Would have rather lost any of the others exposed to the draft...and Enis should have been in Carrier's spot.
Sucks we lost Carrier to the Golden Knights...
Collapse
X
-
Re: Sucks we lost Carrier to the Golden Knights...
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.John Hemingway(facing certain death): I want to see Buffalo win the Super Bowl.
David Coltrane(threatening John): Nobody's going to live that long, pal.
-The John Larroquette Show, "A Dark and Stormy Night", 4/12/94
Comment
-
-
Re: Sucks we lost Carrier to the Golden Knights...
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."
Comment
-
-
Re: Sucks we lost Carrier to the Golden Knights...
Originally posted by jamze132 View PostWould have rather lost any of the others exposed to the draft...and Enis should have been in Carrier's spot.
Comment
-
-
Re: Sucks we lost Carrier to the Golden Knights...
Originally posted by ICRockets View PostYep. Either he or Foligno.
They wanted carrier or ullmark. Ullmark is more valuable and a greater loss
-
👍 1
Comment
-
-
Re: Sucks we lost Carrier to the Golden Knights...
Originally posted by Yasgur's Farm View PostAnybody 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.
Comment
-
-
Re: Sucks we lost Carrier to the Golden Knights...
Originally posted by JATMtheJATM View PostNegative. 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
Comment
-
-
Re: Sucks we lost Carrier to the Golden Knights...
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.Anonymity is an abused privilege, abused most by people who mistake vitriol for wisdom and cynicism for wit
Comment
-
Comment