Speculation: Roster Speculation: Part XVI (Off-Season Madness)

[Push Dr Tracksuit]

Not really. It wasn't the same thing when the Rigas' bankrupted the team bc of their other businesses.

The "organization", at least as I see it, refers to everyone on the coaching staff, scouting staffs (pro and amateur), management (GM, team president, etc) and owners.

The owners themselves may as a collective say "yes that person is integral to us winning a cup", but the owner(s) may sit down and say "eh, it may be important, but I'm not paying that much for it".

That's the difference to me.

I agree there's a difference, the organization tries to do everything to win. Ownership has to balance winning with making money. Ownership involves businessmen, management involves hockey people. Good ownership doesn't meddle, bad ownership says you can't have more money to sign your top D.

 

[dkollidas]

I agree there's a difference, the organization tries to do everything to win. Ownership has to balance winning with making money. Ownership involves businessmen, management involves hockey people. Good ownership doesn't meddle, bad ownership says you can't have more money to sign your top D.

Agreed for the most part.
Only thing I would say is that saying "you can't have more money to sign your top D" isn't necessarily "bad" ownership", it might just be limited financially.

 

[Push Dr Tracksuit]

Agreed for the most part.
Only thing I would say is that saying "you can't have more money to sign your top D" isn't necessarily "bad" ownership", it might just be limited financially.

Good and bad being from the perspective of a fan base who presume view winning above other people's financials.

 

[Zip15]

Looks like there were more suitors for Caggiula than originally reported:



That adds TB and PIT to the mix.

And NYR, as well, apparently:

 

[haseoke39]

The "organization", at least as I see it, refers to everyone on the coaching staff, scouting staffs (pro and amateur), management (GM, team president, etc) and owners.

That seems to contradict you saying that the organization doesn't impose the cap. But it's a semantic thing.

The larger point is that Anaheim's ownership is not necessarily going to hamstring their GM if the GM makes a good case for them to spend to the cap next year. If it's a well run "organization" or "team" or "collective of business and hockey professionals," then they'll talk about the pros and cons of how much money they spend every year. And the GM should walk into that meeting prepared to convince them that it's a lot financially smarter to take a short term hit if it means you keep the building block of a long term winner, with all the revenue that entails.

 

[Jim Bob]

A) That's your semantic preference, B) The larger point is that Anaheim's ownership is not necessarily going to hamstring their GM if the GM makes a good case for them to spend to the cap next year. If it's a well run "organization" or "team" or "collective of business and hockey professionals," then they'll talk about the pros and cons of how much money they spend every year. And the GM should walk into that meeting prepared to convince them that it's a lot financially smarter to take a short term hit if it means you keep the building block of a long term winner, with all the revenue that entails.

I wonder how much getting bounced in the first round this year affects the budget for next season.

When the Sabres were a budget team, how many playoff games they hosted affected things.

 

[Dingo44]

It's a little too close for comfort.

http://gocheckers.com/articles/1687-rasmus-rissanen-signs-with-khl-team

Rasmus Rissanen Signs With KHL Team

 

[Push Dr Tracksuit]

I wonder how much getting bounced in the first round this year affects the budget for next season.

When the Sabres were a budget team, how many playoff games they hosted affected things.

Does firing their coach effect the dollars ownership is willing to commit to the roster.

 

[alcolol]

I wonder how much getting bounced in the first round this year affects the budget for next season.

When the Sabres were a budget team, how many playoff games they hosted affected things.

Anaheim's GM is on record saying revenues were up this year and consequently, the budget will increase.

 

[Chainshot]

Looks like there were more suitors for Caggiula than originally reported:



That adds TB and PIT to the mix.

And NYR, as well, apparently:

He should be browsing the field. And I still expect him to sing in Buffalo.

 

[Jim Bob]

He should be browsing the field. And I still expect him to sing in Buffalo.

Is he coming to take Doug Allen's job?

 

[Dingo44]

Is he coming to take Doug Allen's job?

If that is what they have to promise him to get him to sign, I'll listen to some off-key anthem renditions for a while - maybe every time he scores a goal he can do the anthem the next game? Oh Canada, only.

 

[Chainshot]

Sing, sign, singe. Whatever.

 

[Rhett4]

Why the confidence in Caggiula signing, Chain? Gut feeling, a lot of stock in the dev camp connection, or something else? It'd be a great mid-six add.

 

[Jame]

As you said "should".
This time last year Brandon Saad and Dougie Hamilton were the last player Chicagi or Boston should've moved, but it happened.

Not saying I disagree with you. I completely agree with you. But this is an organization that traded valuable pieces for a beaten down expensive Kevin Bieksa...

Uh... not really.

 

[Der Jaeger]

Teams pick their core and stick to them. Saad was never part of the Chicago core: Toews, Kane, Hossa, Keith, Seabrook, Hjalmarsson. You don't trade a core player for cap reasons. You trade a core player only when another can replace him. Chicago could replace Hossa with Panarin, for example.

Anaheim won't trade Lindholm. Their core is Getzlaf, Perry, Kesler, and Lindholm. Threatening the offer sheet for Lindholm might force the Ducks to make a choice between Vatanen and Fowler.

I don't see the Ducks parting with Lindholm.

 

[dkollidas]

Uh... not really.

Ok... Not really. But we heard Bickell and others from Chicago. And we heard a number of guys from Boston who should've been moved before those two as well.

 

[Old Navy Goat]

Ok... Not really. But we heard Bickell and others from Chicago. And we heard a number of guys from Boston who should've been moved before those two as well.

The problem is that no one wants Bickell at that cap number. They knew Saad was going to command 6mil+ and couldn't afford him. As for Hamilton, with Boston being nut to butt against the cap and the rumor that he was offer sheet bait, they bit the bullet and moved him.

 

[AustonsNostrils]

Toronto winning the lottery has made winning Vesey over them more important to me.

 

[FamilyGuy716]

Toronto winning the lottery has made winning Vesey over them more important to me.

Yep

 

[SamuraiArt]

Is he coming to take Doug Allen's job?

For me, Allen is as much a part of the Sabres as Rick Jeanneret. I'd put a swift pump on the brakes if Caggiula was booting Allen. (I realize it's a joke... but Doug Allen is a god-damned legend and I refuse to joke like that!)

 

[Zip15]

We've frequently operated under the assumption that Minnesota would want the #8 pick for Brodin, but what if old pal Fletcher wants a package to replenish their prospect/near-NHL ready player/draft pick cupboard? For several years, the Wild have sold draft picks - in most cases to the Sabres - for short-term help. I'm thinking something along the lines of the ROR trade.

Would you do some variation of this trade?

Pysyk
Bailey/Fasching [I think the Wild would prefer the Gopher, but I think he's one of Tim's guys - Tim did not draft Bailey.]
2016 2nd (38th overall)
MIN 2017 2nd

for

Brodin
Kuemper/Zucker [the "throw in" a la McGinn; get either a backup netminder if/when Chad goes to UFA, or the forward depth throw-in...a la McGinn]

PROS: If you also draft one of Chychrun/Juolevi, you've got Brodin (23) and the newly-drafted player (18), and you've pretty much addressed the long-term LHD problem over about a one-week period. You've used positions of depth (NHL RD and prospect RW) to address the need.

CONS: Giving up Pysyk and one of the higher-ceiling RWs. Also, selling two of your three 2nd rounders in 2016 and 2017 when the prospect cupboard is getting pretty thin.

 

[Jame]

We've frequently operated under the assumption that Minnesota would want the #8 pick for Brodin, but what if old pal Fletcher wants a package to replenish their prospect/near-NHL ready player/draft pick cupboard? For several years, the Wild have sold draft picks - in most cases to the Sabres - for short-term help. I'm thinking something along the lines of the ROR trade.

Would you do some variation of this trade?

Pysyk
Bailey/Fasching [I think the Wild would prefer the Gopher, but I think he's one of Tim's guys - Tim did not draft Bailey.]
2016 2nd (38th overall)
MIN 2017 2nd

for

Brodin
Kuemper/Zucker [the "throw in" a la McGinn; get either a backup netminder if/when Chad goes to UFA, or the forward depth throw-in...a la McGinn]

PROS: If you also draft one of Chychrun/Juolevi, you've got Brodin (23) and the newly-drafted player (18), and you've pretty much addressed the long-term LHD problem over about a one-week period. You've used positions of depth (NHL RD and prospect RW) to address the need.

CONS: Giving up Pysyk and one of the higher-ceiling RWs. Also, selling two of your three 2nd rounders in 2016 and 2017 when the prospect cupboard is getting pretty thin.

deal, under the condition we get Chychrun/Juolevi

 

[Zip15]

To the extent Krug was identified as a possible trade target, he's out for six months:

 

[Revelate]

We've frequently operated under the assumption that Minnesota would want the #8 pick for Brodin, but what if old pal Fletcher wants a package to replenish their prospect/near-NHL ready player/draft pick cupboard? For several years, the Wild have sold draft picks - in most cases to the Sabres - for short-term help. I'm thinking something along the lines of the ROR trade.

Would you do some variation of this trade?

Pysyk
Bailey/Fasching [I think the Wild would prefer the Gopher, but I think he's one of Tim's guys - Tim did not draft Bailey.]
2016 2nd (38th overall)
MIN 2017 2nd

for

Brodin
Kuemper/Zucker [the "throw in" a la McGinn; get either a backup netminder if/when Chad goes to UFA, or the forward depth throw-in...a la McGinn]

PROS: If you also draft one of Chychrun/Juolevi, you've got Brodin (23) and the newly-drafted player (18), and you've pretty much addressed the long-term LHD problem over about a one-week period. You've used positions of depth (NHL RD and prospect RW) to address the need.

CONS: Giving up Pysyk and one of the higher-ceiling RWs. Also, selling two of your three 2nd rounders in 2016 and 2017 when the prospect cupboard is getting pretty thin.

Am i totally insane for preferring to give up Girgensons to Fasching/Bailey?