2020-21 Trade Rumors and Speculation

[JohnC]

9 minutes ago, dudacek said:

That’s an interesting discussion.

Players whose track record indicates we should expect similar results from:

Eichel, Reinhart, Johansson, McCabe, Ristolainen, Lazar, Okposo

Players who may or may not have played above their heads last year:

Olofsson, Jokiharju

Players who had a down year based their track record:

Skinner, Montour, Miller, Hutton

Players who are inexperienced enough to be better next year:

Olofsson, Mittelstadt, Asplund, Thompson, Cozens, Kahun, Dahlin,Jokiharju, Ullmark

Free agents who may be difficult to replace

Larsson, Scandella

Free agents who should be fairly easy to replace or upgrade:

Sobotka, Sheary, Vesey, Girgensons, Simmonds, Frolik, Bogosian

If you consider how you rated the players on this roster and project the addition of two second line players such as Ehlers and Danault then it is not unfair to believe that this is an upgraded and competitive roster. Of course you would have to make some subtractions and probably deal your first round pick in order to make those second line acquisitions but it is very doable. 

What could accelerate the positive projection are some young players making a faster than expected leap forward. What if Ullmark demonstrates that he is a solid to good #1 goalie? What if Skinner gets back to the 30 to 35 goal range? What if Joki and Kahun leap forward? These are a lot of "ifs" but all of the "if players" have already shown that they have the capacity to become established players. 

[dudacek]

Personally, if the Sabres change nothing this year, I expect them to be better on the backs of Dahlin taking a big step forward and Skinner rebounding to his 30-goal self.

But the Sabres will be changing plenty this year: Kahun was only with us for 2 weeks and is an upgrade on Sheary, no question in my mind; there will be 2 new D in place of Bogosian/Scandella/Pilut. And at least four players stepping in to the holes created by the likely departures of Sobotka/Frolik/Simmonds/Girgensons/Larsson/Vesey.

Some of those spots will be filled by players already in the system but the mix is going to be a new one. It’s up to Adams to make sure that it’s a better one.

And that’s happening even without any trades.

Edited September 5, 2020 by dudacek

[PerreaultForever]

5 hours ago, dudacek said:

Players who are inexperienced enough to be better next year:

Olofsson, Mittelstadt, Asplund, Thompson, Cozens, Kahun, Dahlin,Jokiharju, Ullmark

 

Those are some of the question marks for sure, but arguably inexperienced enough to also be worse. It's impossible to know for sure. 

5 hours ago, dudacek said:

Personally, if the Sabres change nothing this year, I expect them to be better on the backs of Dahlin taking a big step forward and Skinner rebounding to his 30-goal self.

But the Sabres will be changing plenty this year: Kahun was only with us for 2 weeks and is an upgrade on Sheary, no question in my mind; there will be 2 new D in place of Bogosian/Scandella/Pilut. And at least four players stepping in to the holes created by the likely departures of Sobotka/Frolik/Simmonds/Girgensons/Larsson/Vesey.

Some of those spots will be filled by players already in the system but the mix is going to be a new one. It’s up to Adams to make sure that it’s a better one.

And that’s happening even without any trades.

The mix was new every year under JBot too but it always ended up being a shuffling  of chairs on the titanic. We need to add real talent, not just shuffle existing pieces and add a handful of cast offs.

Dahlin should be better based on a typical D man learning curve but Skinner? Wishful and hopeful. Hope you are right but the assumption he will rebound is just that, a hopeful assumption. 

[PerreaultForever]

Rumour has Dudley possibly ending up in Florida. So much for that dream of mine. 

[dudacek]

18 minutes ago, PerreaultForever said:

Dahlin should be better based on a typical D man learning curve but Skinner? Wishful and hopeful. Hope you are right but the assumption he will rebound is just that, a hopeful assumption. 

There are obviously no sure things, but Jeff Skinner is only 28 Is healthy and can still skate. Very few players are done at that age, particularly talented wingers who can skate.

It’s not wishful to think a guy who has averaged 32 goals a year over the previous 6 years is going to score more than 14 this year, it’s reasonable.

[PerreaultForever]

1 hour ago, dudacek said:

There are obviously no sure things, but Jeff Skinner is only 28 Is healthy and can still skate. Very few players are done at that age, particularly talented wingers who can skate.

It’s not wishful to think a guy who has averaged 32 goals a year over the previous 6 years is going to score more than 14 this year, it’s reasonable.

I'm not questioning Skinner's ability, but I'm not sure about his motivation. I don't think it's any accident that his best ever season came in his contract year and now he has a sealed deal for the rest of his career so does he care? He strikes me as a guy who plays how he wants to and when he wants to. I'm not sure what we're going to get here on in. I suspect we'll get 20+ from him mostly but 30+ not so sure. 

[tom webster]

3 hours ago, PerreaultForever said:

I'm not questioning Skinner's ability, but I'm not sure about his motivation. I don't think it's any accident that his best ever season came in his contract year and now he has a sealed deal for the rest of his career so does he care? He strikes me as a guy who plays how he wants to and when he wants to. I'm not sure what we're going to get here on in. I suspect we'll get 20+ from him mostly but 30+ not so sure. 

Of course his “best year” was nearly identical to the year he had two years before and he hit 30 goals two other times but now you want to label him a “contract year” Drew Stanford type.

[JohnC]

6 hours ago, PerreaultForever said:

I'm not questioning Skinner's ability, but I'm not sure about his motivation. I don't think it's any accident that his best ever season came in his contract year and now he has a sealed deal for the rest of his career so does he care? He strikes me as a guy who plays how he wants to and when he wants to. I'm not sure what we're going to get here on in. I suspect we'll get 20+ from him mostly but 30+ not so sure.

If you put Skinner on the Jack line it is likely that he will be in the 30-40 range. If Krueger doesn't play him with the right supporting cast he will be wasting his talent (again) to score. Skinner can skate and in tight quarters he is as nifty a skater as any player in the league. Skinner is a premier sniper and not a defensive stalwart. When you have an asset you utilize that asset; and when you have a liability you minimize it. I hope Krueger better manages this season compared to last season the abundant package that Skinner brings to the table, including his liabilities. 

[JohnC]

15 hours ago, dudacek said:

Personally, if the Sabres change nothing this year, I expect them to be better on the backs of Dahlin taking a big step forward and Skinner rebounding to his 30-goal self.

But the Sabres will be changing plenty this year: Kahun was only with us for 2 weeks and is an upgrade on Sheary, no question in my mind; there will be 2 new D in place of Bogosian/Scandella/Pilut. And at least four players stepping in to the holes created by the likely departures of Sobotka/Frolik/Simmonds/Girgensons/Larsson/Vesey.

Some of those spots will be filled by players already in the system but the mix is going to be a new one. It’s up to Adams to make sure that it’s a better one.

And that’s happening even without any trades.

The sample size was small but I was impressed with the Kahun/Johansson/Olofsson line. They seemed to mesh well highlighted by their up-tempo skating. This newly constituted line seemed to enliven Johansson and put him in a more comfortable setting. I don't consider this an A second line but it wouldn't be unreasonable to label them a 2B second line.

What is evident when watching the playoffs is that most, if not all, of the successful teams have good lines beyond the top two lines.  If the organization can bring in some genuine second line talent and construct that line then this team will have more secondary scoring, something it has lacked for a long time.  

As you noted Bott's deal for Kahun was a terrific deal as was the Joki for Nylander deal. 

[Thorner]

12 hours ago, PerreaultForever said:

Those are some of the question marks for sure, but arguably inexperienced enough to also be worse. It's impossible to know for sure. 

The mix was new every year under JBot too but it always ended up being a shuffling  of chairs on the titanic. We need to add real talent, not just shuffle existing pieces and add a handful of cast offs.

Dahlin should be better based on a typical D man learning curve but Skinner? Wishful and hopeful. Hope you are right but the assumption he will rebound is just that, a hopeful assumption. 

This. Considering other teams also have young developing players, fringe guys fighting for spots, any sort of advantage we have over others in this regard (Dahlin?), if at all, is not something I see making up the already big difference in the standings between the Sabres and a bonafide playoff team. 

Our group fighting for the open spots left by Vesey, etc, is not special. It doesn't separate or guarantee any sort of improvement at all. 

No, we need outside addtions. 

11 hours ago, dudacek said:

There are obviously no sure things, but Jeff Skinner is only 28 Is healthy and can still skate. Very few players are done at that age, particularly talented wingers who can skate.

It’s not wishful to think a guy who has averaged 32 goals a year over the previous 6 years is going to score more than 14 this year, it’s reasonable.

If we don't upgrade at C, I'd project him closer to what we saw this year. Why wouldn't we? He needs a better centre. 

Edited September 6, 2020 by Thorny

[dudacek]

53 minutes ago, Thorny said:

 

If we don't upgrade at C, I'd project him closer to what we saw this year. Why wouldn't we? He needs a better centre. 

Even if he is closer to what we saw this year than his average, that’s still better than this year.

A lot of people on here said the analytics said he was still creating chances this year, they just weren’t going in. Why wouldn’t you think more will go in this year? They went in when his centres were Derek Ryan and Victor Rask.

And yes, he needs a better centre.

[PerreaultForever]

8 hours ago, tom webster said:

Of course his “best year” was nearly identical to the year he had two years before and he hit 30 goals two other times but now you want to label him a “contract year” Drew Stanford type.

The phrase I used was "not sure."  It's not a label, it's more of a question mark. You look at Skinner and see an off year and huge potential. I see a talented hockey player but a bit of a prima donna with possible attitude problems. Half full half empty, we will see who is right. I prefer if it's you. 

[PerreaultForever]

5 hours ago, JohnC said:

If you put Skinner on the Jack line it is likely that he will be in the 30-40 range. If Krueger doesn't play him with the right supporting cast he will be wasting his talent (again) to score. Skinner can skate and in tight quarters he is as nifty a skater as any player in the league. Skinner is a premier sniper and not a defensive stalwart. When you have an asset you utilize that asset; and when you have a liability you minimize it. I hope Krueger better manages this season compared to last season the abundant package that Skinner brings to the table, including his liabilities. 

and if he does this we can spend the season talking about how Olofsson's having an off year and how badly him and Johanson get pushed around and dominated in tough games. Krueger recognized that a one line hockey team cannot succeed. Is it his fault we don't have enough talent to be a two line team? We didn't win with Skinner on the top line either. 

[tom webster]

13 minutes ago, PerreaultForever said:

The phrase I used was "not sure."  It's not a label, it's more of a question mark. You look at Skinner and see an off year and huge potential. I see a talented hockey player but a bit of a prima donna with possible attitude problems. Half full half empty, we will see who is right. I prefer if it's you. 

You are stating an opinion. The facts say otherwise. He is a legitimate top winger who has four seasons over 30 goals. You implied that his “contract year” was outside the norm. History shows otherwise.

[Zamboni]

10 minutes ago, tom webster said:

You are stating an opinion. The facts say otherwise. He is a legitimate top winger who has four seasons over 30 goals. You implied that his “contract year” was outside the norm. History shows otherwise.

Agree on Skinner....

He does that often. Like “Reinhart doesn’t help Jack produce more points and other improved stats, when on his line”. When several several several posts from the analytics crew over a few years have proven, yes proven, that Reinhart does in fact (not opinion) improve Jack Eichel. What is it called when someone willfully refuses to see facts because their dislike of the facts goes against what their eyes think they see? I know I have a couple descriptive words. 

[PerreaultForever]

2 hours ago, tom webster said:

You are stating an opinion. The facts say otherwise. He is a legitimate top winger who has four seasons over 30 goals. You implied that his “contract year” was outside the norm. History shows otherwise.

pretty much sure everybody on here states their opinions, it's kind of what sports boards are for. have a nice day.

 

[PerreaultForever]

1 hour ago, Zamboni said:

Agree on Skinner....

He does that often. Like “Reinhart doesn’t help Jack produce more points and other improved stats, when on his line”. When several several several posts from the analytics crew over a few years have proven, yes proven, that Reinhart does in fact (not opinion) improve Jack Eichel. What is it called when someone willfully refuses to see facts because their dislike of the facts goes against what their eyes think they see? I know I have a couple descriptive words. 

It's called not believing in analytics as a sole way of understanding hockey. 

[tom webster]

15 minutes ago, PerreaultForever said:

pretty much sure everybody on here states their opinions, it's kind of what sports boards are for. have a nice day.

 

You can do whatever you want but when you make statements that are inconsistent with the facts, expect to called out. His history is completely inconsistent with the label of “contract year” spurt. 

[PerreaultForever]

39 minutes ago, tom webster said:

You can do whatever you want but when you make statements that are inconsistent with the facts, expect to called out. His history is completely inconsistent with the label of “contract year” spurt. 

you're not 'calling me out" you're just choosing to be argumentative because you disagree with my opinion. That's fine with me, but don't pretend yours is any better than mine. 

Maybe you should also consider that over his 8 years in Carolina he was a  -96, and despite his one good season here is a -22 in Buffalo. Also consider that we are paying a guy who averages less than 50 points a year (and is a defensive liability) 9 million a year (or whatever the exact ridiculous number is) and ask if that is good value. That's the real issue on Skinner, not my opinions or yours. 

[LGR4GM]

29 minutes ago, PerreaultForever said:

you're not 'calling me out" you're just choosing to be argumentative because you disagree with my opinion. That's fine with me, but don't pretend yours is any better than mine. 

Maybe you should also consider that over his 8 years in Carolina he was a  -96, and despite his one good season here is a -22 in Buffalo. Also consider that we are paying a guy who averages less than 50 points a year (and is a defensive liability) 9 million a year (or whatever the exact ridiculous number is) and ask if that is good value. That's the real issue on Skinner, not my opinions or yours. 

I'll call you out because plus minus is basically useless. 

Maybe you should consider Eichel over his 5 years in Buffalo is a -60. Clearly that guy sucks.

See, plus minus is basically useless unless you think Eichel isn't that good based on what you say about skinner.

The defensive liability might have merit but I don't expect anyone playing with Sobotka, sheary, erod, and whoever else skinner got stuck with to be good. He is overpaid and we all know that. The question really is how can you acquire a center to get skinner producing again? 

Edited September 6, 2020 by LGR4GM

[tom webster]

12 minutes ago, LGR4GM said:

I'll call you out because plus minus is basically useless. 

Maybe you should consider Eichel over his 5 years in Buffalo is a -60. Clearly that guy sucks.

See, plus minus is basically useless unless you think Eichel isn't that good based on what you say about skinner.

The defensive liability might have merit but I don't expect anyone playing with Sobotka, sheary, erod, and whoever else skinner got stuck with to be good. He is overpaid and we all know that. The question really is how can you acquire a center to get skinner producing again? 

While I agree with all of this, I want to keep the goal posts in the same place. My whole “argumentative” mood is the result of the original post which implied that Skinner pulled a “Stafford” by having a career year when his contract was. This, in spite of the fact that he had a nearly identical season two years previous as well as scoring over 30 goals two other years.

[Zamboni]

+/- ... good stat to take seriously.

advanced stats ... meh. I trust my eyes and biases more.

 

😂

[PerreaultForever]

2 hours ago, LGR4GM said:

I'll call you out because plus minus is basically useless. 

Maybe you should consider Eichel over his 5 years in Buffalo is a -60. Clearly that guy sucks.

See, plus minus is basically useless unless you think Eichel isn't that good based on what you say about skinner.

The defensive liability might have merit but I don't expect anyone playing with Sobotka, sheary, erod, and whoever else skinner got stuck with to be good. He is overpaid and we all know that. The question really is how can you acquire a center to get skinner producing again? 

+/- is no more useless than any other stat. It has limitations, like any other stat, but it's far from useless. 

The comment sarcastically or snidely made a point about Reinhart being shown by analytics people to make Jack better. What that argument doesn't address is that top line players are top line players and the analysis will always show that. It's meaningless unless you can place a different top line player in the same spot and compare them. 

+/- doesn't tell you that Eichel sucks, but it does tell you that our top line doesn't match up well to other top lines they play against even strength. There is a team component that affects +/-  absolutely, but again, it's far from meaningless. If you see a + player (with significant minutes) on a  - team, that is a guy you might want to target in trade or free agency. 

 

As for the last, yes, that is now the current blame all and catch all and nobody disagrees - we need a 2C - but in looking at a decade of futility you have to acknowledge we HAD a 2C and traded him away for a pile of crap. It's always one thing after another in a rotating fashion. It's not just one thing, it's a broken franchise. 

[LGR4GM]

20 minutes ago, PerreaultForever said:

+/- is no more useless than any other stat. It has limitations, like any other stat, but it's far from useless. 

The comment sarcastically or snidely made a point about Reinhart being shown by analytics people to make Jack better. What that argument doesn't address is that top line players are top line players and the analysis will always show that. It's meaningless unless you can place a different top line player in the same spot and compare them. 

+/- doesn't tell you that Eichel sucks, but it does tell you that our top line doesn't match up well to other top lines they play against even strength. There is a team component that affects +/-  absolutely, but again, it's far from meaningless. If you see a + player (with significant minutes) on a  - team, that is a guy you might want to target in trade or free agency. 

 

As for the last, yes, that is now the current blame all and catch all and nobody disagrees - we need a 2C - but in looking at a decade of futility you have to acknowledge we HAD a 2C and traded him away for a pile of crap. It's always one thing after another in a rotating fashion. It's not just one thing, it's a broken franchise. 

... this sentence is just insane. Not all stats are created equal. It is more useless because it's correlation to winning is basically negligible. 

Also the comments about top line and such, we can and do isolate players. There's multiple models that do this. Most of what you are hovering around here is incorrect. 

Someone else do this. I've literally already written extensively on the failure of using this and I know Flagg did as well. I'll just add, Brandon Montour was our best +/- defender, so by your logic he's good even though other stats show he was mediocre and misused. 

[PerreaultForever]

20 minutes ago, LGR4GM said:

... this sentence is just insane. Not all stats are created equal. It is more useless because it's correlation to winning is basically negligible. 

Also the comments about top line and such, we can and do isolate players. There's multiple models that do this. Most of what you are hovering around here is incorrect. 

Someone else do this. I've literally already written extensively on the failure of using this and I know Flagg did as well. I'll just add, Brandon Montour was our best +/- defender, so by your logic he's good even though other stats show he was mediocre and misused. 

No no no, there's more to it than that and you assess other factors. I don't really feel like going on and on for paragraphs about the value of +/- I only objected to your assessment of it as meaningless.  Flawed maybe, incomplete certainly, but far from meaningless. 

otherwise ya, I'm insane. I'm insane from watching and listening to the same excuses and the same fake optimism and the same cyclical nature of explaining Sabres failures and the solution. None of it is new. We get the same stuff in a rotating fashion time after time and there's only one constant. The Pegulas bought a toy, played with it and broke it. and now they want you to believe we still have lots of talent and are oh so close and all we need is just one thing and be patient and really, the new toy they're flogging is a bag of broken glass like that old SNL sketch. 

So ya, 2C, that'll fix everything. Go find him. Sign him up.