Crusader1969 Posted June 27 Report Posted June 27 8 hours ago, inkman said: Sure. How many teams want to give up a player worth 11th overall? Feels like a lot of fans dont care if the player is worth the 11th pick before the trade actually happens Wild guess that a lot of the "better trade the pick" people will also be the ones most vocal about how KA got fleeced if a trade happens 2
Gatorman0519 Posted June 27 Report Posted June 27 23 minutes ago, Derrico said: Still feels like plenty of room. I’m not seeing big picture yet. Unless there are some big moves coming, I’m not sure why they do this now. They still have decent space to replace skinner in the top 6 and just have him play lower in the lineup or in the press box as depth in case of injury. Overpaid sure but don’t know why were extending the cap hit longer when it seems we have the space next season anyway? We will have to see how it plays out. But I agree with you it does not make sense at this point.
Crusader1969 Posted June 27 Report Posted June 27 24 minutes ago, Derrico said: Still feels like plenty of room. I’m not seeing big picture yet. Unless there are some big moves coming, I’m not sure why they do this now. They still have decent space to replace skinner in the top 6 and just have him play lower in the lineup or in the press box as depth in case of injury. Overpaid sure but don’t know why were extending the cap hit longer when it seems we have the space next season anyway? you can not have Skinner play "down the lineup" they did that last season and we saw the result. He brought zero offence, zero defence and was completely frustrating to watch. in the press box sure but that's a lot of money to sit idle
Taro T Posted June 27 Report Posted June 27 21 minutes ago, Crusader1969 said: you can not have Skinner play "down the lineup" they did that last season and we saw the result. He brought zero offence, zero defence and was completely frustrating to watch. in the press box sure but that's a lot of money to sit idle They SHOULD be able to do it. Bring in say Kane and Danault or Eriksson Ek and the top 2 lines have to get game planned leaving the 3rd line with Skinner on it (were he actually staying; he isn't) to play the role of the RAV line back in '06. 1
GoPuckYourself Posted June 27 Report Posted June 27 32 minutes ago, Crusader1969 said: Feels like a lot of fans dont care if the player is worth the 11th pick before the trade actually happens Wild guess that a lot of the "better trade the pick" people will also be the ones most vocal about how KA got fleeced if a trade happens Who is saying this anywhere?
PerreaultForever Posted June 27 Report Posted June 27 33 minutes ago, Crusader1969 said: Feels like a lot of fans dont care if the player is worth the 11th pick before the trade actually happens Wild guess that a lot of the "better trade the pick" people will also be the ones most vocal about how KA got fleeced if a trade happens I personally don't care if he gets fleeced in every trade if the trade makes us better. 3 3
Archie Lee Posted June 27 Report Posted June 27 1 hour ago, Turbo44 said: Skinner’s buyout adds 7.5m to this so it’s 31m Correct, but then question was “how much cap space do they have before the buyout”.
Crusader1969 Posted June 27 Report Posted June 27 51 minutes ago, PerreaultForever said: I personally don't care if he gets fleeced in every trade if the trade makes us better. Not sure how this is possible. How do you make a bunch of bad trades and get better ? 53 minutes ago, GoPuckYourself said: Who is saying this anywhere? Are you saying there isn't a "better trade the pick" crowd? 1
GoPuckYourself Posted June 27 Report Posted June 27 4 minutes ago, Crusader1969 said: Not sure how this is possible. How do you make a bunch of bad trades and get better ? Are you saying there isn't a "better trade the pick" crowd? Yes there is, I'm one of them but why would Adams get fleeced in the deal just to trade it? It's a desired pick just outside the top 10 and not many at all are usually available. If he gets fleeced it's because he's a crap GM. I keep saying there is no way he should make this pick because this pick most likely doesn't help us out right away (I know Benson made it but that was a rareity) which we desperately need. This pick could help us get a really good 3rd line C that can jump into 2nd line C if needed or a LW to fill Jeff Skinners shoes (I'm hearing rumors that Buffalo and Philly are talking, could that be Travis Konecny? I know it would cost much more than pick 1.11 but it would be thrown in the deal) . There are plenty of options and if Adams plays his cards right we should get a solid player at a position of need but I'm not sold at all that Adams is even an average GM at this point so I guess I'll just hold my breath and hope for the best. 1
Thorner Posted June 27 Report Posted June 27 11 hours ago, dudacek said: Is there an argument that a sacrifice needed to be made to show the room that all the talk about accountability isn’t just hollow, and Jeff was the logical sacrifice on many levels? Not at the expense of spiting your face this can be part of the logic that informs the move but it can’t just be addition by subtraction, as you’ve already pointed out I believe 1
Thorner Posted June 27 Report Posted June 27 4 hours ago, Pimlach said: Probably. If you are referring to Cozens, he will eventually produce more but he should play on the line that helps the team the most. If we get someone that improves on Mitts he would push Cozens down, which might help him and the team a lot. Ruff isn’t going to think about contracts when making his lines. People are too hung on line designations which are often arbitrary. The “3C” may get a ton of minutes if he’s on the pp or pk, or they are the matchups line, or an equal balance among the 3 or 4. $7.5 isn’t too much for a guy who slots into 3C on a lineup card on the internet if his ability is akin to having the value of $7.5 million Having 2nd liners on the 3rd line is sort of exactly what you are after we’ve just been divorced from the concept for so long. Of course everyone wants a BARGAIN but you only run into issues of your guys are overpaid relative to their value, not lineups slotting. They remain very tradeable assets if necessary. Part of what we said was the benefit to locking up Thompson and cozens to 7 mil deals is that we’d HAVE the cash to utilize elsewhere. That was also part of the point this isn’t an argument specifically for necas btw just the concept 2 1
Thorner Posted June 27 Report Posted June 27 4 hours ago, dudacek said: Do people think Adams was ever planning to implement a “no blocking” philosophy in perpetuity? It was put in place primarily to ensure Thompson, Cozens, Mittelstadt, Asplund, Dahlin, Samuelsson and Jokiharju would get hard minutes in 21/22 for development purposes. Then to give Krebs, Peterka, Quinn, Power and the goalies an open path in more typical rookie roles for the same reason the following year. Benson and Johnson weren’t on the team last year because of “no-blocking”, they were there because Olofsson and Eric Johnson fell on their faces. I suppose the question is whether Benson and Johnson had actual viable competition to surpass. Olofsson was a reflection of inaction in replacing Quinn and how likely was Eric Johnson to provide a meaningful block? You don’t have to term it “blocking” but the spirit of the term is thst you keep the runway clear for internal improvement. That IS what the 2023 offseason was
PerreaultForever Posted June 27 Report Posted June 27 1 hour ago, Crusader1969 said: Not sure how this is possible. How do you make a bunch of bad trades and get better ? Are you saying there isn't a "better trade the pick" crowd? Giving up "too much" is meaningless for the present if it's picks and prospects. Pretty simple logic really. If you gain NHL players on your roster and gave up nothing from your roster you got better. Maybe years from now you say oh that was a bad trade if prospect so and so does well somewhere, but if it made us a playoff team now SFW? We can start worrying about prospects and the "future" again AFTER we are good. 1 1
SabresBaltimore Posted June 27 Report Posted June 27 I think "must trade the 11 pick" is a narrow view. Instead of trading the pick he can trade a prospect that is closer to NHL ready which may be more appealing to a trade partner and use the pick to replenish the pipeline. This team is already too young. I don't really want to add more prospects next year. I think Kulick will be good, but still could stand another season in Rochester if we're a playoff team. Savoie was stuck in Juniors and probably needs at least a year in Rochester. Beyond those 2, I don't really want any of our prospects even in consideration for this season. Either way we need to trade assets that won't help us this year for something that does. I do kind of feel like buying Skinner our this year when next year is cheaper is kind of wasted if we're not using most of the cap space, because it's going to make it that much harder to sign Peterka, Quinn and Levi in the next few years. So either there is a plan in place to spend that money in trades, free agency, or signing guys to extensions or they just really believe getting Skinner off the team is that urgent to improving the team. I do feel like him playing on anything but the top 2 lines is a waste of what he brings. If he's not scoring goals, he's not contributing. He's not going to be playing on the PK and he's not going to play defense. He does ok on the PP, but not enough to offset the lack of production he'd have stuck on the 3rd line all season. I think it's time to move on from an awful contract and there is no real good way out due to the NMC, so even if they don't spend the cap I'm probably ok with it at this point. 1
CallawaySabres Posted June 27 Report Posted June 27 This is the last year with Adams so he will force himself to make risky trades. It's going to be like GMTM all over again and the fans will be left with another 10 years of no playoffs and rebuilding. I know this seems harsh, but I just don't see this team 's talent above 5th worst in the league right now. Unless they swing for some massive trades, his life as a GM is over. Let's just pray he is not AS stupid as GMTM was. 3 1
#freejame Posted June 27 Report Posted June 27 43 minutes ago, CallawaySabres said: This is the last year with Adams so he will force himself to make risky trades. It's going to be like GMTM all over again and the fans will be left with another 10 years of no playoffs and rebuilding. I know this seems harsh, but I just don't see this team 's talent above 5th worst in the league right now. Unless they swing for some massive trades, his life as a GM is over. Let's just pray he is not AS stupid as GMTM was. I was with you up until the last line. GMTM would have had us in the playoffs in year 5. The biggest reason why he looks so bad in hindsight is JB tore down his team entirely and set us back. I’ll die on this hill. 1
Stoner Posted June 27 Report Posted June 27 6 hours ago, PerreaultForever said: Giving up "too much" is meaningless for the present if it's picks and prospects. Pretty simple logic really. If you gain NHL players on your roster and gave up nothing from your roster you got better. Maybe years from now you say oh that was a bad trade if prospect so and so does well somewhere, but if it made us a playoff team now SFW? We can start worrying about prospects and the "future" again AFTER we are good. Exactly. Just get a good player or two in return. You can't project the 11th pick into a star and expect to get a star in return, otherwise you got fleeced. 1
Buffalonill Posted June 27 Report Posted June 27 1 hour ago, #freejame said: I was with you up until the last line. GMTM would have had us in the playoffs in year 5. The biggest reason why he looks so bad in hindsight is JB tore down his team entirely and set us back. I’ll die on this hill. 2
mjd1001 Posted June 27 Report Posted June 27 (edited) I know not to totally trust wikipedia, but yesterday on Jeff Skinner's wikipedia page, they already had him listed as a 'free agent' as of yesterday...and it spoke about his Sabres career in past tense. Did the buyout actually occur yet and I missed the official press release? Or is this just Wikipedia jumping the gun? Edited June 27 by mjd1001
Pimlach Posted June 27 Report Posted June 27 1 hour ago, #freejame said: I was with you up until the last line. GMTM would have had us in the playoffs in year 5. The biggest reason why he looks so bad in hindsight is JB tore down his team entirely and set us back. I’ll die on this hill. Murray, Boterill, Adams - none of them were ready for the job. Who did not know, besides Terry Pegula that is, that these guys were over their heads. Reading Lance's stupid BN article about the Mitts trade put me in a sour mood this morning.
Stoner Posted June 27 Report Posted June 27 27 minutes ago, mjd1001 said: I know not to totally trust wikipedia, but yesterday on Jeff Skinner's wikipedia page, they already had him listed as a 'free agent' as of yesterday...and it spoke about his Sabres career in past tense. Did the buyout actually occur yet and I missed the official press release? Or is this just Wikipedia jumping the gun? They is people who create the entries. They is you. You could have fixed the error.
LGR4GM Posted June 27 Report Posted June 27 34 minutes ago, mjd1001 said: I know not to totally trust wikipedia, but yesterday on Jeff Skinner's wikipedia page, they already had him listed as a 'free agent' as of yesterday...and it spoke about his Sabres career in past tense. Did the buyout actually occur yet and I missed the official press release? Or is this just Wikipedia jumping the gun? He has not been bought out yet. My guess would be because Buffalo is trying to work with him on a trade although, they could literally announce a buyout at any time from now until June 30th.
mjd1001 Posted June 27 Report Posted June 27 8 minutes ago, PASabreFan said: They is people who create the entries. They is you. You could have fixed the error. As per my initial post, I didn't know if I missed something where it happened and I didn't know it. Why would I 'fix' an error when I am not sure it was/is an error, as I stated in my post when I said...."Did the buyout actually occur yet" and I missed it?
Pimlach Posted June 27 Report Posted June 27 7 hours ago, PerreaultForever said: Giving up "too much" is meaningless for the present if it's picks and prospects. Pretty simple logic really. If you gain NHL players on your roster and gave up nothing from your roster you got better. Maybe years from now you say oh that was a bad trade if prospect so and so does well somewhere, but if it made us a playoff team now SFW? We can start worrying about prospects and the "future" again AFTER we are good. Very few seem to get this. Winning a trade is not the point of making a trade. Take the Mitts-Byram trade. Lets all buy in to the notion that Byram has more upside and will be the better player, even if that never happens. Did the Sabres get better? So far I say no because the hole left by Mitts is much greater than whatever Byram is bringing on defense. Until they add a center at Mitts level or better, the team was weakened by the trade. They have the picks/prospects to add a 2C and they need to do it. I can rant about the Cozens contract next. He is playing 3C level of hockey (sometime less), yet people say I am wrong to want Adams to add a 2C, all because Cozens makes 2C money. Not my fault that Adams blew the Cozens contract, along with Ullmark, Reinhart, etc. 1 2
Stoner Posted June 27 Report Posted June 27 1 minute ago, mjd1001 said: As per my initial post, I didn't know if I missed something where it happened and I didn't know it. Why would I 'fix' an error when I am not sure it was/is an error, as I stated in my post when I said...."Did the buyout actually occur yet" and I missed it? You seemed to be treating Wikipedia as a news source. One scenario to consider is that Jeff's agent or Jeff's "people" curate his Wiki page, and that's where the news will be broken. No one will believe it tho lol.
Recommended Posts