Deadline Nearly Here! What is GMTM going to do?

[Drunkard]

I have been saying this for months.  Many here are saying this is DD's fault.  While some of the blame does belong to him, with a D this bad Jack Adams and Scotty Bowman couldn't make this team good.  The truth is after McCabe and Risto, the other 4 starting D on this team need to go asap.  Start with trading Franson and Kulikov to anyone who wants them.   Next bring in Guhle and sign and bring in Borgen once their seasons end.  Demote Bogo to limited 3rd pair duty.   Trade Kane, now for a top 4 D, or if can't make the trade this summer.  Minn must trade Brodin and Ana needs to trade a D to avoid losing a top forward t expansion. These seem like good places to start.  Acquire some legit 3rd pairing D depth at the deadline to finish out the season and let them audition for coming back next year.  For example, other sellers have some older UFA's that they might be willing to part with for a late draft pick. Next expose Bogo and Gorges to the expansion draft and pray.  Next buyout Gorges when he isn't taken. 

 

Right now, we have 6 D actually signed for next year.  Risto, McCabe, Gorges, Bogo, Guhle and Falk.  I have no problem with Falk as a 7th D and Bogo as a 5/6.  I've at least seen Bogo play some good D in a Sabres uniform and don't see GMTM beng able to get of him until after next season.  Hopefully Guhle is ready and can earn a full time spot next season.  That leaves, once Gorges is bought out 2 slots in our top 6 to be acquired through trade or free agency or even if Borgen is also ready for NHL duty.  If Guhle isn't ready, then another D will be needed.  

 

There are also 4 d ranked 9-12 in the CSS NA list for this coming draft.  I'd draft whichever of them really stands out.  The Sabres sit 22nd in the NHL standings, which places us 10th in the draft (assuming no lottery win and adding LV in front of us), and thus inthe sweet spot for one of these D. 

 

Anaheim and Minnesota may choose to stand pat and just lose their 4th defenseman to expansion. Having 4 or 5 good defensemen that need to be protected doesn't give them much incentive to trade them away, unless it's a really good deal for exempt assets. It's not like Vegas can take more than 1 player from their team. If I have 5 solid d men I'd probably still go 7-3-1 and let Vegas have their pick of the 4 and 5 guys knowing that my top 4 should still be legitimate after they make their pick.

[Iron Crotch]

Dump all the UFAs (Franson, Kulikov, Gionta, Nilsson). Then in the off-season trade any combination of guys not named Eichel, Reinhart, Ristolainen or Ryan O'Reilly for a defenseman who can skate, pass, and shoot the puck where the goalie isn't.

[GASabresIUFAN]

Anaheim and Minnesota may choose to stand pat and just lose their 4th defenseman to expansion. Having 4 or 5 good defensemen that need to be protected doesn't give them much incentive to trade them away, unless it's a really good deal for exempt assets. It's not like Vegas can take more than 1 player from their team. If I have 5 solid d men I'd probably still go 7-3-1 and let Vegas have their pick of the 4 and 5 guys knowing that my top 4 should still be legitimate after they make their pick.

I don't believe either will trade a D at the deadline. However once the regular season ends trading for next season can commence. Once either Ana or Minn exit the playoffs, they can deal.

 

Ana is likely to do a 4-4-1 right now, but if they move one of Lindholm, Vatanen or Fowler (likely Vatanen) they can go to 7-3-1 and protect all their important forwards. Trading a Vatanen saves significant cap long-term and opens a slot for one of their 3 top exempt prospects Montour, Larsson or Theodore. I doubt their D will miss a beat next season after such a trade, but losing Silfverberg to expansion, for a team without many good young forwards, could be devastating. I think they'd rather trade Vatanen to us for assets then lose a top 4 D or a top 6 forward to LV for nothing. If we got Vatanen, we'd get to expose Bogo to expansion and maybe LV will take him. ????

Edited February 27, 2017 by GASabresIUFAN

[Derrico]

I don't believe either will trade a D at the deadline. However once the regular season ends trading for next season can commence. Once either Ana or Minn exit the playoffs, they can deal.

 

Ana is likely to do a 4-4-1 right now, but if they move one of Lindholm, Vatanen or Fowler (likely Vatanen) they can go to 7-3-1 and protect all their important forwards. Trading a Vatanen saves significant cap long-term and opens a slot for one of their 3 top exempt prospects Montour, Larsson or Theodore. I doubt their D will miss a beat next season after such a trade, but losing Silfverberg to expansion, for a team without many good young forwards, could be devastating. I think they'd rather trade Vatanen to us for assets then lose a top 4 D or a top 6 forward to LV for nothing. If we got Vatanen, we'd get to expose Bogo to expansion and maybe LV will take him.

Interesting take.  So what do we think of Vatanen?  I've heard he's having a down year and I believe was a healthy scratch in a game last month.  He's 25 years old with 2 goals and 16 assists on the year.  Former 4th round pick but plays 22 minutes on a good team.  What kind of guys would be going the other way to make this deal work?

[Drunkard]

I don't believe either will trade a D at the deadline. However once the regular season ends trading for next season can commence. Once either Ana or Minn exit the playoffs, they can deal.

 

Ana is likely to do a 4-4-1 right now, but if they move one of Lindholm, Vatanen or Fowler (likely Vatanen) they can go to 7-3-1 and protect all their important forwards. Trading a Vatanen saves significant cap long-term and opens a slot for one of their 3 top exempt prospects Montour, Larsson or Theodore. I doubt their D will miss a beat next season after such a trade, but losing Silfverberg to expansion, for a team without many good young forwards, could be devastating. I think they'd rather trade Vatanen to us for assets then lose a top 4 D or a top 6 forward to LV for nothing. If we got Vatanen, we'd get to expose Bogo to expansion and maybe LV will take him.

 

I'd like for it to happen but I think it's more wishful thinking than anything, because under your scenario they'll lose 2 good defensemen instead of just 1. Trading us Vantanen so they can go 7-3-1 would still leave their 4th best non-exempt defenseman exposed and that means they lost Vantanen to us and whomever else is exposed to Vegas. Standing pat leaves them losing just 1.

[GASabresIUFAN]

I'd like for it to happen but I think it's more wishful thinking than anything, because under your scenario they'll lose 2 good defensemen instead of just 1. Trading us Vantanen so they can go 7-3-1 would still leave their 4th best non-exempt defenseman exposed and that means they lost Vantanen to us and whomever else is exposed to Vegas. Standing pat leaves them losing just 1.

I disagree. They have to protect Bieksa (nmc), and their next 3 D are Fowler, Lindholm and Vatanen. Manson is a solid 5 and now that Stoner is nearly back, he'll be 6th. If they go 7-3-1 without a trade, they'll lose Vatanen to LS, but protect the forwards Rakell and Silfverberg. If they go 4-4-1 without a trade they protect Vatanen, but lose young forward Rakell or Silfverberg depending on who they protect as their 4th forward (they have 3 forwards with NMC).

 

In my scenario, they trade Vatanen to us, protect both Rakell and Silfverberg upfront, thus they only lose a 5th D in Manson. This is a great result for them. You could argue correctly they are losing two of their 6 D, but they have 2 guys ready to step in now in Montour and Theodore, who are younger, cheaper and might be better then the guys they lost long-term, with Larsson still in reserve.

 

Even if we had to trade them Kane to get Vatanen, I'd do it. They have a 7th forward slot to protect Kane and we have a 3rd D slot to protect Vatanen. We'd get a 22 min top 4 D in his prime (he's 25) and they'd get a sniper forward to play with Kesler or Getzlaf.

[dudacek]

Anaheim fans are convinced their solution is buying out Bieksa, trading Vatanen or Manson for a forward and going 7-3-1.

They prefer trading Vatanen. If I was Bob Murray, that's what I would do.

 

Would anyone do Kane for Vatanen as the basis of a deal?

[darksabre]

Anaheim fans are convinced their solution is buying out Bieksa, trading Vatanen or Manson for a forward and going 7-3-1.

They prefer trading Vatanen. If I was Bob Murray, that's what I would do.

 

Would anyone do Kane for Vatanen as the basis of a deal?

Absolutely. Almost the same points production but from the blue line? Sorely needed. 

[GASabresIUFAN]

Anaheim fans are convinced their solution is buying out Bieksa, trading Vatanen or Manson for a forward and going 7-3-1.

They prefer trading Vatanen. If I was Bob Murray, that's what I would do.

Would anyone do Kane for Vatanen as the basis of a deal?

Yes! Just give me the papers.

 

If you buy out Gorges and the sign Alzner (for example)

McCabe Risto

Alzner Vatanen

Guhle Bogo

Falk

 

That would be a drastic improvement.

[TrueBlueGED]

Anaheim fans are convinced their solution is buying out Bieksa, trading Vatanen or Manson for a forward and going 7-3-1.

They prefer trading Vatanen. If I was Bob Murray, that's what I would do.

 

Would anyone do Kane for Vatanen as the basis of a deal?

Yes, but I'd have to find a way to shed Bogosian.

[GASabresIUFAN]

Yes, but I'd have to find a way to shed Bogosian.

Bogo isn't tradeable.  He has 3 years left on his deal with an increasing salary. A buy out also leaves a cap hit for 6 years.  Not exactly worth it, especially since we have plenty of room next year.  If we keep him for one more year he has a chance to get his game back together, which might make him tradeable again. Also his buyout impact drop dramatically and if necessary,we'd get a $4 mil savings for the next 2 seasons. 

[Randall Flagg]

Vatanen makes me slightly queasy. I'm not sure I want him around, Bogo or no Bogo.

[TrueBlueGED]

Vatanen makes me slightly queasy. I'm not sure I want him around, Bogo or no Bogo.

I get that, but I think a lot of his issues this year are square peg round hole with Carlyle.

Bogo isn't tradeable. He has 3 years left on his deal with an increasing salary. A buy out also leaves a cap hit for 6 years. Not exactly worth it, especially since we have plenty of room next year. If we keep him for one more year he has a chance to get his game back together, which might make him tradeable again. Also his buyout impact drop dramatically and if necessary,we'd get a $4 mil savings for the next 2 seasons.

Of our untradeable contracts, I think Bogo's is the most movable. League-wide need for defensemen, draft pedigree, perceived physicality, and not every team will care about the cash-cap differential. Not saying it'd be easy, or the return would be good, but I think you might get a bite from someone.

[GASabresIUFAN]

I get that, but I think a lot of his issues this year are square peg round hole with Carlyle.

 

Of our untradeable contracts, I think Bogo's is the most movable. League-wide need for defensemen, draft pedigree, perceived physicality, and not every team will care about the cash-cap differential. Not saying it'd be easy, or the return would be good, but I think you might get a bite from someone.

 I think the opposite.  Ennis is still relatively young and gets paid less then his cap hit.  Moulson is on pace for a 30 pt season.  Not great, but better and again he gets paid less then his cap hit.  His salary is only 3 mill next season, which is appropriate for a 30 pt guy,  Bogo just sucks this season.  

 

We need to come up with a performance to contract formula.

Edited February 27, 2017 by GASabresIUFAN

[Taro T]

I get that, but I think a lot of his issues this year are square peg round hole with Carlyle.

 

Of our untradeable contracts, I think Bogo's is the most movable. League-wide need for defensemen, draft pedigree, perceived physicality, and not every team will care about the cash-cap differential. Not saying it'd be easy, or the return would be good, but I think you might get a bite from someone.

If Princess Phaneuf could get traded, and IN division no less, Bogosian's deal is moveable assuming Murray decides he wants to move him.

[TrueBlueGED]

I think the opposite. Ennis is still relatively young and gets paid less then his cap hit. Moulson is on pace for a 30 pt season. Not great, but better and again he gets paid less then his cap hit. His salary is only 3 mill next season, which is appropriate for a 30 pt guy, Bogo just sucks this season.

 

We need to come up with a performance to contract formula.

Wingers with potential to be 40-point offensive specialists with oodles of PP time have less value than potential top-4 Dmen, particularly given supply differences. And let's face it, none of these guys is especially attractive.

If Princess Phaneuf could get traded, and IN division no less, Bogosian's deal is moveable assuming Murray decides he wants to move him.

That too.

[GASabresIUFAN]

Wingers with potential to be 40-point offensive specialists with oodles of PP time have less value than potential top-4 Dmen, particularly given supply differences. And let's face it, none of these guys is especially attractive.

 

That too.

Correct.  That is why they are the herpes of hockey contracts.  

[dudacek]

If the addition of a better defenceman opens Bogosian to Vegas, Im taking him over Ennis, Moulson, Ullmark, Carrier or anything else that could be available and I think most GMs would agree.

 

He's relatively young, is a horse with tools and I can afford the risk reward that this play of the past year is system/injury related.

[Drunkard]

I disagree. They have to protect Bieksa (nmc), and their next 3 D are Fowler, Lindholm and Vatanen. Manson is a solid 5 and now that Stoner is nearly back, he'll be 6th. If they go 7-3-1 without a trade, they'll lose Vatanen to LS, but protect the forwards Rakell and Silfverberg. If they go 4-4-1 without a trade they protect Vatanen, but lose young forward Rakell or Silfverberg depending on who they protect as their 4th forward (they have 3 forwards with NMC).

 

In my scenario, they trade Vatanen to us, protect both Rakell and Silfverberg upfront, thus they only lose a 5th D in Manson. This is a great result for them. You could argue correctly they are losing two of their 6 D, but they have 2 guys ready to step in now in Montour and Theodore, who are younger, cheaper and might be better then the guys they lost long-term, with Larsson still in reserve.

 

Even if we had to trade them Kane to get Vatanen, I'd do it. They have a 7th forward slot to protect Kane and we have a 3rd D slot to protect Vatanen. We'd get a 22 min top 4 D in his prime (he's 25) and they'd get a sniper forward to play with Kesler or Getzlaf.

 

I hope you're right, I just don't see it that way. There's a reason there's a shortage of quality defensemen league wide but teams like Anaheim and Minnesota are flush and that's because they've prioritized defensemen over forwards. I don't see them flip flopping on that preference and essentially shipping out 2 defensemen (one to a trade partner and one to Vegas) for a forward upgrade. If they were so eager to do that they could have had Taylor Hall when the Oilers were desperate for defensemen.

[GASabresIUFAN]

I hope you're right, I just don't see it that way. There's a reason there's a shortage of quality defensemen league wide but teams like Anaheim and Minnesota are flush and that's because they've prioritized defensemen over forwards. I don't see them flip flopping on that preference and essentially shipping out 2 defensemen (one to a trade partner and one to Vegas) for a forward upgrade. If they were so eager to do that they could have had Taylor Hall when the Oilers were desperate for defensemen.

 

It's not a question of flip flopping on their preference, it's just an honest look at where the depth is in their organization and where they are best able to absorb a loss.

 

Our depth is at forward.  If we had Anaheim's D group, we'd be protecting at least four and wouldn't worry about losing one of Foligno, Ennis, Girgensons or Larsson to expansion, because we have guys like Bailey and Baptiste who can take the job.  Sadly we aren't in that situation.  

 

Ana has no really talented young forwards, except maybe Nick Ritchie in the pipeline.  They have an aging forward core and just extended Rakell this year and Silfverberg the year before.  They have no intention of losing these guys.  If you take out Rakell and Silfverberg the average age of their forwards is about 31.  

[Scottysabres]

It's not a question of flip flopping on their preference, it's just an honest look at where the depth is in their organization and where they are best able to absorb a loss.

 

Our depth is at forward.  If we had Anaheim's D group, we'd be protecting at least four and wouldn't worry about losing one of Foligno, Ennis, Girgensons or Larsson to expansion, because we have guys like Bailey and Baptiste who can take the job.  Sadly we aren't in that situation.  

 

Ana has no really talented young forwards, except maybe Nick Ritchie in the pipeline.  They have an aging forward core and just extended Rakell this year and Silfverberg the year before.  They have no intention of losing these guys.  If you take out Rakell and Silfverberg the average age of their forwards is about 31.

 

Kane 50% retained and Fasching for Vatanen and Ritchie.

 

Anaheim gets their scoring LW for this years and next Cup run. Afterall, you yourself pointed out age for them, and I agree. Getzlaf and Perry 31 and Kesler 32 their window is right now.

 

Is General Manager Bryan Murray cognizant of his situation and is he willing to go for it now, or wait another year for all in? Because honestly, the Eaves add isn't enough, and teams are loading up.

[Eleven]

I've come to think that there is little that Murray can do (realistically) that I want him to do.

 

I don't want him to trade away any of the new core.

 

I don't want draft picks; I want players who are ready for 2017-18.

 

I guess Kulikov for a high-level prospect is the only realistic possibility, and I'm not even sure how realistic that is.

[Drunkard]

It's not a question of flip flopping on their preference, it's just an honest look at where the depth is in their organization and where they are best able to absorb a loss.

 

Our depth is at forward.  If we had Anaheim's D group, we'd be protecting at least four and wouldn't worry about losing one of Foligno, Ennis, Girgensons or Larsson to expansion, because we have guys like Bailey and Baptiste who can take the job.  Sadly we aren't in that situation.  

 

Ana has no really talented young forwards, except maybe Nick Ritchie in the pipeline.  They have an aging forward core and just extended Rakell this year and Silfverberg the year before.  They have no intention of losing these guys.  If you take out Rakell and Silfverberg the average age of their forwards is about 31.  

 

If Anaheim leaves a good defenseman exposed they won't have to worry about losing Silfverberg or any of their forwards. I just don't see the upside from their point of view. If they were willing to lose defense to upgrade their forward ranks they would have traded one to Edmonton for Taylor Hall.

[GASabresIUFAN]

If Anaheim leaves a good defenseman exposed they won't have to worry about losing Silfverberg or any of their forwards. I just don't see the upside from their point of view. If they were willing to lose defense to upgrade their forward ranks they would have traded one to Edmonton for Taylor Hall.

The only way they expose one of their star D is if they go 7-3-1 without a trade, and in that case they protect all the forwards and Vatanen gets exposed. If they go 4-4-1 they protect Vatanen and expose either Rakell or Silfverberg. This is exactly the catch 22 they are in. One way they lose a young top 4 D and the other they lose a young top 6 forward. My point is that they, unlike most franchises, can absorb a loss on D. They can't afford to lose a young top 6 forward.

 

My solution protects all the forwards, forces LV to take the No. 5 D Manson and turns Vatanen into a substantial asset or two be it Kane, or whomever. I agree that BM has geld on to his D, but with more mature and experienced Theodore and Montour, he may be more willing to make a big move then a year ago.

Edited February 28, 2017 by GASabresIUFAN

[Drunkard]

The only way they expose one of their star D is if they go 7-3-1 without a trade, and in that case they protect all the forwards and Vatanen gets exposed. If they go 4-4-1 they protect Vatanen and expose either Rakell or Silfverberg. This is exactly the catch 22 they are in. One way they lose a young top 4 D and the other they lose a young top 6 forward. My point is that they, unlike most franchises, can absorb a loss on D. They can't afford to lose a young top 6 forward.

 

My solution protects all the forwards, forces LV to take the No. 5 D Manson and turns Vatanen into a substantial asset or two be it Kane, or whomever. I agree that BM has geld on to his D, but with more mature and experienced Theodore and Montour, he may be more willing to make a big move then a year ago.

 

I hope you're right but we'll see soon enough. I think they stand pat and just let Vegas take Vatanen, otherwise it's the equivalent of trading Vatanen and Manson for Kane or whomever they trade with to upgrade at forward. I just don't see it happening.

Edited February 28, 2017 by Drunkard