PDA

View Full Version : Sucks we lost Carrier to the Golden Knights...


jamze132
06-21-2017, 09:29 PM
Would have rather lost any of the others exposed to the draft...and Enis should have been in Carrier's spot.
ICRockets
06-21-2017, 11:36 PM
Would have rather lost any of the others exposed to the draft...and Enis should have been in Carrier's spot.

Yep. Either he or Foligno.
ckg927
06-22-2017, 02:38 AM
I would argue that Carrier is much easier to replace and we have decent depth at forward in the pipeline.

Now, if we had lost Ullmark after penning him to that extension...THEN I'd join you in the gnashing and wailing.
swiper
06-22-2017, 05:14 AM
It was going to either be Carrier or Ullmark. The Sabres wanted to keep Ullmark. I agree. It wasn't going to be Ennis.


As expected the Sabres have lost Will Carrier to Vegas in the Expansion Draft. It became evident that Jason Botterill didn't want to lose goalie Linus Ullmark and the Golden Knights wanted Carrier. To help Ullmark stay, it cost Buffalo a 6th round pick in Saturday's draft. Vegas GM George McPhee, "There were two players in the end that we really liked and Buffalo had an interest in influencing us to go in one direction to protect their roster, so we got the sixth round pick."

http://www.wgr550.com/articles/news/vegas-takes-carrier-expansion-draft
Yasgur's Farm
06-22-2017, 11:08 AM
Would have rather lost any of the others exposed to the draft...and Enis should have been in Carrier's spot.Anybody who follows this logic must seriously not understand that Ullmark would be gone. It's that simple... Vegas takes Carrier or Ullmark... Sabres chose to keep the back-up goalie over the 4th liner.
JATMtheJATM
06-22-2017, 01:04 PM
Yep. Either he or Foligno.

Negative. If they hadn't exposed carrier, they take ullmark, and that Kiwanis much greater than carrier.

They wanted carrier or ullmark. Ullmark is more valuable and a greater loss
jamze132
06-25-2017, 10:36 PM
Anybody who follows this logic must seriously not understand that Ullmark would be gone. It's that simple... Vegas takes Carrier or Ullmark... Sabres chose to keep the back-up goalie over the 4th liner.

My point was that Carrier should have never been exposed to the process. We still possibly could have swung a deal to keep Ullmark.
Yasgur's Farm
06-26-2017, 07:34 AM
My point was that Carrier should have never been exposed to the process. We still possibly could have swung a deal to keep Ullmark.Do you really think that process didn't happen? Seriously?
JATMtheJATM
06-26-2017, 09:14 AM
What the ****? Where did my phone get Kiwanis out of is?
ICRockets
06-26-2017, 09:39 AM
Negative. If they hadn't exposed carrier, they take ullmark, and that Kiwanis much greater than carrier.

They wanted carrier or ullmark. Ullmark is more valuable and a greater loss
Yep. That'll learn me for agreeing with jamze.
Night Train
06-26-2017, 02:09 PM
But if Vegas only had interest in 2 players ( Carrier and Ullmark ) off our roster, it's a moot point. We then paid a small bribe to protect the goalie, who we valued more. ( the correct move )

We can't force crap on them, no matter how we spin it. Vegas had the power in this situation.