Non Sabres Deadline Trades/Rumors

[darksabre]

3 minutes ago, WildCard said:

 

[Randall Flagg]

That sorrrrrrrrrrta confirms that Risto may have at least softly requested a trade, eh? In what other context would Jack have framed that that way

Edited September 6, 2019 by Randall Flagg

[darksabre]

3 minutes ago, Randall Flagg said:

That sorrrrrrrrrrta confirms that Risto may have at least softly requested a trade, eh? In what other context would Jack have framed that that way

I think it lends credence to the "Risto is burned out" theory. 

[darksabre]

Re: 

 

[nfreeman]

35 minutes ago, Randall Flagg said:

That sorrrrrrrrrrta confirms that Risto may have at least softly requested a trade, eh? In what other context would Jack have framed that that way

IMHO it's pretty clear that Risto wants out and everyone in the organ-eye-zation knows it.

[dudacek]

I also think that was the captain sending a bit of a message, no?

[Ripper]

I think that Jack's way.  He doesn't appear willing to publicly discuss other players situations.  If you remember, when Jimmy Vesey was his teammate in Boston and preparing his decision during free agency, Jack told him that Buffalo was a great place to play but also told him that it was his decision and that he should make the right choice for himself.

[Thorner]

5 hours ago, nfreeman said:

And do you think Chevy says yes?  If he says no, why? 

If Laine is traded, do you think the return will be greater or lesser than Risto, Joker and a 2020 #1?

The Laine situation looks to me like an opportunity to pick up a young potential superstar whose floor is Thomas Vanek at a discounted price due to his having a down season and his team making a foolish decision due to salary cap and other pressures.  But you're not getting him for ERod and a #2 or other Roy-for-Malkin proposal

The thing about Laine is his underlying numbers have been atrocious since he came into the league, that "down season" was anything but unpredictable and is just as likely to be representative of the "true" Laine, as not. 

It's an issue where the risk is only accentuated by the fact he needs to get paid. My first reaction to the trade return needs to be "woah, that seems low" for me to even consider making the move. 

Edited September 6, 2019 by Thorny

[nfreeman]

3 hours ago, dudacek said:

Floor is Thomas Vanek is interesting. Are you sure his ceiling isn’t Thomas Vanek?

Their stats after three NHL seasons are remarkably similar. Laine has 6 more goals, Vanek 22 more assists.

They are both amazing goal scorers with gifted hands, kinda slow and kinda questionable defensively. Thomas was a better playmaker and a more courageous player.

Would you have traded prime Bodger, a rookie Brian Campbell and a first for a young Vanek? That’s kinda what your deal looks like to me.

Bodger and a 1st for Vanek I’d do, but I wouldn’t throw in a prospect who projects as Campbell.

Well, it's kinda hard to be sure about this kind of thing, but I do think Vanek is the floor and not the ceiling -- although there are certainly plenty of similarities that indicate that Laine's career could be as big a disappointment as Vanek's was.

I guess I just think that it's pretty unusual for a guy as talented as Vanek to ultimately amount to as little as Vanek did, so I think the likelihood is that Laine surpasses Vanek.

[WildCard]

 

[Taro T]

1 hour ago, nfreeman said:

Well, it's kinda hard to be sure about this kind of thing, but I do think Vanek is the floor and not the ceiling -- although there are certainly plenty of similarities that indicate that Laine's career could be as big a disappointment as Vanek's was.

I guess I just think that it's pretty unusual for a guy as talented as Vanek to ultimately amount to as little as Vanek did, so I think the likelihood is that Laine surpasses Vanek.

And from this vantage point Vanek is the expected value, but the standard deviation is sooooo friggin' large, really not overly interested in him as Ristolainen straight up could be a huge over or underpayment and this team has been bad for sooooo long, just don't see the risk worth the reward.

Were Risto & Laine at this stage of their careers / contract situations 2 seasons from now when we'd have a much better idea on what Mittelstadt, Cozens, Dahlin, & some other kids will be, would likely be all over that trade 1 for 1 (w/ minor part(s) to even things out).  But that's not the case.  IMHO, Murray did handcuff Botterill to a degree due to his failed swings for the fences.  (And readily admit Botts did it to himself to a degree as well w/ the sorry return for O'Reilly and the waste of a gift of almost $4MM in cap space last season.  Yeah, Pegula might have do e some of that hand thing, but when Berglund walked away, those knots got a lot freer but he stayed bound.)

[tom webster]

On 9/5/2019 at 12:03 PM, LGR4GM said:

But they would still have someone covering him. If he just floats, Eichel has to work that much more to find him in space. We need a 5 person attack with proper support. 

[DHawerchuk10]

16 hours ago, nfreeman said:

Well, it's kinda hard to be sure about this kind of thing, but I do think Vanek is the floor and not the ceiling -- although there are certainly plenty of similarities that indicate that Laine's career could be as big a disappointment as Vanek's was.

I guess I just think that it's pretty unusual for a guy as talented as Vanek to ultimately amount to as little as Vanek did, so I think the likelihood is that Laine surpasses Vanek.

Why are you talking about Vanek like he is Patrik Stefan?  He did score 40 twice, and has produced pretty steadily throughout his career.  He’s not a hall of famer, but far from a disappointment.

[tom webster]

I have to respond to all this analytics discussion about Laine. First, as a matter of perspective, I once was on a course of study to be an actuary. I understand numbers, can tell you every phone number I ever had, the birthday of every person at least casually in my life. I’m not bragging, just setting the table.

Any system of analysis that devalues a thirty five goal snorer is flawed. The number one scoring team in this league will score three hundred goals. A player that can score ten percent of that while floating will win you more games then he’ll cost you. Again, in a league where the difference between playoffs and sitting home can be less then two games, a goal scorer can be that difference. He is like a twenty game winning pitcher. He might impact only twenty percent of the games but he could be the difference between champion and also ran.

The most diehard numbers guys will tell you hockey is the most “luck controlled” sport. Who has the most likely chance of getting hot and taking over a game, a stretch of games, a playoff series?

Finally, would I rather have Mark Stone? Of course. Like someone said upthread, I would rather have five guys simultaneously driving the play. Heck, I want eighteen along with two average goalies playing at an elite level. That, however, is video game stuff. Building a team can involve fitting round parts into square holes. That’s the general managers job. Creating the synergy that allows strong willed athletes to overlook their teammates shortcomings, that’s the coaches job. Hoping for players that create more positive then negatives, that’s this fans dream.

[inkman]

54 minutes ago, DHawerchuk10 said:

Why are you talking about Vanek like he is Patrik Stefan?  He did score 40 twice, and has produced pretty steadily throughout his career.  He’s not a hall of famer, but far from a disappointment.

In the eyes of most fans, he will always be viewed as a disappointment.  Let's face it, he was annoyed the face of the franchise once Drury and Briere left. Statistically, he looks accomplished but most Sabres fans tie him to the dismantling of those great Sabres teams and leading a team to virtually nothing after. 

[LGR4GM]

1 hour ago, tom webster said:

Any system of analysis that devalues a thirty five goal snorer is flawed. The number one scoring team in this league will score three hundred goals. A player that can score ten percent of that while floating will win you more games then he’ll cost you. Again, in a league where the difference between playoffs and sitting home can be less then two games, a goal scorer can be that difference. He is like a twenty game winning pitcher. He might impact only twenty percent of the games but he could be the difference between champion and also ran.

The most diehard numbers guys will tell you hockey is the most “luck controlled” sport. Who has the most likely chance of getting hot and taking over a game, a stretch of games, a playoff series?

Finally, would I rather have Mark Stone? Of course. Like someone said upthread, I would rather have five guys simultaneously driving the play. Heck, I want eighteen along with two average goalies playing at an elite level. That, however, is video game stuff. Building a team can involve fitting round parts into square holes. That’s the general managers job. Creating the synergy that allows strong willed athletes to overlook their teammates shortcomings, that’s the coaches job. Hoping for players that create more positive then negatives, that’s this fans dream.

So your hypotheses here is that having Laine would positively impact 20% of the games he plays in? 16 games he's helping you win over the course of the season. Is that correct?

[triumph_communes]

7 minutes ago, LGR4GM said:

So your hypotheses here is that having Laine would positively impact 20% of the games he plays in? 16 games he's helping you win over the course of the season. Is that correct?

If you can get Laine and Skinner on alternating hot and cold streaks, the team is in good shape!

[#freejame]

1 hour ago, tom webster said:

Any system of analysis that devalues a thirty five goal snorer is flawed. The number one scoring team in this league will score three hundred goals. A player that can score ten percent of that while floating will win you more games then he’ll cost you. Again, in a league where the difference between playoffs and sitting home can be less then two games, a goal scorer can be that difference. He is like a twenty game winning pitcher. He might impact only twenty percent of the games but he could be the difference between champion and also ran.

The most diehard numbers guys will tell you hockey is the most “luck controlled” sport. Who has the most likely chance of getting hot and taking over a game, a stretch of games, a playoff series?

Wins are far from a performance indicator in baseball. You can lose a game without giving up any earned runs and you can win a game giving up a dozen. 

[LGR4GM]

22 minutes ago, triumph_communes said:

If you can get Laine and Skinner on alternating hot and cold streaks, the team is in good shape!

Again, Laine is producing 50% of his goals on the powerplay. Year 3 being a down year for Laine is very concerning. Reinhart was a better winger last season. 

[dudacek]

The Laine debate is just the Vesey debate writ large.

[LGR4GM]

2 minutes ago, dudacek said:

The Laine debate is just the Vesey debate writ large.

I think Vesey scored more goals 5v5 than Laine last year. 

[Randall Flagg]

With Laine it's not about production. The production is why people would still trade things for him. The things we'd trade are just pretty limited compared to typical players of that production because he is a problematic hockey player for the bulk of the game when he's not scoring those goals, and in a season like last year, where TWENTY ONE of the thirty goals came in just one calendar month, and the other five months were simply brutal hockey with no production, well, the Sabres need first and foremost to stabilize the hockey they play and bring it to a level and consistency they haven't seen in years. After they can do that, the production will come. Laine simply doesn't help them do that even if he can help with the production problem. 

We just don't think he makes us a better hockey team in the ways we desperately need to get better, even if he helps us score more goals. So while we'd trade something for the more goals, we wouldn't trade what it would take to get Laine and pay him way too much money when he's so miserable at hockey otherwise and also not thrilled to buy into things like working hard

[LGR4GM]

48 minutes ago, Randall Flagg said:

With Laine it's not about production. The production is why people would still trade things for him. The things we'd trade are just pretty limited compared to typical players of that production because he is a problematic hockey player for the bulk of the game when he's not scoring those goals, and in a season like last year, where TWENTY ONE of the thirty goals came in just one calendar month, and the other five months were simply brutal hockey with no production, well, the Sabres need first and foremost to stabilize the hockey they play and bring it to a level and consistency they haven't seen in years. After they can do that, the production will come. Laine simply doesn't help them do that even if he can help with the production problem. 

We just don't think he makes us a better hockey team in the ways we desperately need to get better, even if he helps us score more goals. So while we'd trade something for the more goals, we wouldn't trade what it would take to get Laine and pay him way too much money when he's so miserable at hockey otherwise and also not thrilled to buy into things like working hard

[tom webster]

2 hours ago, #freejame said:

Wins are far from a performance indicator in baseball. You can lose a game without giving up any earned runs and you can win a game giving up a dozen. 

Hopefully you know that I know this but just to clarify, I was insinuating that Laine was analogous to Justin Verlander and not Roger Merritt.

[tom webster]

22 minutes ago, LGR4GM said:

What if he appears to be not trying it not driving those sacred possession numbers because he sees things differently and is finding the spots he needs to be in to maximize his goal production. Us old timers use to refer to that to being in the right place.

And finally, before I leave for the best brewery anniversary party in Western New York, since when do power play goals count less then 5 on 5?