Layout Your Offseason Plan

[thewookie1]

Regardless the rumors of interest does give me the thought that UPL will be traded.

Essentially Adams won't want to put a rock wall in front of Levi; he'll desire a way to make Levi the 1B if he plays well enough. Any high end goalie or at minimum a consistent vet would put that at risk. He can waive Comrie without much fear, Levi underperforming is waiver exempt whereas UPL no longer is. Effectively I see practically no chance UPL is here if the Sabres acquire any other goalie since they won't want to just lose UPL on waivers for free or force a worthy Levi of staying in Rochester. 

[Brawndo]

2 hours ago, Crusader1969 said:

I turned it off after they traded away Peterka!

 

2 hours ago, Thorny said:

What did Chad deal Peterka for? 

That was actually the first of three mock draft podcasts and it was actually Eddy Tabone who is their stat guru and lacrosse correspondent.

Chad posted a different article the same day where the Hellebuyck Trade Proposal was. 
 

There is no way in hell I would trade Peterka for Petersson. 

[Thorner]

56 minutes ago, Weave said:

I love it.  Thorny is fully in move surplus high value picks/prospects because we are talking roundS of playoffs, and Eleven is in Angry Eleven mode throwing max sarcasm at moving good players for picks.

Are we back now?  Are we normal again?  God, I hope so.

[Thorner]

16 minutes ago, thewookie1 said:

Regardless the rumors of interest does give me the thought that UPL will be traded.

Essentially Adams won't want to put a rock wall in front of Levi; he'll desire a way to make Levi the 1B if he plays well enough. Any high end goalie or at minimum a consistent vet would put that at risk. He can waive Comrie without much fear, Levi underperforming is waiver exempt whereas UPL no longer is. Effectively I see practically no chance UPL is here if the Sabres acquire any other goalie since they won't want to just lose UPL on waivers for free or force a worthy Levi of staying in Rochester. 

Getting Levi the GP he needs next season should absolutely not be a concern. Not in a league where Swayman played nearly 40 games on a team with the vezina front runner. For a guy (Levi) who’s total NHL starts to date you can count on a hand or 2. Who’s never played more than 37 in *any league*.

its a total nothingburger. We need 2 guys.

Edited June 1, 2023 by Thorny

[Taro T]

1 hour ago, Weave said:

I love it.  Thorny is fully in move surplus high value picks/prospects because we are talking roundS of playoffs, and Eleven is in Angry Eleven mode throwing max sarcasm at moving good players for picks.

Are we back now?  Are we normal again?  God, I hope so.

This place ain't back to normal until PA brings back the Phantom List Writer.  😉

[RochesterExpat]

19 hours ago, Flashsabre said:

There has not been a single rumour that Saros is available. 

 

We only know he was available at the deadline this year and he almost ended up in Edmonton (the Kings apparently inquired too but traded for Korpisalo instead because the ask for Saros was too high). Since then the rumors have died down and I suspect the thinking from Nashville's view is to see how the younger players perform at the start of the season and revisit trading Saros at the deadline if the team is outside contention. That being said, there are plenty of "insiders" who are projecting a Saros trade this off-season to really jumpstart the Nashville rebuild. Those are just guesses though. The assumption he is still available is based on his availability at the deadline.

19 hours ago, Thorny said:

Man PLEASE 

Skinner - Thompson - Tuch

Peterka - Cozens - Quinn 

Mittelstadt - Krebs - Okposo

Girgensons - Kulich - Greenway

 

Samuelsson - Dahlin

Power - Acquisition Guy

Stillman - Jokiharju

 

Hellebuyck (45 gp)

Levi (35 gp)

 

...this team would SLAP. My offseason plan would look like this cause we’d win a lot of games next year. Winning fun. YMMV. 

Personally, I'd prefer to see Joki moved and a FA like Scott Mayfield brought in instead. That way the 5/6 is a rotation of Boosh, Stillman and Mayfield which Granato can match up against specific teams. For the acquisition guy, I'm going to continue to push DeMelo as the trade target. 

I don't like Kulich in the NHL though. He's not ready. His defensive game needs growth. He should sit one more year in the AHL as the first call up. In my mind, the bottom six would be some arrangement of Mitts, Krebs, KO, Girgs, Rousek and Greenway. I think Jost's QO makes it problematic to bring him back, but I could see him as the 13th forward. 

18 hours ago, French Collection said:

If the acquired Dman is Graves this team would definitely make the playoffs and do some damage if they had a goalie heat up at the right time.

 

If Graves signs for the $4.6m Evolving Hockey projects him at then I'd be jumping all over adding him, but I think he's going to end up going for more than that and I don't want to add a 4th D-man for high AAV with term. It seems like a substantial risk given the number of contracts we have in the next few years.

15 hours ago, thewookie1 said:

Regardless the rumors of interest does give me the thought that UPL will be traded.

Essentially Adams won't want to put a rock wall in front of Levi; he'll desire a way to make Levi the 1B if he plays well enough. Any high end goalie or at minimum a consistent vet would put that at risk. He can waive Comrie without much fear, Levi underperforming is waiver exempt whereas UPL no longer is. Effectively I see practically no chance UPL is here if the Sabres acquire any other goalie since they won't want to just lose UPL on waivers for free or force a worthy Levi of staying in Rochester. 

UPL is in the organization at the wrong time. He doesn't appear to be an NHL starter as his performance drops off as games played increases, but he looks like he could end up a backup. If we were three years along and Levi ends up a true starting goalie, UPL would be the sensible backup. We're just not there.

[GASabresIUFAN]

16 hours ago, Thorny said:

t some point the calculation changes from “winning trades” in and of themselves to trades being a means to an end. 

Take the ROR trade for example.  We certainly "lost" that trade initially, but now that trade gave us our No. 1 center for the years to come and potentially a solid D man in Johnson who if he develops well could possibly end up in our top 4 (plus a draft pick used to acquire Colin Miller.) 

[thewookie1]

52 minutes ago, GASabresIUFAN said:

Take the ROR trade for example.  We certainly "lost" that trade initially, but now that trade gave us our No. 1 center for the years to come and potentially a solid D man in Johnson who if he develops well could possibly end up in our top 4 (plus a draft pick used to acquire Colin Miller.) 

You can't win a rental without winning the Cup

I'm unwilling to give Hellebuyck 8x10mil and trade 2/3 1sts in value to get him 

I'd rather just sign a UFA goalie and hope Levi explodes onto the scene than trade 13OA, UPL, Savoie/Kulich for Hellebuyck who will expect to either become a UFA or an absurd extension that doesn't work from a cap or year situation.

[JohnC]

2 hours ago, GASabresIUFAN said:

Take the ROR trade for example.  We certainly "lost" that trade initially, but now that trade gave us our No. 1 center for the years to come and potentially a solid D man in Johnson who if he develops well could possibly end up in our top 4 (plus a draft pick used to acquire Colin Miller.) 

I don't recall any analyst projecting Johnson to be a top dour caliber of player. If he becomes a good third or even fourth pairing player, I would be more than satisfied. Improving the lower half of the pairings is almost as important as adding a second pairing player to the unit. In general, the top half of our roster is in place. It's the lower half of the roster that needs to be unscrambled and solidified. 

[Brawndo]

On 6/1/2023 at 8:19 AM, JohnC said:

I'm not disputing the caliber of player that this goalie is. The sticking block for me is that he would be playing on a one-year deal. Hellebuyck's name in a trade proposal is going to frequently come up for a number of teams because Winnipeg is having a debate on whether to go through some version of rebuild or not. 

I'm also in the expanding camp of posters who believe that the Sabres are on the verge of being a serious team. However, instead of using valuable assets for a player with a one-year contract, I would rather use those dedicated assets to add a second pairing (and maybe another third pairing defenseman) to bolster our thin blueline unit. 

Anyone who has observed how KA has operated since he took over the reigns as a GM recognizes that he is very conscience of costs and benefits in every transaction he makes. The Ullmark contract saga and to a lesser extent the pursuit of Chycrun demonstrate that he is not willing to be forced to a short-term, expedient action at the expense of a longer term benefit. 

Needless to say, this is going to be an exciting offseason. 

And I imagine that KA’s Forward Thinking Front Office would agree there is long term benefit in a single season of Hellebuyck
He would provide the perfect bridge to Levi and the experience the rest of the team particularity the young players would receive from winning two to four playoff series in the Spring of 2024 would be quite beneficial.  Hellebuyck would also be a full season rental, would be here for TC, 82 games and the playoff run. 

A second pairing defensemen is not going to have the same impact on the team in 2-3 seasons that Hellebuyck probably would have in one, especially when there will be UFAs who can fill a second pairing role 
 

I have a sneaking suspicion one of the reasons Adams set and would not exceed His price for Ullmark is the fact this was KA’s First major negotiation as a GM and he needed to set a tone with other GMs and Agents. 
 

Had the asking price from Arizona been universal, I imagine Chychurn is a Sabre.

 

23 hours ago, nfreeman said:

The underlying point here is reasonable -- there's an opportunity to make next season the best Sabres season since 2006-2007, the Sabres seem to have a ton of good young prospects already, and advancing that opportunity by getting Helle is worth sacrificing a valuable asset in #13, which may or may not develop into another good young prospect -- but I think the bolded items are exaggerated.

For the first one -- we cannot know how these prospects will develop.  It's quite likely that more than one of them will wash out, get injured, decide to go back home, etc.  In the meantime there is plenty of room on the Amerks' roster and all of them are far away from having to clear waivers.

For the 2nd one -- not wanting to give up #13 this year is not equivalent to not putting any value on Helle.  I, and I think most here, would give up the Sabres' 2024 #1 plus UPL and a decent prospect for Helle.  That is a pretty good package for a guy with 1 year left before UFA.  I'd be curious to know what other goalies with similar contract situations have recently been traded for better packages.

Most would rather the Sabres trade a 2024 1st for Hellebuyck, but if you are Winnipeg why take an asset which will most likely be worth less as the acquiring team will have a full season of Hellebuyck to improve their record.   The Sabres pick in 2024 should be in the 20s especially with the addition an all star goalie. The other rumored teams to be in on him are the Kings and Devils, neither which have their first this draft and Detroit, who by Yzerman’s own admission is further behind in their rebuild so I doubt they trade the 9th overall pick.

[dudacek]

3 hours ago, thewookie1 said:

You can't win a rental without winning the Cup

I'm unwilling to give Hellebuyck 8x10mil and trade 2/3 1sts in value to get him 

I'd rather just sign a UFA goalie and hope Levi explodes onto the scene than trade 13OA, UPL, Savoie/Kulich for Hellebuyck who will expect to either become a UFA or an absurd extension that doesn't work from a cap or year situation.

To the bold, you are renting Hellebuyck for an entire season, not just a playoff run. You’re also acquiring him to get you into the playoffs.

I haven’t seen a single fan or analyst advocating acquiring Hellebuyck for the equivalent of two top 13 picks and a young goalie, or signing him to an $80 million contract. I will bet good money the actual price = acquisition or contract - is nowhere near this,

It is a horrible exaggeration of his market value and a false argument.

Edited June 2, 2023 by dudacek

[Marvin]

Just now, dudacek said:

I haven’t seen a single fan or analyst advocating acquiring Hellebuyck for the equivalent of two top 13 picks, or signing him to an $80 million contract. I will bet good money the actual price = acquisition or contract - is nowhere near this,

This is a horrible exaggeration of his market value and a false argument.

To be fair, what I am seeing fans on this board speculating the price to be is consistent with national pundits.

[Brawndo]

1 hour ago, JohnC said:

I don't recall any analyst projecting Johnson to be a top dour caliber of player. If he becomes a good third or even fourth pairing player, I would be more than satisfied. Improving the lower half of the pairings is almost as important as adding a second pairing player to the unit. In general, the top half of our roster is in place. It's the lower half of the roster that needs to be unscrambled and solidified. 

John Buccigross referred to Ryan Johnson as Owen Power’s long term partner on Twitter in January.

 

To the second point, this is the value of having a top flight analytics department to fill out the roster. 

[JohnC]

35 minutes ago, Brawndo said:

And I imagine that KA’s Forward Thinking Front Office would agree there is long term benefit in a single season of Hellebuyck
He would provide the perfect bridge to Levi and the experience the rest of the team particularity the young players would receive from winning two to four playoff series in the Spring of 2024 would be quite beneficial.  Hellebuyck would also be a full season rental, would be here for TC, 82 games and the playoff run. 

A second pairing defensemen is not going to have the same impact on the team in 2-3 seasons that Hellebuyck probably would have in one, especially when there will be UFAs who can fill a second pairing role 
 

I have a sneaking suspicion one of the reasons Adams set and would not exceed His price for Ullmark is the fact this was KA’s First major negotiation as a GM and he needed to set a tone with other GMs and Agents. 
 

Had the asking price from Arizona been universal, I imagine Chychurn is a Sabre.

 

Most would rather the Sabres trade a 2024 1st for Hellebuyck, but if you are Winnipeg why take an asset which will most likely be worth less as the acquiring team will have a full season of Hellebuyck to improve their record.   The Sabres pick in 2024 should be in the 20s especially with the addition an all star goalie. The other rumored teams to be in on him are the Kings and Devils, neither which have their first this draft and Detroit, who by Yzerman’s own admission is further behind in their rebuild so I doubt they trade the 9th overall pick.

KA stated on WGR that the contract that Ullmark was asking for exceeded what his staff/analysts placed on the departed goalie. It wasn't so much setting a tone with other GMs and agents as it was adhering to one's own evaluations and having the fortitude to abide by them. 

I don't dispute the argument that you and others are making that Hellebuyck would be a difference maker for the Sabres. That's obvious to me. However, I do disagree with you that after a detailed in-house analysis that it would conclude that giving up substantial assets for a rental player would be the right course of action.

I would be more inclined to a Hellebuyck deal if it were for UPL, a good prospect (not top three) and maybe second round pick.  We'll just have to see how this offseason unfolds. Now that the Sabres are on the precipice of being a serious team it's a lot more fun to follow them. Just think where this team was a couple of years ago to where it is now! 

I don't want to come off speaking out of both sides of my mouth but whatever KA and his staff decides to do I will be comfortable with it. Based on their performance since they took over, they have earned the right to be given the benefit of the doubt in whatever they choose to do. 

3 minutes ago, Brawndo said:

John Buccigross referred to Ryan Johnson as Owen Power’s long term partner on Twitter in January.

 

To the second point, this is the value of having a top flight analytics department to fill out the roster. 

I hope you are right. 

[Thorner]

4 hours ago, thewookie1 said:

You can't win a rental without winning the Cup

I'm unwilling to give Hellebuyck 8x10mil and trade 2/3 1sts in value to get him 

I'd rather just sign a UFA goalie and hope Levi explodes onto the scene than trade 13OA, UPL, Savoie/Kulich for Hellebuyck who will expect to either become a UFA or an absurd extension that doesn't work from a cap or year situation.

Saying you can’t “win” a rental without winning the cup doesn’t jive from a fan’s perspective, nor a business perspective.

Speaking as a fan, there was immeasurable benefit in winning merely 2 rounds in 2006. 

From a business perspective, the owners lining their pockets with the revenue from a few rounds of home playoff games is a *substantial* benefit.

Not to mention the potential team building, experience based benefit of a long playoff run. It’s harder to quantify this aspect but for a GM who so prioritizes culture, one would be hard-pressed to deny it.

We wouldn’t really be “renting” Hellebuyck, it’s a full year term. We’d simply be rostering him.

Speaking as a Raptors fan, I can certainly tell you the Kawhi deal was WELL worth it LONG before we got that title 

 

[sabresparaavida]

13 minutes ago, Thorny said:

Saying you can’t “win” a rental without winning the cup doesn’t jive from a fan’s perspective, nor a business perspective.

Speaking as a fan, there was immeasurable benefit in winning merely 2 rounds in 2006. 

From a business perspective, the owners lining their pockets with the revenue from a few rounds of home playoff games is a *substantial* benefit.

Not to mention the potential team building, experience based benefit of a long playoff run. It’s harder to quantify this aspect but for a GM who so prioritizes culture, one would be hard-pressed to deny it.

We wouldn’t really be “renting” Hellebuyck, it’s a full year term. We’d simply be rostering him.

Speaking as a Raptors fan, I can certainly tell you the Kawhi deal was WELL worth it LONG before we got that title 

 

Responding to the bolded, speaking from an outside perspective, I’d disagree. And even if that’s the case, the Sabres and Raptors are/were in wildly different situations. Before Kawhi came, the Raptors had made 5 straight playoffs, winning at least 1 round in each of the last 3. If they won 2 series and lost to Philly in the conference finals, the addition of Kawhi would be viewed as a disappointment. 
 

And if we’re discussing the benefit of a long playoff run, we should have seen an improved Toronto team after Kawhi relative to before Kawhi, which is not the case, they won 1 series the next season, and didn’t qualify the year after. 

[Thorner]

20 minutes ago, sabresparaavida said:

Responding to the bolded, speaking from an outside perspective, I’d disagree. And even if that’s the case, the Sabres and Raptors are/were in wildly different situations. Before Kawhi came, the Raptors had made 5 straight playoffs, winning at least 1 round in each of the last 3. If they won 2 series and lost to Philly in the conference finals, the addition of Kawhi would be viewed as a disappointment. 
 

And if we’re discussing the benefit of a long playoff run, we should have seen an improved Toronto team after Kawhi relative to before Kawhi, which is not the case, they won 1 series the next season, and didn’t qualify the year after. 

I’m speaking *as a fan* though, I’m not sure your assessment of whether it was worth it holds much water if you are, admittedly, speaking as an outsider. The point I was making is we had Kawhi for the full season, like Hellebuyck would be. The level of enjoyment that season presented to fans, or at least this fan, *well* surpassed any season in memory long before the final.

Where the Kawhi comp differs is he was *far and away* their best player. Without him they weren’t the same. I don’t think we are bringing in Hellebuyck to center the the team around him. Not like the Raptors structured their entire system around Kawhi. A goalie is significantly more plug and play, and our mvp, Dahlin, will remain long after Hellebuyck is gone.

We wouldn’t be on an island after losing our best player, finding ourselves without one. We’d just be without a draft pick. In truth the deals aren’t comparable from a team building sense, there’s significantly less risk on the hockey side of the equation. The Raptors relatively struggled w/o Kawhi specifically because they had to deal their best player to get him. That’s not even close to the scenario, here. 

My aim in using the comparison was merely in expressing the value of a single season

Further, whereas the Raptors added Kawhi to get over their playoff failure hump, we’d be adding Hellebuyck to help get over a much more inferior stretch of play: whereas a 3rd round loss for the Raptors wouldn’t have been as relatively satisfying, a 3rd round loss for the Sabres certainly would be. 

Not only is the bar to achieve success lower, but the Raptors had to trade their best player in DeRozen to get him: we are merely dealing a draft pick. It’s a no brainer. If the Raps had KEPT DeRozen, added Kawhi, then lost Kawhi, yes, I’d imagine their remaining players (DeRozen included) would have benefited from the run. The guys they kept, did. But there was a hole after losing Kawhi (and it was *STILL* worth it) that made the LT benefits more difficult to discern. We wouldn’t be creating a potential hole to add Hellebuyck. 

Edited June 2, 2023 by Thorny

[CTJoe]

23 hours ago, Weave said:

We need a Hellebucyk version of the Gimme fuel, gimme fire, gimme Timo ***** Meier t shirt someone way more creative than me was hawking in NJ.

 

since 1970

and we still suck

Now's the fkn time

for connor Hellebuk

[thewookie1]

I feel many of the offers are far too short sighted, that’s what I mean by rentals. 
 

You don’t trade high end assets for a singular season use player unless you are making a Cup run or feel confident in signing the player. 

There is just far too much risk for the potential reward we desire. For example we haven’t had a single goalie stay healthy throughout the season in at least 6 years now. If Hellebuyck gets seriously hurt, then those assets literally are burned up into nothingness and additional assets would need to be used to fill the gaping goaltending hole. If he has a down year because he starting with a completely different team, we lose. Quite literally the only way the assets aren’t wasted or set to haunt us well into the future is if he comes to Buffalo, plays great, and takes us into a solid playoff appearance. Barring a reasonable extension, we have a very small target we have to hit in order to not look like fools around the league.

 

Supposedly TSN we’re the ones who mentioned Hellebuyck is looking for Bob like money.

 

[Thorner]

22 minutes ago, thewookie1 said:

I feel many of the offers are far too short sighted, that’s what I mean by rentals. 
 

You don’t trade high end assets for a singular season use player unless you are making a Cup run or feel confident in signing the player. 

There is just far too much risk for the potential reward we desire. For example we haven’t had a single goalie stay healthy throughout the season in at least 6 years now. If Hellebuyck gets seriously hurt, then those assets literally are burned up into nothingness and additional assets would need to be used to fill the gaping goaltending hole. If he has a down year because he starting with a completely different team, we lose. Quite literally the only way the assets aren’t wasted or set to haunt us well into the future is if he comes to Buffalo, plays great, and takes us into a solid playoff appearance. Barring a reasonable extension, we have a very small target we have to hit in order to not look like fools around the league.

 

Supposedly TSN we’re the ones who mentioned Hellebuyck is looking for Bob like money.

 

“If they get hurt” isn’t a good reason to not make a trade. Could happen to any asset. What if we are counting on Levi as a starter, and he gets hurt? Isn’t time an asset? You don’t care that THAT asset gets “burned into nothingness”? 

Having a good season, after adding Hellebuyck, isn’t a “small target” at all. It’s very reasonably achieved. Reasonable enough in calculation that the risk in losing a pick is worth it, considering our stacked prospect pool, which, literally, actively lowers the value of what we stand to lose:  it’s like you want to only make transactions with zero risk. NHL GM mode. 

Dude, the Sabres’ *default* around the league is “fools” until we do anything of merit. No one cares we finished in 20th whatever place. No one. 

We absolutely shouldn’t be afraid of the deal because of how it would affect our image. If it blows up, we look the same in perception as we always have. We actually stand to GAIN a lot in perception by adding the guy and having a successful season 

- - -

The fact you are living and dying by needing to see Eichel lose these playoffs, even to the extent of hoping someone goes out and injures him makes sense in this context and this discussion rather helps illuminate that. So afraid it’ll make the poor Sabres “look bad.” Who freaking cares. Control what we can control and go out and win games next year. 

And yes, adding Hellebuyck WOULD be to make a Cup run. This is the reality of our window as it stands. It’s go time. It’s not selling the farm. It’s not close. It’s using a small portion of draft capital as currency because we can, and our top line is in its prime and we scored along with the best teams in the league last year and have a Norris level D man. We can try to go on a run now.
 

It’s not THAT scary to have expectations, I promise. don’t be afraid. I’ll hold your hand. Acquiring Hellebuyck means we need to be good. Yes. It’s our GM’s 4th year. It’s ooooooook. 

Edited June 2, 2023 by Thorny

[thewookie1]

2 minutes ago, Thorny said:

“If they get hurt” isn’t a good reason to not make a trade. Could happen to any asset. What if we are counting on Levi as a starter, and he gets hurt? Isn’t time an asset? You don’t care that THAT asset gets “burned into nothingness”? 

Having a good season, after adding Hellebuyck, isn’t a “small target” at all. It’s very reasonably achieved. Reasonable enough in calculation that the risk in losing a pick is worth it, considering our stacked prospect pool, which, literally, actively lowers the value of what we stand to lose:  it’s like you want to only make transactions with zero risk. NHL GM mode. 

Dude, the Sabres’ *default* around the league is “fools” until we do anything of merit. No one cares we finished in 20th whatever place. No one. 

My issue is with 13 ++ 

Also, Levi getting hurt is a setback but he doesn’t just magically leave after next season. We still have full control over him. 
 

It is only asset burning if the acquired piece plays only a few games or is terrible. It’s akin to drafting a full bust like Novotny. You swung the bat and missed entirely. 
 

That is why my interest is only lukewarm and I’d rather trade more or less conditional pick in 24. 
 

I don’t want all the risk whereas WPG gets potentially valuable assets for a singular year of a goalie they may have no plan to re-sign.

I’ll always be overtly cautious; I’m not a gambler by any stretch and I’ll almost always take the least risk possible when going forward. 
 

I don’t see our prospect pool as easily dipped into without issue. We are in need defensive prospects and any pool is only as deep as their availability timeline. Trading 13, UPL and Kisakov for Hellebuyck would be exciting sure, but it’s incredibly temporary since we have him for one season. Adding anything more to the deal is plain bonkers, if NJ wants to offer their top prospect and their next 1st; let them.
 

I’ll be happy as long as they continue to make improvements, get a vet goalie for a couple years to help Levi; you don’t need to target the biggest fish to achieve that goal.

[Thorner]

10 minutes ago, thewookie1 said:

My issue is with 13 ++ 

Also, Levi getting hurt is a setback but he doesn’t just magically leave after next season. We still have full control over him. 
 

It is only asset burning if the acquired piece plays only a few games or is terrible. It’s akin to drafting a full bust like Novotny. You swung the bat and missed entirely. 
 

That is why my interest is only lukewarm and I’d rather trade more or less conditional pick in 24. 
 

I don’t want all the risk whereas WPG gets potentially valuable assets for a singular year of a goalie they may have no plan to re-sign.

I’ll always be overtly cautious; I’m not a gambler by any stretch and I’ll almost always take the least risk possible when going forward. 
 

I don’t see our prospect pool as easily dipped into without issue. We are in need defensive prospects and any pool is only as deep as their availability timeline. Trading 13, UPL and Kisakov for Hellebuyck would be exciting sure, but it’s incredibly temporary since we have him for one season. Adding anything more to the deal is plain bonkers, if NJ wants to offer their top prospect and their next 1st; let them.
 

I’ll be happy as long as they continue to make improvements, get a vet goalie for a couple years to help Levi; you don’t need to target the biggest fish to achieve that goal.

I’m not a gambler. The trade just makes sense because of how stacked the prospect pool is and I understand our window is now. You said yourself you acquire these players if the intent is a Cup run. In my estimation our point of disagreement hinges on the fact you don’t think we are a team that could/should be one of those teams that pays an asset to achieve success over a singular frame. I disagree with that assessment. We are in fact in a position to go on a run.

Edited June 2, 2023 by Thorny

[Thorner]

If we are poised for a run at the deadline, would you be open to dealing a 2nd? If so, why? Because we’d be on the verge of a successful, worthwhile run? A 2nd for, as we’ve seen at deadlines past, amounts to a role player. 

If you indeed would, you wouldn’t bump that up from a 2nd to a 1st, when we’d be getting a SIGNIFICANTLY better player for a significantly longer period of time, when such player would go a long way towards actively, actually *creating* the scenario where we are on the verge of a successful run?

[thewookie1]

Just now, Thorny said:

I’m not a gambler. The trade just makes sense because of how stacked the prospect pool is and I understand our window is now. You said you acquire these players if the intent is a Cup run. In my estimation our point of disagreement hinges on the fact you don’t think we are a team that could/should be one of those teams that pays an asset to achieve success over a singular frame. I disagree with that assessment 

Yup, that seems rather accurate. I’m looking for long term success versus immediate success. I don’t see enough of an advantage from Hellebuyck taking us to the 2nd round then departing in bettering our long term push to win the Cup. Mainly because I don’t want Levi to have to come in the next season and be expected to equal or top Hellebuyck 

[thewookie1]

1 minute ago, Thorny said:

If we are poised for a run at the deadline, would you be open to dealing a 2nd? If so, why? Because we’d be on the verge of a successful, worthwhile run? A 2nd for, as we’ve seen at deadlines past, amounts to a role player. 

If you indeed would, you wouldn’t bump that up from a 2nd to a 1st, when we’d be getting a SIGNIFICANTLY better player for a significantly longer period of time, when such player would go a long way towards actively, actually *creating* the scenario where we are on the verge of a successful run?

If we were in a playoff spot and thus I knew the pick was likely 16+ and our team was running and gunning with the best of them. SURE.

The risk of throwing away assets is far smaller once you get near the deadline since you know your likeliest outcomes. Plus further success actually lessens the traded draft asset’s value.