GDT: NHL Expansion Draft & Awards Wed 6/21 8PM NBCSN, SN/(Carrier taken)

[Myllz]

No. He gave up an asset to prevent Vegas from taking the more-wanted player, in his estimation.

While exposing an equally wanted player. He put himself in that situation and paid for it.

 

[Jame]

I think it's obvious.

If McPhee REALLY wanted Ullmark, why would he settle for a sixth round pick to lay off of him?

People keep saying "it's just a sixth, are we really complaining about a sixth?" Apply that logic to McPhee's situation. Why would a lowly sixth keep him from selecting a player he really likes and wants?

McPhee wanted Carrier and got more out of it by scaring Botteril, a new GM with depleted goalie depth, into thinking he was taking Ullmark.



That said, it doesn't make Botteril a bad GM.

Exactly. I mean, it's fairly obvious from a logic perspective.

 

[Jame]

Well that's a relief. I don't want to have to deal with years of this kind of debate. No sarcasm at all.

Regarding this deal, I think you are simply overvaluing Carrier.

Don't worry, we can count on Layne to recap the details of every trade on a weekly basis.

 

[haseoke39]

Botts paid a 6th for certainty. No doubt the 6th was unnecessary, it's an implausible reservation price for Vegas. But he paid it to get the deal in writing, and was probably prepared to pay more if Vegas hadn't agreed to the smaller price.

 

[Montag DP]

I think it's obvious.

If McPhee REALLY wanted Ullmark, why would he settle for a sixth round pick to lay off of him?

People keep saying "it's just a sixth, are we really complaining about a sixth?" Apply that logic to McPhee's situation. Why would a lowly sixth keep him from selecting a player he really likes and wants?

McPhee wanted Carrier and got more out of it by scaring Botteril, a new GM with depleted goalie depth, into thinking he was taking Ullmark.



That said, it doesn't make Botteril a bad GM.

It was close between the two for McPhee, but for Botterill our depth at goalie made it much more clear that he wanted to keep Ullmark. The 6th is an olive branch.

 

[Jame]

Botts paid a 6th for certainty. No doubt the 6th was unnecessary, it's an implausible reservation price for Vegas. But he paid it to get the deal in writing, and was probably prepared to pay more if Vegas hadn't agreed to the smaller price.

Exactly. And since Vegas did not push for a higher price, we can logically deduce that they were never interested in Ullmark in the 1st place.

 

[BarbadosSlim]

Vegas acquiesced on the "more wanted player" because they were like... "oh, well if your giving us a 6th round pick... we'll pass on the player we want more"



Botts made an offer, 6th rounder and Carrier.
McPhee accepted, because he was taking Carrier all along.

Botts came to the table worried about Ullmark... McPhee got what he wanted, and then some.

If McPhee REALLY wanted Ullmark... he would've pushed for a more substantial pick, as we saw in nearly every other pick/protection trade. McPhee didn't care at all about Ullmark (why would he?). Botts got taken.

Honestly, I don't think McPhee really cared about any of the players Buffalo exposed. To say he got 'exactly what he wanted' makes it seem like a guy who traded Erat for Forsberg turned out to be a genius swindling Buffalo. I don't imagine he cared a huge amount. We exposed some of the worst players available. You also can't use the 6th round pick as an argument for being inconsequential of McPhee's choice, but then also call it 'then some', c'mon

I'd have preferred we kept Carrier but whatever, I'd have also preferred we exposed Foligno. Was it a bad move by Botterill? Yeah, and I do agree with your reasoning (Carrier's ability). But it's not going to change the outcome of this franchise's success by any measure whatsoever.

 

[haseoke39]

The way Vegas is running this, we could probably get him back for a third rounder.

 

[Gabrielor]

The way Vegas is running this, we could probably get him back for a third rounder.

I'd do that deal right now.

 

[brian_griffin]

Don't worry, we can count on Layne to recap the details of every trade on a weekly basis.

Both you and Layne like Botts. It's quite possible now that Murray is gone, Layne's error log file will stop recording.

The way Vegas is running this, we could probably get him back for a third rounder.

Can't trade back players from LVGK to their orig team. There would need to be an intermediary transaction with a 3rd team.

=======
Is there a way BUF can get Marcus Foligno + to CBJ for Ryan Murray?

Murray + Hartnell for Ennis and Foligno and quality pick or prospect?

 

[Reddawg]

I think it's obvious.

If McPhee REALLY wanted Ullmark, why would he settle for a sixth round pick to lay off of him?

People keep saying "it's just a sixth, are we really complaining about a sixth?" Apply that logic to McPhee's situation. Why would a lowly sixth keep him from selecting a player he really likes and wants?

McPhee wanted Carrier and got more out of it by scaring Botteril, a new GM with depleted goalie depth, into thinking he was taking Ullmark.



That said, it doesn't make Botteril a bad GM.

I can't buy into this...if we had any idea that McPhee was strictly after Carrier, we would have just given him Ennis' spot and rolled the dice that Vegas would take Bogo.

 

[Jame]

Honestly, I don't think McPhee really cared about any of the players Buffalo exposed. To say he got 'exactly what he wanted' makes it seem like a guy who traded Erat for Forsberg turned out to be a genius swindling Buffalo. I don't imagine he cared a huge amount. We exposed some of the worst players available.

Apologies...I think that's dumb. I think McPhee cares an awful lot about the franchise he's building from the ground up. Every GM makes dumb moves. Darcy Regier turned down Iginla for Peca... he also made some franchise altering trades.

We exposed a cost controlled, 22 yr old player, who makes a solid, measurable, noticeable impact on the ice.

You also can't use the 6th round pick as an argument for being inconsequential of McPhee's choice, but then also call it 'then some', c'mon

Why? A 6th rounder is not enough to dissuade preference. But it's still something.

I'd have preferred we kept Carrier but whatever, I'd have also preferred we exposed Foligno. Was it a bad move by Botterill? Yeah, and I do agree with your reasoning (Carrier's ability). But it's not going to change the outcome of this franchise's success by any measure whatsoever.

I apparently don't know what straw men are... but the bolded sure looks like another one.

 

[Jame]

I can't buy into this...if we had any idea that McPhee was strictly after Carrier, we would have just given him Ennis' spot and rolled the dice that Vegas would take Bogo.

If McPhee was strictly after Carrier (how would Botts know), and they protect Carrier... then they lose Ullmark who they didn't want to lose.

 

[La Cosa Nostra]

What I find amusing is the people who have an issue with Botterill and what he did were the ones who were generally big Murray supporters and the ones who were pleased with Botterill are the ones who did not like Murray. The tables have turned and anyone complaining about asset management should have been doing it with the last terrible GM not the good GM we have now. Carrier is nothing special on a contender he's a 4th liner at best if not a 13th forward. Just because Murray iced a garbage roster doesn't mean carrier is special because he's not. It sickened me we played a player as average as carrier on the top line.

 

[Jame]

What I find amusing is the people who have an issue with Botterill and what he did were the ones who were generally big Murray supporters and the ones who were pleased with Botterill are the ones who did not like Murray. The tables have turned and anyone complaining about asset management should have been doing it with the last terrible GM not the good GM we have now. Carrier is nothing special on a contender he's a 4th liner at best if not a 13th forward. Just because Murray iced a garbage roster doesn't mean carrier is special because he's not. It sickened me we played a player as average as carrier on the top line.

You would expect those who complained about trading a 1st for an NHL goalie, to be livid that we traded a developed 2nd rounder for an AHL goalie

 

[Moskau]

I can't buy into this...if we had any idea that McPhee was strictly after Carrier, we would have just given him Ennis' spot and rolled the dice that Vegas would take Bogo.

McPhee obviously said "If you protect Ennis it leaves us no choice but to take Ullmark. If you expose Carrier, we can work something out and you keep the guy you want".

Botterill chose Ullmark.

 

[Reddawg]

If McPhee was strictly after Carrier (how would Botts know), and they protect Carrier... then they lose Ullmark who they didn't want to lose.

You don't really think the player being selected from each team was even slightly a mystery to any one of the other 30 teams in the league, do you? It's an old-boys network, everyone gladhands and plays nice...there's no secrets.

Everything was weighed and measured well ahead of time, probably months ahead of time. We were speculating about Murray having a deal in place to spare Ullmark three months ago, for all we know Botterill just honored the Sabres' end of the deal.

It doesn't have to be anymore complicated than McPhee saying "look, you're losing Carrier or Ullmark unless you want to trade me something big so I take someone you don't want anymore off your hands" and the club picking Carrier as the sacrificial lamb.

Personally I'm glad we didn't make a deal like Columbus, giving up a middle 1st to shed Clarkson and "only" lose William Karlsson.

 

[Jame]

McPhee obviously said "If you protect Ennis it leaves us no choice but to take Ullmark. If you expose Carrier, we can work something out and you keep the guy you want".

Botterill chose Ullmark.

Botterill should've said, "I'm not exposing a 22 year old cost controlled forward. How do you feel about Marcus Foligno?"

 

[26CornerBlitz]

 

[Reddawg]

McPhee obviously said "If you protect Ennis it leaves us no choice but to take Ullmark. If you expose Carrier, we can work something out and you keep the guy you want".

Botterill chose Ullmark.

That's pretty much exactly what I've been saying. You just said it better.

 

[Jame]

You don't really think the player being selected from each team was even slightly a mystery to any one of the other 30 teams in the league, do you? It's an old-boys network, everyone gladhands and plays nice...there's no secrets.

Everything was weighed and measured well ahead of time, probably months ahead of time. We were speculating about Murray having a deal in place to spare Ullmark three months ago, for all we know Botterill just honored the Sabres' end of the deal.

It doesn't have to be anymore complicated than McPhee saying "look, you're losing Carrier or Ullmark unless you want to trade me something big so I take someone you don't want anymore off your hands" and the club picking Carrier as the sacrificial lamb.

Personally I'm glad we didn't make a deal like Columbus, giving up a middle 1st to shed Clarkson and "only" lose William Karlsson.

That's fine. And Botterill should've done a better job protecting what was more valuable. If it's an old boys network... he should've said, "ok I want to keep Ullmark and Carrier... I understand youre not going to take my dead weight/im not willing to pay that cost. What can work out around Marcus Foligno?"

 

[Reddawg]

That's fine. And Botterill should've done a better job protecting what was more valuable. If it's an old boys network... he should've said, "ok I want to keep Ullmark and Carrier... I understand youre not going to take my dead weight/im not willing to pay that cost. What can work out around Marcus Foligno?"

Who's to say they didn't have that exact conversation, and McPhee came back with the exact same arguments against Foligno that you and some others have been making? They're great arguments against Foligno and make perfect sense, so we can't be the only ones who pay attention to hockey and are having those conversations.

 

[BarbadosSlim]

Apologies...I think that's dumb. I think McPhee cares an awful lot about the franchise he's building from the ground up.

Of course he cares about the success of the franchise. But to me, the players he selected from Buffalo will have such little contribution to that franchise being successful it means I have the opinion he spent little time deliberating over the selection from Buffalo. I don't think he spent time deliberating on his master plan to extract an extra 6th rounder from us. The notion that he managed to intentionally outmanoeuvre Botterill is what seems dumb to me.

Cost controlled? Yes. Solid? Yes. Noticeable? Eh.

The latter part of my post was agreeing with you, I think Botts made a mistake. Straw man sure. That wasn't aimed at refuting your argument and was just a general view. Badly worded.

 

[Jame]

Of course he cares about the success of the franchise. But to me, the players he selected from Buffalo will have such little contribution to that franchise being successful it means I have the opinion he spent little time deliberating over the selection from Buffalo. I don't think he spent time deliberating on his master plan to extract an extra 6th rounder from us. The notion that he managed to intentionally outmanoeuvre Botterill is what seems dumb to me.

Cost controlled? Yes. Solid? Yes. Noticeable? Eh.

The latter part of my post was agreeing with you, I think Botts made a mistake. Straw man sure. That wasn't aimed at refuting your argument and was just a general view. Badly worded.

Some can, some can't

His game is noticeable, in all the subtle (non scoring) ways. And it's reflected in his possession metrics, his linemate metrics, and line scoring metrics.

 

[Captain Holt]

Should have protected Carrier and Ullmark, and exposed Lehner and Ennis. Worst case scenario was we lose Lehner. We don't even know if Botts likes Lehner. Does Vegas take Lehner after making Fleury the face of the franchise? Unlikely. So now they have to choose from Ennis, Moulson, Bogo... or the list of garbage.

And if we lose Lehner we find another goalie to come in and let in the occasional softie.