Off-season Game Plan 2024

[JohnC]

16 minutes ago, French Collection said:

The main point most of us are trying to make is, DO SOMETHING.

None of the moves need to be blockbusters. These are payers to round out a team, fill in gaps, provide depth and allow the prospects to grow and be challenged for ice time.

Whatever KA does, it needs to be for the now, this team has plenty of future potential pieces.

Your response is perplexing? Who is arguing to do nothing? No one is, including the organization. The Cup finals haven't even started. The draft is still a little way off---a time where many deals are made. Who is arguing that we shouldn't use our potential assets to address the present roster? No one is! You are making an assumption that something isn't going to happen during a period of time when transactions usually don't happen. 

Before getting intensely agitated about the inaction during a period of inaction, how about waiting for the period when most transactions happen. If you assess the number of post season transactions league wise, you'll find that there haven't been many deals made at this point yet. I'm confident as the finals wind down the rumors will be flying about deals for the Sabres and all teams in the league. TBD!

 

[LGR4GM]

27 minutes ago, JohnC said:

Your response is perplexing? Who is arguing to do nothing? No one is, including the organization. The Cup finals haven't even started. The draft is still a little way off---a time where many deals are made. Who is arguing that we shouldn't use our potential assets to address the present roster? No one is! You are making an assumption that something isn't going to happen during a period of time when transactions usually don't happen. 

Before getting intensely agitated about the inaction during a period of inaction, how about waiting for the period when most transactions happen. If you assess the number of post season transactions league wise, you'll find that there haven't been many deals made at this point yet. I'm confident as the finals wind down the rumors will be flying about deals for the Sabres and all teams in the league. TBD!

 

I'm making that assumption based on the GM saying almost verbatim that he's looking to round out the bottom 6, which impo doesn't indicate he plans to make any substantial move. We'll see. 

[Archie Lee]

31 minutes ago, JohnC said:

Your response is perplexing? Who is arguing to do nothing? No one is, including the organization. The Cup finals haven't even started. The draft is still a little way off---a time where many deals are made. Who is arguing that we shouldn't use our potential assets to address the present roster? No one is! You are making an assumption that something isn't going to happen during a period of time when transactions usually don't happen. 

Before getting intensely agitated about the inaction during a period of inaction, how about waiting for the period when most transactions happen. If you assess the number of post season transactions league wise, you'll find that there haven't been many deals made at this point yet. I'm confident as the finals wind down the rumors will be flying about deals for the Sabres and all teams in the league. TBD!

 

I half-agree with your post. It is true that nobody here is arguing for the team to do nothing. It is perplexing to me that a question could come up about a trade involving our 1st rd pick and a few of us not agreeing that the value is enough is then interpreted to mean we are prioritizing winning a trade over winning hockey games. As though any of us can actually do anything to influence the Sabres making or not making a trade or winning or not winning hockey games. Also, I agree that it is too soon for hand-wringing (for me anyway). If we get to July 3rd and we have not made substantive moves, then conclusions can fairly be drawn. 

Where we perhaps differ is in our faith or optimism that moves are coming. When asked in the recent Seravelli interview if he regretted not doing more last off-season, Adams confidently said “no” and pointed out he did bring in Clifton and Johnson and then doubled-down on his position that bringing in a forward or two only would have taken ice-time away from Peterka, Quinn and Benson. I have not heard him say anything about a change in roster construction, other than wanting a different style of 4th line player, that gives me any sense we will make the sort of changes that in themselves give fans a higher degree of confidence. It could be that they are planning these sort of moves, but until they happen my assumption is that the plan is to come in $5-7 million under the cap and to bring in some lower-cost 4th liners that will mostly have us scratching our head a bit. Hope I am wrong. 

[JohnC]

3 hours ago, Archie Lee said:

I half-agree with your post. It is true that nobody here is arguing for the team to do nothing. It is perplexing to me that a question could come up about a trade involving our 1st rd pick and a few of us not agreeing that the value is enough is then interpreted to mean we are prioritizing winning a trade over winning hockey games. As though any of us can actually do anything to influence the Sabres making or not making a trade or winning or not winning hockey games. Also, I agree that it is too soon for hand-wringing (for me anyway). If we get to July 3rd and we have not made substantive moves, then conclusions can fairly be drawn. 

Where we perhaps differ is in our faith or optimism that moves are coming. When asked in the recent Seravelli interview if he regretted not doing more last off-season, Adams confidently said “no” and pointed out he did bring in Clifton and Johnson and then doubled-down on his position that bringing in a forward or two only would have taken ice-time away from Peterka, Quinn and Benson. I have not heard him say anything about a change in roster construction, other than wanting a different style of 4th line player, that gives me any sense we will make the sort of changes that in themselves give fans a higher degree of confidence. It could be that they are planning these sort of moves, but until they happen my assumption is that the plan is to come in $5-7 million under the cap and to bring in some lower-cost 4th liners that will mostly have us scratching our head a bit. Hope I am wrong. 

Responding to your second paragraph, the answer to what KA is going do is not a mystery. He's frequently stated that his center of attention is on the lower lines. Clearly, that makes it unlikely to make some blockbuster deal to bring in a player such as Thachuk is going to materialize. That bothers a lot of people; it doesn't bother me as much. Although, if a 3C is not added, I will be disappointed. 

3 hours ago, LGR4GM said:

I'm making that assumption based on the GM saying almost verbatim that he's looking to round out the bottom 6, which impo doesn't indicate he plans to make any substantial move. We'll see. 

I agree with you that it's more likely that KA is going to focus his attention on the lower lines than on the top two line. As you point out, he has been candid about what his intentions are this offseason. But that doesn't mean that nothing has changed from last year. As you astutely pointed out in another post, both Quinn and Samuelsson will be back. Those are two significant return additions from last year's roster. 

The source of many posters' disagreement with my view about the roster is that I strongly believe that remaking the lower two lines by bringing in players from the outside are consequential moves in that it centers around the issue of roster construction. As an example, I thought the Greenway acquisition was a good deal for a reasonable price (second round pick). He added an element of toughness that was lacking in this roster. We need a few more similar deals to better round out the roster.  

 

[GASabresIUFAN]

By the way bolstering the bottom 6 is not a bad plan this offseason.  If you ask Lindy, he'll want to be able to roll 4 good to decent lines and if we get reasonable production from the 3rd and 4th lines for a change, it will take a lot of pressure off TNT and Cozens to carry the team.  

I also like the idea of adding guys like Amadio and Blueger to our bottom 6.  These are guys that don't take playing in the NHL for granted and play they have to earn it every shift.  There are incumbent players who would benefit from working with those kind of players. 

Skinner Kerfoot Greenway - Greenway attacks the net and Kerfoot creates for Skinner

Krebs Blueger Amadio - Hard working guys who hopefully rub off on Krebs.  Also swapping one Latvian (Girgensons) for another (Blueger).

That's a significantly upgraded bottom 6 over the mess we had last season.  If Savoie earns a slot, Greenway goes down to the 4th line and Krebs to the bench.

 

 

[Archie Lee]

11 minutes ago, GASabresIUFAN said:

By the way bolstering the bottom 6 is not a bad plan this offseason.  If you ask Lindy, he'll want to be able to roll 4 good to decent lines and if we get reasonable production from the 3rd and 4th lines for a change, it will take a lot of pressure off TNT and Cozens to carry the team.  

I also like the idea of adding guys like Amadio and Blueger to our bottom 6.  These are guys that don't take playing in the NHL for granted and play they have to earn it every shift.  There are incumbent players who would benefit from working with those kind of players. 

Skinner Kerfoot Greenway - Greenway attacks the net and Kerfoot creates for Skinner

Krebs Blueger Amadio - Hard working guys who hopefully rub off on Krebs.  Also swapping one Latvian (Girgensons) for another (Blueger).

That's a significantly upgraded bottom 6 over the mess we had last season.  If Savoie earns a slot, Greenway goes down to the 4th line and Krebs to the bench.

 

 

I would be ok with this and think it is probably about a best case scenario type of offseason. Note that, using AFP contract projections, if we make these 3 acquisitions and re-sign our 4 NHL RFA's, and promote Levi, Johnson and Rousek to back-up roles, we come in right around $500k under the cap.  So even an offseason like this, which is ok, but a bit underwhelming, requires us to commit to becoming a cap team. 

[GASabresIUFAN]

1 hour ago, Archie Lee said:

I would be ok with this and think it is probably about a best case scenario type of offseason. Note that, using AFP contract projections, if we make these 3 acquisitions and re-sign our 4 NHL RFA's, and promote Levi, Johnson and Rousek to back-up roles, we come in right around $500k under the cap.  So even an offseason like this, which is ok, but a bit underwhelming, requires us to commit to becoming a cap team. 

Archie, if we acquire Kerfoot, Joki is probably part of that deal.  I’d also move on from Bryson, unless he’ll return for $1 mill.  UPL is the only RFA we should keep, but I fully acknowledge that Krebs will also be re-signed.  Krebs’ Qoffer is only 832k and he’s not getting much more than that.  That team would have about 2.5 mill in cap space.
 

 

Edited June 3 by GASabresIUFAN

[Archie Lee]

12 minutes ago, GASabresIUFAN said:

Archie, if we acquire Kerfoot, Joki is probably part of that deal.  I’d also move on from Bryson, unless he’ll return for $1 mill.  UPL is the only RFA we should keep, but I fully acknowledge that Krebs will also be re-signed.  Krebs’ Qoffer is only 780K and he’s not getting much more than that.  That team would have about 2.5 mill in cap space.
 

 

I'm not sure Utah has any interest in Joker, but maybe. Are we just replacing him with Johnson? I doubt Krebs signs for under $1.4. I doubt we move on from Bryson, though I think he will accept less than his QO (something around $1.2 or $1.3).  I'm not trying to be argumentative about your proposal.  It's good.  I'm just pointing out that we don't have a tremendous amount of space once we start making upgrades...and the upgrades require us to do something that I'm not sure we are committed to:  spend to, or near to, the cap. 

[GASabresIUFAN]

1 hour ago, Archie Lee said:

I'm not sure Utah has any interest in Joker, but maybe. Are we just replacing him with Johnson? I doubt Krebs signs for under $1.4. I doubt we move on from Bryson, though I think he will accept less than his QO (something around $1.2 or $1.3).  I'm not trying to be argumentative about your proposal.  It's good.  I'm just pointing out that we don't have a tremendous amount of space once we start making upgrades...and the upgrades require us to do something that I'm not sure we are committed to:  spend to, or near to, the cap. 

Bryson’s Q-offer is 1.9.  No way the Sabres retain him at that price.  He’ll be lucky to get 1.25 from us as a 7/8 D.

Kreb’s offer is 832K. He has no leverage and no arbitration rights.  At 17 points in 80 games last season, he likely can be kept for the Q-offer on a one year deal.  If he re-ups for 2 years, he might get over a $1 mill.  

Kerfoot is 3.5. I think we can get Amadio and Blueger for around 3 mill each for 2-3 years.  

UPL should cost around 3.5 for 3 years.

The question is does Adams add a 2nd pair D to play with Power.

Here is how the team we are discussing would look cap wise.  https://www.capfriendly.com/armchair-gm/team/5201642  Even in this scenario there is still room at add someone like Larsson and push Johnson back to Rochester. A move like that would reduce the available cap by 3 mill.

 

[thewookie1]

36 minutes ago, GASabresIUFAN said:

Bryson’s Q-offer is 1.9.  No way the Sabres retain him at that price.  He’ll be lucky to get 1.25 from us as a 7/8 D.

Kreb’s offer is 832K. He has no leverage and no arbitration rights.  At 17 points in 80 games last season, he likely can be kept for the Q-offer on a one year deal.  If he re-ups for 2 years, he might get over a $1 mill.  

Kerfoot is 3.5. I think we can get Amadio and Blueger for around 3 mill each for 2-3 years.  

UPL should cost around 3.5 for 3 years.

The question is does Adams add a 2nd pair D to play with Power.

Here is how the team we are discussing would look cap wise.  https://www.capfriendly.com/armchair-gm/team/5201642  Even in this scenario there is still room at add someone like Larsson and push Johnson back to Rochester. A move like that would reduce the available cap by 3 mill.

 

That is far too many years and cap for 3/4 line guys

I'd give Blueger 2x2.75 but nothing more than that.

Amadio is more akin to a 2mil guy and I'll give him a year.

UPL will get at minimum 4mil x 3

 

[GASabresIUFAN]

14 minutes ago, thewookie1 said:

That is far too many years and cap for 3/4 line guys

I'd give Blueger 2x2.75 but nothing more than that.

Amadio is more akin to a 2mil guy and I'll give him a year.

UPL will get at minimum 4mil x 3

 

https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1JPtGk5m_S9VuR5e7T8lb_BlilXRwJPF0V2ddQzjjpvc/edit#gid=0

I used what I thought they'd sign for based on their production and role on the Sabres and/or their current team.  I still like the 100K per point rule of thumb, especially for forwards.  That said, here is what an analytics group came us with.

Amadio 3 year - 3.169

Blueger 2 year - 2.168 (They have him closer to your prediction than mine).  I'm good with that.

Bryson 2 year - 1.2

Krebs 2 year - 1.777 (I don't think so; although that would be 100K per point from last season, except he has no leverage)

UPL 4 year - 4.7 or 1 year 3.3.  One good year and with Levi coming up behind him, I doubt he gets a 4 year deal.

[French Collection]

8 hours ago, JohnC said:

Your response is perplexing? Who is arguing to do nothing? No one is, including the organization. The Cup finals haven't even started. The draft is still a little way off---a time where many deals are made. Who is arguing that we shouldn't use our potential assets to address the present roster? No one is! You are making an assumption that something isn't going to happen during a period of time when transactions usually don't happen. 

Before getting intensely agitated about the inaction during a period of inaction, how about waiting for the period when most transactions happen. If you assess the number of post season transactions league wise, you'll find that there haven't been many deals made at this point yet. I'm confident as the finals wind down the rumors will be flying about deals for the Sabres and all teams in the league. TBD!

 

I realize nothing happens around this time. I follow the entire league pretty closely.
I am saying that KA needs to do something to improve the roster, no time frame except before October. My all caps sentence was to highlight my frustration with his past off seasons and not doing enough.

[thewookie1]

38 minutes ago, GASabresIUFAN said:

https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1JPtGk5m_S9VuR5e7T8lb_BlilXRwJPF0V2ddQzjjpvc/edit#gid=0

I used what I thought they'd sign for based on their production and role on the Sabres and/or their current team.  I still like the 100K per point rule of thumb, especially for forwards.  That said, here is what an analytics group came us with.

Amadio 3 year - 3.169

Blueger 2 year - 2.168 (They have him closer to your prediction than mine).  I'm good with that.

Bryson 2 year - 1.2

Krebs 2 year - 1.777 (I don't think so; although that would be 100K per point from last season, except he has no leverage)

UPL 4 year - 4.7 or 1 year 3.3.  One good year and with Levi coming up behind him, I doubt he gets a 4 year deal.

I’d give Krebs 2x1.5mil

UPL 3x4mil

Blueger and Bryson are good at those numbers 

Id just go after someone more talented than Amadio if I’m giving anyone 3x3mil

[Archie Lee]

8 minutes ago, thewookie1 said:

I’d give Krebs 2x1.5mil

UPL 3x4mil

Blueger and Bryson are good at those numbers 

Id just go after someone more talented than Amadio if I’m giving anyone 3x3mil

What would you do if you had an extra $7.55 million to spend after a Skinner buyout?  

[Thorner]

9 hours ago, French Collection said:

The main point most of us are trying to make is, DO SOMETHING.

None of the moves need to be blockbusters. These are payers to round out a team, fill in gaps, provide depth and allow the prospects to grow and be challenged for ice time.

Whatever KA does, it needs to be for the now, this team has plenty of future potential pieces.

I agree.

The bed KA made that this team needs to lie in is how much emphasis he put from the beginning on “vibes” and players who “want to be here.” For better or worse, this perceived culture has been a lynchpin of KA’s strategy

this is the psyche he’s imbued the team and it’s players with. The only working assumption can be that the messaging of KA’s offseason is as, or even more important than the raw on ice value of the additions brought in.

KA doesn’t have a choice, he needs to have a proactive offseason 

[Thorner]

8 hours ago, Archie Lee said:

I half-agree with your post. It is true that nobody here is arguing for the team to do nothing. It is perplexing to me that a question could come up about a trade involving our 1st rd pick and a few of us not agreeing that the value is enough is then interpreted to mean we are prioritizing winning a trade over winning hockey games. As though any of us can actually do anything to influence the Sabres making or not making a trade or winning or not winning hockey games. Also, I agree that it is too soon for hand-wringing (for me anyway). If we get to July 3rd and we have not made substantive moves, then conclusions can fairly be drawn. 

Where we perhaps differ is in our faith or optimism that moves are coming. When asked in the recent Seravelli interview if he regretted not doing more last off-season, Adams confidently said “no” and pointed out he did bring in Clifton and Johnson and then doubled-down on his position that bringing in a forward or two only would have taken ice-time away from Peterka, Quinn and Benson. I have not heard him say anything about a change in roster construction, other than wanting a different style of 4th line player, that gives me any sense we will make the sort of changes that in themselves give fans a higher degree of confidence. It could be that they are planning these sort of moves, but until they happen my assumption is that the plan is to come in $5-7 million under the cap and to bring in some lower-cost 4th liners that will mostly have us scratching our head a bit. Hope I am wrong. 

The overarching tone from the Seravali interview was definitely, “see, I told you it would take this long”.

The gall lol 

 

[dudacek]

56 minutes ago, Thorny said:

The overarching tone from the Seravali interview was definitely, “see, I told you it would take this long”.

The gall lol 

 

For better or worse he believes in what he is building.

Does anyone remember what the buzz was prior to the 2005 lockout?

Nearly every significant piece on the 110-point 2006 team was in the organization when the team finished with 85 points in 2004. I think the only significant adds were Numminen and Lydman.

https://www.hockeydb.com/ihdb/stats/leagues/seasons/teams/0000332004.html

All we can do is what we do every year: hope he’s right.

[thewookie1]

1 hour ago, Archie Lee said:

What would you do if you had an extra $7.55 million to spend after a Skinner buyout?  

I might trade Skinner for Trouba but otherwise I wait until next year.

[Thorner]

7 minutes ago, dudacek said:

For better or worse he believes in what he is building.

Does anyone remember what the buzz was prior to the 2005 lockout?

Nearly every significant piece on the 110-point 2006 team was in the organization when the team finished with 85 points in 2004. I think the only significant adds were Numminen and Lydman.

https://www.hockeydb.com/ihdb/stats/leagues/seasons/teams/0000332004.html

All we can do is what we do every year: hope he’s right.

No I disagree I can continue bitching online 

[Archie Lee]

9 minutes ago, thewookie1 said:

I might trade Skinner for Trouba but otherwise I wait until next year.

Buy him out next year and you save $444k over what the cost is if you buy him out now; less than 1/2 an ELC. There is virtually no benefit to waiting a year until you get to 2029/30; if you wait a year the buyout cost ends after 28/29. If, however, you do it now, you get $7.55 million to use this year on roster upgrades. There’s a lot we could do with $7.55 million that would do more to enhance the roster than Skinner at $9 million. And I’m not really that down on Skinner. I just think the fundamental question should be: can we ice a better roster using the $7.55 in savings that come with a buyout?  The answer is, without question, yes. 

No team has a more critical need to utilize every tool at its disposal to win this year than the Sabres. They won’t buyout Skinner because they are not committed to winning at the same level as the Knights, Panthers, Oilers, Canucks, etc. 

[JohnC]

2 hours ago, Thorny said:

I agree.

The bed KA made that this team needs to lie in is how much emphasis he put from the beginning on “vibes” and players who “want to be here.” For better or worse, this perceived culture has been a lynchpin of KA’s strategy

this is the psyche he’s imbued the team and it’s players with. The only working assumption can be that the messaging of KA’s offseason is as, or even more important than the raw on ice value of the additions brought in.

KA doesn’t have a choice, he needs to have a proactive offseason 

On the issue of the speed of the rebuild we have had some divergences. However, regarding this offseason our positions coincide. He needs to be proactive. I don't expect any blockbuster deals. I'm fine with that. But he needs to make enough moves that will result in this roster being upgraded and more well-rounded. Compared to other organizations going through a major rebuild he's had more than enough time to solidify the roster and make it a playoff team. There's no question that he has accumulated enough assets to parlay. He's at a stage now where it's more about actually competing than about his theory on how he wants to rebuild. No more talk and no more excuses. 

[dudacek]

40 minutes ago, JohnC said:

On the issue of the speed of the rebuild we have had some divergences. However, regarding this offseason our positions coincide. He needs to be proactive. I don't expect any blockbuster deals. I'm fine with that. But he needs to make enough moves that will result in this roster being upgraded and more well-rounded. Compared to other organizations going through a major rebuild he's had more than enough time to solidify the roster and make it a playoff team. There's no question that he has accumulated enough assets to parlay. He's at a stage now where it's more about actually competing than about his theory on how he wants to rebuild. No more talk and no more excuses. 

He pretty much said the same thing himself.

 

[thewookie1]

1 hour ago, Archie Lee said:

Buy him out next year and you save $444k over what the cost is if you buy him out now; less than 1/2 an ELC. There is virtually no benefit to waiting a year until you get to 2029/30; if you wait a year the buyout cost ends after 28/29. If, however, you do it now, you get $7.55 million to use this year on roster upgrades. There’s a lot we could do with $7.55 million that would do more to enhance the roster than Skinner at $9 million. And I’m not really that down on Skinner. I just think the fundamental question should be: can we ice a better roster using the $7.55 in savings that come with a buyout?  The answer is, without question, yes. 

No team has a more critical need to utilize every tool at its disposal to win this year than the Sabres. They won’t buyout Skinner because they are not committed to winning at the same level as the Knights, Panthers, Oilers, Canucks, etc. 

If you buyout Skinner yes you get a cool 7.5 mil in new cap space for this singular year. However, any replacement for his production will make the combined cap hit the next two years worse than we'd have if we just waited. 

Imagine if you will we replace his production by signing a 5mil player for 3 years. Well, this year he'd have a cap hit of 6.44mil, next year it would rise to 9.44mil and then in two years it would be a whopping 11.44mil. It's not exactly easy to straight up replace a 25+ goal scorer and not take a beating over the next two seasons in cap space which we'll likely need for Peterka, Quinn, Benson, Levi, etc.

Trading him is far better way to rid of his cap hit, albeit partially. Your only option with a buyout this year is to sign a player to a 1 year deal, hope Quinn/Peterka fill the hole and then sign another 1 year deal at 4mil next year and 2.5mil in 2 years . Otherwise you are making a larger cap hit for the position.  

[dudacek]

33 minutes ago, thewookie1 said:

If you buyout Skinner yes you get a cool 7.5 mil in new cap space for this singular year. However, any replacement for his production will make the combined cap hit the next two years worse than we'd have if we just waited. 

Imagine if you will we replace his production by signing a 5mil player for 3 years. Well, this year he'd have a cap hit of 6.44mil, next year it would rise to 9.44mil and then in two years it would be a whopping 11.44mil. It's not exactly easy to straight up replace a 25+ goal scorer and not take a beating over the next two seasons in cap space which we'll likely need for Peterka, Quinn, Benson, Levi, etc.

Trading him is far better way to rid of his cap hit, albeit partially. Your only option with a buyout this year is to sign a player to a 1 year deal, hope Quinn/Peterka fill the hole and then sign another 1 year deal at 4mil next year and 2.5mil in 2 years . Otherwise you are making a larger cap hit for the position.  

How does fact that you have Zach Benson and Isak Rosen available on entry level contracts for 2 more years and Jiri Kulich and Matt Savoie for 3 affect that calculation?

Couldn’t the Sabres be taking advantage of that now? Shouldn’t they be?

To use your own example, skip bringing in a $5M player to replace Skinner for the next 3 years, bring in Savoie for $1M instead. He’s not likely to be 35-goal, 65-point Skinner, at least not right away, but he doesn’t have to be. Let Peterka and Quinn take care of that, bump Benson up a notch to the 20-45 guy and slide Savoie or Kulich into Benson’s 15-15 slot.

Use the extra $4 million in savings on upgrading Z, KO, Jost, Olofsson and Robinson with the types of players we’re lacking.

To me, the biggest argument against adding a rookie to the NHL roster is “too many of the same types of players”. That argument falls by the wayside if he is instead of Skinner, rather than in addition to.

And that’s mostly because Skinner’s game has the same flaws you typically worry about with rookies.

Thanks, this is the first time I’ve actually seen a way to use a Skinner buyout that might make sense long- and short-term.

Edited June 4 by dudacek

[PerreaultForever]

14 hours ago, JohnC said:

You and others make the assumption that the Sabres can't make a better deal than the proposed three UFA deal.  That's at the heart of the disagreement. If I'm going to include in a trade our first-round pick, I would expect a better return on players and contract terms. We'll just have to wait and see. 

Not exactly. You can TRY for a better return but you have to do whatever it takes this year imo. If the "better trade" isn't there make the one you can make. Overpay. Lose the trade. It doesn't matter. 

Just get it done!