NHL trade deadline 2024: Should Sabres, Kevyn Adams buy, sell or hold?

[PerreaultForever]

27 minutes ago, thewookie1 said:

I think he honestly tried to but got shot down by Pesce himself.

 

 

Your #1 DMAN does not have to be some defensive superman. Cale Makar isn't some defensive wizard but he does enough and gets help from Toews. As Dahlin grows and gains experience he will naturally get more effective defensively. He's already made great strides and is one of the few to have an edge to his game. 

 

This is your biggest problem; you have this overt love affair with the Bruins and everything they do. 

No defense and Grit are a problem but there is zero need to reach Boston's levels. Chicago won 3 Cups with shooty passy possession hockey that had a trio of solid to great defenseman and a very limited amount of overall grit. Hell they even beat your "godly" Bruins back in 2013. The Sabres definitely need a more structured coach, but one that understands how to play a fast up tempo game and not neuter Dahlin's offensive instincts by filling his head with 50,000 defensive responsibilities. Guys like Cozens should be very capable of playing under a more structured system as long as its predicated on speed and pressure versus slow clutch and grab styled trap based strategies.

Tochett's system would probably work here pretty well to be honest; there would be incongruencies with Skinner for sure but for the most part I think it would work pretty well. After all, most of Vancouver isn't exactly famous for their physicality besides Zadorov whom was acquired in-season and JT Miller. Quinn Hughes is far from a physical defenseman and is arguably more offensively skewed than even Dahlin and yet they are having success.  

I'm going to reply to a few things here that are way off and a spin on what I said. 

First, I didn't say trade Dahlin, I didn't say he was garbage. What I said was he's very gifted offensively and he's valuable. Makar has Toews. Dahlin has ? Jokiharju? (Samuelsson's made of glass). As for Dahlin growing, he's at prime age now. He is what he is. 

Now, to my "biggest problem", lol, it's hardly a problem at all. Having them as TEAM B or second team or whatever you want to label them as is the only thing that keeps me sane with the Sabres being as bad as they have been. They have given me joy in watching hockey, unlike the Sabres. It's not a "problem". 

So, I've never said we have to be Boston, or reach their "levels" but they are an example of a thriving hockey culture that I am familiar with. They do a lot of things the right way and emulating that wouldn't be a terrible idea. No on to Chicago, I think you need to take a closer look at the actual make up of those cup winning teams. Those are not offensive juggernauts, they are well balanced teams. Remember when Chicago pissed off the super skilled Vancouver referring to the Sedins as "the sisters"? The sisters never won a cup. Chicago had more than enough grit and was a well balanced team that could play good defense to go along with Kane and other's offensive skills. Their Toews was one of the best 2 way centers in the league. If we were modelled on those Chicago teams I'd have no problem with that.

There's no issue with being fast. I often think the Bruins are too slow and that's part of their playoff woes over the years. Fast is good. But playing defense and having a solid team structure with defensive layers is also good. Our fast exit system is total b***s**t.  We also need to use our speed and size and forecheck heavy, finish our checks rush their D and knock people off pucks. All too often we just float and play fair weather hockey. 

You can defend it all you like, and I've seen you often saying this Sabre is really good or that one just needs more time and so on but LOOK AT THE RESULTS. It's garbage. It doesn't work and it won't work. It's just not how you play winning hockey. We need a new coach, and we need a GM who knows how to construct a proper roster that can play 2 way hockey. Until we get that, you will be stuck with your "problem" in the Sabres bubble of maybe next year.

Adams/Pegula is like Lucy holding the ball for Charlie Brown. Next time, it won't get pulled away. Sorry Charlie. Fooled again. 

[mjd1001]

Yeah, no one is untouchable. That doesn't mean I want to shop them around but every single player you listen to offers if someone makes one, and every single player/offer is dealt with on an individual basis.  You have a young guy with a lot of potential, who is ahead of the curve already?  Don't look to trade him, but if you get a great offer, you listen.  No untouchables.

My opinion is Dahlin has potential to be a top 10 player in the league in the next few years despite him not playing well right now, I LOVE what Peterka is doing now (lets not confuse with with Pastrnak though), Tuch is playing better likely though injuries and he may be one of the top 10 forcheckers in the entire league, plus he's a local guy......but, someone calls on any of them and I'm still listening to offers.

Edited February 6 by mjd1001

[thewookie1]

2 hours ago, PerreaultForever said:

I'm going to reply to a few things here that are way off and a spin on what I said. 

First, I didn't say trade Dahlin, I didn't say he was garbage. What I said was he's very gifted offensively and he's valuable. Makar has Toews. Dahlin has ? Jokiharju? (Samuelsson's made of glass). As for Dahlin growing, he's at prime age now. He is what he is. 

Now, to my "biggest problem", lol, it's hardly a problem at all. Having them as TEAM B or second team or whatever you want to label them as is the only thing that keeps me sane with the Sabres being as bad as they have been. They have given me joy in watching hockey, unlike the Sabres. It's not a "problem". 

So, I've never said we have to be Boston, or reach their "levels" but they are an example of a thriving hockey culture that I am familiar with. They do a lot of things the right way and emulating that wouldn't be a terrible idea. No on to Chicago, I think you need to take a closer look at the actual make up of those cup winning teams. Those are not offensive juggernauts, they are well balanced teams. Remember when Chicago pissed off the super skilled Vancouver referring to the Sedins as "the sisters"? The sisters never won a cup. Chicago had more than enough grit and was a well balanced team that could play good defense to go along with Kane and other's offensive skills. Their Toews was one of the best 2 way centers in the league. If we were modelled on those Chicago teams I'd have no problem with that.

There's no issue with being fast. I often think the Bruins are too slow and that's part of their playoff woes over the years. Fast is good. But playing defense and having a solid team structure with defensive layers is also good. Our fast exit system is total b***s**t.  We also need to use our speed and size and forecheck heavy, finish our checks rush their D and knock people off pucks. All too often we just float and play fair weather hockey. 

You can defend it all you like, and I've seen you often saying this Sabre is really good or that one just needs more time and so on but LOOK AT THE RESULTS. It's garbage. It doesn't work and it won't work. It's just not how you play winning hockey. We need a new coach, and we need a GM who knows how to construct a proper roster that can play 2 way hockey. Until we get that, you will be stuck with your "problem" in the Sabres bubble of maybe next year.

Adams/Pegula is like Lucy holding the ball for Charlie Brown. Next time, it won't get pulled away. Sorry Charlie. Fooled again. 

I've watched a ton of Blackhawks hockey thanks to them being my father's favorite team. They were balanced, certainly with some great two-way players, but they were certainly skewed to being an offensive team. Its the reason why that Chicago vs LAK Conference Finals is still the greatest series I've ever watched even though they lost. It was an equal battle between two incredible teams with differing approaches to the game. Chicago was always more offensive but had two-way players that could clean up the defensive parts of the game. LAK was a more prototypical defense-first/ goalie out team who finished their checks. LAK won in OT on a fluky shot and went on to win the Cup. Chicago then did it again in the following year. You wouldn't like those Chicago teams though, they rarely hit anyone; they were more akin to Granato's approach of pressure and stick check but little in terms of physicality. They were gritty but not tough guys. (2010 was definitely their most physical version)  

As for that Dahlin statement, its plain BS. Players don't just cease to grow and change. Defenseman especially get better defensively over their careers due to experience. All while they tweak their games to stay in the show as they grow older. Hell, Erik Johnson started his career as an offensive Dman and by the time he won the Cup he was seen as the vet defensive guy. 

 

 

Also why in the world would you choose Boston as a B team? Boston is literally like the Devil to Buffalonians between their different sports teams. If any city deserves a long drought of ineptitude it would be their arrogant *****. I can understand respecting their style and/or loving Bobby Orr, who doesn't, but they aren't exactly a "friendly" B team to Sabres fans

 

Edited February 7 by thewookie1

[PerreaultForever]

5 hours ago, thewookie1 said:

I've watched a ton of Blackhawks hockey thanks to them being my father's favorite team. They were balanced, certainly with some great two-way players, but they were certainly skewed to being an offensive team. Its the reason why that Chicago vs LAK Conference Finals is still the greatest series I've ever watched even though they lost. It was an equal battle between two incredible teams with differing approaches to the game. Chicago was always more offensive but had two-way players that could clean up the defensive parts of the game. LAK was a more prototypical defense-first/ goalie out team who finished their checks. LAK won in OT on a fluky shot and went on to win the Cup. Chicago then did it again in the following year. You wouldn't like those Chicago teams though, they rarely hit anyone; they were more akin to Granato's approach of pressure and stick check but little in terms of physicality. They were gritty but not tough guys. (2010 was definitely their most physical version)  

As for that Dahlin statement, its plain BS. Players don't just cease to grow and change. Defenseman especially get better defensively over their careers due to experience. All while they tweak their games to stay in the show as they grow older. Hell, Erik Johnson started his career as an offensive Dman and by the time he won the Cup he was seen as the vet defensive guy. 

 

 

Also why in the world would you choose Boston as a B team? Boston is literally like the Devil to Buffalonians between their different sports teams. If any city deserves a long drought of ineptitude it would be their arrogant *****. I can understand respecting their style and/or loving Bobby Orr, who doesn't, but they aren't exactly a "friendly" B team to Sabres fans

 

I've told this story here twice but quickly, I grew up in Hamilton Ontario. My first sports team were the CFL Hamilton Tiger Cats (black and gold). That made me choose the Steelers as my NFL team (at the time they were also both defensive tough teams, steel cities, very similar). First hockey game I ever watched was the Bobby Orr flying cup winner. So I said that's my team (as a kid, and also black and gold). Buffalo local tv games I saw the Sabres and fell for the French Connection and Gare and Dudley and that whole era won me over and Boston became a distant second. 

The Sabres/Bruins playoff years I favoured the Sabres but would cheer for the winner in the next round. Buffalo was #1 always but I have a soft spot for the Bruins as my first team and for #4. 

The Chicago argument is double sided as you are agreeing with me that it's a balanced team and that's what the Sabres aren't and need to be. Pretty much every cup winner had to become tougher to get there. Look at Tampa. They got blown out when they were all skill. Toronto loses every year. It's simply not how you construct a roster. 

[Night Train]

 The best way to state it. 

  Anyone can be considered in a trade if the return is a roster changer for the Sabres, in terms of high end talent that changes the direction.  I would prefer a multiple player change. 

 Also don't know what players may be welcoming a trade. 

[thewookie1]

17 hours ago, PerreaultForever said:

I've told this story here twice but quickly, I grew up in Hamilton Ontario. My first sports team were the CFL Hamilton Tiger Cats (black and gold). That made me choose the Steelers as my NFL team (at the time they were also both defensive tough teams, steel cities, very similar). First hockey game I ever watched was the Bobby Orr flying cup winner. So I said that's my team (as a kid, and also black and gold). Buffalo local tv games I saw the Sabres and fell for the French Connection and Gare and Dudley and that whole era won me over and Boston became a distant second. 

The Sabres/Bruins playoff years I favoured the Sabres but would cheer for the winner in the next round. Buffalo was #1 always but I have a soft spot for the Bruins as my first team and for #4. 

The Chicago argument is double sided as you are agreeing with me that it's a balanced team and that's what the Sabres aren't and need to be. Pretty much every cup winner had to become tougher to get there. Look at Tampa. They got blown out when they were all skill. Toronto loses every year. It's simply not how you construct a roster. 

 I do agree with you about needing more balance; I just feel more guys presently can still achieve that here. Finding balance however is very difficult since the players who fit those roles aren’t traded or are rather old by the time they become available. Plus drafting them is a literal crapshoot. For every one good power forward you get a handful of grinders with little other value and a whole lot of outright busts. 
 

I think my disdain for Boston is more the reason for my overt disagreements than the actual overall conversation typically. Aside from Dahlin that is.

[PerreaultForever]

9 hours ago, thewookie1 said:

 I do agree with you about needing more balance; I just feel more guys presently can still achieve that here. Finding balance however is very difficult since the players who fit those roles aren’t traded or are rather old by the time they become available. Plus drafting them is a literal crapshoot. For every one good power forward you get a handful of grinders with little other value and a whole lot of outright busts. 
 

I think my disdain for Boston is more the reason for my overt disagreements than the actual overall conversation typically. Aside from Dahlin that is.

That's reasonable, and I totally get it. I probably do use Boston as an example too often but I am familiar with them from watching them and they do provide a complete contrast to what's gone on in Buffalo over the last decade plus. Next year determines if Boston falls or not. 28 million in cap space and big roster changes inevitable. If they get that wrong in any way the long awaited (by most Buffalo fans) fall will finally occur. If they get it right though, your nightmare might continue. 

I've actually tried to watch a lot of Philly games this year as well to see the contrast and it's really really different. Philly isn't very talented at all but their game is the exact opposite of the Sabres and they have exceeded expectations this year. 

My biggest issue with the Sabres approach is I think they have Rochester all wrong. It's a mini-me training ground for offensive talent to match the franchise but imo what it should be is a hard working, grinding defensive team that forces these skilled guys out of their element and drills 2 way hockey in to them. Then, after a year or three of that they can come up and let their offensive skills re-emerge but with that 2 way game drilled into their instincts. You could discuss the details in a long thread, but I just think our development program isn't very good for a team that wants to be this reliant on the draft. 

[SabreFinn]

1 hour ago, PerreaultForever said:

That's reasonable, and I totally get it. I probably do use Boston as an example too often but I am familiar with them

My biggest issue with the Sabres approach is I think they have Rochester all wrong. It's a mini-me training ground for offensive talent to match the franchise but imo what it should be is a hard working, grinding defensive team that forces these skilled guys out of their element and drills 2 way hockey in to them. Then, after a year or three of that they can come up and let their offensive skills re-emerge but with that 2 way game drilled into their instincts. You could discuss the details in a long thread, but I just think our development program isn't very good for a team that wants to be this reliant on the draft. 

I totally agree with this! It is so much easier to see which players are suitable for NHL if they have to show responsible two way play and also have to create offence in a defensive system.

[thewookie1]

5 hours ago, PerreaultForever said:

That's reasonable, and I totally get it. I probably do use Boston as an example too often but I am familiar with them from watching them and they do provide a complete contrast to what's gone on in Buffalo over the last decade plus. Next year determines if Boston falls or not. 28 million in cap space and big roster changes inevitable. If they get that wrong in any way the long awaited (by most Buffalo fans) fall will finally occur. If they get it right though, your nightmare might continue. 

I've actually tried to watch a lot of Philly games this year as well to see the contrast and it's really really different. Philly isn't very talented at all but their game is the exact opposite of the Sabres and they have exceeded expectations this year. 

My biggest issue with the Sabres approach is I think they have Rochester all wrong. It's a mini-me training ground for offensive talent to match the franchise but imo what it should be is a hard working, grinding defensive team that forces these skilled guys out of their element and drills 2 way hockey in to them. Then, after a year or three of that they can come up and let their offensive skills re-emerge but with that 2 way game drilled into their instincts. You could discuss the details in a long thread, but I just think our development program isn't very good for a team that wants to be this reliant on the draft. 

The Rochester take actually makes a lot of sense. It should be developing players into better all-around players versus merely setting them up to play call-up for the Sabres. Vet teams need to have the mini-me model as you hilariously nicknamed as it is meant to allow for quick substitutions in case of injury to allow the NHL team to continue plugging away to the playoffs. What we actually need is a literal NHL bootcamp in Rochester to develop the players versus a pool of subs persay.

[thewookie1]

While I would rather sign Mitts; what if we trade him and a prospect to Minnesota for JEE. He'd certainly bring the exact type of center we need in being a literal Selke candidate.

[Pimlach]

10 minutes ago, thewookie1 said:

While I would rather sign Mitts; what if we trade him and a prospect to Minnesota for JEE. He'd certainly bring the exact type of center we need in being a literal Selke candidate.

Mitts is becoming more like JEE these last two years.  At least in total points.  Throwing in a high level prospect tips the scale against us … but we do need a Selke like guy.  

I guess it depends on what other moves happen. Bring in a stay at home, tough defenseman that is in their prime now.  

Edited February 9 by Pimlach

[TRIP65]

On 2/6/2024 at 3:01 PM, PerreaultForever said:

I'm curious but to the 3 bolded sentences, why?

What's so special about Ryan Johnson that makes him untradeable? Or Levi? Peterka's been very good this year and is progressing forward so his price would be high, but he's not indispensable either. I don't give up on D men at Power's age, but there's no question we do not know how to develop D men properly so for the right price........

and what's so special about the "top line"? Who is the "top line" anyway? Mitts Tuch and Greenway now? Tage is inconsistent, Skinner's a liability, and.....it's Okposo right now so idk who you were thinking as the other wing. It's hardly a "top line" 

Dahlin can be a valuable player, no question, but he's not defensively good enough to build a team around. If that's your number one guy you'll have the same problem Ottawa and then San Jose and now Pittsburgh has with Karlsson. Lots of points, but gets you nowhere. 

Really I just dont' see how ANYBODY on this team is "untradeable". 

You don't know why Bold letters are used? I can't help you

If your willing to say you have no Loyalty to players you picked, you will get NO players to come to your Club!

GM talks to and makes promises to young players they will stand by them. That player then signs his Rookie contract if you lie, you will not get your draft picks to sign and remain in the minors or College till you lose your Rights.

Wow, if you don't know who the Top Line players really are, again, I can't help you.

My suggestion is to stop watching the Sabres, you seem to hate the Team!

[PerreaultForever]

2 hours ago, TRIP65 said:

You don't know why Bold letters are used? I can't help you

If your willing to say you have no Loyalty to players you picked, you will get NO players to come to your Club!

GM talks to and makes promises to young players they will stand by them. That player then signs his Rookie contract if you lie, you will not get your draft picks to sign and remain in the minors or College till you lose your Rights.

Wow, if you don't know who the Top Line players really are, again, I can't help you.

My suggestion is to stop watching the Sabres, you seem to hate the Team!

Absolute and utter BS.

Loyalty is a two way street. If a player does not give a team maximum effort and commitment you owe him nothing. 

promises to young players? wtf? Why is an organization fallen into such a sh**y state that you have to make multiple promises to people who should be just happy to be in the NHL period. WIN AND EVERYBODY WILL WANT TO BE HERE! 

  (Bolded and caped for the added emphasis because of course I know about bolding and your intention disdain towards me is your problem not mine)

Top line players have to earn top line status, or at least that is how an organization SHOULD be run. They should not be anointed and held in that status just because of their name and their perceived status. Skinner was a top line forward. He ended on the 3rd line and really was only there because there was nobody else. Heck, Greenway was a top line forward at one point and he certainly isn't. Tuch plays top line, but he's really only 2nd line value. Regardless, your ice time and status should ALWAYS be EARNED and it's an ongoing process and evaluation. That's how it SHOULD be. 

I saw EVERY game this year. I will stop when I want to not when you want me to. I hate what this team has become. I miss what they used to be. 

My suggestion to you is focus your critiques on the team in question and the anxiety and disappointment it produces in you and not on other fans and posters. Do better.