2020-21 Trade Rumors and Speculation

[Eleven]

2 hours ago, thewookie1 said:

Risto for Letang anyone?

Letang is so old that he's likely to be nominated for president in 2024.

 

(I do hope it's ok to make light of the ages of the candidates.)

Edited September 8, 2020 by Eleven

[Marvin]

18 minutes ago, New Scotland (NS) said:

No room for a big time goal scorer in Johnny Hockey on this Sabre team.

Risto for Johnny straight up.  And then I will add some junk what that Calgary guy laughes into the phone.

Until we get a real centre spine, wingers even as good as Gaudreau don't interest me.  I am that fed up.

[ubkev]

2 hours ago, Brawndo said:

Giving up way too much for three years of Monahan and two of Johnny Hockey. 

I'm pretty ok with the years left on their contracts IF and that's a big IF the sabres were to entertain me, and make the playoffs both of those years. If they could win a round or 2 I'd call it an amazing success. 

But, yes, I'd like for them to cost less in terms of trade.

Edited September 8, 2020 by ubkev

[inkman]

4 hours ago, Wyldnwoody44 said:

Monahan and Johnny Hockey, for Samson, 1st overall this year, and Colin Miller, maybe add in a 2nd or 3rd. 

We don't have the first overall pick, Paul Hamilton. 😜

[dudacek]

Two years is enough time to convince Johnny to stay, or trade him if we figure out it’s not happening.

But it would make me hesitant to flip Reinhart, Cozens or #8, unless we could somehow expand the deal.

He’s a legit star; he’d be the Marner to Eichel’s Mathews. But he’s either going to be a glorified rental or a very expensive contract extension, and we have to factor that in what we give up.

[Eleven]

13 minutes ago, dudacek said:

Two years is enough time to convince Johnny to stay, or trade him if we figure out it’s not happening.

But it would make me hesitant to flip Reinhart, Cozens or #8, unless we could somehow expand the deal.

He’s a legit star; he’d be the Marner to Eichel’s Mathews. But he’s either going to be a glorified rental or a very expensive contract extension, and we have to factor that in what we give up.

That's why the Sabres need the other center first.  Eichel can only have one left winger at a time, and if it's going to be Gaudreau, then last year's Skinner problem returns.

[Brawndo]

2 hours ago, Wyldnwoody44 said:

Probably a bit too much, you think those 2 will come cheaper? 

The Sabres best trade pieces are Reinhart, 8th OA and Cozens. In that scenario they are giving up two of those pieces for players who are very good, but do they rate that particular return.  Both Monahan and Gaudreau are good offensive players but are defensive liabilities. 
 

If Members of Board gets upset with Dahlin’s Turnovers that lead to scoring chances for the opponent, they are going to absolutely love when Monahan does it.  

I would rather they get some assets back that the team has longer control over 

[thewookie1]

3 hours ago, TheCerebral1 said:

No thanks.  Firstly, I'm pretty sure that Letang has at least a limited no trade. Secondly:  Age and concern over health.  Thirdly:  we need a competent second line center.  I'm not sure adding more cap on the back end is a wise investment.  

 

1 hour ago, Eleven said:

Letang is so old that he's likely to be nominated for president in 2024.

 

(I do hope it's ok to make light of the ages of the candidates.)

He’s 33 at 7.5mil for 2 years

Risto is at about 2 mil cheaper for the same 2 years.

 

This type of move would immediately help a Dahlin as it would give him a former 1D to learn from. It’s the same rationale as going after Pietrangelo or Keith but on a much shorter term.

Yes he has injury concerns but I don’t care at this point; our defense is made up of scraps from other teams, mediocre disappointments and youngsters with potential. Even if he just teaches stuff to Dahlin and Jokiharju we are better for it. If he’s healthy we’d have a legitimate top pairing and with a 2C we’d have a legit shot at being a playoff team.

 

That was my rationale behind the idea. The only reason I thought of it was because some Pens fans were saying Rutherford would likely screw up and trade Letang for a Ristolainen. (I think HFBOARDS and CapFriendly are far too negative towards Risto regardless.)

[Curt]

5 hours ago, thewookie1 said:

Risto for Letang anyone?

I like it.  Yes, Letang is old, but 33-34 for a D is not ancient.  He is a lot better than Risto and they are both signed for 2 more years.  In a vacuum, I think it would be a steal for Buffalo.  For me, it would come down to if Risto could be a main part of a 2C trade instead, and what else that extra $2M in cap space could be used for.  If a 2C can be acquired without Risto, or needing that cap space, then sure, Risto for Letang sounds great.  2C is a position of greater need IMO, but Letang is a #1 D who plays in all situations.

[Wyldnwoody44]

1 hour ago, Brawndo said:

The Sabres best trade pieces are Reinhart, 8th OA and Cozens. In that scenario they are giving up two of those pieces for players who are very good, but do they rate that particular return.  Both Monahan and Gaudreau are good offensive players but are defensive liabilities. 
 

If Members of Board gets upset with Dahlin’s Turnovers that lead to scoring chances for the opponent, they are going to absolutely love when Monahan does it.  

I would rather they get some assets back that the team has longer control over 

I haven't watched much of them to be honest. I do think Cozens is 100% off the table for almost any trade out there. 

[Thorner]

On 9/7/2020 at 1:58 PM, dudacek said:

Is there a single one of these scenarios that is not also true for Corsi, or for Expected Goals? (Hint: there's not)

You are arguing old arguments as to how much validity +/- has as a true measure of how good a player is.

That isn't the discussion here at all.

Swamp and I are arguing it is the best indicator of how successful the team was when that player was on the ice. And it is. Your above arguments don't address that statement at all.

To your point, one would be foolish to look at Brandon Montour's +13 and Jeff Skinner -24 and conclude Montour is a far better player without diving into how those results came about. One would also be foolish to look at those surface stats, see how one player was so successful and the other was not while playing on the same team, and not want to dig deeper and find out why.

Surface stats measure results and those results are relevant.

But if we know plus minus doesn't accurately measure relative contribution to goals, why do we care what the results say? Of course the goal of hockey it to score more than the other team. But that's the team objective. 

+/- shows TEAM success in this regard, but it doesn't actually tell us much of anything accurately about what effect the player had on the little number accompanying them in that column. 

If the statement is, "Plus minus tells us how successful the team was when a particular player was on the ice, irrespective of the causation or lack thereof of said player", I agree. But what use is that? 

Edited September 9, 2020 by Thorny

[Thorner]

10 hours ago, Brawndo said:

Giving up way too much for three years of Monahan and two of Johnny Hockey. 

Is it really way too much? Is it even too much at all? 

Reinhart straight up for Monahan. Monahan is 3 years. We only have Sam for a guaranteed 2 more. As @dudacek mentioned that's a lot of convincing time on Sean. 

A 1st and Miller is too much for Gaudreau? Honestly the suggested deal is an underpay. 

Edited September 9, 2020 by Thorny

[dudacek]

1 hour ago, Thorny said:

If the statement is, "Plus minus tells us how successful the team was when a particular player was on the ice, irrespective of the causation or lack thereof of said player", I agree. But what use is that? 

Like I said earlier, what you say is true, but it is also true of Corsi, or Expected goals, or pretty much any hockey stat.

The use is demonstrating Montour, through the lens of goals for and against, has been relatively successful in the way you have been deploying him and Skinner has not. Basically, it's of similar use to Corsi. Corsi smooths out some of the noise but pays less attention to the desired result; +/- is the opposite. Really it's just more raw information, looking for context, that allows you to make some generalizations, and maybe makes you consider other options.
 

[Thorner]

14 minutes ago, dudacek said:

Like I said earlier, what you say is true, but it is also true of Corsi, or Expected goals, or pretty much any hockey stat.

The use is demonstrating Montour, through the lens of goals for and against, has been relatively successful in the way you have been deploying him and Skinner has not. Basically, it's of similar use to Corsi. Corsi smooths out some of the noise but pays less attention to the desired result; +/- is the opposite. Really it's just more raw information, looking for context, that allows you to make some generalizations, and maybe makes you consider other options.
 

True, but Corsi isn't a great stat either. Plus minus is on the lower end of reliable stats, they aren't all created equal. 

At the end of the day, I'm sure we agree that the name of the game is incorporating as many stats as possible. A lot of the attained information will be gained by seeing which variables stick out like sore thumbs from the rest and establishing why.

Edited September 9, 2020 by Thorny

[Brawndo]

17 hours ago, Thorny said:

Is it really way too much? Is it even too much at all? 

Reinhart straight up for Monahan. Monahan is 3 years. We only have Sam for a guaranteed 2 more. As @dudacek mentioned that's a lot of convincing time on Sean. 

A 1st and Miller is too much for Gaudreau? Honestly the suggested deal is an underpay. 

8th OA and Miller is an overpay for Gaudreau, particularity with two seasons left. He also had a downturn in PPG and his metrics this season, which could be an anomaly but why pay a premium for an asset from a team that appears desperate to shake things up.

If Sam signs a Long Term Deal with Calgary of 5 to 6 years or longer which is entirely possible, the dynamics change.  Also Monahan nor Gaudreau are known for Their Defensive Play either.  We have that on the LW with Skinner and losing Larsson increases the need for defensive minded centers.

Now if the Deal was Reinhart for Elias Lindholm, who can play both Center and RW, who has 4 years at 4.8AAV left, sign me up.

They would have their 2C that would easily slide to a Top Six RW if Cozens is ready to take over.

 

[Thorner]

22 hours ago, Brawndo said:

8th OA and Miller is an overpay for Gaudreau, particularity with two seasons left. He also had a downturn in PPG and his metrics this season, which could be an anomaly but why pay a premium for an asset from a team that appears desperate to shake things up.

If Sam signs a Long Term Deal with Calgary of 5 to 6 years or longer which is entirely possible, the dynamics change.  Also Monahan nor Gaudreau are known for Their Defensive Play either.  We have that on the LW with Skinner and losing Larsson increases the need for defensive minded centers.

Now if the Deal was Reinhart for Elias Lindholm, who can play both Center and RW, who has 4 years at 4.8AAV left, sign me up.

They would have their 2C that would easily slide to a Top Six RW if Cozens is ready to take over.

 

Ya, this makes sense. 

The Larsson thing is massive. I had a mind blockage to it earlier in the year or something.

Agree on Lindholm too. 

[Brawndo]

Sabres interested in McCann and are apparently out on Matt Murray 
 

 

[JohnC]

I would appreciate some opinions on Elias Lindholm as a player. And also some opinions on what would it take for a fair valued trade. Would a Risto or Montour plus Mitts and maybe a second round pick thrown in be a reasonable deal?

[Brawndo]

27 minutes ago, JohnC said:

I would appreciate some opinions on Elias Lindholm as a player. And also some opinions on what would it take for a fair valued trade. Would a Risto or Montour plus Mitts and maybe a second round pick thrown in be a reasonable deal?

It would probably take Reinhart.

[dudacek]

53 minutes ago, Brawndo said:

Sabres interested in McCann and are apparently out on Matt Murray 
 

 

This guy writes for hockeybuzz. How much credibility?

 

[Thorner]

22 minutes ago, dudacek said:

This guy writes for hockeybuzz. How much credibility?

 

According to Chad on twitter, Eklund or whatever of hockeybuzz is a farce but this particular writer is solid.

This particular contributer also stated McCann is firmly in the "more of a winger" category. Pens moving him because they don't see him as a C fit only on W.

Yes, he shoots left. 

Edited September 11, 2020 by Thorny

[Curt]

1 hour ago, JohnC said:

I would appreciate some opinions on Elias Lindholm as a player. And also some opinions on what would it take for a fair valued trade. Would a Risto or Montour plus Mitts and maybe a second round pick thrown in be a reasonable deal?

More I think.  He probably has more value than Monahan

[JohnC]

13 minutes ago, Curt said:

More I think.  He probably has more value than Monahan

Wow. Is it because he is a better two way player? Would a Risto or Montour and Reinhart plus a second round pick be a reasonable deal for each team? 

[Trettioåtta]

27 minutes ago, JohnC said:

Wow. Is it because he is a better two way player? Would a Risto or Montour and Reinhart plus a second round pick be a reasonable deal for each team? 

Is he anything more than a marginal upgrade on Sam?

Trading one top 6 player and our precious trading assets for a broadly comparable one doesnt help our lack of depth in the top 6. Or our lack of 2C (Lindholm is C/RW like Sam)

[Curt]

30 minutes ago, JohnC said:

Wow. Is it because he is a better two way player? Would a Risto or Montour and Reinhart plus a second round pick be a reasonable deal for each team? 

Better 2-way player, more versatile, better contract, great contract actually.  Over the past 2 years, he has equaled Monahans production and led the Flames forwards in ice time.