So #8

[Curt]

21 minutes ago, DarthEbriate said:

Unless MN also believes in MoJo as a center, they're now definitely taking a center at #9 (Koivu also will be leaving soon). If we don't love the best player available on draft day, we've got to be willing to listen to teams who want to move up ahead of the Wild, particularly if it's just a couple spots and we can net another pick and get someone we value at that later spot.

I don’t think it has any impact on the draft for either team.  If Minny was not going to draft a center because they had 36 year old Staal or 37 year old Koivu, that’s about the most foolish thing ever.

As a Buffalo fan, would now say that Buffalo is now less likely to draft a C at #8 because they have 36 year old Staal on a 1 yr contract?

[DarthEbriate]

13 minutes ago, Curt said:

I don’t think it has any impact on the draft for either team.  If Minny was not going to draft a center because they had 36 year old Staal or 37 year old Koivu, that’s about the most foolish thing ever.

As a Buffalo fan, would now say that Buffalo is now less likely to draft a C at #8 because they have 36 year old Staal on a 1 yr contract?

Always the caveat to pick the BAP. But every team's BAP is different once you're a few picks into the draft.

I believe Minnesota was going to pick a center at #9 anyway, but now especially that they've got Eriksson Ek and Kunin who could be... solid? Beyond that they've acquired Bjugstad whose health is greatly in question, MoJo (not a center), and a UFA in Koivu. Their prospect pool needs centers and ASAP - they can't hang their hat on Khovanov only. That's like us hanging our hat on Cozens if we didn't have Eichel. The Sabres are also in the market for a center at #8, but it's not as critical to them as MN. And that can be used to an advantage.

[Sabre1974]

Interesting now. Do we go for Raymond, holtz or Jarvis now at 8th picking up another right winger??

[Shootica]

Acquiring a 36 year old who is one year from free agency (and likely retirement) should have absolutely no bearing on who we draft.

[Curt]

7 hours ago, DarthEbriate said:

Always the caveat to pick the BAP. But every team's BAP is different once you're a few picks into the draft.

I believe Minnesota was going to pick a center at #9 anyway, but now especially that they've got Eriksson Ek and Kunin who could be... solid? Beyond that they've acquired Bjugstad whose health is greatly in question, MoJo (not a center), and a UFA in Koivu. Their prospect pool needs centers and ASAP - they can't hang their hat on Khovanov only. That's like us hanging our hat on Cozens if we didn't have Eichel. The Sabres are also in the market for a center at #8, but it's not as critical to them as MN. And that can be used to an advantage.

So what’s the connection between the Staal trade and the draft?  That’s what I was asking.  I don’t think that there is one.  Neither team acquired a long term roster piece.

[Sabre1974]

26 minutes ago, Shootica said:

Acquiring a 36 year old who is one year from free agency (and likely retirement) should have absolutely no bearing on who we draft.

Thinking more he is a bridge for getting Cozens ready. No way thinking of him long term. Possibly see us giving him a years deal one year from now to play 3c with Cozens moving to 2c

[LGR4GM]

1 hour ago, Sabre1974 said:

Interesting now. Do we go for Raymond, holtz or Jarvis now at 8th picking up another right winger??

This has no impact on the draft or our strategy. Holtz, Raymond, Jarvis are all at least 1 if not 2 or 3 years away from being NHL players. 

[DarthEbriate]

2 hours ago, Curt said:

So what’s the connection between the Staal trade and the draft?  That’s what I was asking.  I don’t think that there is one.  Neither team acquired a long term roster piece.

When you get right down to it, there isn't one. I just was thinking it went from the probability of Minn drafting a center from 80% to 99% as they're likely replacing Koivu/Staal with Bjugstad/MoJo, particularly since no UFA center really excites. I only wanted to point out that that increase in probability can be used to our advantage next month. Particularly if GM Kheevyn likes a Jarvis/Quinn (+ a 3rd?) more than Lundell.

[LGR4GM]

9 minutes ago, DarthEbriate said:

When you get right down to it, there isn't one. I just was thinking it went from the probability of Minn drafting a center from 80% to 99% as they're likely replacing Koivu/Staal with Bjugstad/MoJo, particularly since no UFA center really excites. I only wanted to point out that that increase in probability can be used to our advantage next month. Particularly if GM Kheevyn likes a Jarvis/Quinn (+ a 3rd?) more than Lundell.

A 3rd round pick is so meh in the grand scheme of things. I would swap down to 9 if Minny really wants Lundell. I don't see an NHL team making that trade though. 

[Crusader1969]

8 hours ago, LGR4GM said:

This has no impact on the draft or our strategy. Holtz, Raymond, Jarvis are all at least 1 if not 2 or 3 years away from being NHL players. 

 Talking about being 1 to 3 years away from being NHL players-  Askarov with a shutout today in the KHL.  If we’ve learnt anything about drafting 8th it’s that these players are hit or miss at this spot anyway

so mark me down as wanting Askarov with the 8th overall pick 

swing for the fences with the top goalie prospect since Price. 
 

[Gabrielor]

Couple weeks to go. Still want one of these 8, with Rossi being the best, realistic case.

 

Alexis Lafrenière	LW	L
Quinton Byfield	C	L
Marco Rossi	C	L
Lucas Raymond	RW	R
Anton Lundell	C	L
Jake Sanderson	D	L
Tim Stützle	LW	L
Jamie Drysdale	D	R

[JohnC]

1 hour ago, Gabrielor said:

Couple weeks to go. Still want one of these 8, with Rossi being the best, realistic case.

 

 

Alexis Lafrenière	LW	L
Quinton Byfield	C	L
Marco Rossi	C	L
Lucas Raymond	RW	R
Anton Lundell	C	L
Jake Sanderson	D	L
Tim Stützle	LW	L
Jamie Drysdale	D	R

In the pro sports I'm usually a believer in building around the draft picks. This year, if the Sabres can trade the pick in a deal that will get you a mid-20 aged second line player I would make the trade. This upcoming roster is going to have a collection of young players on the roster. We can afford to use this first round pick in a deal without hurting our future. The future is now.  

[Gabrielor]

8 hours ago, JohnC said:

In the pro sports I'm usually a believer in building around the draft picks. This year, if the Sabres can trade the pick in a deal that will get you a mid-20 aged second line player I would make the trade. This upcoming roster is going to have a collection of young players on the roster. We can afford to use this first round pick in a deal without hurting our future. The future is now.  

I actively agreed with this in July, and still do, but I don't see them trading this pick on business lines. If the NHL is in as much trouble as they say, we're probably picking.

Edited September 18, 2020 by Gabrielor

[JohnC]

1 hour ago, Gabrielor said:

I actively agreed with this in July, and still do, but I don't see them trading this pick on business lines. If the NHL is in as much trouble as they say, we're probably picking.

I understand your position but disagree with it. There is no doubt that the oppressive economic conditions will affect the hockey operations. (As it does for almost every team.) But that doesn't mean that you can't be creative and enterprising when making deals. There are ways to work within these turbulent waters that are already standard practices in the cap era. If you trade a high pick for a good player with a fairly sizeable contract then you still can absorb that contract by shedding a player/contract of a player on the team. You may not get a perfect balance between the player coming in versus the player going out but you can get a deal done that improves and better balances the roster. (The Stall trade for Johansson is an example of that.) The best response when faced with a more austere way of conducting business is to be more creative and nimble. Being forced to change from how you had conducted business that brought you disappointing results is not necessarily a bad thing because it can also present you opportunities to do things more smartly. 

[Gabrielor]

37 minutes ago, JohnC said:

I understand your position but disagree with it. There is no doubt that the oppressive economic conditions will affect the hockey operations. (As it does for almost every team.) But that doesn't mean that you can't be creative and enterprising when making deals. There are ways to work within these turbulent waters that are already standard practices in the cap era. If you trade a high pick for a good player with a fairly sizeable contract then you still can absorb that contract by shedding a player/contract of a player on the team. You may not get a perfect balance between the player coming in versus the player going out but you can get a deal done that improves and better balances the roster. (The Stall trade for Johansson is an example of that.) The best response when faced with a more austere way of conducting business is to be more creative and nimble. Being forced to change from how you had conducted business that brought you disappointing results is not necessarily a bad thing because it can also present you opportunities to do things more smartly. 

You moved me. What passion. What syntax.

Sadly, I'm not Terry Pegula's burner, so the changes from this line of thinking occurring seem unlikely to me in the extremely-lighten-the-ship and hire-only-family world.

[LGR4GM]

11 hours ago, JohnC said:

In the pro sports I'm usually a believer in building around the draft picks. This year, if the Sabres can trade the pick in a deal that will get you a mid-20 aged second line player I would make the trade. This upcoming roster is going to have a collection of young players on the roster. We can afford to use this first round pick in a deal without hurting our future. The future is now.  

Thoroughly disagree as I have stated and will continue to state. 

[Curt]

1 hour ago, JohnC said:

I understand your position but disagree with it. There is no doubt that the oppressive economic conditions will affect the hockey operations. (As it does for almost every team.) But that doesn't mean that you can't be creative and enterprising when making deals. There are ways to work within these turbulent waters that are already standard practices in the cap era. If you trade a high pick for a good player with a fairly sizeable contract then you still can absorb that contract by shedding a player/contract of a player on the team. You may not get a perfect balance between the player coming in versus the player going out but you can get a deal done that improves and better balances the roster. (The Stall trade for Johansson is an example of that.) The best response when faced with a more austere way of conducting business is to be more creative and nimble. Being forced to change from how you had conducted business that brought you disappointing results is not necessarily a bad thing because it can also present you opportunities to do things more smartly. 

This made me laugh because it’s very professionally, sharply written with lots of professional businessy phrases.  Then you ended it with more smartly.  Lol

Also, I disagree that the future is now, because although time is a construct, it’s one of the basic rules that we live by.  Now is now, the future is the future.

If you are taking assets from the future and using them now, it leaves less for the future.

Edited September 18, 2020 by Curt

[JohnC]

8 minutes ago, LGR4GM said:

Thoroughly disagree as I have stated and will continue to state. 

I understand your position and it is certainly a reasonable position to take.  I would also add that in most years I would have the same view of retaining a highly valued first round pick. But not this year. If in this year the Sabres were drafting in the top 3 I would be more receptive to your stance. But we are not. We are drafting in the 8 spot where the probable pick won't be ready for the NHL until two or three years down the road. On top of that odds are that the pick at the spot this year won't be a first line player but more likely a second line player. 

If the Sabres had a trade offer for a player such as Cirelli or Monahan for our pick (plus other considerations) I would leap at that offer. If I can get a first or even a second line player who is around 24-25 yrs old and can contribute right away then that would be too enticing an offer to decline. And it also has to be factored in that the Sabres will be playing a number of younger and cheaper players this year in order to stay within the established budget. So I don't see us dealing a first round pick this year as mortgaging the future in any appreciable way. The future is now!

[JohnC]

2 minutes ago, Curt said:

This made me laugh because it’s very professionally, sharply written with lots of professional businessy phrases.  Then you ended it with more smartly.  Lol

Sometimes when you speak "jargon" talk you can fake your way around the room. At least for the short term until you are discovered. 🤡

[LGR4GM]

1 hour ago, JohnC said:

I understand your position and it is certainly a reasonable position to take.  I would also add that in most years I would have the same view of retaining a highly valued first round pick. But not this year. If in this year the Sabres were drafting in the top 3 I would be more receptive to your stance. But we are not. We are drafting in the 8 spot where the probable pick won't be ready for the NHL until two or three years down the road. On top of that odds are that the pick at the spot this year won't be a first line player but more likely a second line player. 

If the Sabres had a trade offer for a player such as Cirelli or Monahan for our pick (plus other considerations) I would leap at that offer. If I can get a first or even a second line player who is around 24-25 yrs old and can contribute right away then that would be too enticing an offer to decline. And it also has to be factored in that the Sabres will be playing a number of younger and cheaper players this year in order to stay within the established budget. So I don't see us dealing a first round pick this year as mortgaging the future in any appreciable way. The future is now!

I disagree on your assessment of the top of player we will get at 8. Under Botterill, sure because he couldn't draft for *****. 

This is the same logic used in 2015. I saw it again last year (now everyone loves Cozens). I wouldn't trade this pick for Monahan, I might for Cirelli because he is a better fit. Since those trades are unlikely, make the pick. 

[Cascade Youth]

2 hours ago, JohnC said:

Sometimes when you speak "jargon" talk you can fake your way around the room. At least for the short term until you are discovered. 🤡

I’m sorry but “proactive” and “paradigm,” aren’t these just buzzwords that dumb people use to sound important?

I’m fired, aren’t I.

[Curt]

41 minutes ago, LGR4GM said:

I disagree on your assessment of the top of player we will get at 8. Under Botterill, sure because he couldn't draft for *****. 

This is the same logic used in 2015. I saw it again last year (now everyone loves Cozens). I wouldn't trade this pick for Monahan, I might for Cirelli because he is a better fit. Since those trades are unlikely, make the pick. 

I agree.  Really it all depends on the specific trade.  It would need to be a good young player who is a really good long term fit.  Monahan in particular, is not a good fit.

[MakeSabresGrr8Again]

1 hour ago, Curt said:

This made me laugh because it’s very professionally, sharply written with lots of professional businessy phrases.  Then you ended it with more smartly.  Lol

Also, I disagree that the future is now, because although time is a construct, it’s one of the basic rules that we live by.  Now is now, the future is the future.

If you are taking assets from the future and using them now, it leaves less for the future.

This sounds pretty shaded, mostly because you don't trade that far out. You don't trade Jack today for 2 1st, a 2nd and an A prospect in 2030.

If you can get a player now that will help you in the future, you won't need that piece later. You also can get futures back in other trades. 

 

 

[Curt]

1 minute ago, MakeSabresGrr8Again said:

This sounds pretty shaded, mostly because you don't trade that far out. You don't trade Jack today for 2 1st, a 2nd and an A prospect in 2030.

If you can get a player now that will help you in the future, you won't need that piece later. You also can get futures back in other trades. 

Compare these two.

25 year old guy, on a $5M, 3 year contract, then is a UFA after 2022-23 season.

2020 1st, makes the league in 2021-22, is making only ~$1M until the 2024-25 season, is under team control until something like 2028-2029

The draft pick is literally an asset that you will control longer into the future and for a cheaper price point than that 25 year old.  That’s all I said.

[MakeSabresGrr8Again]

33 minutes ago, Curt said:

Compare these two.

25 year old guy, on a $5M, 3 year contract, then is a UFA after 2022-23 season.

2020 1st, makes the league in 2021-22, is making only ~$1M until the 2024-25 season, is under team control until something like 2028-2029

The draft pick is literally an asset that you will control longer into the future and for a cheaper price point than that 25 year old.  That’s all I said.

Now think about which one will contribute the most if your goal is to contend  for the cup by 2022 ( or before Jack wants out).