HFBoards

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

How to change the top 6

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old
12-04-2009, 02:05 PM
  #51
joshjull
Moderator
 
joshjull's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Hamburg,NY
Country: United States
Posts: 32,477
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jame View Post
You're not listening.You're too one dimensional...."Player good, can't trade, me hungry".

Very well thought out counterpoint

Quote:
I don't see Dubinsky as "lesser" . You do. Stats are important to you. Character, Intangibles, and depth of skill is important to me.


1. Spare me the crap that I don't value intangibles like leadership, toughness, etc. You know very well thats not the case.

2. In what world is a 41pt all situations center considered the equal of a 70+pt all situations center? Being more physical doesn't close the gap, sorry.


Quote:
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.
I actualy said your justification was the entire part you quoted not just the bolded about Dubinsky.

I like Dubinsky and woulnd't mind adding him to the mix here but not as a top 6 forward I'm going to rely on to provide offense.



Quote:
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.

I find it hysterical that trading ONE player... ROY.... Is gutting the team.

I find it odd that you can't even undertand your own points. Trading Roy was just the start of your master plan. You may want to re-read you're own posts.

If the roster looks like the one you proposed for 12-13. Then much more than trading Roy will have to take place. Which is what I'm refering to.

Call me crazy but removing that many players from the current lineup to get to the one you propose for 12-13 is what I would call gutting the roster.

Btw, thats a team that is currently #1 in the division, #4 in the conference and #7 in the league. Can they win the Cup? Probably not this year but who knows. I would want to see how these guys play in the playoffs before making any radical changes to the lineup.

But either way I certainly woulnd't give up a player of Roy's caliber and age so I could get a Dubinsky in the mix. I would rather wait and add players like Kassian and Adams to close the size gap before I would make such a foolish trade.





Quote:
Obviously, you have a much higher opinion of Roy. I disagree.
You not only have a very low opinion of Roy but a very inflated opinion of Dubinsky. I am actually a fan of both players. I wouldn't mind adding Duby to the mix but not with the trade you proposed.


Quote:
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


The irony of the bolded is priceless.


Last edited by joshjull: 12-04-2009 at 02:11 PM.
joshjull is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-04-2009, 02:08 PM
  #52
Chainshot
Global Moderator
Give 'em Enough Rope
 
Chainshot's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Costa Rica
Country: Costa Rica
Posts: 56,234
vCash: 500
Awards:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jame View Post
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.
Downgrading even further at center, a position that could use a boost, is downgrading. Period. Waves of third line talent? We saw that in the Hasek era. I'd rather they try to keep some punch in the lineup within specific, dynamic players. Roy is one of those guys.

Yes, he's got a great deal and his value is undoubtedly high around the league given age, production and contract. That doesn't mean the team should deal him without getting something dynamic back. Bakes talked about dangling him to land the Evander Kane pick. That's the sort of move to reshape the forwards, retool, etc.... that dealing Roy warrants. Is Grachev that guy? I have my doubts.

__________________
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, 03:03 PM
  #53
dire wolf
be cool
 
dire wolf's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2006
Location: Cali
Country: United States
Posts: 4,015
vCash: 500
Jame - your plan is to sacrifice current talent for a potential improvement in 3 years. By definition, that's a re-build. Call a spade a spade.

dire wolf is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-04-2009, 03:04 PM
  #54
SabresFreak97
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Cheektovegas, NY
Posts: 488
vCash: 500
Alright why does anyone want to trade Roy. Everyone is saying the value is high on him and thats true but I think he would have a more direct affect on how our team is doing if he stayed here. I think if anyone would be moved it would be Connolly.

Though TC is up there in points, I think he has a less consistent game than Roy.

What I would do is Trade for either Jordan or Eric Staal. I would give up these Players: (Not all in the package)
Sekera
Lydman
Connolly
Mair
Hecht

Maybe a Package like:
A:TC, Lydman and 3rd for Jordan Staal and a 2nd
Or
B:TC, Hecht, 1st for Eric Staal and Chad Laruse

Why A: Trade a playmaker and a Physical D-Man who is probably gonna be the odd man out at the end of the season for a player in J.Staal who is bigger, better at being a center and is very underrated.
Buffalo Accepts: Jordan is Better than Timmy, Tony adds leadership
Pitt Accepts: Clear space for keeping their Young D-men.

Why B:Two good players(TC/JH) and a 1st(we Don't need the first this year(Not that deep of a draft)) for a #1 Center we need, and a Role player in LaRuse(my opinion). Gave Timmy and Hecht's contract to take less bite of cap hit. Let Ennis come up and develop.
Buffalo Accepts:Get a guy that can flat-out play and a forechecker to go along with Kaleta.
Carolina Accepts: Two First rounders(Theirs and Ours) and some good players to boot.

Lines A: D:
Vanek-J.Staal-Stafford Rivet-Butler
Pommers-Roy-MacArthur Myers-Tallinder
Grier-Kennedy-Ennis Montadour-Sekera
Kaleta-Gaustad-Ellis

Lines B: D:
Vanek-E.Staal-Stafford Rivet-Butler
Ennis-Roy-Pommers Myers-Tallinder
Grier-Kennedy-MacArthur Montadour-Sekera
Kaleta-Gaustad-Laruse

SabresFreak97 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-04-2009, 03:10 PM
  #55
dire wolf
be cool
 
dire wolf's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2006
Location: Cali
Country: United States
Posts: 4,015
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by SabresFreak97 View Post
Alright why does anyone want to trade Roy. Everyone is saying the value is high on him and thats true but I think he would have a more direct affect on how our team is doing if he stayed here. I think if anyone would be moved it would be Connolly.

Though TC is up there in points, I think he has a less consistent game than Roy.

What I would do is Trade for either Jordan or Eric Staal. I would give up these Players: (Not all in the package)
Sekera
Lydman
Connolly
Mair
Hecht
I'd consider a deal that swapped TC for either Staal, but don't kid yourself -- nobody wants Hecht or Mair, and Sekera probably doesn't have a ton of value right now. And Lydman doesn't either, since I think his contract is about to expire. For that matter, I'm not sure anyone wants to gamble on Timmy either. I won't get into the particulars of your proposals.

dire wolf is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-04-2009, 03:11 PM
  #56
HarriSateri
 
HarriSateri's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Country: United States
Posts: 951
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by SabresFreak97 View Post
Alright why does anyone want to trade Roy. Everyone is saying the value is high on him and thats true but I think he would have a more direct affect on how our team is doing if he stayed here. I think if anyone would be moved it would be Connolly.

Though TC is up there in points, I think he has a less consistent game than Roy.

What I would do is Trade for either Jordan or Eric Staal. I would give up these Players: (Not all in the package)
Sekera
Lydman
Connolly
Mair
Hecht

Maybe a Package like:
A:TC, Lydman and 3rd for Jordan Staal and a 2nd
Or
B:TC, Hecht, 1st for Eric Staal and Chad Laruse

Why A: Trade a playmaker and a Physical D-Man who is probably gonna be the odd man out at the end of the season for a player in J.Staal who is bigger, better at being a center and is very underrated.
Buffalo Accepts: Jordan is Better than Timmy, Tony adds leadership
Pitt Accepts: Clear space for keeping their Young D-men.

Why B:Two good players(TC/JH) and a 1st(we Don't need the first this year(Not that deep of a draft)) for a #1 Center we need, and a Role player in LaRuse(my opinion). Gave Timmy and Hecht's contract to take less bite of cap hit. Let Ennis come up and develop.
Buffalo Accepts:Get a guy that can flat-out play and a forechecker to go along with Kaleta.
Carolina Accepts: Two First rounders(Theirs and Ours) and some good players to boot.

Lines A: D:
Vanek-J.Staal-Stafford Rivet-Butler
Pommers-Roy-MacArthur Myers-Tallinder
Grier-Kennedy-Ennis Montadour-Sekera
Kaleta-Gaustad-Ellis

Lines B: D:
Vanek-E.Staal-Stafford Rivet-Butler
Ennis-Roy-Pommers Myers-Tallinder
Grier-Kennedy-MacArthur Montadour-Sekera
Kaleta-Gaustad-Laruse
Come on, I couldn't even get those trades to go through on NHL 10.

HarriSateri is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-04-2009, 03:14 PM
  #57
Jame
Dream '16
 
Jame's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Palm Harbor, FL
Country: Pitcairn Islands
Posts: 33,212
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chainshot View Post
Downgrading even further at center, a position that could use a boost, is downgrading. Period. Waves of third line talent? We saw that in the Hasek era. I'd rather they try to keep some punch in the lineup within specific, dynamic players. Roy is one of those guys.

Yes, he's got a great deal and his value is undoubtedly high around the league given age, production and contract. That doesn't mean the team should deal him without getting something dynamic back. Bakes talked about dangling him to land the Evander Kane pick. That's the sort of move to reshape the forwards, retool, etc.... that dealing Roy warrants. Is Grachev that guy? I have my doubts.
Ahhh the Roy+13 for Stoll+5, another of my genius ideas.

Jame is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
12-04-2009, 03:20 PM
  #58
SabresFreak97
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Cheektovegas, NY
Posts: 488
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by HarriSateri View Post
Come on, I couldn't even get those trades to go through on NHL 10.
But this is what these MB's are for. For fans to input their opinion on what is happening.

BTW, They go by Values so obviously it won't work.

SabresFreak97 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-04-2009, 03:22 PM
  #59
Jame
Dream '16
 
Jame's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Palm Harbor, FL
Country: Pitcairn Islands
Posts: 33,212
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by joshjull View Post
Very well thought out counterpoint
As well thought out as, "Roy is better, end of story"



Quote:
1. Spare me the crap that I don't value intangibles like leadership, toughness, etc. You know very well thats not the case.
I don't think you value them enough at all.

Quote:
2. In what world is a 41pt all situations center considered the equal of a 70+pt all situations center? Being more physical doesn't close the gap, sorry.
the world where Mike Peca was the Captain of a Stanley Cup contending Buffalo Sabres.


Quote:
I like Dubinsky and woulnd't mind adding him to the mix here but not as a top 6 forward I'm going to rely on to provide offense.
You'd still have 3 lines of offense. You'd still have 1 of THREE big scorers on every line, supplemented by secondary scoring of Mac, Staff, Kennedy, Duby.... You're the one who has said spreading out the offense has lead to better ES scoring.

Vanek-Kennedy-Grier
Mac-Connolly-Staff
Hecht-Dubi-Poms

Quote:
I find it odd that you can't even undertand your own points. Trading Roy was just the start of your master plan. You may want to re-read you're own posts.
The main concept is the Roy trade. Any subsequent ideas are stretched out over changes, growth, etc over the next 2 1/2 years.

Quote:
If the roster looks like the one you proposed for 12-13. Then much more than trading Roy will have to take place. Which is what I'm refering to.
The roster, after the hypothetical trade would look like the above.

Quote:
Call me crazy but removing that many players from the current lineup to get to the one you propose for 12-13 is what I would call gutting the roster.
I wish you could focus on the main point...

Quote:
Btw, thats a team that is currently #1 in the division, #4 in the conference and #7 in the league. Can they win the Cup? Probably not this year but who knows. I would want to see how these guys play in the playoffs before making any radical changes to the lineup.
It never hurts to identify weaknesses, flaws, and ways to improve.
Quote:
But either way I certainly woulnd't give up a player of Roy's caliber and age so I could get a Dubinsky in the mix. I would rather wait and add players like Kassian and Adams to close the size gap before I would make such a foolish trade.
And by the time Kassian and Adams are regular contributors to a top 6, Roy will either be in the last year of his contract or gone.

Quote:
You not only have a very low opinion of Roy but a very inflated opinion of Dubinsky. I am actually a fan of both players. I wouldn't mind adding Duby to the mix but not with the trade you proposed.
I have a high opinion of Roy. He's our best trade chip




Quote:


The irony of the bolded is priceless.
You'd make a terrible GM.

Jame is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
12-04-2009, 03:28 PM
  #60
Jame
Dream '16
 
Jame's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Palm Harbor, FL
Country: Pitcairn Islands
Posts: 33,212
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by dire wolf View Post
Jame - your plan is to sacrifice current talent for a potential improvement in 3 years. By definition, that's a re-build. Call a spade a spade.
As GM of this trade. I don't consider the move "sacrificing" talent. I consider it moving 1 talented but flawed player, for a more well rounded, less flawed player who fills a organizational need at the NHL level while contributing to building a more diverse and physical top 6.

It's RETOOLING, because IMO the trade doesn't change our level of competition this year. I believe if that trade was pulled off and Dubinsky and Higgins were added, we'd finish roughly the same way we would with Derek Roy. However, we are better built and structured to be a REAL contender in the next few years, while I think we would remain a competetive yet flawed team the longer we keep Roy around as a centerpiece of our offense.

Rebuilding is for teams that don't make the playoffs. Retooling is for teams that are in the playoffs, yet aren't really contenders.

Would anybody here NOT do a Derek Roy for Ryan Kesler trade? If the answer is no, then you don't get it. If the answer is yes, then I think after further consideration, you would do this deal.

Jame is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
12-04-2009, 03:32 PM
  #61
TehDoak
General Zad
 
TehDoak's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Country: United States
Posts: 17,356
vCash: 500
Send a message via AIM to TehDoak
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jame View Post
As GM of this trade. I don't consider the move "sacrificing" talent. I consider it moving 1 talented but flawed player, for a more well rounded, less flawed player who fills a organizational need at the NHL level while contributing to building a more diverse and physical top 6.

It's RETOOLING, because IMO the trade doesn't change our level of competition this year. I believe if that trade was pulled off and Dubinsky and Higgins were added, we'd finish roughly the same way we would with Derek Roy. However, we are better built and structured to be a REAL contender in the next few years, while I think we would remain a competetive yet flawed team the longer we keep Roy around as a centerpiece of our offense.

Rebuilding is for teams that don't make the playoffs. Retooling is for teams that are in the playoffs, yet aren't really contenders.

Would anybody here NOT do a Derek Roy for Ryan Kesler trade? If the answer is no, then you don't get it. If the answer is yes, then I think after further consideration, you would do this deal.
Connolly is more of the problem than Roy is. Roy at least backchecks and blocks shots.

Also, another name to throw out there is Bobby Ryan.

TehDoak is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
12-04-2009, 03:46 PM
  #62
dire wolf
be cool
 
dire wolf's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2006
Location: Cali
Country: United States
Posts: 4,015
vCash: 500
Quote:
2. In what world is a 41pt all situations center considered the equal of a 70+pt all situations center? Being more physical doesn't close the gap, sorry.

the world where Mike Peca was the Captain of a Stanley Cup contending Buffalo Sabres.

Again, let's call a spade a spade. You mean, the world where Mike Peca had the good fortune of being Captain of a team being carried on Hasek's back?

dire wolf is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-04-2009, 04:00 PM
  #63
dire wolf
be cool
 
dire wolf's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2006
Location: Cali
Country: United States
Posts: 4,015
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jame View Post
Would anybody here NOT do a Derek Roy for Ryan Kesler trade? If the answer is no, then you don't get it. If the answer is yes, then I think after further consideration, you would do this deal.
Well, that depends a ton on whether we could re-sign him and for how much. Isn't he UFA after this season? I would suspect his salary is going to be a lot more than Roy's.

And more important, you can't sit here with a straight face and guarantee that Dubi is going to be Ryan Kesler.

One more edit:

In 348 games, Kesler's got 70-95-165
In 379 games, Roy's got 114-186-300

That's a pretty big drop-off in offense. And it's not like Roy is a floater padding his stats. And your argument is that Dubinsky might, one day, be Ryan Kesler.

Reminder -- our biggest problem is we need more offense.


Last edited by dire wolf: 12-04-2009 at 04:09 PM.
dire wolf is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-04-2009, 05:16 PM
  #64
ADoubleD
Registered User
 
ADoubleD's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: Buffalo, NY
Country: United States
Posts: 1,797
vCash: 500
The problem I have with this is if we trade Roy for Dubinsky, is what would happen if Connolly goes down. Call up Ennis and have two rookies, Goose, and Dubinsky be your centers? That would leave us with no proven NHL scoring center. I wouldn't be against trading for a guy like Dubinsky, but I wouldn't trade Roy to get him. Especially when such a trade would leave us with Connolly, whose injury prone, has consistency issues, and doesn't always show up against better and more physical teams, as basically our top center.

What this team needs is more scoring, and I love physical play and wouldn't mind an upgrade in that department. But I wouldn't do so if it meant a significant downgrade in our offense which this trade would be.


Last edited by ADoubleD: 12-04-2009 at 05:21 PM.
ADoubleD is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-04-2009, 09:52 PM
  #65
ColonelForbin
Registered User
 
ColonelForbin's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Posts: 2,147
vCash: 500
It's kind of an odd situation. If you look at things from a classic top-six, two scoring lines situation, I really dislike what they have. It would take some pretty significant trades to fix it too.

But if they spread the talent around and go with a 2a, 2b, 2c situation, then all of I sudden it looks so much better.

If they stay with the following until the deadline, I'd be ok with it:

Hecht-Roy-Pominville
Vanek-Kennedy-Grier
CMac-Connolly-Stafford
Mair-Gaustad-Kaleta

ColonelForbin is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-04-2009, 10:49 PM
  #66
Jame
Dream '16
 
Jame's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Palm Harbor, FL
Country: Pitcairn Islands
Posts: 33,212
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by dire wolf View Post
Well, that depends a ton on whether we could re-sign him and for how much. Isn't he UFA after this season? I would suspect his salary is going to be a lot more than Roy's.

And more important, you can't sit here with a straight face and guarantee that Dubi is going to be Ryan Kesler.

One more edit:

In 348 games, Kesler's got 70-95-165
In 379 games, Roy's got 114-186-300

That's a pretty big drop-off in offense. And it's not like Roy is a floater padding his stats. And your argument is that Dubinsky might, one day, be Ryan Kesler.

Reminder -- our biggest problem is we need more offense.
Kesler is RFA

Jame is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
12-05-2009, 06:33 AM
  #67
Irving Zisman
Really Bad Grandpa
 
Irving Zisman's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: 'Merica
Posts: 788
vCash: 500
Why the change of heart on Dubinsky, Jame?

At the beginning of the season I was basically asking for the same type of deal and you were totally against a trade based on Roy for Dubi ++ (although you said you would be down for a Zajac or Kesler deal).

Not trying to be a doosher, just curious..

Irving Zisman is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-05-2009, 10:45 AM
  #68
Jame
Dream '16
 
Jame's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Palm Harbor, FL
Country: Pitcairn Islands
Posts: 33,212
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lindy4Prez View Post
Why the change of heart on Dubinsky, Jame?

At the beginning of the season I was basically asking for the same type of deal and you were totally against a trade based on Roy for Dubi ++ (although you said you would be down for a Zajac or Kesler deal).

Not trying to be a doosher, just curious..
I've always liked Dubi, and at the time of your proposal, I was sure we could get more for Roy. At that time my opinion was similar to those who have replied negatively to my proposal. I also thought that the drop off in offense was too much. I have had a change of opinion in that regard, and now feel that the balance Dubi would bring would be an acceptable change from the offense Roy brings. My stance has become LESS about what Roy is worth, and MORE about what this team needs to do to become a contender.

The secret, is that I've become obsessed with Grachev. As in he is one of the top 5 players not in the NHL right now, IMO. There isn't another prospect out there with a more similar skillset to Ovechkin. He can score from anywhere on the ice, his shot is absolutely lethal. And he plays with size. Skating and effort are issues that can be corrected.

Jame is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
12-05-2009, 12:11 PM
  #69
ImpressedDAHagent
Go sabres
 
ImpressedDAHagent's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Buffalo
Country: United States
Posts: 7,681
vCash: 500
we need to go after either kaberle or Stempniak (who i believe will be ufa)

i also like Mikko Koivu as a center for vanek.

ImpressedDAHagent is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-05-2009, 12:52 PM
  #70
ImpressedDAHagent
Go sabres
 
ImpressedDAHagent's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Buffalo
Country: United States
Posts: 7,681
vCash: 500
i am sorry guys but this has to happen


rivet-------kaberle
tallinder-----myers
lydman-----butler





kaberle myers on power play point

ImpressedDAHagent is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-05-2009, 02:35 PM
  #71
ADoubleD
Registered User
 
ADoubleD's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: Buffalo, NY
Country: United States
Posts: 1,797
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by ImpressedDAHagent View Post
we need to go after either kaberle or Stempniak (who i believe will be ufa)

i also like Mikko Koivu as a center for vanek.
I'd love to get Mikko Koivu but I highly doubt Minnesota would give him up unless they were getting a pretty good return.

And who would we be giving up for Kaberle? A guy like him would help out on the powerplay, but I wouldn't wanna overpay for him especially now that Burke's the Leafs GM. I can see him turning them around, and I wouldn't wanna give him anything to help in doing so.

ADoubleD is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-05-2009, 04:01 PM
  #72
Irving Zisman
Really Bad Grandpa
 
Irving Zisman's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: 'Merica
Posts: 788
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jame View Post
I've always liked Dubi, and at the time of your proposal, I was sure we could get more for Roy. At that time my opinion was similar to those who have replied negatively to my proposal. I also thought that the drop off in offense was too much. I have had a change of opinion in that regard, and now feel that the balance Dubi would bring would be an acceptable change from the offense Roy brings. My stance has become LESS about what Roy is worth, and MORE about what this team needs to do to become a contender.

The secret, is that I've become obsessed with Grachev. As in he is one of the top 5 players not in the NHL right now, IMO. There isn't another prospect out there with a more similar skillset to Ovechkin. He can score from anywhere on the ice, his shot is absolutely lethal. And he plays with size. Skating and effort are issues that can be corrected.

I agree with most of what you are saying, but I still think we could do something along the lines of what you're proposing by moving Pominville instead of Roy. Sure his value isn't nearly as good as Derek's, but the man's still got some love around the league.

Grachev is an awesome prospect who is very intriguing, but I'm surprised you of all people want a lazy russian who has skating and effort issues. As for the Ovechkin comparisons, much of Ovechkin's game is based on his top notch speed and effort/heart. If I were a betting man, I'd say Grachev will top out as more of a Radulov/Frolov type than an Ovechkin, and you have to factor in the chance that he will in fact pull a Radulov and bolt for the KHL.

Irving Zisman is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-05-2009, 04:24 PM
  #73
ADoubleD
Registered User
 
ADoubleD's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: Buffalo, NY
Country: United States
Posts: 1,797
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jame View Post
Skating and effort are issues that can be corrected.
Skating? Yes.

Effort? Not so much. You really can't teach effort. In my experience playing and watching hockey, a guy who has effort issues usually always will. You can't take a guy like Satan, and teach him or instill in him a Matt Ellis-like work ethic. It just can't be done.

ADoubleD is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-05-2009, 05:09 PM
  #74
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 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.
And I never implied that you did think that Roy is the sole problem, but you're constant hounding your opinions of Roy's shortcomings is worth questioning. No argument that there's something missing in the top 6, but of the 2 center or 3 wingers that could/should be moved Connolly and Pominville/MacArthur are the ones to move, not Roy or Vanek.

Roy might have the most value but that's a double-edged sword. This team is reminding me more of the 05-06 team in terms of in-season progression than I'm assuming you think, otherwise you wouldn't be looking at retooling for what you think is a brighter future.

I'd rather overpay for better talent now (Ballard) then make a lateral move for lesser talent with a team that is having offensive issues. How do you propose trading your best center for a lesser one with a team that 1/3 of the way through the season is:
1) 1st in its division with games in hand over Boston
2) Has the best goalie in the league
3) The 3rd best PK
4) is a +9 in terms of special teams goals
5) In the top 5 in PP/SH differential, which mitigates a mediocre PP
6) 6-3-1 in their last 10, including 7-4 on the road on the season.

I look at this team and see the need for a couple of pieces that could turn a playoff berth into a lengthy run. You see a team that needs to move valuable assets for the future. in my mind we went through a rebuild these last two seasons, waiting for this core of players to mature and you want to put that off for another 2 years?!

Sorry, I flat-out disagree.

Trade some future assets for a run now. If it means that we run with 9 2nd tier forwards as opposed to 1-2 generational talents and a bunch of lesser lights, so be it. It worked in 05-06. With Ruff behind the bench, it can always happen again. [1]

Ta,

[1] - I know you dislike Ruff, I think you're wrong.


Last edited by joechip: 12-05-2009 at 05:16 PM.
joechip is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-05-2009, 05:32 PM
  #75
ADoubleD
Registered User
 
ADoubleD's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: Buffalo, NY
Country: United States
Posts: 1,797
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by joechip View Post
And I never implied that you did think that Roy is the sole problem, but you're constant hounding your opinions of Roy's shortcomings is worth questioning. No argument that there's something missing in the top 6, but of the 2 center or 3 wingers that could/should be moved Connolly and Pominville/MacArthur are the ones to move, not Roy or Vanek.

Roy might have the most value but that's a double-edged sword. This team is reminding me more of the 05-06 team in terms of in-season progression than I'm assuming you think, otherwise you wouldn't be looking at retooling for what you think is a brighter future.

I'd rather overpay for better talent now (Ballard) then make a lateral move for lesser talent with a team that is having offensive issues. How do you propose trading your best center for a lesser one with a team that 1/3 of the way through the season is:
1) 1st in its division with games in hand over Boston
2) Has the best goalie in the league
3) The 3rd best PK
4) is a +9 in terms of special teams goals
5) In the top 5 in PP/SH differential, which mitigates a mediocre PP
6) 6-3-1 in their last 10, including 7-4 on the road on the season.

I look at this team and see the need for a couple of pieces that could turn a playoff berth into a lengthy run. You see a team that needs to move valuable assets for the future. in my mind we went through a rebuild these last two seasons, waiting for this core of players to mature and you want to put that off for another 2 years?!

Sorry, I flat-out disagree.

Trade some future assets for a run now. If it means that we run with 9 2nd tier forwards as opposed to 1-2 generational talents and a bunch of lesser lights, so be it. It worked in 05-06. With Ruff behind the bench, it can always happen again. [1]

Ta,

[1] - I know you dislike Ruff, I think you're wrong.
Completely agree with the bolded. When your team's having offensive struggles and has been pretty good defensively, why trade a guy whose one of your best offensive players for a guy who would be an upgrade defensively and a significant downgrade offensively?

I'm tired of trying to decide what team I want to win the cup come playoff time because the Sabres aren't in them. This trade might not take us out of the playoffs, but I think it would hurt our chances of making them, and succeeding once there. Especially if there was an injury to any of our top forwards especially Connolly. Since it would leave you with no proven NHL scorer at center.

I'd still like to know how a trade that would leave you relying on Tim "Made of Glass" Connolly as your top and only proven scoring center would help your team.

ADoubleD 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 09:00 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.