David Pagnotta: Sabres Exploring Trading Okposo to Seattle

[Taro T]

25 minutes ago, nfreeman said:

 

Interesting, but tricky to execute -- because as soon as KA starts providing names to the Kraken, they would know whom KA wants, which would eliminate their incentive to trade up from #2.  I suppose they could do something clever like the Darcy napkin approach.

But if they can work out the mechanics, I would do this in a heartbeat -- and it would be a great move by KA to shed KO without giving up anything of value.

 

I totally agree with the bolded -- NFW would I give up a 2nd-rounder for them to take KO.  But I would agree to make Miller available in the expansion draft if that's whom the Kraken want.

Also, you're right that the Sabres aren't immediately desperate for cap space, but I think it's still a valuable commodity.

 

 

Items that make the "you have to tell us who you'd take with 1" problematic:

Okposo has a NTC, so to get him on the Kraken, unless he REALLY wants to be that team's elder statesman, they have to select him in the expansion draft which IIRC happens 2 days before the entry draft.  And, after the trade has been executed, the Krackers really don't have any incentive to refrain from, say trading that pick to Anaheim for 3 OA, possibly leaving the Sabres losing out on the guy they want & also possibly yutzing up an Eichel deal (which, IMHO, is a good thing, but guessing Adams won't see that way).

And, an item which is more a technical matter on your other proposal, the Sabres would have to trade Miller to get the Krackers to take Okposo, they can't trade Okposo to get them to take Miller.  And, not directly related to your point but merely another observation, that would mean the Sabres will definitely not retain salary from an Okposo deal.

Edited July 9, 2021 by Taro T

[Eleven]

22 minutes ago, nfreeman said:

 

Interesting, but tricky to execute -- because as soon as KA starts providing names to the Kraken, they would know whom KA wants, which would eliminate their incentive to trade up from #2.  I suppose they could do something clever like the Darcy napkin approach.

Sorry--I meant Okposo and #1 to Seattle for #2 and Seattle has to take the player the Sabres want them to take from the Sabres in the expansion draft.  I wasn't very explicit there.

[Taro T]

1 minute ago, Eleven said:

Sorry--I meant Okposo and #1 to Seattle for #2 and Seattle has to take the player the Sabres want them to take from the Sabres in the expansion draft.  I wasn't very explicit there.

To get Okposo to Seattle, they have to take him in the expansion draft unless he really wants to be a Kracker.

They can trade make additional trades, but just how much value is there in punting Okposo in a year when Eichel likely is off the books?

[Marvin]

Might this imply that the Sabres have a trade for one or more of The Tank Trio where they might like the players coming, but they are badly overpaid but on short-term contracts?

[NAF]

42 minutes ago, New Scotland (NS) said:

At this point it would probably not be worth moving Kyle.

I like Kyle and he has a leadership role to play on this team.

Agree with your first point, but there are tons of guys that can provide leadership that aren't traffic cones on the ice. If I'm GMKA/Granato and am looking to improve the team Okposo wouldn't get very much playing time.

[Eleven]

1 hour ago, Taro T said:

To get Okposo to Seattle, they have to take him in the expansion draft unless he really wants to be a Kracker.

They can trade make additional trades, but just how much value is there in punting Okposo in a year when Eichel likely is off the books?

I thought that Seattle could not take Okposo in the expansion draft--and I'm only thinking this thread is possible with Okposo's permission anyway?  I'm probably missing something. 

 

See below...

Edited July 9, 2021 by Eleven

[Taro T]

2 minutes ago, Eleven said:

I thought that Seattle could not take Okposo in the expansion draft--and I'm only thinking this thread is possible with Okposo's permission anyway?  I'm probably missing something. 

They can't take Skinner w/out his permission due to the NMC.

Okposo has a NTC so he will be exposed in the expansion draft.  So he can be Seattle's selection from Buffalo.  But the NTC makes it pretty tough to, um, trade him.

[nfreeman]

39 minutes ago, Mustache of God said:

This conversation really harkens back to the Vegas expansion draft when every fanbase was convinced they could dupe Vegas into taking a bad cap hit for a little extra something-something. Vegas did not do any of that and instead went on to get to the Stanley Cup Finals in their inaugural season. 

That is a model Seattle will likely follow. They will not ne taking on an underproducing, overpaid player on the worst team in the league, even though he's a great "locker-room guy".

Okposo had a stretch of 12-15 games where we was almost at a PPG production level.  Hoping we can see more of that next season.

Totally agree with the 1st 2 paragraphs -- there was a ton of wishful thinking around the Vegas expansion draft, and some of it is inevitable now. 

Not really on board with the last part though (although I think many here are), as I think KO is a net negative on the ice at this point.

[kas23]

1 hour ago, Eleven said:

Or maybe Okposo and 1 for 2, but Seattle has to take a player specified by the Sabres.

If the Sabres are going to dictate which player they take, then I don’t see the point in even moving up. It’s not like they are leapfrogging a team. 

[Thorner]

Just now, kas23 said:

If the Sabres are going to dictate which player they take, then I don’t see the point in even moving up. It’s not like they are leapfrogging a team. 

He means in the expansion draft

[Radar]

I was of the belief you had to protect NMC contracts. So this would have to be a trade that he approves. He can't be exposed for the expansion draft.

[kas23]

21 minutes ago, Thorny said:

He means in the expansion draft

Got. Still an incredibly steep price to pay in order to avoid having the Kraken select of the best worst player on the NHL’s last place team. 
 

Would be a good idea if we were gonna keep the band together and wanted cap space to add another player. But, there’s currently 3 players we may not need to protect. What if we don’t even have enough roster players to protect?

Edited July 9, 2021 by kas23

[dudacek]

Should see a handful of trades fairly soon as teams jockey for their optimum protected lists.

A week until the freeze kicks in next Saturday afternoon, July 17. It lifts on July 22, with the draft on July 23

[spndnchz]

I’d trade, or let go. For a bag of pucks

[Taro T]

1 hour ago, Radar said:

I was of the belief you had to protect NMC contracts. So this would have to be a trade that he approves. He can't be exposed for the expansion draft.

To the bolded, correct.

Skinner has a NMC and must therefore be protected.  The only exception is that Skinner may voluntarily waive his NMC strictly for the expansion draft and that would allow the Sabres to leave him exposed and protect 7 other forwards rather than the 6 other they can protect at present.  (He also could voluntarily waive his NMC to be traded somewhere.  There's an outside, slim chance of the former happening.  No way in Hades they get lucky enough for the latter to happen.)

Okposo, however, has a NTC and does not need to be protected.  Seattle can claim him without his approval in the expansion draft.  They may not trade for him without his express approval.

[GASabresIUFAN]

KA should be talking to Seattle to try to get them to take KO or Miller off our hands.  

I even like the idea of turning the tables and see what they would give us to leave Risto unprotected.  I’m not trading him to them and then allowing them to take another player in expansion, but if they want to give us a second this season and say a 3rd next year or a player to be named later to secure Risto I’d certainly listen.

[nfreeman]

3 minutes ago, GASabresIUFAN said:

KA should be talking to Seattle to try to get them to take KO or Miller off our hands.  

I even like the idea of turning the tables and see what they would give us to leave Risto unprotected.  I’m not trading him to them and then allowing them to take another player in expansion, but if they want to give us a second this season and say a 3rd next year or a player to be named later to secure Risto I’d certainly listen.

I doubt they would give up a good asset like a high 2nd-rounder for an expensive defenseman with lousy analytics and 1 season left before UFA.

[GASabresIUFAN]

2 minutes ago, nfreeman said:

I doubt they would give up a good asset like a high 2nd-rounder for an expensive defenseman with lousy analytics and 1 season left before UFA.

They’d get it back when they trade him at the deadline.

[Taro T]

1 minute ago, GASabresIUFAN said:

They’d get it back when they trade him at the deadline.

If they're playoff bound, or close to it, they aren't selling assets at the deadline.

And, with expecting that to be their plan, can't really see 1 year of Ristolainen to be considered a better choice from their perspective than holding onto their 2nd rounder & taking Borgen.

[GASabresIUFAN]

3 minutes ago, Taro T said:

If they're playoff bound, or close to it, they aren't selling assets at the deadline.

And, with expecting that to be their plan, can't really see 1 year of Ristolainen to be considered a better choice from their perspective than holding onto their 2nd rounder & taking Borgen.

You are forgetting that they need to get 50 mil minimum of contracts.  Would you prefer 5.4 mill of the effective Risto or 6 mill for two years of KO? He can run their PP add offense from the blue line and if they get the right partner he can be a very effective player for them. 

Risto is then trade-able at the deadline if they aren’t a playoff team.  If he has success and is playing with the right partner they can always re-sign him.

[Curt]

47 minutes ago, GASabresIUFAN said:

You are forgetting that they need to get 50 mil minimum of contracts.  Would you prefer 5.4 mill of the effective Risto or 6 mill for two years of KO? He can run their PP add offense from the blue line and if they get the right partner he can be a very effective player for them. 

Risto is then trade-able at the deadline if they aren’t a playoff team.  If he has success and is playing with the right partner they can always re-sign him.

I don’t know why you think it’s hard to get to the cap floor.

Seattle is not going to spend extra to acquire someone because they are worried about not being able to find players to spend $50M on.

[Zamboni]

I’m not saying it won’t happen. But I just am of the mindset, with considering everything involved … Okposo not being a Sabre before his contract is up … I’ll believe it when I see it. 

[darksabre]

4 hours ago, inkman said:

I thought he played a serviceable role last season especially under Granato. 

Yup. I'm not interested in the Sabres killing themselves to get Kyle off the books if he can play okay hockey for another couple seasons.

 

[Curt]

I would be surprised if the Sabres were not periodically exploring various ways they might be able to move a $6M 4th liner.

Im not sure this demands much attention.

Edited July 9, 2021 by Curt

[sabremike]

Why would you be desperate to dump salary when in a few weeks you are going to be below the cap floor?