Jump to content


Photo

Post your defenceman trade proposals here


  • Please log in to reply
252 replies to this topic

#81 krt88

krt88

    Prospect

  • Members
  • Pip
  • 65 posts
  • Gender:Male

Posted 05 May 2017 - 04:55 AM

where did Bogo and Gorges go?  There contracts just magically disappeared?  Guess that meant Moulson stayed?  What about Ennis?

 

That's a lot of money you are dealing with.



#82 GASabresFan

GASabresFan

    Fourth Liner

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 872 posts

Posted 05 May 2017 - 07:38 AM

Bogo was on the 3rd pair. Gorges is bought out or sent to the minors. If bought out, he only costs us 1.3 mill for the next two years. We save 2.6 this season, which more then pays for both Quincey and Falk. The following season we get a 540k rebate for CoHo, thus the net cost of Gorges's but out in year 2 is only about $750k. Not exactly a huge burden.

#83 TheCerebral1

TheCerebral1

    Lord and Master of Zero F***s Given

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,626 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Phoenix, AZ

Posted 05 May 2017 - 08:38 AM

Bogosian should be bought out if on the bottom pair at 5.136M  - gross.  

 

I'm good with Kane and a 3rd for Brodin if that can happen.  He showed an uptick in offense this past season and still has decent stick work.  He'd be an ideal pair mate for Ristolainen. 



#84 TrueBlueGED

TrueBlueGED

    #fancystats

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 24,070 posts
  • Gender:Male

Posted 05 May 2017 - 09:28 AM

Bogosian should be bought out if on the bottom pair at 5.136M - gross.


You'd really rather pay him $2M every year for 6 years to go away than just stomach him on the 3rd pair for 3 years?

#85 Sabre fan

Sabre fan

    Fourth Liner

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 566 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Coboconk, Ontario

Posted 05 May 2017 - 11:34 AM

instead of a trade I think I prefer top hold on to our assets (and re-sign kane) and maybe sign Antipin and then a free agent. There are some interesting names who will be available, such as Alzner, DelZotto and Stone who is big but skates well.I hate the thought of even thinking of giving up Sam or Evander, who was a BIG part of our offense, for help on the blueline. I am not sure any of us are ready for a big trade that sees us give up Sam or Evander



#86 Thorny

Thorny

    Supreme Mugwump

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 5,234 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Buffalo, some day

Posted 05 May 2017 - 11:53 AM

Ok I'm in. What about our 3rd? Regardless, I like his puck possession game. What are you thinking, 2nd pairing with Antipin or 3rd pairing with Bogo? I'd kind of like a more physical player with Antipin, but if they can move the puck it might not matter. I think I'd still sign Quincey.
So...
McCabe Risto
Pysyk Antipin
Guhle Bogo
Falk Quincey
What about Alex Petrovic instead for the same price?


Pysyk plays the right side, doesn't he?

Either way, don't think he's enough of an upgrade for our D.

#87 nfreeman

nfreeman

    All I want is everything you got.

  • SS Mod Team
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 14,031 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Brooklyn

Posted 05 May 2017 - 01:14 PM

Bogo was on the 3rd pair. Gorges is bought out or sent to the minors. If bought out, he only costs us 1.3 mill for the next two years. We save 2.6 this season, which more then pays for both Quincey and Falk. The following season we get a 540k rebate for CoHo, thus the net cost of Gorges's but out in year 2 is only about $750k. Not exactly a huge burden.

 

Hodgson's rebate has zero to do with a cap hit on a Gorges buyout.  #Hammymath.

 

Separately:  here are my general thoughts:

 

- Anaheim isn't trading for Kane.  They are an internal budget team and will not add a big-money forward that is about to become a UFA. 

 

- I think it's much more likely that Anaheim pays Vegas not to take one of their defensemen than it is that they trade one in a hockey trade. As a related point, the possibility of them paying Vegas not to take one of their guys means, IMHO, that the price for getting one of their guys in a hockey trade will be quite high, and, if it's Fowler or Lindholm, will likely include TWO of Reinhart, Nylander and this year's #1 (or one of those items plus other valuable assets if it's Vatanen).

 

- The same is true for Nashville and Minnesota -- i.e. they are likely to proactively work something out with Vegas, and not to get cornered into having to trade a good young defenseman.  The same should be true of the Islanders, but they are chronically mismanaged, so I wouldn't be at all surprised if they butchered this too.

 

- Much of this will depend on whether the Sabres will expose Bogo in the draft, whether Vegas would rather take Bogo, Moulson, Ennis, Zemgus or Ullmark, and whether the new GM can or will pay Vegas to take Bogo.  If I'm Vegas I'm taking Ullmark or Zemgus unless the Sabres' GM gives me, say, a 2nd-round pick to take Bogo, Moulson or Ennis.

 

- There's a reason Pysyk isn't going to get protected, one year after FLA traded for him.



#88 thewookie1

thewookie1

    Third Liner

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,757 posts
  • Gender:Male

Posted 05 May 2017 - 01:45 PM

Hodgson's rebate has zero to do with a cap hit on a Gorges buyout. #Hammymath.

Separately: here are my general thoughts:

- Anaheim isn't trading for Kane. They are an internal budget team and will not add a big-money forward that is about to become a UFA.

- I think it's much more likely that Anaheim pays Vegas not to take one of their defensemen than it is that they trade one in a hockey trade. As a related point, the possibility of them paying Vegas not to take one of their guys means, IMHO, that the price for getting one of their guys in a hockey trade will be quite high, and, if it's Fowler or Lindholm, will likely include TWO of Reinhart, Nylander and this year's #1 (or one of those items plus other valuable assets if it's Vatanen).

- The same is true for Nashville and Minnesota -- i.e. they are likely to proactively work something out with Vegas, and not to get cornered into having to trade a good young defenseman. The same should be true of the Islanders, but they are chronically mismanaged, so I wouldn't be at all surprised if they butchered this too.

- Much of this will depend on whether the Sabres will expose Bogo in the draft, whether Vegas would rather take Bogo, Moulson, Ennis, Zemgus or Ullmark, and whether the new GM can or will pay Vegas to take Bogo. If I'm Vegas I'm taking Ullmark or Zemgus unless the Sabres' GM gives me, say, a 2nd-round pick to take Bogo, Moulson or Ennis.

- There's a reason Pysyk isn't going to get protected, one year after FLA traded for him.


I certainly hope you are wrong since in that case next year will probably have a very similar roster to this years

#89 dudacek

dudacek

    ...browsing the internet

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 10,021 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Listening to offers — eyes and ears

Posted 05 May 2017 - 03:07 PM

I certainly hope you are wrong since in that case next year will probably have a very similar roster to this years


Damn! Was hoping for a Wookie trade proposal!

@Freeman. I will be stunned if one of Lindholm, Fowler or Vatanen is not traded.
It's poor asset management to invest $18 million in three defencemen when you have an internal cap and kids like Montour and Theodore on cheap contracts. Bob Murray is a smart guy.

#90 TrueBlueGED

TrueBlueGED

    #fancystats

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 24,070 posts
  • Gender:Male

Posted 05 May 2017 - 03:21 PM

Damn! Was hoping for a Wookie trade proposal!

@Freeman. I will be stunned if one of Lindholm, Fowler or Vatanen is not traded.
It's poor asset management to invest $18 million in three defencemen when you have an internal cap and kids like Montour and Theodore on cheap contracts. Bob Murray is a smart guy.

I also think the price Vegas would demand to not take a bonafide mid-20s top-4 Dman on a cost controlled 3-4 year contract would be fairly exorbitant. I think the teams with expansion draft issues would likely be better served by making a hockey trade to protect the players they don't want to lose. Also, a team like Minnesota that is getting bounced in round 1-2 all the time may desire a shakeup anyway. If Dumba gets a Zaitsev-like contract, Minnesota is investing about $26M in five defensemen, while their forward group rapidly ages. That's a team that could really use to flip some roster allocation.

Edited by TrueBlueGED, 05 May 2017 - 03:22 PM.


#91 nfreeman

nfreeman

    All I want is everything you got.

  • SS Mod Team
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 14,031 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Brooklyn

Posted 05 May 2017 - 03:55 PM

Damn! Was hoping for a Wookie trade proposal!

@Freeman. I will be stunned if one of Lindholm, Fowler or Vatanen is not traded.
It's poor asset management to invest $18 million in three defencemen when you have an internal cap and kids like Montour and Theodore on cheap contracts. Bob Murray is a smart guy.

 

Well, Lindholm and Vatanen cost $10.1MM in total.  How much do you think Fowler will cost?  More than $6MM?

 

I think $16MM for a strong top 3 D group is pretty reasonable.

 

I also think the price Vegas would demand to not take a bonafide mid-20s top-4 Dman on a cost controlled 3-4 year contract would be fairly exorbitant. I think the teams with expansion draft issues would likely be better served by making a hockey trade to protect the players they don't want to lose. Also, a team like Minnesota that is getting bounced in round 1-2 all the time may desire a shakeup anyway. If Dumba gets a Zaitsev-like contract, Minnesota is investing about $26M in five defensemen, while their forward group rapidly ages. That's a team that could really use to flip some roster allocation.

 

In a vacuum this is true but Anaheim (and Minny) have real leverage in the sense that they have the option, if Vegas demands too much, of making a hockey trade for what will almost certainly be a handsome return.

 

So if, say, Vegas demands a first-round pick in exchange for not taking exposed defenseman X, Anaheim has the option of trading defenseman X for, say, Nylander and a #1 next year.  Anaheim will certainly let Vegas know this, and Vegas will have to decide whether it prefers to settle for a #2 pick from Anaheim instead of zero.

 

It will be interesting to see how it plays out, to be sure.  I just don't think Anaheim is in an unescapeable corner.



#92 dudacek

dudacek

    ...browsing the internet

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 10,021 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Listening to offers — eyes and ears

Posted 05 May 2017 - 04:56 PM

Hmm...
I was thinking 11 for Vatanen and Lindholm, and Fowler getting $7 on the open market.
But you're right, if Fowler takes a hometown discount they could get lucky and get three for $16.

That said, Manson, Montour and Theodore are all RFAs next summer too.
Something has got to give.

#93 nfreeman

nfreeman

    All I want is everything you got.

  • SS Mod Team
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 14,031 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Brooklyn

Posted 05 May 2017 - 05:02 PM

Regarding Anaheim's RFAs: I think good organizations wait this type of situation out and don't make important decisions before they need to. Guys get injured, guys backslide, guys explode and hit another level -- Anaheim will be able to gather plenty of additional info before they have to make contract decisions on their RFAs.

#94 Wyldnwoody44

Wyldnwoody44

    "Have no fear of perfection, You'll never reach it"

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 5,446 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Springville, NY

Posted 05 May 2017 - 05:28 PM

I'd trade Andrew Peters to whatever station Millbury is on for Mr Millbury..

Then, public tar and feathering.



Honestly, everyone is tradeable sans. Eichs, timmy hos, and blond pompador

#95 GoPuckYourself

GoPuckYourself

    Prospect

  • Members
  • Pip
  • 95 posts

Posted 05 May 2017 - 06:07 PM

The Vegas Knights GM said he's open to accepting draft picks for players to be picked off the roster, how about a 2nd and 3rd round pick to take Moulson and Bogosian off our roster? Getting better by eliminating 2 ridiculous contracts and save 10.142M to spend on better assets. We'd only have to deal with the Gorges 3.9M contract for 1 more season.



#96 TrueBlueGED

TrueBlueGED

    #fancystats

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 24,070 posts
  • Gender:Male

Posted 05 May 2017 - 10:54 PM

Regarding Anaheim's RFAs: I think good organizations wait this type of situation out and don't make important decisions before they need to. Guys get injured, guys backslide, guys explode and hit another level -- Anaheim will be able to gather plenty of additional info before they have to make contract decisions on their RFAs.

 

I think good organizations make smart decisions. Sometimes that will be taking things to the end of the line, sometimes it will be striking while the iron is hot. The Ducks could certainly use additional forward help (particularly if younger than their current group), and I think it makes sense to do so while trade skids are greased by expansion. 



#97 GASabresFan

GASabresFan

    Fourth Liner

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 872 posts

Posted 06 May 2017 - 09:23 PM

Ana situation is very interesting.
1) They have 6 D signed for next year with contracts over $3 mil per season. They are Lindholm, Fowler, Vatanen, Bieksa, Despres and Stoner (both Stoner and Despres are off LTIR). Total cost $25.03 million. Beiksa has an NMC.
2) they also have 4 younger D ready for full time NHL duty including Manson, Theodore, Montour (all three currently on the Ducks) and top prospect Jacob Larsson. Each is under contract for next season with contracts ranging from 825K to 925K.
3) They have a full roster, except a backup goalie and no cap issues next season as they are currently at $70 and no significant RFAs or UFAs to re-sign.
4) Their only problems are making room for their 4 young D, getting younger and better on offense and who to lose in the expansion draft.
5) Buying out Bieksa would cost 1.35 per season for the next 2 years.

Option 1: If I were running the Ducks, the first step is buying out Bieksa on June 15 (expansion protected rosters are due 5pm on June 17). I'd then go to a 7-3-1 and this allows me to protect pretty much everyone, including Vatanen and Silfversberg except Manson. The biggest issue with this move is that I haven't yet improved the offense, but at least, I got younger and cheaper on D. Next saving about $1.7. ($2.7 savings on Bieksa less his replacement cost)

Option 2: Buyout Bieksa and then trade Vatanen and Stoner to us for Kane and Falk. Now Ana goes for 7-3-1 and protects Fowler, Lindholm and Manson, leaving only Falk exposed to the expansion draft. This series of moves makes the offense younger and better while making the D younger and cheaper (and maybe better) opens. roster spots Theodore and Montour, and saves about $3.0 ($10.7 in contracts traded or bought out - 5.25 for Kane and 2.4 for the 3 D's replacements).

There are other options, such as doing nothing and paying off LV to take who Ana wants, but I were LV I'd demand a huge price to take a Manson over Silfversberg or Vatenan, but this option seems silly when you can mostly avoid the issue by simply buying out Bieksa.

https://www.nhl.com/...les/c-281010592. There is nothing in these rules prohibiting buyouts before expansion.

 

One other note:  Have we forgotten about Casey Nelson to soon?  


Edited by GASabresFan, 07 May 2017 - 12:56 AM.


#98 bunomatic

bunomatic

    bunomatic

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 8,955 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Nanaimo,B.C.,Canada

Posted 08 May 2017 - 08:59 PM

Hodgson's rebate has zero to do with a cap hit on a Gorges buyout.  #Hammymath.

 

Separately:  here are my general thoughts:

 

- Anaheim isn't trading for Kane.  They are an internal budget team and will not add a big-money forward that is about to become a UFA. 

 

- I think it's much more likely that Anaheim pays Vegas not to take one of their defensemen than it is that they trade one in a hockey trade. As a related point, the possibility of them paying Vegas not to take one of their guys means, IMHO, that the price for getting one of their guys in a hockey trade will be quite high, and, if it's Fowler or Lindholm, will likely include TWO of Reinhart, Nylander and this year's #1 (or one of those items plus other valuable assets if it's Vatanen).

 

- The same is true for Nashville and Minnesota -- i.e. they are likely to proactively work something out with Vegas, and not to get cornered into having to trade a good young defenseman.  The same should be true of the Islanders, but they are chronically mismanaged, so I wouldn't be at all surprised if they butchered this too.

 

- Much of this will depend on whether the Sabres will expose Bogo in the draft, whether Vegas would rather take Bogo, Moulson, Ennis, Zemgus or Ullmark, and whether the new GM can or will pay Vegas to take Bogo.  If I'm Vegas I'm taking Ullmark or Zemgus unless the Sabres' GM gives me, say, a 2nd-round pick to take Bogo, Moulson or Ennis.

 

- There's a reason Pysyk isn't going to get protected, one year after FLA traded for him.

Is the going price for one of their D ( Fowler, Lindholm ) 3 first round picks ? Reinhart, Nylander and this years #1 ? Thats friggin steep.



#99 MattPie

MattPie

    J-Bot, U-Bot, and We-Bot

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 8,347 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Strafing some corners

Posted 08 May 2017 - 09:31 PM

The Vegas Knights GM said he's open to accepting draft picks for players to be picked off the roster, how about a 2nd and 3rd round pick to take Moulson and Bogosian off our roster? Getting better by eliminating 2 ridiculous contracts and save 10.142M to spend on better assets. We'd only have to deal with the Gorges 3.9M contract for 1 more season.

 

I believe Vegas is required to select one, and only one, player from each team. Besides, LV does have to build an actual team so while they will apparently make deals with teams to not pick a particular guy, I'd bet you'll see more cases of LV picking a prospect in exchange for a pick rather than taking out some other team's garbage. For instance, LV could tell Buffalo "we're taking Zemgus unless you throw us a pick and we'll take Falk instead" (NOTE: I'm just throwing names in there, please don't eval that particular trade-off).


Is the going price for one of their D ( Fowler, Lindholm ) 3 first round picks ? Reinhart, Nylander and this years #1 ? Thats friggin steep.

 

He did say TWO of those three.



#100 bunomatic

bunomatic

    bunomatic

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 8,955 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Nanaimo,B.C.,Canada

Posted 08 May 2017 - 11:13 PM

I believe Vegas is required to select one, and only one, player from each team. Besides, LV does have to build an actual team so while they will apparently make deals with teams to not pick a particular guy, I'd bet you'll see more cases of LV picking a prospect in exchange for a pick rather than taking out some other team's garbage. For instance, LV could tell Buffalo "we're taking Zemgus unless you throw us a pick and we'll take Falk instead" (NOTE: I'm just throwing names in there, please don't eval that particular trade-off).


 

He did say TWO of those three.

Ah gotcha. My reading comprehension something something...



#101 GASabresFan

GASabresFan

    Fourth Liner

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 872 posts

Posted 11 May 2017 - 11:32 PM

Falk and 3rd to Pitt for Dumoulin.



#102 Briere48

Briere48

    Blood and Guts

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 6,139 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Rochester, NY

Posted 12 May 2017 - 12:16 AM

If i'm Botterill, i try to work out a deal with his good friend Fletcher in Minnesota for Jonas Brodin. Not sure what it'd cost but if we get in a serious bidding war, i don't think anyone could match our offer of the 8th overall pick (assuming they are protecting Spurgeon and Dumba).

 

Someone also mentioned trying to trade for Josh Manson, which i love the idea as well. Big and heavy d-men with a playoff run on his resume and a former captain on multiple teams. Not sure what it'd cost to get him out of the Ducks but like someone said something has got to give there.

 

Lastly, i call Pittsburgh and ask them for "bust" Derrick Pouliot. Former top-10 draft pick just needs a change of cities maybe? Is still young but it doesn't seem like Pittsburgh has much of a future for him. Assuming the cost to trade for him isn't too much, i get him for Rochester and start developing him along with Guhle and Nelson as my "next up" d-men group.

 

McCabe - Risto

Brodin - Manson

Antipin - Bogosian

 

 

In AHL...

Guhle - Nelson

Austin - Pouliot

Stephens - xx


Edited by Briere48, 12 May 2017 - 12:21 AM.


#103 GASabresFan

GASabresFan

    Fourth Liner

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 872 posts

Posted 13 May 2017 - 09:20 AM

Isn't JBot likely one of the guys that thinks Pouliot is a bust?

#104 ShadowLiger

ShadowLiger

    Third Liner

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2,184 posts

Posted 13 May 2017 - 03:27 PM

Julius Honka and Kari Lehtonen and #39 overall FOR #54 overall, Linus Ullmark, and Hudson Fasching.


Edited by ShadowLiger, 13 May 2017 - 03:28 PM.


#105 Huckleberry

Huckleberry

    First Liner

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 6,144 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Brussels, Belgium

Posted 14 May 2017 - 09:49 AM

Wouldn't surprise me if Kulikov is vegas bound.



#106 BuffaloBorn

BuffaloBorn

    We're Gonna Win That Cup!

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 507 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:WNY

Posted 14 May 2017 - 03:11 PM

one of fasching, baptiste, bailey, Bogosian with some $ retained and 2018 first/ possibly combined with 2019 first round pick. that should fetch a good player.



#107 Huckleberry

Huckleberry

    First Liner

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 6,144 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Brussels, Belgium

Posted 15 May 2017 - 04:54 AM

Bogo for eberle 



#108 GASabresFan

GASabresFan

    Fourth Liner

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 872 posts

Posted 15 May 2017 - 11:14 AM

Jack Johnson to Buf for a 2nd this year and a 4th next year plus Falk.
CBJ needs cap space because they have to re-sign RFA Wennberg (59 pts) and they are already at 70+ mill for next season. They also won't want to lose Johnson to LV for nothing, but he is their only logical D to expose.

Trade him to us for picks and Falk, allows then get decent value for a 29 year old D with 1 yr left on his contract, saves then 4+ mill and Falk gives them a qualified D to expose.

Johnson would be a solid 2nd pair LD, who would be a placeholder for a year until Guhle is ready, but one you could re-sign if he plays well.

#109 dudacek

dudacek

    ...browsing the internet

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 10,021 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Listening to offers — eyes and ears

Posted 15 May 2017 - 05:27 PM

Give them more for Ryan Murray, who will be more expensive than Johnson in a year.
Johnson is Bogo-esque (at least the Winnipeg version of Bogo) in that he has better tools than toolbox and will not be worth his salary.

#110 GASabresFan

GASabresFan

    Fourth Liner

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 872 posts

Posted 15 May 2017 - 05:54 PM

Give them more for Ryan Murray, who will be more expensive than Johnson in a year.
Johnson is Bogo-esque (at least the Winnipeg version of Bogo) in that he has better tools than toolbox and will not be worth his salary.

The goal here is a stop gap of a quality player for one season to allow Guhle to develop in the AHL. All we need him to do is play solidly for one year and then walk unless he plays really well.

Murray would be great, but I don't he is available. Vatanen is a more likely long-term pickup.

Edited by GASabresFan, 15 May 2017 - 05:55 PM.


#111 dudacek

dudacek

    ...browsing the internet

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 10,021 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Listening to offers — eyes and ears

Posted 15 May 2017 - 07:00 PM

The goal here is a stop gap of a quality player for one season to allow Guhle to develop in the AHL. All we need him to do is play solidly for one year and then walk unless he plays really well.
Murray would be great, but I don't he is available. Vatanen is a more likely long-term pickup.


I don't get it. If that is your plan, aren't you basically making the Kulikov trade all over again?
You ripped Murray to shreds on that one, but it's a similar price for a similar player with a similar contract.

#112 GASabresFan

GASabresFan

    Fourth Liner

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 872 posts

Posted 15 May 2017 - 07:32 PM

I don't get it. If that is your plan, aren't you basically making the Kulikov trade all over again?
You ripped Murray to shreds on that one, but it's a similar price for a similar player with a similar contract.

Admittedly there are some similarities on paper and the biggest difference maybe necessity.

The Kulikov deal was trading a cheap top 6 defender with good possession stats for a barely superior player (with worse possession stats) at 4 times the price because he was a LD at a time when we didn't have the cap space. That money should have been spent to build depth.

The Johnson deal is a necessity to fill a 2nd pairing gap, created by Kulikov's and Bogo's failures. Johnson is a superior player to both Bogo and Kulikov, who because of expansion, likely can be had without sacrificing a top 6 defender. We also have the cap space to afford both Johnson and a legit vet or 2. The other major difference is timing and organizational depth. With Kulikov, we had no depth if he stunk. Our depth were a couple of AAAA players and no real prospects. Now if Johnson fails, we'll have Guhle, hopefully Antipin and likely a vet or 2.

Edited by GASabresFan, 15 May 2017 - 07:34 PM.


#113 dudacek

dudacek

    ...browsing the internet

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 10,021 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Listening to offers — eyes and ears

Posted 15 May 2017 - 07:42 PM

I don't know...
I hear you about timing and how Pysyk helps now in a way that a 2nd rounder doesn't, but to my mind Bogo and Kulikov were as good or better than Johnson before they were traded to Buffalo,
I can also see Murray saying about Nelson and Franson and Falk and Fedun what you're saying about Guhle and Antipin and "likely a vet or two". I'd disagree with Murray on that one.

To me it comes down to believing in the guy you are acquiring.
Last summer I would have taken Kulikov over Johnson without hesitation. I thought he was what we needed.
I would have been wrong, but I still would blame that mostly on the bench door.

Edited by dudacek, 15 May 2017 - 07:43 PM.


#114 Thorny

Thorny

    Supreme Mugwump

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 5,234 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Buffalo, some day

Posted 15 May 2017 - 08:09 PM

The goal here is a stop gap of a quality player for one season to allow Guhle to develop in the AHL. All we need him to do is play solidly for one year and then walk unless he plays really well.
Murray would be great, but I don't he is available. Vatanen is a more likely long-term pickup.


I don't think we should be looking for a stop gap at all. Who are the Dmen we can reasonably pencil in for the left side, medium-to-long term? We only have two. McCabe, and Guhle, if we are lucky. On the right side, we have Ristolainen, maybe Antipin, and Bogosian (if we aren't lucky).

There is certainly space on the left side for a long term solution, if it can be acquired.

#115 GASabresFan

GASabresFan

    Fourth Liner

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 872 posts

Posted 15 May 2017 - 08:13 PM

I don't know...
I can also see Murray saying about Nelson and Franson and Falk and Fedun what you're saying about Guhle and Antipin and "likely a vet or two". I'd disagree with Murray on that one.


And we know what a great judge of pro talent GMTM turned out to be.

My preferred option here is to get a Vatanen, or Brodin etc.. but the price might not be what JBot is willing to pay. I also still like the idea of Dumoulin as a bargain 4. However, I think based on who is available in expansion Johnson is a very realistic option.

As to Kulikov, he is a guy whose game I never liked so I'll accept that I was baised against him. That said he played to my expectations. Bogo on the other hand, I hadn't watched him much after he left town (Atlanta), but his long-term injury history was a major concern when acquired. Given that history is it really a surprise how he has performed? I will have to disagree that either player was ever in the class of Johnson. Johnson has had two 30 pt seasons and 2 40 pt seasons, Torts has actually helped him become better defensively. Bogo had one 30 pt season 7 seasons ago and Kulikov has never had one.

#116 GASabresFan

GASabresFan

    Fourth Liner

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 872 posts

Posted 15 May 2017 - 08:23 PM

I don't think we should be looking for a stop gap at all. Who are the Dmen we can reasonably pencil in for the left side, medium-to-long term? We only have two. McCabe, and Guhle, if we are lucky. On the right side, we have Ristolainen, maybe Antipin, and Bogosian (if we aren't lucky).
There is certainly space on the left side for a long term solution, if it can be acquired.


Love the new avatar.

As I said in the post you quoted, I think Vatanen is a better long-term solution, but I think JBot is going to look at all options and probably won't part with the assets necessary to get Vatanen or Brodin. The nice thing about Johnson, as an UFA after next season, is that if he plays well he can be re-signed for a few years.

Also you really only need a strong top 4, as long as you have serviceable depth. If Guhle, McCabe, Risto and Antipin can eat up 22 minutes a night the 3rd pairing is less important and will rotate over time in order to afford to pay the top 4.

#117 Thorny

Thorny

    Supreme Mugwump

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 5,234 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Buffalo, some day

Posted 15 May 2017 - 08:35 PM

Love the new avatar.
As I said in the post you quoted, I think Vatanen is a better long-term solution, but I think JBot is going to look at all options and probably won't part with the assets necessary to get Vatanen or Brodin. The nice thing about Johnson, as an UFA after next season, is that if he plays well he can be re-signed for a few years.
Also you really only need a strong top 4, as long as you have serviceable depth. If Guhle, McCabe, Risto and Antipin can eat up 22 minutes a night the 3rd pairing is less important and will rotate over time in order to afford to pay the top 4.


To the first bolded, cheers! :beer:

The second, that's key. I like how Guhle has looked so far, but I would be much more comfortable only counting on him for a top 6 role going forward, given how little he's proven at the pro level, and bringing in a legit young top 4 guy like Brodin, assuming the price isn't outrageous.

To me, it's reasonably likely we are going to need to add from the outside in order to get that solid top 4 guy. Add in the fact that that's almost certainly the only way we'll get that guy in a timely fashion, and I'm willing to put together a decent packge to bring in our man.

And I'm hoping JBot is able to find a price that's fair in his eyes.

#118 dudacek

dudacek

    ...browsing the internet

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 10,021 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Listening to offers — eyes and ears

Posted 16 May 2017 - 01:33 PM

Here's a creative trade born of an idle mind, but I think it helps each team:

* Buffalo trades both second rounders to Columbus for Ryan Murray.
* Vegas agrees to select predetermined players from Buffalo and Columbus in the expansion draft; say Tyler Ennis and Scott Hartnell (if he waives)
* Vegas trades a good defenceman from the draft (Scandella, Dehaan etc.) to the Sabres for Evander Kane.

Columbus loses Murray, but they can afford a defenceman. They get free from Hartnell, create space to sign Atkinson, Jenner, Karlsson and Johnson, avoid losing a good player in expansion and get two 2nds for their trouble.

Buffalo loses the best player in the deal, but they fix their defence and dump a bad contract. They can afford to pay two seconds.

Vegas takes on a couple big contracts, but they get a player, who will be far and away their best forward and is young enough to build with or flip for futures. Ennis and Hartnell should play in their top six and they can afford the salaries which don't carry big term.

I think all three teams are better off making that deal.

Edited by dudacek, 16 May 2017 - 01:37 PM.


#119 Thorny

Thorny

    Supreme Mugwump

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 5,234 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Buffalo, some day

Posted 16 May 2017 - 01:52 PM

Here's a creative trade born of an idle mind, but I think it helps each team:
* Buffalo trades both second rounders to Columbus for Ryan Murray.
* Vegas agrees to select predetermined players from Buffalo and Columbus in the expansion draft; say Tyler Ennis and Scott Hartnell (if he waives)
* Vegas trades a good defenceman from the draft (Scandella, Dehaan etc.) to the Sabres for Evander Kane.
Columbus loses Murray, but they can afford a defenceman. They get free from Hartnell, create space to sign Atkinson, Jenner, Karlsson and Johnson, avoid losing a good player in expansion and get two 2nds for their trouble.
Buffalo loses the best player in the deal, but they fix their defence and dump a bad contract. They can afford to pay two seconds.
Vegas takes on a couple big contracts, but they get a player, who will be far and away their best forward and is young enough to build with or flip for futures. Ennis and Hartnell should play in their top six and they can afford the salaries which don't carry big term.
I think all three teams are better off making that deal.


I like it.

#120 French Collection

French Collection

    Fourth Liner

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 613 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Northern Ontario

Posted 16 May 2017 - 02:19 PM

Here's a creative trade born of an idle mind, but I think it helps each team:
* Buffalo trades both second rounders to Columbus for Ryan Murray.
* Vegas agrees to select predetermined players from Buffalo and Columbus in the expansion draft; say Tyler Ennis and Scott Hartnell (if he waives)
* Vegas trades a good defenceman from the draft (Scandella, Dehaan etc.) to the Sabres for Evander Kane.
Columbus loses Murray, but they can afford a defenceman. They get free from Hartnell, create space to sign Atkinson, Jenner, Karlsson and Johnson, avoid losing a good player in expansion and get two 2nds for their trouble.
Buffalo loses the best player in the deal, but they fix their defence and dump a bad contract. They can afford to pay two seconds.
Vegas takes on a couple big contracts, but they get a player, who will be far and away their best forward and is young enough to build with or flip for futures. Ennis and Hartnell should play in their top six and they can afford the salaries which don't carry big term.
I think all three teams are better off making that deal.


That is creative!
Forward it to JBot.