Serious question now that the offseason dust has settled: would you rather go into the 3rd-last game of next season with ...

[Huckleberry]

If we are going to trade stafford at the deadline, we have to keep up with tradition and hand him the "C"

[Weave]

We've already had our tank. I do not want to see another season of ditching all that is valuable in my lifetime. Let's play some ###### hockey.

[LastPommerFan]

We've already had our tank. I do not want to see another season of ditching all that is valuable in my lifetime. Let's play some ###### hockey.

 

They can't let those four guys walk for nothing. They just can't, and I believe you support that logic. Therefore, given that not one of them is in the long term plans (too much talent pressure from below on meszaros, Mitchell, and Stewart, too much stained history on staff) they must be traded with 18 games remaining. They can only be traded for futures, as playoff teams don't part with current assets. I think you, and the others, support this. This is tanking. It may be tank-lite compared to last season, but it is tanking none the less.

[nfreeman]

They can't let those four guys walk for nothing. They just can't, and I believe you support that logic. Therefore, given that not one of them is in the long term plans (too much talent pressure from below on meszaros, Mitchell, and Stewart, too much stained history on staff) they must be traded with 18 games remaining. They can only be traded for futures, as playoff teams don't part with current assets. I think you, and the others, support this. This is tanking. It may be tank-lite compared to last season, but it is tanking none the less.

 

I don't think those 4 guys, none of whom is on the list of "Top 10 most important Sabres," can fairly be regarded as the fulcrum of the "tanking/not tanking" analysis.

[Weave]

They can't let those four guys walk for nothing. They just can't, and I believe you support that logic. Therefore, given that not one of them is in the long term plans (too much talent pressure from below on meszaros, Mitchell, and Stewart, too much stained history on staff) they must be traded with 18 games remaining. They can only be traded for futures, as playoff teams don't part with current assets. I think you, and the others, support this. This is tanking. It may be tank-lite compared to last season, but it is tanking none the less.

 

I am hopeful that Stewart decides he wants to be here and plays well enough to become part of our long term plans. And moving Mitchell and Meszaros probably won't have much of an impact overall IMO. Stafford would likely have an impact on a playoff possibilty, if for no other reason than he is a legot 2nd line winger.

 

I don't think those 4 guys, none of whom is on the list of "Top 10 most important Sabres," can fairly be regarded as the fulcrum of the "tanking/not tanking" analysis.

 

And this, too.

 

I'd rather see Stafford moved for a "hockey trade" than a hockey's futures trade.

[drnkirishone]

 

 

I don't think those 4 guys, none of whom is on the list of "Top 10 most important Sabres," can fairly be regarded as the fulcrum of the "tanking/not tanking" analysis.

considering the one is your top line winger going into camp, another is one of your top 6 forwards, the third is going to see time inthe top 9, and the 4th will probaly be your 4th D. I would say they are pretty relevant to the tank not tank analysis

[HopefulFuture]

[/background][/size][/font][/color]

 

 

 

 

 

 

Nicely done!

 

You sir, have a most excellent mind.

[LastPommerFan]

I don't think those 4 guys, none of whom is on the list of "Top 10 most important Sabres," can fairly be regarded as the fulcrum of the "tanking/not tanking" analysis.

 

I will grant you Mitchell.

 

Stafford and Stewart will be in you top six, both in terms of lines and points.

 

Meszaros will be you #3 D-man in minutes.

 

since neither of the goalies are good enough to rise to "most important", those three are by definition in your "top 10 most important Sabres" for this season. And unless the goalies sign, they have to be on the block 3.2.15 as well. All assets generate a return. No one can leave for nothing if at all possible.

 

I am hopeful that Stewart decides he wants to be here and plays well enough to become part of our long term plans. And moving Mitchell and Meszaros probably won't have much of an impact overall IMO. Stafford would likely have an impact on a playoff possibilty, if for no other reason than he is a legot 2nd line winger.

 

 

 

And this, too.

 

I'd rather see Stafford moved for a "hockey trade" than a hockey's futures trade.

 

I'd love it if Stewart decided to sign a deal before the deadline, but if not, would you agree he has to be traded?

 

Regarding a "hockey trade" for Stafford, we need Wingers. No playoff team is going to trade a winger of comparable talent with term left for a guy heading to UFA. We don't have use for a guy without term left, so there really isn't a hockey trade to be had. (if only because we already have Snow's first 2 picks next year!)

[Weave]

I'm not interested in seeing any more 2nd round picks. If this team is in the hunt for a playoff spot I am ready to not get a return for the likes of Stafford and Mitchell to keep hockey in Buffalo worth watching at the end of the season.

[LastPommerFan]

I'm not interested in seeing any more 2nd round picks. If this team is in the hunt for a playoff spot I am ready to not get a return for the likes of Stafford and Mitchell to keep hockey in Buffalo worth watching at the end of the season.

 

There it is. This is what it takes to be completely 100% anti-tank. You have to be willing to make the organization measurably worse off in 2015-16 in favor of wins this year. Good for you, I can't get there yet. I'll take the 2's with absolutely no intention of making the picks. They get packaged with prospects/other picks to fill out any potential holes in our roster for the 2015-2016 season.

 

Of course, crazy shite could happen and we're in 2nd in the Atlantic in February and I'd have to reevaluate my position.

[drnkirishone]

There it is. This is what it takes to be completely 100% anti-tank. You have to be willing to make the organization measurably worse off in 2015-16 in favor of wins this year. Good for you, I can't get there yet. I'll take the 2's with absolutely no intention of making the picks. They get packaged with prospects/other picks to fill out any potential holes in our roster for the 2015-2016 season.

 

Of course, crazy shite could happen and we're in 2nd in the Atlantic in February and I'd have to reevaluate my position.

if that is the case you do realize Staff will be getting a contract extension to go along with the C on his jersey and his Hart trophy votes

[LastPommerFan]

if that is the case you do realize Staff will be getting a contract extension to go along with the C on his jersey and his Hart trophy votes

 

He's an above average second line winger. I'd be fine with a 3-4 year extension.

 

But I think Samson and Zemgus are the bigger levers in the equation. They could very well score 60pts each this season, unlikely, but I wouldn't be totally shocked.

Edited August 8, 2014 by Glass Case Of Emotion

[biodork]

They can't let those four guys walk for nothing. They just can't, and I believe you support that logic. Therefore, given that not one of them is in the long term plans (too much talent pressure from below on meszaros, Mitchell, and Stewart, too much stained history on staff) they must be traded with 18 games remaining. They can only be traded for futures, as playoff teams don't part with current assets. I think you, and the others, support this. This is tanking. It may be tank-lite compared to last season, but it is tanking none the less.

 

My hope is that if they've been playing well enough to talk playoffs come March, either guys have re-signed or been made expendable by the younger players. And why do so many people seem to think full-tank is the only way? Neither of the two Sabres teams that came closest to winning a Cup had a Crosby-type player, and even the Pens have had plenty of years WITH Crosby without being relevant come April. There are many paths to the Cup, and if the Sabres don't get Eichel and/or McDavid, I'm confident GMTM will still find a way to make us contenders again.

[Darryl Shannon's +/-]

Count me in the camp of dealing with one more horrible year. I want the bulk of our young guys in Rochester or juniors and dominating, with Reinhart and Zadorov moving to Rochester for the playoffs. (Not sure if Reinhart meets eligibility)

 

I'd like to compete for the playoffs next year and then contend for 5-6 years after that.

 

Edmonton is the cautionary tale in all of this. If we aren't on the path of competing in 15-16, I'd want Murray making moves. I think Edmonton has missed out by not moving one of their prized picks for immediate help.

[LastPommerFan]

My hope is that if they've been playing well enough to talk playoffs come March, either guys have re-signed or been made expendable by the younger players. And why do so many people seem to think full-tank is the only way? Neither of the two Sabres teams that came closest to winning a Cup had a Crosby-type player, and even the Pens have had plenty of years WITH Crosby without being relevant come April. There are many paths to the Cup, and if the Sabres don't get Eichel and/or McDavid, I'm confident GMTM will still find a way to make us contenders again.

 

It's not about McDavid and Eichel. It's about selling the future assets (picks/prospects) for more wins now, holding pat and watching talent walk away at the end of the year, or selling current assets before they expire for future assets.

 

The first is win mode, the second is silly, IMO, and the third is tank mode.

 

We are not in win mode yet.

[Taro T]

 

 

My hope is that if they've been playing well enough to talk playoffs come March, either guys have re-signed or been made expendable by the younger players. And why do so many people seem to think full-tank is the only way? Neither of the two Sabres teams that came closest to winning a Cup had a Crosby-type player, and even the Pens have had plenty of years WITH Crosby without being relevant come April. There are many paths to the Cup, and if the Sabres don't get Eichel and/or McDavid, I'm confident GMTM will still find a way to make us contenders again.

Depends which set Crosby belongs to whether the team that came closest to winning had one. Center w/ incredible vision and arguably best forward of his generation; you'd be correct.

 

Hart Trophy winner and arguably best of his generation at his position; that squad had that in spades.

[LastPommerFan]

Depends which set Crosby belongs to whether the team that came closest to winning had one. Center w/ incredible vision and arguably best forward of his generation; you'd be correct.

 

Hart Trophy winner and arguably best of his generation at his position; that squad had that in spades.

 

#11 fills this role in '75

[Taro T]

 

 

#11 fills this role in '75

I gave that one a pass because the '06 team was closer to winning the SC [than the '75 team] was (because that '75 team was never going to win in Filly); but yes, that '75 team had the best setup man of his generation.

 

[EDIT: in [] above to clarify sentence]

Edited August 8, 2014 by Taro T

[biodork]

It's not about McDavid and Eichel. It's about selling the future assets (picks/prospects) for more wins now, holding pat and watching talent walk away at the end of the year, or selling current assets before they expire for future assets.

 

The first is win mode, the second is silly, IMO, and the third is tank mode.

 

We are not in win mode yet.

 

That's why I've said I wouldn't keep those guys unless they were re-signed; no sense letting them walk for nothing. And I've tried to articulate that I'm not in favor of selling any future assets for a push this year; I'm saying if the team is good enough as currently constructed to contend, let 'em play and see how far it goes.

 

Depends which set Crosby belongs to whether the team that came closest to winning had one. Center w/ incredible vision and arguably best forward of his generation; you'd be correct.

 

Hart Trophy winner and arguably best of his generation at his position; that squad had that in spades.

 

Yes, but that's kind of my point; the Devils won multiple cups on the back of Brodeur, not a stud, generational talent forward. Several different paths to the same end.

[LastPommerFan]

I gave that one a pass because the '06 team was closer to winning the SC was (because that '75 team was never going to win in Filly); but yes, that '75 team had the best setup man of his generation.

 

Both times we've played in the finals, we had "generational talent"

 

One time because we got lucky.

 

Another because we won the draft lottery.

 

And Bio,

 

The Penguins have finished 1st or 2nd in their division every year since Crosby's sophomore season. They have always been relevant in April with him on the roster, May and June, OTOH...

 

That's why I've said I wouldn't keep those guys unless they were re-signed; no sense letting them walk for nothing. And I've tried to articulate that I'm not in favor of selling any future assets for a push this year; I'm saying if the team is good enough as currently constructed to contend, let 'em play and see how far it goes.

 

The second bold is directly contradicted by the first, IMO. You can't trade away top 6/4 players and say you're letting 'em play.

[biodork]

#11 fills this role in '75

 

Completely forgot about that team -- was thinking '99 and '06.

 

Both times we've played in the finals, we had "generational talent"

 

One time because we got lucky.

 

Another because we won the draft lottery.

 

And Bio,

 

The Penguins have finished 1st or 2nd in their division every year since Crosby's sophomore season. They have always been relevant in April with him on the roster, May and June, OTOH...

 

 

 

The second bold is directly contradicted by the first, IMO. You can't trade away top 6/4 players and say you're letting 'em play.

 

Poorly worded on my part. By "as currently constructed" I meant with the players currently in the Sabres' system (no outside help), which allows for the trading of pending UFAs if they aren't in the future plans.

 

And Nashville and San Jose make the playoffs seemingly every year, too... doesn't mean they're "real" contenders.

Edited August 8, 2014 by biodork

[LastPommerFan]

Poorly worded on my part. By "as currently constructed" I meant with the players currently in the Sabres' system (no outside help), which allows for the trading of pending UFAs if they aren't in the future plans.

 

ok, I contend that this is what is commonly referred to as "tanking" selling current assets for futures without regard for the negative effect on the current season. As opposed to the false definition of tanking which is, "losing on purpose".

Edited August 8, 2014 by Glass Case Of Emotion

[Darryl Shannon's +/-]

ok, I contend that this is what is commonly referred to as "tanking" selling current assets for futures without regard for the negative effect on the current season. As opposed to the false definition of tanking which is, "losing on purpose".

 

I get that it's referred to as tanking, but it's really just good management on a team that just isn't ready yet.

[biodork]

ok, I contend that this is what is commonly referred to as "tanking" selling current assets for futures without regard for the negative effect on the current season. As opposed to the false definition of tanking which is, "losing on purpose".

 

I would consider it "standing pat" rather than tanking, because to me tanking implies you're unloading anyone of value (Vanek, Miller, etc) because the team isn't going anywhere as constructed. But just semantics, I guess.

 

I get that it's referred to as tanking, but it's really just good management on a team that just isn't ready yet.

 

Darryl said it better than I did.

[Taro T]

 

 

Both times we've played in the finals, we had "generational talent"

 

One time because we got lucky.

 

Another because we won the draft lottery.

 

And Bio,

 

The Penguins have finished 1st or 2nd in their division every year since Crosby's sophomore season. They have always been relevant in April with him on the roster, May and June, OTOH...

 

 

 

The second bold is directly contradicted by the first, IMO. You can't trade away top 6/4 players and say you're letting 'em play.

 

They absolutely did both times they made it to the Finals. But, as I'd mentioned, the '06 team was 'closer to winning the SC' than the '75 team because there was NFW that team was winning in Filly. They'd NEVER done it in their history and it took them 2 more years to get win 1 in the Spectrum.

 

And since Bio specifically referred to the 2 Sabres teams that came closest to winning; the '75 squad was discounted. ;)

 

 

Completely forgot about that team -- was thinking '99 and '06.

 

...

So GC, :nana:

Edited August 8, 2014 by Taro T