Will Jack's Role On This Team Be Different Next Year?

[JohnC]

1 minute ago, 3putt said:

In a few years? Possibly. Next year.  I have my doubts.

If one believed that a current deal could make this roster better in a year or two then it is certainly worthy of being considered.    

[3putt]

10 minutes ago, JohnC said:

If one believed that a current deal could make this roster better in a year or two then it is certainly worthy of being considered.    

But this is true of any deal. Trade Dahlin and you will get assets that may make you better in 2 or 3 years. Sam, Cozens, Mitts.  It is the same calculus.  Trading more certainty for less with the beta being future profit.

[dudacek]

2 hours ago, steveoath said:

And so the rumor mills start churning out their cr@p.

https://www.nhltraderumors.me/2021/05/one-trade-offer-buffalo-sabres-declined.html 

Stanley Sweeney: a pseudonym for Donald Chumsky, a 38-year-old NY city delivery truck driver who lives with his mom, Rita and publishes fantasy trades for his beloved Rangers from a battered Dell in her utility room.

57 minutes ago, 3putt said:

But I ask why are we as consumers accepting a longer timeline than start winning next year?  That won’t happen with futures.  I have advocated that the issue is not JE it is the black hole of 15M in the bottom 6.  And we are willing to accept 3 years of waiting for it to go away.  It can be fixed sooner.  It will be expensive and many will not like the cost, i.e. their favorite shiny toy being moved. But it can be done.

KyA has to sit down with Skinner and say look, you are not part of the solution. My options are to sit you in the press box for two years until we can buy out your deal while I open a roster spot for an elc to fill your role.  In two years you can try and get TO to sign you, but that is unlikely because you haven’t played a minute in two years.  Or you can work with me on finding another solution.  It can be done.  But it seems a vast number of people resigned to the fact that we need to wait and rebuild while the recency bias of the last 30 meaningless games is either validated or lands us in the same position 3 years down the road.  

Realistically how do you think we can get rid of Skinner now?

45 minutes ago, TheCerebral1 said:

He's a number one center on any team other than:  Edmonton, Pittsburgh, Boston, Florida, Colorado, Winnipeg, Vancouver. 

He’s better than Schiefele, Petterson and today’s Bergeron.

[Thorner]

15 hours ago, dudacek said:

Why does this have to be the case?

Why cant this be a hockey trade between two teams shaking up their cores?

It doesn’t have to be the case - I’d like a hockey trade if we are moving him - it’s just the type of trade I think will happen 

[Thorner]

15 hours ago, dudacek said:

Just because you think you aren’t getting a player as good as Jack does not mean you can’t make a good trade.

And it certainly doesn’t mean that kind of trade isn’t better - or easier to pull off - than a basket full of lottery tickets 

Are you saying here you think it’s potentially easier to pull off the hockey trade? I’m thinking it’s harder - we see it so much less. I honestly need a refresher, what are some recent deals that were hockey trades featuring a player somewhat similar to Jack? 

[Buffalonill]

3 hours ago, steveoath said:

And so the rumor mills start churning out their cr@p.

https://www.nhltraderumors.me/2021/05/one-trade-offer-buffalo-sabres-declined.html 

Im going to be absolutely done  If we trade our franchise centre for a Winger.

[Buffalonill]

3 hours ago, Weave said:

 

Does the conversation even develop further with Zibinejad plus Kakko or LaFreniere as a base?  There would probably have to be other moving parts on both sides.  Seems like the basic structure could be a win/win for both teams.  We'd probably have to add a young gun to replacce the young gun they lose.  They'd have to make up the difference elsewhere to reflect the difference between Jack and Z.

Zibinjad, Sam, Cozens is a pretty good C spine.  If Mitts doesn't get moved as part of the deal, that is actual depth.

Zibanejads 29 and a ufa next year 

[Thorner]

If that rumor is true, it says they've been fielding calls for a year, but that the Rangers offer was before the 19-20 season - so that's two years and it does mention 2 years later in the piece - and it says the Sabres countered by mentioning Adam Fox.

I'd be pretty surprised to learn they've been in trade discussions for two years. 

[Buffalonill]

2 minutes ago, Thorny said:

If that rumor is true, it says they've been fielding calls for a year, but that the Rangers offer was before the 19-20 season - so that's two years and it does mention 2 years later in the piece - and it says the Sabres countered by mentioning Adam Fox.

I'd be pretty surprised to learn they've been in trade discussions for two years. 

So two different general managers have been fielding calls?

This organization is trash 

[Thorner]

3 hours ago, JohnC said:

Does trading Jack to the Rangers for Kakko and La Freniere and a high end prospect seem like a reasonable return? 

I'm not advocating for Jack to be moved. I'm just not sure that the team's timeline is acceptable to his timeline for competitiveness. 

It would be kinda funny if KA didn't have interest in lining up his timetable with Eichel's prime, which he is currently in. Are we thinking Jack told them he wants them to be at contender status next season? I was thinking more of a "playoffs or bust" type demand - and surely KA can and should be putting primary importance and focus on making the playoffs next season, right?

That's gotta be the goal, no?

1 minute ago, Buffalonill said:

So two different general managers have been fielding calls?

This organization is trash 

I'm not sure I buy it

[Thorner]

3 hours ago, 3putt said:

Not at all. If the Oil want to send us Connor or the Leaves Matthews you listen.  What I do not understand is the consternation that a pending trade clause forces anyone’s hand. You keep your best players and work on replacing worse ones.  If you can upgrade do it.  I simply do not see many scenarios where the team is better without JE and with more, different and almost certainly lesser players.  

I agree it doesn't necessarily force their hand, and it only matters in the context of Jack already asking for, or saying he's going to ask for, a trade, but it would be a pretty big concern if he did. 

[Pimlach]

4 hours ago, 3putt said:

So you want additions that bring skill and toughness but Jack wanted slackers and washed up over the hill players milking the last year Of their contract? Hmmmm....maybe Jack wanted the same thing you do and the arse wipes that run the team said hold my beer and brought in hall, staal and eakin. Tage blows he is a bottom six player mentally without the bottom six grit you desire.  Mitts and the others have a very small sample size to project upon.

I didn’t say Jack wanted slackers and washed up over the hill players.  I said he wanted more veterans.  He went on record saying so. So KA went out and got more veterans.  Including a Hart Trophy winner.  
 

The ironic part is we are playing much better with kids than with the crop of veterans that were brought it.  Maybe it’s because RK is gone?    I tend to think that  is the reason.  The point is that with Jack back, and with the development of the younger players under Granato, we may be able to put out 3 decent lines plus a checking line.  So if we add a few forwards, I want the combination of grit and skill.  
 

I disagree on Tage.  He does not “blow” as you say.  He is starting to develop.  He can add scoring ability to a 3rd line.  
 

 

 

[JohnC]

1 hour ago, Thorny said:

It would be kinda funny if KA didn't have interest in lining up his timetable with Eichel's prime, which he is currently in. Are we thinking Jack told them he wants them to be at contender status next season? I was thinking more of a "playoffs or bust" type demand - and surely KA can and should be putting primary importance and focus on making the playoffs next season, right?

That's gotta be the goal, no?

I'm not sure I buy it

I like everyone else don't know what Jack's state of mind. When healthy I consider Jack to be a top 10-12 player in the league. What I have been saying in these multiple posts is that I am willing to listen to offers for players (any players) if I believe the deal will in the end make this a better team after the transaction. Would a Kakko, LaFreniere plus a high end prospect who is ready or near ready to play be a good return for Jack? Some would say yes and others no. I would equivocate and say I'm not sure. But what I can say for sure is that I would listen to offers. 

I want to make the playoffs next year as much as anyone. On the other hand I would not give up a young asset such as Cozens for a short term benefit of squeaking into the playoffs at the expense of a player who is going to be a long term asset. 

 

[Thorner]

21 minutes ago, JohnC said:

I like everyone else don't know what Jack's state of mind. When healthy I consider Jack to be a top 10-12 player in the league. What I have been saying in these multiple posts is that I am willing to listen to offers for players (any players) if I believe the deal will in the end make this a better team after the transaction. Would a Kakko, LaFreniere plus a high end prospect who is ready or near ready to play be a good return for Jack? Some would say yes and others no. I would equivocate and say I'm not sure. But what I can say for sure is that I would listen to offers. 

I want to make the playoffs next year as much as anyone. On the other hand I would not give up a young asset such as Cozens for a short term benefit of squeaking into the playoffs at the expense of a player who is going to be a long term asset. 

 

Ok but this isn't really the road I was going down. 

You mentioned Jack's and the Gm's timeline not lining up potentially, I was wondering if you could elaborate on how you think their timelines might differ?

[JohnC]

1 minute ago, Thorny said:

Ok but this isn't really the road I was going down. 

You mentioned Jack's and the Gm's timeline not lining up potentially, I was wondering if you could elaborate on how you think their timelines might differ?

Sure. If Jack wants to be on a serious cup contending team next year or the year after its not going to happen in Buffalo. Even with some good additions this offseason I still see this team as a marginal playoff team scratching to get into the playoffs. I believe the Sabres are capable of being a playoff team as a fringe participant.  In my estimation that is where we are at. 

[Thorner]

1 minute ago, JohnC said:

Sure. If Jack wants to be on a serious cup contending team next year or the year after its not going to happen in Buffalo. Even with some good additions this offseason I still see this team as a marginal playoff team scratching to get into the playoffs. I believe the Sabres are capable of being a playoff team as a fringe participant.  In my estimation that is where we are at. 

I mean if Jack demands being a contender next season, I think that's unreasonable. More likely I think is him expressing the desire to play in the playoffs for the first time, like all of his mates have. And that would be a reasonable ask of KA, indeed. 

[dudacek]

4 hours ago, Thorny said:

Are you saying here you think it’s potentially easier to pull off the hockey trade? I’m thinking it’s harder - we see it so much less. I honestly need a refresher, what are some recent deals that were hockey trades featuring a player somewhat similar to Jack? 

I’m saying Jack carries a $10 million ticket. In a cap-tight world, having cap coming back makes the trade market considerably wider. People tend to think that means a cap dump, but it doesn’t have to be.

Players of Jack’s calibre and age don’t get traded often. Some of the biggest non-rental names traded in the past few years:

Dubois and a 3rd for Laine and Roslovic

O’Reilly for 1st, 2nd, Thompson, Berglund Sobotka

hamilton, Ferland and Fox for Hanifan and Lindholm

Duchene for Bowers, Hammond, Kamenev, Girard, 1st, 2nd, 3rd

Hall for Larsson

Subban for Webber

 

[Huckleberry]

Its pretty simple for me if Jack asks for a trade - You see what the kings or ducks can offer first.

If the ducks want to offer up Zegras / Gibson + some picks I would do it 

[dudacek]

3 hours ago, Huckleberry said:

Its pretty simple for me if Jack asks for a trade - You see what the kings or ducks can offer first.

If the ducks want to offer up Zegras / Gibson + some picks I would do it 

In my scans around the league this is the potential trade that has stood out as most likely to me.

• Getzlaf, the Ducks signature player, is fading. There isn't a player in the NHL who looks more like a Getzlaf successor than Jack.
• They are very weak at centre.
• They have plenty of cap space
• They are in a tough Southern California market that could use some star power.
• Jack is still young enough to anchor their rebuild
• The Sabres are going to want a younger elite talent. Zegras is an elite young (unproven) talent.
• The Sabres weakest area is in goal. Gibson is considered a top 10 goalie.
• Gibson is young enough to still be upper-echelon when they're good.
• The Sabres love their USAHockey players
• We've heard whispers that Sabres have kicked tires on Gibson
• We've heard the Ducks didn't make a move at the deadline because they were "keeping their powder dry" for something in the summer

I know many on this board think goalies are a dime a dozen and won't be able to get past that, but we don't know the Sabres feel the same way. We do know that Gibson is as highly-ranked a goalie, and Zegras is as highly ranked a prospect as Jack is a centre. I am not endorsing this, and I would expect the deal would have other elements, but I can certainly see those as the main pieces. The fact they will both be picking right at the top of the draft in this, the year of no clear-cut #1 adds some additional intrigue.

If they have decided they are moving Jack, I'm not sure we'll get a better offer.

Edited May 9, 2021 by dudacek

[Weave]

17 minutes ago, dudacek said:

In my scans around the league this is the potential trade that has stood out as most likely to me.

• Getzlaf, the Ducks signature player, is fading. There isn't a player in the NHL who looks more like a Getzlaf successor than Jack.
• They are very weak at centre.
• They have plenty of cap space
• They are in a tough Southern California market that could use some star power.
• Jack is still young enough to anchor their rebuild
• The Sabres are going to want a younger elite talent. Zegras is an elite young (unproven) talent.
• The Sabres weakest area is in goal. Gibson is considered a top 10 goalie.
• Gibson is young enough to still be upper-echelon when they're good.
• The Sabres love their USAHockey players
• We've heard whispers that Sabres have kicked tires on Gibson
• We've heard the Ducks didn't make a move at the deadline because they were "keeping their powder dry" for something in the summer

I know many on this board think goalies are a dime a dozen and won't be able to get past that, but we don't know the Sabres feel the same way. We do know that Gibson is as highly-ranked a goalie, and Zegras is as highly ranked a prospect as Jack is a centre. I am not endorsing this, and I would expect the deal would have other elements, but I can certainly see those as the main pieces. The fact they will both be picking right at the top of the draft in this, the year of no clear-cut #1 adds some additional intrigue.

If they have decided they are moving Jack, I'm not sure we'll get a better offer.

Ideally I'd want a center for now and a center for future, but this deal could work for me. 

[Thorner]

36 minutes ago, Weave said:

Ideally I'd want a center for now and a center for future, but this deal could work for me. 

Doesn’t it leave us searching for a 1C instead of a 1G? And we’d probably be further from a 1C than we are from a 1G right now with Ullmark assuming he stays 

[Weave]

24 minutes ago, Thorny said:

Doesn’t it leave us searching for a 1C instead of a 1G? And we’d probably be further from a 1C than we are from a 1G right now with Ullmark assuming he stays 

Zegras is a C, no?  Sam, Cozens, Mitts, Zegras?  Four 2Cs could be quite formidable.  Shades of Drury, Briere, Roy, Connolly.

[Thorner]

9 hours ago, Weave said:

Zegras is a C, no?  Sam, Cozens, Mitts, Zegras?  Four 2Cs could be quite formidable.  Shades of Drury, Briere, Roy, Connolly.

It's possible, but I view Briere as a 1C

Additionally, neither Cozens or Zegras are 2Cs right now, Mittelstadt may not be either, so we'd probably be in tough next year. But again, if we are trading Jack and that's the return, we are "taking a step back" from playoffs being the endgame 

[sweetlou]

Jack trade proposal...

to Philly

Jack and Tage

to Buffalo

Couturier, Konecny, Myers and Philly 2022 1st rd pick

[Thorner]

33 minutes ago, sweetlou said:

Jack trade proposal...

to Philly

Jack and Tage

to Buffalo

Couturier, Konecny, Myers and Philly 2022 1st rd pick

Does it come with an extension for Couturier? Making 4 million next year lol wow. If so, and it's reasonable (what are we thinking?) we are getting the better side of this trade I believe and it's one I make. Konecny took a small step back this year (33 in 48 after 61 in 66 last season) but I still think he's going to be a stud. Deal the first for a starting goalie and I think we'll be ok. Myers on a good contract, right shot D, not as familiar with his success rate, though. 

Philly probably doesn't make this deal, no?