Rumored Past Trade Proposal Risto for Ehlers

[JP51]

29 minutes ago, JohnC said:

I am adamantly opposed to trading Power. If you want to continue seeing former Sabres thrive on other teams, then continue with the foolishness that has been characteristic of the Pegula era. When the calculations are tabulated, how did the Eichel and Reinhart deal work out? The last thing I want is to allow our current sycophantic GM to make major deals. It's a recipe for additional disastrous transactions that send our backward franchise further back. 

I actually am not far off... if you have seen my thoughts on this the only thing I am adamantly opposed to is Adams making any kind of trade. The last person in the world I want in charge of our assets is the orchestrator of this gross negligent incompetence... that said... Under a new regime with a new vision If Power was a piece in a deal to get you a generational player like McDavid... you would still say no?  Fair enough.. but I wouldnt if the deal was right. 

[JohnC]

14 minutes ago, Archie Lee said:

I have no interest in selling Power for pieces. But a trade that sees us deal Power (or Byram) for a player who helps us win now (and at least for a few years) is not a terrible idea. Completing such a trade would be challenging, but the theory doesn’t offend me.  

I'm fine with trading Byram. However, I'm adamantly opposed to trading Power. I believe that in another couple of years he is going to be an upper tier defenseman in the league. The Sabres traded upper tier players such as Eichel and Reinhart. How did those deals work out? We are still reeling from those dumb deals. 

What ails this submerged team is the composition of the roster. It lacks coherency and balance. We don't need to shed our most promising players who have even more potential to tap into. If the Sabres would have done what the Capitals did over the past two years i.e. adding good players to better complete the roster, they would be in a much better place. 

Blockbuster deals constructed by our inept GM is a recipe for disaster. 

[JP51]

21 minutes ago, Archie Lee said:

I have no interest in selling Power for pieces. But a trade that sees us deal Power (or Byram) for a player who helps us win now (and at least for a few years) is not a terrible idea. Completing such a trade would be challenging, but the theory doesn’t offend me.  

agreed I dont want to trade power for this guy that guy and a prospect... If we are getting the best player in the deal... talk to me.

[JohnC]

4 minutes ago, JP51 said:

I actually am not far off... if you have seen my thoughts on this the only thing I am adamantly opposed to is Adams making any kind of trade. The last person in the world I want in charge of our assets is the orchestrator of this gross negligent incompetence... that said... Under a new regime with a new vision If Power was a piece in a deal to get you a generational player like McDavid... you would still say no?  Fair enough.. but I wouldnt if the deal was right. 

The notion of getting a generational player like McDavid for Power is a farfetched pipe dream. It's not going to happen. Let's stay grounded to reality. This franchise has cap room and it has a bevy of prospects that can be used for quality veteran pieces that will help this team right away. The Sabres and the Capitals were in the same echelon from a team/talent standpoint. They scooted ahead of us because they made a number of smart (not big deals) that made their team better. Check where they are in the standings and compare it to where we are stuck! Being smart is preferable to being dumb. 

[JP51]

24 minutes ago, JohnC said:

The notion of getting a generational player like McDavid for Power is a farfetched pipe dream. It's not going to happen. Let's stay grounded to reality. This franchise has cap room and it has a bevy of prospects that can be used for quality veteran pieces that will help this team right away. The Sabres and the Capitals were in the same echelon from a team/talent standpoint. They scooted ahead of us because they made a number of smart (not big deals) that made their team better. Check where they are in the standings and compare it to where we are stuck! Being smart is preferable to being dumb. 

Well, I suppose if you are thinking that I was saying Power straight up for McDavid that would be a little bit more than a pipe dream. The league would not allow it. Clearly there would need to be equal value... no I am not going to theorize on what that equal value would be... as it is a illustrative example...

 to me the bottom line is that no player is off limits as long as we are trading equal value and are getting the best player in the trade. Similar to the LaFontaine/Turgeon trade...  Do I think we make a trade of this magnitude, no i dont they are rare and usually have an insanely unique circumstance. I am simply saying I dont want multiple lesser pieces and prospects for one our better players... I want to get the best player out of any deal we do if that is going to improve us.  This is independent of who sits where in what standings...

I am sick of getting prospects and multiple pieces predicated on hope for our best players and giving up the best player in the deal or trading them for picks that we hope pan out with an administration that simply cant evaluate and build a balanced team. I dont think it is a recipe for success.  I do think that a reimaging of this team is critical and I do not trust the current GM to do that. 

No player with maybe the exception of Dahlin... (although if you were theoretically trading for literally McDavid I am sure they want him... ) as long as we are getting the best player in the trade. If this position makes you think I am dumb and you are smart... I respect your right to that opinion even though I don't share it. 

Edited January 15 by JP51

[inkman]

Can we just limit this forum to game day threads?  All the conjecture just gets fans at each other’s throats.  It’s exhausting. 

[Weave]

3 hours ago, JohnC said:

I am adamantly opposed to trading Power. If you want to continue seeing former Sabres thrive on other teams, then continue with the foolishness that has been characteristic of the Pegula era. When the calculations are tabulated, how did the Eichel and Reinhart deal work out? The last thing I want is to allow our current sycophantic GM to make major deals. It's a recipe for additional disastrous transactions that send our backward franchise further back. 

Dwelling on players succeeding elsewhere is counter productive.  The only thing that matters is improving this team.  What a former player does elsewhere is meaningless.

43 minutes ago, inkman said:

Can we just limit this forum to game day threads?  All the conjecture just gets fans at each other’s throats.  It’s exhausting. 

[Skibum]

Ehlers dodged a bullet for sure. 

[JohnC]

3 hours ago, Weave said:

Dwelling on players succeeding elsewhere is counter productive.  The only thing that matters is improving this team.  What a former player does elsewhere is meaningless.

The Sabres traded Eichel. The team got worse and Vegas got better. The Knights ended up winning the Cup with him being an instrumental player. 

The Sabres traded Reinhart. The Sabres got worse and Florida got better. The Panthers ended up winning the Cup with him being an instrumental player. 

Both players could have been retained. Jack wanted out and wanted a procedure done that the organization would not approve. The procedure worked out well and the organization dealt a top tier player who was contractually locked up. There was no need to trade him. 

The Sabres had an opportunity to sign Reinhart to a long term deal. They didn't. So thereafter he became an UFA player who was not going to sign with Sabres. 

It has been our own organizational mistakes that has crippled this franchise. When you repeatedly shoot yourself in your feet, don't expect to keep up in the race. 

5 hours ago, JP51 said:

Well, I suppose if you are thinking that I was saying Power straight up for McDavid that would be a little bit more than a pipe dream. The league would not allow it. Clearly there would need to be equal value... no I am not going to theorize on what that equal value would be... as it is a illustrative example...

 to me the bottom line is that no player is off limits as long as we are trading equal value and are getting the best player in the trade. Similar to the LaFontaine/Turgeon trade...  Do I think we make a trade of this magnitude, no i dont they are rare and usually have an insanely unique circumstance. I am simply saying I dont want multiple lesser pieces and prospects for one our better players... I want to get the best player out of any deal we do if that is going to improve us.  This is independent of who sits where in what standings...

I am sick of getting prospects and multiple pieces predicated on hope for our best players and giving up the best player in the deal or trading them for picks that we hope pan out with an administration that simply cant evaluate and build a balanced team. I dont think it is a recipe for success.  I do think that a reimaging of this team is critical and I do not trust the current GM to do that. 

No player with maybe the exception of Dahlin... (although if you were theoretically trading for literally McDavid I am sure they want him... ) as long as we are getting the best player in the trade. If this position makes you think I am dumb and you are smart... I respect your right to that opinion even though I don't share it. 

Why did you make that snarky comment? 

[Weave]

15 minutes ago, JohnC said:

The Sabres traded Eichel. The team got worse and Vegas got better. The Knights ended up winning the Cup with him being an instrumental player. 

The Sabres traded Reinhart. The Sabres got worse and Florida got better. The Panthers ended up winning the Cup with him being an instrumental player. 

Both players could have been retained. Jack wanted out and wanted a procedure done that the organization would not approve. The procedure worked out well and the organization dealt a top tier player who was contractually locked up. There was no need to trade him. 

The Sabres had an opportunity to sign Reinhart to a long term deal. They didn't. So thereafter he became an UFA player who was not going to sign with Sabres. 

It has been our own organizational mistakes that has crippled this franchise. When you repeatedly shoot yourself in your feet, don't expect to keep up in the race. 

I DID mention the team getting better.  But thanks for Making clear the obvious that you don’t make trades that make your team worse.

The context of the reply was your concern over a player succeeding elsewhere. WFC if they succeed elsewhere? I don’t.  You shouldn’t either.  All that matters is if we’ve improved our team.  If we have, I don’t care if the former Sabre wins Hart trophies.

And, no *****, Sherlock, if the trade makes the team worse it’s a bad trade.  There, now you don’t have to repeat it.

[Archie Lee]

51 minutes ago, JohnC said:

The Sabres traded Eichel. The team got worse and Vegas got better. The Knights ended up winning the Cup with him being an instrumental player. 

The Sabres traded Reinhart. The Sabres got worse and Florida got better. The Panthers ended up winning the Cup with him being an instrumental player. 

Both players could have been retained. Jack wanted out and wanted a procedure done that the organization would not approve. The procedure worked out well and the organization dealt a top tier player who was contractually locked up. There was no need to trade him. 

The Sabres had an opportunity to sign Reinhart to a long term deal. They didn't. So thereafter he became an UFA player who was not going to sign with Sabres. 

It has been our own organizational mistakes that has crippled this franchise. When you repeatedly shoot yourself in your feet, don't expect to keep up in the race. 

Why did you make that snarky comment? 

I don’t think any reasonable person is suggesting we trade Power for a late first and a goalie prospect. I get not having faith in Adams to make a good deal. I also get that people have their, in practical terms, untouchables. Power for a legit #1 centre is not a crazy idea. It might be unrealistic as such trades are rare.

Pierre Turgeon and Phil Housley went on to have Hall of Fame careers, but few people lament their departures from Buffalo because the players that came back were Lafontaine and Hawerchuk (two Hall of Famers). That’s the sort of trade involving Power that might make sense. 

[JP51]

12 hours ago, JohnC said:

 

Why did you make that snarky comment? 

@JohnC I absolutely did not mean to be snarky disrespectful or disparaging in any way if you took it like that it was never my intent... in fact the opposite.. I was referencing your statement that I read to mean your view point was smart and my thoughts were dumb... and ultimately saying thats fine, I dont agree but I respect your right to an opinion.  I would like to say this.. I do not want to ever be a poster that disparages or belittles others opinions because I dont see it that way... If we all thought the same we wouldnt have a board and there are a few here that seem to go to that place. I never want to be one. Fact is I have learned a lot from other peoples opinions... and appreciate it... maybe some have gained a different insight from mine... I dont know. in the end I actually think we are saying things very similar in our viewpoints.. anyways. I definately wanted to take the time to respond here because Its important to me that no one ever thinks I am being personal or a jack@ss to them...