Proposal: Fowler to Sabres Revisited

[Number1RedWingsFan52]

ducks are not trading their 2nd best dman for a player that scored 18 points last year, and a pick they need a top 6 forward and girgensons is not one

Pretty much my thinking as well, Still think that JVR, Tatar and Spooner would be the best options. Though JVR makes slightly more then Fowler.

 

[paulmm3]

As a Sabres fan I'm not too stoked on dealing away Girgensons right now. As everyone's been pointing out, his 18 points last year aren't great. Some of that is his own lack of production, sure, but some of that is the unfortunately large amount of his ice time that was spent with Matt Moulson and Brian Gionta. I see dealing Girgs now as a sell low proposition

 

[go4hockey]

Uhh, might want to check that again.

We'll probably expose Despres. If we still have Fowler, we'll protect him and just buyout Bieksa so we don't have to protect him.

So in summary, protected forwards: Getz, Perry, Kes, Silf, Rakell, Cogs, and whatever good forward we have left.

Protected defensemen, Lindholm, Vats, Fowler/Manson (depending on if we still have Fowler or not).

So you really think that the cheap owners the Ducks have that work on an internal cap would be fine to just have a buyout and pay a guy to just leave. I don't think that ownership will do that.

 

[dracom]

So you really think that the cheap owners the Ducks have that work on an internal cap would be fine to just have a buyout and pay a guy to just leave. I don't think that ownership will do that.

Yes I do. They've already bought other contracts and retained on others (Fistric, Maroon). They'll keep Fowler/Manson over Bieksa easily.

 

[Liferleafer]

It's very tough to find cheap win now -piece.

To Ducks: JVR

To TO: Fowler,Stoner,2nd.

Done.

 

[mytduxfan*]

Pass. Fowler is worth more. Girgs isn't worth what BUF fans think and that 2017 1st round pick could end up being worth very little with Fowler + Risto manning the top pairing and the addition of Okposo to an already fairly stacked forward line-up.

This is just another case of "ANA are in a tight spot and we hope to exploit that by getting one of their best players for cheap". First, you need to provide some irrefutable evidence that ANA is in a tight spot, something you cannot do until you know what our internal budget is and what Lindholm + Rakell will cost us. Then you need to provide some sound logic as to why BM would move Fowler for cheap instead of a multitude of other players at his disposal. ANA need to move someone, but you move Despres, Stoner, Bieksa, even Cogs, to clear salary well before you move Fowler. If Fowler is moved, it'll be for a solid return that helps this team win now.

 

[mytduxfan*]

So you really think that the cheap owners the Ducks have that work on an internal cap would be fine to just have a buyout and pay a guy to just leave. I don't think that ownership will do that.

They bought out Fistric's contract.

 

[Nordic*]

I don't know why everyone seems so high on Tatar. I have never been impressed with him.

Also probably a bad fit for Anaheim's style.

Here's an idea.

Lindholm straight up for Eichel.

 

[Rowley Birkin]

1. The Ducks just have to dump a defenseman (maybe even multiple defensemen, depending on their internal cap and the Lindholm negotiations) in the next month.
2. Chicago and Florida have shown us that the price to dump cap is pretty high this summer -- like, throw in a good young roster player or blue chip prospect. I'm not sure the Ducks will be able to just package Stoner/Despres with a minor asset and get out of trouble.
3. Seemed like on Draft Weekend, everybody was on notice to make their Fowler pitches. Buffalo might not have had the best one, but no one blew their doors off. I doubt the market has grown any larger.
4. Buffalo still needs a top pairing LHD, and they could just fit Fowler in with the right deal.

Fowler

for

Girgensons, 2017 1st

Obviously not the return Ducks fans would like most, but I'm thinking we're getting towards the phase of the offseason where they might have to make a move that isn't their ideal return if they're going to clear the space for Lindholm. Girgensons saves them money while giving them a very versatile, 200 ft young forward with a good chance, IMO, to rebound offensively.

Flame away.

Anaheim will likely want more.

When it comes to putting a package together for Fowler I really think the Sabres dropped the ball in essentially spending to the cap when signing Okposo - as cap space would be a huge asset for Anaheim here. I keep hoping they can somehow offload Kane to clear a chunk of space but I don't see that happening.

I still think a deal for Fowler isn't totally impossible but if the Sabres aren't taking on a large portion of salary then the Ducks can rightly ask for more value than Girgs + an unknown 1st. Weather they will get it from someone is another question....

 

[WeDislikeEich]

Pass. Fowler is worth more. Girgs isn't worth what BUF fans think and that 2017 1st round pick could end up being worth very little with Fowler + Risto manning the top pairing and the addition of Okposo to an already fairly stacked forward line-up.

This is just another case of "ANA are in a tight spot and we hope to exploit that by getting one of their best players for cheap". First, you need to provide some irrefutable evidence that ANA is in a tight spot, something you cannot do until you know what our internal budget is and what Lindholm + Rakell will cost us. Then you need to provide some sound logic as to why BM would move Fowler for cheap instead of a multitude of other players at his disposal. ANA need to move someone, but you move Despres, Stoner, Bieksa, even Cogs, to clear salary well before you move Fowler. If Fowler is moved, it'll be for a solid return that helps this team win now.

you probably know better than me, but historically, doesn't Anaheim operate at about roughly $8M under the cap? I thought that's what I read somewhere but I might be wrong. Maybe it depends on the revenue the team generates in a given year? I know that's how it used to be with the Sabres ownership. That definitely doesn't mean that they have to dump Fowler though. There are other way. It may possibly cost Anaheim a good prospect or pick, but that might be better than trading fowler cheap or losing a good d man to expansion.

Anyway, yeah I don't see Girgensons as enough and I'd suggest Ennis but that's already been shot down too. Ducks fans and Sabres fans don't make good trade partners... lol.

 

[anezthes]

Fowler

for

Girgensons, 2017 1st

Don't think BUF will suck enough next year to make it worth it.

To Ducks: JVR

To TO: Fowler,Stoner,2nd.

Done.

Deal.

 

[mytduxfan*]

To Ducks: JVR

To TO: Fowler,Stoner,2nd.

Done.

Deal.

you probably know better than me, but historically, doesn't Anaheim operate at about roughly $8M under the cap? I thought that's what I read somewhere but I might be wrong. Maybe it depends on the revenue the team generates in a given year? I know that's how it used to be with the Sabres ownership. That definitely doesn't mean that they have to dump Fowler though. There are other way. It may possibly cost Anaheim a good prospect or pick, but that might be better than trading fowler cheap or losing a good d man to expansion.

Anyway, yeah I don't see Girgensons as enough and I'd suggest Ennis but that's already been shot down too. Ducks fans and Sabres fans don't make good trade partners... lol.

That's exactly how it works. All we know is that BM "has a little more to work with" this year, at least that's what he's said. Could be 100k "more", it could be "5M" more. We just don't know. So this notion that we're somehow in a tight spot is totally unfounded. Regardless, yes, you don't move a player as good as Fowler to dump salary.

 

[Dr Johnny Fever]

So you really think that the cheap owners the Ducks have that work on an internal cap would be fine to just have a buyout and pay a guy to just leave. I don't think that ownership will do that.

Actually if you do the math it's obvious he would be bought out. His last year is at $4M. A buyout costs $2.6 plus his replacement player on the roster. That will be either an ELC guy or a #7 NHL guy, both of whom will cost less than $1M. So, yes, if Bieksa does not waive, he will be bought out.

 

[Pennaduck]

Actually if you do the math it's obvious he would be bought out. His last year is at $4M. A buyout costs $2.6 plus his replacement player on the roster. That will be either an ELC guy or a #7 NHL guy, both of whom will cost less than $1M. So, yes, if Bieksa does not waive, he will be bought out.

I could be wrong, but I think they could offer Vegas something to persuade them to pick player x rather than one of our better unprotected guys (unlikely) or they could convince Bieksa to waive his NMC for the purpose of protecting a younger defenseman, knowing full well Vegas would not claim an aging, overpaid defenseman with one year left on his contract. If neither are options, they will absolutely buy him out as you suggest

 

[HogtownSabresfan]

Ducks are not getting a first rounder for Fowler -- not a high one and certainly not one that isn't lottery protected. They tried and tried for a first in 2016 draft and struck out.

 

[hizzoner]

If Kulikov pans out then Fowler is not what the Sabres need most in D. McCabe and Kulikov while not super stars are good 2nd and 3rd pairing LD. Fowler is good but not good enough to pay out Girgs, a first (10 to 15 likely) plus probable loss of Mc Cabe in expansion draft if we go 7-3-1.

 

[TopShelfWaterBottle]

Ducks are not getting a first rounder for Fowler -- not a high one and certainly not one that isn't lottery protected. They tried and tried for a first in 2016 draft and struck out.

Can you prove they asked for a draft pick for fowler? How do you know that Bob Murray didnt want more therefore him saying no to a draft pick only? If you have evidence everyone would love to see it

 

[Rowley Birkin]

If Kulikov pans out then Fowler is not what the Sabres need most in D. McCabe and Kulikov while not super stars are good 2nd and 3rd pairing LD. Fowler is good but not good enough to pay out Girgs, a first (10 to 15 likely) plus probable loss of Mc Cabe in expansion draft if we go 7-3-1.

So getting a young 1st pairing LD* without giving up a 'core' player or a top ten pick is not good enough ?

Or is possibly losing your 3rd pairing LD in an expansion draft the deal breaker ?

I really don't get it.

* - Fowler would absolutely be good enough to be 1LD on the Sabres & theres likely nobody else remotely as good available

 

[ForsakenSabre]

The value seems close enough in a vacuum but these Anaheim to Buffalo dman threads never go well why bother making them?

 

[Ducks in a row]

Ducks are not getting a first rounder for Fowler -- not a high one and certainly not one that isn't lottery protected. They tried and tried for a first in 2016 draft and struck out.

Ducks are a win now team it shouldn't be so hard to believe that the reason why a deal wasn't made was because they had not been happy with a deal helping the Ducks enough for this season. Player > Pick for the Ducks. Just getting a top 10 pick not enough. Top 10 pick and a bottom 6 forward not enough either.

 

[Dr Johnny Fever]

I could be wrong, but I think they could offer Vegas something to persuade them to pick player x rather than one of our better unprotected guys (unlikely) or they could convince Bieksa to waive his NMC for the purpose of protecting a younger defenseman, knowing full well Vegas would not claim an aging, overpaid defenseman with one year left on his contract. If neither are options, they will absolutely buy him out as you suggest

I can't see any reason why Bob would give up an asset in order to keep Bieksa protected. Somewhere, this summer, on the Ducks board I offered up my opinion as to why it was in Bieksa's best interest to waive. I'm too lazy to go into it again, but I can only see it coming down to him waiving or being bought out.

 

[Tecumseh]

To Ducks: JVR

To TO: Fowler,Stoner,2nd.

Done.

I really can't argue with this deal. It solves two problems at the same time and is a respectable return. Maybe TOR could add a 3rd because we're such great trading partners

 

[eternalbedhead]

Corsi isn't perfect but we're talking about players who are erroneously bad at it.

Goals aren't perfect either, but if you can't score 10 goals over a large sample, you're probably bad at scoring goals.

A quick note:
You say "When someone only scores 10 goals, he's not very good", yet Fowler isn't among the league's worst in Corsi metrics, and he hasn't been since his rookie season, when I think everyone can agree he was atrocious defensively without having to look up his stats to find a measly little 41 in the CF% category. He hasn't been plus, but he's hung within 2 percentage points of 50 for the most part.

Also, I'm including all defenders with over 100 minutes in my sorts when I'm looking at advanced stats for the purpose of this post.

Most people using advanced stats as a primary means of evaluation typically laugh at people for using pure points or goals as a means of offensive evaluation, primarily because there's plenty of factors that can change or effect goal scoring.

There's obviously the Cheechoo effect, and its inverse (in other words, quality of linemates). There's time on ice per game, which is countered by using G/60 and Pts/60 instead. (which in themselves are better than their traditional counterparts but still fail to live up the measure of a perfect stat) There's player health/condition. (whether they're 100% in prime condition, or playing through a nagging injury) There's cold and hot streaks. There's coaches, in whose systems player x might play horribly in. There's player chemistry, meaning two or three players who might not be elite players offensively could put up good numbers, as well as its inverse. (players who don't mesh well together obviously won't perform up to expectations)

Corsi is much the same way. Too many people look at someone's HERO charts, see someone in deep **** in the possession category, and think "Oh, he sucks", without looking at context. Let's evaluate Fowler using the above qualifiers.

Cheechoo effect/quality of linemates: Inverse. This is the big one. Fowler has spent most of the year with Kevin Bieksa. Fowler, a player whose talents lie in moving the puck out of the zone (you should know his zone exit percentage is among the league's best) is tied down to one of the slowest defenders on our team in Kevin Bieksa.

TOI/Gm is mostly irrelevant since we're evaluating a percentage stat, not a flat number. Player condition is an unknown for the most part since we don't know everything that goes on in the trainer's room but I think that it's safe to assume Fowler, at least for the most part, was fine last year.

Hot/cold streaks is rather irrelevant. The Ducks obviously were mired in a huge cold-stretch earlier in the season, although their shortcomings were more on the offensive side as their possession numbers were solid, so we can probably ignore that.

Coaches/systems is another, but the main effect of this is once again drawn back again to Boudreau's strange obsession with giving Bieksa ice time, which usually has been next to Fowler this season. I don't think Boudreau's system itself really limited Fowler, although Fowler's been deployed in a shutdown role with a defensively unstable partner, which I can't imagine makes a good impact on his stats.

Player chemistry is another big one. Watching the two play, it's quite obviously that Bieksa and Fowler are not matches for each other, for reason's I've already noted. On a separate note, I'll also bring up the Lindholm-Manson pairing, since it's essentially a polar opposite. Neither are Norris-caliber players, yet it was our best pairing and IMO one of the better ones in the NHL.

Also, talking about anomalies that using Corsi produces, Kevin Bieksa somehow was over 50%; better than Fowler. Talk about Fowler's defensive prowess all you want, but Bieksa is absolutely not better than him. In fact, our 3rd best and 4th best players in CF% are Clayton Stoner and Kevin Bieksa, respectively. (1 and 2 are Lindholm and Manson) Stoner isn't awful. Bieksa wouldn't be bad if he was played as the 6th/7th defender he is, but he was god-awful this season given so much ice time. Korbinian Holzer was 5th. Once again. Not our 5th best defender. Still, none of them are better than Despres, Vatanen, and yes, Fowler.

EDIT: I should note that there's a general trend that shows that players with high levels of defensive zone starts tend to have lower CF% values. The highest-ranked defenseman to have a CF% over 50 was Ben Lovejoy, 17th in defensive zone start percentage, with a 51.3 marker. Cam Fowler doesn't exactly get shafted by the amount of defensive zone starts he gets, but he is placed fairly high, at 71st, and has the highest DZS% out of anyone on the team outside of Shea Theodore. (who had a limited showing) Naturally, players that get started more in the defensive zone are more apt to get outshot, though through no fault of their own. Cam Fowler's CF% of 48.8 is about around the mean of the people with comparable defensive zone starts. Also, Cam Fowler gets the 25th-least offensive zone starts out of anyone in the league, and once again a general trend is shown between players with low amounts of offensive zone-starts and CF% values. The lowest-ranked defenseman in offensive zone starts to have an over 50 CF% value is Marc-Edouard Vlasic, who gets the 15th-least offensive starts out of all defenders in the league.

 

[WhatTheDuck]

Ducks are not getting a first rounder for Fowler -- not a high one and certainly not one that isn't lottery protected. They tried and tried for a first in 2016 draft and struck out.

There were tweets saying the Ducks were discussing Fowler with Sabres and Habs, and that those teams may need to move their first rounders in order to get him. The conclusion you've drawn from that is ridiculous.

 

[labbatt]

Fowler and a 2nd for Girgs, Peterson and a 1st.