There is rarely a market for goalies, thus they are never at a premium. See Miller, Ryan trade for example. If they had gotten a second rounder instead of a third would that have been acceptable for you?
- SDSabre

IF they had re-signed one of the 2 justified starters it would have been acceptable but then again that may have caused them to win too many games.

I can't say I followed the deadline other than Buffalo's moves to know what was "fair" for 2 goalies that have been talked about as career backups - the same two who now get the GM blasted for not getting huge returns.

Enroth is a career .908 Save % goalie, Neuvirth is a .912 Save % guy. Are those types of goaltenders - who have played a combined 290 games in the NHL over 13 combined seasons (maximum of 910-ish games if they each averaged 70 per year).

I just think the change in peoples' opinions over what those 2 guys could fetch suddenly is laughable.

Plus Enroth is on a better team yet playing horribly (.873 in 7 games, Neuvirth is .860 in 2 games)
- stashu

Oh it wasn't too long ago I do recall lots of people stating Enroth was the future between the pipes...I think that was the talk to justify the Miller trade.

Keeping a guy who is (according to your opinion) a career backup and giving him a chance to be a #1 goalie would have made it less obvious what the plan was and the guy probably would have signed for less than a real starter on a 2 or 3 year deal to 'prove himself as a bonafide starter'. But nope, anyone who looked or smelt like they could win games and / or become a starter was gonzo....

Oh it wasn't too long ago I do recall lots of people stating Enroth was the future between the pipes...I think that was the talk to justify the Miller trade.

Keeping a guy who is (according to your opinion) a career backup and giving him a chance to be a #1 goalie would have made it less obvious what the plan was and the guy probably would have signed for less than a real starter on a 2 or 3 year deal to 'prove himself as a bonafide starter'. But nope, anyone who looked or smelt like they could win games and / or become a starter was gonzo....
- Cush29

First I'll address the bold - I agree, and am not a tank denier (wow that looks weird spelled like that).

However, all pieces moved were "career backups" or bottom 6 guys - what bounty are they supposed to fetch?

And while I was an Enroth fan and believe he could be a starter for a good Buffalo team, it doesn't mean he's not replaceable in Free Agency, so why not get something back?

No, they definitely did not get face value or better. The most glaring example was the Torrey Mitchell trade. Is he a bona-fide top 6 guy? No. But you cannot tell me it's better to have an AHL goon and a 7th round pick than his mediocre, but NHL-level play for 6 weeks.
- scrubber10302

Nope I won't tell you that, I'll tell you it's better to re-sign the guy or get what he's worth in a trade. Neither was done.

The only player we did not get face value for was Mitchell, who if I had to guess would not have resigned here in the offseason.
- SayBeers

Guess we will never know.

Nope I won't tell you that, I'll tell you it's better to re-sign the guy or get what he's worth in a trade. Neither was done.
- Cush29

I agree with you. I'm thoroughly embarrassed by the spectacle this team has turned itself into. For what it's worth, I think the league should at the very least fine Murray for his blatant attempt to bottom out.

First I'll address the bold - I agree, and am not a tank denier (wow that looks weird spelled like that).

However, all pieces moved were "career backups" or bottom 6 guys - what bounty are they supposed to fetch?

And while I was an Enroth fan and believe he could be a starter for a good Buffalo team, it doesn't mean he's not replaceable in Free Agency, so why not get something back?
- stashu

If the moves are directly related to the plan to tank this year and fall as far to the bottom as you can than the moves make perfect sense. I'm really arguing (I guess) that the moves were so brazen and obvious that it has made a bit of a mockery of the entire thing. It's like the Sabres took out a full page ad saying "yep, we are going for the basement and will do whatever we can to get there" and in doing so made moves that simply can't be justified in any other manner.

Let's call a spade a spade, Enroth is alot better than what you have now, he has been a Sabre for a long time and likely would have jumped at the chance to be the starter for 2 - 3 years to prove himself or if not pull a Vesa Toskala and go play in Europe or the KHL.

If you want a goalie in free agency I'm not sure what you get but you likely have to spend as much as you would on an Enroth for perhaps less of a goalie...but again if that's the plan (Tank again) then I guess it makes sense.

I just think it's sad and ugly to see teams feel the need to do this and for the league to allow it. The "changes' to the draft for 2016 won't prevent it, they aren't drastic enough changes to do so.

IMO For a league that publicaly claims to want parody their actions (or lack thereof) don't really match with their statements.

Sorry for not answering your question - here you go:

I certainly support getting value for your FA's IF YOU CAN"T RESIGN THEM. I dont' think your GM made much of an attempt to re-sign all his FA's. Why sign a guy if he can get you something? Here is the answer - if the "guy" is worth more than you "get" and makes your team better that's why as opposed to what your GM did - trade these FA's for less than what he could get for them simply to ensure he shed his team of talent, make it look like a trade when in fact it was a well thought out and executed plan to contribute to the Sabres continuing to drop in the standings. The Sabres seemed to be ok riding a hot goalie in the past, what happened to that? Oh wait I know they decided they wanted to bottom out. It's that simple, the moves that were made were all for the purpose of bottoming out and feelings aside the GM did execute this plan very well. Yes plan....it was well thought out, in advance and then executed.

Why sign a guy if your not a good team....what about to make you a better team? But that flys in the fact of the current strategy of the Sabres - be as bad as you can be until you get what you want and THEN and only then do you start signing guys, re-signing guys etc. to get better. I get it, I don't agree with it but don't tell me the poor old Sabres didn't have any other options.....
- Cush29

a new gm was brought in to rebuild the team. whether you want to go back to the gaustad trade, or say that the rebuild started when murray got here, its pretty hard to overlook the fact that these two men have very different ideas about building a winning hockey team. one gm wants a big talented team that plays heavy and aggressive. the other chose to look for value players that played a quiet game. it was bound to be a scorched earth approach. dont like the timing? me neither, it should have happened in 2007. other than that, itll be fixed next year and anybody that has to endure a scorched earth rebuild will have to wait 5 years before they have to worry about playoffs.

I agree with you. I'm thoroughly embarrassed by the spectacle this team has turned itself into. For what it's worth, I think the league should at the very least fine Murray for his blatant attempt to bottom out.
- scrubber10302

To be honest I don't think Murray should be fined, he's doing what others have done but he's taken it to a new level and is really pushing the envelope by his brazen moves and seemingly "ya we are doing it so what" attitude.

Lots of teams have done this, but in the past it was more done under the guise of "we are shutting down star X for surgery and playing our kids to get a look at our prospect pool, what we have for the future etc".....that was something you could plug your nose and swallow but this is just so in your face that if nothing is done then watch out for how bad it will start to get!

And that will make the league and alot of teams a joke. For a sport that isn't in the top 3 sports in alot of places why would they allow this to happen? The league keeps saying they want to grow, how interested are other places going to be if this is what they think the NHL is all about?

They need to address it, and fix it. They need to look at addressing how to deal with insane contracts as well......I do like the NFL model where players can and are released from contracts. I also think it would be awesome if a player was permitted to re-negotiate a contract during the contract. How great would it have been for some guys to stay where they were happy for less money, or take a cut to help the team keep the core together?

But again I am dreaming....lol Must be friday...

To be honest I don't think Murray should be fined, he's doing what others have done but he's taken it to a new level and is really pushing the envelope by his brazen moves and seemingly "ya we are doing it so what" attitude.

Lots of teams have done this, but in the past it was more done under the guise of "we are shutting down star X for surgery and playing our kids to get a look at our prospect pool, what we have for the future etc".....that was something you could plug your nose and swallow but this is just so in your face that if nothing is done then watch out for how bad it will start to get!

And that will make the league and alot of teams a joke. For a sport that isn't in the top 3 sports in alot of places why would they allow this to happen? The league keeps saying they want to grow, how interested are other places going to be if this is what they think the NHL is all about?

They need to address it, and fix it. They need to look at addressing how to deal with insane contracts as well......I do like the NFL model where players can and are released from contracts. I also think it would be awesome if a player was permitted to re-negotiate a contract during the contract. How great would it have been for some guys to stay where they were happy for less money, or take a cut to help the team keep the core together?

But again I am dreaming....lol Must be friday...
- Cush29

The bottom line is that if the NHL wants to be mentioned in the same breath as the NFL and to a smaller degree the NBA, this kind of behavior especially when it's made to be this obvious, needs to be deterred. I don't think it's viable to suspend a GM, so a fine would be the only way to get their point across.

I'm pretty sure giving the last place team only a 20% chance of winning 1st overall is addressing & fixing it. Especially next year when the top 3 picks are lottery.

a new gm was brought in to rebuild the team. whether you want to go back to the gaustad trade, or say that the rebuild started when murray got here, its pretty hard to overlook the fact that these two men have very different ideas about building a winning hockey team. one gm wants a big talented team that plays heavy and aggressive. the other chose to look for value players that played a quiet game. it was bound to be a scorched earth approach. dont like the timing? me neither, it should have happened in 2007. other than that, itll be fixed next year and anybody that has to endure a scorched earth rebuild will have to wait 5 years before they have to worry about playoffs.
- rover16

I could care less about the timing, it's the approach.........you may very well be right re: waiting 5 years for playoffs but Leafs fans waited 11 and that was for no approach other than a "we will get em next year guys, now go buy another jersey".....

I'm pretty sure giving the last place team only a 20% chance of winning 1st overall is addressing & fixing it. Especially next year when the top 3 picks are lottery.
- SayBeers

I don't agree.

If there was NO incentive to finish last, THEN you have fixed it.

Give all non playoff teams the same % chance to win the 1st overall pick and to ensure teams don't get a bunch of high 1st round picks make a rule of some nature that if you win a 1st overall pick you can't get anything better than Xth (I don't know what's fair 10th?) overall pick the following year.....perhaps even rules stating if you pick top 3 in one year you can't be top 3 the following year.

IF they had re-signed one of the 2 justified starters it would have been acceptable but then again that may have caused them to win too many games.
- Cush29

They were traded for futures, and weren't in the long-term plans and both UFA's. If they had term left, maybe I'd agree. Since they did not, I can only assume that Buffalo got what it could for two UFA's, which is what almost every non-playoff team does every year to playoff teams. So while your looking at it as we got rid of them because they win games, we'll look at it as we got a return that we otherwise wouldn't have for two UFA's. Some call it tanking, I'll call it sucking at the right time. Did they trade away players that could have helped win more games? Yes, no denying this. Do teams in non-playoff spots do this annually? Yes, there is also no denying this.

I don't agree.

If there was NO incentive to finish last, THEN you have fixed it.

Give all non playoff teams the same % chance to win the 1st overall pick and to ensure teams don't get a bunch of high 1st round picks make a rule of some nature that if you win a 1st overall pick you can't get anything better than Xth (I don't know what's fair 10th?) overall pick the following year.....perhaps even rules stating if you pick top 3 in one year you can't be top 3 the following year.
- Cush29

I would agree to this. Only 10th feels a little steep. I'd say if you pick 1st a year, win the lottery the next your pick is 5. That way you still get a good player, but it's not the top of the draft

I don't agree.

If there was NO incentive to finish last, THEN you have fixed it.

Give all non playoff teams the same % chance to win the 1st overall pick and to ensure teams don't get a bunch of high 1st round picks make a rule of some nature that if you win a 1st overall pick you can't get anything better than Xth (I don't know what's fair 10th?) overall pick the following year.....perhaps even rules stating if you pick top 3 in one year you can't be top 3 the following year.
- Cush29

Well, we live in this place called the real world. ( not sure if that includes Canada?) I'm also pretty sure that if you take away Canada, Buffalo, and any above average hockey fan, no one else even knows who Connor MacDavid let alone Eichel even is. The NHL will stay where it is behind the NFL, NBA, MLB for reasons other than 'integrity of the draft lottery'. (Refer to co$t, environmental conditions (example: ice) not to mention it requires more equipment than just a ball to play)

Which gives me a thought.. It would be pretty interesting to go to Phoenix and interview people on the street asking if they know who McDavid is. My guess is 1 out of 100

More than max value for what you gave up? Really? If this is your opinion asn someone with an acute hockey sense I don't think we need to bother continuing to debate this. Your GM took less than face value but besides that the real point is he made no attempt to re-sign FA's....it was a fire sale, everything that could go should go.

Be proud of your "deepest prospect pool" in the league - I think some people may disagree with your assessment but time will telll I guess. Glad to hear you will be hoisting Lord Stanley for the very first time next year! (Sorry I couldn't find the emoticon for sarcasm). - Maybe it's this one?
- Cush29

Never said we would be hoisting the cup next year. I said we will be better. And, if you don't think any of these trades I mentioned werent decent for the Sabres, it is you my friend who don't know jack about hockey. Our GMs fleeced those other teams in the Gaustad, Pominville, vanek trades. I do agree with you though that it was a fire sale, but that was the point, a complete rebuild. Why bring on expensive UFAs before they are needed?

Never said we would be hoisting the cup next year. I said we will be better. And, if you don't think any of these trades I mentioned werent decent for the Sabres, it is you my friend who don't know jack about hockey. Our GMs fleeced those other teams in the Gaustad, Pominville, vanek trades. I do agree with you though that it was a fire sale, but that was the point, a complete rebuild. Why bring on expensive UFAs before they are needed?
- sskkoo1

Overpaying and signing UFA's = integrity duhhhhhh

So, we only make TANK trades and not trades that our good for the team? Okay, well lets look at our trades since the announcing our rebuild.

Gaustad for 1st rd. pick
Pominville for a 1st rd, 2nd rd., Hackett, Larsson
Regerh for two 2nd rd.
Sekera for Jt Compher
Vanek for 1st, 2nd, Moulson
Miller and Ott for a 1st, conditional 3rd, Stewart (2nd), Halak (Neuvirth,3rd), and Carrier.
two 2nds and McNabb for Fashing and Deslauries
Moulson for two 2nds and Mitchell
Myers, 1st, Armia(bust), Lemieux?, Stafford(joke) for Kane, Bogo, Kasdorf

The list goes on and on. Anybody with any hockey sense would see these trades as getting more than max value for what we gave up, but these are, "Tank trades"? Give me a break. We have by far the deepest prospect pool in the league because of these trades and will be climbing up the standings soon.

- sskkoo1

the only thing I'll say is that I'd previously seen a whole lot of positives about armia from the regular posters here prior to moving him in the myers deal. The bust label you just put on him reeks of trying to slant the trade to your side.

Otherwise, I have zero issue with what buffalo is doing, sometimes a team is just bad and needs to rebuild...hell, milbury was trading away players with an owner that told him to ice the cheapest possible payroll for a number of years.

with buffalo's owner wanting a winner the sabres will rebuild and while I think it'll still take 3-4 more years, anything can happen in the summer and calgary is proof that a team that looks like a lottery pick can overachieve.

I don't agree.

If there was NO incentive to finish last, THEN you have fixed it.

Give all non playoff teams the same % chance to win the 1st overall pick and to ensure teams don't get a bunch of high 1st round picks make a rule of some nature that if you win a 1st overall pick you can't get anything better than Xth (I don't know what's fair 10th?) overall pick the following year.....perhaps even rules stating if you pick top 3 in one year you can't be top 3 the following year.
- Cush29

next year when all three top picks are raffled off I think you'll have the start of something good. If you just miss out on the playoffs you still have three chances to draft top three - I like that idea.