Confirmed with Link: [BUF/NYI] Michal Neuvirth for Chad Johnson, 2016 3rd (conditional)

[Husko]

It's not ideal but if Murray manages to add two good NHL goalies next season he can easily buy out Johnson. It'd be a very small amount spread out over next season and the following. Totally inconsequential. If Murray is only able to add one good goalie, well, he has Johnson there as well.

Forget buying him out, we can just waive him and let him backup the AHL if need be. Or let him be our #3 in Buffalo. It's one year in a year that we won't be near the cap, completely inconsequential

 

[Paxon]

Winning is everything.. The Sabres are doing EVERYTHING possible to WIN a Stanley cup, and that is to sell assets at the deadline that may walk away for nothing.. Your "honorable" way of winning doesn't win.. You gotta tear down and build up..

I disagree that winning is everything. As a sports fan the journey matters as much as the result. Playoff runs are great fun even if they result in disappointment. Hell, playoff pushes are great fun. It's entertainment, after all. When it comes to this issue though it's simply a matter of having an intelligent plan and sticking to it. Treading water had gotten this organization nowhere in the post--co-captains era. Rebuilding was necessary. Does not trading Neuvirth help our rebuild? No, it doesn't. At least it could be argued it doesn't as I do -- all decisions can be argued over of course. It's as simple as that. Why should the team make decisions that do not help the rebuilding of the team? For the sake of appearances? I think someone would get more (slightly) mileage out of arguing that offer sheets are "wrong" than what we're doing is.

 

[Husko]

I just hope he's not one of those guys that sucks as a backup but once he gets into a starter groove can put up respectable numbers.

 

[Mit Yarrum]

I just hope he's not one of those guys that sucks as a backup but once he gets into a starter groove can put up respectable numbers.

My guess: He's going to look better than he did in LI. We seem to run a system that makes goalies appear to be pretty good in short stretches. Still, nothing will derail this fail train.

 

[PirateShip]

The system is not broken.

In a perfect system , the worst team should be guaranteed the 1st pick . The lottery system is a flawed design. It potentially allows a non-playoff team with a winning record ( whose exclusion was based purely off strength of conference ) to be awarded the #1 pick. Even if the chance is minuscule, it still defeats the purpose of the weakest team gaining the necessary asset to assist in their chance of improvement.

" Tanking " is rebuilding. Period. Every sport allows it in some fashion.

 

[Desert Ice 11]

Ask the Isles if he is still a quality netminder lol. They hated him and his stats directly reflect that. He was getting heavily outplayed by Halak. He has a sub 900 save % this year in front of the Isles Def. Just wait until he faces 40+ shots a game. He is TOAST!

Dubnyk had terrible numbers last season but excellent stats before that. New team and he turned back to his old self. I think the same can happen for CJ.

 

[stokes84]

Dubnyk had terrible numbers last season but excellent stats before that. New team and he turned back to his old self. I think the same can happen for CJ.

That's pretty wishful thinking. CJ had good numbers playing in front of Bergeron and Chara, it's a little different here. Our team is much worse than yours, and if weren't for our goalie being really good and your goalie being a joke, this thing would be wrapped up with a bow. Get off our lawn.

 

[Eichel 9]

Dubnyk had terrible numbers last season but excellent stats before that. New team and he turned back to his old self. I think the same can happen for CJ.

Goaltenders in general in the NHL tend to be very inconsistent unless they are one of the 'elite' guys.

It would not be shocking to me at all if CJ or Lindback get inserted in and don't look like the 'worst goalies in the league' like so many on the main board claim.

It was not too long ago that Tampa thought Lindback could be their No.1


Evaluating goaltenders is just very difficult in general..

 

[misterchainsaw]

In a perfect system , the worst team should be guaranteed the 1st pick . The lottery system is a flawed design. It potentially allows a non-playoff team with a winning record ( whose exclusion was based purely off strength of conference ) to be awarded the #1 pick. Even if the chance is minuscule, it still defeats the purpose of the weakest team gaining the necessary asset to assist in their chance of improvement.

" Tanking " is rebuilding. Period. Every sport allows it in some fashion.

Why should the worst team be entitled to the best pick at all? Why reward failure? The sooner they change the lottery system to what Corto talked about (which I've been hoping for for a long time as well), the better.

 

[ZeroPT*]

Why should the worst team be entitled to the best pick at all? Why reward failure? The sooner they change the lottery system to what Corto talked about (which I've been hoping for for a long time as well), the better.

so that they can not be the worst team down the road? Seems self explanatory.

 

[dotcommunism]

So are we sure there are any conditions attached to the draft pick in this trade? Neither the write ups on the Sabres' nor the Islanders' website mention it: http://sabres.nhl.com/club/news.htm?id=756138&navid=DL|BUF|home http://islanders.nhl.com/club/news.htm?id=756093&navid=DL|NYI|home Both of them just say "a third-round pick in the 2016 NHL Draft". That said, the Islanders do have Vancouver's 3rd in 2016 and it's unclear which pick is going to Buffalo. Granted, it'd still be a conditional pick if there's some specific circumstance which determines which of the picks Buffalo gets.

 

[Husko]

So are we sure there are any conditions attached to the draft pick in this trade? Neither the write ups on the Sabres' nor the Islanders' website mention it: http://sabres.nhl.com/club/news.htm?id=756138&navid=DL|BUF|home http://islanders.nhl.com/club/news.htm?id=756093&navid=DL|NYI|home Both of them just say "a third-round pick in the 2016 NHL Draft". That said, the Islanders do have Vancouver's 3rd in 2016 and it's unclear which pick is going to Buffalo. Granted, it'd still be a conditional pick if there's some specific circumstance which determines which of the picks Buffalo gets.

Whichever one is higher.

What is makes me wonder is does that mean NYI can't trade either of their 2016 3rd round picks next season? If they do, would the receiving team be taking on the understanding that it is the worse of the two picks?

 

[Paxon]

Whichever one is higher.

What is makes me wonder is does that mean NYI can't trade either of their 2016 3rd round picks next season? If they do, would the receiving team be taking on the understanding that it is the worse of the two picks?

They could do what you say: trade it as a conditional 3rd (the worst of the two).

 

[NEcoli]

My guess: He's going to look better than he did in LI. We seem to run a system that makes goalies appear to be pretty good in short stretches. Still, nothing will derail this fail train.

You mean the system where we let up 40+ shots a game?

 

[Mit Yarrum]

You mean the system where we let up 40+ shots a game?

Yep, that's the one.

 

[My Cozen Dylan]

Whichever one is higher.

What is makes me wonder is does that mean NYI can't trade either of their 2016 3rd round picks next season? If they do, would the receiving team be taking on the understanding that it is the worse of the two picks?

It would be like if we deal our other first before the order is finalized.

 

[Ralonzo]

It would be like if we deal our other first before the order is finalized.

Why don't they just phrase it like they used to... in this case, with the pick going from NYI to BUF:

If it was the later of two picks, it's the Islanders option which one to send.
If it was the earlier of two picks, it's the Sabres option which one to send.

Either way, conditionals like this attach the picks to the deal, so that the Isles would be unable to deal off either one of the two. They're stuck with them until the '16 draft or until the Sabres trade it back to them for something else.

Seems like a bit of a pain. Maybe that's why GM's aren't all that "creative."

 

[Paxon]

Why don't they just phrase it like they used to... in this case, with the pick going from NYI to BUF:

If it was the later of two picks, it's the Islanders option which one to send.
If it was the earlier of two picks, it's the Sabres option which one to send.

Either way, conditionals like this attach the picks to the deal, so that the Isles would be unable to deal off either one of the two. They're stuck with them until the '16 draft or until the Sabres trade it back to them for something else.

Seems like a bit of a pain. Maybe that's why GM's aren't all that "creative."

They can still trade it. If they can trade conditional:higher 3rd they can trade conditional:lower 3rd right now if they wanted. There'd be no conflict because there'd be no danger of one of the picks by rights belonging to two different teams.

 

[26CornerBlitz]

 

[26CornerBlitz]

Trollin in Columbus!

 

[26CornerBlitz]

 

[Jim Bob]

Chad Johnson's new Sabres gear:

Neuvirth's new Isles gear:

 

[PlamsUnlimited]

Quite bummed still with Neuvirth gone. Really like him and the pick up.