HFBoards

Go Back   HFBoards > NHL Eastern Conference > Atlantic Division > Buffalo Sabres
Notices

2013 Offseason roster build thread part Additional Nauseum

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old
07-25-2013, 03:05 PM
  #351
Sabresfansince1980
Registered User
 
Sabresfansince1980's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Location: from Wheatfield, NY
Country: Germany
Posts: 2,321
vCash: 500
I fail to see any point in trading Vanek for another pending UFA, unless that player can agree to an extension prior to the trade. If Vanek is traded it should be for pick(s), an NHL ready prospect, or both. Almost any futures would be more valuable than anything a player like Pavelski could do for the organization in just this next season.

Trying to argue that Pavelski has a better chance of re-signing is guesswork. Arguing that trading Pavelski at the TDL if he doesn't want to re-sign is just spinning wheels and getting no further than keeping Vanek and trading him at the TDL. Best to wait and see what roster holes and cap space open up for other teams, and try to get a 1st and a top prospect or as close to that as possible.

Sabresfansince1980 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-25-2013, 10:54 PM
  #352
Djp
Registered User
 
Djp's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Location: Seattle,WA
Posts: 4,963
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Zip15 View Post
So, you're just never going to sign UFAs to long-term contracts? Friends, we've found Larry Quinn.

Not true.....

I have no problem giving players like Hodgson or Grigs a long term contract of 8 years once they prove their worth.

Same true with some of the other young players if the feeling they are part of the long term plans.

What I would not do is sign a player at 30 to an 8 yr contract with a high cap hit. I would instead offer something shorter like 4-5 yrs.

In terms of bring player in to sign as UFAs I dont have a problem with signing them if I felt they were a missing piece. A player who is 25-27 hitting UFA I have no problem signing them to a 7 yr deal.

Djp is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
07-26-2013, 09:25 AM
  #353
Zip15
Registered User
 
Zip15's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Posts: 16,605
vCash: 50
Quote:
Originally Posted by Djp View Post
Not true.....

I have no problem giving players like Hodgson or Grigs a long term contract of 8 years once they prove their worth.

Same true with some of the other young players if the feeling they are part of the long term plans.

What I would not do is sign a player at 30 to an 8 yr contract with a high cap hit. I would instead offer something shorter like 4-5 yrs.

In terms of bring player in to sign as UFAs I dont have a problem with signing them if I felt they were a missing piece. A player who is 25-27 hitting UFA I have no problem signing them to a 7 yr deal.
You must think Pavelski's going to drop off precipitously in the early years of that contract. I don't. I think he's got the all-around game and hockey sense to be a very good player well into his mid-30's. Might the contract be overpayment in Years 6-8? Maybe. But are you just going to continually miss out on 5-6 good years because you're scared of Years 7 and 8? Isn't that precisely the type of Larry Quinn/Tom Golisano business practice that people despised for so long around these parts? Isn't that why we have Terry Pegula now to use his resources to pay those problems to go away by using buyouts and the like?

Also, most are expecting the salary cap to go up over $70m in 2014-15, and Mirtle wrote an article earlier this year that speculates the cap may rise to as high as $90m during this collective-bargaining agreement. And we're sitting here with knees knocking over a $6m cap hit? Please. I'm not buying the argument that Joe Pavelski doesn't warrant taking up approximately 8% of a team's overall cap space.

Zip15 is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
07-26-2013, 09:58 AM
  #354
Jame
Dream '16
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Palm Harbor, FL
Country: Scotland
Posts: 32,388
vCash: 500
Send a message via Yahoo to Jame
Quote:
Originally Posted by Zip15 View Post
You must think Pavelski's going to drop off precipitously in the early years of that contract. I don't. I think he's got the all-around game and hockey sense to be a very good player well into his mid-30's. Might the contract be overpayment in Years 6-8? Maybe. But are you just going to continually miss out on 5-6 good years because you're scared of Years 7 and 8? Isn't that precisely the type of Larry Quinn/Tom Golisano business practice that people despised for so long around these parts? Isn't that why we have Terry Pegula now to use his resources to pay those problems to go away by using buyouts and the like?

Also, most are expecting the salary cap to go up over $70m in 2014-15, and Mirtle wrote an article earlier this year that speculates the cap may rise to as high as $90m during this collective-bargaining agreement. And we're sitting here with knees knocking over a $6m cap hit? Please. I'm not buying the argument that Joe Pavelski doesn't warrant taking up approximately 8% of a team's overall cap space.
you're rolling through this... i have to admit, I enjoy not having to type my "ebonics" version of your replies. you've got this covered

Jame is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-26-2013, 12:39 PM
  #355
Djp
Registered User
 
Djp's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Location: Seattle,WA
Posts: 4,963
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Zip15 View Post
You must think Pavelski's going to drop off precipitously in the early years of that contract. I don't. I think he's got the all-around game and hockey sense to be a very good player well into his mid-30's. Might the contract be overpayment in Years 6-8? Maybe. But are you just going to continually miss out on 5-6 good years because you're scared of Years 7 and 8? Isn't that precisely the type of Larry Quinn/Tom Golisano business practice that people despised for so long around these parts? Isn't that why we have Terry Pegula now to use his resources to pay those problems to go away by using buyouts and the like?

Lets say we resign Vanek.....

I would be fine with a contract structured like this:

$8M, $8M, $8M, $7M, $5M, $4M, $4M, $4M---cap hit $6M.

My preference would be just drop off the final 3 yrs of the contract. It raises the cap hit but I would be more comfortable with it. Cap hit would be about the same it is now....slightly over $7M per

How high the cap goes is all specualation---like playing with the start market and thinking you can predict.

im willing to trade off 6 great years for 2 below average ones. I will not do 3 great years an 5 below average ones.

Do some research and look at what % of the players lasted past 35 and how many actually produced what they should produce after 35.

From the main board....Kessel vs Vanek comparisson without debating who is better or who is worth more just by their ages....Kessel is a much safer player to sign a large 7 yr contract to than Vanek is....or for that matter Pavelski.

Im looking at this from a business and risk management perspective.

Djp is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
07-26-2013, 12:44 PM
  #356
Jame
Dream '16
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Palm Harbor, FL
Country: Scotland
Posts: 32,388
vCash: 500
Send a message via Yahoo to Jame
Quote:
Originally Posted by Djp View Post
Lets say we resign Vanek.....

I would be fine with a contract structured like this:

$8M, $8M, $8M, $7M, $5M, $4M, $4M, $4M---cap hit $6M.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Djp View Post

What I would not do is sign a player at 30 to an 8 yr contract with a high cap hit. I would instead offer something shorter like 4-5 yrs.
so which is it? You'd be fine with it, you would not do it.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Djp View Post
How high the cap goes is all specualation---like playing with the start market and thinking you can predict.
It's called doing some homework

Jame is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-26-2013, 12:52 PM
  #357
Zip15
Registered User
 
Zip15's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Posts: 16,605
vCash: 50
Quote:
Originally Posted by Djp View Post
Lets say we resign Vanek.....

I would be fine with a contract structured like this:

$8M, $8M, $8M, $7M, $5M, $4M, $4M, $4M---cap hit $6M.

My preference would be just drop off the final 3 yrs of the contract. It raises the cap hit but I would be more comfortable with it.
Too bad for you the player has a say in it, too. While you'd be fine with it, I doubt Vanek would be fine with "just dropping off $12m." Vanek will take the certain $12m over hoping to get at least $12m over those same three years when he goes to UFA again at 35.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Djp View Post
How high the cap goes is all specualation---like playing with the start market and thinking you can predict.
Isn't most of what we discuss speculation? The very premise of this thread is speculation: talk about moves that might be made or that a poster would make.

Anyways, speculating where the market will go is Regier's job. He failed miserably at it in the early years of the last CBA. One can hope he's better at it this time around.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Djp View Post
im willing to trade off 6 great years for 2 below average ones. I will not do 3 great years an 5 below average ones.
It appears you'd like the world to be black and white, and seasons to be defined only as "great" and "below average," as if there isn't some sort of sliding scale in between. In any event, I think Pavelski would give you more good than bad, and, on the whole, be worth the UFA contract he signs.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Djp View Post
Do some research and look at what % of the players lasted past 35 and how many actually produced what they should produce after 35.
What a silly statement. First, I do plenty of research. Second, you're not exactly breaking news here by asserting that players decline after 35. But that doesn't mean you don't sign 30 yr old players past 35 because you're scared that you might have a player who isn't earning his contract in the final couple years of his deal. That's an absolutely chicken-**** way of going about building a team.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Djp View Post
From the main board....Kessel vs Vanek comparisson without debating who is better or who is worth more just by their ages....Kessel is a much safer player to sign a large 7 yr contract to than Vanek is....or for that matter Pavelski.

Im looking at this from a business and risk management perspective.
Wait, when did Kessel come into the equation? You're grasping. In any event, Kessel is not a better addition for this team. As good of an offensive player as he surely is, this organization needs a Pavelski--not just for the skills he brings, but for how he makes the rest of the roster fit better--far more than it needs a one-way winger like Kessel.

Zip15 is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
07-26-2013, 01:12 PM
  #358
Djp
Registered User
 
Djp's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Location: Seattle,WA
Posts: 4,963
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Zip15 View Post


Wait, when did Kessel come into the equation? You're grasping. In any event, Kessel is not a better addition for this team. As good of an offensive player as he surely is, this organization needs a Pavelski--not just for the skills he brings, but for how he makes the rest of the roster fit better--far more than it needs a one-way winger like Kessel.
You were missing the point.....

looking at their ages....2 UFAs...one is 26 and one is 30 both are very good wingers (sure you could debate which one is better). I will pick one to try and sign to a 7 yr high cap hit contract. My preference is to sign the 26 yr old because there is less risk in ROI.

I dont mind signing a Pavelski-type as a UFA....I do not want to trade for him as a one yr rental.

Djp is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
07-26-2013, 01:15 PM
  #359
Jame
Dream '16
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Palm Harbor, FL
Country: Scotland
Posts: 32,388
vCash: 500
Send a message via Yahoo to Jame
Quote:
Originally Posted by Djp View Post
You were missing the point.....

looking at their ages....2 UFAs...one is 26 and one is 30 both are very good wingers (sure you could debate which one is better). I will pick one to try and sign to a 7 yr high cap hit contract. My preference is to sign the 26 yr old because there is less risk in ROI.

I dont mind signing a Pavelski-type as a UFA....I do not want to trade for him as a one yr rental.
so you place no value on the benefits the current players would receive this season, as Zip has pointed out?

or you see the benefits, and simply don't believe their value is in the same ball park as trading for some more future unkown assets?

I think the benefit our young players would receive even if just for this year, far out weigh the benefits of adding a few more future assets

Jame is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-26-2013, 01:50 PM
  #360
Zip15
Registered User
 
Zip15's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Posts: 16,605
vCash: 50
Quote:
Originally Posted by Djp View Post
You were missing the point.....

looking at their ages....2 UFAs...one is 26 and one is 30 both are very good wingers (sure you could debate which one is better). I will pick one to try and sign to a 7 yr high cap hit contract. My preference is to sign the 26 yr old because there is less risk in ROI.

I dont mind signing a Pavelski-type as a UFA....I do not want to trade for him as a one yr rental.
So you'd prefer to trade from some unknown quantities that are prospects early in their development, or draft picks that'll be used on some unknown player? We're not getting a Ryan Strome or Vladamir Tarasenko for Vanek.

It appears that you're perfectly fine with the risk of acquiring merely prospects and picks for Vanek, but entirely uncomfortable with acquiring a proven NHL player who may not be worth his contract in five or six years.

Finally, as has been pointed out numerous times, if you can't get Pavelski re-signed, you trade him at the deadline. His value will be similar and possibly even better than Vanek's, and he'll bring back the return you're begging for us to get for Vanek. His two-way game will be the type coveted by contenders.

Zip15 is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
07-26-2013, 01:56 PM
  #361
Sabresfansince1980
Registered User
 
Sabresfansince1980's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Location: from Wheatfield, NY
Country: Germany
Posts: 2,321
vCash: 500
Aren't the "unknown quantities" what Regier has already referred to as "the currency of the day" and assets that can be used to move up and draft the best talent or acquire the best players (that fit the roster and will be under contract)?

I wouldn't be so dismissive of futures and I wouldn't bother with a trade scenario that SJ has zero reason to consider.

Sabresfansince1980 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-26-2013, 03:26 PM
  #362
Djp
Registered User
 
Djp's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Location: Seattle,WA
Posts: 4,963
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Zip15 View Post
So you'd prefer to trade from some unknown quantities that are prospects early in their development, or draft picks that'll be used on some unknown player? We're not getting a Ryan Strome or Vladamir Tarasenko for Vanek.

It appears that you're perfectly fine with the risk of acquiring merely prospects and picks for Vanek, but entirely uncomfortable with acquiring a proven NHL player who may not be worth his contract in five or six years.

Finally, as has been pointed out numerous times, if you can't get Pavelski re-signed, you trade him at the deadline. His value will be similar and possibly even better than Vanek's, and he'll bring back the return you're begging for us to get for Vanek. His two-way game will be the type coveted by contenders.

I think Vanek gets more in return. His game is coveted by contenders--of which next years Buffalo team notr the one the year after is not.

I am perfectly fine getting young players <25 , prospects, and a pick for Vanek.

With Regier---the one thing he is much better than avg with GMs is in scouting and drafting. He has a very good success rate.

The same with Miller and Stafford. here is why...

the way I see the roster at the start of 14/15:

Ennis-Hodgson-Ott
Leino-Grigorenko-Armia
Girgensons-Larsson-Foligno

Ehrhoff-Pyayk
Myers-Ristolainen
Weber-McNabb

The team would be stockpiled below these...

forwards: Sundher, Isaksson, Catanacci, Jacobs, Kea, Nelson, Compher, Hurley, Bailey, Baptiste
Dmen:Leduc, McKenzie, Lepkowski, McCabe, Zadarov, Ruhwedel

right now: 16 propsepcts

to add to this they will have gotten 2 prospects and a 1st for Vanek, prospect + 2nd for Miller, and Stafford could folow the Gaustead trade and return a 1st (if not then 2 2nds)

after the trades it would be 19 propsects+ draft picks

combined 2014 and 1015 draft picks in rounds 1 & 2= 10

Utilizing these 19 prospects+10picks---toital of 29 tradeable assets they can go out and do some player shopping to add the missing pieces they feel they needed.

If you are successful with srafting , then propsects are worth far more than draft picks.

Djp is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
07-26-2013, 04:05 PM
  #363
Jame
Dream '16
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Palm Harbor, FL
Country: Scotland
Posts: 32,388
vCash: 500
Send a message via Yahoo to Jame
Quote:
Originally Posted by Djp View Post
I think Vanek gets more in return. His game is coveted by contenders--of which next years Buffalo team notr the one the year after is not.
really?

Jame is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-26-2013, 04:08 PM
  #364
Reacher Gilt
Registered User
 
Reacher Gilt's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Country: Germany
Posts: 1,046
vCash: 50
Grabovski

Schould we be interested?

He could be a free asset, gets a chance to prove himself and show the leafs they handelt him wrong.
Won't hurt the tank much and could be dealt at the deadline if he doesn't work out.
Buys our young guys some time to develope.

Reacher Gilt is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-26-2013, 04:50 PM
  #365
JPurp26
Registered User
 
JPurp26's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2003
Country: United States
Posts: 5,122
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Djp View Post
I think Vanek gets more in return. His game is coveted by contenders--of which next years Buffalo team notr the one the year after is not.

I am perfectly fine getting young players <25 , prospects, and a pick for Vanek.

With Regier---the one thing he is much better than avg with GMs is in scouting and drafting. He has a very good success rate.

The same with Miller and Stafford. here is why...

the way I see the roster at the start of 14/15:

Ennis-Hodgson-Ott
Leino-Grigorenko-Armia
Girgensons-Larsson-Foligno

Ehrhoff-Pyayk
Myers-Ristolainen
Weber-McNabb

The team would be stockpiled below these...

forwards: Sundher, Isaksson, Catanacci, Jacobs, Kea, Nelson, Compher, Hurley, Bailey, Baptiste
Dmen:Leduc, McKenzie, Lepkowski, McCabe, Zadarov, Ruhwedel

right now: 16 propsepcts

to add to this they will have gotten 2 prospects and a 1st for Vanek, prospect + 2nd for Miller, and Stafford could folow the Gaustead trade and return a 1st (if not then 2 2nds)

after the trades it would be 19 propsects+ draft picks

combined 2014 and 1015 draft picks in rounds 1 & 2= 10

Utilizing these 19 prospects+10picks---toital of 29 tradeable assets they can go out and do some player shopping to add the missing pieces they feel they needed.

If you are successful with srafting , then propsects are worth far more than draft picks.
Team still lacks goal scoring and speed

JPurp26 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-26-2013, 04:50 PM
  #366
Old Navy Goat
Registered User
 
Old Navy Goat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: San Antonio
Country: United States
Posts: 5,853
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jame View Post
really?
I don't think coveted is the proper term though a contender would look at Vanek as the icing on the cake as long as they're not breaking the bank to acquire him.

Old Navy Goat is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-26-2013, 06:23 PM
  #367
koarl
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: Graz / Austria
Country: Austria
Posts: 260
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Reacher Gilt View Post
Schould we be interested?

He could be a free asset, gets a chance to prove himself and show the leafs they handelt him wrong.
Won't hurt the tank much and could be dealt at the deadline if he doesn't work out.
Buys our young guys some time to develope.
Well ... no. He isn't that type of center we need.
We've already got Ennis and Hodgson, wo are of a comparable type (just older).

koarl is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
07-26-2013, 08:56 PM
  #368
gallagt01
Registered User
 
gallagt01's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Sloan
Posts: 8,255
vCash: 500
My opening night lineup as the roster stands today (with clearly defined roles):

Vanek-Hodgson-Stafford

-This is your unquestioned top line during the season. It's the line you look to when you're down a goal late and lean on offensively.

Ott-Grigorenko-Leino

-This line developed some chemistry in last year's preseason. Moreover, Grigorenko's best game of the year was the season finale against the Islanders. He skated between Hecht and Ott that game. Leino, in my opinion, is the team's most Hecht-like forward and it would stand to reason that he could handle the role Hecht served on that line. Additionally, having two veterans flank a rookie like Grigorenko would be significant for his development. Feed this trio offensive zone starts (and hope it can tackle more situations as the season progresses).

Ennis-Porter-Flynn

-These guys saw some time together late in the year. Their speed as a unit was advantageous. They can be used in any situation. Some may argue that this is wasting Ennis' abilities - an argument that has some merit, as neither Porter or Flynn are as creative as Ennis - but Tyler will still see time on the power play.

Foligno-Larsson-Kaleta

-Rolston needs to let this trio know what its role is the day training camp opens. It's the unquestioned shutdown line and will be given defensive zone starts primarily. It may be throwing Larsson to the wolves a bit but I think his game translates well to the next level. If he struggles, swap him out for Porter.

Tropp

-Corey is now waiver eligible and the risk to send him down shouldn't be taken (unless his knee proves worrisome in training camp).

*Girgensons, Armia, Adam, Catenacci all take on larger roles in Rochester.

Ehrhoff-Myers

-All situations all the time. Provided Myers is in shape (shouldn't be an issue), feed him the minutes he has shown to thrive with in seasons prior. He'll run with the opportunity. If it doesn't, you have an issue. I'm not worried.

Weber-Pysyk

-Defensive zone starts. This is a tandem that may have some hiccups here and there but should be solid for the most part. There's not a veteran on the club I trust more than Weber to take Pysyk under his wing.

Tallinder-McBain

-Offensive zone starts, sheltered minutes. McBain could end up forcing his way into a larger role. Tallinder is a quality veteran to have on the bottom pair.

Sulzer

-A serviceable (albeit soft) no. 7 that keeps younger defenseman on the ice in Rochester and out of the press box in Buffalo.

*Ruhwedel, Ristolainen, McNabb lead a young, impressive defense in Rochester.

Miller

-If he's here, he's the guy. Perhaps the Olympics have him in top form and he performs well enough to will this team into the playoffs. Perhaps not.

Enroth

-Duh.

*Hackett is the Amerks' unquestioned starter.


Notes:
-I wouldn't trade Vanek until the deadline. It's true that he could get injured and you may miss out on a premium return for him. But I think his value in Buffalo next year (allowing players like Grigorenko, Ennis, Hodgson to play in more "protected" roles) is more important to the rebuild than the picks/prospects he may return at this point in the rebuild. The cupboard is stocked - the pipeline is, for the most part, deep.

-If the upcoming Olympics have Miller in top form, and this team squeaks into the playoffs, I'd be happy. Playoff experience for players in early stages of development could be huge.

gallagt01 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-26-2013, 09:28 PM
  #369
haseoke39
Brainfart 4 Reinhart
 
haseoke39's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Posts: 4,829
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by gallagt01 View Post
My opening night lineup as the roster stands today (with clearly defined roles):

Vanek-Hodgson-Stafford

-This is your unquestioned top line during the season. It's the line you look to when you're down a goal late and lean on offensively.

Ott-Grigorenko-Leino

-This line developed some chemistry in last year's preseason. Moreover, Grigorenko's best game of the year was the season finale against the Islanders. He skated between Hecht and Ott that game. Leino, in my opinion, is the team's most Hecht-like forward and it would stand to reason that he could handle the role Hecht served on that line. Additionally, having two veterans flank a rookie like Grigorenko would be significant for his development. Feed this trio offensive zone starts (and hope it can tackle more situations as the season progresses).

Ennis-Porter-Flynn

-These guys saw some time together late in the year. Their speed as a unit was advantageous. They can be used in any situation. Some may argue that this is wasting Ennis' abilities - an argument that has some merit, as neither Porter or Flynn are as creative as Ennis - but Tyler will still see time on the power play.

Foligno-Larsson-Kaleta

-Rolston needs to let this trio know what its role is the day training camp opens. It's the unquestioned shutdown line and will be given defensive zone starts primarily. It may be throwing Larsson to the wolves a bit but I think his game translates well to the next level. If he struggles, swap him out for Porter.

Tropp

-Corey is now waiver eligible and the risk to send him down shouldn't be taken (unless his knee proves worrisome in training camp).

*Girgensons, Armia, Adam, Catenacci all take on larger roles in Rochester.

Ehrhoff-Myers

-All situations all the time. Provided Myers is in shape (shouldn't be an issue), feed him the minutes he has shown to thrive with in seasons prior. He'll run with the opportunity. If it doesn't, you have an issue. I'm not worried.

Weber-Pysyk

-Defensive zone starts. This is a tandem that may have some hiccups here and there but should be solid for the most part. There's not a veteran on the club I trust more than Weber to take Pysyk under his wing.

Tallinder-McBain

-Offensive zone starts, sheltered minutes. McBain could end up forcing his way into a larger role. Tallinder is a quality veteran to have on the bottom pair.

Sulzer

-A serviceable (albeit soft) no. 7 that keeps younger defenseman on the ice in Rochester and out of the press box in Buffalo.

*Ruhwedel, Ristolainen, McNabb lead a young, impressive defense in Rochester.

Miller

-If he's here, he's the guy. Perhaps the Olympics have him in top form and he performs well enough to will this team into the playoffs. Perhaps not.

Enroth

-Duh.

*Hackett is the Amerks' unquestioned starter.


Notes:
-I wouldn't trade Vanek until the deadline. It's true that he could get injured and you may miss out on a premium return for him. But I think his value in Buffalo next year (allowing players like Grigorenko, Ennis, Hodgson to play in more "protected" roles) is more important to the rebuild than the picks/prospects he may return at this point in the rebuild. The cupboard is stocked - the pipeline is, for the most part, deep.

-If the upcoming Olympics have Miller in top form, and this team squeaks into the playoffs, I'd be happy. Playoff experience for players in early stages of development could be huge.
I really appreciate all the thought that went into developing roles and chemistry. It's a great job.

Now I'm just going to suggest that too clearly defining our player's roles next season may not be good for their development. Rolston is here to teach, not necessarily to win yet. Getting good young players who only learn how to play in one zone or the other, or get locked into playing a specific style with their line, may be premature.

But like I said, love the thought that went into this.

haseoke39 is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
07-26-2013, 10:00 PM
  #370
Jacob582
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2012
Posts: 2,521
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by gallagt01 View Post
My opening night lineup as the roster stands today (with clearly defined roles):

Vanek-Hodgson-Stafford

-This is your unquestioned top line during the season. It's the line you look to when you're down a goal late and lean on offensively.

Ott-Grigorenko-Leino

-This line developed some chemistry in last year's preseason. Moreover, Grigorenko's best game of the year was the season finale against the Islanders. He skated between Hecht and Ott that game. Leino, in my opinion, is the team's most Hecht-like forward and it would stand to reason that he could handle the role Hecht served on that line. Additionally, having two veterans flank a rookie like Grigorenko would be significant for his development. Feed this trio offensive zone starts (and hope it can tackle more situations as the season progresses).

Ennis-Porter-Flynn

-These guys saw some time together late in the year. Their speed as a unit was advantageous. They can be used in any situation. Some may argue that this is wasting Ennis' abilities - an argument that has some merit, as neither Porter or Flynn are as creative as Ennis - but Tyler will still see time on the power play.

Foligno-Larsson-Kaleta

-Rolston needs to let this trio know what its role is the day training camp opens. It's the unquestioned shutdown line and will be given defensive zone starts primarily. It may be throwing Larsson to the wolves a bit but I think his game translates well to the next level. If he struggles, swap him out for Porter.

Tropp

-Corey is now waiver eligible and the risk to send him down shouldn't be taken (unless his knee proves worrisome in training camp).

*Girgensons, Armia, Adam, Catenacci all take on larger roles in Rochester.

Ehrhoff-Myers

-All situations all the time. Provided Myers is in shape (shouldn't be an issue), feed him the minutes he has shown to thrive with in seasons prior. He'll run with the opportunity. If it doesn't, you have an issue. I'm not worried.

Weber-Pysyk

-Defensive zone starts. This is a tandem that may have some hiccups here and there but should be solid for the most part. There's not a veteran on the club I trust more than Weber to take Pysyk under his wing.

Tallinder-McBain

-Offensive zone starts, sheltered minutes. McBain could end up forcing his way into a larger role. Tallinder is a quality veteran to have on the bottom pair.

Sulzer

-A serviceable (albeit soft) no. 7 that keeps younger defenseman on the ice in Rochester and out of the press box in Buffalo.

*Ruhwedel, Ristolainen, McNabb lead a young, impressive defense in Rochester.

Miller

-If he's here, he's the guy. Perhaps the Olympics have him in top form and he performs well enough to will this team into the playoffs. Perhaps not.

Enroth

-Duh.

*Hackett is the Amerks' unquestioned starter.


Notes:
-I wouldn't trade Vanek until the deadline. It's true that he could get injured and you may miss out on a premium return for him. But I think his value in Buffalo next year (allowing players like Grigorenko, Ennis, Hodgson to play in more "protected" roles) is more important to the rebuild than the picks/prospects he may return at this point in the rebuild. The cupboard is stocked - the pipeline is, for the most part, deep.

-If the upcoming Olympics have Miller in top form, and this team squeaks into the playoffs, I'd be happy. Playoff experience for players in early stages of development could be huge.
I like pretty much everything you've done here.

Some of my thoughts:

- Will they play Foligno at center?
- Add Scott as extra forward
- I would like to see Tropp in the lineup. Flynn and Larsson can get playing time in Rochester if there is an issue with numbers (injuries will take the numbers down soon enough). Of course this is dependent on how training camp goes for these guys.


Last edited by Jacob582: 07-27-2013 at 08:55 AM.
Jacob582 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-26-2013, 10:26 PM
  #371
Djp
Registered User
 
Djp's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Location: Seattle,WA
Posts: 4,963
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by gallagt01 View Post
My opening night lineup as the roster stands today (with clearly defined roles):

Vanek-Hodgson-Stafford


Ott-Grigorenko-Leino



Ennis-Porter-Flynn



Foligno-Larsson-Kaleta



Tropp



*Girgensons, Armia, Adam, Catenacci all take on larger roles in Rochester.



.
Unsure who can/cant go through waivers with Tropp, Flynn, and Adam.

I would put Larsson with Ennis and Flynn and Porter with Foligno & Kaleta. The other option would be: Ennis-larsson-Foligno and Kaleta/Scott-Porter-Flynn

when Armia comes up Id rather have him play with Leino and Grigs.

I think it will be a competition where one rookie among Larsson, Girgensons, Armia and others for 1 spot in the lineup given waiver rules.

Djp is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
07-26-2013, 10:29 PM
  #372
Djp
Registered User
 
Djp's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Location: Seattle,WA
Posts: 4,963
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by JPurp26 View Post
Team still lacks goal scoring and speed
scoring will come. I am not sure how much speed you want.

Djp is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
07-27-2013, 08:58 AM
  #373
Jacob582
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2012
Posts: 2,521
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Djp View Post
Unsure who can/cant go through waivers with Tropp, Flynn, and Adam.

I would put Larsson with Ennis and Flynn and Porter with Foligno & Kaleta. The other option would be: Ennis-larsson-Foligno and Kaleta/Scott-Porter-Flynn

when Armia comes up Id rather have him play with Leino and Grigs.

I think it will be a competition where one rookie among Larsson, Girgensons, Armia and others for 1 spot in the lineup given waiver rules.
Flynn does not need to go through waivers.

Jacob582 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-27-2013, 09:59 AM
  #374
Chainshot
Global Moderator
Give 'em Enough Rope
 
Chainshot's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Costa Rica
Country: Costa Rica
Posts: 55,965
vCash: 500
Awards:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jacob582 View Post
Flynn does not need to go through waivers.
And if the other two are claimed, they have to stay up with the claiming team. Like other teams are going to be clamoring for either of 'em at this point....

__________________
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
07-27-2013, 01:16 PM
  #375
Irving Zisman
Really Bad Grandpa
 
Irving Zisman's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: 'Merica
Posts: 784
vCash: 500
Vanek-Hodgson-Flynn/Armia --> #1 line,
Ennis-Grigorenko-Stafford --> easy minutes, o-zone starts
Ott-Larsson-Leino --> tough minutes, d-zone starts
Foligno-Porter-Kaleta --> energy line, can also handle d-zone starts
x. Scott

Tallinder-Myers--> d-zone, heavy ES minutes (I think Hank returns to decent form to where he could handle a lot of ES minutes)
McNabb-Ehrhoff or Ehrhoff-McBain--> o-zone starts
Weber-Pysyk --> d-zone starts
x. McBain/Sulzer

Some guy who may or may not be here
Some young guy with potential


Last edited by Irving Zisman: 07-27-2013 at 01:17 PM. Reason: Edit: wow we're going to suck!
Irving Zisman 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 07:53 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.