PerreaultForever

Calgary is motivated to move Markstrom as they could use the cap space and they really want to make a spot for Wolf. Markstrom is really the perfect guy for us. Older but not too old, not so great he blocks Levi, but 2-3 years is perfect for developing Levi. I would be very happy if we found a way to add Markstrom. The idea of giving them our garbage (VO) to make it happen is just too silly to comment on in depth. People seem to think opposing GMs want to lose their jobs.

I didn't think of this. It's true, Karlsson discussions probably holding up a number of possible moves for D.

The entire Peca situation. Also Gare, Foligno(s) and I agree about Dudley.

I'm surprised Dumba's still there. He must want too much and/or too much term. Probably turned down an early offer and his agent blew it as a result as teams ran out of money. There is still the Kane scenario. Otherwise there's nothing really there that helps us.

Would it be "huge"? Seems to me Doug Gilmour never paid the price. Neither did Pronger and others in the past. Maybe times have changed, but I can't remember Ben Roethlisberger losing his stature in Pittsburgh can you? Big stars never pay the price. Sad, but true.

Perreault was the man, and that was when I first became a fan so that's the name I came up with off the top of my head. My favourite Sabre of the time was actually Rick Dudley and I really liked Danny Gare. As a (bad) D man playing hockey I wanted to be Schoenfeld. As for Lafreniere, I simply see him as a guy with elements we could use in our line up so if he's available why not? I'm not weakening our roster with that trade, I'm improving it.

When you are discussing size you also have to differentiate by position. In today's NHL you don't necessarily need huge tough guys (although balancing an arms race can come in handy at times) but big D really helps. You need guys with REACH more than big heaviness. It's all about shot blocking and cutting off passing lanes. You don't get to cross check forwards into oblivion Larry Playfair style any more. You need guys strong enough to lift sticks and be immobile objects, but most of all it's about REACH, and that's why eventually Power will be a D stud. With the cap you can't have 12 stars, it's impossible, so you have to decide how to build the bottom end and imo that's where you need more size because Florida also showed us once again that heavy and tenacious forecheck can defeat higher skill in the playoffs and I want to be that team, and not the one that gets defeated (like the Leafs). Also helps to have a big goalie, but we will see if Levi can disprove that.

Rosen and a 2nd OR a conditional 1st and a 3rd would be the highest I'd go, but I would go that high.

If he wants to bet on himself he might. His agents might also advise him on a 3 year bridge. I think the 5-6 year deal after the bridge is unlikely though. Usually that's the 8 year point but anything's possible. You also have to consider the average salary over the time period. If you take the bridge for less you've left money on the table for 3 years that you have to get back in the next chunk of years. eg. 3 years now at 5, then 5 years at 9 = 60, 8 years at 7.5 =60. In those scenarios if you are Power wouldn't you rather have the money now so you can buy your house/condo/etc and invest (along with the security in case you have a setback or slower development)? Remember, agents also like to get guaranteed money now, upfront, so they get paid too. Players can change agents down the road. If I'm Power (and we assume he is happy being a Sabre) I want to put myself into that locked up core of the team with Thompson, Cozens and Dahlin.

If you bridge Power, cap's going up, he'll want a lot more in 2 years so if they are confident in him and can get him at a reduced price for signing term now like they've already done with others you do it and then the team's window is pretty much defined.

Well I think that's just silly talk anyway. Rangers aren't going to ditch him to take on VO's salary, they'll want picks/prospects, not junk veterans or their salaries. I would look to bring him in as I see more upside with him than Greenway if you want to consider reclamation projects. Maybe it's wishful thinking but I remember him having good chemistry with Cozens at the Worlds and he has enough snarl and toughness in him to compliment well. I think he could contribute to our overall team and fit in well with the lowered expectation (from being a first pick). Fairly low risk big reward gamble imo.

I'm not giving up Peterka, but I would be interested in getting Lafreniere.

I'm not arguing that it's changed, and maybe improved, but I'm not measuring them against what they were, but rather relative to the opposition. We will see this year if there's enough of a change or not.

I guess my expectations of podcast audio quality are lower. As long as I can tell what they are saying I'm fine.

Two reasons. One, their skill sets overlap a little, but the line lacks a sniper imo. Ultimately without Quinn you have 5 top line players in Thompson, Cozens, Tuch, Skinner, Mitts (in that order of value) and it's the 6th guy that is really in question. The rest is a chemistry thing that Granato is best suited to figure out.

This is all apples and oranges. If your argument is simply that some of the Sabres star players are big in size we agree. And yes, some of them are hard to play against or hard to defend, that's partly why they are star players. We don't disagree there at all. But if your argument is that the Sabres, as a team, are hard to play against, it is completely wrong. No opposing team has ever said that in recent times.

Oh yes, Florida got to the final because of their high skill and finesse, and Vegas won it because they were small.

How on earth is a discussion about size related to a discussion of point production??????????????????????? Where are the Sabres on here? https://www.statmuse.com/nhl/ask?q=nhl+hits+leaders+2022-2023 I see some Seattle though. and looking at league wide........ https://www.statmuse.com/nhl/ask?q=nhl+hits+leaders+by+team+2022-2023 Oh there's the Sabres, dead last. AND before you say hits don't matter, no, they are not the be all and end all and there's far more to everything and that is obvious, but it's a real and telling stat and it's far more relevant than points production in a discussion about size.

Oh ya definitely. I wouldn't argue against that at all. Nolan's team was kind of similar to what the Flyers are now (and they will be bad). Tons of toughness but very little skill. You need both, or the luxury of having guys that are both (which is rarer). This is why my problem with the Sabres build isn't with Thompson or Cozens or Dahlin or any of the higher end talent (except maybe Skinner who I think I will always have some issues with but that's an aside). It's with the bottom end of the line up. I'm not sure what our 3rd line is and our 4th line is just guys who aren't good enough to play higher up the line up. I think we will have problems when the "talent" goes up against the toughness. We shall see, but on paper I don't see it going well. As I've said, I hope I'm wrong.

why's that?

Not saying they would, but they might. This is after all silly summer speculative screed. ssssssssssssssssssssssssssso, none of it matters. The Quinn-less idea I threw up there was looking at ways to create lines with players that complement each other's skills (an weaknesses). So roughly, playmaker, sniper, power forward/net front presence. It also makes a projection of even more improvement from Cozens and Mitts. Cozens, effectively becomes our #1 center and Skinner becomes a 2nd liner, not a first. Skinner-Thompson-Tuch is fine, but Mitts-Cozens doesn't make sense to me and if Mitts is 3rd line, Cozens line is too weak.

Oleksiak isn't there to score goals so why you'd quote scoring stats on this is very self serving for your point isn't it. I only said "how many have those" because he said (about Dahlin) how many have one of those, and the discussion was about size. Lastly, have I said anywhere that the Sabres are small? NO. I said they do not play big. They are not small. As a team they are average, with some big guys averaging out with the smaller ones.

Depends when Quinn comes back, if anyone else is injured obviously, and how game ready Quinn is. Depends how well Rousek plays. Maybe you start him on line 4 in Girgs spot to work him back into game shape. If he's good, strong, ready, he plays higher up the line up. I'm not guaranteeing him (or anyone) any spot. He has to earn it. As an additional comment I heard a Granato thing from a few days ago and he said we have 3 left shots so adding right shots was important so I'm wondering if maybe they do plan to switch Dahlin back to left and thus try: Dahlin-Johnson Power-Clifton Samuelsson-Lybushkin The last pairing being your PK pairing and more shutdown oriented.

I'm not responding indirectly but rather trying to focus in on what "big" means. How does "big" translate to wins. It doesn't matter how "big" you are if you don';t play "big". One example to illustrate my point. Owen Power 6'6 Connor Clifton 5'10. Which guy hits more and plays a heavier game that opponents have to respect/fear? Big is only big if you play big and use the big. I am not arguing that we have gotten bigger (as stated, we are NHL average now as a whole, 6'1" overall) but so far, we do not play big .

Thompson-Cozens-Peterka/Greenway Skinner-Mitts-Tuch Rousek-Jost-Greenway/Peterka Girgs-Krebs-Okposo Samuelsson-Dahlin Power-Johnson Clifton-Lybushkin Levi UPL