HFBoards

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

Summer Roster Moves VI: Return of the Peg-i

Closed Thread
 
Thread Tools
Old
07-24-2012, 09:04 PM
  #951
Sabresfansince1980
Registered User
 
Sabresfansince1980's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Location: from Wheatfield, NY
Country: Germany
Posts: 2,599
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Beerz View Post
Vanek- Hodgson - Ott

Foligno - Ennis - Clowe

Leino - Pevelski- Pommers

Kaleta - McCormick - Tropp


Gerbe traded....or flip Gerbe with Leino and bury Leino
Pavelski is under contract for two more seasons, Clowe just one. Stafford, Armia, Adam, and a 1st is too much for a combined three seasons with those two (very good) players. Armia could end up being a 30 goal scorer while under his ELC and RFA years. Grigs and Girgs are going to be ready in 1-2 years and could be 70 and 50 pt players. I don't see the need to give up good young assets for such a brief stint from those two, especially when there are already good prospects ready to step in for 2013.

We don't need Pavelski (or any top line center) for two years or a winger for just one when there is Stafford for three more seasons and Armia. We could use (but not necessarily need) a veteran center for one season until Grigorenko is definitely ready. Girgensons could be ready for 2013-14 also, and Ennis could then be moved to wing. We don't need expensive veterans when the home grown future is just as good and cheaper.

Sabresfansince1980 is offline  
Old
07-24-2012, 09:26 PM
  #952
ZZamboni
Puttin' on the Foil
 
ZZamboni's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: Buffalo, NY
Country: United States
Posts: 10,105
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sabresfansince1980 View Post
Pavelski is under contract for two more seasons, Clowe just one. Stafford, Armia, Adam, and a 1st is too much for a combined three seasons with those two (very good) players. Armia could end up being a 30 goal scorer while under his ELC and RFA years. Grigs and Girgs are going to be ready in 1-2 years and could be 70 and 50 pt players. I don't see the need to give up good young assets for such a brief stint from those two, especially when there are already good prospects ready to step in for 2013.

We don't need Pavelski (or any top line center) for two years or a winger for just one when there is Stafford for three more seasons and Armia. We could use (but not necessarily need) a veteran center for one season until Grigorenko is definitely ready. Girgensons could be ready for 2013-14 also, and Ennis could then be moved to wing. We don't need expensive veterans when the home grown future is just as good and cheaper.
Those point assumptions are great and all. But what is your frame of mind if...

Armia turns into a 45 pt. player
Grigorenko turns into a 45 pt. player
Girgensons turns into a 25 pt. player


The point is ... Don't assume those young rookies will do anything significant until they prove they can in an NHL environment.

With this in mind ... I would trade any player ... If it made the Sabres better.

A N Y P L A Y E R

ZZamboni is online now  
Old
07-24-2012, 09:34 PM
  #953
joshjull
Moderator
 
joshjull's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Hamburg,NY
Country: United States
Posts: 32,344
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sabresfansince1980 View Post
Pavelski is under contract for two more seasons, Clowe just one. Stafford, Armia, Adam, and a 1st is too much for a combined three seasons with those two (very good) players. Armia could end up being a 30 goal scorer while under his ELC and RFA years. Grigs and Girgs are going to be ready in 1-2 years and could be 70 and 50 pt players. I don't see the need to give up good young assets for such a brief stint from those two, especially when there are already good prospects ready to step in for 2013.

We don't need Pavelski (or any top line center) for two years or a winger for just one when there is Stafford for three more seasons and Armia. We could use (but not necessarily need) a veteran center for one season until Grigorenko is definitely ready. Girgensons could be ready for 2013-14 also, and Ennis could then be moved to wing. We don't need expensive veterans when the home grown future is just as good and cheaper.
What a bizarre statement. So we are only to trade for top centers on long term deals? Or any players that can help us?

You get them here and let Terry take care of keeping them longer term. Its far easier to keep a player thats been here for 1-2 years than to talk one into coming here. They will already know the positives.

Not to mention why would you pass on excellent two way top 6 center like Pavelski because you think some of our prospects MIGHT become top 6 centers. Do posters realize its unlikely Grigs or Girgs will be near there upper end potential for 4 or so years. When they are still only 22 years old. I get the feeling some folks think they will make the team this year and hit their potential the next.


Last edited by joshjull: 07-24-2012 at 09:42 PM.
joshjull is online now  
Old
07-24-2012, 09:37 PM
  #954
Jame
Dream '16
 
Jame's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Palm Harbor, FL
Country: Pitcairn Islands
Posts: 33,191
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fatal System Ehrhoff View Post
Vanek over the past three seasons: 86-101-187 in 229 games
Ryan over those same seasons: 100-92-192 in 245 games

Vanek's the primary target of defenders while Ryan has Perry, Getzlaf, and Selanne to take the heat off of him.

Would I acquire Ryan for Vanek straight up? Of course. But that doesn't mean he's a better offensive threat.
09-10 (vanek 25/26 yrs old vs Ryan 22/23 yrs old)
GF per 60 ES
Ryan 1.19
Vanek 1.16

PF per 60 ES
Ryan 2.03
Vanek 2.21

GF per 60 PP
Ryan 2.95
Vanek 2.46

PF per 60 PP
Ryan 5.36
Vanek 4.18

10-11 (Vanek 26/27 yrs old vs Ryan 23/24 yrs old)
GF per 60 ES
Ryan 1.18
Vanek 1.07

PF per 60 ES
Ryan 2.54
Vanek 2.36

GF per 60 PP
Ryan 1.56
Vanek 1.97

PF per 60 PP
Ryan 3.13
Vanek 5.43

11-12 (Vanek 27/28 yrs old vs Ryan 24/25 yrs old)
GF per 60 ES
Ryan 1.22
Vanek 0.88

PF per 60 ES
Ryan 2.04
Vanek 2.12

GF per 60 PP
Ryan 1.18
Vanek 1.07

PF per 60 PP
Ryan 4.18
Vanek 5.40



and that's just scoring... let's look at puck possession...

09-10
Corsi
Ryan +16.8
Vanek -1.2

10-11
Corsi
Ryan +14.2
Vanek +4.6

11-12
Corsi
Ryan +5.9
Vanek -4.4

Opportunity/Favorable Situations....

09-10
Off Zone Start
Ryan 54.7%
Vanek 54.5%

10-11
Off Zone Start
Ryan 53.7%
Vanek 61.8%

11-12
Off Zone Start
Ryan 49.2%
Vanek 54.2%


you can review the QualCom stats as well, it will show that for the most part, Ryan plays with better linemates, but also faces tougher competition... a wash IMO.

No one in their right mind would take Vanek over Ryan... No One

Jame is online now  
Old
07-24-2012, 09:44 PM
  #955
ZZamboni
Puttin' on the Foil
 
ZZamboni's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: Buffalo, NY
Country: United States
Posts: 10,105
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by joshjull View Post
I get the feeling some folks think they will make the team in a year and hit their potential the next.
Exactly. When I read those type of assumptions I just ...

Like you said, they MIGHT reach their potential in 3-4 years after they make the team full time. Look no further than Myers. He's going into his 4th year and I would argue we haven't seen his full potential yet.

ZZamboni is online now  
Old
07-24-2012, 09:48 PM
  #956
drinking bleach irl
p trendy tbh
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: Virginia
Country: Ras al-Khaimah
Posts: 10,876
vCash: 300
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jame View Post
No one in their right mind would take Vanek over Ryan... No One
Methinks you glossed over what I actually wrote .

drinking bleach irl is offline  
Old
07-24-2012, 09:52 PM
  #957
Der Jaeger
Registered User
 
Der Jaeger's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: Northern Virginia
Country: United States
Posts: 1,919
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fatal System Ehrhoff View Post
Vanek over the past three seasons: 86-101-187 in 229 games
Ryan over those same seasons: 100-92-192 in 245 games

Vanek's the primary target of defenders while Ryan has Perry, Getzlaf, and Selanne to take the heat off of him.

Would I acquire Ryan for Vanek straight up? Of course. But that doesn't mean he's a better offensive threat.
I buy that argument. I agree that Vanek is more of an offensive threat, and I think the stats you listed in context of the team they were one, indicates that out to a degree.

I also think Ryan is the better overall player and maintains higher trade value. He's obviously younger, plays a more physical game than Vanek, and brings more of an edgy attitude to the game. With Buffalo's current roster, Ryan's exactly what the team needs.

Though nothing negates Vanek's value. The guy can score. This past year, he scored 26 times, good for 45th best in the league. In 2010-2011, his 32 goals were 14th best. In 2009-2010, his 29 were good for 31st. In 2008-2009, 40 goals, good for 5th best. In 2007-2008, 36 goals, good for 13th in the league. Post-lockout, 2005-2006 and 2006-2007, Vanek 25 goals (69th) and 43 goals (5th best), respectively.

If you take out the high years (43 and 40 goals) and the low year (25, 26), hs likely ends a healthy year somewhere between the 10th and 30th best goal scorer in the league.

Another way to look at it: Vanek's a 30 goal winger. Here's where 30 goals places you among peers:
2005-2006: 42nd
2006-2007: 37th
2007-2008: 28th
2008-2009: 37th
2009-2010: 19th
2010-2011: 28th
2011-2012: 25th

Vanek should be the top one or two goal scorers on any team he plays one, with some exceptions. He's proven that over time, which holds some value.

All that said, I'd make the trade straight up as well, though I highly doubt Anaheim does.

Der Jaeger is offline  
Old
07-24-2012, 09:57 PM
  #958
Sabretip
Registered User
 
Sabretip's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: Phoenix, AZ
Country: United States
Posts: 7,906
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chainshot View Post
I agree, McNabb's size, ability to keep players honest and his ability to operate as a playmaking/shooting option from the point are unique to what they have in their system. Hell, it's unique to what they have anywhere in their organization at this point. They want to be "harder to play against", McNabb is one of the poster boys for this.
1000% in agreement on that - how long has it taken for the Sabres to draft and develop such a defenseman? McKee was partly like McNabb in terms of being the big, physical, shut-down type but his skating and offensive instincts were nowhere near what McNabb's are. I would be shocked if Regier were to part with McNabb unless it's the difference-maker between landing someone like Getzlaf or not.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Zip15 View Post
Next summer, Lucic, Seguin, Rask, and Marchand are all RFAs. Now, that is a team I'd like to go after.
Boy, wouldn't the Buffalo media love that as a storyline if the Sabres not only offersheeted Lucic but somehow ended up with him - and even moreso with Miller on the roster? We'd be reliving 11-12-11 for the next decade - Bucky would make sure of that.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Dr. Zoidberg View Post
I would not be surprised to see Matt Cullen here, assuming he would be willing to waive his NTC for a bigger role. The rampant speculation stated that Regier was after him two years ago, and given Minny's depth at center and probable desire to shed a little salary, it seems like a realistic option. He is 35 and has 1 yr remaining on his contract.
You're forgetting - or ignoring - the other well-known part that Regier indirectly suggested about the Sabres' pursuit of Cullen: he was offered the same money by Buffalo as what Minnesota gave him but he chose the Wild so he could play in front of his hometown family and friends. He's not going to waive an NTC to leave the situation he wanted from the start.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Layne Staley View Post
Trading Vanek for Ryan does not improve the team's playoff chances.We need Ryan to play WITH Vanek.
Quote:
Originally Posted by HiddenInLight View Post
I agree with this point, I don't see the point in sending Vanek to get Ryan if the whole point of getting Ryan is to get a power forward to play with Vanek.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jame View Post
Vanek averages less then 30 goals per year over the last 3 years.

I don't think anyone cares what Vanek did in 05-07, those numbers are inflated from the post lockout era of open ice

Ryan is younger and better.
All of what you point out is valid, Jame - but you're missing the very logical point the two posters above yours were making: why should the Sabres add a premium goal scorer like Ryan at the expense of dealing their best goal scorer in Vanek? The more prudent tact would be to build some offensive balance and depth so Vanek and Pominville don't have to carry the team once again - and adding Ryan to those two does that.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Rhett4 View Post
I'm not sure why you're interpreting that as him not wanting to move a forward. I don't see that at all, and I listened to all his interview in the past month. He wants to improve the forward core. If it takes moving a forward to bring in a better forward, you do it.
Regier has reiterated his desire to improve the team's scoring. Dealing Roy for Ott didn't do that. There's a greater surplus on defense at the moment but the Sabres also have 11 NHL-ready wingers at present (or 10, if Scott is discounted). Since none of the defensemen assumed to be expendable (Leopold, Weber, Pardy, Brennan) are top 4-caliber, it stands to reason that Regier would have to package a defenseman AND a forward (and even a prospect/draft pick) to have any shot at a top 6 forward.

Quote:
Originally Posted by ZZamboni View Post
The point is ... Don't assume those young rookies will do anything significant until they prove they can in an NHL environment.
Quote:
Originally Posted by joshjull View Post
Do posters realize its unlikely Grigs or Girgs will be near there upper end potential for 3-4 years. I get the feeling some folks think they will make the team in a year and hit their potential the next.
Excellent points that tend to get too often overlooked or dismissed on this board IMO - how often does a draftee's scouting report ooze with raving reviews and forecasts of stardom only to end up forgotten when the player proves to be less? When Paille was drafted, he was highly-touted for top 6 forward and his scouting reports compared him to a Mike Peca-type leader and two-way forward yet he's been no more than 4th line depth player for two organizations.

Quote:
Originally Posted by joshjull View Post
You get them here and let Terry take care of keeping them longer term. Its far easier to keep a player thats been here for 1-2 years than to talk one into coming here. They will already know the positives.
Another bullseye, jj!

Sabretip is offline  
Old
07-24-2012, 10:02 PM
  #959
Der Jaeger
Registered User
 
Der Jaeger's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: Northern Virginia
Country: United States
Posts: 1,919
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by joshjull View Post
Not to mention why would you pass on excellent two way top 6 center like Pavelski because you think some of our prospects MIGHT become top 6 centers. Do posters realize its unlikely Grigs or Girgs will be near there upper end potential for 4 or so years. When they are still only 22 years old. I get the feeling some folks think they will make the team this year and hit their potential the next.
Agree. Too many "what ifs" about the future. Buffalo should take any opportunity to improve the NHL roster regardless of players in the system.

Der Jaeger is offline  
Old
07-24-2012, 10:20 PM
  #960
Sabresfansince1980
Registered User
 
Sabresfansince1980's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Location: from Wheatfield, NY
Country: Germany
Posts: 2,599
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by joshjull View Post
What a bizarre statement. So we are only to trade for top centers on long term deals? Or any players that can help us?

You get them here and let Terry take care of keeping them longer term. Its far easier to keep a player thats been here for 1-2 years than to talk one into coming here. They will already know the positives.

Not to mention why would you pass on excellent two way top 6 center like Pavelski because you think some of our prospects MIGHT become top 6 centers. Do posters realize its unlikely Grigs or Girgs will be near there upper end potential for 4 or so years. When they are still only 22 years old. I get the feeling some folks think they will make the team this year and hit their potential the next.
There is absolutely no track record to go on. Pegula was able to literally attract Regehr, and possibly Ehrhoff with the long-term deal he got. As far as keeping players we don't know yet. Isn't it a gamble either way? Problem is that #1, one way or another you can't keep all those players in the roster spots they should play if things work out. #2, if things don't work out you've given away some futures AND lost the players you traded them for. I'm not gushing over G/G and assuming anything, but to find out what their quite promising talents hold they will need to play. I'd rather find out what Armia and G/G can do then to have two good players that may very well take off after 1 and 2 seasons. If those prospects do pan out, Clowe is probably not staying anyway and Pavelski may not be worth keeping depending on his contract demands, so the team might not want/need them even if they wanted to stay. If Pavelski only had one season and an extension could be agreed upon then great, but that can't happen. Clowe isn't that attractive to me to consider that option.

Sabresfansince1980 is offline  
Old
07-24-2012, 10:24 PM
  #961
Chainshot
Global Moderator
Give 'em Enough Rope
 
Chainshot's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Costa Rica
Country: Costa Rica
Posts: 56,208
vCash: 500
Awards:
If they can't land the proven center, they're going to have to continue to bank on the hope that they have two between Grigorenko, Girgensons, Catenacci, and Sundher. That said, I wouldn't mind at all if they could figure out how to land Clowe without ripping up the prospect base. He's another "hard to play against" kind of guy but it likely takes Stafford out of the lineup to make it happen.

__________________
It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it. - Aristotle
Chainshot is offline  
Old
07-24-2012, 10:31 PM
  #962
Beerz
HFBoards Sponsor
 
Beerz's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Country: United States
Posts: 10,472
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sabresfansince1980 View Post
There is absolutely no track record to go on. Pegula was able to literally attract Regehr, and possibly Ehrhoff with the long-term deal he got. As far as keeping players we don't know yet. Isn't it a gamble either way? Problem is that #1, one way or another you can't keep all those players in the roster spots they should play if things work out. #2, if things don't work out you've given away some futures AND lost the players you traded them for. I'm not gushing over G/G and assuming anything, but to find out what their quite promising talents hold they will need to play. I'd rather find out what Armia and G/G can do then to have two good players that may very well take off after 1 and 2 seasons. If those prospects do pan out, Clowe is probably not staying anyway and Pavelski may not be worth keeping depending on his contract demands, so the team might not want/need them even if they wanted to stay. If Pavelski only had one season and an extension could be agreed upon then great, but that can't happen. Clowe isn't that attractive to me to consider that option.

The only piece I'm hesitant to give up in that proposal is Armia ... and Im pretty confident in Reiger being able to replace his attributes thru trade or FA in the coming years.

This organization has taken the "cautious" or "prudent: approach for far too long...sometimes you need to be bold and willing to take a risk.

Beerz is online now  
Old
07-24-2012, 10:42 PM
  #963
Sabresfansince1980
Registered User
 
Sabresfansince1980's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Location: from Wheatfield, NY
Country: Germany
Posts: 2,599
vCash: 500
Yeah they'd be better, but for maybe just a year or two when they probably aren't a legit Cup contender. They won't be a Cup contender this season for sure, then maybe it's just Pavelski the next season, and then maybe not at all. I don't see the next two seasons as Buffalo's window. Possibly 2013-14, but not this season. Taking a risk is fine, but not for players that could be gone so soon while losing out on three players with a combined 16 seasons of team contract control.

PS - does anyone else have a hard time typing on this site? About one in five letters doesn't show when I type them. Anywhere else is not a problem, just here and I'm on a PC with normal keyboard. Here's an example if I don't proof read...

This crap is divingme crazy and I an't figure out what theprblem is

Sabresfansince1980 is offline  
Old
07-24-2012, 10:54 PM
  #964
Beerz
HFBoards Sponsor
 
Beerz's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Country: United States
Posts: 10,472
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sabresfansince1980 View Post
Yeah they'd be better, but for maybe just a year or two when they probably aren't a legit Cup contender. They won't be a Cup contender this season for sure, then maybe it's just Pavelski the next season, and then maybe not at all. I don't see the next two seasons as Buffalo's window. Possibly 2013-14, but not this season. Taking a risk is fine, but not for players that could be gone so soon while losing out on three players with a combined 16 seasons of team contract control.

PS - does anyone else have a hard time typing on this site? About one in five letters doesn't show when I type them. Anywhere else is not a problem, just here and I'm on a PC with normal keyboard. Here's an example if I don't proof read...

This crap is divingme crazy and I an't figure out what theprblem is
Same problem..... massive lag..

Beerz is online now  
Old
07-24-2012, 10:56 PM
  #965
Jame
Dream '16
 
Jame's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Palm Harbor, FL
Country: Pitcairn Islands
Posts: 33,191
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sabretip View Post
\

All of what you point out is valid, Jame - but you're missing the very logical point the two posters above yours were making: why should the Sabres add a premium goal scorer like Ryan at the expense of dealing their best goal scorer in Vanek? The more prudent tact would be to build some offensive balance and depth so Vanek and Pominville don't have to carry the team once again - and adding Ryan to those two does that.
i cant believe that's a serious question...

goal scoring:
ryan=vanek

everything else about the game of hockey
ryan>vanek

not to mention:
ryan is younger
signed longer
for less

Jame is online now  
Old
07-24-2012, 11:31 PM
  #966
jBuds
pretty damn valuable
 
jBuds's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: NYC Suburbs
Country: Lord Howe Island
Posts: 26,763
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jame View Post
i cant believe that's a serious question...

goal scoring:
ryan=vanek

everything else about the game of hockey
ryan>vanek

not to mention:
ryan is younger
signed longer
for less
I also don't think Ryan has peaked as a goalscorer. Vanek likely has. Ryan has looked more and more dangerous each year of maturity.

jBuds is offline  
Old
07-25-2012, 12:02 AM
  #967
Luceni
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Austria
Country: Austria
Posts: 3,653
vCash: 500
I take ryan over vanek every day of the week and twice on sunday. And I'm an austrian hockey fan.

When vanek was signed to his contract he came of a 40 g 80 p season. He was expected to become one of the top 5 players in the game. Now look at him. he isn't even top 30 with his freakin impressive 26 goals.

I'm a bit annoyed because the potential is there. but I feel that he will never hit 40 goals again. Not in Buffalo.

Luceni is offline  
Old
07-25-2012, 12:09 AM
  #968
Sabretip
Registered User
 
Sabretip's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: Phoenix, AZ
Country: United States
Posts: 7,906
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chainshot View Post
If they can't land the proven center, they're going to have to continue to bank on the hope that they have two between Grigorenko, Girgensons, Catenacci, and Sundher. That said, I wouldn't mind at all if they could figure out how to land Clowe without ripping up the prospect base. He's another "hard to play against" kind of guy but it likely takes Stafford out of the lineup to make it happen.
For a team that struggled to score last season and who's already given up some offense in the Roy-Ott swap, giving up Stafford - despite his inconsistencies - for a less talented offensive player like Clowe would really spell problems IMO. Sure, they may have a roster full of SOBs that other teams hate to play against and the fans would no doubt embrace the rough-and-tumble, agitating style that would bring back memories of the Ray-May-Barnaby-Peca teams under Nolan but teams still have to outscore the opposition to win games. If Clowe-for-Stafford were the only other roster move before the season, I fear the Sabres reaching double-digits in the number of games they score 1 or fewer goals in a game.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Jame View Post
i cant believe that's a serious question...

goal scoring:
ryan=vanek

everything else about the game of hockey
ryan>vanek

not to mention:
ryan is younger
signed longer
for less
You're still not getting my point - I'm not debating which one is better or more valuable. I'm only pointing out that the Sabres only have 2 true goal scorers right now: Vanek and Pominville. Adding Ryan as a 3rd makes more sense as a way to improve balance in the top 9 than replacing one of the two with Ryan and relying again on 2 players to score the bulk of the goals. It's just common sense.

Besides, as others already noted, it's pointless to even argue a Vanek-for-Ryan swap because the Ducks are very likely not interested in adding to their cap when they have Getzlaf/Perry extensions to think of on the horizon.

Sabretip is offline  
Old
07-25-2012, 12:12 AM
  #969
Myllz
Pavelski Lite
 
Myllz's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Seattle
Country: United States
Posts: 12,934
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sabretip View Post
You're still not getting my point - I'm not debating which one is better or more valuable. I'm only pointing out that the Sabres only have 2 true goal scorers right now: Vanek and Pominville. Adding Ryan as a 3rd makes more sense as a way to improve balance in the top 9 than replacing one of the two with Ryan and relying again on 2 players to score the bulk of the goals. It's just common sense.

Besides, as others already noted, it's pointless to even argue a Vanek-for-Ryan swap because the Ducks are very likely not interested in adding to their cap when they have Getzlaf/Perry extensions to think of on the horizon.
If the options are acquire Ryan without losing Vanek and acquire Ryan while losing Vanek, obviously the ideal is to keep Vanek. But if it's required that Vanek goes to get Ryan, you do it.

Myllz is offline  
Old
07-25-2012, 06:04 AM
  #970
HiddenInLight
Registered User
 
HiddenInLight's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: 3,010
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Myllz View Post
If the options are acquire Ryan without losing Vanek and acquire Ryan while losing Vanek, obviously the ideal is to keep Vanek. But if it's required that Vanek goes to get Ryan, you do it.
It really depends on the move tbh. Vanek for Ryan straight up would be a pretty latteral move. The differences between the two players aren't as big as many like to believe, but if we are sending Vanek plus a valuable piece (ie a high level prospect or a high draft pick) then the team becomes significantly worse. Personally I would rather have Vanek and Armia, or Vanek and McNabb over ryan without Vanek and Armia/Pysyk/McNabb. While Ryan does have a small edge, being younger and more physical, is it really worth the + wed need to add to the deal. Unless it is sending back a guy like Gerbe or Kaleta along with vanek, Id say no, its not a good deal for us as it makes us a worse team in the future....and our team NOW isn't the difference between vanek and ryan away from a cup. Its quite obvious and I don't see how anybody can argue it.

HiddenInLight is offline  
Old
07-25-2012, 07:27 AM
  #971
Chainshot
Global Moderator
Give 'em Enough Rope
 
Chainshot's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Costa Rica
Country: Costa Rica
Posts: 56,208
vCash: 500
Awards:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sabretip View Post
For a team that struggled to score last season and who's already given up some offense in the Roy-Ott swap, giving up Stafford - despite his inconsistencies - for a less talented offensive player like Clowe would really spell problems IMO. Sure, they may have a roster full of SOBs that other teams hate to play against and the fans would no doubt embrace the rough-and-tumble, agitating style that would bring back memories of the Ray-May-Barnaby-Peca teams under Nolan but teams still have to outscore the opposition to win games. If Clowe-for-Stafford were the only other roster move before the season, I fear the Sabres reaching double-digits in the number of games they score 1 or fewer goals in a game.
Yep. It's either touch the guy who you have and can count on for 20+ goals or start touching the prospects in deals.

Chainshot is offline  
Old
07-25-2012, 07:40 AM
  #972
HiddenInLight
Registered User
 
HiddenInLight's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: 3,010
vCash: 500
Personally Id prefer to see the sabres send out an offersheet. The more I think about it, the more I feel that the sabres have enough in the pipeline to give up 2 1sts a 2nd and a 3rd for a good young player. Maybe a Benn or Oreilly or the like....

HiddenInLight is offline  
Old
07-25-2012, 07:59 AM
  #973
Zip15
Registered User
 
Zip15's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Posts: 16,951
vCash: 50
Quote:
Originally Posted by HiddenInLight View Post
Personally Id prefer to see the sabres send out an offersheet. The more I think about it, the more I feel that the sabres have enough in the pipeline to give up 2 1sts a 2nd and a 3rd for a good young player. Maybe a Benn or Oreilly or the like....
Problem being, if they want to scare off the Stars or Avs from matching, Buffalo will have to heavily frontload the deal. The draft pick compensation is determined by the AAV of the first five years--or the five highest years, I can't recall--and that'd mean we'd likely need to make an offer that'd send over four 1st rounders. You then have to determine whether those players are worth four 1st rounders. I like both players very much, but that's a steep price.

I think it's moot, anyways, because both teams would likely match. If Colorado needs cut salary, they can match the offer sheet to ROR and turn around and trade Stastny, who, given the dearth of available centers, could probably pull them a nice haul of picks and prospects. Further, Dallas has a new ownership prepared to spend some money, and Benn/Eriksson are the cornerstones of that franchise.

Zip15 is offline  
Old
07-25-2012, 08:07 AM
  #974
HiddenInLight
Registered User
 
HiddenInLight's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: 3,010
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Zip15 View Post
Problem being, if they want to scare off the Stars or Avs from matching, Buffalo will have to heavily frontload the deal. The draft pick compensation is determined by the AAV of the first five years--or the five highest years, I can't recall--and that'd mean we'd likely need to make an offer that'd send over four 1st rounders. You then have to determine whether those players are worth four 1st rounders. I like both players very much, but that's a steep price.

I think it's moot, anyways, because both teams would likely match. If Colorado needs cut salary, they can match the offer sheet to ROR and turn around and trade Stastny, who, given the dearth of available centers, could probably pull them a nice haul of picks and prospects. Further, Dallas has a new ownership prepared to spend some money, and Benn/Eriksson are the cornerstones of that franchise.
Four first round picks wouldn't be HORRIBLE if next years draft is as deep as everyone seems to think it will be. If it isn't then it might not be a great idea =/....either way I wouldn't mind seeing buffalo do something ballsy for once.

The OS would be both Ballsy and would show our confidence in our up and coming players Like Hodgeson, Ennis, Foligno, Armia, Grigs and Girgs.

HiddenInLight is offline  
Old
07-25-2012, 08:28 AM
  #975
Zip15
Registered User
 
Zip15's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Posts: 16,951
vCash: 50
Quote:
Originally Posted by HiddenInLight View Post
Four first round picks wouldn't be HORRIBLE if next years draft is as deep as everyone seems to think it will be. If it isn't then it might not be a great idea =/....either way I wouldn't mind seeing buffalo do something ballsy for once.

The OS would be both Ballsy and would show our confidence in our up and coming players Like Hodgeson, Ennis, Foligno, Armia, Grigs and Girgs.
Meh, I think they've done plenty of ballsy things since Pegula's taken over. There has to be real strategy with offer sheets. We can't just go around offering them like we're a drunk guy in a bar looking to go home with a woman two minutes before last call. You have to give them out with an expectation that the other team won't match. I think both Colorado and Dallas would match offer sheets for those players.

Zip15 is offline  
Closed Thread

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 10:35 AM.

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.