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

How to change the top 6

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old
12-04-2009, 12:59 AM
  #26
slip
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Posts: 8,792
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by dire wolf View Post
You are right that I may have improperly implied you suggested trading Roy and Mac. Sorry about that.

If your concern is that we are getting pushed around, I don't know why you are picking Mac, of all people, to trade. He's been pretty tough this year. Is your goal just to hit people or to have guys that can score when the other team is physical?

I'm not saying everything is fine and dandy because we beat the bottom of the barrel. But last time I checked, we are
2-1 against oh-so-tough Philly;
0-1-1 against Boston (with Enroth in goal for the regulation loss);
0-1 against Ottawa (with Lalime in net)

we've only played Wash once and we haven't played defending SC champs Pitt yet. But those are the #1 and #4 offensive teams in the league. Most teams have problems playing against Ovechkin-Backstrom-Semin and Crosby, Malkin, et al. I'm not exactly expecting to win the Cup this year.
I agree that this team is not a cup contender. But given that, the thought of trading Roy and Gerbe for Dubinsky and Grachev makes even more sense. With Myers on the rise, Kassian in the pipeline, and an assortment of complimentary players like Ennis, Kennedy, Butler, Sekera, and Enroth to go along with Dubinsky and Grachev, this team could be something special in the very near future; and all this without sacrificing too much in the present.

Under my simpler scenario, flipping MacArthur for Jacques is my own personal fantasy. I'm not so much picking on Mac than I am trying to find an adequate piece to acquire Jacques. With Ennis in the wing, it takes some of the sting off.

slip is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-04-2009, 01:13 AM
  #27
buffalowing88
Registered User
 
buffalowing88's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Posts: 1,466
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jame View Post
We consistently talk about how we need to change the complexion of the top 6. IMO the only way to really do that is to trade ONE of Roy or Pominville. You could also include Vanek in there, however I personally don't think you can get the right return to make trading Vanek acceptable. Stafford is developing nicely, and actually makes up the little size we actually have in the top 6. MacArthur, doesnt have the value to make a significant improvement via trade. And Connolly doesn't have the value. Pominville is expendable IMO, but with his contract I don't think the return would be as valuable as necessary to make the improvement. Roy is the ticket. He has a ton of trade value. He has a great contract and he outproduces it.

In return for Roy, I would want to pieces minimum 1. A top 6 young center with size and skill and 2. a top tier prospect. The deal below fills those two needs.


Derek Roy
Nate Gerbe

for

Brandon Dubinsky
Evgeny Grachev
Chris Higgins

Reasoning:
Swap a 70-80 undersized center for a 40 pt, potential 60 pt center with size, a physical streak, and a lot of untapped potential (IMO). Dubi is not a downgrade on the PK. At this point, he IS a downgrade in offensive skill. He has a ton of untapped potential as a playmaking center. IMO he is what we've always wanted at center. A gritty, two way, playmaker who compliments his game with a handfull of intangibles built around character and leadership.

We would acquire a blue chip forward prospect, Grachev. Someone who could project to the NHL at the same time as Kassian. As a duo they would completely change the complexion of our top 6. Their arrival and prime prime hockey years would coincide with our franchise defensemen (Myers).

Higgins is merely a salary evener. He is an UFA at the end of the year. He would supplement some of the scoring we lose with Roy, and help improve the PP and keep the team on track for playoff revenue this year.

I know I'll be called a hater for this proposal.

Any other ideas based around the premise above?
I think this is as mutual a deal as you can find between us and any team. The Rangers fans have posted previously this season asking for Roy and I think it's a fair trade. I'm all for it. Dubinsky is getting underrated over here, he certainly can be a 60 point center if things fall into place and to be honest, that doesent even matter as much as his physical presence. I know Roy has his nights but of all the guys in the top 6, he is the easiest for me to part with. Macarthur has a future and I want to see how it unravels and I clearly think Stafford can develop into a valuable chip. If the Rangers would be willing to get rid of Grachev, than even better. The top 6 isnt winning us games, even with this winning streak I feel a change would only help us.

buffalowing88 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-04-2009, 01:16 AM
  #28
dire wolf
be cool
 
dire wolf's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2006
Location: Cali
Country: United States
Posts: 4,219
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by struckbyaparkedcar View Post
I hate making the Rangers better.

Roy or Connolly for something centered around Hanzal.

Kid's been baptized by fire in the Pacific, having to go against Kopitar/Getzlaf/Thornton since he's been on the Coyotes shutdown line. I'd give up a lot to get him here.
Great - another big guy who doesn't score. I like Hanzal too, but I'm not giving up one of our best offensive players for him. Remember, Miller doesn't score goals.

What we really need to take this team to the next level is (a) a Danny Briere-type, and (b) a top PP QB. Our shut-down game has been pretty good.

dire wolf is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-04-2009, 01:16 AM
  #29
slip
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Posts: 8,792
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by struckbyaparkedcar View Post
I hate making the Rangers better.

Roy or Connolly for something centered around Hanzal.

Kid's been baptized by fire in the Pacific, having to go against Kopitar/Getzlaf/Thornton since he's been on the Coyotes shutdown line. I'd give up a lot to get him here.
Hanzal is an even better choice, but I wonder how much flexibility Phoenix has to trade up to a Roy or TC.

This much I do know: Roy or Connolly will never have a greater trade value than they do right here, right now.

slip is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-04-2009, 01:26 AM
  #30
struckbyaparkedcar
Zemgus Da Gawd
 
struckbyaparkedcar's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Upstate NY
Country: Cote DIvoire
Posts: 10,768
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by slip View Post
Hanzal is an even better choice, but I wonder how much flexibility Phoenix has to trade up to a Roy or TC.

This much I do know: Roy or Connolly will never have a greater trade value than they do right here, right now.
A decent amount if the NHL is ponying up for them to make a playoff push.

I think Hanzal could be a 20/30 selke caliber top six guy right now in Buffalo and has really good upside. I wouldn't really want to trade Roy for him, especially the way HeRP ()has been playing but Connolly would definitely interest me. Mac-Hanzal-Stafford could be that dominant puck-possession line that I've been wanting.

Ennis has that Briere-esque upside. I think it's a matter of just waiting for him to develop, because there aren't any Briere-esque offensive talents that are on the block right now.

struckbyaparkedcar is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-04-2009, 01:27 AM
  #31
dire wolf
be cool
 
dire wolf's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2006
Location: Cali
Country: United States
Posts: 4,219
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by buffalowing88 View Post
Dubinsky ... certainly can be a 60 point center if things fall into place
So, if all of the stars line up and we get lucky, maybe he will score 10-20 points less than Roy? Or maybe not. I don't even think Roy has peaked yet.

Quote:
Originally Posted by buffalowing88 View Post
and to be honest, that doesent even matter as much as his physical presence.
Hockey is about scoring goals. Points matter. A lot.

Quote:
Originally Posted by buffalowing88 View Post
I know Roy has his nights
And you think Dubi is under-appreciated? Roy has been the team's leading point producr for the past 3 seasons and you say he "has his nights?"

Quote:
Originally Posted by buffalowing88 View Post
but of all the guys in the top 6, he is the easiest for me to part with.
Why is our most consistent leading offensive player the easiest to part with? How is Pominville more valuable, for example?

Quote:
Originally Posted by buffalowing88 View Post
Macarthur has a future and I want to see how it unravels and I clearly think Stafford can develop into a valuable chip.
I think you are just taking the old HF philosophy that potential is more fun than current performing talent. I really don't think it makes us a better team now or in the future.

dire wolf is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-04-2009, 03:27 AM
  #32
Corto
Faceless Man
 
Corto's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Braavos
Country: Croatia
Posts: 13,007
vCash: 500
Am I the only one who still likes the Pommer-Roy combo still?

Roy is a game-breaker IMO. Yes, he'll frustrate you at times, but he does have that certain "something" that can win you games.

Pommer has to rely on a more consistent game, and yes, he's fallen off a bit in the last season+ (same as Hecht offensively), but he's still the same player, possibly just needing a bit of luck to get him going again.

Glimmer of hope?

Last 3 games:

Roy: 5 points, +4
Pommer: 5 points, +5
Hecht: 4 points, +3

I still don't think Roy and Pommer are a part of "the problem".
Yes, Pommer has to be better, but we all know he can, and they both play a two-way game.

Coincidentally, a revived Sekera has 4 points and is a +2 in those last three games, and I imagine a capable offensive presence from the blue line at ES can't be hurting the revived offense.

Corto is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-04-2009, 10:27 AM
  #33
joshjull
Moderator
 
joshjull's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Hamburg,NY
Country: United States
Posts: 34,340
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Corto View Post
Am I the only one who still likes the Pommer-Roy combo still?

Roy is a game-breaker IMO. Yes, he'll frustrate you at times, but he does have that certain "something" that can win you games.

Pommer has to rely on a more consistent game, and yes, he's fallen off a bit in the last season+ (same as Hecht offensively), but he's still the same player, possibly just needing a bit of luck to get him going again.

Glimmer of hope?

Last 3 games:

Roy: 5 points, +4
Pommer: 5 points, +5
Hecht: 4 points, +3

I still don't think Roy and Pommer are a part of "the problem".
Yes, Pommer has to be better, but we all know he can, and they both play a two-way game.

Coincidentally, a revived Sekera has 4 points and is a +2 in those last three games, and I imagine a capable offensive presence from the blue line at ES can't be hurting the revived offense.
I like them as well.


The answer to a better top 6 seems to be right in front of us. Build an effective top 9.

A lot of different combos were tried with the top 6 and none of them really took off or looked as effective as the top 9 we have seen the last few games.


I had advocated all camp for a true top line with two really good defensive lines or two solid scoring lines and two really good defensive lines. Then watched up until a few games ago as each combo in the top 6 was unable to handle that role. By moving Vanek to the "3rd line", Ruff has effectively made it impossible to shutdown all of the big 4 forwards.

With at least one of the big 4 on each of the top 3 lines we now have the ability to free at least one of them up each night. All of the big 4 have shown in the past when they are freed up like that they are very effective. The results since this has been tried speak for themselves. Almost as importantly we haven't given up our defensive play to do it.

When Goose returns we have a a 4th line again that can do damage. That will be pretty exciting to watch along with our current top 9.

As for the trade proposals in this thread..no thanks. I'm with dire wolf, potential production from other players (usually prospects) always seems to trump actual production from current and effective NHLers. You would think folks would have learned watching our current crop of youngish forwards that it takes a bit to get your game going at the NHL level if at all.

joshjull is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-04-2009, 10:28 AM
  #34
Jame
Dream '16
 
Jame's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Palm Harbor, FL
Country: Pitcairn Islands
Posts: 34,577
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by slip View Post
I agree that this team is not a cup contender. But given that, the thought of trading Roy and Gerbe for Dubinsky and Grachev makes even more sense. With Myers on the rise, Kassian in the pipeline, and an assortment of complimentary players like Ennis, Kennedy, Butler, Sekera, and Enroth to go along with Dubinsky and Grachev, this team could be something special in the very near future; and all this without sacrificing too much in the present.

Under my simpler scenario, flipping MacArthur for Jacques is my own personal fantasy. I'm not so much picking on Mac than I am trying to find an adequate piece to acquire Jacques. With Ennis in the wing, it takes some of the sting off.
That's pretty much what Im going for. The trade, IMO, maintains the Sabres as a playoff caliber team this year, while putting them in the position to be a young contender in a few years, a la Chicago recently.

Jame is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-04-2009, 10:49 AM
  #35
TehDoak
General Zad
 
TehDoak's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Country: United States
Posts: 18,492
vCash: 500
Send a message via AIM to TehDoak
My proposal:

Hecht and a 3rd for Cole

TehDoak is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-04-2009, 10:54 AM
  #36
Jame
Dream '16
 
Jame's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Palm Harbor, FL
Country: Pitcairn Islands
Posts: 34,577
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by TehDoak View Post
My proposal:

Hecht and a 3rd for Cole
Why would Carolina want Hecht?

Jame is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-04-2009, 11:24 AM
  #37
joshjull
Moderator
 
joshjull's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Hamburg,NY
Country: United States
Posts: 34,340
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jame View Post
That's pretty much what Im going for. The trade, IMO, maintains the Sabres as a playoff caliber team this year, while putting them in the position to be a young contender in a few years, a la Chicago recently.

How does the trade you proposed in the OP even remotely make sense?

Roy is by far the best player in that deal and is only 26yrs old. What team in their right mind trades away a player entering his prime, has been their leading scoring, is durable, can play in all situations and is signed to good deal for the next 3 seasons after this one?

All so they can get;
-Dubinsky, a player that isn't even close to him at the moment and is unlikely to get near him. I like him but he isn't worth moving Roy to get
-Grachev, a prospect that is quite a ways away from being an NHL regular let alone a big contributor. Who also has speed and effort issues.
-Higgins who is a bum plain and simple.


About the only thing this trade would accomplish is making us taller. It doesn't make us tougher, it decreases our offensive skill level and does nothing to improve our chances down the road.


Last edited by joshjull: 12-04-2009 at 11:37 AM.
joshjull is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-04-2009, 11:55 AM
  #38
joechip
Registered User
 
joechip's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2003
Location: Gainesville, Fl
Posts: 3,228
vCash: 500
Send a message via Yahoo to joechip
If anything I want a different presence on the blueline. I want a minute eater with an edge who'd got offensive touch.... namely I want Keith Ballard and I'm willing to trade anyone on the blueline who shoots left to get him.

I just can't see how a deal centered around Pominville for Ballard would work. Again, Poms contract is too high.

Poms + Butler + pick ($6.1 in salary)

for

Ballard + ????? ($4.2 + ??? in salary)

????? == who? Reinprecht? Horton? Frolik?

Ta,

joechip is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-04-2009, 12:12 PM
  #39
BUCKSHOT
w00t !!
 
BUCKSHOT's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Country: Ukraine
Posts: 17,680
vCash: 500
Send a message via Yahoo to BUCKSHOT
Quote:
Originally Posted by joechip View Post
If anything I want a different presence on the blueline. I want a minute eater with an edge who'd got offensive touch.... namely I want Keith Ballard and I'm willing to trade anyone on the blueline who shoots left to get him.

I just can't see how a deal centered around Pominville for Ballard would work. Again, Poms contract is too high.

Poms + Butler + pick ($6.1 in salary)

for

Ballard + ????? ($4.2 + ??? in salary)

????? == who? Reinprecht? Horton? Frolik?

Ta,
Just keep him away from Miller .....


Hey thats how to get 'rid' of Lalime !!




__________________






BUCKSHOT is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-04-2009, 12:22 PM
  #40
Jame
Dream '16
 
Jame's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Palm Harbor, FL
Country: Pitcairn Islands
Posts: 34,577
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by joshjull View Post
How does the trade you proposed in the OP even remotely make sense?

Roy is by far the best player in that deal and is only 26yrs old. What team in their right mind trades away a player entering his prime, has been their leading scoring, is durable, can play in all situations and is signed to good deal for the next 3 seasons after this one?

All so they can get;
-Dubinsky, a player that isn't even close to him at the moment and is unlikely to get near him. I like him but he isn't worth moving Roy to get
-Grachev, a prospect that is quite a ways away from being an NHL regular let alone a big contributor. Who also has speed and effort issues.
-Higgins who is a bum plain and simple.


About the only thing this trade would accomplish is making us taller. It doesn't make us tougher, it decreases our offensive skill level and does nothing to improve our chances down the road.
I disagree. I think the proposal makes us tougher. Dubinsky plays a physical, aggressive, pesty like game. And Higgins, although not intimadating physically, does use his size.

As far as offense. I think their is downgrade, but it's not drastic. IMO, we are adding TWO 40-50 pt forwards, and subtracting ONE 70-80 pt forward. And I definitely think Dubinsky has the potential to reach Roy offensively, and be a much better all around player.
I love Ryan Kesler's game, and project Dubinsky in a similar career path/talent level.

Higgins isn't a bum. He's just nothing special. I dont think Bums have 4 straight 20 goal seasons. Higgins is very similar to what we had in Kotalik. He's got a good shot, he'd help the PP a lot, and he'd bring the body down low.

I also happen to have a very high opinion of Grachev, skating issues aside, he's got TRUE power forward potential.


I understand that when you look at a deal like this on paper you are shocked. But if you take a few of MY opinions on the players involved, and what's needed for Buffalo to be a contender, then this deal might make sense to you.

However, if you hold a high opinion of Roy as a centerpiece to this franchise you will undoubtedly think this deal is a joke. You know my opinion of Roy.

I think it improves our chances down the road immensely. My opinion of what it takes to win "down the road" is apparently much different then yours. I don't think the group of forwards we have going "down the road" have what it takes to hold up in the playoffs. They are softer then when they were obliterated by Ottawa years back. I think adding players like Dubinsky, and down the road Grachev (idolizes Ovechkin and has the same nasty power/quick release), in the same time span that Kassian and Myers develop is the best way to build a NEW core.

You should check out some video on Grachev. Unfortunately he won't be at the WJC.

We know the top 6 is soft. And we say things like, "Hopefully, Kassian will fix that". Well Kassian is atleast 2 years away, right? Maybe 3? By the time we get the fixes we need from within Roy's contract will be nearly up anyways. Are we a cup contender in the next 3 years? With TWO practically immovable contracts in Vanek and Pominville?

My point is simple. If we aren't true contenders the next two seasons, then who gives a **** how good Roy's contract is? If we recognize our flaws and admit that Roy's value in trade is the best way to address those flaws... then we make the deal.

My 2012-2013 LU based on this re-TOOLing would be

Vanek-Kennedy-Kassian
Grachev-Dubinsky-Stafford
MacArthur-Goose-Ennis
Vet-Legault-Kaleta

Tallinder-Myers


I'd let Connolly and Hecht walk, I'd trade Pominville,

Jame is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-04-2009, 12:25 PM
  #41
Jame
Dream '16
 
Jame's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Palm Harbor, FL
Country: Pitcairn Islands
Posts: 34,577
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by joechip View Post
If anything I want a different presence on the blueline. I want a minute eater with an edge who'd got offensive touch.... namely I want Keith Ballard and I'm willing to trade anyone on the blueline who shoots left to get him.

I just can't see how a deal centered around Pominville for Ballard would work. Again, Poms contract is too high.

Poms + Butler + pick ($6.1 in salary)

for

Ballard + ????? ($4.2 + ??? in salary)

????? == who? Reinprecht? Horton? Frolik?

Ta,
I doubt Florida parts with Ballard. He was the centerpiece of the Jokinen trade, and brought in exactly because they were going to lose Jaybo.

Jame is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-04-2009, 12:30 PM
  #42
gaf
Occupied Territory
 
gaf's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: ... on the warpath
Posts: 3,384
vCash: 500
Love the idea of bringing Ballard back..

I really dont like to participate in these theory threads, but what about something around Vanek (to change things up here)..

Vanek + _________ (stafford??)

for

Sharp + Byfuglien + (a 2nd?)

doubt that Chicago parts w/ him, but love his game..

flame on...

gaf is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-04-2009, 12:30 PM
  #43
joechip
Registered User
 
joechip's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2003
Location: Gainesville, Fl
Posts: 3,228
vCash: 500
Send a message via Yahoo to joechip
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jame View Post
I doubt Florida parts with Ballard. He was the centerpiece of the Jokinen trade, and brought in exactly because they were going to lose Jaybo.
Of course, but I'd be willing to overpay to get it done. Come trade deadline if they're out of the running again, it may be possible to pry him free.

Ta,

joechip is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-04-2009, 01:11 PM
  #44
joshjull
Moderator
 
joshjull's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Hamburg,NY
Country: United States
Posts: 34,340
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jame View Post
I disagree. I think the proposal makes us tougher. Dubinsky plays a physical, aggressive, pesty like game. And Higgins, although not intimadating physically, does use his size.

As far as offense. I think their is downgrade, but it's not drastic. IMO, we are adding TWO 40-50 pt forwards, and subtracting ONE 70-80 pt forward. And I definitely think Dubinsky has the potential to reach Roy offensively, and be a much better all around player.
I love Ryan Kesler's game, and project Dubinsky in a similar career path/talent level.

Higgins isn't a bum. He's just nothing special. I dont think Bums have 4 straight 20 goal seasons. Higgins is very similar to what we had in Kotalik. He's got a good shot, he'd help the PP a lot, and he'd bring the body down low.

I also happen to have a very high opinion of Grachev, skating issues aside, he's got TRUE power forward potential.


I understand that when you look at a deal like this on paper you are shocked. But if you take a few of MY opinions on the players involved, and what's needed for Buffalo to be a contender, then this deal might make sense to you.

However, if you hold a high opinion of Roy as a centerpiece to this franchise you will undoubtedly think this deal is a joke. You know my opinion of Roy.

I think it improves our chances down the road immensely. My opinion of what it takes to win "down the road" is apparently much different then yours. I don't think the group of forwards we have going "down the road" have what it takes to hold up in the playoffs. They are softer then when they were obliterated by Ottawa years back. I think adding players like Dubinsky, and down the road Grachev (idolizes Ovechkin and has the same nasty power/quick release), in the same time span that Kassian and Myers develop is the best way to build a NEW core.

You should check out some video on Grachev. Unfortunately he won't be at the WJC.

We know the top 6 is soft. And we say things like, "Hopefully, Kassian will fix that". Well Kassian is atleast 2 years away, right? Maybe 3? By the time we get the fixes we need from within Roy's contract will be nearly up anyways. Are we a cup contender in the next 3 years? With TWO practically immovable contracts in Vanek and Pominville?

My point is simple. If we aren't true contenders the next two seasons, then who gives a **** how good Roy's contract is? If we recognize our flaws and admit that Roy's value in trade is the best way to address those flaws... then we make the deal.

My 2012-2013 LU based on this re-TOOLing would be

Vanek-Kennedy-Kassian
Grachev-Dubinsky-Stafford
MacArthur-Goose-Ennis
Vet-Legault-Kaleta

Tallinder-Myers


I'd let Connolly and Hecht walk, I'd trade Pominville,
It is simple. You don't value Roy for the player he is so you propose trades that any level head person would find ridiculous.

No team trades away one of their better players for lesser ones unless they are trying to free up salary or that player is past their prime.

Your justifications for the trade are that Duninksy is going to massively increase his production (almost double it). Then all of the pospects you have in the lineup are not only going to reach their top end potential. They are all going to do it in the next 3 years. After watching the usual development path of players. Who in their right mind thinks that not only are all those players are going to hit their potential and make the NHL but will also do it in that time frame?

The plan you propose is a gutting not a retooling.

Btw Roy will still be in his prime in 12-13 at age 30. He is a player you add to not subtract from your lineup.

joshjull is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-04-2009, 01:52 PM
  #45
joechip
Registered User
 
joechip's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2003
Location: Gainesville, Fl
Posts: 3,228
vCash: 500
Send a message via Yahoo to joechip
Quote:
Originally Posted by joshjull View Post
It is simple. You don't value Roy for the player he is so you propose trades that any level head person would find ridiculous.

No team trades away one of their better players for lesser ones unless they are trying to free up salary or that player is past their prime.

Your justifications for the trade are that Duninksy is going to massively increase his production (almost double it). Then all of the pospects you have in the lineup are not only going to reach their top end potential. They are all going to do it in the next 3 years. After watching the usual development path of players. Who in their right mind thinks that not only are all those players are going to hit their potential and make the NHL but will also do it in that time frame?

The plan you propose is a gutting not a retooling.

Btw Roy will still be in his prime in 12-13 at age 30. He is a player you add to not subtract from your lineup.
While I understand what Jame is trying to get at, I agree with Josh's assessment above. Roy is not the sole problem. His strengths and weaknesses do point, however, towards a need for 3 lines with offensive potential as opposed to the traditional 2. As we've all said too many times, this team doesn't have a true #1 center like Thornton or Spezza, we have a collection of 2nd line players with only 1 true #1 line winger (Vanek). That, then, necessitates spreading the offense around in order to spread the defense against them around, creating opportunities for each line depending on the competition of the evening and Ruff's ability as a coach to exploit that. [1]

Given that assessment of this team, trading Roy for Dubinsky is, at best, a lateral move as no one, including Jame thinks that Dubinsky is a true #1 center.

Ta,

[1] - Given Jame's low opinion of Ruff and Roy, I can see why he's pushing this agenda. I, however, vehemently disagree about Ruff.


Last edited by joechip: 12-04-2009 at 01:53 PM. Reason: too many 'ta,'s
joechip is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-04-2009, 02:06 PM
  #46
joshjull
Moderator
 
joshjull's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Hamburg,NY
Country: United States
Posts: 34,340
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by joechip View Post
While I understand what Jame is trying to get at, I agree with Josh's assessment above. Roy is not the sole problem. His strengths and weaknesses do point, however, towards a need for 3 lines with offensive potential as opposed to the traditional 2. As we've all said too many times, this team doesn't have a true #1 center like Thornton or Spezza, we have a collection of 2nd line players with only 1 true #1 line winger (Vanek). That, then, necessitates spreading the offense around in order to spread the defense against them around, creating opportunities for each line depending on the competition of the evening and Ruff's ability as a coach to exploit that. [1]

Given that assessment of this team, trading Roy for Dubinsky is, at best, a lateral move as no one, including Jame thinks that Dubinsky is a true #1 center.

Ta,

[1] - Given Jame's low opinion of Ruff and Roy, I can see why he's pushing this agenda. I, however, vehemently disagree about Ruff.
I'll have to disagree with Vanek as a top line LW. At no time has he shown an ES game the last two+ years to warrant being called a top Line LW while saying at the same time the others are not. . He started to emerge the last few games, looking like the player we saw in 06-07, because he was finally taken out of the role of top line winger. He is now back in a secondary scoring line (at ES) where he will do quite well. Secondary in the sense that his line will not be the one primarily relied on to score not that its of lesser importance to the offense.


The issue for us us we don't have 3 players with offensive games dominant enough at ES to call a "true" #1 offensive line. I think thats been pretty much proven over the last few years.

What we have is 4 pretty good offensive players that if freed up can be pretty effective. We seem to have finally found a way to do that by having them spread over 3 lines. Making it harder to match up against them.


Last edited by joshjull: 12-04-2009 at 02:13 PM.
joshjull is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-04-2009, 02:12 PM
  #47
Jame
Dream '16
 
Jame's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Palm Harbor, FL
Country: Pitcairn Islands
Posts: 34,577
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by joshjull View Post
It is simple. You don't value Roy for the player he is so you propose trades that any level head person would find ridiculous.
You're not listening.You're too one dimensional...."Player good, can't trade, me hungry"

Quote:
No team trades away one of their better players for lesser ones unless they are trying to free up salary or that player is past their prime.
I don't see Dubinsky as "lesser" . You do. Stats are important to you. Character, Intangibles, and depth of skill is important to me.

Quote:
Your justifications for the trade are that Duninksy is going to massively increase his production (almost double it). Then all of the pospects you have in the lineup are not only going to reach their top end potential. They are all going to do it in the next 3 years. After watching the usual development path of players. Who in their right mind thinks that not only are all those players are going to hit their potential and make the NHL but will also do it in that time frame?
Go back. Read. and tell me that is my justification. You simply will not debate my REAL points. My justification in getting Dubinsky is based on the complexion of our top lines, the lack of physical players and leaders on those lines, and the need for a BETTER mix of talent.

You are right, it is a little silly to think ALL those players will reach their potential, and in such a short period of time. The LU i posted was to illustrate the potential. Obviously, veterans, 2nd tier players, out of nowhere prospects, traded for pieces, etc would compliment a LU like that.

Quote:
The plan you propose is a gutting not a retooling.
I find it hysterical that trading ONE player... ROY.... Is gutting the team.

Quote:
Btw Roy will still be in his prime in 12-13 at age 30. He is a player you add to not subtract from your lineup.
Obviously, you have a much higher opinion of Roy. I disagree.

You can't respond to the details of my proposal, because they make sense. Your entire case is based on one sentiment, "Roy is great". You can't see passed individual love or hate for players, to see the prospect of building a contender.

Jame is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-04-2009, 02:17 PM
  #48
Jame
Dream '16
 
Jame's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Palm Harbor, FL
Country: Pitcairn Islands
Posts: 34,577
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by joechip View Post
While I understand what Jame is trying to get at, I agree with Josh's assessment above. Roy is not the sole problem. His strengths and weaknesses do point, however, towards a need for 3 lines with offensive potential as opposed to the traditional 2. As we've all said too many times, this team doesn't have a true #1 center like Thornton or Spezza, we have a collection of 2nd line players with only 1 true #1 line winger (Vanek). That, then, necessitates spreading the offense around in order to spread the defense against them around, creating opportunities for each line depending on the competition of the evening and Ruff's ability as a coach to exploit that. [1]

Given that assessment of this team, trading Roy for Dubinsky is, at best, a lateral move as no one, including Jame thinks that Dubinsky is a true #1 center.

Ta,

[1] - Given Jame's low opinion of Ruff and Roy, I can see why he's pushing this agenda. I, however, vehemently disagree about Ruff.
I never stated Roy as the sole problem. The problem is the overall make up of talent. Connolly, Roy, Poms, Vanek are all similar in that they provide offense, but don't dominate, they contribute defensively, but don't shutdown. They have no physical game, and lack any signs of REAL leadership on the ice.

As I stated in the first post. My goal is to retool. and the best way to retool, rather then rebuild, is to move a player with REAL trade value. Roy, being the player with the only REALLY high trade value, is IMO the most logical to move. Since I value each of the four players mentioned relatively equally to the team RIGHT NOW, if I was to move ONE player to improve the team it would be the one with the most perceived trade value.

Jame is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-04-2009, 02:38 PM
  #49
Chainshot
Global Moderator
Give 'em Enough Rope
 
Chainshot's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Costa Rica
Country: Costa Rica
Posts: 56,834
vCash: 500
Awards:
Moving Roy for potential is a rebuild.

__________________
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
12-04-2009, 02:49 PM
  #50
Jame
Dream '16
 
Jame's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Palm Harbor, FL
Country: Pitcairn Islands
Posts: 34,577
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chainshot View Post
Moving Roy for potential is a rebuild.
He's not being moved for potential only. Dubinsky is a 23 yr old 20 goal/40 pt forward. With nearly an identical skill set and build to Ryan Kesler. heck. the both where #17, they are practically clones

The only player we could trade, that could signal a rebuild is Ryan Miller. Downgrading on offensive skill for more balance, depth, and potential does not signify rebuild, nor does it mean a downgrade in competetiveness/winning.

Jame 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 07:02 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.