What would a Zegras deal look like?

[Turbo44]

31 minutes ago, LGR4GM said:

Jack Quinn gonna be this. Just watch. 

Yes he is if he stays healthy as is Peterka. We need another one. Zucker isn’t the answer and Benson isn’t ready 

[Turbo44]

24 minutes ago, GASabresIUFAN said:

Ana is going to need a roster player and a cap replacement to stay above the cap floor.  That’s where Greenway fits in.  They should get a good near ready prospect.  Rosen fits but if decline Rosen or Komarov, then Kulich, but then you need to downgrade the draft picks.

The Eichel deal is the model, but the cap player won’t be on Tuch’s level.

Agreed. Q is, does ANA really want to trade him? And if so why?

[LGR4GM]

15 minutes ago, Turbo44 said:

Yes he is if he stays healthy as is Peterka. We need another one. Zucker isn’t the answer and Benson isn’t ready 

Jack Quinn is better than JJP. 

Never tell Zach Benson he's not ready, he'll prove you wrong. 

[dudacek]

4 hours ago, JohnC said:

Anaheim isn't compelled to make a deal; and neither is our GM compelled to make a deal. It's unlikely that this type of higher profile deal will be made by our cautious GM. I'm not even sure that another secondary type of deal will be made before camp starts. If Quinn wasn't able to return to health, maybe the GM would be more inclined to pursue a first or second line forward. However, that's not the case. 

Still hanging on to this?

Mitts for Byram, Savoie for McLeod, a 2nd for Malenstyn?

Adams is into another phase.

[JohnC]

24 minutes ago, dudacek said:

Still hanging on to this?

Mitts for Byram, Savoie for McLeod, a 2nd for Malenstyn?

Adams is into another phase.

Yes, I am hanging on to my description of KA as a cautious GM. None of the moves that you listed can be described as a river boat style of acting. Mitts for Bryam can be described as an equal type transaction where the GM was moving a player he decided he wasn't going to invest a contract in. The Savoie for McCleod was trading a prospect from a large pool of prospects in the same talent range. Using a second-round pick for a fourth line player who was going to play right away certainly can't be categorized as a high-roll transaction. 

You may think that my view of him as a cautious GM means it is a negative depiction. You are wrong in your interpretation. 

Edited July 28 by JohnC

[mjd1001]

2 hours ago, Turbo44 said:

Yes he is if he stays healthy as is Peterka. We need another one. Zucker isn’t the answer and Benson isn’t ready 

If Benson was 1-2 years older and 'more ready', would some not want to make a deal for Zegras giving up a lot (possibly Benson)?  If that is the case, Benson isn't ready but will be in 1-2 years, then might it not be better to improve the team in other areas, and not give up too much for Zegras when Benson is that close to being what you need him to be?

[JohnC]

2 hours ago, GASabresIUFAN said:

You are going to die on this hill.   

@LGR4GM is not the only one occupying the same hill. It may be more crowded than you think. 😃

[dudacek]

51 minutes ago, JohnC said:

Yes, I am hanging on to my description of KA as a cautious GM. None of the moves that you listed can be described as a river boat style of acting. Mitts for Bryam can be described as an equal type transaction where the GM was moving a player he decided he wasn't going to invest a contract in. The Savoie for McCleod was trading a prospect from a large pool of prospects in the same talent range. Using a second-round pick for a fourth line player who was going to play right away certainly can't be categorized as a high-roll transaction. 

You may think that my view of him as a cautious GM means it is a negative depiction. You are wrong in your interpretation. 

What does cautious mean to you?

If you don’t see risk in trading a 9th overall pick 2 years after picking him, or your leading scorer for an unproven defenceman or a 2nd-rounder for a career minor leaguer, where do you see risk?

[tom webster]

1 hour ago, JohnC said:

@LGR4GM is not the only one occupying the same hill. It may be more crowded than you think. 😃

You can count me amongst this group.

[Taro T]

39 minutes ago, tom webster said:

You can count me amongst this group.

There are several that agree with it.  Most of us just don't seem to feel the need to shout it every hour on the hour.  😉 

[Pimlach]

7 hours ago, GASabresIUFAN said:

4 pieces -  Greenway, Rosen/Komarov, a lottery protected 1st in 2025 and a 2nd in 2026.

Replace Greenway with Krebs.  Sell it on his potential higher upside.  I want Greenway in our bottom 6. 

[JohnC]

1 hour ago, Taro T said:

There are several that agree with it.  Most of us just don't seem to feel the need to shout it every hour on the hour.  😉 

Is it more acceptable and less irritating to shout out only on even numbered days? 😁

[JohnC]

3 hours ago, dudacek said:

What does cautious mean to you?

If you don’t see risk in trading a 9th overall pick 2 years after picking him, or your leading scorer for an unproven defenceman or a 2nd-rounder for a career minor leaguer, where do you see risk?

I simply don't see the Mitts for Byram as a bold deal, especially when it appears that the GM was not going to offer him a contract that he expected to get. Both players were high draft picks that addressed different needs. And trading a second-round pick for a player who is going to get immediate playing time on a lower line is not what I consider to be risky. Your calculation is different from mine.  Different eyes seeing things differently. That's okay.  

[K-9]

5 hours ago, JohnC said:

@LGR4GM is not the only one occupying the same hill. It may be more crowded than you think. 😃

I’m free climbing that hill as well. Quinn will be a star in this league. 

[Pimlach]

3 hours ago, JohnC said:

I simply don't see the Mitts for Byram as a bold deal, especially when it appears that the GM was not going to offer him a contract that he expected to get. Both players were high draft picks that addressed different needs. And trading a second-round pick for a player who is going to get immediate playing time on a lower line is not what I consider to be risky. Your calculation is different from mine.  Different eyes seeing things differently. That's okay.  

You are forgetting that Adams never once talked about a contract with Mittelstadt's agent, so why did Adams think Mitts would not take his offer or something even reasonable to it?   Look at what Mitts signed for in Colorado ($5.75M for 3 years), which is reasonably affordable for a 2C;.  Yeah I get it, Cozens and his $7M/yr contract is now by default the 2C.  Not sure that was a great move, we will see.  

Trading for Byram has risk that you are neglecting.   It is a much bolder move than you seem to think.  What does Adams do if Byram has a great year and then wants the same money or close to what the Sabre are paying Power?   How much money should be allocated to defense when we will have Levi, Quinn and Peterka coming up next?    

By playing great hockey Byram could end up being a one year player for us, so that trade has some risk.  

[GASabresIUFAN]

10 hours ago, Turbo44 said:

Agreed. Q is, does ANA really want to trade him? And if so why?

Great question and I've been thinking about why they might trade Zegras. I think they look at Gauthier, Carlsson and McTavish as the core of their rebuild and they are all 2 or more years younger than Zegras.  When the franchise turns around in 2 years, odds are that Zegras' deal will be up and they'll want to allocated that money elsewhere.  I also think they might want to "tank" to get a good shot a Hagens, Martone and Frondell in next year's draft.  Moving Zegras helps the "tank" while opening PT for their best prospects.  A situation a little like our resetting the core by moving on from Eichel and Reinhart.  

Because of the his contract, their runway to move on from Zegras is the next 2 years, but I think if they want to move on better sooner than later.

[Kristian]

On 7/28/2024 at 2:46 PM, GASabresIUFAN said:

The same types of behaviors displayed by an immature Jack Eichel before leading a different team to the Stanley Cup? 

G-d forbid we have a high end playmaker who can also drop in 20-25 goals a season 

Trevor Zegras is “Immature Jack Eichel” on steroids. Hard pass.

This team needs maturity and stable work ethic. Two of which are traits that’ll make Zegras react like a vampire having a crucifix showed in his face.

Edited July 29 by Kristian

[JohnC]

12 hours ago, Pimlach said:

You are forgetting that Adams never once talked about a contract with Mittelstadt's agent, so why did Adams think Mitts would not take his offer or something even reasonable to it?   Look at what Mitts signed for in Colorado ($5.75M for 3 years), which is reasonably affordable for a 2C;.  Yeah I get it, Cozens and his $7M/yr contract is now by default the 2C.  Not sure that was a great move, we will see.  

Trading for Byram has risk that you are neglecting.   It is a much bolder move than you seem to think.  What does Adams do if Byram has a great year and then wants the same money or close to what the Sabre are paying Power?   How much money should be allocated to defense when we will have Levi, Quinn and Peterka coming up next?    

By playing great hockey Byram could end up being a one year player for us, so that trade has some risk.  

Adams was not going signing Mitts. That was made clear when Mitts's agent stated that the GM never talked to him about the contract. That also means that Mitts was not going to get a contract worth his value here. So he wasn't going to sign here. This is a case where A=B or B=A. The GM didn't want him, so he traded him for a one-on-one deal for a young defenseman who was also highly drafted, and who played meaningful minutes in Colorado's cup year. There is no question that there was a drop off in play. But that isn't surprising for a young defenseman. 

Is there an element of risk in the Byram deal because of his contract status? There certainly is. But there is an element of risk for every deal, and contract offering. The bottom line is that the GM traded a player he didn't want. In that context, I don't consider this transaction a bold move. If others want to put that label on it, so be it. 

What has seemed to irritate some people is my description of our GM's style of operating as being cautious. For some people that word has a negative connotation. It doesn't for me. Our GM has frequently stressed (publicly stated) that his emphasis will be mostly rebuilding from within the system. And that's mostly what he has done. If you look at the composition of our top two lines and our top to pairings it is mostly done with players from within the system, with the exception being Byram who was traded for. 

I consider the GM for the Buffalo Bills to be a much bolder operator than the more cautious GM for the Sabres. If someone believes that KA is a bold and willing to take major risks in the way he functions, then they just have a different view than I do. That's okay. 

[GASabresIUFAN]

31 minutes ago, Kristian said:

Trevor Zegras is “Immature Jack Eichel” on steroids. Hard pass.

This team needs maturity and stable work ethic. Two of which are traits that’ll make Zegras react like a vampire having a crucifix showed in his face.

I'm sorry, but people keep saying this but no one links to a source where teammates or coaches have said this about the kid.  I've researched it as well and the only thing I can finds is Torts complaining about his lacrosse style goal (and then apologizing) and an article about Zegras and his new coach working together over last summer to help Zegras improve defensively and Zegras' talking about this commitment to getting better defensively.  To bad he got hurt.  Not one article I can find questions his work ethic or his relationships his teammates.  All they says is that the kid has a big personality and is very confident.  

Here is what his current coach says

Anaheim Ducks Coach Greg Cronin: "He's a very sociable, likeable kid, bounces around. He's like a butterfly, talks to everyone in the locker room."

Geez, sounds like a terrible person.

The biggest knock again him is his 2-way play and you can say that about every Sabres top 6 forward.  Is he as bad as Skinner?  No idea, but Skinner, despite his defensive short comings was one of most consistent net positive 5 on 5 players and unlike Skinner, Zegras can create for himself and teammates.  

 

[dudacek]

17 hours ago, JohnC said:

I simply don't see the Mitts for Byram as a bold deal, especially when it appears that the GM was not going to offer him a contract that he expected to get. Both players were high draft picks that addressed different needs. And trading a second-round pick for a player who is going to get immediate playing time on a lower line is not what I consider to be risky. Your calculation is different from mine.  Different eyes seeing things differently. That's okay.  

 

56 minutes ago, JohnC said:

Adams was not going signing Mitts. That was made clear when Mitts's agent stated that the GM never talked to him about the contract. That also means that Mitts was not going to get a contract worth his value here. So he wasn't going to sign here. This is a case where A=B or B=A. The GM didn't want him, so he traded him for a one-on-one deal for a young defenseman who was also highly drafted, and who played meaningful minutes in Colorado's cup year. There is no question that there was a drop off in play. But that isn't surprising for a young defenseman. 

Is there an element of risk in the Byram deal because of his contract status? There certainly is. But there is an element of risk for every deal, and contract offering. The bottom line is that the GM traded a player he didn't want. In that context, I don't consider this transaction a bold move. If others want to put that label on it, so be it. 

What has seemed to irritate some people is my description of our GM's style of operating as being cautious. For some people that word has a negative connotation. It doesn't for me. Our GM has frequently stressed (publicly stated) that his emphasis will be mostly rebuilding from within the system. And that's mostly what he has done. If you look at the composition of our top two lines and our top to pairings it is mostly done with players from within the system, with the exception being Byram who was traded for. 

I consider the GM for the Buffalo Bills to be a much bolder operator than the more cautious GM for the Sabres. If someone believes that KA is a bold and willing to take major risks in the way he functions, then they just have a different view than I do. That's okay. 

So cautious means he’s not going to trade for core players or trade away the core he’s been developing.

Unless he does, but that will mean he doesn’t actually think those players are core?

[JohnC]

Just now, dudacek said:

 

So cautious means he’s not going to trade for core players or trade away the core he’s been developing.

Unless he does, but that will mean he doesn’t actually think those players are core?

We simply have different perspectives on the general approach that our GM operates. Overall, I consider his approach more conservative than many GMs. There is a lot of player movement in the NHL. I don't consider our GM as being as active as many of the bolder GMs.  It's gotten to the futile the point where we are going in circles on this topic. You see it differently. I'm fine with a different take. 

[GASabresIUFAN]

On 7/28/2024 at 12:12 PM, LGR4GM said:

Jack Quinn is better than JJP. 

Never tell Zach Benson he's not ready, he'll prove you wrong. 

By the way whether Jack becomes "better" than Zegras isn't the point of this discussion.  This discussion is about whether getting Zegras would make the Sabres better next season.  I really don't think that even debatable given the departures of Mitts and Skinner.  We need help in the top 6 and if Zegras is available, KA should put his conservative approach in the garbage and go and get what this franchise needs.

[LGR4GM]

Just now, GASabresIUFAN said:

By the way whether Jack becomes "better" than Zegras isn't the point of this discussion.  This discussion is about whether getting Zegras would make the Sabres better next season.  I really don't think that even debatable given the departures of Mitts and Skinner.  We need help in the top 6 and if Zegras is available, KA should put his conservative approach in the garbage and go and get what this franchise needs.

Trading Jack Quinn (which was a suggestion up thread) for Zegras would not make the Sabres better this season. In fact, I confidently say such a move would make Buffalo worse. 

Of course I don't think it would take Quinn to get Zegras but some combo of Wahlberg, 2025 1st, and a salary going back like Greenway or Jokiharju. 

[GASabresIUFAN]

1 minute ago, LGR4GM said:

Trading Jack Quinn (which was a suggestion up thread) for Zegras would not make the Sabres better this season. In fact, I confidently say such a move would make Buffalo worse. 

Of course I don't think it would take Quinn to get Zegras but some combo of Wahlberg, 2025 1st, and a salary going back like Greenway or Jokiharju. 

KA is not trading Power, JJP, Quinn, Levi or Benson.  They are his guys and I agree he can get Zegras without moving any of his guys.  

We have plenty of assets in the system from tradable roster players (Greenway, Krebs, Jokiharju) to near ready prospects (Kulich, Rosen, Johnson, & Novkiov) to other good to very good prospects (Komarov, Wahlberg, Östlund, and Neuchev) that some kind of package can be worked out that Ana would want and we can move on from without destroying our farm system.

[Pimlach]

22 hours ago, JohnC said:

Adams was not going signing Mitts. That was made clear when Mitts's agent stated that the GM never talked to him about the contract. That also means that Mitts was not going to get a contract worth his value here. So he wasn't going to sign here. This is a case where A=B or B=A. The GM didn't want him, so he traded him for a one-on-one deal for a young defenseman who was also highly drafted, and who played meaningful minutes in Colorado's cup year. There is no question that there was a drop off in play. But that isn't surprising for a young defenseman. 

Is there an element of risk in the Byram deal because of his contract status? There certainly is. But there is an element of risk for every deal, and contract offering. The bottom line is that the GM traded a player he didn't want. In that context, I don't consider this transaction a bold move. If others want to put that label on it, so be it. 

What has seemed to irritate some people is my description of our GM's style of operating as being cautious. For some people that word has a negative connotation. It doesn't for me. Our GM has frequently stressed (publicly stated) that his emphasis will be mostly rebuilding from within the system. And that's mostly what he has done. If you look at the composition of our top two lines and our top to pairings it is mostly done with players from within the system, with the exception being Byram who was traded for. 

I consider the GM for the Buffalo Bills to be a much bolder operator than the more cautious GM for the Sabres. If someone believes that KA is a bold and willing to take major risks in the way he functions, then they just have a different view than I do. That's okay. 

You just keep going around in circles ...