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

[Sabres Fan in NS]

jame, 

I'm sorry, but your tone and delivery in these last few posts is terrible.

That said, I am not a mod around here and so with that I will step away and let them do their jobs as they see fit.

[LGR4GM]

2 minutes ago, jame said:

I would've been completely fine with leaving Lehner unprotected. I don't think Vegas would've claimed him. Lehner's personality was not inline with what McPhee was building, and with Fleury as the established heavy game starter, Lehner would've been a distraction. I wouldn't have cared if Vegas did claim him though.... especially since Botts tanked the season anyways.

I'm not a huge fan of giving away assets for free, especially to protect goalies who have not established themselves. 

It's funny that in one thread you claim to be all about the depth, and then trash Carrier.... what do you think depth actually looks like? It looks like having a 4th line that can take a regular shift against NHL competition in the playoffs (Vegas 4th line), it looks like 10 goals from "replacement level" Carrier in half a season....

Not funny at all, I can replace Carrier. If 1 of my top six goes out, can I replace them to any degree? What am I going to do? Put Carrier in Skinner's spot? Carrier has 8 goals and 1 assist but sure let's say 10? We have a 4th line that works fine. They aren't the issue. The issue is lines 2 and 3. Carrier with his amazing 8 goals is so good that he stays on that 4th line getting under 10minutes a night. He is easily replaceable and that isn't depth. 

Depth is having Morgan Frost in the pipeline or whoever we get in this draft. It is having talent that pushes guys like Carrier out altogether. That's what I want my depth to do. To force guys like Pommers and Zemgus and such out and replace them with better. I want that bottom six to be a war zone. I want players in the bottom six to be pushing to take ice from that top 6. When you have a good young talented player fighting a Carrier for ice time and pushing him out of the lineup, that's depth. Better still is the depth where your 3rd line is so good they can take time from your 2nd line. I want that level of depth. We don't have it and your prospect thread proves that. 

What's funny is that you are against losing assets for nothing but are fine with losing Lehner for nothing. You have no idea if they would or would not have taken Lehner. Let's say they don't. You still end up losing something, in this case we protect Ullmark, they take Carrier anyway and we are right back here anyway. Botterill didn't have an option that would satisfy you. It was a no win scenario that you are trying to use to strengthen your argument against the GM. I think you should focus less on that move and more on other moves that actually freaking mattered. 

[LGR4GM]

14 minutes ago, jame said:

It's not about being able to fit Eichel, Skinner, Reinhart, Dahlin, etc...

It's actually about that depth that you pretend to care about so much... the 2-3 million per year that we didn't save on Reinhart, will affect the level of talent that makes up our depth.

And I have explained to you why it won't. ELC's are a wonderful thing. And I do care about depth even if your crappy tone is trying to make it sound like I don't. You were wrong about the Lehner thing and being mad about it,  so now you are changing the subject to be about a replacement level 4th line player with a whopping 9 points on the season. Johan Larsson has 8pts and is a center, what if we had lost him? That would have been worse for our depth. 

Protecting Ullmark was smart and protecting Lehner going into last season was smart. Letting Lehner go was smart and promoting Ullmark was smart. Lehner is a great story this year but he was never going to get the chance or the system to do what he is doing. Losing Carrier in the expansion draft matters little because we kept Ullmark protected. 

Edited January 29, 2019 by LGR4GM

[Samson's Flow]

Just now, LGR4GM said:

And I have explained to you why it won't. ELC's are a wonderful thing. And I do care about depth even if your crappy tone is trying to make it sound like I don't. You were wrong about the Lehner thing and being mad about it and so you are changing the subject to be about a replacement level 4th line player with a whopping 9 points on the season. Johan Larsson has 8pts and is a center, what if we had lost him? That would have been worse for our depth. 

LGR I give you a lot of credit for your patience here.

[LGR4GM]

1 minute ago, Samson's Flow said:

LGR I give you a lot of credit for your patience here.

I like that they have strong opinions and are sharing them, we need that more around here. The tone of arrogance and condescension is annoying but I pretty much filter it out. 

[jame]

2 minutes ago, LGR4GM said:

Not funny at all, I can replace Carrier. If 1 of my top six goes out, can I replace them to any degree? What am I going to do? Put Carrier in Skinner's spot? Carrier has 8 goals and 1 assist but sure let's say 10? We have a 4th line that works fine. They aren't the issue. The issue is lines 2 and 3. Carrier with his amazing 8 goals is so good that he stays on that 4th line getting under 10minutes a night. He is easily replaceable and that isn't depth. 

Depth is having Morgan Frost in the pipeline or whoever we get in this draft. It is having talent that pushes guys like Carrier out altogether. That's what I want my depth to do. To force guys like Pommers and Zemgus and such out and replace them with better. I want that bottom six to be a war zone. I want players in the bottom six to be pushing to take ice from that top 6. When you have a good young talented player fighting a Carrier for ice time and pushing him out of the lineup, that's depth. Better still is the depth where your 3rd line is so good they can take time from your 2nd line. I want that level of depth. We don't have it and your prospect thread proves that. 

What's funny is that you are against losing assets for nothing but are fine with losing Lehner for nothing. You have no idea if they would or would not have taken Lehner. Let's say they don't. You still end up losing something, in this case we protect Ullmark, they take Carrier anyway and we are right back here anyway. Botterill didn't have an option that would satisfy you. It was a no win scenario that you are trying to use to strengthen your argument against the GM. I think you should focus less on that move and more on other moves that actually freaking mattered. 

Injuries forced Carrier on to the ROR line in 2017-18, they produced a 56% CF and a 50% GF rate...

But I see now that what you believe "depth" is.... is actually called "potential". A prospect pipeline is ONE avenue to creating depth... it is not depth in and of itself.

Carrier would've been an asset to creating said war zone.... instead we had to suffer through watching guys like Seth Griffith, Matt Moulson, Jason Pominville, Jacob Josefson, Benoit Pouliot....

Actually, Botts had a great option in expansion... paying Vegas to take something worthless like the Moulson contract. Skipping a great opportunity to rid ourselves of dead weight and wasted cap space.

[Samson's Flow]

2 minutes ago, LGR4GM said:

I like that they have strong opinions and are sharing them, we need that more around here. The tone of arrogance and condescension is annoying but I pretty much filter it out. 

To be fair, I think most of us have been here long enough that we all know each other's opinions and where we stand on things. That tends to not make for great discussion/arguments since I already know what the response will be.

[jame]

6 minutes ago, LGR4GM said:

And I have explained to you why it won't. ELC's are a wonderful thing. And I do care about depth even if your crappy tone is trying to make it sound like I don't. You were wrong about the Lehner thing and being mad about it,  so now you are changing the subject to be about a replacement level 4th line player with a whopping 9 points on the season. Johan Larsson has 8pts and is a center, what if we had lost him? That would have been worse for our depth. 

Protecting Ullmark was smart and protecting Lehner going into last season was smart. Letting Lehner go was smart and promoting Ullmark was smart. Lehner is a great story this year but he was never going to get the chance or the system to do what he is doing. Losing Carrier in the expansion draft matters little because we kept Ullmark protected. 

I promise you, I'm not mad :)

I know you guys are all about tone and stuff around here... but arguing about hockey doesn't affect my feelings. ?

[Samson's Flow]

1 minute ago, jame said:

Injuries forced Carrier on to the ROR line in 2017-18, they produced a 56% CF and a 50% GF rate...

But I see now that what you believe "depth" is.... is actually called "potential". A prospect pipeline is ONE avenue to creating depth... it is not depth in and of itself.

Carrier would've been an asset to creating said war zone.... instead we had to suffer through watching guys like Seth Griffith, Matt Moulson, Jason Pominville, Jacob Josefson, Benoit Pouliot....

Actually, Botts had a great option in expansion... paying Vegas to take something worthless like the Moulson contract. Skipping a great opportunity to rid ourselves of dead weight and wasted cap space.

This was always a pipe dream. Vegas was not taking Moulson unless we gave up something really valuable, in which JBott would have been roasted. Moulson isn't hurting us long term with his contract expiring soon.

[LGR4GM]

8 minutes ago, jame said:

Injuries forced Carrier on to the ROR line in 2017-18, they produced a 56% CF and a 50% GF rate...

But I see now that what you believe "depth" is.... is actually called "potential". A prospect pipeline is ONE avenue to creating depth... it is not depth in and of itself.

Carrier would've been an asset to creating said war zone.... instead we had to suffer through watching guys like Seth Griffith, Matt Moulson, Jason Pominville, Jacob Josefson, Benoit Pouliot....

Actually, Botts had a great option in expansion... paying Vegas to take something worthless like the Moulson contract. Skipping a great opportunity to rid ourselves of dead weight and wasted cap space.

Yea your tone isn't about your feelings. It's about how you sound to others. ?

ROR also not on the team. There's a move you can easily criticize. 

Yes we watched those guys last year and then...  got Rasmus Dhalin. 

So you are in favor of wasting assets for nothing. 

Depth is depth. If someone up the lineup goes down, can another player take over. Or if someone up the lineup sucks can someone take over. Carrier can take over for what Zegmus? fan-freaking tastic. Also protecting Ullmark was smart and losing Lehner didn't impact us at all. 

4 minutes ago, Samson's Flow said:

This was always a pipe dream. Vegas was not taking Moulson unless we gave up something really valuable, in which JBott would have been roasted. Moulson isn't hurting us long term with his contract expiring soon.

Imagine if we had given up a 1st to get them to take Moulson and then won the lottery. Just imagine it. 

 

Edited January 29, 2019 by LGR4GM

[jame]

 

3 minutes ago, LGR4GM said:

Yea your tone isn't about your feelings. It's about how you sound to others. ?

ROR also not on the team. There's a move you can easily criticize. 

Yes we watched those guys last year and then...  got Rasmus Dhalin. 

So you are in favor of wasting assets for nothing. 

i was just clarifying that  you don't need to worry about me getting mad.

The statement wasn't about ROR, it was about the presumption that Carrier or players like him can't move up in the lineup due to injury. Carrier did, and the line was even more successful.

Are you implying that had we kept Carrier, he would've made such an impact that we wouldn't have finished last? I didn't know your opinion of Carrier was so high.

Ah... now I see. You believe cap space is nothing.

Edited January 29, 2019 by jame

[Samson's Flow]

Are we really mad about losing William Carrier? In his 3 years of NHL experience he hasn't broken 10 min of ATOI or 10 points in a season (with nearly 120 games as a sample). His play is exactly the same level as the guys @jame mentioned as us "suffering through watching".

[LGR4GM]

2 minutes ago, jame said:

 

I know. It's been said numerous times that words about hockey hurt peoples feelings... im just clarifying that I'm not one of those people. So you don't need to worry about me getting mad.

The statement wasn't about ROR, it was about the presumption that Carrier or players like him can't move up in the lineup due to injury. Carrier did, and the line was even more successful.

Are you implying that had we kept Carrier, he would've made such an impact that we wouldn't have finished last? I didn't know your opinion of Carrier was so high.

Ah... now I see. You believe cap space is nothing.

No I am saying if we paid a 1st to lose Moulson imagine then winning the lottery. 

The bolded is condescending.

1 minute ago, Samson's Flow said:

Are we really mad about losing William Carrier? In his 3 years of NHL experience he hasn't broken 10 min of ATOI or 10 points in a season (with nearly 120 games as a sample). His play is exactly the same level as the guys @jame mentioned as us "suffering through watching".

Yes he is because he hates Botterill and wants to prove it. 

Edited January 29, 2019 by LGR4GM

[jame]

6 minutes ago, Samson's Flow said:

This was always a pipe dream. Vegas was not taking Moulson unless we gave up something really valuable, in which JBott would have been roasted. Moulson isn't hurting us long term with his contract expiring soon.

It was a pipedream only in relation to Botts stupid vision of not trying to win for 2-3 years.... .

Under a better vision, Moulson was a huge detriment.

 

[LGR4GM]

1 minute ago, jame said:

It was a pipedream only in relation to Botts stupid vision of not trying to win for 2-3 years.... .

Under a better vision, Moulson was a huge detriment.

 

What, in your opinion, should Botterill have done at the expansion draft? 

Edited January 29, 2019 by LGR4GM

[Samson's Flow]

4 minutes ago, jame said:

 

i was just clarifying that  you don't need to worry about me getting mad.

The statement wasn't about ROR, it was about the presumption that Carrier or players like him can't move up in the lineup due to injury. Carrier did, and the line was even more successful.

Are you implying that had we kept Carrier, he would've made such an impact that we wouldn't have finished last? I didn't know your opinion of Carrier was so high.

Ah... now I see. You believe cap space is nothing.

This part is good hockey talk and an articulated opinion worth discussing

This part  makes you sound like the drunk guy at the end of the bar that nobody wants to talk to, since he already clearly knows everything.

Edited January 29, 2019 by Samson's Flow

[jame]

1 minute ago, Samson's Flow said:

Are we really mad about losing William Carrier? In his 3 years of NHL experience he hasn't broken 10 min of ATOI or 10 points in a season (with nearly 120 games as a sample). His play is exactly the same level as the guys @jame mentioned as us "suffering through watching".

1/3 of the forwards that Botts put on the opening night roster last year... are no longer in the NHL.

If you're not trying to win now... why do you protect Lehner? 

Protecting Ennis and Foligno... to trade them for Poms and Scandella? If you're not trying to win now... what's the point of that trade?

[...]

9 minutes ago, LGR4GM said:

Imagine if we had given up a 1st to get them to take Moulson and then won the lottery. Just imagine it. 

Dude...no.

[LGR4GM]

2 minutes ago, jame said:

1/3 of the forwards that Botts put on the opening night roster last year... are no longer in the NHL.

If you're not trying to win now... why do you protect Lehner? 

Protecting Ennis and Foligno... to trade them for Poms and Scandella? If you're not trying to win now... what's the point of that trade?

Was he trying to win or bring in the players he wanted? I think he has been focused on fixing the defense and has been trying to build it up. Hence that specific trade. 

Last year Botterill evaluated. We ended up with Dahlin, I can live with a year of evaluation for that. 

[jame]

1 minute ago, LGR4GM said:

What, in your opinion, should Botterill have done at the expansion draft? 

Forwards: Okposo (forced), ROR, Kane, Larsson, Girgs, Foligno, Carrier

Changes: Swap Ennis for Carrier

Defensemen: Risto, McCabe, Bogo

Changes: Swap Beaulieu for Bogo (How dumb does protecting Beaulieu over Bogo look today?). I know we had just traded for Beaulieu... so a better way of putting this might be... don't trade for Beaulieu. 

Goalies: Ullmark

Changes: Swap Lehner for Ullmark

Outcome: Vegas probably takes Ennis

[Samson's Flow]

1 minute ago, jame said:

1/3 of the forwards that Botts put on the opening night roster last year... are no longer in the NHL.

If you're not trying to win now... why do you protect Lehner? 

Protecting Ennis and Foligno... to trade them for Poms and Scandella? If you're not trying to win now... what's the point of that trade?

?

Because even if you aren't trying to win now (which is debatable this year, but not the point) you should protect the best assets you have. We used the asset value that was protected in Ennis and Foligno to get back Scandella, who until his recent play was our top 4 defenseman. You aren't getting Scandella for William Carrier and his 8 pts in 41 games.

It is the GM's job to maximize the assets on the team, which he did by protecting Lehner and our best forwards at the time.

[LGR4GM]

I understand being critical of Botterill. The ROR trade, Hunwich Sheary trade, sure. But why the hell is Carrier the hill you have chosen to die on? Literally pick anything else and it is a more compelling argument. 

[jame]

7 minutes ago, LGR4GM said:

No I am saying if we paid a 1st to lose Moulson imagine then winning the lottery. 

The bolded is condescending.

Yes he is because he hates Botterill and wants to prove it. 

everything is condescending.... 

You say: "So you are in favor of wasting assets for nothing."

I say: "So you believe cap space is nothing"

And I'm being condescending and you're... what? Being super cool?

I don't care about your tone, but apparently you're going to harp on mine every 3rd post

[Samson's Flow]

1 minute ago, jame said:

Forwards: Okposo (forced), ROR, Kane, Larsson, Girgs, Foligno, Carrier

Changes: Swap Ennis for Carrier

Defensemen: Risto, McCabe, Bogo

Changes: Swap Beaulieu for Bogo (How dumb does protecting Beaulieu over Bogo look today?). I know we had just traded for Beaulieu... so a better way of putting this might be... don't trade for Beaulieu. 

Goalies: Ullmark

Changes: Swap Lehner for Ullmark

Outcome: Vegas probably takes Ennis

That (hypothetical) outcome also means that we don't get Scandella, who was on our top pairing all last year. Maybe we're more of a dumpster fire than we were last year and we don't have the playoff cusp team we have now.

I can do butterfly effect hypotheticals too.

[jame]

4 minutes ago, Samson's Flow said:

?

Because even if you aren't trying to win now (which is debatable this year, but not the point) you should protect the best assets you have. We used the asset value that was protected in Ennis and Foligno to get back Scandella, who until his recent play was our top 4 defenseman. You aren't getting Scandella for William Carrier and his 8 pts in 41 games.

It is the GM's job to maximize the assets on the team, which he did by protecting Lehner and our best forwards at the time.

Scandella was gotten primarily because Pominville would waive for Buffalo. We could've used any assets to make that deal work. 

Disagree on the bolded... obviously

 

You think it's debatable whether Botts was trying to win this year? He traded an all star 60 point center for futures and cap dumps... 

Edited January 29, 2019 by jame