Non Sabres Deadline Trades/Rumors

[TrueBlueGED]

1 minute ago, rakish said:

Who's talking about Time on Ice? you're measuring your first pair by how much time on ice? The only reasonable stat is the power play time of your opponents, using that metric, Hedman played second pair, Burns played second pair. As Wildcard pointed out above, zone starts are an OK metric, Burns got good zone starts.

Why? And zone starts are a deeply flawed metric because the overwhelming majority of shifts start on the fly in the neutral zone. 

[Thorner]

19 minutes ago, inkman said:

Dahlin appears to be a risk reward type player. He gonna take a whole lotta risks and you might get rewarded, depending on the day. His metrics will be off the charts and he will appear great but he'll do things that bother blue collar Buffalo and they will turn on him. 

See Phil Housley, Richard Smehlik, Henrik Tallinder, Alexei Zhitnik and Rasmus Ristolainen. 

The only player that compares to Dahlin talent-wise in this list is Housley. I don't remember much of him on the ice, and nothing from his prime being too young, but from all accounts Dahlin has a physical element to his game that Housley severely lacked. Almost all the scouring reports had Dahlin as a physical beast in his prime once he's added to his frame, he's not known as a player who shies away from contact at all. There are already highlight reels of him laying out opponents. 

4 minutes ago, rakish said:

Who's talking about Time on Ice? you're measuring your first pair by how much time on ice? The only reasonable stat is the power play time of your opponents, using that metric, Hedman played second pair, Burns played second pair. As Wildcard pointed out above, zone starts are an OK metric, Burns got good zone starts.

I don't understand this. 

Edited June 20, 2019 by Thorny

[dudacek]

12 minutes ago, Thorny said:

. 

I don't understand this. 

You judge difficult minutes by the amount of ice time a defender plays against the best offensive players.

You determine who the best offensive players are by the amount of time they play on the PP.

Haven’t seen the numbers myself, but I think he’s saying Tampa usually matched McDonough’s pair against the opponent’s best offensive players and San Jose Vlasic’s, leaving Hedman and Burns against 2nd lines.

Edited June 20, 2019 by dudacek

[shrader]

3 hours ago, erickompositör72 said:

3 GM's? I just counted 2...

On another note, I didn't realize ROR got an offer sheet from Calgary after the lockout...

And the best part? Had Colorado let him go, he would have had to be placed on waivers before being cleared for the Calgary roster. So Calgary would have lost their draft picks with nothing to show for it. 

[Thorner]

2 minutes ago, dudacek said:

You judge difficult minutes by the amount of ice time a defender plays against the best offensive players.

You determine who the best offensive players are by the amount of time they play on the PP.

Haven’t seen the numbers myself, but I think he’s saying Tampa usually matched McDonough’s pair against the opponent’s best offensive players and San Jose Vlasic’s, leaving Hedman and Burns against 2nd lines.

Ok, so "sheltered minutes" by this definition doesn't preclude that player(s) being considered top line/pair. 

[WildCard]

1 hour ago, TrueBlueGED said:

I have no problem moving back, but Vancouver is such an unappealing trade partner. Pettersson, Horvat, Boeser, or Hughes? Sign me up. But that's obviously not happening and they've got nothing else even remotely interesting. 

Virtanen?

[TrueBlueGED]

Just now, WildCard said:

Virtanen?

Womp womp. He's done nothing in 210 NHL games that interests me.

[dudacek]

5 hours ago, Thorny said:

In the proposed scenario where we keep ROR and Kane, it seems very likely Botterill will have added a similar D-man in lieu of Montour. So I look at it more as ROR and Kane vs Miller and Skinner, in which case the former is still much better. 

More importantly, it could have been ROR and Skinner, with Montour. It's not some sort of zero-sum game where we couldn't have added Skinner anyways after keeping ROR. 

Even though I agree with your point about this in the context of ROR and Skinner it do want to explore it further in terms of the big picture.

For NHL GMs, managing a roster is very much a zero-sum game (or an $82-million-sum game) and I firmly believe that our MBA GM is very much aware of this and plans accordingly.

It’s not just about whether Skinner and O’Reilly can co-exist this year, it’s about how many big pieces can co-exist moving forward as other pieces - Okposo, Reinhart, Mittelstadt, Dahlin, Ristolainen, Montour, (Ullmark, Nylander...?) - compete for pieces of that pie.

That’s why he puts so much emphasis on development - his model is a core of well-paid stars and for them to succeed he needs a steady supply of cheap foot soldiers around them. 

You also have to make calls on which well-paid stars you keep and which ones you ship out. So when Botterill says trading O’Reilly lets him keep Skinner, he’s speaking to a much larger context than just those two players.

So my issue is not with Botterill trading some “core” guys for futures so he can use futures to acquire other “core” guys. It’s a sound strategy because you can only have so many and it’s harder to trade core guys for other core guys.. My issue is more the guys he has chosen.

I need Miller Montour and Skinner to be better than O’Reilly and Kane.

Because as a stand-alone, O’Reilly at $7.5 seems like a better choice than Skinner at $9.

Edited June 20, 2019 by dudacek

[Thorner]

Right, good post, but I don't know what to make of an MBA GM who trades not only arguably our best player, but one signed to a very good deal relative to the cap, as well. Seems a funny place to start the laundering of our talent. 

Edited June 20, 2019 by Thorny

[dudacek]

Further to the cap talk, it won’t be long before we see proof that Botterill’s  best move so far is signing Jack to the huge contract.

When he signed it, my reaction was “that’s too much.” From what we’ve seen since, within a few years he’s going to be a bargain compared to his peers and the back half of the deal should look like a Crosby/Bergeron style gift.

If he can do something similar with Rasmus, we will be set for a decade.

[Curt]

4 minutes ago, dudacek said:

Further to the cap talk, it won’t be long before we see proof that Botterill’s  best move so far is signing Jack to the huge contract.

When he signed it, my reaction was “that’s too much.” From what we’ve seen since, within a few years he’s going to be a bargain compared to his peers and the back half of the deal should look like a Crosby/Bergeron style gift.

If he can do something similar with Rasmus, we will be set for a decade.

Agree, and I just feel that Dahlin is not going to demand more than #1C and Captain, Jack Eichel.  Maybe a matching $10M AAV though if he lights it up next season.

[Drunkard]

13 hours ago, kas23 said:

I don’t want another team’s old spare parts again. I’d rather a draft pick or at least pair it up with an obvious piece of junk and send us a decent prospect. If some team’s 27/28/29/30 year-old isn’t good enough for them, then they shouldn’t be good enough for us. And I want quality, not quantity. 

We have the wrong GM for that. Mr. Dart Thrower prefers to trade quality players for quantity so he has more darts to throw.

[Scottysabres]

15 minutes ago, Drunkard said:

We have the wrong GM for that. Mr. Dart Thrower prefers to trade quality players for quantity so he has more darts to throw.

Actually a good analogy. His last significant trade (ROR) 1 out of 4 darts fell of the board lol

[Drunkard]

1 minute ago, Scottysabres said:

Actually a good analogy. His last significant trade (ROR) 1 out of 4 darts fell of the board lol

I think he said it himself in some interview. I'm fine with throwing darts if that means taking flyers on guys like Antipin and Pilut. I'm not fine with trading quarters for nickels, pennies, and slugs in order to hold out hope that one of those pieces will eventually turn into a dime. Mr. MBA should be smart enough to realize that acquiring as many darts as he can in hopes of hitting an occasional bull's-eye here isn't a sound strategy when trading prime assets.

[Derrico]

8 minutes ago, Scottysabres said:

Actually a good analogy. His last significant trade (ROR) 1 out of 4 darts fell of the board lol

It looks like (and is) a terrible trade.  Let’s see what the first becomes.  I’m also not going to give up on a 21 year old former first round pick who has that kind of a shot.  Tage obviously has some shortfalls but because some of these young guys tear up the nhl from day 1 I think we sometimes forget that developing a player takes several years and most start hitting their prime around 24. That’s still 3 years away.  Just pointing out that due to the circumstances of the trade (and beyond Tage control) he is a whipping boy.  I still think he’s an nhl player with some upside.  Who knows how much but I just hate how everyone’s writing him off already.

[freester]

1 minute ago, Derrico said:

It looks like (and is) a terrible trade.  Let’s see what the first becomes.  I’m also not going to give up on a 21 year old former first round pick who has that kind of a shot.  Tage obviously has some shortfalls but because some of these young guys tear up the nhl from day 1 I think we sometimes forget that developing a player takes several years and most start hitting their prime around 24. That’s still 3 years away.  Just pointing out that due to the circumstances of the trade (and beyond Tage control) he is a whipping boy.  I still think he’s an nhl player with some upside.  Who knows how much but I just hate how everyone’s writing him off already.

I dont think anyone is writing off TT, but it shows Bots incompetence to not have TT in the AHL last year and Mitts in college still,  since neither were ready for the NHL

[Derrico]

2 minutes ago, Drunkard said:

I think he said it himself in some interview. I'm fine with throwing darts if that means taking flyers on guys like Antipin and Pilut. I'm not fine with trading quarters for nickels, pennies, and slugs in order to hold out hope that one of those pieces will eventually turn into a dime. Mr. MBA should be smart enough to realize that acquiring as many darts as he can in hopes of hitting an occasional bull's-eye here isn't a sound strategy when trading prime assets.

I have no idea why you would use his MBA degree in a negative connotation. 

[Drunkard]

3 minutes ago, Derrico said:

I have no idea why you would use his MBA degree in a negative connotation. 

Because someone else used it in a positive connotation earlier (I think in this very thread) like we're supposed to just kowtow to his genius because he has one. His schooling doesn't buy him an automatic benefit of the doubt.

[Randall Flagg]

Skinner and arguably Montour were significant trades, and I think he won both of em 

[Hoss]

5 minutes ago, Randall Flagg said:

Skinner and arguably Montour were significant trades, and I think he won both of em 

I think he won the Sheary trade regardless because it cost nothing and Sheary is at least capable.

[Drunkard]

11 minutes ago, Randall Flagg said:

Skinner and arguably Montour were significant trades, and I think he won both of em 

He was practically gifted Skinner by virtue of Skinner have a full NMC and Buffalo and Toronto being the only teams he was willing to waive it for, coupled with Toronto not having the cap space to take him on. Yes, he won the trade, but he held all the cards it's not like it was some huge coup.

I've never said all his moves were bad, but all his good moves haven't even come close to making up for the bad move(s).

[shrader]

1 hour ago, Scottysabres said:

Actually a good analogy. His last significant trade (ROR) 1 out of 4 darts fell of the board lol

4 darts?  Well at least he's willing to cheat.  We can work with that.

Edited June 20, 2019 by shrader

[Randall Flagg]

47 minutes ago, Hoss said:

I think he won the Sheary trade regardless because it cost nothing and Sheary is at least capable.

I was thinking that that one was before the ROR trade, so I was really just quibbling with the "his last trade was a failure" semantics. 

I don't like Sheary (which is funny because I thought I'd like his addition more than Skinner's #yiiiiiiiiikes) or Scandella but in principle I want him taking those shots nearly every time so I'm not going to complain about it. 

And maybe Scandella gets better again - was he dealing with off-ice stuff this year, I maybe read somewhere? 

[Randall Flagg]

41 minutes ago, Drunkard said:

He was practically gifted Skinner by virtue of Skinner have a full NMC and Buffalo and Toronto being the only teams he was willing to waive it for, coupled with Toronto not having the cap space to take him on. Yes, he won the trade, but he held all the cards it's not like it was some huge coup.

I've never said all his moves were bad, but all his good moves haven't even come close to making up for the bad move(s).

Yeah, he deserves credit for the Skinner trade but we were also graced by the hockey gods on that one for sure. 

I'm just being picky about trades I guess. if you held a gun to my head and asked what I think of Jason I'd have to blurt out that my money is on him being some degree of incompetent unfortunately 

Edited June 20, 2019 by Randall Flagg

[Radar]

45 minutes ago, Drunkard said:

He was practically gifted Skinner by virtue of Skinner have a full NMC and Buffalo and Toronto being the only teams he was willing to waive it for, coupled with Toronto not having the cap space to take him on. Yes, he won the trade, but he held all the cards it's not like it was some huge coup.

I've never said all his moves were bad, but all his good moves haven't even come close to making up for the bad move(s).

Yeah, the ROR deal was terrible. Outside of that I have no real problems with our GM. Also not sure of the whys and the who's involved with the ROR deal.