Around The NHL 2022-23 Regular Season

[Doohicksie]

7 hours ago, shrader said:

8 hours ago, PerreaultForever said:

Slightly annoying............Will Borgen playing very well for Seattle. It's ancient history, but I still wish they'd have exposed Bjork in that draft. Seattle had a bunch of D men available at the time so they might have taken him instead. Oh well.

Would he even play on this roster?

He might slot over Bryson.

[Huckleberry]

1 hour ago, Doohickie said:

He might slot over Bryson.

Might not have gotten after Lubes as UFA with Borgen still here.

[PerreaultForever]

10 hours ago, shrader said:

Would he even play on this roster?

We probably wouldn't have signed Lybushkin.  I know the left side right side and all that but from the two Kraken games I saw he'd be more valuable than Bryson. 

[PerreaultForever]

9 hours ago, Taro T said:

Ummm, how does exposing F Bjork protect D Borgen?

It doesn't guarantee it but AT THE TIME he may have been more appealing to Seattle than Borgen so they might have taken him instead. If you remember they picked a ton of D men and ended up trading a few away. Forwards were few and far between for them in terms of availability and at that time Bjork hadn't played his way off our roster yet and was valued higher from being a Bruin. They weren't excited about grabbing Borgen, he was just the best we left exposed of the younger players.

[LGR4GM]

4 hours ago, PerreaultForever said:

It doesn't guarantee it but AT THE TIME he may have been more appealing to Seattle than Borgen so they might have taken him instead. If you remember they picked a ton of D men and ended up trading a few away. Forwards were few and far between for them in terms of availability and at that time Bjork hadn't played his way off our roster yet and was valued higher from being a Bruin. They weren't excited about grabbing Borgen, he was just the best we left exposed of the younger players.

You know that the expansion rules meant that to protect Borgen, 3 additional forwards would have been exposed? Not just bjork but 2 others, who are they?

Rasmus Asplund (F)

Anders Bjork (F)

Jack Eichel (F)

Casey Mittelstadt (F)

Victor Olofsson (F)

Sam Reinhart (F)

Tage Thompson (F)

"Current NHL teams can protect seven forwards, three defensemen and one goalie, or eight skaters (forwards/defensemen) and one goalie..."

[DarthEbriate]

3 hours ago, LGR4GM said:

You know that the expansion rules meant that to protect Borgen, 3 additional forwards would have been exposed? Not just bjork but 2 others, who are they?

Rasmus Asplund (F)

Anders Bjork (F)

Jack Eichel (F)

Casey Mittelstadt (F)

Victor Olofsson (F)

Sam Reinhart (F)

Tage Thompson (F)

"Current NHL teams can protect seven forwards, three defensemen and one goalie, or eight skaters (forwards/defensemen) and one goalie..."

At that time it would have been Thompson, Asplund, and Bjork. But then Thompson would have been a 3/4 wing on a defense-first Kraken lineup last year instead of a breakout at center.

[Archie Lee]

4 hours ago, LGR4GM said:

You know that the expansion rules meant that to protect Borgen, 3 additional forwards would have been exposed? Not just bjork but 2 others, who are they?

Rasmus Asplund (F)

Anders Bjork (F)

Jack Eichel (F)

Casey Mittelstadt (F)

Victor Olofsson (F)

Sam Reinhart (F)

Tage Thompson (F)

"Current NHL teams can protect seven forwards, three defensemen and one goalie, or eight skaters (forwards/defensemen) and one goalie..."

Going back to the actual moment of the expansion draft it is difficult to argue with what they did. Protecting Borgen would have meant exposing Bjork, Asplund and, barring a pre-draft trade, one of Thompson, Mittelstadt or Oloffson.  In that scenario it is likely that Thompson, Mittelstadt or Olofsson are with the Kraken now.  

Of course, there are things they could have done different. The simplest would have been to just protect Skinner and expose Bjork out of hopes that Seattle would take Bjork instead of Borgen. That the Sabres did not do this, pretty much makes clear that they valued Bjork more than Borgen. In hindsight, this was a mistake.  

 

 

 

Edited October 15, 2022 by Archie Lee

[Brawndo]

 

[LGR4GM]

19 minutes ago, Brawndo said:

 

 

[Digger]

24 minutes ago, LGR4GM said:

 

Can't they check if their current Zamboni driver can play goal (thought it was in the job description)?  Not the first time for the Leafs to have to go that route.

[LGR4GM]

1 hour ago, Archie Lee said:

Going back to the actual moment of the expansion draft it is difficult to argue with what they did. Protecting Borgen would have meant exposing Bjork, Asplund and, barring a pre-draft trade, one of Thompson, Mittelstadt or Oloffson.  In that scenario it is likely that Thompson, Mittelstadt or Olofsson are with the Kraken now.  

Of course, there are things they could have done different. The simplest would have been to just protect Skinner and expose Bjork out of hopes that Seattle would take Bjork instead of Borgen. That the Sabres did not do this, pretty much makes clear that they valued Bjork more than Borgen. In hindsight, this was a mistake.  

 

 

 

Was it? What's Borgen on this team right now? A 6th defender?

[Archie Lee]

1 minute ago, LGR4GM said:

Was it? What's Borgen on this team right now? A 6th defender?

Some mistakes are small and don't have much impact on the  bigger picture. 

Borgen, I think, is a more useful player and a more valuable asset than Bjork.   

 

 

[LGR4GM]

2 minutes ago, Archie Lee said:

Some mistakes are small and don't have much impact on the  bigger picture. 

Borgen, I think, is a more useful player and a more valuable asset than Bjork.   

But they are both replacement level

[Brawndo]

Quote

 

The Kings have a surplus of RHD and are rumored to be looking for a scoring forward. This where the Sabres Surplus of Forwards can come in handy

[Archie Lee]

2 minutes ago, LGR4GM said:

But they are both replacement level

Fair enough.  I'm certainly not arguing that this was a franchise altering mistake.

Someone wrote that we should have kept Borgen over Bjork and you, quite correctly, pointed out that it was not so simple.  I just added to the discussion that there was an option that might have allowed keeping Borgen (protect Skinner and expose Bjork) and that the Sabres not doing this was a pretty clear indication they valued Bjork more. In my view that was a mistake, but I acknowledge:

- We have more information on both players now than we had then.

- The Sabres could have protected Skinner and exposed Bjork and Seattle might still have picked Borgen (I actually think the Kraken still take Borgen); and

- As mistakes go this one may well fall into the category of barely consequential.

 

I'll add one thing.  If you went to the GM of every NHL team right now and said you have to take Borgen or Bjork and find a place for him on your roster, I think close to 32 of them take Borgen.  At the time of the expansion draft it is probably closer to 50/50.

 

 

[Huckleberry]

1 hour ago, LGR4GM said:

 

Looks amateur from their front office.   Bit unlucky but 2 goalies being hurt at once is something we know all about 🙂

[Brawndo]

1 hour ago, LGR4GM said:

 

And the Marlies play the Amerks in TO later this afternoon 

[DarthEbriate]

Can you just dress the emergency goalie every game? Your equipment manager/emergency goalie on a cap-free deal? Seems like there'd be some rule prohibiting that.

[kas23]

55 minutes ago, Archie Lee said:

Fair enough.  I'm certainly not arguing that this was a franchise altering mistake.

Someone wrote that we should have kept Borgen over Bjork and you, quite correctly, pointed out that it was not so simple.  I just added to the discussion that there was an option that might have allowed keeping Borgen (protect Skinner and expose Bjork) and that the Sabres not doing this was a pretty clear indication they valued Bjork more. In my view that was a mistake, but I acknowledge:

- We have more information on both players now than we had then.

- The Sabres could have protected Skinner and exposed Bjork and Seattle might still have picked Borgen (I actually think the Kraken still take Borgen); and

- As mistakes go this one may well fall into the category of barely consequential.

 

I'll add one thing.  If you went to the GM of every NHL team right now and said you have to take Borgen or Bjork and find a place for him on your roster, I think close to 32 of them take Borgen.  At the time of the expansion draft it is probably closer to 50/50.

 

 

The best route should have been to expose Ulmark and protected Toker. They would’ve took Ulmark. We must’ve really thought we were going to sign him. In hindsight, we should’ve told him to sign or we’ll expose him. KA was too inexperienced back then. 

[French Collection]

1 hour ago, Huckleberry said:

Looks amateur from their front office.   Bit unlucky but 2 goalies being hurt at once is something we know all about 🙂

But Kyle Dumbass is a cap genius.

[PerreaultForever]

9 hours ago, LGR4GM said:

You know that the expansion rules meant that to protect Borgen, 3 additional forwards would have been exposed? Not just bjork but 2 others, who are they?

Rasmus Asplund (F)

Anders Bjork (F)

Jack Eichel (F)

Casey Mittelstadt (F)

Victor Olofsson (F)

Sam Reinhart (F)

Tage Thompson (F)

"Current NHL teams can protect seven forwards, three defensemen and one goalie, or eight skaters (forwards/defensemen) and one goalie..."

I know and that's not what I said. 

I wouldn't have protected Borgen (because of the rules) but I would have dangled Bjork out there unprotected and hope they might have taken him. They might still have taken Borgen, but at the time Bjork looked more valuable than he does now and they were short on forwards. The idea of 2 Bruins (sort of) rather than a Bruin and a Sabre might have seduced them and Borgen would have been passed over. 

No guarantee obviously, as I said. 

[Thorner]

4 hours ago, Brawndo said:

The Botterill Sabres have a surplus of RHD and are rumored to be looking for a scoring forward. This where the Kings Surplus of Forwards can come in handy

Wow blast from the past

[Porous Five Hole]

Update

[Brawndo]

 

[Porous Five Hole]

30 minutes ago, Brawndo said:

 

This is absolutely wild.
The league is a three billion dollar revenue entity & Ian Cole means nothing to the league. There’s no risk in telling the guy to go pound sand. So for them to conclusively determine the allegations were meritless is a good reminder to me to presume innocence when possible.