Would you trade expected fall roster for an expansion roster?

[Weave]

46 minutes ago, Porous Five Hole said:

 

Yikes that was 30 years ago. Time flies. 

Back then, each existing club was permitted to protect one goaltender, five defensemen and nine forwards. 😯
 

What the Panthers did was a minor miracle. They were a 92 point team who got hot at the right time. If I’m not mistaken, the Panthers haven’t won a playoff series since that 1995 run until last year’s Cup final run. 

That team had a lot of notoriety for having something like 10 or 12 former captains on its roster.

Tons of leadership.  Huh? What a concept.

[Porous Five Hole]

6 minutes ago, Weave said:

That team had a lot of notoriety for having something like 10 or 12 former captains on its roster.

Tons of leadership.  Huh? What a concept.

Thats a funny way of saying John Vanbiesbrouck won the Vezina and the Hart trophies, but sure.  

Edited April 5 by Porous Five Hole
Please don’t take this as shade thrown at you. I am drinking tonight.

[French Collection]

DG coaching rejected 3rd liners, sounds like a great recipe for success.

[CallawaySabres]

In a heartbeat

[Stoner]

I'm a little surprised by the results so far.

Edited April 5 by PASabreFan

[Huckleberry]

No, too much good young kids coming.

[PerreaultForever]

15 minutes ago, Huckleberry said:

No, too much good young kids coming.

Let me correct that.

No, too much POSSIBLY good young kids coming.

 

[Huckleberry]

16 minutes ago, PerreaultForever said:

Let me correct that.

No, too much POSSIBLY good young kids coming.

 

Well I also meant Benson, JJP, Quin, rounding out our top 9 nicely already.    

[PerreaultForever]

1 hour ago, Huckleberry said:

Well I also meant Benson, JJP, Quin, rounding out our top 9 nicely already.    

Even there, we shall see. I'm not a believer in all the "future" stuff. If they were that good, we'd already be winning. On top of that by the time those 3 are all fully cooked we may have lost somebody else's love for hockey or traded rather than signed or who knows what. Any number of our current players could be winning cups on other teams before anything comes together. 

[Pimlach]

No.   Just get the right FO and coaches and the team we have is going to be fine.  
 

If you go expansion are the rules the same as the Vegas/Seattle expansion?   if yes, it still comes down to ownership, FO, coaches.  
 

Either way you cannot have TP for ownership.  

[Pimlach]

8 hours ago, PASabreFan said:

I'm a little surprised by the results so far.

People love the sweater.  The problem is the owner.  

[That Aud Smell]

9 hours ago, PASabreFan said:

I'm a little surprised by the results so far.

Stockholm Syndrome, man. I'm telling you.

[Archie Lee]

11 hours ago, PASabreFan said:

I'm a little surprised by the results so far.

I’m not at all surprised. People recognize that since the Krueger firing the organization has not prioritized winning. It remains to be seen when they will make winning an immediate priority and, when they do, if they have the right people running the show to make it work. I think the men who were running Vegas at their inception would have taken our current roster and prospect/draft capital over what they received in expansion. Another question would be: would you trade Pegula, Adams, Karmanos and Granato for Bill Foley as owner, George McPhee as GM, Kelly McCrimmon as asst. GM and Gerard Gallant as HC?  If the goal is to win next year, then that is a trade I would make; with the talent in the organization now, those men would make it work and soon I think. If the goal is to meander along with no clear timeline to win anything, then I would stay with the status quo. 

Edited April 5 by Archie Lee

[Believer]

What a great question… 

No, I wouldn’t. Too many valuable prospects a cagey GM can package with a handful of current skaters to bring the pieces we need to Buffalo. 

[PerreaultForever]

4 hours ago, Pimlach said:

People love the sweater.  The problem is the owner.  

Personally, and I'm probably alone, I'd love it if they combined the jerseys and had the logo from the blue and gold on the red black and white colour scheme. There's something about that red black and white that just works for me. (It is probably deeply embedded in my brain because those were the high school colours I wore.)

But yes, some sort of pride in the jersey is something lost by Pegula's era. I'd hope winning (if we ever win) brings it back but idk. It isn't easy at this point and gets harder and harder as we get further and further removed from an era like that. 

If you stop and think about it, there are draft picks coming in now that have probably never seen or known a winning Sabres team. If you consider that the first half dozen years of their life they don't remember much when they maybe started watching and playing hockey, Sabres were garbage and have stayed garbage. What do you think their perspective on that team will be? Thanks Terry. 

[Pimlach]

1 minute ago, PerreaultForever said:

Personally, and I'm probably alone, I'd love it if they combined the jerseys and had the logo from the blue and gold on the red black and white colour scheme. There's something about that red black and white that just works for me. (It is probably deeply embedded in my brain because those were the high school colours I wore.)

But yes, some sort of pride in the jersey is something lost by Pegula's era. I'd hope winning (if we ever win) brings it back but idk. It isn't easy at this point and gets harder and harder as we get further and further removed from an era like that. 

If you stop and think about it, there are draft picks coming in now that have probably never seen or known a winning Sabres team. If you consider that the first half dozen years of their life they don't remember much when they maybe started watching and playing hockey, Sabres were garbage and have stayed garbage. What do you think their perspective on that team will be? Thanks Terry. 

Just get a coach and GM that are like McDermott/Beane.   Accept what happened in the past as history, own the current situation, and fix it.  And get rid of everybody, no matter how much they make, that cannot help you fix it.  And only bring in players that will help you fix it.  Most of all they kept Pegula to a spectator role.  

They completely transformed the Bills who had a 17 year drought.  It can be done.  

The Red Sox and Cubs had 90+ year droughts.  The Pats* were mostly terrible until Bellichick.  

[PerreaultForever]

3 minutes ago, Pimlach said:

Just get a coach and GM that are like McDermott/Beane.   Accept what happened in the past as history, own the current situation, and fix it.  And get rid of everybody, no matter how much they make, that cannot help you fix it.  And only bring in players that will help you fix it.  Most of all they kept Pegula to a spectator role.  

They completely transformed the Bills who had a 17 year drought.  It can be done.  

The Red Sox and Cubs had 90+ year droughts.  The Pats* were mostly terrible until Bellichick.  

Okay, maybe. I know Bills fans believe this and I will preface this by saying I no longer follow football closely but there is one asterisk that I'd have to put up on the be the like the Bills theory and that's because of the quarterback. 

What I see in the modern NFL is you only succeed with an absolute stud/star quarterback and the Bills are lucky enough to have one. What I can't answer accurately and maybe you can, is how good would they be if they did not have that stud QB? If they had just an ordinary QB? I think of that Steelers Bills playoff game and although the Steelers have some star plays like Watt and other positions they had no star QB and the Bills dominated but really, overall, they underachieve do they not? 

To me it's kind of like a mediocre Sabres team with Hasek. It's that one guy who elevates everything, but the team model isn't necessarily all that solid

(and just for the record, Bellicheck was mostly terrible until Brady)

[Pimlach]

1 hour ago, PerreaultForever said:

Okay, maybe. I know Bills fans believe this and I will preface this by saying I no longer follow football closely but there is one asterisk that I'd have to put up on the be the like the Bills theory and that's because of the quarterback. 

What I see in the modern NFL is you only succeed with an absolute stud/star quarterback and the Bills are lucky enough to have one. What I can't answer accurately and maybe you can, is how good would they be if they did not have that stud QB? If they had just an ordinary QB? I think of that Steelers Bills playoff game and although the Steelers have some star plays like Watt and other positions they had no star QB and the Bills dominated but really, overall, they underachieve do they not? 

To me it's kind of like a mediocre Sabres team with Hasek. It's that one guy who elevates everything, but the team model isn't necessarily all that solid

(and just for the record, Bellicheck was mostly terrible until Brady)

The Bills are the second best team in their conference and in the top 4 in the league.  Which means little but they are in it because they have a star QB and some very good support players, and good coach.   McD has not been able to win the big ones, just like Andy Reid could not for a long time, but nowAndy  is the standard so i/ can hope that McD and the players can one day put it all together.  It is in the realm of possible.  

And for the record further, it was actually Bill Parcells that turned the Pats around from doormat to contender - not Bellicheck.   Belly had Brady, Bill had Bledsoe.  

[PerreaultForever]

6 hours ago, Pimlach said:

The Bills are the second best team in their conference and in the top 4 in the league.  Which means little but they are in it because they have a star QB and some very good support players, and good coach.   McD has not been able to win the big ones, just like Andy Reid could not for a long time, but nowAndy  is the standard so i/ can hope that McD and the players can one day put it all together.  It is in the realm of possible.  

And for the record further, it was actually Bill Parcells that turned the Pats around from doormat to contender - not Bellicheck.   Belly had Brady, Bill had Bledsoe.  

But you're proving my point. It's the quarterback. 

[Pimlach]

1 hour ago, PerreaultForever said:

But you're proving my point. It's the quarterback. 

That is for a Super Bowl.  It is in today’s NFL.  

However, McD ended the drought and made the playoffs with Tyrod Taylor at QB. 

Edited April 6 by Pimlach

[PerreaultForever]

21 minutes ago, Pimlach said:

That is for a Super Bowl.  It is in today’s NFL.  

However, McD ended the drought and made the playoffs with Tyrod Taylor at QB. 

Oh ya, I get that, but I'd still say the QB is the thing that has truly made Buffalo what they are. If you swapped QBs the Steelers were probably the better team. You might disagree as a Bills fan, but I think if you asked 100 people the majority consensus would be that the QB made the difference. It was the same for pretty much all the playoffs and superbowl. 

Very different sport to hockey in terms of player importance. Goalie is the only possible comparable but even then not really. 

idk, I do agree Sabres need a real GM and a good veteran coach though and I think we agree on that part.