ChevyVanMiller Posted June 30, 2016 Posted June 30, 2016 Does this mean no playoffs next year because losing out on Stamkos delays the plans until 2020? No, we resigned Casey Nelson today, which pretty much negated the loss of Stamkos.
Buffalo Barbarian Posted June 30, 2016 Posted June 30, 2016 He hasn't been charged with anything and I don't believe they'll pursue misdemeanor charges for this allegation. That being said, it's not a good look by any stretch of the imagination. He really needs to stay away from these situations and grow up, there's still 3 months before the hockey season begins, (other than no charges being filed) I hope I don't hear his name until then... probably not in 3 months but wont be surprised if with in a year.
Buffalo Barbarian Posted June 30, 2016 Posted June 30, 2016 Sabres see big upside in new defenseman Kulikov He sounds pretty good from the article, so why is Mike Schopp so distraught over losing Pyseck ? The risk of a Russian prospect staying in Russia and playing in the KHL is exaggerated. There is nothing wrong or damaging to the drafting team if the prospect stays a few years in the homeland. That isn't wasted time; it is the time used for development. If you drafted a player who is 18 yrs old and he stays in Russia playing that isn't wasted time. He is still playing, physically, emotionally and socially maturing. So when you get him a few years later (the same time frame for other prospects who stay in North America) you get a more finished product and a player who is more prepared to play. Take Vesey for example. He stayed four years at Harvard. He didn't waste his hockey development time while he was in school and playing at the college level. Each year he got better as a player and more mature physically, and now is ready to step in right away. My primary point is simple: Wherever the player is still will be used for player development. Most of these draftees, except for the top draftees, take a few years before they are ready. Whatever approach the player decides you still have to wait for the young player to develop into a man capable of playing at the NHL level. The Russian fear is much more diminished than it previously was. it seems to me that acquiring guys who have done time is the way to go than to sit around and hope and pray that your guys develop when you can get guys who more developed and ready to go when they join the team. JUST IN: As per @TSNBobMcKenzie, @RealStamkos91 staying with the @TBLightning #TSNHockey Bob McKenzie @TSNBobMcKenzie 7m7 minutes ago Cancel the Stamkos Sweepstakes, he has decided to return to the Tampa Bay Lightning. #TSN http://www.tsn.ca/stamkos-to-stay-in-tampa-bay-re-sign-with-lightning-1.517913 ... oh well
bbb Posted June 30, 2016 Posted June 30, 2016 He sounds pretty good from the article, so why is Mike Schopp so distraught over losing Pyseck ? Because all Schopp cares about in any sport is analytics.
Buffalo Barbarian Posted June 30, 2016 Posted June 30, 2016 Because all Schopp cares about in any sport is analytics. So who is right?
bbb Posted June 30, 2016 Posted June 30, 2016 So who is right? I heard somebody say maybe both are. We get a left shooting Dman who is a little tougher.....And, they get an analytic darling in return...........I guess we'll find out.
JohnC Posted June 30, 2016 Posted June 30, 2016 I heard somebody say maybe both are. We get a left shooting Dman who is a little tougher.....And, they get an analytic darling in return...........I guess we'll find out. I heard somebody say maybe both are. We get a left shooting Dman who is a little tougher.....And, they get an analytic darling in return...........I guess we'll find out. As I said in a prior post the issue isn't who gets the better of the deal as it is does the deal make your team better. Edmonton just traded a talented young forward, Hall, for a good young defenseman, Larsson. From a talent standpoint most people would say that Hall was better than Larsson. But that wasn't the basis of the deal. Edmonton had an excess of forwards and a lack of defensemen. The opposite situation existed in Jersey, where they had a lack of scoring and less of a need for defense. So what the deal did for each team is balance out the roster. The same dynamic exits in the Buffalo trade with Florida. The Sabres needed a left handed shooting defenseman to possibly pair with Risto and the Panthers wanted a player who was a better fit for their analytical approach to the game. One way of looking at it is that it is a puzzle that requires a lot of shuffling to get the right pieces for the right location.
thebandit27 Posted June 30, 2016 Posted June 30, 2016 As I said in a prior post the issue isn't who gets the better of the deal as it is does the deal make your team better. Edmonton just traded a talented young forward, Hall, for a good young defenseman, Larsson. From a talent standpoint most people would say that Hall was better than Larsson. But that wasn't the basis of the deal. Edmonton had an excess of forwards and a lack of defensemen. The opposite situation existed in Jersey, where they had a lack of scoring and less of a need for defense. So what the deal did for each team is balance out the roster. The same dynamic exits in the Buffalo trade with Florida. The Sabres needed a left handed shooting defenseman to possibly pair with Risto and the Panthers wanted a player who was a better fit for their analytical approach to the game. One way of looking at it is that it is a puzzle that requires a lot of shuffling to get the right pieces for the right location. I agree to an extent--it's a "beauty in the eye of the beholder" situation. I do think, however, that NJ got the better of the deal, vis-a-vis Hall will make them better to a higher degree than Larsson will make Edmonton better.
JohnC Posted June 30, 2016 Posted June 30, 2016 I agree to an extent--it's a "beauty in the eye of the beholder" situation. I do think, however, that NJ got the better of the deal, vis-a-vis Hall will make them better to a higher degree than Larsson will make Edmonton better. I was commenting in on how to assess trades from a general perspective rather than from a specific perspective. I absolutely agree with you that Jersey got the better talent and got the better of the deal. Hall is a tremendous talent. My problem with the deal for Edmonton is not trading a good player so much as it is could they have gotten more for this high end talent? It's still early in the trade market so the follow-up deals certainly can buttress the prior deals. Edmonton is trying to remake and re-balance their roster on the defensive side of the game. So even if they got less in return from Jersey the deal still can make sense because with their abundance of offensive talent and an increase in defensive proficiency they can become a better team, even with the departure of a better player and the arrival of a lesser player.
shrader Posted June 30, 2016 Posted June 30, 2016 I was commenting in on how to assess trades from a general perspective rather than from a specific perspective. I absolutely agree with you that Jersey got the better talent and got the better of the deal. Hall is a tremendous talent. My problem with the deal for Edmonton is not trading a good player so much as it is could they have gotten more for this high end talent? It's still early in the trade market so the follow-up deals certainly can buttress the prior deals. Edmonton is trying to remake and re-balance their roster on the defensive side of the game. So even if they got less in return from Jersey the deal still can make sense because with their abundance of offensive talent and an increase in defensive proficiency they can become a better team, even with the departure of a better player and the arrival of a lesser player. The extra pick or two they could have added in the deal sure would have helped with that roster re-balance though. If nothing else, it could have been trade fodder in their search for another defenseman.
ricojes Posted June 30, 2016 Posted June 30, 2016 As I said in a prior post the issue isn't who gets the better of the deal as it is does the deal make your team better. Edmonton just traded a talented young forward, Hall, for a good young defenseman, Larsson. From a talent standpoint most people would say that Hall was better than Larsson. But that wasn't the basis of the deal. Edmonton had an excess of forwards and a lack of defensemen. The opposite situation existed in Jersey, where they had a lack of scoring and less of a need for defense. So what the deal did for each team is balance out the roster. That's also the reason Buffalo couldn't make a deal with Edmonton, they just don't have the depth on D...
JohnC Posted June 30, 2016 Posted June 30, 2016 That's also the reason Buffalo couldn't make a deal with Edmonton, they just don't have the depth on D... There is still a lot of wheeling and dealing to do prior to the season. Can the Sabres sign Vesey? Is Osposo a reasonable option as a scorer? Would a a trade of Pysyk and Bogosian for Hall been a good deal for us or would it have created more holes to address? Is Murray going to keep Ennis and is he going to regain his scoring touch or is he simply currency for Murray to trade? Sometimes being patient and organically growing is better than getting impatient and forcing the issue on deals that in the short run appear to be appealing but in the long run set you back. Below is a WGR link of an interview with Kypreos discussing some deals. He offers a cautionary note on dealing for Osposo. http://media.wgr550.com/a/115815040/nick-kypreos-talks-subban-hall-and-stamkos.htm
eball Posted June 30, 2016 Posted June 30, 2016 Is anybody else "relieved" that Stamkos is now out of the picture?
MarkAF43 Posted June 30, 2016 Posted June 30, 2016 Is anybody else "relieved" that Stamkos is now out of the picture? I am, I wasn't totally on board with the idea of getting him, so I'm quite ok with it
ricojes Posted June 30, 2016 Posted June 30, 2016 Is anybody else "relieved" that Stamkos is now out of the picture? I thought Toronto was the favorite, so I am thrilled...
Johnny Hammersticks Posted June 30, 2016 Posted June 30, 2016 (edited) I wonder what Patrick Kane would be worth in a trade right now. I'm seeing reports that the Sabres are shopping him. Edited June 30, 2016 by Johnny Hammersticks
ChevyVanMiller Posted June 30, 2016 Posted June 30, 2016 Evander Kane to be bought out by 5 pm today? http://sabreshockeycentral.com/2016/06/30/evander-kane-to-be-tradedbought-out/
GG Posted June 30, 2016 Posted June 30, 2016 Evander Kane to be bought out by 5 pm today? http://sabreshockeycentral.com/2016/06/30/evander-kane-to-be-tradedbought-out/ If they buy him out, that trade doesn't look too good.
ricojes Posted June 30, 2016 Posted June 30, 2016 If they buy him out, that trade doesn't look too good. no, but it was off the ice issues. he was playing really well towards the end of last season. he did have questions about his character, but i wouldn't have predicted it be this bad. it will be a bad trade ultimately if he is released, but it should have a big asterisk next to it...
GG Posted June 30, 2016 Posted June 30, 2016 no, but it was off the ice issues. he was playing really well towards the end of last season. he did have questions about his character, but i wouldn't have predicted it be this bad. it will be a bad trade ultimately if he is released, but it should have a big asterisk next to it... It's not like there weren't huge glaring signs. How many players get blackballed in the locker room?
Recommended Posts