen to the show because Peters and Rivet can't possibly provide useful hockey knowledge. Glad to see I wasn't missing anything. :flirt:

Warning: Because Buffalo complaining coming... You just know the NHL offices completes the schedule for the golden child teams and major metro markets first and then figures out how to fit the rest of the teams in to those schedules. That's the only conclusion I can come to as to why the Sabres schedule has minimal Saturday games, terrible west coast trips and all their big Toronto games jammed into one month. :censored:

That's a great idea...

but you can't possibly like that hat, it has silver piping on the logo. /sarcasm

It took me four post edits to get it to work, so i'm glad someone enjoyed it.

What if they are the ones playing spoiler against us?!

and this one: http://forums.sabrespace.com/topic/24910-2017-18-lineup-prediction/?view=findpost&p=942095 I like it when you get going Randall :wub:

I do remember making a fairly lengthy post earlier this offseason extrapolating out Carrier/Bailey/Baptiste's point totals per ice time to that of an average winger. They all extrapolated out to 30+ points IIRC. It was just fun with math, and by no means a real "projection". It was more to show how painfully ineffective Ennis and Moulson were last year Edit: found it! http://forums.sabrespace.com/topic/24910-2017-18-lineup-prediction/?view=findpost&p=942108

He came from Russia so I just assumed he would get the "pov" treatment. :oops:

With Antipov, Beaulieu and Liljegren we are going to give Rob Ray an aneurysm next year trying to pronounce our defense. :w00t:

I'd rather get to a point where we let our prospects marinate in the AHL too long rather than rush them to fill holes. :thumbsup:

I think we are on the cusp of the playoffs with Kane, but i'm fairly certain we won't be able to re-sign him. that's why I made my second point "And if Kane's production is good enough to get us into the playoffs, then we won't be sellers at the deadline anyways and we lose him for nothing at the end of the year." I say making the playoffs and losing Kane isn't worth it.

My only counterpoint to this is next year's half season production means basically nothing IMO. If we aren't good enough to make the playoffs, who cares if we finish at 85 points or 80 points? And if Kane's production is good enough to get us into the playoffs, then we won't be sellers at the deadline anyways and we lose him for nothing at the end of the year. Do we have a legitimate shot at contending for the cup next year?

My highly uninformed speculation in red above.

I think it's interesting that all these former Sabres keep coming up. Not that they aren't qualified, just interesting.

Again, this is why NHL GM's get paid to make these decisions. It's a big game of chicken. Do you take the trade value you know now (Door #1) or risk it for the potential return at the trade deadline (Door #2 and #3). It could be better or worse or so bad that you end up getting nothing at the end of the year. Unfortunately we don't know the value being offered now, and certainly don't know the trade deadline appetite.

A certain amount of roster churn is to be expected in pro sports. The good teams are generally cold and calculating by getting what they can for players when their value is high (different sport, but see Belichick/Pats), while the bad teams tend to be sentimental and hang on to their guys too long until they lose value or are lost for nothing (see Darcy's Sabres teams and Briere/Drury saga). Can we start to be a smart team? We can't afford to pay Kane his market price long term given the preferred investment in Eichel/ROR/Okposo/Reino, so we need to cash him in for an entry level contract/cost controlled young player. I wouldn't be happy with it, but I don't think the market is that low tbh. At minimum I would take a 2nd plus a B prospect (preferably on defense). It may not be popular but it's better than nothing.

To add to my point, obviously i'm not advocating trading him for a 7th, and we should certainly maximize value. Again, I don't think we are winning the cup next year with or without Kane, but adding a good prospect and a pick could help open that window a few years down the road.

I think it comes down to C as well. Part of effective asset management is re-signing the guys that are important and key pieces, but also realizing when a player has a low likelihood of re-signing with your team. Rather than lose them for nothing, it is prudent to get long-term value for them before losing them for nothing. Especially when you are not expected to be a upper tier contender this year. If we were a cup contender it may make sense to keep him for one year to go for it, but realistically we are barely a playoff contender next year.

I've always been a proponent that the PP success is based on the high end talent you have. You either have guys that can enter the zone and put away the puck or you don't. The Sabres PP will be fine.

I think the difference between some of the posters picks here really shows that Vegas can go two distinct routes - take best available and have more of a veteran win-now team or take young up and coming value prospects and struggle for a few years (while getting more top 5 picks). IMO, the only failure the VGK can do is land somewhere in between these two extremes and end up as a perpetual playoff cusp team.

Good analysis GA, and this is where I am at this point. None of the players that we are exposing really move the needle at all, especially given we are a bottom tier team last year I don't think Vegas is salivating at our list compared to some of the other genuine talents that were exposed by other teams. Our team core is in the young entry level and RFA players that were automatically protected, not the post-tank scraps.