[News] Islanders will keep 2014 1st round pick

[BigTuna]

Originally Posted by theoforever

Let's start making bets on how good year 2 will be.
I said 48pts but would not be shocked if it is 42pts.
Sabres have positioned themselves to pick #1 for 3 years straight.
How long will it take to get out of this sewer?

Sabres made a decision: we will sell everyone, we will suck, we will pick #1 for 2-3 years and we will be a superpower. Just like OIL.
Only difference is that 52 pts is an overkill, that even OIL would be proud of.

I think the Sabres still had some good young pieces already before this past season. I don't think they're as bad as other long-term tanking teams.

Hell, Florida has been rebuilding for how long?

[Hackey]

Originally Posted by theoforever

Let's start making bets on how good year 2 will be.
I said 48pts but would not be shocked if it is 42pts.
Sabres have positioned themselves to pick #1 for 3 years straight.
How long will it take to get out of this sewer?

Sabres made a decision: we will sell everyone, we will suck, we will pick #1 for 2-3 years and we will be a superpower. Just like OIL.
Only difference is that 52 pts is an overkill, that even OIL would be proud of.

Give it a rest man. They did what any team in their situation should do. Smart asset management and now they are set up to have a shorter turn around ass opposed to letting guys like Vanek and Miller walk for nothing.

[Hackey]

As for the Avalanche I don't see how they tanked. Teams have RFAs hold out because of contract reasons all the time. ROR got overpaid because Feaster forced them into that situation. Do you actually think their plan in the offseason was to not sign ROR so we can draft Mackinnon? That's ridiculous. People say they didn't fire their coach but it was a shortened season and they had their eyes set on Roy who already had a job and they had to wait. People are obsessed with "tanking" and it gets tiresome. I don't even think the Oilers tanked. They just poorly managed assets, missed on UFAs, drafted poorly, developed players poorly, etc. Thats just poor management.

[theoforever]

Don't like tanking in general, NHL doesn't either as it puts integrity of the game in question. If find it hypocritical for fans to pat Sabres on the back and criticize Oil for the same.

[Hackey]

So you think they should have just let Vanek and Miller walk for nothing? They replaced Vanek with Moulson and kept Miller till the deadline so you can't even really say it was planned. It was just circumstance.

[theoforever]

Originally Posted by Hackey

So you think they should have just let Vanek and Miller walk for nothing? They replaced Vanek with Moulson and kept Miller till the deadline so you can't even really say it was planned. It was just circumstance.

They got picks for Vanek not just Moulson, and they knew they could still flip him. Sure thing they should have traded them, but lets not be naive.
Decision was made to suck all the way. It was made early knowing that there will be 2/3 franchise players in 2015. So, lets cut the crap and call it for what it is.

[Hackey]

So what was the difference with what the Flames did last year when they traded Iginla and Bouwmeester? I guess the Flames are tankers too.

[OutOfTheCube]

Originally Posted by theoforever

They got picks for Vanek not just Moulson, and they knew they could still flip him. Sure thing they should have traded them, but lets not be naive.
Decision was made to suck all the way. It was made early knowing that there will be 2/3 franchise players in 2015. So, lets cut the crap and call it for what it is.

If the decision was made to 'suck all the way' why did we play a Vezina winning goalie (who had a pretty decent year) for 3/4 of the season? Or send down our rookies and try to fill their spots with veterans through the waiver wire? Or fire our lame duck coach and struggling GM very early in the season?

Sometimes teams are just bad, and for a large part of this season they really did try to improve. Only when things were obviously finished did they send off their UFA's for draft picks and prospects, a move any reasonable GM would do. As for next year, it's far too early to say we're tanking for McDavid. There's still the draft and an entire off season.

[theoforever]

Originally Posted by Hackey

So what was the difference with what the Flames did last year when they traded Iginla and Bouwmeester? I guess the Flames are tankers too.

I called what Flames are doing an unofficial tank job.Play hard and wait for the kids to get better, if we finish in the bottom 5 or 6 in 2014/2015 that's fine. Conny has said that fans should not expect big splash in the offseason and a possible step back. Cammy offer of 3y/12m instead of 3y/15m sort of a sign as well of not trying to get better. Iginla had to be traded Bou didn't.

Nowhere close in magnitude to Sabres plan, most likely because of Edmonton's cautionary tale.

As for what Sabres will do, I'm sure it will be as little as possible.
There was a rumor that Lafontaine was mad as hell that Miller was not being resigned. Did Sabres make an offer to Moulson?

[Hackey]

Dude you don't even make sense. The Flames and Sabres are doing the exact same thing. The Sabres traded away UFA's who wernt going to resign. Miller wanted to play on the west coast. Vanek was offered a contract and declined. Moulson obviously wanted to test free agency and is why the Islanders moved him. The Flames got rid of Jbo when they could have kept him. If anything by your definition the Flames tried to tank harder than the Sabres. As for on the ice effort no NHL player is going to purposely lose and no management is going to outright ask their players to lose. If you want to actually prove your point don't just make assumptions on Buffalo's intentions or plans but show actual transactions that prove your point.

[theoforever]

Originally Posted by Hackey

Dude you don't even make sense. The Flames and Sabres are doing the exact same thing. The Sabres traded away UFA's who wernt going to resign. Miller wanted to play on the west coast. Vanek was offered a contract and declined. Moulson obviously wanted to test free agency and is why the Islanders moved him. The Flames got rid of Jbo when they could have kept him. If anything by your definition the Flames tried to tank harder than the Sabres. As for on the ice effort no NHL player is going to purposely lose and no management is going to outright ask their players to lose. If you want to actually prove your point Dan Marouelli just make assumptions on Buffalo's intentions or plans but show actual transactions that prove your point.

If you listen to what was written instead of getting hysterical it would help you to undetstand.
Perhaps, you should wait for an official memo from Sabres, I'm sure they will explain their plan point by point.

Nobody is talking about players being told to lose.
Are you reading between the lines....

The selling off by Sabres has been grater than Flames, look at the trade record.

[kyuss275]

Originally Posted by theoforever

If you listen to what was written instead of getting hysterical it would help you to undetstand.
Perhaps, you should wait for an official memo from Sabres, I'm sure they will explain their plan point by point.

Nobody is talking about players being told to lose.
Are you reading between the lines....

The selling off by Sabres has been grater than Flames, look at the trade record.

The selling off of sabre players is greater because they had players more in demand. We tried to trade Cammi and there was talk that they offered Wideman around. The only difference is that nobody wanted the flames players or offered very little for them.

[theoforever]

If Sabres and Flames are doing exactly the same thing then Flames suck at one more thing. You win.

[Hackey]

Originally Posted by theoforever

If you listen to what was written instead of getting hysterical it would help you to undetstand.
Perhaps, you should wait for an official memo from Sabres, I'm sure they will explain their plan point by point.

Nobody is talking about players being told to lose.
Are you reading between the lines....

The selling off by Sabres has been grater than Flames, look at the trade record.

Why do I need to look it up? Why don't you just post them and prove your point. I've already mentioned the notable players they traded this year and they were all UFAs. This happens at every deadline. This is what teams do. It's maximizing your assets. It's what any smart management team does. The Flames traded signed players like JBo and Tanguay knowing they would be worse off without them. Are they tankers?

[theoforever]

Originally Posted by Hackey

Why do I need to look it up? Why don't you just post them and prove your point. I've already mentioned the notable players they traded this year and they were all UFAs. This happens at every deadline. This is what teams do. It's maximizing your assets. It's what any smart management team does. The Flames traded signed players like JBo and Tanguay knowing they would be worse off without them. Are they tankers?

Have you seen Tangs play? Traded in an attempt to improve.
JBO told you above.
Not at a computer, so just google "sabres trade record".

Already said so.
I called Flames actions unofficial tank, called Sabres monumental.
The main difference is the degree.
Flames are keeping some level self-respect.
Sabres on the other hand, don't make me laugh.

[Hackey]

Name one notable player the Sabres dealt this year that wasn't a UFA.

[Huntingwhale]

Honestly who cares if the Sabres intentionally tanked or not? At the end of the day, they got incredible returns, including multiple 1st round picks, in various deep drafts. If people want to call it taking, I call it good asset management. Should a team hang onto their pending UFAs to appease internet keyboard warriors who get upset at the perception of taking?

Sabres did exactly what they needed to do. Something the Flames did too late and are now paying the price. Buffalo will be better in the long run for it.

[ForeverFlameFan]

Sabres somewhat "tanked"... Buffalo is just making the right moves and rebuilding right. I only consider them tanking is because they traded their best players and knew that they were going to suck. In my opinion, they tanked, but they tanked with an intent to do a great rebuild.

[PeteMoss]

You can call it tanking or not. But they are miles away from being even decent.

They've got some good prospects but how close or how good they are is widely overrated.

Besides Girgensons, their forward prospects are not great. They've got good depth on defence but most of them are likely 3-6 guys except Ristolainen. They have no goalies of note anywhere in the system.

They are probably 4 years away from being a borderline playoff team and that's a long time to tell fans to pay for tickets to watch losses. Its also a long time for players to not pick up bad habits and short cuts while they constantly lose.

EDIT: Regarding the 'all they did was trade UFA' stuff. The Flames signed Stajan to a contract and trade for Smid so their players didn't have to spend the year getting beaten like a drum.

I also don't think people realize how bad they are. Buffalo would have to improve by 25 points to just match what the Flames did this year. If the Flames improve by 25 points they would finish with a better record than the Kings did this year.

[Hackey]

Originally Posted by ForeverFlameFan

Sabres somewhat "tanked"... Buffalo is just making the right moves and rebuilding right. I only consider them tanking is because they traded their best players and knew that they were going to suck. In my opinion, they tanked, but they tanked with an intent to do a great rebuild.

They traded these players at the deadline when they were already out of the playoffs. They were all UFAs as well. It's not like they traded them in the off season or during the season. So no they didn't trade their best players knowing they would suck. They sucked and THEN traded their UFAs.