Still find it hard to believe that we a chance to get a legit star player and people don't want him.
- SABRES 89

my guess is because the scrubs like pysyk, foligno and the future captain girgens would have to be moved to get us better d


the plus is when you get a handful of upper end players, you are forced to cut the dead weight and plug in kids on cheap deals, and after watching the core float for 7 years it's not a bad thing

Not enough to justify moving back and it doesn't really help you short or long term. You give up the best player in that kind of deal. Those trades made sense in year 1 of the rebuild when we were just hoarding picks/prospects.
- Sabresfan-365

You dont even know what what the return is...
If you can get a solid roster player and prospect that you like and still think would be there why not

oh i agree. of course as the pick loses value to us, it loses value to whoever we would want to trade it too. there is just no denying that its still in our best interest to lose a bunch of games to round out the season. this stupid system needs to be overhauled. have a play-in game like the ncaa does for the last two playoff spots in each conference. and then have a straight lottery for teams that miss. its too black and white right now- either you are playing for lord stanleys dinnerware or finish as bad as possible to have the best chance at a difference maker- its not working.
- rover16

Not necessarily. There are teams that are at different stages that would like that pick. A team that is already winning and wants to get a player that they can develop for 2 years would like it. Or a team that is in the early stages of rebuilding that wants more picks and has the time to develop him. Just doesn't work in our time frame

All of this. If this was 2 years ago, sure. But we want to get better next season. So what helps us get better next season and it's not trading down to 10.
- Zschalberg

So trading back and receiving a roster player wouldnt make us better now? plus you still receive a mid range pick

You dont even know what what the return is...
If you can get a solid roster player and prospect that you like and still think would be there why not
- yen6d1

Because 1. It's highly unlikely someone gives up a worthwhile roster player just to move up a couple of spots and 2. Even if they did, you still wind up giving up the best player in the deal (i know it's based on potential but it's a fair assumption) which doesn't make sense at this point.

You dont even know what what the return is...
If you can get a solid roster player and prospect that you like and still think would be there why not
- yen6d1

Wait, for the 6th pick someone is going to give up a roster player, a prospect, and a pick? Not sure that's happening. I'm not sure we're going to get the 10th pick and a roster player that we actually could use for the 6th. If anything it'd be a bottom 6 guy or a bottom pairing defenseman imo.

Now, of course, there's a chance for any deal as long as they pay what we want. I just don't know how expected it should be.

"IF" we pick in the 6-8 range i wouldnt mind moving back around the 10-14 range.

Charles McAvoy has caught my eye. solid d man
- yen6d1

Agree on McAvoy.

So trading back and receiving a roster player wouldnt make us better now? plus you still receive a mid range pick
- yen6d1

No one is trading anyone of that much value to move up 4 spots unless you're moving from 5 to 1. Not for 10 to 6. You'll get a bottom 6 or bottom pairing guy. Pass.

"IF" we pick in the 6-8 range i wouldnt mind moving back around the 10-14 range.

Charles McAvoy has caught my eye. solid d man
- yen6d1

Like him too, BUT I'm pretty sure he's right-handed

How's Tyler Ennis? Still "progressing?"

His trade value has taken a big hit.

How's Tyler Ennis? Still "progressing?"

His trade value has taken a big hit.
- Deuce81

You can't go any less than zero.

Kasdorf says he'll remain in Buffalo and will practice here.

1. We don't know what changes, if any, will be made to address scoring. That's a whole can of worms.
2. How much better are Jack and Sam than his current linemates? Not a huge Tampa guy but they are a top team in the East and went to the Cup last year. He's gotten less ice time because he's not the only player, but I'd assume he'd still have capable linemates.

I agree with you, btw, I'm just saying I don't know those answers.
- Zschalberg

Yeah, point two is very qualitative, but, I think he played in his high scoring years with that short winger (all time great, name escapes me) who was much better than whom he plays with now. And, can you imagine him with Jack!!

Point one is very easy to quantify - if league, for instance, scoring has decreased 15% since his high scoring years, and his scoring has decreased, say 20%, 75% of the loss can be explained from the change in the league, all other things remaining equal.

i cant see murray drafting nylander. just doesnt fit what hes trying to do. wonder about the whole russian thing with sergachyov possibly being best d available when we pick.
- rover16

Sergachev, I think you're correct on.

Nylander, I don't know - he's really really dynamic. They say he's more advanced at this stage than his brother and his brother looks very good. I know he's only 5'11 160 now but he can bulk up over the next couple of years.

Kasdorf says he'll remain in Buffalo and will practice here.
- Zschalberg

He observed from the bench in shorts today.

No one is trading anyone of that much value to move up 4 spots unless you're moving from 5 to 1. Not for 10 to 6. You'll get a bottom 6 or bottom pairing guy. Pass.
- Zschalberg

Bottom paring at #6? Doubt that, I mean it could happen, but that player would have to be a bust to be that. Risto was a #8, Vanek a #5 or #6, etc.....

Yeah, point two is very qualitative, but, I think he played in his high scoring years with that short winger (all time great, name escapes me) who was much better than whom he plays with now. And, can you imagine him with Jack!!

Point one is very easy to quantify - if league, for instance, scoring has decreased 15% since his high scoring years, and his scoring has decreased, say 20%, 75% of the loss can be explained from the change in the league, all other things remaining equal.
- turbo044

I'm not ready to say Jack is as good next year as St. Louis was with Stamkos though. Nothing against Jack but it is his rookie season still. He's gotten better and better as the year has gone on but he's also gone cold at times. If he gets the consistency then sure. Will he be better than who Stamkos is playing with now? I don't know who he's with now so I'm not sure, but I'd imagine.

What are we projecting for Jack next year? He got 48 in 70 so likely 50 in his rookie year. Are we thinking 60-70 or more?

Bottom paring at #6? Doubt that, I mean it could happen, but that player would have to be a bust to be that. Risto was a #8, Vanek a #5 or #6, etc.....
- turbo044

No, I mean if you trade from 10 to 6 it's likely a bottom pairing D plus the 10th pick to get you the 6th. So if we trade down we're getting a prospect at 10 and then a bottom pairing guy. Not enough for me to give up the better prospect.

O'Reilly likely to play tomorrow.

No, I mean if you trade from 10 to 6 it's likely a bottom pairing D plus the 10th pick to get you the 6th. So if we trade down we're getting a prospect at 10 and then a bottom pairing guy. Not enough for me to give up the better prospect.
- Zschalberg

got ya. make sense. Or more draft picks, which we don't need at this point

I'm not ready to say Jack is as good next year as St. Louis was with Stamkos though. Nothing against Jack but it is his rookie season still. He's gotten better and better as the year has gone on but he's also gone cold at times. If he gets the consistency then sure. Will he be better than who Stamkos is playing with now? I don't know who he's with now so I'm not sure, but I'd imagine.

What are we projecting for Jack next year? He got 48 in 70 so likely 50 in his rookie year. Are we thinking 60-70 or more?
- Zschalberg

He's playing with Palat (27 points in 49 games) and Kucherov (55 Points in 67 games). I'd say Jack is better than both of them next year. As for a prediction of his total points next year, I'd say if he gets a great winger to play with, along with reinhart, he could be a point a game player

my guess is because the scrubs like pysyk, foligno and the future captain girgens would have to be moved to get us better d


the plus is when you get a handful of upper end players, you are forced to cut the dead weight and plug in kids on cheap deals, and after watching the core float for 7 years it's not a bad thing
- homiedclown

wow moving out scrubs to better the team, who would have thought.

wow moving out scrubs to better the team, who would have thought.
- SABRES 89

We need to move them out for more draft picks !!

Agree on McAvoy.
- sippyd

17th in latest draft done yesterday


I take one of the d man in the 6-8 range, look to trade down at 9

17th in latest draft done yesterday


I take one of the d man in the 6-8 range, look to trade down at 9
- homiedclown

But Homie, why bother trading down from say #5 to #9?? Just take the player you like best at #5. You probably won't get a hell of a lot for the trade down? Now, if somebody wants to offer me a 2017 1st rounder to do it, I do that