dudacek

His shootout numbers are slightly above average: 33% (32.4% is league average). You might be thinking about the start of his career when he went 1/9. He's 7 for 15 since. Kotalik is the franchise leader among those with 10 or more chances at 18/36, 50%. Reinhart is the top current guy 8/22, 36.4% Interesting list: https://buffalohockeycentral.com/shootouts/

Agree with this statement. How much success is enough? Is 5-2 much more important than 3-4 to close out? Because that's probably the difference between have the first seed in the draft or the 4th.

IMO, this Foligno plan smells a lot like bringing in Brian Gionta again. You're going to get a good man, but temper your expectations on the player and expect to overpay on the contract.

Personally I'm protecting both, so under my scenario it would be Bjork or Girgensons. And that's even better because you've kept Risto and Borgen and you've essentially traded Bjork for somebody's #4 defenceman But to your point, you're going to lose someone; it's unavoidable. My scenario was about minimizing impact to the roster.

Here's my solution to the expansion draft: trade a 3rd-rounder for the best defenceman you can get that some other team is struggling to protect. You can probably get someone decent, especially with that flat cap. Leave two of that guy, Risto or Borgen unprotected — whichever two you value the least, it doesn't matter. Seattle can only pick one player and you've just acquired that player or his replacement for a 3rd-rounder. Effectively, you walk away from an expansion draft designed to rob you of your 11th-best player having lost only a 3rd-rounder. How do you lose?

The only way I can see this work is if we can trade Risto for a good forward from a team that has too many forwards and a big hole on defence. Maybe there's a team like that out there. Otherwise when you say trade Risto, you mean not for anyone as good as him or Borgen, at least not currently? If you are trading him it's for futures — assets you don't have to protect. Also, if you are trading him, you are trading him to a team that is going to protect him, right? Otherwise why would they make the trade? I'm thinking the list of teams that thinks Risto is significantly better than their current #3, and has $5.3 million in cap space, and is willing to trade a good pick or prospect for him prior to the expansion draft is relatively small. Are we really better off with Borgen and a 3rd than we are with Thompson and Risto? Especially when Risto's value might go up after the expansion draft when acquiring him doesn't put another defenceman on that team at risk? If all you're going to get for him is a 3rd, why not just leave Risto unexposed? That way you get to keep Borgen, Thompson and Bjork. Seems like a lot of effort to protect a 3rd pairing defenceman in Borgen, who Seattle may not even like.

This is a pretty good post, but it mostly falls apart when you remove Danny from the equation. This thread is Eichel vs Drury.

For all we know, he's already told the Sabres that himself and presented his solution. EDIT: Or this.

I don't recall anyone scoffing at Lafreniere. On the contrary, what I remember is people saying that if we were making a deal with the Rangers, he would have to be targeted. The point is if you are trading a proven elite player you'd prefer someone who's already proven a certain level of NHL ability, a guy who already is what Byfield could be, or a least further on his way. Fixed

Pretty much exactly where I am. Ideally, I trade one of our 3rds for a goalie from a team that can't protect theirs and I trade the other to Vegas to take Colin Miller.

I see Taro covered the second point. As to the first, Girgensons is an established NHLer who has certainly proven more than Bjork, Asplund and Thompson from a production point of view, probably has more to offer in a PK/forechecking role as well, and he's only 3-4 years older. (Just answering your question. I would not protect him.)

Drury was the what, the sixth-best player on the Avs? Pouted his way out of Calgary? Finished 4th, 2nd and 3rd in scoring in his three seasons in Buffalo, playing on arguably the deepest teams in franchise history? Left an agreed-upon deal on the table in Buffalo for greener pastures? Stole UFA money from the Rangers? Has snubbed the Sabres and Buffalo on multiple occasions since he left? This isn't close on any level. Plug Chris in for Eichel during the Eichel years and you get — at best — a repeat of ROR on the ice and a trade demand off it. Plug Eichel in for Drury in the Drury years and you get Jack hoisting the Stanley Cup.

I'm mostly with you on this push you've been on, but preseason? These are NHL games against NHL lineups for NHL points. You know Marchand dropped a penny on the ice there, right? Reinhart was killing the Bruins and that rat will do anything to win, even cheap-shotting our best player.

No.

Look up a few posts

But if you can't make a deal are you exposing him?

One would think if he is going to uproot for anywhere it would be Vancouver (Rod is Vancouver Islander and regularly comes home in the summer) or Seattle, with the proximity and the Francis connection.

As far as the 7 forwards go, everyone is protecting Jack and Sam, and you have to protect Jeff unless he unexpectedly waives. Is there anyone not protecting Casey and Victor? Or protecting Okposo or Eakin? That leaves two spots for Bjork, Girgensons, Asplund and Thompson. (Cozens and R2 are exempt)

I guess it depends on what you think of the players, but bottom-half of the roster players are available every year, and probably pretty cheap this year, considering the flat cap. We signed Zemgus a few days prior to free agency not even a year ago, which I see as pretty equivalent to Bjork.

I wouldn't trade a 2nd rounder to acquire a Bjork, so I'm not trading one to keep him. We are going to lose a useful but replaceable NHL player. I'll pay a 3rd to control which one that is. Otherwise I take my chances and sign another Bjork or Borgen in free agency.

It's "he can't win faceoffs" and "he falls down" now. Keep up. (89% on faceoffs last night)

Posted in another thread, but it belongs here: Sam Reinhart has 9 goals and 5 assists in the past 15 games, putting up a -2 with (the corpse of) Jeff Skinner and Victor (not good 5-on-5) Olofsson while learning how to play a position he hasn't played in years, and in a first line role. I'm not certain exactly when he got switched to centre, but since March 31, the only centres with more points than Sam Reinhart are McKinnon, Matthews, Tavares, Crosby and Zibanejad. The only centre with more goals is Matthews. Remember all of those years we've been begging for a real 2C? He's here, you're watching him. Sam is pretty ***** good. (Just re-sign this guy. Please.)

I will say that the above is based largely on watching Sam as a right wing. The Sam Reinhart that has 9 goals and 5 assists in the past 15 games, putting up a -2 with (the corpse of) Jeff Skinner and Victor (not good 5-on-5) Olofsson while learning how to play a position he hasn't played in years, and in a first line role? That Sam is pretty ***** good. (Just re-sign this guy. Please.)

I was wondering about that too. They tend to be off to the side in these conversations — some teams ride a stud goalie, others just have a serviceable piece that gets the job done. One of the reasons I have been pushing to re-sign Linus so hard is that I am one of the few around here who seems to think he can be a core part.

Right now there is no doubt Sam is our #2 player and a team can't contend with Sam at #2. Just like a team can't contend with Risto as our #1 D. We can contend with Dahlin as our undisputed #1D and pushing Jack for our #1 player spot, and with Cozens (and/or possibly Mitts) legitimately in the conversation with Sam for #3. Rasmus seems back on track for that. The other two have a long way to go.