Trade Speculation and Rumors 2018-19

[erickompositör72]

18 minutes ago, Thorny said:

Hey, the Sabres CAN trade the pics. Not sure if you've heard?

but what if they're conditional?

[Sabres Fan in NS]

2 hours ago, jame said:

 

It does surprise me how little value is placed on winning, while such high value is placed on unknown assets that cannot reasonably be expected to make a difference for years, while the unforced errors (ROR trade) continue to have detrimental effects to the present and future of the roster.

I am not advocating going full Murray (multiple high value futures for multiple young vets), I’m advocating for one very specific move, the benefits of which would impact both the young core (winning, playoffs, etc) and the kids (roster alignment, quality line mates, appropriate deployment).

and it’s a hole we are going to have to fill in the offseason.... why wait? Patience doesn’t guarantee success anymore than acceleration guarantees failure. We are not going to win a cup the the Eichel/Dahlin era because we had 4 firsts in 2019-20....

thanks for the welcoming 

I was one of the very few anti-tankers primarily because I felt it was wrong and because that it set up the very likely possibility of a prolonged period of losing.

I am just afraid that if we trade now than the proper rebuilding plan will be so disrupted that it will set us back again.

Your points are well made and duly noted, though.

[LGR4GM]

Oh God really? Are we really going to rehash the tank again? 

The tank was successful and the rebuild failed. Let's move on. 

[SwampD]

1 minute ago, LGR4GM said:

Oh God really? Are we really going to rehash the tank again? 

The tank was successful and the rebuild failed. Let's move on. 

Tank made a rebuild that much more difficult.

[LGR4GM]

No,  it didn't. Tim Murray made the rebuild more difficult. 

For the record, I know you won't agree, nor will several others. 

Edited January 24, 2019 by LGR4GM

[SwampD]

2 minutes ago, LGR4GM said:

No,  it didn't. Tim Murray made the rebuild more difficult. 

Whatever helps you sleep at night.

[darksabre]

Just now, SwampD said:

Tank made a rebuild that much more difficult.

No it didn't. Darcy and video scouting made the rebuild more difficult. By starting the tank without a better prospect pool the rebuild was doomed to take longer. If the Amerks had had anything going for them before the tank started we wouldn't be playing catch-up right now. 

[jame]

1 hour ago, New Scotland (NS) said:

I was one of the very few anti-tankers primarily because I felt it was wrong and because that it set up the very likely possibility of a prolonged period of losing.

I am just afraid that if we trade now than the proper rebuilding plan will be so disrupted that it will set us back again.

Your points are well made and duly noted, though.

What’s a proper rebuilding plan?

everyone agrees that we could get a 1st for Skinner at the trade deadline right? So if we re-sign him are we eschewing a proper rebuilding plan?

why is the quantity of 1st round picks associated with a proper rebuilding plan?

Making a smart trade to help now, is not the same thing as going bonkers and trading 15 futures in the span of 6 months like Botts did.

the Murray spree biases everyone in to an equally foolish direction (draft n wait).

[...]

51 minutes ago, LGR4GM said:

Oh God really? Are we really going to rehash the tank again? 

The tank was successful and the rebuild failed. Let's move on. 

47 minutes ago, LGR4GM said:

No,  it didn't. Tim Murray made the rebuild more difficult. 

For the record, I know you won't agree, nor will several others. 

I totally agree with all of this.  A nice, succinct way to put it, too.

 

 

[SwampD]

51 minutes ago, LGR4GM said:

For the record, I know you won't agree, nor will several others. 

I can’t say for sure if I’m right, but I know your wrong.

?

[Thorner]

There's nothing close to a definitive right or wrong in either case. Too many variables. 

Furthermore, it can't even be agreed upon as to what the objective of the tank was. The parameters needed to even begin to establish what variables need to be considered, can't be agreed upon.

[inkman]

1 hour ago, SwampD said:

Tank made a rebuild that much more difficult.

In the quiet words of the Virgin Mary, come again?

[thewookie1]

4 hours ago, erickompositör72 said:

but what if they're conditional?

Picks can be traded as long as said pick's existence & it's conditions still include an asset.

So we could trade SJS or St.L's 1st since it will either be a 1st this year or next year. We own the asset of a conditional 1st in 2019/2020.

On the other hand, we cannot trade our 3rd since it is tied to a condition. It's a 4th or a 3rd which we owe. So Pittsburgh could trade the conditional pick but we can't. 

[erickompositör72]

21 minutes ago, thewookie1 said:

Picks can be traded as long as said pick's existence & it's conditions still include an asset.

So we could trade SJS or St.L's 1st since it will either be a 1st this year or next year. We own the asset of a conditional 1st in 2019/2020.

On the other hand, we cannot trade our 3rd since it is tied to a condition. It's a 4th or a 3rd which we owe. So Pittsburgh could trade the conditional pick but we can't. 

Thanks for responding. Sorry, my question was purely intended as satire ?

[Sabres Fan in NS]

7 hours ago, jame said:

What’s a proper rebuilding plan?

everyone agrees that we could get a 1st for Skinner at the trade deadline right? So if we re-sign him are we eschewing a proper rebuilding plan?

why is the quantity of 1st round picks associated with a proper rebuilding plan?

Making a smart trade to help now, is not the same thing as going bonkers and trading 15 futures in the span of 6 months like Botts did.

the Murray spree biases everyone in to an equally foolish direction (draft n wait).

Once the decision was made to go full scorched earth there was no other way except for a slow rebuild.  

That is JBOT's stated plan.  Trading for a 2C at this point is a desperate move and goes against his plan.

I assume you meant Murray going bonkers and trading everybody.  He tried some desperate moves and they all backfired terribly and we had to pretty much start over.

You mentioned the ROR trade as being bad, but in JBOT's mind, obviously it had to be made.  I would think that trading away one of the best two way centres in the NHL was not easy. 

[Sabres Fan in NS]

9 hours ago, LGR4GM said:

Oh God really? Are we really going to rehash the tank again? 

The tank was successful and the rebuild failed. Let's move on. 

I didn't ///

[jame]

1 hour ago, New Scotland (NS) said:

Once the decision was made to go full scorched earth there was no other way except for a slow rebuild.  

That is JBOT's stated plan.  Trading for a 2C at this point is a desperate move and goes against his plan.

I assume you meant Murray going bonkers and trading everybody.  He tried some desperate moves and they all backfired terribly and we had to pretty much start over.

You mentioned the ROR trade as being bad, but in JBOT's mind, obviously it had to be made.  I would think that trading away one of the best two way centres in the NHL was not easy. 

A slow rebuild after a full scorched tear down, would’ve been a justifiable plan

A slow rebuild with Eichel in his prime, Dahlin and Mitts on their ELC, and Reinhart on his bridge is a foolish hard line to draw.

Yes, continue BUILDING around them, but no team with Eichel and Dahlin is rebuilding.

there is nothing desperate about adding talent that gets your young core to the playoffs. The only desperate approach is rigidly clinging to draft picks in the hope that the plan keeps you in your job longer.

[Sabres Fan in NS]

1 hour ago, jame said:

A slow rebuild after a full scorched tear down, would’ve been a justifiable plan

A slow rebuild with Eichel in his prime, Dahlin and Mitts on their ELC, and Reinhart on his bridge is a foolish hard line to draw.

Yes, continue BUILDING around them, but no team with Eichel and Dahlin is rebuilding.

there is nothing desperate about adding talent that gets your young core to the playoffs. The only desperate approach is rigidly clinging to draft picks in the hope that the plan keeps you in your job longer.

Maybe it's just me and I will cut you some slack as you are new here, but the way you present your arguements is rather unpleasant.

Take care and prepare yourself to be disappointed.  I really do not think that the trade(s) you want are going to happen.

[North Buffalo]

39 minutes ago, New Scotland (NS) said:

Maybe it's just me and I will cut you some slack as you are new here, but the way you present your arguements is rather unpleasant.

Take care and prepare yourself to be disappointed.  I really do not think that the trade(s) you want are going to happen.

Yeh I’m on the fence with trading any no 1s with a deep forward class and especially if Sabres end up with three prospects. That being said if it means a number and a D prospect for a younger talented center think Id do it.

[jame]

34 minutes ago, New Scotland (NS) said:

Maybe it's just me and I will cut you some slack as you are new here, but the way you present your arguements is rather unpleasant.

Take care and prepare yourself to be disappointed.  I really do not think that the trade(s) you want are going to happen.

Sorry, I don’t have a good sensitivity gauge.... this is just the way I converse.

I’m not arguing for a plan I believe will happen, but I am making the case for why it’s a better approach. I’m fully aware of Botts intent, and the corresponding incompetence.

 

[Sabres Fan in NS]

47 minutes ago, jame said:

Sorry, I don’t have a good sensitivity gauge.... this is just the way I converse.

I’m not arguing for a plan I believe will happen, but I am making the case for why it’s a better approach. I’m fully aware of Botts intent, and the corresponding incompetence.

 

Your sensitivity comment is not very sensitive at all.

Anyway, carry on ...

[jame]

15 minutes ago, New Scotland (NS) said:

Your sensitivity comment is not very sensitive at all.

Anyway, carry on ...

See... I told you ?

[Sabres Fan in NS]

6 minutes ago, jame said:

See... I told you ?

Shove your wink.

[shrader]

11 hours ago, thewookie1 said:

On the other hand, we cannot trade our 3rd since it is tied to a condition. It's a 4th or a 3rd which we owe. So Pittsburgh could trade the conditional pick but we can't. 

 

That's not completely true.  Buffalo could include that in a trade, but it would have to be tied into a condition of it's own.  Essentially it would be "Buffalo trades either the 3rd or 4th round pick, whichever is retained after the deal with Pittsburgh is complete".  Look at San Jose as an example.  They already owed us their 1st round pick in either 2019 or 2020 from the Kane deal.  They then traded either their 2020 or 2019 first round pick to Ottawa in the Karlsson deal.  The conditions of those two deals are perfectly reversed, so the deal was fine to make.

So yeah, you can't include conditions in a future deal that contradict the terms of previously made deals.  As long as they don't, it's fine.

[Brawndo]

From Friedman’s 31 Thoughts 

7. On Burakovsky: The Capitals have asked for a couple of mid-to-high round draft picks in exchange (seconds and thirds would be a good get) for him. That would give them more flexibility and assets to chase what they need. Even with a seven-game losing streak, absolutely no one is writing them off.