funny thing is larsson has like 7 game winning goals in his last 100 games
- homiedclown

That's all fine and well, but other than game winners, he doesn't really score all that often.

what am I playing? oh my bad your the insider. My apologies.

Then enlighten me why he didn't take the goalie then.
- rinaldo

Because we gave them a 6th rounder... Try and keep up

My random thought is maybe Girgs is kept for trade value, and Larsson is there to replace. Maybe Girgs is included in a defense trade?
- Simple

Why do we still own Moulson.

what am I playing? oh my bad your the insider. My apologies.

Then enlighten me why he didn't take the goalie then.
- rinaldo

If he wanted a goalie why not take Raanta, Grubauer, Hutton, all better options then Ullmark. He wanted more picks and they liked Carrier for his size and speed. So why not play the " game" and get more when you can. Plenty of other options out there besides Ullmark that were proven.

You might be right with the bolded.

And somehow, the italicized did sway him.

Can't have it both ways. Either McPhee really didn't care which one he took, so the 6th rounder did sway him, or he wanted Ullmark, and the 6th rounder swayed him. So what is your point, and how do you feel about Claude Giroux's stats and quality of play declining at such a rapid rate while paying him 9 mil a year to be the best chirper in the league?
- SDSabre

point is he didn't want the goalie that bad. why is hard to accept.

me personally I feel fine about Giroux. it has no bearing on my life at all.

from a hockey standpoint I would trade him in a heartbeat. best chirper in the league? well that's a new one

JB- Please don't take Ullmark
McPhee- Unless you have Martin Erat, it's going to cost you

LOLOLOLOLOL He just got bought out for a reason. He would be JUST LIKE Franson and Gorges.
- JVince11

...

He was bought out because he's not a 5M defenseman. He's probably worth half that. Which is almost half of Gorges' cap. And he's younger and does the same thing.

So.....

Maybe we can buy Shattenkirk.... there is your top pairing guy without giving up assets. Lord knows we have the cap space especially if we buyout Moulson.

Maybe even add Oshie to the top 6. I've heard that we like Hanzal for a 3C.


Del Zotto could be a fall back plan. Stone even farther of a fall back. Oduya/Daley was kind of a bust this year.


Kane - Eichel - Oshie
Okposo - ROR - Sam
Zemgus - Hanzal - Ennis

Risto - Shatts
McCabe - Beaulieu
Antipin - Bogo

Looks a SH1T TON BETTER... how realistic tho... not very.

Why do we still own Moulson.
- TheSabresTaco

From a scout I talk to, he said it was our goal to try swinging a deal for Mouslon to Vegas. Problem is, takes 2 to tango i guess.

point is he didn't want the goalie that bad. why is hard to accept.

me personally I feel fine about Giroux. it has no bearing on my life at all.

from a hockey standpoint I would trade him in a heartbeat. best chirper in the league? well that's a new one
- rinaldo

Go watch some of his video's, he actually has quite a few good one liners. Good stuff. And why is it so hard to accept that he didn't want either, possibly, but was persuaded with the 6th rounder to take Carrier?

If he wanted a goalie why not take Raanta, Grubauer, Hutton, all better options then Ullmark. He wanted more picks and they liked Carrier for his size and speed. So why not play the " game" and get more when you can. Plenty of other options out there besides Ullmark that were proven.
- SABRES 89

forgot those other goalie options. We are talking about the 2 buffalo players only.

I agree they wanted carrier more or they wouldn't have taken him (been saying that since the first post). Buffalo didn't want to lose Ullmark so they gave him a 6th as a courtesy. Vegas though it was fair and likely didn't haggle over it.

From a scout I talk to, he said it was our goal to try swinging a deal for Mouslon to Vegas. Problem is, takes 2 to tango i guess.
- Simple

Or the price is too high.

With what the Isles gave up... I can see why Botterill wouldn't do that.

Or the price is too high.

With what the Isles gave up... I can see why Botterill wouldn't do that.
- thatsapickle

Yea... Probably wanted at least a 2nd/3rd and maybe a prospect like Baptiste or Bailey.

That's all fine and well, but other than game winners, he doesn't really score all that often.
- HonkFortheGoose

game winning goals don't matter much



I kid
I kid

Go watch some of his video's, he actually has quite a few good one liners. Good stuff. And why is it so hard to accept that he didn't want either, possibly, but was persuaded with the 6th rounder to take Carrier?
- SDSabre

I am sure that 6th rd pick got the deal done.

forgot those other goalie options. We are talking about the 2 buffalo players only.

I agree they wanted carrier more or they wouldn't have taken him (been saying that since the first post). Buffalo didn't want to lose Ullmark so they gave him a 6th as a courtesy. Vegas though it was fair and likely didn't haggle over it.
- rinaldo

No your point was they wanted Ullmark and mine was, they wanted more picks and " acted" like they wanted Ullmark and got just that, a good player and another pick.

Plenty other options out there better then Ullmark, they wanted the pick.

Maybe we can buy Shattenkirk.... there is your top pairing guy without giving up assets. Lord knows we have the cap space especially if we buyout Moulson.

Maybe even add Oshie to the top 6. I've heard that we like Hanzal for a 3C.


Del Zotto could be a fall back plan. Stone even farther of a fall back. Oduya/Daley was kind of a bust this year.


Kane - Eichel - Oshie
Okposo - ROR - Sam
Zemgus - Hanzal - Ennis

Risto - Shatts
McCabe - Beaulieu
Antipin - Bogo

Looks a SH1T TON BETTER... how realistic tho... not very.
- JVince11

Shattenkirk is not worth 7 mill a year, let the Rangers have that boat anchor.

Del Zotto would be a nice grab

forgot those other goalie options. We are talking about the 2 buffalo players only.

I agree they wanted carrier more or they wouldn't have taken him (been saying that since the first post). Buffalo didn't want to lose Ullmark so they gave him a 6th as a courtesy. Vegas though it was fair and likely didn't haggle over it.
- rinaldo

How come you didn't respond to my post about the value of which GM proposes who is protected. If McPhee goes to a team, says I'm taking player X unless you make it worth my while, the cost will be high. If any other GM goes to McPhee and says, I'd like to keep player Y, the cost will be lower. Basic in my mind. He probably didn't want Ullmark as bad as some are suggesting, but that also doesn't mean that he wanted Carrier over Ullmark. Truth is, none of us will know, and he could have swindled the Botts out of a 6th by SAYING he was going to take Ullmark, but was going to take Carrier the whole time. I'm guessing he did play a few chess matches with some rival GM's. I mean, wouldn't you?

Probably time to stop throwing cake under the bridge.

Yea... Probably wanted at least a 2nd/3rd and maybe a prospect like Baptiste or Bailey.
- JVince11

Would have been a first imo. Maybe we could have done it for a 2018 first

Shattenkirk is not worth 7 mill a year, let the Rangers have that boat anchor.
- SABRES 89

He did go ghost mode in the playoffs.

I am sure that 6th rd pick got the deal done.
- rinaldo

Well clearly it did. So carry on saying the same thing until you get everyone on an opposing teams board to agree with your assessment of that teams assets. Please, it's great.

Shattenkirk is not worth 7 mill a year, let the Rangers have that boat anchor.
- SABRES 89

Shatts, Hanz.. Woof.

I'd take Oshie for 5 or less. We need one or more of our prospects to be able to switch to LW.

Shatts, Hanz.. Woof.

I'd take Oshie for 5 or less. We need one or more of our prospects to be able to switch to LW.
- TheSabresTaco

Didn't Okposo play both sides but mainly RW?