Trade Thread -- 2019 Deadline Edition (Actual Trades not Involving Sabres). Also, trade rumors and all other thoughts about anything.

[WildCard]

29 minutes ago, Hoss said:

I think judging entire drafts months in advance as opposed to years afterward is the silliest exercise in sports.

I believe that award still goes to predicting team records based off of the NFL schedule release

Just now, North Buffalo said:

 

 

 

Holy sht, an actual trade in the Actual Trades thread

[dudacek]

That one seems doubly weird to me.

First of all I thought the Pens lacked depth on D, and liked the big galoot.

Weirder, didnt Dallas originally trade him to Pit for a mid-round pick?

[Brawndo]

16 minutes ago, dudacek said:

That one seems doubly weird to me.

First of all I thought the Pens lacked depth on D, and liked the big galoot.

Weirder, didnt Dallas originally trade him to Pit for a mid-round pick?

That’s the exact pick he was originally traded for a 2019 4th 

[Sabres Fan in NS]

13 minutes ago, Brawndo said:

That’s the exact pick he was originally traded for a 2019 4th 

I think this completely and properly changes the definition of a 'rental' player.

A team trades a pick for a player.  Give them a try for a few months.  If they don't like the way things worked out they trade the player back to the original team for the exact same pick.

[MakeSabresGrr8Again]

1 hour ago, Hoss said:

I think judging entire drafts months in advance as opposed to years afterward is the silliest exercise in sports.

What's the benefits of judging years afterward? The draft is then "history" and just a stat in the books.

If we didn't judge previous to the draft then we might as well send you to the draft with a bingo machine or a dart board and let you make the picks.

Judging prior gives you an idea of how to go about filling the needs of your team. What kind of players are available in certain ranges, do they fit your need, do you feel they can step right in or do they need a couple years, etc.

The only thing wrong is that you don't know yet where you are picking exactly.

Edited January 28, 2019 by MakeSabresGrr8Again

[jame]

1 hour ago, MakeSabresGrr8Again said:

I think there's more aspects than just assuming the bolded being correct. For example...Mitts' play throughout his career (H,S.,college, and 6g stint last year) gave everyone, from Bots to scouts to analysts to the fans, reason to believe he would've produced better than he has so far this year. The fact that he really doesn't have quality or stability on his flanks hasn't helped either. While this may "partly" be on Bots, I don't think it's any indication that he "sucks" at his job.

To go along with the Mitts issue is the TT issue. The problem could be more of....if we send them down then who replaces them? It would take a trade to fill both positions and it takes more than one GM to work out a trade. If you can confirm without a doubt that Bots has had reasonable offers on any of our trash to make sending them down an option, please confirm by all means. There is more to it than just that, you then need to find a place for the guys in Roch that they will replace. You have to consider all the moves that need to be made and they also take time. Both players are progressing in a forward direction, I would be more concerned about what Bots was doing if they weren't.

Rather than seeing Mitts demoted to the AHL or a 3C role, I would rather see us get a quality 2C and try Mitts on a wing. Also get another winger. Have E-Rod or Sobotka center a third line.

I watched most of Mitts college career... it was clear he wasn't ready for the NHL. That was validated through the first month of the season...

What would people think of Botts if he hadn't lucked in to Dahlin and Skinner? Those two fortunate events are masking 2 years of ineptitude at the NHL level.

The question regarding prospects should NEVER be "if we send them down, who replaces them". If you think they need to be sent down... DO IT! Every other factor is irrelevant. Developing your prospects correctly is baseline competency... especially when "building through the draft" is your philosophy.

 

[Scottysabres]

1 hour ago, North Buffalo said:

 

 

 

Nill baffles me. He traded Oleksiak to Pittsburgh. The Penguins then sign him to a 3 yr - 2,137,500 extension. Then Dallas trades the exact pick they got for him back to Pittsburgh to bring him back?

[Scottysabres]

Just now, jame said:

I watched most of Mitts college career... it was clear he wasn't ready for the NHL. That was validated through the first month of the season...

What would people think of Botts if he hadn't lucked in to Dahlin and Skinner? Those two fortunate events are masking 2 years of ineptitude at the NHL level.

The question regarding prospects should NEVER be "if we send them down, who replaces them". If you think they need to be sent down... DO IT! Every other factor is irrelevant. Developing your prospects correctly is baseline competency... especially when "building through the draft" is your philosophy.

 

Agreed Mitts wasn't and even now isn't ready for full time NHL duty.

Dahlin is the luck of the draw. But Skinner wasn't luck, it was a trade. Luck had nothing to do with it.

Agreed that developing prospects is key when building through the draft. Therefore, given the shambles the Sabres team has been in for 4 yrs now, another yr isn't going to matter.

 

 

[jame]

3 minutes ago, Scottysabres said:

Agreed Mitts wasn't and even now isn't ready for full time NHL duty.

Dahlin is the luck of the draw. But Skinner wasn't luck, it was a trade. Luck had nothing to do with it.

Agreed that developing prospects is key when building through the draft. Therefore, given the shambles the Sabres team has been in for 4 yrs now, another yr isn't going to matter.

 

 

Skinner had a full no trade clause... and would only waive for Toronto (home) or Buffalo (very close to hom). We were very very lucky to get Skinner. It's very very rare that a star player, would wave their NTC to come to a bottom feeder team in the last year of his deal.

This year matters... it matters in terms of screwing up young players development, it matters in terms of wasting critical ELC/Bridge years for Dahlin, Reinhart, etc

 

Edited January 28, 2019 by jame

[MakeSabresGrr8Again]

13 minutes ago, jame said:

I watched most of Mitts college career... it was clear he wasn't ready for the NHL. That was validated through the first month of the season...

What would people think of Botts if he hadn't lucked in to Dahlin and Skinner? Those two fortunate events are masking 2 years of ineptitude at the NHL level.

The question regarding prospects should NEVER be "if we send them down, who replaces them". If you think they need to be sent down... DO IT! Every other factor is irrelevant. Developing your prospects correctly is baseline competency... especially when "building through the draft" is your philosophy.

 

OK, so I'll send them two down to Roch and play the rest of the season with 11 forwards and see how irrelevant it is to replace them. Hahahaha.

[dudacek]

11 minutes ago, Scottysabres said:

Nill baffles me. He traded Oleksiak to Pittsburgh. The Penguins then sign him to a 3 yr - 2,137,500 extension. Then Dallas trades the exact pick they got for him back to Pittsburgh to bring him back?

So, putting on my tinfoil hat, was this a pre-arranged factor of the original deal?

Did Pittsburgh get him as a rental to help for a playoff run in exchange for helping Dallas avoid some sort of cap/waiver conundrum?

And is that weird clause on the Hunwick/Sheary deal tied to something similar? Are we effectively “hiding” Hunwick for the Pens?

Not suggesting I believe this in either scenario, but I’d love it to be true.

[jame]

Just now, MakeSabresGrr8Again said:

OK, so I'll send them two down to Roch and play the rest of the season with 11 forwards and see how irrelevant it is to replace them. Hahahaha.

Choice 1: Have 13 forwards, but muck up the development of 2 of your best young forwards

Choice 2: Have 11 forwards, develop your prospects properly, figure out how to add 2 other nhl forwards

[MakeSabresGrr8Again]

1 minute ago, jame said:

Choice 1: Have 13 forwards, but muck up the development of 2 of your best young forwards

Choice 2: Have 11 forwards, develop your prospects properly, figure out how to add 2 other nhl forwards

But that part is irrelevant....needless to say.

[jame]

Just now, MakeSabresGrr8Again said:

But that part is irrelevant....needless to say.

It's irrelevant to making good decisions with your top prospects... how is this hard to understand?

[LGR4GM]

11 minutes ago, jame said:

Choice 1: Have 13 forwards, but muck up the development of 2 of your best young forwards

Choice 2: Have 11 forwards, develop your prospects properly, figure out how to add 2 other nhl forwards

Prove it messed up their development.

[dudacek]

36 minutes ago, jame said:

.

The question regarding prospects should NEVER be "if we send them down, who replaces them". If you think they need to be sent down... DO IT! Every other factor is irrelevant. Developing your prospects correctly is baseline competency... especially when "building through the draft" is your philosophy.

 

Agree with the above, but not with context.

Mittelstadt is not being hindered by playing in the NHL; neither is he hopelessly overmatched out there. He’s not holding the team back by keeping Remi Elie in the press box. He’s a hyper competitive kid who is getting a firsthand lesson in what he needs to do in order create time and space against the best players in the world. Except for the majority of December, he has held his own. I think he’s been frustrated, but I don’t get the sense he is getting beaten down

I think @Taro T has had the best read on the situation: he’s capable of playing in the NHL in a shielded second-line centre role against mediocre defenders. Unfortunately, circumstances have not always allowed him to be in that position. And I think the coaching staff sees him as mentally tough enough to best develop here, under their direct supervision.

its certainly not without precedent for a talented kid to put up 20-something points as a rookie, then come back and double that the next year.

Edited January 28, 2019 by dudacek

[jame]

2 minutes ago, LGR4GM said:

Prove it messed up their development.

I'm not stating it as a fact.

[WildCard]

36 minutes ago, Scottysabres said:

Nill baffles me. He traded Oleksiak to Pittsburgh. The Penguins then sign him to a 3 yr - 2,137,500 extension. Then Dallas trades the exact pick they got for him back to Pittsburgh to bring him back?

Bishop, Nikushkin, letting Goligoski go...Jim Nill is not a good GM

[jame]

1 minute ago, dudacek said:

Agree with the above, but not with context.

Mittelstadt is not being hindered by playing in the NHL; neither is he hopelessly overmatched out there. He’s not holding the team back by keeping Remi Elie in the press box. He’s a hyper competitive kid who is getting a firsthand lesson in what he needs to do in order create time and space against the best players in the world. Except for the majority of December, he has held his own. I think he’s been frustrated, but I don’t get the sense he is getting beaten down

I think @Taro T has had the best read on the situation: he’s capable of playing in the NHL in a shielded second-line centre role against mediocre defenders. And I think the coaching staff sees him as mentally tough enough to best develop here, under their direct supervision.

Yea, we disagree on that.

He looks overmatched every night. He's getting super sheltered minutes (he's basically an offensive zone 4th line center), and he's still losing his matchups. He doesn't have the body or strength for the NHL game, and he can't process it quick enough yet.... the 2 KEY reasons a young player starts in the AHL.

[jame]

6 minutes ago, dudacek said:

 

its certainly not without precedent for a talented kid to put up 20-something points as a rookie, then come back and double that the next year.

i'd be interested how many D+1's have done that (in D+1 and then in D+2)?

Remember how bummed everyone was when Reinhart was "only" a 40 point player his rookie year? 

[dudacek]

7 minutes ago, jame said:

Yea, we disagree on that.

He looks overmatched every night. He's getting super sheltered minutes (he's basically an offensive zone 4th line center), and he's still losing his matchups. He doesn't have the body or strength for the NHL game, and he can't process it quick enough yet.... the 2 KEY reasons a young player starts in the AHL.

It’s a long season. Up until the end of November, my take on Casey was he’s not creating a lot, but he’s not costing us either. Last month on its own, I’d agree with your take. He’s looked better again since jack got back.

[jame]

1 minute ago, dudacek said:

It’s a long season. Up until the end of November, my take on Casey was he’s not creating a lot, but he’s not costing us either. Last month on its own, I’d agree with your take. He’s looked better again since jack got back.

The question is, "Why is Casey Mittelstadt in the NHL"... when you realize the answer has nothing to do with Casey Mittelstadt, the conclusion is Botts ***** up.

[MakeSabresGrr8Again]

34 minutes ago, jame said:

It's irrelevant to making good decisions with your top prospects... how is this hard to understand?

About as hard as understanding that 3x4=12 and not 11.

About as hard as understanding that nothing was said about making a good decision as far as their development. The part about "who replaces them was meant as just that. You're not going to send two guys down without having someone to replace them for a full roster. You make a deal to replace them and send them down the day you make the deal.

[Radar]

11 minutes ago, jame said:

The question is, "Why is Casey Mittelstadt in the NHL"... when you realize the answer has nothing to do with Casey Mittelstadt, the conclusion is Botts ***** up.

In your short time here one thing is clear ...you don't like our general manager. That's okay but I disagree at this point I think he rates at least a B.

[jame]

6 minutes ago, MakeSabresGrr8Again said:

About as hard as understanding that 3x4=12 and not 11.

About as hard as understanding that nothing was said about making a good decision as far as their development. The part about "who replaces them was meant as just that. You're not going to send two guys down without having someone to replace them for a full roster. You make a deal to replace them and send them down the day you make the deal.

Yea, the obvious is obvious

you jumped in to a conversation you clearly did not understand the context of 

5 minutes ago, Radar said:

In your short time here one thing is clear ...you don't like our general manager. That's okay but I disagree at this point I think he rates at least a B.

Correct. I think he’s done a terrible job, and a ton of damage