Expansion Draft -- Sabres moves and speculation

[Weave]

LOL are you claiming flag pole in the ground first?

[dudacek]

Drafted a team using the cap-friendly expansion function.

Turned out pretty good, even though I know guys like Johnson and Murray will be traded long before they are exposed.

But based on the rules and my take of the rosters today, they would have been available.

 

Lee Stempniak Tyler Johnson Tyler Ennis

Matt Read Tomas Plekanec Jesper Fast

Nail Yakupov Colin Wilson Valeri Nicushkin

Trevor Lewis Riley Sheahan Tom Wilson

Joel Armia Ryan White Hunter Shinkaruk Josh Leivo

 

Marco Scandella Brandon Davidson

Jack Johnson Josh Manson

Mark Methot Ryan Pulock

Mark Pysyk Luca Sbisa

Mirco Mueller John Moore

Trevor VanReimsdyk

 

Matt Murray

Semyon Varlamov

Malcolm Subban

 

Vegas is allowed to draft guys, then trade them, aren't they?

Edited February 19, 2017 by dudacek

[Sabres Fan in NS]

Drafted a team using the cap-friendly expansion function.

Turned out pretty good, even though I know guys like Johnson and Murray will be traded long before they are exposed.

But based on the rules and my take of the rosters today, they would have been available.

 

Lee Stempniak Tyler Johnson Tyler Ennis

Matt Read Tomas Plekanec Jesper Fast

Nail Yakupov Colin Wilson Valeri Nicushkin

Trevor Lewis Riley Sheahan Tom Wilson

Joel Armia Ryan White Hunter Shinkaruk Josh Leivo

 

Marco Scandella Brandon Davidson

Jack Johnson Josh Manson

Mark Methot Ryan Pulock

Mark Pysyk Luca Sbisa

Mirco Mueller John Moore

Trevor VanReimsdyk

 

Matt Murray

Semyon Varlamov

Malcolm Subban

 

Vegas is allowed to draft guys, then trade them, aren't they?

 

That's a very good team.  If I were in Vegas I'd be very happy with that.

[GASabresIUFAN]

I was looking at our forwards year over year performance. Ennis is down again. I agree that he could easily be one of the forwards exposed to get out from under his contract. Sad result for a once promising player.

 

I never thought I'd want to keep Larsson over Ennis.

 

Dudacek, i think LV grabs Silvfersberg from Ana over Manson but otherwise I came up with much of the same team.

Edited February 19, 2017 by GASabresIUFAN

[Randall Flagg]

That's a terrible forward corps, but a defense and goaltending group that might keep them from bottoming out (and getting elite talent), giving mixed short and long term results.

[GASabresIUFAN]

That's a terrible forward corps, but a defense and goaltending group that might keep them from bottoming out (and getting elite talent), giving mixed short and long term results.

I'm not sure what you expected? With most teams keeping 7 forwards and 3 D, plus exempt players, the best forwards LV will get will be third liners, but they have a real chance at some top 4 D.

[Randall Flagg]

I'm not sure what you expected? With most teams keeping 7 forwards and 3 D, plus exempt players, the best forwards LV will get will be third liners, but they have a real chance at some top 4 D.

Having played with the expansion tool many times, that is indeed what I expect. Not sure which part of my post conveys shock/surprise.

Edited February 20, 2017 by Randall Flagg

[GASabresIUFAN]

I wonder what type of trades are going to happen following the season.  Last year we saw teams start setting up for the draft and free agency with trades as early as May 25th when Gudbranson was traded by Fla to Van.  Then once the Cup finals finished trading really picked up in the two weeks prior to the draft.

 

This year the expansion draft is 6/21.  I think you'll start seeing non-playoff teams start dealing immediately with playoff teams entering the fray as they are eliminated.   Team like Ana and Minn are likely to make some moves to avoid losing a really good player to LV for nothing.  I see this as GMTM's opportunity to get his top 4 D he is missing.  

 

For example:  Ana has 4 D they "must" protect in Fowler, Vatanen, Lindholm and Bieksa (NMC).  This is expose an excellent forward like Silfverberg to expansion.  However if they trade us one of Lindholm, Vatanen or Fowler, they can move to a 7-3-1 and avoid losing Silfverberg.  

 

Minn is in much the same place.  Using a 7-3-1 to protect their blossoming group of forwards (plus their NMC forwards), they are likely to leave 2 good D unprotected such as Marco Scandella and Jonas Brodin.  Can GMTM get Brodin from them?

 

There are other examples, but these are the two the leaped out at me.

[dudacek]

The weird thing about the Wild is they will have two exposed top four D.

Trading one won't cut it. Do they trade both?

 

If I'm them, I'm offering the Knights a lot (a first?) to take a player of the Wilds choice.

[GASabresIUFAN]

The weird thing about the Wild is they will have two exposed top four D.

Trading one won't cut it. Do they trade both?

 

If I'm them, I'm offering the Knights a lot (a first?) to take a player of the Wilds choice.

I was thinking about that also.  If you trade one you might end up losing both.  If you keep both, you only end up losing one.  

Minn is a mess, because of the NMC with Suter, Pommers, Koivu and Parise.  You have to go 7-3-1 protect Spurgeon and Dumba on D.  The other 4 forwards are Coyle, Granlund, Niederreiter and either Zucker or Staal.  If it were me, I'd protect Zucker and expose Staal.  That still leaves Brodin, Scandella and Staal exposed.  I still think you trade Brodin to get assets, because if you don't you lose him for sure.  Why would LV make a deal with Minn when it can get Brodin for nothing.  Move Brodin and then since Scandella and Staal are relatively expensive, then Minn might have some leverage to make a deal.

 

One of the other teams I wouldn't might trying to make a deal with was the NYI.  I like DeHaan and Hickey.  Although it's a very similar situation to Minn. However I think Prince is the one going to get taken from them if DeHaan is traded.

Edited February 21, 2017 by GASabresIUFAN

[Weave]

The weird thing about the Wild is they will have two exposed top four D.

Trading one won't cut it. Do they trade both?

 

If I'm them, I'm offering the Knights a lot (a first?) to take a player of the Wilds choice.

 

I have a vague recollection of there being specific rules preventing deals like this.  I know that those sort of deals were part of the last couple of league expansions.

[Guest]

The News thinks Ennis gets protected and Girgensons exposed, but Ullmark gets taken. http://buffalonews.com/2017/03/17/inside-sabres-vegas-will-roll-expansion-dice/

 

LV's GMGM said he is will to auction off other teams unprotected players. What an opportunity for the Sabres. To bad the NHL said they won't publish the protected lists. Capfriendly's tool gets us pretty close, but it's next to impossible to guess what gms are thinking on the last protected spot or two.

Edited March 19, 2017 by yse325

[dudacek]

How many on here would protect Ennis over Girgensons?

 

Ennis is older, he costs a lot more, and he has a concussion history.

Girgensons is bigger, stronger, faster and better defensively.

 

You'd think Ennis is better offensively but he's produced 27 goals and 66 points in the past three years to Girgensons 28 and 62.

I can think of maybe two things the current version of Ennis does better than Zemgus: PP and possibly passing. And we don't need him on the PP.

 

I know it's easy to remember the player Ennis was and hope, but it's been two years. He's broken.

Edited March 19, 2017 by dudacek

[TrueBlueGED]

How many on here would protect Ennis over Girgensons?

 

Ennis is older, he costs a lot more, and he has a concussion history.

Girgensons is bigger, stronger, faster and better defensively.

 

You'd think Ennis is better offensively but he's produced 27 goals and 66 points in the past three years to Girgensons 28 and 62.

I can think of maybe two things the current version of Ennis does better than Zemgus: PP and possibly passing. And we don't need him on the PP.

 

I know it's easy to remember the player Ennis was and hope, but it's been two years. He's broken.

Seriously. I can't fathom protection Ennis right now. He's one of the contracts we celebrate if Vegas takes.

[Robviously]

How many on here would protect Ennis over Girgensons?

 

Ennis is older, he costs a lot more, and he has a concussion history.

Girgensons is bigger, stronger, faster and better defensively.

 

You'd think Ennis is better offensively but he's produced 27 goals and 66 points in the past three years to Girgensons 28 and 62.

I can think of maybe two things the current version of Ennis does better than Zemgus: PP and possibly passing. And we don't need him on the PP.

 

I know it's easy to remember the player Ennis was and hope, but it's been two years. He's broken.

Tough to imagine anyone wanting him here next year, let alone protected for expansion.  Further, I want him gone for his own sake too.  It's going to be really tough for him to turn things around at all, but I think it'll be impossible without a fresh start somewhere.

[French Collection]

I like Ennis but he hasn't been effective.

In his defense, he hasn't had many top six minutes, but the PP opportunities have not yielded anything to remember.

I would keep him over Moulson because of his speed, hustle and nifty stick handling but like Matty he cannot win a puck battle.

The business side of our team would be helped by losing Moulson or Ennis. This can free up some dollars to make trade for a top 4 D.

 

GMTM may package a couple of these guys to LV for an upgrade on D if he can't pry a similar swap with the original team.

[Guest]

I agree with the News that Ullmark is the player we are most likely to lose, especially if our exposed players all have big contracts or are marginal players like Falk and DeLo.

 

Craig Button did a mock draft a few months back and said that he'd try to make sure he was at the bottom of the cap range (40 mil approx) and grab as many young players as possible. Ullmark fits that mold as does Girgensons if exposed. Both are also RFA's and therefore don't count against LV mandatory 20 players under contract.

 

So my question if Murray wants to hold onto Ullmark, and doesn' want to make a deal to protect him, how would you set up the protected list to give LV a more attractive option? If I'm GMGM I'm not taking Ennis if exposed, based on his performance, contract and injury history. If my goal is to stay around the $40 mill floor, then spending over 10% on Ennis doesn't make sense.

 

In the off-season wish thread, I want GMTM to get a PKing, faceoff winning, 4th line center (such as Jay Beagle). I also want to protect Ullmark. My thought at this point is to expose Ennis, but if LV calls about Ullmark, I'd trade them Larsson and a draft pick or a secondary prospect like Karabacek or Cornel. Assuming a new coach gets more out of Girgensons, I'd rather him then Larsson.

Edited March 19, 2017 by yse325

[Robviously]

I agree with the News that Ullmark is the player we are most likely to lose, especially if our exposed players all have big contracts or are marginal players like Falk and DeLo.

 

Craig Button did a mock draft a few months back and said that he'd try to make sure he was at the bottom of the cap range (40 mil approx) and grab as many young players as possible. Ullmark fits that mold as does Girgensons if exposed. Both are also RFA's and therefore don't count against LV mandatory 20 players under contract.

 

So my question if Murray wants to hold onto Ullmark, and doesn' want to make a deal to protect him, how would you set up the protected list to give LV a more attractive option? If I'm not GMGM I'm not taking Ennis if exposed, based on his performance, contract and injury history. If my goal is to stay around the $40 mill floor, then spending over 10% on Ennis doesn't make sense.

 

In the off-season wish thread, I want GMTM to get a PKing, faceoff winning, 4th line center (such as Jay Beagle). I also want to protect Ullmark. My thought at this point is to expose Ennis, but if LV calls about Ullmark, I'd trade them Larsson and a draft pick or a secondary prospect like Karabacek or Cornel. Assuming a new coach gets more out of Girgensons, I'd rather him then Larsson.

It's a really simple solve -- trade them a draft pick (or a player) if they agree to take Bogosian off our books in the expansion draft.  It'd require admitting that we made a mistake bringing him in but that's not a contract we can have on the books if we want to re-sign Kane and our RFAs.

[dudacek]

Ideally, I'd love to give Vegas a useful cheap young player like Larsson of Girgensons, plus in exchange for them taking one of our bad contracts and flipping us the cream of the expansion-available defencemen.

 

Not sure exactly what Vegas will be looking for, but something like they take Bogosian and Scandella in the expansion draft, then flip Scandella to us for Larsson and our 2018 first would certainly interest me.

 

We upgrade our top four and dump a contract. They can eat the contract with a guy who they can afford and might rebound in exchange for a young, cheap third-line centre and a nice asset for their prospect pool.

Edited March 19, 2017 by dudacek

[Guest]

With Asplund coming and ROR, Eichel and Reinhart on the roster, and 4th line centers readily available, Girgensons and Larsson are expendable for a price. We have talked about how awful LV's offense is projected to be. Would you trade them both for a D?

[dudacek]

With Asplund coming and ROR, Eichel and Reinhart on the roster, and 4th line centers readily available, Girgensons and Larsson are expendable for a price. We have talked about how awful LV's offense is projected to be. Would you trade them both for a D?

 

It would depend on the D we're getting and if Reinhart plays at centre.

But under those circumstances — say Larsson, Girgensons, Bogosian for Scandella — absolutely.

 

Would you?

Edited March 19, 2017 by dudacek

[Guest]

That's fine with me, but it means that Gorges likely returns.

[dudacek]

That's fine with me, but it means that Gorges likely returns.

 

But you've also got $5-6 million (+ Scandella -Bogo and Kuli) to spend on another D.

Add that guy to Risto, Scandella and McCabe in the top four and I can live with Guhle, Antipin*, Falk and Gorges as the next four

 

*Or a similarly priced puck-moving FA

Edited March 19, 2017 by dudacek

[Sabres Fan in NS]

That's fine with me, but it means that Gorges likely returns.

 

He is under contract for next season and has played well, so why would he not be back?

[Guest]

Scandella would be a great partner for Risto. Only issue, with Guhle, McCabe, Scandella, Antipin, plus Gorges and Falk, you have 6 lefties. So much for GMTM's balance.

He is under contract for next season and has played well, so why would he not be back?

Slow, slow and slower