HFBoards

Go Back   HFBoards > NHL Eastern Conference > Atlantic Division > Buffalo Sabres
Mobile Hockey's Future Become a Sponsor Site Rules Support Forum vBookie Page 2
Notices

#1C no longer a top priority?

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old
03-28-2012, 01:33 PM
  #51
BuiltTagonTough
Stand still laddy!
 
BuiltTagonTough's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: Buffalo
Country: United States
Posts: 10,499
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fatal System Ehrhoff View Post
Obviously the answer here is to acquire Hanzal.
Roy should be enough. We may even get a first back.

BuiltTagonTough is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-28-2012, 01:35 PM
  #52
joshjull
Moderator
 
joshjull's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Hamburg,NY
Country: United States
Posts: 32,749
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jim Bob View Post
It won't be easy. But, I wouldn't say it is impossible.

Joe Thornton has been traded once in his career already. You never know what can happen.

For instance, do LA or SJ go through a major shake up if things don't go well between now and the end of the playoffs? If they do, a #1C could possibly move this summer like the Philly centers moving last off season.
Neither of the Philly centers that were traded are the types posters are talking about.

Thats another issue I'm having with this discussion. Posters just keep moving the benchmark of what this mythical #1 is suposed to be. Its starts at Crosby, Malkin, and now we are down to Jeff Carter and Mik Richards. While good players they are hardly on the same level as the players that started the debate. I would also argue we have guys at or that can potentially be at their level already on our roster (Carter and Richards level that is)

EDIT: with the assets we have we can definately make a trade for a proven top 6 center. I just don't see how its possible to trade for a proven #1.


Last edited by joshjull: 03-28-2012 at 01:42 PM.
joshjull is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
03-28-2012, 01:37 PM
  #53
haseoke39
**** Cycle 4 Eichel
 
haseoke39's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Posts: 6,023
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by joshjull View Post
I'm well aware of the fact that a #1 center is only going to be acquired by drafting them or in a trade when they are like Hodgson, very early in their development.


But again just look at this thread.

Posters are still clamoring for a #1 center. Even though we have two kids (Ennis/Hodgson) showing some potential. So that tells me they want the proven commodity not the prospect with potential. That is someone we will not be able to acquire via trade.
I'm also clamoring for a #1 center, and I don't expect it to be someone proven. I don't think either Ennis or Hodgson is frankly likely to turn into the player i think we need, even though they have a chance, so I say keep trying to stock the system with potential high-end talent. Worst case scenario is you get too deep at C, and that's worked well for everybody I can think of who's done it.

haseoke39 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-28-2012, 01:40 PM
  #54
haseoke39
**** Cycle 4 Eichel
 
haseoke39's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Posts: 6,023
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by joshjull View Post
Niether of the Philly centers that were traded are the types posters are talking about.

Thats another issue I'm having with this discussion. Posters just keep moving the benchmark of what this mythical #1 is suposed to be. Its starts at Crosby, Malkin, and now we are down to Jeff Carter and Mik Richards. While good players they are hardly on the same level as the players that started the debate. I would also argue we have guys at or that can potentially be at their level already on our roster (Carter and Richards level that is)
I think you're a) expecting too much of the internet for it to speak with one consistent voice about what #1C means to different people, and b) all too eager to presume what people want and how unreasonable it is. I haven't heard one trade proposal for a player that would be properly considered "untradeable," but you seem to assume that's the only thing on people's minds. Get a little more flexible in your thinking and this might piss you off less.

haseoke39 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-28-2012, 01:41 PM
  #55
LGB24
Registered User
 
LGB24's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Country: Canada
Posts: 2,591
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by joshjull View Post
So get rid of the proven talent (Roy) and hope the kids (Ennis/Hodgson) can handle roles they've never been in(top 6 center).

Do posters realize that the current success of our top 3 centers is due to the fact that they are all top 6 centers but don't have to carry the normal burden of a top 6 center. becasue the responsibility is divided over 3 lines.
This is based purely on an assumption, you can't say with certainty that if Roy is moved and other areas are upgraded that the play of Ennis and Hodgson will drastically decline. You act as if the only solution is to get a 1C when they're already proven. It's not that easy.

LGB24 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-28-2012, 01:42 PM
  #56
WhoIsJimBob
Circle the Bandwagon
 
WhoIsJimBob's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Rochester, NY
Country: United States
Posts: 15,993
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by joshjull View Post
Niether of the Philly centers that were traded are the types posters are talking about.

Thats another issue I'm having with this discussion. Posters just keep moving the benchmark of what this mythical #1 is suposed to be. Its starts at Crosby, Malkin, and now we are down to Jeff Carter and Mik Richards. While good players they are hardly on the same level as the players that started the debate. I would also argue we have guys at or that can potentially be at their level already on our roster (Carter and Richards level that is)
Who is saying trade for Malkin?

The OP only referenced the nebulous "#1 center".

The first player actually mentioned was Sabretip suggesting "For me, it is still a priority and involves replacing Roy with at least an equally-proficient veteran center (i.e. Stastny)."

I think a lot of people would think that Richards or Carter would be filling that "#1 Center" role.

If LA blows things up, Kopitar could potentially be in play. Who wouldn't consider Kopitar a "#1 Center"?

WhoIsJimBob is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-28-2012, 01:52 PM
  #57
dire wolf
be cool
 
dire wolf's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2006
Location: Cali
Country: United States
Posts: 4,039
vCash: 500
Roy is actually a really good defensive center when he tries. If used next year in a 3rd line role with more emphasis on defense, I have no problem keeping him.

Meanwhile, Stoll has been consistently overrated on this board for 2 years now. I live in LA and watch a lot of Kings games. Roy is only worth trading if we are getting a serious upgrade at center. Stoll, Stastny and guys like this are not the answer.

dire wolf is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-28-2012, 01:59 PM
  #58
WhoIsJimBob
Circle the Bandwagon
 
WhoIsJimBob's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Rochester, NY
Country: United States
Posts: 15,993
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by dire wolf View Post
Roy is actually a really good defensive center when he tries. If used next year in a 3rd line role with more emphasis on defense, I have no problem keeping him.

Meanwhile, Stoll has been consistently overrated on this board for 2 years now. I live in LA and watch a lot of Kings games. Roy is only worth trading if we are getting a serious upgrade at center. Stoll, Stastny and guys like this are not the answer.
I'd want Stoll as a 4th line center with size and not as a #1C acquisition.

WhoIsJimBob is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-28-2012, 02:01 PM
  #59
slip
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Posts: 8,368
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by joshjull View Post
Niether of the Philly centers that were traded are the types posters are talking about.

Thats another issue I'm having with this discussion. Posters just keep moving the benchmark of what this mythical #1 is suposed to be. Its starts at Crosby, Malkin, and now we are down to Jeff Carter and Mik Richards. While good players they are hardly on the same level as the players that started the debate. I would also argue we have guys at or that can potentially be at their level already on our roster (Carter and Richards level that is)
You're right, the discussion over a #1 center does get a bit convoluted. Of course we could use a Malkin, who couldn't, but that's not a realistic possibility -- save flipping our picks and some prospects to move up to the 3-6 range grab a solid pick that might become a high-end center. To be honest, I don't even think that the thread title, "Is a #1C a top priority," really captures the crux of the problem, which is that this team could use more skilled bodies down the middle, especially as we look beyond next year and the likely departure of Roy.

slip is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-28-2012, 02:02 PM
  #60
TehDoak
General Zad
 
TehDoak's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Country: United States
Posts: 17,712
vCash: 500
Send a message via AIM to TehDoak
Quote:
Originally Posted by dire wolf View Post
Roy is actually a really good defensive center when he tries. If used next year in a 3rd line role with more emphasis on defense, I have no problem keeping him.

Meanwhile, Stoll has been consistently overrated on this board for 2 years now. I live in LA and watch a lot of Kings games. Roy is only worth trading if we are getting a serious upgrade at center. Stoll, Stastny and guys like this are not the answer.
Statsny would be an unquestionable upgrade to Roy. He's simply been displaced by Duchene and O'Reilly. Give him better wingers to work with and #1 center work load and he'd be a PPG center again, IMHO.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Jim Bob View Post
I'd want Stoll as a 4th line center with size and not as a #1C acquisition.
Stoll is a 3rd/4th line guy. It is my understanding that Stoll has been underutilized this year and would probably be able to get back to 40-50 point form on a different team.

TehDoak is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-28-2012, 02:08 PM
  #61
Chainshot
Global Moderator
Give 'em Enough Rope
 
Chainshot's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Costa Rica
Country: Costa Rica
Posts: 56,595
vCash: 500
Awards:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jim Bob View Post
I'd want Stoll as a 4th line center with size and not as a #1C acquisition.
Kings fans are way, way down on Stoll this season -- probably worse than this board is on Roy overall. Given that he's got 40-ish point history, he is probably looking at 3 million a year at least. For a 4th liner... not so much.

__________________
It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it. - Aristotle
Chainshot is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-28-2012, 02:11 PM
  #62
slip
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Posts: 8,368
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jim Bob View Post
I'd want Stoll as a 4th line center with size and not as a #1C acquisition.
What pisses me off is that those are the kinds of guys -- the 3rd/4th line energy guys who play a smart defensive game -- the farm system needs to be producing on a regular basis. As it stands, Regier has done little to solidify the center position beyond rely on the Roch. Core, a smattering of converted wingers, and a brilliant acquisition in Hodgson. Where's our Darren Helm?

slip is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-28-2012, 02:16 PM
  #63
WhoIsJimBob
Circle the Bandwagon
 
WhoIsJimBob's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Rochester, NY
Country: United States
Posts: 15,993
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chainshot View Post
Kings fans are way, way down on Stoll this season -- probably worse than this board is on Roy overall. Given that he's got 40-ish point history, he is probably looking at 3 million a year at least. For a 4th liner... not so much.
If you don't have to pay big bucks to your top 3 centers, that might not be that bad over the short run.

WhoIsJimBob is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-28-2012, 02:29 PM
  #64
Herman Hessian
Registered User
 
Herman Hessian's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: Brighton; UK
Country: England
Posts: 207
vCash: 500
ok - last vetige of credibility out of the window, and i'm going to have to ask this as the semantics are playing such a big part in this thread:

what exactly constitutes a "top six player" ? I'm under the impression from my vantage point across the pond that this means a guy who can slot on to either of the top two offensive lines on a team without necessarily being a real leader either in production, playing style, attitude or whatever, and so the conjecture about whether someone is a #1 center or merely "top six" is about whether they're considered a hockey club's standout offensive player, or just able to perform to a decent standard on one of the top two lines more often than not - is that about right ? looking at the Caps for example, Backstrom is #1C and Brooks Laich is "top six" ?

Herman Hessian is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-28-2012, 02:36 PM
  #65
Sabresfansince1980
Registered User
 
Sabresfansince1980's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Location: from Wheatfield, NY
Country: Germany
Posts: 2,614
vCash: 500
Yeah that's correct.

Sabresfansince1980 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-28-2012, 02:38 PM
  #66
haseoke39
**** Cycle 4 Eichel
 
haseoke39's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Posts: 6,023
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Herman Hessian View Post
ok - last vetige of credibility out of the window, and i'm going to have to ask this as the semantics are playing such a big part in this thread:

what exactly constitutes a "top six player" ? I'm under the impression from my vantage point across the pond that this means a guy who can slot on to either of the top two offensive lines on a team without necessarily being a real leader either in production, playing style, attitude or whatever, and so the conjecture about whether someone is a #1 center or merely "top six" is about whether they're considered a hockey club's standout offensive player, or just able to perform to a decent standard on one of the top two lines more often than not - is that about right ? looking at the Caps for example, Backstrom is #1C and Brooks Laich is "top six" ?
Well, I can't answer the question definitely, but I think the easiest, most consistently applied metric is point production. I would say top 6 is 50 points minimum.

Of course, we might not have 6 of those guys, but I also think when we say top 6, we're imagining top 6 on a contending team.

haseoke39 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-28-2012, 02:45 PM
  #67
struckbyaparkedcar
Zemgus Da Gawd
 
struckbyaparkedcar's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Upstate NY
Country: Cote DIvoire
Posts: 10,572
vCash: 500
I've always though shoring up our defensive forward situation was more realistic and just as important as getting a big name scoring center.

struckbyaparkedcar is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-28-2012, 02:50 PM
  #68
Zip15
Registered User
 
Zip15's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Posts: 17,121
vCash: 50
Quote:
Originally Posted by SabresAreScaryGood View Post
I still think size at center is #1 need. I think Ennis has 80 point potential at center, Hodgson 60+ points. We need someone like Guastad, but a better skater, younger. Martin Hanzal for Roy.
Has this been broached before? Novel idea.

Zip15 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-28-2012, 02:52 PM
  #69
New Sabres Captain
ForFriendshipDikembe
 
New Sabres Captain's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Country: United States
Posts: 38,384
vCash: 500
Hanzal is a good young player on a solid contract playing in Tippett's defensive oriented system where he is an excellent fit. Can't see the Coyotes moving him, especially while their ownership situation is what it is.

But man, if we could get our hands on him...

New Sabres Captain is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-28-2012, 02:55 PM
  #70
HockeyH3aven
#Flynnsanity
 
HockeyH3aven's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: Buffalo NY
Country: United States
Posts: 6,201
vCash: 500
It's pretty clear Roy isn't the same player he was before the injury. His skating just isn't the same, which is what made him so dangerous. He doesn't have the hockey sense to make up for this.

I think he's toast and he needs to be moved before the rest of the NHL figures this out as well. In that case, we'd still need another center. Unless you can move Roy for an upgrade at center, which really only ever happens when a guy like that requests a trade and the team has no choice but to move him.

HockeyH3aven is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-28-2012, 02:55 PM
  #71
Myllz
Pavelski Lite
 
Myllz's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Seattle
Country: United States
Posts: 13,054
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by joshjull View Post
What does Hodgson have to do with this? He is not a proven #1 center and judging by many reponses in here many posters are still clamoring for a mythical #1 center. Getting Hodgson (a 3rd line center with top 6 potential at the time of the trade) does not in any way tell us that a #1 center will magically become available.

You're not answering the questions I asked. Some posters want us to acquire a legit #1 center. Well who would that be exactly? What would satisfy this group that IMO is in fantasyland with this desire.
I realize Hodgson isn't a #1 center. The point was most people wouldn't have considered him realistically available from Vancouver. Trades happen that involve players that most people would consider unavailable, which includes a possible #1 center.

All I was saying was that "unavailable" players can get moved. I know you're looking for a "we should get Malkin" or "we should get Spezza" reply so you can say they're not going to get moved because it's unrealistic. The point is we don't know what's unrealistic and what isn't.

Myllz is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-28-2012, 03:04 PM
  #72
Chainshot
Global Moderator
Give 'em Enough Rope
 
Chainshot's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Costa Rica
Country: Costa Rica
Posts: 56,595
vCash: 500
Awards:
Quote:
Originally Posted by slip View Post
What pisses me off is that those are the kinds of guys -- the 3rd/4th line energy guys who play a smart defensive game -- the farm system needs to be producing on a regular basis. As it stands, Regier has done little to solidify the center position beyond rely on the Roch. Core, a smattering of converted wingers, and a brilliant acquisition in Hodgson. Where's our Darren Helm?
Yeah, they need a guy who can handle tough defensive minutes and keep up. I don't care if the guy is a physical defensive type or a smart/quick defensive type, just get one. Nielsen would've been a good fit in the smart/quick category.

Dom Moore is out there and in a 3/4 and PKing role, has a track record of shutting down guys in the playoffs. Hell, he was good at that HERE, despite the bum wrist.

Back toward the #1/top 6 type player conversation:

I'm not sold that they could take 1 year of Roy and flip that for some sort of upgrade at center. It would likely be a lateral move, someone who's also had an off-year and likely on a longer deal in a straight one-for-one. Is that worth it right now? Maybe -- depends on the player. Jame threw Bolland's name out there -- that's a guy they could target since the Hawks could use a legit 2 behind Toews who could fill in when Toews is invariably injured (and a guy on a relative bargain cap hit too).

The Pens have no reason to deal Staal. Similarly, Phoenix has no reason to deal Tippett's favorite Hanzel. Stastny has come on again, but now Duchene is hurt/having an off year. Duchene could be the guy to target there -- still has serious upside and once he's healthy, could be a STUD in the middle and there might be enough of an issue with him being in Sacco's **** house again to warrant at least kicking those tires hard.

Kopitar's been mentioned -- Lombardi may want to shuffling things up even more but Carter's playing the wing with Richards instead of center, so it would presuppose Carter shifting back into the middle AND Lombardi being willing to make that move.

It seems a better bet right now is to use the chips they have in this draft to move up for the long-term stud pivot. That's where most teams land theirs, then they develop and hang onto them.

Chainshot is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-28-2012, 03:11 PM
  #73
Layne Staley
The Future
 
Layne Staley's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Posts: 6,443
vCash: 500
Can we just stop with the trade Roy movement and keep him? He is a quality center with a lot of experience. What I'd like to see is a top 3 center depth chart of Roy/Ennis/Hodgson in no particular order, with a tough,physical veteran who can win face-offs as our 4th line center ( and no I don't mean sign Gaustad in the offseason )

Remember, for all we know this is just a hot streak for Ennis, let's not be rash and move out our only proven top 6 center just because of a good streak from 19 & 63.

Layne Staley is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-28-2012, 03:15 PM
  #74
Ruckus007
Said too much
 
Ruckus007's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2003
Location: Huntington, WV
Posts: 7,253
vCash: 500
I'm usually not that interested in these types of conversations but I figured I'd share something that was on my mind a lot last night since it fits into this thread: what would the Caps be interested in for Nicklas Backstrom?

Ruckus007 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-28-2012, 03:21 PM
  #75
Dubi Doo
Registered User
 
Dubi Doo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: Rochester, NY
Country: United States
Posts: 6,464
vCash: 2225
I would love a primed hecht type of player.

Dubi Doo is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Forum Jump


Bookmarks

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 10:01 PM.

monitoring_string = "e4251c93e2ba248d29da988d93bf5144"
Contact Us - HFBoards - Archive - Privacy Statement - Terms of Use - Advertise - Top - AdChoices

vBulletin Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
HFBoards.com is a property of CraveOnline Media, LLC, an Evolve Media, LLC company. 2014 All Rights Reserved.