GM for a day

[sweetlou]

What would you do?

[Porous Five Hole]

I wouldn’t be moving the equivalent of two first round picks (plus more in some cases) for any of that.  It’s all an overpay.  
I guess I could shuffle the deck chairs with the Edmonton deal.

[Eleven]

None of those:

1.  I don't want or need McDonagh.  I already have Johnson, who is only a year older.  Saros and someone else, we might talk.  There also are serious cap problems here.  How is it even possible?

2.  This isn't a bad deal.  The price is right.  The cap hit isn't, unfortunately, because it doesn't give me room to maneuver later in the season, especially if my goalie situation, which I inherited, doesn't work out.

3.  I'm not trading Krebs unless it's part of a much larger deal.  I have big expectations for him.  Plus, it creates the same cap problem (even if the situation in goal is solved by the addition of Ullmark).  And Ullmark didn't want to be here.  So bye, Felicia.

4.  No, that's their crap for my better-than-crap.  I'll admit, I don't get to watch a lot of Western Conference hockey, but nah.  I'll hold onto Jost and Lybushkin.

Edited August 17, 2023 by Eleven

[thewookie1]

None of the above

[Sabres73]

2 hours ago, thewookie1 said:

None of the above

 

[thewookie1]

4 minutes ago, Sabres73 said:

 

Quite the way with words you got there

[Zamboni]

None. 
 

Pssst …. He has given up assets and picks to acquire players he’s wanted. 

[steveoath]

None of these

[Hank]

#1 is similar to what I've been advocating for all summer. Saros for Savoie, 6K, 24 1st, 25 2nd. Saros makes us cup contenders the next two years. 

[Pimlach]

None of the above 

[Night Train]

1 hour ago, Pimlach said:

None of the above 

Agreed. Especially Ullmark for Krebs and a 1st rounder. The guy is average and played bad 2 years in a row during the post-season. He can choke on his "awards" .  Yuck. 

[Marvin]

Only the first one even remotely interests me, but it would have to be less for Saros alone.

[mjd1001]

As others have said, none.

There is a case to be made that prospects are overvalued,  BUT that doesn't mean they have no value and can be just thrown around for the sake of making a move.

All of the above options to me are very close to 'making a move' for the same of wanting to make a move.

Someone posted something a little while ago saying how fanbases and teams tend to love their prosects too much, and that many of them won't turn out to be something great.  You can use that to support NOT trading them.  If only 1 out of 3 or 1 out of 4 of them work out, you can say you want to hold onto them so you that actually get the ones that work out. If your team is constructed properly, you don't need all your prosepcts to pan out, but you want to have enough of them that the ones that do work out are there to plug into your lineup going forward.

Edited August 18, 2023 by mjd1001

[sweetlou]

29 minutes ago, mjd1001 said:

As others have said, none.

There is a case to be made that prospects are overvalued,  BUT that doesn't mean they have no value and can be just thrown around for the sake of making a move.

All of the above options to me are very close to 'making a move' for the same of wanting to make a move.

Someone posted something a little while ago saying how fanbases and teams tend to love their prosects too much, and that many of them won't turn out to be something great.  You can use that to support NOT trading them.  If only 1 out of 3 or 1 out of 4 of them work out, you can say you want to hold onto them so you that actually get the ones that work out. If your team is constructed properly, you don't need all your prosepcts to pan out, but you want to have enough of them that the ones that do work out are there to plug into your lineup going forward.

I guess I have always looked at it the opposite.  I am trading the prospect for someone who has already worked out and become a great player.  Isn't that better than having the hopes that a prospect will work out!!

[Eleven]

2 hours ago, sweetlou said:

I guess I have always looked at it the opposite.  I am trading the prospect for someone who has already worked out and become a great player.  Isn't that better than having the hopes that a prospect will work out!!

It is.  Same as trading a draft pick for an existing NHL player is.  I agree w/ you here.  I just don't like three of those four proposals and the fourth one (#2) creates problems down the road.

[mjd1001]

2 hours ago, sweetlou said:

I guess I have always looked at it the opposite.  I am trading the prospect for someone who has already worked out and become a great player.  Isn't that better than having the hopes that a prospect will work out!!

Maybe. But maybe not. Often times the prospect (the lottery pick) is traded for a player that might be better now, but is on the dowside of their peak, hasn't come up through your own system, and often times is overpaid (certainly more than a prospect in their first few years).

[Mustache of God]

If i were GM for a day I probably wouldn't make any trades, because from listening to GMKA it sounds like trades take time to reach the finish line and I feel like I wouldn't get anything accomplished.

Instead, I'd probably head down to the Sabres Store and grab as much ***** as I could carry. I'd then ask the ice crew to cut the ice and then host a scrimmage and spend most of the day playing hockey. I'd wrap the day up by planting a few hidden microphones throughout the GM's office and locker rooms so we could listen in on the actual trades GMKA will be working on in the future.

[PerreaultForever]

I'd do both of the first two but I voted Saros, although I don't think they'd make that deal that you offered. Not enough for them or what they'd want. 

I know people don't agree with this, but I'm still giving up 2 firsts (or Rosen or Östlund instead of a future first) for Hart. Hart AND Konecny for 2 firsts plus Rosen I'm doing that for sure. If they want to throw in DesLauriers or Hathaway for a second as well I'm adding that too. 

Basically I still think this team is a goalie, a gritty forward and possibly a defensive defenseman away from being a real contender. A PK/face off guy who can play shutdown wouldn't hurt either. 

[sweetlou]

On 8/18/2023 at 2:37 AM, steveoath said:

None of these

 

On 8/18/2023 at 8:13 AM, Pimlach said:

None of the above 

What is your solution?  Just keep drafting top tier guys that all have the same skill set?  

[Pimlach]

5 minutes ago, sweetlou said:

 

What is your solution?  Just keep drafting top tier guys that all have the same skill set?  

You draft the best players available, every time, no matter.   

You don't trade Savoie and another #1 pick for Saros - what goalie was traded for two #1's and how did it work out?  I don't want McDonagh for Joki and UPL either - not even straight up for either.  

You don't trade a talent like Östlund and another #1 pick for Travis Konecney.  Travis is a good player, but not worth two #1's.  

You don't re-acquire Linus.  He has done nothing on the playoffs and he wanted out of Buffalo, why would you bring him back?  

Your fourth option is a trade of odds and sods, not interested in it.  

 

[JohnC]

Stay the course. That's the plan and it is successfully being executed. Why stray from the course that is working? 

[steveoath]

2 hours ago, sweetlou said:

 

What is your solution?  Just keep drafting top tier guys that all have the same skill set?  

BPA at the draft. 
 

as for the trades proposed, you asked which would I make if I was GM…. the answer is still none. I think they are a mixture of overpayments and meh. 
 

I don’t need the GM to make a “big move”. I want the GM to make astute moves. First thing I would do is sign Tatar. Problem is I think he wants multi year deal which is why no one has touched him.

on D I would look at Jared Spurgeon. If I could get him for Joker+pick I would be happy. Not sure the wild would be, and he has full NMC until next season. 
 

G is difficult if you’re looking to get a proven entity. I can see why GMKA hasn’t made a move. Dan Vladar or Markstrom from Calgary could be a bet, but seems like Conroy is holding out (rightly) for an offer that is top end. 
 

Personally I really don’t see the need for a big signing. I think we could use a proven vet goalie (like all teams) but I like the make up of our roster in general. 
 

 

[Eleven]

5 minutes ago, steveoath said:

First thing I would do is sign Tatar. Problem is I think he wants multi year deal which is why no one has touched him.

That was a problem for Dumba, too, until it wasn't.

[Pimlach]

2 hours ago, JohnC said:

Stay the course. That's the plan and it is successfully being executed. Why stray from the course that is working? 

If they do not make the playoffs this coming season then can they stray?  

[JohnC]

3 hours ago, Pimlach said:

If they do not make the playoffs this coming season then can they stray?  

You and others act as if the GM has been afraid to act outside of drafting and developing players. That's not the case. He traded his old core and got back a reasonable return. He has made small deals such as signing Stillman and Greenway and acquired Jost. This offseason, he added Clifton and Johnson from the free agency market. The Sabres improved by 16 points from the previous season. The GM took over a ramshackle and irrelevant team and organization and in a short period of time put it on a pathway to success. Yes, I strongly agree with the approach that the GM is taking. Again, stay the course.