👍

Kuemper or raanta? Both quality players.
Rode kuemper to the hockeybuzz fantasy championship. 😉

We need an upgrade in goal, they don't want to pay 2 goalies good $ I imagine
- Boss34

Hutton's perfect for them, then. Cheap, one year rental 😂

Too good to be true, I would imagine.

It would take a helluva player on a good contract for me to move that pick.
- Stripes77

I wouldn’t move 8 for Schmaltz either.

I wouldn’t move 8 for Schmaltz either.
- Pegullaville

Correct

Mitts for Schmaltz?

I'm not trading 8 for Clayton Keller. I know who would, but I don't think most would.
- TheSabresTaco

Fair enough.

I could see the Sabres move guys that are up for contract and do not fit the "lean" approach

Sam
Montour
Tage
Casey
* oloffson if they cant agree on a reasonable contract
Which I fully expect an agreement

Okay. You could say bills should have lost to rams and dolphins.

Chiefs have far and away been the best team. Its not even up for debate. Homers are the only way people see it another way.
- Mentalorgasm5

The Packers have been pretty dominant as well (I’m a packers fan, but try to be as unbiased as possible). They haven’t played anyone good yet though.

Mitts for Schmaltz?
- Powerslave

Kuemper and Schmaltz for Montour’s rights assuming OEL gets moved and a 2nd

lol Pens

lol Pens
- TheSabresTaco

Couldn’t find anyone to trade for him hahaha

Couldn’t find anyone to trade for him hahaha
- Stripes77

The Rutherford clown show....


continues.

Kuemper and Schmaltz for Montour’s rights assuming OEL gets moved and a 2nd
- Stripes77

Is that enough for a player who is supposed to be a top 6 and a good goalie? There has to be other teams bidding for the players.

They save about 1.3M buying him out. And they have him on the books for 6 years.

"yeah we love to have JJ, he won't play though"

(frank)ing. clown.

They save about 1.3M buying him out. And they have him on the books for 6 years.

"yeah we love to have JJ, he won't play though"

(frank)ing. clown.
- TheSabresTaco

They buy Johnson out?

Is that enough for a player who is supposed to be a top 6 and a good goalie? There has to be other teams bidding for the players.
- GilPerreault11

Probably not. Send Casey too. Still might not be enough.

This is the issues with crappy drafting the last 3 years. No good prospects to dangle.

They buy Johnson out?
- Powerslave

Yup

Kuemper and Schmaltz for Montour’s rights assuming OEL gets moved and a 2nd
- Stripes77

Swap Kuemper for Raanta and that makes sense

The thing with Schmaltz is beginning 23/24 the cash the team pays him is over 7 mil and his last year he makes 8.5 million that brings his trade value down because what teams want that? He is another untradeable player when that hits.

The thing with Schmaltz is beginning 23/24 the cash the team pays him is over 7 mil and his last year he makes 8.5 million that brings his trade value down because what teams want that? He is another untradeable player when that hits.
- GilPerreault11

This is true, but it ends when he's 30, so one could assume that he'll at least be still playing at a decent level. Buf won't be able to trade him, but if he's still playing well they may not want to.

The thing with Schmaltz is beginning 23/24 the cash the team pays him is over 7 mil and his last year he makes 8.5 million that brings his trade value down because what teams want that? He is another untradeable player when that hits.
- GilPerreault11

His metrics are meh including his actual point totals.

I wouldn’t mind the move but I wouldn’t be giving Arizona anything substantial here.

..........

The buyout window closes on Thursday, Oct 8 at 5pm ET. Still names being tossed around as potential buyout candidates, like Alex Wennberg and Kyle Turris.

Fourth period

Speaking of Arizona, word is that Buffalo likes Coyotes centre Nick Schmaltz, who is signed for six more years at $5.85 million per.

..........
- SABRES 89

Same 89, same.

Same 89, same.
- Stripes77

Heard they like Sanderson's kid, isn't he a D man ?

Trading for Schmaltz with that contract would be a typical Sabres losing move. Spend too much, for not enough.