Jump to content

Recommended Posts

Posted

John Tavares is not going anywhere. If our strategy of trading RoR is a cap dump to throw money at a guy that will never leave the Island, Botterill is an idiot.

Posted

Seems like wishful thinking at this point...

 

Asked what his priority is in making a decision, Tavares said: “I want to stay on Long Island... I haven’t thought about being anywhere except with the Islanders.”

 

http://www.sportsnet.ca/hockey/nhl/john-tavares-pending-free-agency-want-stay-long-island/

 

 

I can see them taking a shot at Tavares, but I think there is about a 5% chance that he ends up with the Sabres.

 

He's not leaving the Island.

Posted

I think the key word here is "intend".  I'm sure Nashville didn't "intend" on giving up a 1st rounder for Paul Gaustad either.  GMs be crazy at the deadline.

 

This is what Darcy was talking about when he said stuff about the market settling.  If no one takes Kane, someone else will get moved.  Assuming Kane is the top offensive piece on the trading block that will set the floor for the Kane trade:  It will need to be a higher price.  It make take a few other trades but eventually people will realize that all the good pieces are taken and if they want to improve the offense they'll need to pony up for Kaner.

Posted

He's a UFA. They're only committing to the rest of this season.

That makes it worse. If he was under contract for another year then at least you have time to get production out of him. But a first for a rental with reservations is a lot.

Posted

Seems like wishful thinking at this point...

 

Asked what his priority is in making a decision, Tavares said: “I want to stay on Long Island... I haven’t thought about being anywhere except with the Islanders.”

 

http://www.sportsnet.ca/hockey/nhl/john-tavares-pending-free-agency-want-stay-long-island/

 

I don't believe anything a UFA says prior to signing.  He can't think about anywhere else because no other team has the ability to sign him at this point in time.  Also, no sense in stirring up the locker room by saying, "Yeah, I can't wait to sign somewhere else and get outta here."

Posted

He's not leaving the Island.

Thank you

 

Guys, THEY NEVER LEAVE. We go over this every time, and every time the players stays. If the team wants them to stay, they stay

Posted (edited)

11's reporting on ROR is quite interesting, and jibes with the theory that the Sabres will need to unload at least one of ROR, Reino and KO in order to get faster.

 

Trading ROR would also open up significant cap space for taking a shot at Tavares, a good defenseman or some other piece, and would presumably help rebuild the prospects pipeline.

 

He's a good player, but I'm fine with moving him.

Don't believe there is a chance of Tavares coming here and I'm not in favor of trading ROR at all. Next to Eichel he is not for trade hopefully. I think all this message board talk has some greatly diminishing what an excellent player he is. This speed thing is now the buzz word. ROR is not fast but his smarts and overall play at both ends makes him in my mind only second to Jack on this team. Edited by Radar
Posted

Don't believe there is a chance of Tavares coming here and I'm not in favor of trading ROR at all. Next to Eichel he is not for trade hopefully. I think all this message board talk has some greatly diminishing what an excellent player he is. This speed thing is now the buzz word. ROR is not fast but his smarts and overall play at both ends makes him in my mind only second to Jack on this team.

 

I also greatly prefer that O'Reilly not be traded.

Posted

At this point I'm numb to any potential deal... for anybody on the roster.     I still believe that coaching is the issue, not the players.    So any deal now for a top player will be a mistake IMO as their return will be low compared to what they're capable of under a normal work environment.     

 

I think it's definitely a VERY likely case that it is coaching for certain players.  I still see a lack of speed generating from the back to the front of the roster as the problem.  The bottom six is a joke.  I'm immune to who gets traded personally outside of Eichel.  Anyone else, as long as the return is a strong return I'm okay with it.  The roster is a perpetual barn fire.  

Posted

I also greatly prefer that O'Reilly not be traded.

I'm more inclined to agree with you because unless they get someone back that can win a faceoff, outside of him, that's our greatest deficiency. 

Posted (edited)

I'm more inclined to agree with you because unless they get someone back that can win a faceoff, outside of him, that's our greatest deficiency. 

ROR better be bringing me more than faceoffs. 

 

For the record I would have to be blown away by a ROR trade. Like Bellows, 1st this year, 2nd next year, and Mitchel Vonde Sompel. Maybe instead of Sompel, go with Ho-Sang but that might be way over priced. 

Edited by SkuggaLiger
Posted

ROR better be bringing me more than faceoffs. 

 

For the record I would have to be blown away by a ROR trade. Like Bellows, 1st this year, 2nd next year, and Mitchel Vonde Sompel. Maybe instead of Sompel, go with Ho-Sang but that might be way over priced. 

 

Personally I'd got with Vonde Sompel, Salo or Aho over Ho-Sang. 

Posted

The ROR trade RE: faceoffs is an interesting discussion when you try to dissect the value of faceoffs. If you win faceoffs but can't do anything with the puck after you win them, the faceoff wins don't really matter much. 

I think it's been shown that faceoffs matter less than having players who can go get the puck, whether during the ensuing post-faceoff play or just in general. 

It would suck to lose O'Reilly's faceoff production, but if we can get players who are fast, can score, and can control the offensive zone more then I'll be fine with it. 

Posted

I think that Asplund or Davidsson are really good at faceoffs... or maybe it was Cliff Pu. I don't remember but I read recently one of our prospects was really good at faceoffs. I think it was Pu. 

Posted

Rutherford gave up a first for Reaves, but wouldn't give one up for Kane?

 

I think it's posturing by other GMs to try to set the trade market. The prevailing wisdom is that Kane is going to set the market and GMs are waiting to see what happens

Posted

More from Dreger

 

Dreger mentioned earlier he was told Botterill's trade ask for Evander Kane is four pieces, not three. (Roster player added to first-round pick, prospect, conditional pick.)

 

On 1040 just now, Dreger noted it was another team that told him that on the weekend, not #Sabres . FYI.

Posted

The only chance they have of getting Tavares is through a blockbuster trade.    

 

We're a little short of blocks with one notable exception.

Posted

11's reporting on ROR is quite interesting, and jibes with the theory that the Sabres will need to unload at least one of ROR, Reino and KO in order to get faster. 

 

Trading ROR would also open up significant cap space for taking a shot at Tavares, a good defenseman or some other piece, and would presumably help rebuild the prospects pipeline.

 

He's a good player, but I'm fine with moving him.

I think the strategy is to unload all 3 to try to get faster and use the cap savings to resign Kane after we trade him for a number 1 and a top prospect.  I'm not sure anyone wants KO with his contract.

Posted

J Bot understands speed is more than how fast you can skate, speed is how fast you can play, there's a big difference.

I certainly hope so.  Three things that absolutely frustrate me to no end when I watch this team is how slowly they seem to process the game (i.e. no quick puck movement/passing, no consistent sense of anticipation), how they have zero gap control, and how they always try to play the puck instead of the man in front of the net. 

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
×
×
  • Create New...