You realize, if they don't take Eakin/Miller, they get one of your other players (Bjork, Asplund or Borgen I would think)... so you are not paying them to take Eakin, you are paying to save one of the other guys. in the end, are any of them worth saving?
It would be massively disappointing if the team protects Bjork over Asplund.
Prepare to be massively disappointed. They keep talking up Bjork like he's not from the 2014 class and Asplund is not from the 2016 class. They tried to sell that they won Bjork for Lazar part of Hall trade when it was clearly part of deal that Boston would have insisted on because of the salary difference. I'm okay with Bjork as a project until the point he bumps someone like Asplund or Thompson.
I think Skinner will waive his no trade and be unprotected. No worries.It would be massively disappointing if the team protects Bjork over Asplund.
I think Skinner will waive his no trade and be unprotected. No worries.
The power of positive thinkingI think Skinner will waive his no trade and be unprotected. No worries.
I really think he will because he will know Seattle isn't going to draft him.The power of positive thinking
I really think he will because he will know Seattle isn't going to draft him.
Yes.So? What possible benefit to him personally would there be to waiving his NMC?
He is going to make a big sacrifice for a bottom feeding rebuilding team so Rasmus Asplund can stay on the team?
I just think if needed that he'll do it. They might not even need him to if trades happen.
I just think if needed that he'll do it. They might not even need him to if trades happen.
He won't do out of fear some deal gets put together that takes him somewhere else. I think he only waves to go to Toronto or maybe Montreal. You want to move him, talk to Leafs. Bottom line
That would be great!Waiving for the purposes of the expansion draft does not mean the the NMC goes away completely.
The only concern Skinner should have with waiving for the ED is that Adams goes behind his back and does a deal with Seattle such that they take him.
Tomorrow is the deadline to ask Skinner to waive his NMC to be exposed…
There is no reason to ask Jeff Skinner to waive his NMC if the Sabres have already had discussions with Seattle and could not come to an agreement. Why ask this of Skinner when you know Seattle selecting Skinner is not a possibility? People are the media are making way too much of this. Besides as I have said before trading Eichel and Reinhart puts the Sabres on a new timline, so the Skinner contract won't really be a factor for at least 3-4 years.
There is no reason to ask Jeff Skinner to waive his NMC if the Sabres have already had discussions with Seattle and could not come to an agreement. Why ask this of Skinner when you know Seattle selecting Skinner is not a possibility? People are the media are making way too much of this. Besides as I have said before trading Eichel and Reinhart puts the Sabres on a new timline, so the Skinner contract won't really be a factor for at least 3-4 years.
Okay this actually makes a lot of sense.The purpose of asking him to waive is that it essentially gives us an extra protection slot.
Seattle aren't going to take him - so exposing him would allow us to protect somebody else.
I think that would ruin Adams reputation and no free agent would ever trust him. I don’t think he would do that.Waiving for the purposes of the expansion draft does not mean the the NMC goes away completely.
The only concern Skinner should have with waiving for the ED is that Adams goes behind his back and does a deal with Seattle such that they take him.
Adams didn't sign Skinner to that contract. When a new GM comes in, loyalty to players signed by previous regimes goes out the window.I think that would ruin Adams reputation and no free agent would ever trust him. I don’t think he would do that.
Adams didn't sign Skinner to that contract. When a new GM comes in, loyalty to players signed by previous regimes goes out the window.