Jump to content

Recommended Posts

Posted (edited)
7 hours ago, LGR4GM said:

Exactly. At some point you have to draft and develop talent. Botterill has traded picks. We currently only have 5 picks in the 2019 draft and 2 of those our first round picks. We can't just assume that every pick we make only has a 25% chance of being an NHL player so why bother. 

2019:

1st - Sabres

1st - San Jose

1st - (St Louis if they finish outside the top 10)

2nd - GONE (Traded to Carolina)

3rd - Sabres (Could transfer to Penguins but seems unlikely)

4th - GONE (Traded to Penguins)

5th - GONE (Traded to Detroit)

6th - Toronto's we traded for last year

7th - Sabres

So we have 2 Firsts, 1 Third, 1 Sixth, and 1 Seventh round pick in the upcoming 2019 draft. 

Your draft pick breakdown is wrong.

We also likely have a 4th this year from San Jose (they have the option of switching it to a 3rd next season instead).

We also have our own 6th round pick.

So we have 7 picks this upcoming draft, potentially 8 depending on STL.

2 (3) firsts, 1 third, 1 fourth, 2 sixths, and 1 seventh. Stronger than a team's default draft pick slate, owing to the presence of an extra 1st rather than a 2nd. Potentially a exceptionally strong draft slate if the Blues pick transfers. 

Assuming the Blues pick DOES NOT transfer, we also have a strong slate lined up for the 2020 draft with the presence of an extra 1st. (No 3rd in that draft). In the 2021 draft in 2 years, as of now we have an extra 2nd. 

Edited by Thorny
  • Like (+1) 1
Posted
2 hours ago, Thorny said:

Talk about red herrings...aside from labeling the prospect pool "bad", which is objectively not true, there's little in this post I disagree with. 

The point in referencing Skinner is that we got one of the best goal scorers in the league for very little, relatively. No one is saying that trade can be replicated necessarily, but if conditions can fall into place for a player that good to be moved for that little, it stands to reason that lesser players (which would still be huge upgrades to this team) could be had for less. 

As for the second bolded, if that is the crux of your argument, I don't disagree with that at all, and never said I did. What is tired, is the idea that the prospect pool must be gutted to make a trade. That's all I was saying. 

So we can stop going in circles here, once and for all: is there anyone on this board advocating for trading a 1st round pick for a rental? As far as I know, NO ONE is suggesting this. Everyone is on that page. 

It depends on the rental.

 

There.  I said it.

Posted
7 minutes ago, Weave said:

It depends on the rental.

 

There.  I said it.

You should be so bold. 

Hinging on potential likelihood to re-sign? Or just quality of the player in question?

Posted
2 minutes ago, Thorny said:

You should be so bold. 

Hinging on potential likelihood to re-sign? Or just quality of the player in question?

Elements of either/both.  It's like porn.  I'll know it when I see it.

  • Like (+1) 1
Posted
22 minutes ago, Weave said:

Elements of either/both.  It's like porn.  I'll know it when I see it.

Liger please direct all future breakdowns of the value of first round picks and not trading them to the gentlemen with the suspect browser history behind this post. 

  • Haha (+1) 1
Posted
11 minutes ago, Thorny said:

Liger please direct all future breakdowns of the value of first round picks and not trading them to the gentlemen with the suspect browser history behind this post. 

We're way past suspicion.

  • Haha (+1) 1
Posted

On another topic, how are we feeling about the Reinhart extension? How much is he going to make in 1.5 years relative to what we could have locked him up at this past summer?

Posted
1 hour ago, Brawndo said:

Waiving Elie and Hunwick to create two roster spots and starting to bring up Amerks for extended looks is a good start. I would have Smith and Nylander up after the break 

Did I miss something?

Posted
11 minutes ago, Hoss said:

I can't imagine anybody looking at this situation thinks the team should sit on its hands, right? We're all in agreement it's time to make a deal, yes?

JBot may not agree

Posted
27 minutes ago, Hoss said:

I can't imagine anybody looking at this situation thinks the team should sit on its hands, right? We're all in agreement it's time to make a deal, yes?

I don't think anyone has argued against making a deal if there's a deal to be made. 

Posted (edited)
16 hours ago, Thorny said:

Your draft pick breakdown is wrong.

We also likely have a 4th this year from San Jose (they have the option of switching it to a 3rd next season instead).

We also have our own 6th round pick.

So we have 7 picks this upcoming draft, potentially 8 depending on STL.

2 (3) firsts, 1 third, 1 fourth, 2 sixths, and 1 seventh. Stronger than a team's default draft pick slate, owing to the presence of an extra 1st rather than a 2nd. Potentially a exceptionally strong draft slate if the Blues pick transfers. 

Assuming the Blues pick DOES NOT transfer, we also have a strong slate lined up for the 2020 draft with the presence of an extra 1st. (No 3rd in that draft). In the 2021 draft in 2 years, as of now we have an extra 2nd. 

I missed the 6th but the rest is correct. That is what we currently have. We currently do not have a 4th round pick. 

2 firsts, 1 third, no fourth, 2 sixths, and a seventh. We have 6 picks. 

Edited by LGR4GM
Posted
18 minutes ago, LGR4GM said:

I missed the 6th but the rest is correct. That is what we currently have. We currently do not have a 4th round pick. 

2 firsts, 1 third, no fourth, 2 sixths, and a seventh. We have 6 picks. 

Don’t forget the picks we pick up now that we are sellers at the deadline.

Posted
2 hours ago, Hoss said:

I can't imagine anybody looking at this situation thinks the team should sit on its hands, right? We're all in agreement it's time to make a deal, yes?

It's not that a deal should be made. It's really more about what kind of deal should be made.

Some are more drastic than others.  I think every GM is always willing to make a deal... it just has to be a deal that fits.  I bet Botterill could trade away almost any player right now, but it doesn't mean it helps the team.

Posted
1 hour ago, GASabresIUFAN said:

Don’t forget the picks we pick up now that we are sellers at the deadline.

Who says we are sellers at the deadline? I could see Botts trying to dump Okposo's contract but I am not sure we are true deadline sellers, nor should we be. 

Posted (edited)

The Sabres are 6-10-3 since the end of November.  We are sellers. 

We have an excess of forwards and D, just not enough good ones.  Long-term Jbot May want to make room for Nylander, Olofsson, Smith, and Guhle. 

Baloo, Erod, Larry and Z are all RFAs and might have value at the deadline if Jbot feels they aren’t part of the future.

Hunwick, Wilson, Scandella, Sobotka, Sheary, and Bogo all have one additional year left on their deals, I can see all being available in he right deal at the deadline or over the summer.

.......And we still need a 2nd line center.

 

Edited by GASabresIUFAN
Posted
10 hours ago, LGR4GM said:

I missed the 6th but the rest is correct. That is what we currently have. We currently do not have a 4th round pick. 

2 firsts, 1 third, no fourth, 2 sixths, and a seventh. We have 6 picks. 

Right, 6. But likely 7 and potentially 8. I know you were speaking in a strict current sense but we might as well factor in the full story. 

This topic is OLD. A NEW topic should be started unless there is a VERY SPECIFIC REASON to revive this one.

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Restore formatting

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
×
×
  • Create New...