Will the Sabres make a major trade before New Year's?

[nfreeman]

It's a tough call. On one hand, Darcy doesn't make moves in a hurry, and certainly not when fans are clamoring for it. OTOH, including New Year's day, we have 20 games between now and then. I have a hard time seeing this bunch of lost children getting it together and getting any more than 8 wins, and they could easily end up with 5. If that happens, I think Darcy's hand will be forced, and he'll have to trade players he really doesn't want to trade, because the alternative is just to write off the season.

 

So, I voted "yes".

 

I'm still a Sabres fan though.

[dante23x]

I don't think they will. They should though. This team is lacking toughness and teams are steamrolling through us and will continue to do so. I'd be fine with some addition by subtraction such as advising Max his services are no longer needed.

[Claude Balls]

No, no #%^$#!ing way this team does something smart for a change. They haven't in the past and I don't see it happening now.

[LabattBlue]

They will not do this short of a major losing streak(losing 9 out of 10). They will continue to win a few and lose a few right up to the deadline and then it will be the same as last year... Right around 8th-10th, Miller overworked(and more cross-eyed than ever :D), players still not showing any signs of being physical, no defensive zone awareness and Lindy feeling frustrated as hell.

[MechMedic130]

I'm gonna go out on a limb here and say yes, just because this year they're coming off of a bad year and if they repeat like that again its gonna start hitting them in the wallet. Ticket sales are already down, the bandwagon is clearing out and people aren't gonna keep paying thinking this is 06/07 by mistake.

 

It's still very much on whether or not Darcy can find a trade partner that wants something we have of course. Darcy isn't a sucker, he's not going to let some other GM take him to the cleaners just for the sake of making a trade. If a good deal presents itself I think he'll pull the trigger. If not, he won't.

[Kristian]

They won't make a move, even if it means losing 10 straight.

 

We lost 14 in a row last season, and nobody as much as raised an eyebrow.

 

And yes, losing in a shootout is a loss, regardless what Quinn says.

[darksabre]

I don't have enough faith in the front office to put yes. And I'm not going to expect them to prove me wrong.

[cilevel]

I'm gonna go out on a limb here and say yes, just because this year they're coming off of a bad year and if they repeat like that again its gonna start hitting them in the wallet. Ticket sales are already down, the bandwagon is clearing out and people aren't gonna keep paying thinking this is 06/07 by mistake.

 

It's still very much on whether or not Darcy can find a trade partner that wants something we have of course. Darcy isn't a sucker, he's not going to let some other GM take him to the cleaners just for the sake of making a trade. If a good deal presents itself I think he'll pull the trigger. If not, he won't.

 

If they keep up their losing ways, Darcy may be forced to give a little more than he gets but if it addresses a glaring need (insert, strong, big, fast two-way center with some grit and leadership/vet) than he needs to pull that trigger faster than he can blink. These guys just don't seem to get it.

[Goodfella25]

I am convinced we would have to lose upwards of 10 straight games before a move was made. The front office has even said they make their moves in the offseason. That is their policy--and if they go down with the sinking ship, then so be it. It's 2 years in a row of this nonsense. At what point do you realize the "core" just isn't getting it done?

[wonderbread]

nothing will be done. Enjoy your 2008-2009 Buffalo Sabres. or as I like to call them the 2007-2008 Buffalo Sabres 2.0.

[ntsabresfan]

Please???!!!

[kdogydog]

I think it is tough to get this team going considering every time we get the team back healthy somebody else goes down (usually Connolley). However, considering how Portland is playing I wouldn't mind seeing Max traded for picks and give Mancari or Gerbe a shot. I would bring up Mancari first because he has been in the system longer, is averaging about 2 points a game and we need to see what he can do. Everyone knows Gerbe will be here before the end of the year.

 

In fact, after the year the only one of the Sabres free agents (Connolley, Max, Spacek and Kotalik) I would sign is Kotalik. The rest I would replace with a group among Gerbe, Mancari, Kennedy, Butler and/or Weber.

[Bmwolf21]

Nyet - no moves, nada, zip, zilch, zero. Hope I'm wrong, but that's not Darcy's MO.

 

nothing will be done. Enjoy your 2008-2009 Buffalo Sabres. or as I like to call them the 2007-2008 Buffalo Sabres 2.0.

:lol:

 

So does this make the Sabres the league's version of Windows Vista? Shiny and pretty with nice ideas, horribly marketed and never working right?

[Two or less]

They won't make a move, even if it means losing 10 straight.

 

We lost 14 in a row last season, and nobody as much as raised an eyebrow.

 

And yes, losing in a shootout is a loss, regardless what Quinn says.

 

No it ain't. In the old NHL that would be a tie. In todays NHL it's a point. A point is a point, no matter how you slice it. It's a bit different then losing in a shootout to a divisional team but you still get a point. A LOSS would be handing the opponent 2 points. I honestly don't understand why some people think a shootout loss is a loss????

[Kristian]

No it ain't. In the old NHL that would be a tie. In todays NHL it's a point. A point is a point, no matter how you slice it. It's a bit different then losing in a shootout to a divisional team but you still get a point. A LOSS would be handing the opponent 2 points. I honestly don't understand why some people think a shootout loss is a loss????

 

Well good question really, but this isn't the old NHL, and I guess if you're going to proclaim a winner, then you also proclaim a loser.

 

There may be a point involved, but you still have a winner and a loser, and what's more important - Losing in a shootout doesn't feel a whole lot different from losing in OT, so psychologically it's very much a loss.

[BamBam]

I voted no.

I think they could use some pieces, however the words Major and Trade have not been mentioned in Buffalo since when Lafontaine?

I don't count selling off Hasek for that punk Slava a Major Trade, cause it sure wasn't for us.

 

I may be missing some major trades though, but I just don't see this being the team to have the stones to go out and acquire a Hossa like the Pens did last year, or something along those lines.

 

Its time to give some of the Pirates on the farm a shot.

[LabattBlue]

I think it is tough to get this team going considering every time we get the team back healthy somebody else goes down (usually Connolley).

 

During their 8 game streak to start the season, you had no Connolly and Hecht only played 1 game. Missing a couple of key players didn't hurt them at that time, why now? Sorry, I don't buy it.

[Kristian]

During their 8 game streak to start the season, you had no Connolly and Hecht only played 1 game. Missing a couple of key players didn't hurt them at that time, why now? Sorry, I don't buy it.

 

I agree.

 

And Connolly is not a key player in anyones mind, but Darcy.

[jimiVbaby]

It's getting to the point where I almost won't mind trading one of the 'untouchables' for a couple players with good potential. Tredding water is really not getting this team anywhere.

[inkman]

I have to imagine the people voting yes are voting with what they want Darcy to do, not what they think he will do. How many in season, non-trade deadline trades has Darcy made to just "shake thing up"? None that I can remember.

[nfreeman]

I have to imagine the people voting yes are voting with what they want Darcy to do, not what they think he will do. How many in season, non-trade deadline trades has Darcy made to just "shake thing up"? None that I can remember.

Even as a "yes" voter, I have a hard time disagreeing with you. The only factor I can point to is that I also have a hard time believing that Darcy will just sit back and watch another season go down the tubes -- which will surely be the outcome if we lose, say, 14 of the next 20.

[2ForTripping]

It's getting to the point where I almost won't mind trading one of the 'untouchables' for a couple players with good potential. Tredding water is really not getting this team anywhere.

The only problem with that is that the "untouchables" are the opponents we face!

[inkman]

The only factor I can point to is that I also have a hard time believing that Darcy will just sit back and watch another season go down the tubes..

A GM that has supreme confidence in his job security may do that. Does anyone think Darcy loses his job if the Sabres tank this year?

[SarasotaSabre]

I'm gonna go out on a limb here and say yes, just because this year they're coming off of a bad year and if they repeat like that again its gonna start hitting them in the wallet. Ticket sales are already down, the bandwagon is clearing out and people aren't gonna keep paying thinking this is 06/07 by mistake.

 

It's still very much on whether or not Darcy can find a trade partner that wants something we have of course. Darcy isn't a sucker, he's not going to let some other GM take him to the cleaners just for the sake of making a trade. If a good deal presents itself I think he'll pull the trigger. If not, he won't.

 

....way to go out on a limb...:))

[RR61]

I say no. Even when it's clear a player should be traded, Regier won't do it unless he's assured of getting exactly the deal he wants. That's why Afinogenov is still on this team. When other teams know you are dealing from weakness or the desire to dump a player, they'll offer crap in return.