Sean Monahan and 2025 1st traded to Montreal for nothing, do you wish the Sabres did it?

[Curt]

20 minutes ago, PerreaultForever said:

Montreal has the kind of creative thinking the Sabres seem to lack. OR, they just don't want to spend money. 

Of course I'd have made this deal. It's a deal that makes you better in exchange for $, as a fan what's not to like? The chemistry argument is a moot point imo. What would it disrupt? Eakin's out Monahan's in, and you deal him at the deadline (as I'd guess Montreal will unless they love him there). Assets for cash, but that's not the Sabres way. 

What would you say if I told you that pretty recently, the Sabres actually agreed to a trade to acquire a player and significant draft capital in exchange for only money?

[Brawndo]

8 hours ago, GASabresIUFAN said:

Is he?  Making phone calls to the other GM's is his a large part of his job and it's a results business and he hasn't completed any of those deals.  Since he moved on from TM's core, his acquisitions have been bargain basement.  No serious move to upgrade the goaltending. Maybe the Comrie will work out, but that is far from a sure thing.  The defense, like the goaltending, needed to be upgraded and the best he brought in was a Toronto cast off, who would be a 5/6 on a good team.  That is the definition of not being aggressive.  

Don't get me wrong, I like the direction the team is heading.  I agree with the general movement to the kids, but he hasn't really given the kids the proper support in goal or on defense to aid in their development.  

Again You mentioned that Adams has zero interest in deals such as this, which is demonstrably false. 
 

Maybe Taro can point to the section in the CBA that allows the Sabres to overrule Players NTCs or force players to sign with them. 

Winnipeg isn’t moving Hellebuyck and Gibson has a M NTC as does Bob.

You might want to check the Toronto Message Boards and more importantly Lubushkin’s Defensive Metrics before calling Him a cast off.  He is the true definition of a stay at home defensive defenseman with strong PK Skills. 
 

These basement bargains all have good analytics in certain areas that they were brought in for. Call at Moneyball for Hockey. 
 

Which leads to another point, Adams has been ultra aggressive in assembling the Analytics Department and more importantly listening to Ventura’s Recommendations. 

Which defenseman and/or goaltender would You have liked the Sabres to acquire? 

 

6 hours ago, PerreaultForever said:

Montreal has the kind of creative thinking the Sabres seem to lack. OR, they just don't want to spend money. 

Of course I'd have made this deal. It's a deal that makes you better in exchange for $, as a fan what's not to like? The chemistry argument is a moot point imo. What would it disrupt? Eakin's out Monahan's in, and you deal him at the deadline (as I'd guess Montreal will unless they love him there). Assets for cash, but that's not the Sabres way. 

The Sabres appear on a majority of players NTCs, this was the case with Murray and presumably Monahan. All the creative thinking and the willingness to spend money cannot overcome that. 

Edited August 20, 2022 by Brawndo

[Doohicksie]

1 minute ago, Brawndo said:

You might want to check the Toronto Message Boards and more importantly Lubushkin’s Defensive Metrics before calling Him a cast off.  He is the true definition of a stay at home defensive defenseman with strong PK Skills. 

In the games vs. the Sabres last year, he was the only Leafs Dman who defended worth a damn.

2 minutes ago, Brawndo said:

Call at Moneyball for Hockey. 

This.  123%.

[Zamboni]

But but but the Sabres didn’t get who I wanted so I’m allowed to whine moan complain and bitch about my choices not coming to Buffalo. And make up stories about KA not doing anything. Or not “enough”. 😂

Edited August 20, 2022 by Zamboni

[Thorner]

2 hours ago, Zamboni said:

But but but the Sabres didn’t get who I wanted so I’m allowed to whine moan complain and bitch about my choices not coming to Buffalo. And make up stories about KA not doing anything. Or not “enough”. 😂

GA isn’t “whining” and “bitching” he’s dutifully laying out his arguments in detail. 

Whether one agrees, or not. Calling arguments you disagree with “bitching”, particularly when met with resounding positive “reactions” by the board, is gatekeeping. 

 

Or

 

“that was obnoxious”, or whatever.

Edited August 20, 2022 by Thorny

[PerreaultForever]

8 hours ago, LGR4GM said:

Guess Will Butcher and Ben Bishop are figments of my imagination then. 

Guess the Matt Murray trade that he shitcanned was a dream I had. 

Which ufas would you have signed? The scenario is they want to be in Buffalo and would have signed their exact ufa deal. 

Ben Bishop is an asset? What are you smoking????

You're comparing Butcher and Bishop to Monahan as if they're equivalents. You just bored this summer and want to argue for the sake of arguing. This is silly. 

[PerreaultForever]

8 hours ago, Curt said:

What would you say if I told you that pretty recently, the Sabres actually agreed to a trade to acquire a player and significant draft capital in exchange for only money?

Who? Bishop and a 7th is "significant"? Go talk to Liger about it you guys seem to agree. 

[PerreaultForever]

3 hours ago, Brawndo said:

The Sabres appear on a majority of players NTCs, this was the case with Murray and presumably Monahan. All the creative thinking and the willingness to spend money cannot overcome that. 

So then what you are saying is that, contrary to the arguments of many here over the last few years, the truth is, as some have said, that nobody wants to come to Buffalo. In fact, it's ANYWHERE BUT Buffalo. Ya, that's definitely possible. 

Which, as I've said before, is why it is vital to get Kane to finish his career here. 

[Curt]

5 hours ago, PerreaultForever said:

Who? Bishop and a 7th is "significant"? Go talk to Liger about it you guys seem to agree. 

Matt Murray and #7 OA for #16 OA.  I believe that’s what it was.  It was agreed to by both teams but Murray nixed it.

[LGR4GM]

8 hours ago, PerreaultForever said:

So then what you are saying is that, contrary to the arguments of many here over the last few years, the truth is, as some have said, that nobody wants to come to Buffalo. In fact, it's ANYWHERE BUT Buffalo. Ya, that's definitely possible. 

Which, as I've said before, is why it is vital to get Kane to finish his career here. 

It's not but you'll keep telling us it is. 

8 hours ago, PerreaultForever said:

Ben Bishop is an asset? What are you smoking????

You're comparing Butcher and Bishop to Monahan as if they're equivalents. You just bored this summer and want to argue for the sake of arguing. This is silly. 

You're silly because every time you say something that isn't accurate you respond like this. You said assets for cash and I have 2 examples where we did that and here you are trying to change the conversation to Monahan compared to Bishop. Move those goalposts, move em far. 

Edited August 20, 2022 by LGR4GM

[LGR4GM]

17 hours ago, PerreaultForever said:

Montreal has the kind of creative thinking the Sabres seem to lack. OR, they just don't want to spend money. 

Of course I'd have made this deal. It's a deal that makes you better in exchange for $, as a fan what's not to like? The chemistry argument is a moot point imo. What would it disrupt? Eakin's out Monahan's in, and you deal him at the deadline (as I'd guess Montreal will unless they love him there). Assets for cash, but that's not the Sabres way. 

Assets for cash. How is getting a pick on Butcher and Bishop not assets for cash?

I'm not arguing with you because you never argue in good faith. Constant goalposts being moved. 

8 hours ago, PerreaultForever said:

Who? Bishop and a 7th is "significant"? Go talk to Liger about it you guys seem to agree. 

See now it has to be a "significant asset". Matt Murray and 7oa was on the table and Murray vetoed it. That significant enough?

Edited August 20, 2022 by LGR4GM

[Curt]

3 minutes ago, LGR4GM said:

See now it has to be a "significant asset" 

In all fairness, I’m the one who said to him that it was significant draft asset, which I feel moving from 16 to 7 is.

[LGR4GM]

1 minute ago, Curt said:

In all fairness, I’m the one who said to him that it was significant draft asset, which I feel moving from 16 to 7 is.

Yes but he jumped on that and made it part of an ever burgeoning argument. 

We've traded cash for assets. I'm disappointed the Murray trade failed and disappointed Adams hasn't been able to do more but when you suck for a decade, ppl don't want to play for a loser. It's why Hall was such a surprise deal. 

[LGR4GM]

Crazy part is I'm here for a Adams has cap space he needs to leverage argument. Don't think he needs to waste it all but a deal for a cap dump should happen. 

[Zamboni]

1 hour ago, LGR4GM said:

It's not but you'll keep telling us it is. 

You're silly because every time you say something that isn't accurate you respond like this. You said assets for cash and I have 2 examples where we did that and here you are trying to change the conversation to Monahan compared to Bishop. Move those goalposts, move em far. 

Agree. In all fairness he does that constantly and doesn’t realize he does it. And then argues that he doesn’t do that. 

[GoPuckYourself]

If the Flames had to give away Monahan with a first round pick I don’t think it would have been that easy to deal him at the deadline for assets unless he tore it up for us in which case we’d probably want to keep him, no? 

[Marvin]

I feel it is important to reiterate that I has read that the Sabres were on Monahan's NTL.  IMHO, we should not take this too seriously as Sabres fans unless you think it would have been worth Terry's while to fly to Calgary in a private jet to convince him otherwise.  (I do not, if that sentiment is not immediately obvious.)

[PerreaultForever]

9 hours ago, Curt said:

Matt Murray and #7 OA for #16 OA.  I believe that’s what it was.  It was agreed to by both teams but Murray nixed it.

So you want to praise Adams for a deal that never happened? So that's his "creative thinking"?

I guess you can say that is creative, but thinking would require knowing about 10 team no trade clauses and such. 

If the argument is Adams WANTS to make moves but CAN'T because nobody wants to come to Buffalo, that I will accept. It seems to be true. 

[PerreaultForever]

6 hours ago, LGR4GM said:

It's not but you'll keep telling us it is. 

You're silly because every time you say something that isn't accurate you respond like this. You said assets for cash and I have 2 examples where we did that and here you are trying to change the conversation to Monahan compared to Bishop. Move those goalposts, move em far. 

In regard to Kane, the team clearly needs to change player's perceptions so that we aren't on 10 team no trade lists any more. Winning can do that, but if you want to speed up the process bringing in a respected big name who can talk to players and the media about how much he enjoys it would do a lot to change those perceptions but whatever, let it take another decade or more.

As for Bishop, the point is Bishop is NOT an ASSET. He's dead money. Butcher was arguably an asset but not really as he was horrible. Monahan has had injury issues but he could play and be an asset and he can be deadline dealt. They are not comparable moves. 

[PerreaultForever]

6 hours ago, LGR4GM said:

Assets for cash. How is getting a pick on Butcher and Bishop not assets for cash?

I'm not arguing with you because you never argue in good faith. Constant goalposts being moved. 

See now it has to be a "significant asset". Matt Murray and 7oa was on the table and Murray vetoed it. That significant enough?

as·set

/ˈaset/

Learn to pronounce

noun

a useful or valuable thing, person, or quality.

"quick reflexes were his chief asset"

 

I added the word "significant" not to move the goalposts as you say, but because you didn't seem to grasp the meaning of asset on it's own. See above. 

Bishop and Butcher were not and are not valuable. Monahan on the other hand has value. 

 

 

[LGR4GM]

24 minutes ago, PerreaultForever said:

as·set

/ˈaset/

Learn to pronounce

noun

a useful or valuable thing, person, or quality.

"quick reflexes were his chief asset"

 

I added the word "significant" not to move the goalposts as you say, but because you didn't seem to grasp the meaning of asset on it's own. See above. 

Bishop and Butcher were not and are not valuable. Monahan on the other hand has value. 

 

 

Lol. If a 5th and a 7th rounder aren't useful I guess Tyson Kozak should give up on hockey. 

But hey move those goalposts! Move em far. 

30 minutes ago, PerreaultForever said:

In regard to Kane, the team clearly needs to change player's perceptions so that we aren't on 10 team no trade lists any more. Winning can do that, but if you want to speed up the process bringing in a respected big name who can talk to players and the media about how much he enjoys it would do a lot to change those perceptions but whatever, let it take another decade or more.

As for Bishop, the point is Bishop is NOT an ASSET. He's dead money. Butcher was arguably an asset but not really as he was horrible. Monahan has had injury issues but he could play and be an asset and he can be deadline dealt. They are not comparable moves. 

Lol I'm trying to imagine not understanding that the pick with bishop is what's important. You act like everyone else is stupid but you're over here talking about a player no one cares about. 

[LGR4GM]

53 minutes ago, PerreaultForever said:

So you want to praise Adams for a deal that never happened? So that's his "creative thinking"?

I guess you can say that is creative, but thinking would require knowing about 10 team no trade clauses and such. 

If the argument is Adams WANTS to make moves but CAN'T because nobody wants to come to Buffalo, that I will accept. It seems to be true. 

Yikes

Edited August 20, 2022 by LGR4GM

[Curt]

46 minutes ago, PerreaultForever said:

So you want to praise Adams for a deal that never happened? So that's his "creative thinking"?

I guess you can say that is creative, but thinking would require knowing about 10 team no trade clauses and such. 

If the argument is Adams WANTS to make moves but CAN'T because nobody wants to come to Buffalo, that I will accept. It seems to be true. 

I was responding to you saying that the you wish the Sabres would be creative enough to make a trade like the Monahan trade where they acquire assets for cap space.

I was presenting an example of something very similar that the Sabres, and trade partner, agreed to, but was vetoed by the player.  I presented this as evidence that Adams is not against doing such things.

In this particular example, yes, it did not happen because the player did not want to be in Buffalo. I’m sure Adams, and the Pierre Dorian were aware on the 10 team NTC, otherwise they would not have wasted their time negotiating a deal.  Not sure on the exact mechanics of Murray’s particular NTC, or if the Sens were trying to get him to waive it, or what was going on with that.

[Curt]

15 hours ago, PerreaultForever said:

Who? Bishop and a 7th is "significant"? Go talk to Liger about it you guys seem to agree. 

 

1 hour ago, PerreaultForever said:

So you want to praise Adams for a deal that never happened? So that's his "creative thinking"?

I guess you can say that is creative, but thinking would require knowing about 10 team no trade clauses and such. 

Also, not every response to me needs to be accompanied by a “witty” jab.  You and LGR can trade insults back and forth if you like, but I don’t expect to be talked down to as well just because I’m discussing the same topic.

If you were talking to me in person I doubt you would take on this “tone”.

Edited August 20, 2022 by Curt

[Sabres Fan in NS]

On 8/18/2022 at 7:09 PM, Weave said:

Added depth for 1 season?

No assets given up?

Cap space weaponized for more assets?

Im not paying his salary.  Of course I would do it.  

I believe this is the new cap circumvention shenanigans.  I would NOT do it.

I understand your point and I am not attacking you for it.  I just don't agree with this kind of nonsense.