Official:Trade Brandon Montour to Buffalo for 1st and Guhle

[...]

5 minutes ago, jame said:

I haven't seen a single fact presented that supports the argument that Anaheim is doing a tear down. Maybe a quick recap would put me in my place.

Me either.

[jame]

1 minute ago, ... said:

Me either.

I'm not even sure if I'm allowed to say that...

[...]

Just now, jame said:

I'm not even sure if I'm allowed to say that...

You'll be fine.

[nfreeman]

32 minutes ago, jame said:

hmmm define "huge" contract?

Historical validation is important. It removes the hysteria. 

There's a lot of question when those takes are not validated going forward.

Myers will probably get at least $6MM x 6 years and will probably get the biggest UFA deal for a defenseman (unless Karlsson leaves SJ). 

Not sure what the rest of this post means.

 

18 minutes ago, ... said:

Not to tell you how to mod, but, he's only challenging the reasoning or logic of a statement.  We all lay on the snark here. 

It's a question of degrees.

[WildCard]

33 minutes ago, jame said:

It's an interesting take.... team trades 24 year old defensemen, fans read the tea leaves as a tear down.....

That is after signing Henrique long term, and getting Rakell and Kase on bargain contracts through their prime.... and having an elite young netminder... But sure... they've got to tear it all down because of bad contracts. 

 

16 minutes ago, jame said:

When confronted with the facts... this is where you always retreat. Maybe continue to refine your position?

I'm giving you evidence that disputes your claim that Anaheim is doing a tear down. What evidence do you have to support the claim, beyond the Montour trade?

It's been fun guys. 

Go Sabres!

The thing is all of those deals you're referring to were signed and created when they thought they had a contending team. In the past 6 seasons the Ducks have cracked 100 points 5 times (the 6th being a lockout season where they easily would have). Things change. They fired Carlye, they moved a defensemen for a 21  year old prospect and a 1st round pick when that d-man is right in their contending window

You're acting like the fact that they signed young player to long term deals when they were good, and that they have a very good young goaltender, completely excludes them from a tear down. Their core players are old, expensive, and useless. They are not going to be the core going forward for long. If you told Anaheim they can move all 3 of those guys this summer they'd do it in a heartbeat. Can they? Maybe not, but they're going to try

What facts do you have to support your claim? A few young contracts, ignoring their fired coach, and attendance? As if attendance ever precluded a team from a tear down

 

 

[Kruppstahl]

Listening to Botterill's PC now.  Doing a good job of saying nothing.

 

[Drunkard]

8 minutes ago, Samson's Flow said:

This definitely happens. We all have a lot of hope that our team will get better rather than worse, so a reasonable faith in the GM comes along with that as long as he isn't demonstrating Chiarelli level incompetence.

I will re-iterate that I had no problem with either the Kane or ROR acquisition trades.

I understand that it's a natural reaction as a fan to do this, but it almost borders on split personality at times.

Kane fetches a conditional first that comes to fruition because they re-signed him and Botterill is suddenly a genius. He trades away O'Reilly for garbage depth, a prospect and a first and he's definitely a genius now. We have 3 first round picks, he's the man, and so on. Now he trades one of those firsts and suddenly the first isn't so valuable. It doesn't matter because it's a late first, basically a second, we need to re-evaluate how we think of late 1st rounders, etc.

 

[Brawndo]

 

[Carmel Corn]

3 minutes ago, Kruppstahl said:

Listening to Botterill's PC now.  Doing a good job of saying nothing.

 

About as meaty as a vegetarian taco.

[Kruppstahl]

Has there been any discussion of Montour being able to play for the Sabres tonight against Toronto?

 

 

[WildCard]

1 minute ago, Brawndo said:

 

Tbf Bealiue said the same thing

[Carmel Corn]

Just now, Kruppstahl said:

Has there been any discussion of Montour being able to play for the Sabres tonight against Toronto?

 

 

Yes...not playing because of catching the "red eye" overnight.  GMJB wants to set him up for success, so expect him in the lineup against Philly

[Kruppstahl]

1 minute ago, Carmel Corn said:

Yes...not playing because of catching the "red eye" overnight.  GMJB wants to set him up for success, so expect him in the lineup against Philly

Thank you!

 

 

[jame]

5 minutes ago, WildCard said:

 

The thing is all of those deals you're referring to were signed and created when they thought they had a contending team. In the past 6 seasons the Ducks have cracked 100 points 5 times (the 6th being a lockout season where they easily would have). Things change. They fired Carlye, they moved a defensemen for a 21  year old prospect and a 1st round pick when that d-man is right in their contending window

You're acting like the fact that they signed young player to long term deals when they were good, and that they have a very good young goaltender, completely excludes them from a tear down. Their core players are old, expensive, and useless. They are not going to be the core going forward for long. If you told Anaheim they can move all 3 of those guys this summer they'd do it in a heartbeat. Can they? Maybe not, but they're going to try

What facts do you have to support your claim? A few young contracts, ignoring their fired coach, and attendance? As if attendance ever precluded a team from a tear down

 

 

You're acting like the trading of a 24 year old defensemen indicates that they've completely changed their plan?

1. They signed a 28 year old pending UFA to a 5 year extension... 5 days ago. (Silfverberg). I mean that alone should be enough to sink your argument right? Instead of going to the trade market to get a 1st or prospects for Silfverberg... they re-signed him

2. Here is a list of the prime aged talent and long term deals they have: Rakell (25), Gibson (25), Lindholm (25), Kase (23), Fowler (27), Silfverberg (28), Manson (27). Do you honestly think they are going to tear down? Please note, that the attempted removal of Kesler and Perry is not a tear down in and of itself.

3. What the above is meant to illustrate is that Anaheim has already identified it's new core, they don't need a tear down to build one. The fact is that they identified that Montour was not part of that core. We can debate the reasons for that.... for sure, that's all subjective. But Anaheim has given zero indication they are doing a tear down.

[WildCard]

1 minute ago, jame said:

You're acting like the trading of a 24 year old defensemen indicates that they've completely changed their plan?

1. They signed a 28 year old pending UFA to a 5 year extension... 5 days ago. (Silfverberg). I mean that alone should be enough to sink your argument right? Instead of going to the trade market to get a 1st or prospects for Silfverberg... they re-signed him

2. Here is a list of the prime aged talent and long term deals they have: Rakell (25), Gibson (25), Lindholm (25), Kase (23), Fowler (27), Silfverberg (28), Manson (27). Do you honestly think they are going to tear down? Please note, that the attempted removal of Kesler and Perry is not a tear down in and of itself.

3. What the above is meant to illustrate is that Anaheim has already identified it's new core, they don't need a tear down to build one. The fact is that they identified that Montour was not part of that core. We can debate the reasons for that.... for sure, that's all subjective. But Anaheim has given zero indication they are doing a tear down.

Fair enough. And it's a good post. We're not challenged though so quit the bullsht with making a sentence bold and hop off your high horse. You're not somehow the smartest person to ever post on here

[#freejame]

9 minutes ago, nfreeman said:

It's a question of degrees.

There are plenty of posters on here who consistently butt-heads with one another to a much greater degree or will solely dismiss/belittle the opinion of X poster. Jame doesn’t have a single person who he butts heads with, he replies to everyone in the same manner. To me, it’s far worse when one poster consistently targets only a single other poster than someone who just has a personality some may find abrasive. When two long time posters get into an “intense” argument, I never see any warnings or bans leveled, because it’s known they don’t get along. Jame doesn’t “not” get along with anyone, there are just posters who don’t like the way he is. If someone makes a point he agrees with, he agrees—regardless of who it is. When someone makes a point he disagrees with, he disagrees—regardless of who it is.

There’s a reason there’s typically more guests than users and as someone who took five years to make an account and another five to post, the treatment of Jame is part of the reason.

[jame]

1 minute ago, WildCard said:

Fair enough. And it's a good post. We're not challenged though so quit the bullsht with making a sentence bold and hop off your high horse. You're not somehow the smartest person to ever post on here

Careful... they are really serious about this type of stuff here. I don't want you to get banned.

Sorry the use of the bold format offended you.

[WildCard]

Just now, jame said:

Careful... they are really serious about this type of stuff here. I don't want you to get banned.

Sorry the use of the bold format offended you.

It doesn't offend me, it just makes you a dick

[LGR4GM]

3 minutes ago, WildCard said:

It doesn't offend me, it just makes you a dick

Dude, come on now. 

[jame]

3 minutes ago, WildCard said:

It doesn't offend me, it just makes you a dick

You could've stuck with "fair point. Good post" but you just had to find something to be offended by/angry about.. to the point that bold text is what you're left standing behind. I hope the mods can see that it's not all me.

[...]

2 minutes ago, WildCard said:

It doesn't offend me, it just makes you a dick

WTF.  It just highlights the most important words in a statement/paragraph.  Bold was invented for that reason.  

Some of you people really need to chill out when your ideas/notions are challenged. Not everyone with a contrarian POV is a boogeyman.

[nfreeman]

2 minutes ago, IrwinNelson said:

There are plenty of posters on here who consistently butt-heads with one another to a much greater degree or will solely dismiss/belittle the opinion of X poster. Jame doesn’t have a single person who he butts heads with, he replies to everyone in the same manner. To me, it’s far worse when one poster consistently targets only a single other poster than someone who just has a personality some may find abrasive. When two long time posters get into an “intense” argument, I never see any warnings or bans leveled, because it’s known they don’t get along. Jame doesn’t “not” get along with anyone, there are just posters who don’t like the way he is. If someone makes a point he agrees with, he agrees—regardless of who it is. When someone makes a point he disagrees with, he disagrees—regardless of who it is.

There’s a reason there’s typically more guests than users and as someone who took five years to make an account and another five to post, the treatment of Jame is part of the reason.

First, I appreciate your feedback.  If you see a situation where someone is consistently targeting someone else, please let the mods know.

Second, it's important that everyone here have a generally respectful and polite manner of communication.  If someone can't live up to that standard -- that's his problem to improve on, not everyone else's to have to live with.

Just now, ... said:

Some of you people really need to chill out when your ideas/notions are challenged. Not everyone with a contrarian POV is a boogeyman.

This is a straw man.  As I'm sure you understand, the different POV is not the issue.

[Scottysabres]

5 minutes ago, jame said:

You're acting like the trading of a 24 year old defensemen indicates that they've completely changed their plan?

1. They signed a 28 year old pending UFA to a 5 year extension... 5 days ago. (Silfverberg). I mean that alone should be enough to sink your argument right? Instead of going to the trade market to get a 1st or prospects for Silfverberg... they re-signed him

2. Here is a list of the prime aged talent and long term deals they have: Rakell (25), Gibson (25), Lindholm (25), Kase (23), Fowler (27), Silfverberg (28), Manson (27). Do you honestly think they are going to tear down? Please note, that the attempted removal of Kesler and Perry is not a tear down in and of itself.

3. What the above is meant to illustrate is that Anaheim has already identified it's new core, they don't need a tear down to build one. The fact is that they identified that Montour was not part of that core. We can debate the reasons for that.... for sure, that's all subjective. But Anaheim has given zero indication they are doing a tear down.

There are some solid points in your post. There is also some indications by the Ducks organizations decisions over the past year and 1/2 or so that they are rebuilding/retooling (call it what you will) their blue line. Even if that rebuild/retool is in a state of flux.

After all, you don't leave Theodore exposed as the sacrificial lamb for the expansion to protect Montour (which is exactly what happened) and move Vat's, then move Montour shortly there after without some decision to go in a different direction. That in and of itself, is more than sufficient data to say they are rebuilding/retooling their blue line at least, even if on a smaller scale.

But outside of that, over all, yes, I concur, their forward core is staying largely intact and they have the complimentary pieces at prime age to continue on. However, with that being said, and given the length's on those Perry, Getzlaf and Kesler contracts, it is reasonable to question what they do plan to do, since their secondary piece core (and let's face it, those you listed, that is what they are, as of now) will be around the 28 to 33 age when their core stars fizzle out completely.

That, is a very questionable strategy by the Ducks management team, at least, imho.

[WildCard]

1 minute ago, ... said:

WTF.  It just highlights the most important words in a statement/paragraph.  Bold was invented for that reason.  

Some of you people really need to chill out when your ideas/notions are challenged. Not everyone with a contrarian POV is a boogeyman.

Do I have that interaction with a lot of people on here?

[...]

1 minute ago, nfreeman said:

First, I appreciate your feedback.  If you see a situation where someone is consistently targeting someone else, please let the mods know.

Second, it's important that everyone here have a generally respectful and polite manner of communication.  If someone can't live up to that standard -- that's his problem to improve on, not everyone else's to have to live with.

This is all really for another thread, however your second point is arbitrary and subjective.  One simply can not predict how others will react all of the time.