Expansion draft and league-wide wheeling and dealing

[sabills]

I agree with this, if Peterson is as good as they say and we already have Lehner, where does Ullmark fit in? Rather have kept Carrier.

 

 

This assumes Ullmark isn't as good as Peterson.

 

It also assumes that Peterson will sign with the Sabres, which appears dubious at best at the moment. 

[That Aud Smell]

@TSNBobMcKenzie

MTL obviously has to get busy. Need D or two, C or two, and it sure sounds like Galchenyuk is likely to be on the move at some point.

 

I'd be interested to see what quality of d-man Galchenyuk could get for MTL. 

 

/Realizes that, if I were a GM, I'd be a Darcy-esque waiting for the market to set sorta guy.

//Has a sad.

Bogosian for Galchenyuk (E5)

 

Nice.

[tom webster]

Knights 1st year coUld possibly the best 1st year of any expansion franchise ever. They look stacked. Sabres 1st sqUad in 1970 was sad.

The Sabres had Gilbert and were mostly fun to watch. Las Vegas will be terrible, and they want it that way. Not Washingon or Kansas City terrible, but really bad.

[Randall Flagg]

jack Eichel is the possession driver of his line, what we are talking about is puck retrieval in the corners. Someone to get the puck and get it to Jack.

Zemgus

 

---------------------------------

also the strongest word I read to describe losing Carrier was "annoyed", so I really don't think anyone is feeling strongly about it

Edited June 22, 2017 by Randall Flagg

[That Aud Smell]

also the strongest word I read to describe losing Carrier was "annoyed", so I really don't think anyone is feeling strongly about it

 

Well, I read 3putt say that this move confirmed prior intell he'd received that JBOT's not a capable talent evaluator and I read Blue say that the move has tarnished the initial good impression that JBOT made on him.

 

People are thinking less of the GM because he elected to move on from a guy that projects as a 4th liner on a playoff team. I don't get it.

[Randall Flagg]

Well, I read 3putt say that this move confirmed prior intell he'd received that JBOT's not a capable talent evaluator and I read Blue say that the move has tarnished the initial good impression that JBOT made on him.

 

People are thinking less of the GM because he elected to move on from a guy that projects as a 4th liner on a playoff team. I don't get it.

Thats not what Blue said - he said that's how he'd have felt if the decision had been Ennis I've Carrier purely in a vacuum, without the Ullmark factor.

 

I was the same way. Since it's clear Ullmark was a big part of that decision, even if I disagree (and I'm not sure I do) it isn't stupid like it very well could have been.

That potential stupidness that didn't clear up until we gave up the sixth is the only reason why anyone ever said anything about carrier, and is why the "concept" talk was ludicrous. It was a legitimate concern while we didn't have all the details.

Edited June 22, 2017 by Randall Flagg

[MattPie]

My sense is that the cost to unload Ennis, Moulson, Bogo was just too high.

 

Carrier is at most a bottom 6 guy - likely a 4th liner. Ullmark may prove to be a #1. I think it's good asset management, which was supposed to be JBOT's calling card.

 

Based on what other teams were giving up, I'm happy with the result. Seems like those guys would take at least a 2nd if not a 1st to get rid of, and that's too much (other than maybe Bogo, who on the flip side may have the most chance of a rebound).

Edited June 22, 2017 by MattPie

[3putt]

Well, I read 3putt say that this move confirmed prior intell he'd received that JBOT's not a capable talent evaluator and I read Blue say that the move has tarnished the initial good impression that JBOT made on him.

 

People are thinking less of the GM because he elected to move on from a guy that projects as a 4th liner on a playoff team. I don't get it.

My intel, from employees of the Pens, is that Botterill was not the guy unearthing the gems.  Rather, Rutherford and his predecessor and would say "we need a d man to do x."  Botterill would role out the the excel spreadsheet and say these are the guys we can afford and could be had due to cap issues with other teams.  He isn't the natural scout that Murray is.  They also said that once prospects were drafted he was instrumental in following their progress and making sure they got what they needed to develop and have the best chance to succeed.  All laud his organizational skills and methodical approach to problem solving.  The one nugget that stuck with me was how Rutherford preferred to have a very hands on approach in the amateur and pro scouting acquisition decisions.  I view the transactions as more administrative, the Carrier +6th rounder as an administrative decision and not a good choice based on our team's desire to play a new style.  I would have exposed Foligno or Larrson and sweetened with the draft pick if Ulmark is truly that special which I have not yet concluded he is.   

PS.  Not saying Botteril is worse than Murray or vice versa.  Just different strengths.  I would have liked a different approach but we move on to the next order of business.  

[tom webster]

My intel, from employees of the Pens, is that Botterill was not the guy unearthing the gems. Rather, Rutherford and his predecessor and would say "we need a d man to do x." Botterill would role out the the excel spreadsheet and say these are the guys we can afford and could be had due to cap issues with other teams. He isn't the natural scout that Murray is. They also said that once prospects were drafted he was instrumental in following their progress and making sure they got what they needed to develop and have the best chance to succeed. All laud his organizational skills and methodical approach to problem solving. The one nugget that stuck with me was how Rutherford preferred to have a very hands on approach in the amateur and pro scouting acquisition decisions. I view the transactions as more administrative, the Carrier +6th rounder as an administrative decision and not a good choice based on our team's desire to play a new style. I would have exposed Foligno or Larrson and sweetened with the draft pick if Ulmark is truly that special which I have not yet concluded he is.

That's because you severely undervalue Foligno and Larson.

[WildCard]

That's because you severely undervalue Foligno and Larson.

Really though. In what world is Carrier better than Foligno or Larsson 

[SabresFanInRochester]

Carrier is not hard to replace. This has been talked about so much you would think the guy is a core piece of a franchise. He's probably a fourth line player. Not putting him down but with further development of our players he may not be more than a depth guy.

This is right. If you look at the pundits predicted lineup for VGK, Carrier doesn't even figure in as a starter on any of their four lines. And we had him in our top 6??? Do you think we overvalue our players?

 

I know unloading $$$ in contracts would have been nice, but do we have any cap issues this year? Bogo, Ennis, and Moulson might be given a try-out with Housley before deciding which contracts should be unloaded. I am okay with that. I think 2 out of the 3 will be more productive than they were last year. Right now their trade value is at rock bottom. If we see something positive out of any of them, they can either continue as Sabres, or be a more plausible trade option.

[inkman]

Really though. In what world is Carrier better than Foligno or Larsson

2020 perhaps

[LGR4GM]

That's because you severely undervalue Foligno and Larson.

I agree, I think Larsson really gets underappreciated. 

[TrueBlueGED]

Really though. In what world is Carrier better than Foligno or Larsson

I think he's a more versatile player and can have a role with skilled linemates, whereas Foligno is purely a checker who is a drag on more talented teammates.

[SabresFanInRochester]

Bailey has hands of stone and may never be anything other than an AHL player.  Baptiste is a finisher.  True's point is that if you stop thinking in terms of line equivalents then a possession player on the wing with Eichel and say Nylander is a better fit than a line where everyone wants the puck and doesn't know what to do without it.  I agree.  Chicago did that to a tee and Sheary and Guentzel are ofnthe same ilk.  Without top creators like Crosby and Malkin I doubt wenwould even know who they were.

I seem to remember a lot of talk that Eichel and Kane both want the puck and wouldn't work well on the same line. Yet, I haven't seen evidence to support that claim. Anecdotally, I think Kane's best stats are with Eichel. Does anyone have those numbers?

[That Aud Smell]

I seem to remember a lot of talk that Eichel and Kane both want the puck and wouldn't work well on the same line. Yet, I haven't seen evidence to support that claim. Anecdotally, I think Kane's best stats are with Eichel. Does anyone have those numbers?

 

You mean other than watching them play together?

[7+6=13]

Thats not what Blue said - he said that's how he'd have felt if the decision had been Ennis I've Carrier purely in a vacuum, without the Ullmark factor.

 

I was the same way. Since it's clear Ullmark was a big part of that decision, even if I disagree (and I'm not sure I do) it isn't stupid like it very well could have been.

That potential stupidness that didn't clear up until we gave up the sixth is the only reason why anyone ever said anything about carrier, and is why the "concept" talk was ludicrous. It was a legitimate concern while we didn't have all the details.

 

I think what Aud is trying to say is - for a little while last night the intensity picked up and it was about to get negative quick.  There was a couple back to back comments starting to even question JBot and it was weird. 

 

My sense is most fair minded posters in due time realized that damn these contracts we have are really unattractive because the player is really that bad.  Not even an expansion team wants Ennis or Moulson - and we didn't "protect" Ennis because we wanted him over Carrier. 

[tom webster]

I think he's a more versatile player and can have a role with skilled linemates, whereas Foligno is purely a checker who is a drag on more talented teammates.

 

180 forwards scored more goals than Marcus last year. He is an extremely valuable 3rd line player with the ability to fill in on top 2 lines and for the 3 thousandth time, he is plenty fast enough. He may thrive in the new system.

[WildCard]

“I have touched base with a couple of NHL general managers already this morning, and they’re at it,” said hockey Insider Darren Dreger during a Thursday morning radio hit on Edmonton’s TSN 1260. “But I wonder if today isn’t more of a regroup day where teams take stock, and perhaps now start to revisit conversations that they had with other teams.

 

“Again, I’ve kind of been harping on this and beating on the drum of Jordan Eberle of the Edmonton Oilers and how that might work with the New York Islanders. Well, we saw how aggressive Garth Snow is willing to be last night in trading away a first and a second-round pick as part of a deal to keep the Golden Knights away from certain forwards. I know that he’s trying to add a top-six. I believe that the Islanders are one of at least three offers that Peter Chiarelli is working off of over Jordan Eberle. That’s not to say the Islanders are going to land Eberle. They’ve got to have some interest in Duchene. I suspect they have some interest in Galchenyuk, as an example, as well.

 

“But that kind of stuff might take the better part of this day, or maybe even into tomorrow, before it’s announced on the draft floor.”

 

https://www.fanragsports.com/nhl/dreger-believes-oilers-least-three-trade-offers-eberle/

 

Gotta be NYI, St.Louis, and...Chicago? 

Edited June 22, 2017 by WildCard

[kas23]

My intel, from employees of the Pens, is that Botterill was not the guy unearthing the gems. Rather, Rutherford and his predecessor and would say "we need a d man to do x." Botterill would role out the the excel spreadsheet and say these are the guys we can afford and could be had due to cap issues with other teams. He isn't the natural scout that Murray is. They also said that once prospects were drafted he was instrumental in following their progress and making sure they got what they needed to develop and have the best chance to succeed. All laud his organizational skills and methodical approach to problem solving. The one nugget that stuck with me was how Rutherford preferred to have a very hands on approach in the amateur and pro scouting acquisition decisions. I view the transactions as more administrative, the Carrier +6th rounder as an administrative decision and not a good choice based on our team's desire to play a new style. I would have exposed Foligno or Larrson and sweetened with the draft pick if Ulmark is truly that special which I have not yet concluded he is.

 

PS. Not saying Botteril is worse than Murray or vice versa. Just different strengths. I would have liked a different approach but we move on to the next order of business.

Botteril's forest for the trees or organizational approach may be what we need, but only if he's able to surround himself with excellent scouts or AGMs (which I don't think he has any yet). We praise for GMTM's excellent eyes for prospects, but he wasn't very well at molding a cohesive team.

[That Aud Smell]

Thats not what Blue said - he said that's how he'd have felt if the decision had been Ennis I've Carrier purely in a vacuum, without the Ullmark factor.

 

I was the same way. Since it's clear Ullmark was a big part of that decision, even if I disagree (and I'm not sure I do) it isn't stupid like it very well could have been.

That potential stupidness that didn't clear up until we gave up the sixth is the only reason why anyone ever said anything about carrier, and is why the "concept" talk was ludicrous. It was a legitimate concern while we didn't have all the details.

 

Man. Now I'm confused. It's hard to catch up sometimes when you revisit a thread.

 

Based on what other teams were giving up, I'm happy with the result. Seems like those guys would take at least a 2nd if not a 1st to get rid of, and that's too much (other than maybe Bogo, who on the flip side may have the most chance of a rebound).

 

Agreed,

 

My intel, from employees of the Pens, is that Botterill was not the guy unearthing the gems.  Rather, Rutherford and his predecessor and would say "we need a d man to do x."  Botterill would role out the the excel spreadsheet and say these are the guys we can afford and could be had due to cap issues with other teams.  He isn't the natural scout that Murray is.  They also said that once prospects were drafted he was instrumental in following their progress and making sure they got what they needed to develop and have the best chance to succeed.  All laud his organizational skills and methodical approach to problem solving.  The one nugget that stuck with me was how Rutherford preferred to have a very hands on approach in the amateur and pro scouting acquisition decisions.  I view the transactions as more administrative, the Carrier +6th rounder as an administrative decision and not a good choice based on our team's desire to play a new style.  I would have exposed Foligno or Larrson and sweetened with the draft pick if Ulmark is truly that special which I have not yet concluded he is.   

PS.  Not saying Botteril is worse than Murray or vice versa.  Just different strengths.  I would have liked a different approach but we move on to the next order of business.  

 

That's a thoughtful post - thanks. It is sort of funny, too - how the nature of the GM has swung so hard - away from the styro cup coffee swilling rink rat scout, to an MBA'd asset manager. Hopefully he's got and will get good talent evaluators.

 

Not for nothing: In the world of modern sport, I think I'd choose the JBOT type over the GMTM type. But you obviously must have capable talent evaluators feeding the JBOT type with good info.

 

This is right. If you look at the pundits predicted lineup for VGK, Carrier doesn't even figure in as a starter on any of their four lines. 

 

Dear Lord. Is true?

 

I agree, I think Larsson really gets underappreciated. 

 

I'm excited for so many things when it comes to the 2017-2018 Sabres -- seeing him back, doing his thing, is chief among them.

 

I think what Aud is trying to say is - for a little while last night the intensity picked up and it was about to get negative quick.  There was a couple back to back comments starting to even question JBot and it was weird. 

 

My sense is most fair minded posters in due time realized that damn these contracts we have are really unattractive because the player is really that bad.  Not even an expansion team wants Ennis or Moulson - and we didn't "protect" Ennis because we wanted him over Carrier. 

 

Thanks for trying to help me out. It's apparent that I failed to appreciate the extent to which information was coming out in pieces, and that some reactions weren't really final given what was known.

 

180 forwards scored more goals than Marcus last year. He is an extremely valuable 3rd line player with the ability to fill in on top 2 lines and for the 3 thousandth time, he is plenty fast enough. He may thrive in the new system.

 

I still like the player a lot. And he's shown that he has some mitts, too. Remember that little between the legs beauty he potted years ago?

[nfreeman]

Based on what other teams were giving up, I'm happy with the result. Seems like those guys would take at least a 2nd if not a 1st to get rid of, and that's too much (other than maybe Bogo, who on the flip side may have the most chance of a rebound).

 

This.

 

 

My intel, from employees of the Pens, is that Botterill was not the guy unearthing the gems.  Rather, Rutherford and his predecessor and would say "we need a d man to do x."  Botterill would role out the the excel spreadsheet and say these are the guys we can afford and could be had due to cap issues with other teams.  He isn't the natural scout that Murray is.  They also said that once prospects were drafted he was instrumental in following their progress and making sure they got what they needed to develop and have the best chance to succeed.  All laud his organizational skills and methodical approach to problem solving.  The one nugget that stuck with me was how Rutherford preferred to have a very hands on approach in the amateur and pro scouting acquisition decisions.  I view the transactions as more administrative, the Carrier +6th rounder as an administrative decision and not a good choice based on our team's desire to play a new style.  I would have exposed Foligno or Larrson and sweetened with the draft pick if Ulmark is truly that special which I have not yet concluded he is.   

PS.  Not saying Botteril is worse than Murray or vice versa.  Just different strengths.  I would have liked a different approach but we move on to the next order of business.  

 

With which draft pick?  The 6th-rounder?  That wouldn't have done it.  Vegas would have had zero interest in the $2.25MM Foligno (who is an RFA) or the coming-off-a-major-injury Larsson (also an RFA) without a real sweetener. 

[MattPie]

FWIW:

Swing and miss

 

When it came to the Sabres' unprotected list, the Knights could have chosen between hard-hitting defenseman Dmitry Kulikov, 26, or talented goaltender Linus Ullmark, 23. Instead, they selected left winger William Carrier and a sixth-rounder from the Sabres. Carrier, 22, had just five goals and three assists in 41 games as a Sabres rookie in 2016-17.

http://www.espn.com/nhl/story/_/id/19702615/nhl-vegas-golden-knights-roster-analysis

 

Kulikov doesn't really belong in that paragraph as he may still sign as a UFA. The sample lines have Carrier as 4th line LW. Article also has Methot as possible Captain and a slam dunk, take that as you will.

Edited June 22, 2017 by MattPie

[Brawndo]

TVR to Carolina

[matter2003]

This assumes Ullmark isn't as good as Peterson.

 

If Baptiste is as good as they say and we already have Bailey, Rodriguez, Fasching, Olofsson, Nylander where does Carrier fit in? Rather have Ullmark.

This assumes we even sign Peterson...maybe he has told them he is going to be an FA and sign elsewhere