PerreaultForever

That was just a way of wording it and you know that. The headline move can also be a smart move. As an example, pairing Pesce with Power for close to the next decade would have been incredibly smart, would have made headlines AND we'd ALL be excited about it.

I think the moment likely has passed. The target could have been Chicago or maybe Philly. Somebody looking to get to the cap floor. They likely would have taken him off our hands but KA likely wanted something back that they weren't willing to offer. I doubt anyone's interested right now unless you've got some unexpected deal involving some salaried player on another roster. You look at how the Bruins had to basically give Hall away for nothing, there's no way anybody was going to pay for VO. I would have given him away and used the money in free agency.

No, they don't have that history. They are both establishing a history of winning and being a winner. Both are different. I was only talking about Seattle though as their experience is different to Vegas. Seattle's initial roster wasn't very good. Most people said they'd suck and they were not very good first year, but they were not afraid to turn over that roster, make big moves in free agency and they turned into a winner fast. You also can't say they had any great advantage. They didn't get to flip an Eichel for 4 assets or a Reinhart or even a Risto. That's a lot of assets added to a team that also has a D with 2 first overall picks on it. imo they started way below us but they want to win now and have. We have a far less aggressive and far more patient approach now, and thus it takes longer. In the end we might be better, but it's a big maybe.

Incorrect. Hugely incorrect in fact. You pick and choose from my comments to go to that extreme level and try to make me sound like Murray trading away all my picks and prospects for bad veterans and rentals. Utter nonsense. First, I already said when I was saying a trade like that (and they were just examples) would excite me, I was assuming it would include a signing/extension. Obviously (and I thought it would be obvious) I'm not trading a ton for a rental, that's silly. Sometimes people choose to dissect any little thing missing in a sentence and run with it even if it misses the idea entirely but that's the nature of the internet. I hope that's cleared up for you now. Now, as for back in the ditch, how? Explain. I'm advocating filling the holes and giving it a push forward as the moment is right and the time is now. You want to wait 3 more years for a prospect or pick to maybe be a star go for it. I think we already have a huge prospect pool, lots of draft capital and a decent young core already on the roster. When is the right time for you to move forward if not now? How many flashy young wingers you think we can add to the roster? Point is, as I've said before, there's middle ground. Clifton's a nice add, but he's a little guy and on a good team really a bottom end fill in guy. A decent one, and I'm happy to add him (I advocated for it all year so clearly KA reads my posts 🙂 ) but let's just look at Pesce (as an example). He's an absolute rock as a higher end defensive partner. You get him, lock him up for 7-8 years and you have Power's perfect partner. Your top D is now Samuelsson-Dahlin, Power-Pesce. Wow! That competes with anybody and the D is in place as your cornerstone for a long time. Not bad right? But anyway, doesn't matter, they have a longer time line than me. I hope they don't blow it this time by being too slow and waiting too long.

75 is Danny Gare's arrival? 90 is Mogilny? Then Vanek I think. I mean you're not wrong that most star Sabres were drafted or homegrown and that is the way you build a successful franchise but the league's also changed quite a bit. There's far more player movement these days with caps and free agency rules and all that other complicated money math. Rosters turn over faster than ever before. Look how the Bruins keep hanging on and they don't draft anybody. You may not have been paying attention to what I was saying when Seattle came into the league (and I wouldn't blame you because I'm often just babbling nonsense) but I've been paying close attention to the differences in approach for team building and they jumped ahead of us by signing some big name FAs. Now I know the circumstances are not identical and there's lots of room for argument over that but they filled holes on their roster and turned over players in a very different way and it's working. Maybe 3 years from now we will have leaped ahead of them and maybe we stay there longer but that remains to be seen. Did we really need a "development year" or could we already have been a winner if we'd just added a proper goalie and a few skilled veterans. I think we could have been, and I also think if we keep patiently waiting rather than winning now we might miss our window entirely and thus never win. idk, I just hope Levi is brilliant and then all of this is moot.

Any of you who are old enough will remember the old world tournaments (back when Canada didn't send any pros) and the Russians were by far the most talented team every year. Euro teams were all very non physical compared to North America and yet, if you watched the Czech Russian games suddenly there were massive hits, mostly Czechs on Russians. The animosity was off the charts and yes, it was a deep long standing hate from when the Russian tanks rolled in to the republic in 1968. Hasek was 3 years old then, but I'm sure it affected his family. It's not forgotten.

I hate the loser point too. Maybe it's just because I am old and grew up with that but I never had a problem with regular season ties. The idea was always if you could get a tie on the road it was a good night and not winning at home was going to cost you in the standings and so road teams tended to play for the tie and home teams tried harder to go for the win but a point was a point and we went on to the next game. I never understood the problem. I mean in baseball teams split double headers all the time which is a win each but really no different than ties in terms of the standings.

I guess I should have added traded for and signed to extensions. That was what I was thinking. There is one thing here I feel a need to comment on and that's how much are you thinking we have to pay Quinn/Peterka? They haven't done much of anything yet. I see no cap problem. We currently have over 6 million left. We trade VO we have more than enough to cover both salaries. Next year we no longer have Johnson's money. The cap is projected to go up roughly 5 million. Kyle and Zemgus are gone. Worst case we ditch Casey and replace him with Kulich's rookie contract. I see no problem at all.

We did improve by 16 points. A lot of that was because of Samuelsson becoming a regular higher end D man, Power added, Cozens leap forward. Trajectories however are not linear and the upward curves are not automatic. They can flatten or drop. Key injuries, lack of depth for those injuries, an off season for somebody, a regression, a young player who got better doesn't keep getting any better than that, opposition teams improving more than you, lots of possibilities. Going with the same team as the year before guarantees you nothing. The D should be a bit better (and deeper) but will that be enough. Especially as teams take notice and don't just think it'll be an easy night (and get caught napping). You're right about guarantees, but relying on a rookie is not what sports is all about. There are teams that make moves that give fans hope and confidence. They don't always pan out, they are not "guaranteed", but they get made and they often do work out. Right now we have hope that the trajectory continues, the rookie plays well, the small changes help, and prospects continue to develop and then maybe we are good enough to sniff at the playoffs and maybe if all goes well make the playoffs finally. It's a slim hope that separates the optimists from the pessimists and so forth. That debate will continue into the season and get bigger if we have a slump or falter in any way. Now imagine if this team tomorrow traded picks and/or prospects (no roster players aside from the who cares like VO or Jokiharju) and landed Helleybuck in one deal and Pesce in another. If that happened, we wouldn't just be talking playoff possibilities, we'd be discussing how we're now better than the Leafs and are we good enough to win the division. Wouldn't you rather be having that discussion?

My guess is nobody comes up this year and they just have VO take Quinn's spot and then when Quinn comes back maybe they try to flip VO at the deadline. Like some of you I'd still like to see a headline grabbing move that would give me confidence about next year but I think this is likely it.

I suppose that's because, aside from Levi, it's turnover around the edges and not the core. I think we are improved, I just don't think we've improved enough. It still all hinges on Levi.

I can't imagine how mental their fanbase will go if this is the plan.

Maybe, but who are they going to play in net?

"stabilize" is a strong word. We definitely need better team structure and better defensive play all around but the simple fact is we have better players on the roster than last year and more depth. Is it enough? I don't think so either, but it is an improvement.

With him firing his agent and with top teams being cap squeezed now is the right time imo to offer Tarasenko a good one year deal. Replaces Quinn, makes the second line more dangerous, and if the season goes badly we retain and flip at the deadline. No idea if he'd want to be here but at this point his options are limited and a one year deal is probably all he gets.

Depends on how you check, but that is perhaps why Dahlin favors that semi hip check of his that pisses off some opponents. You'll see Clifton is more forward and direct to the mid section. He likes to make himself compact and come right at the chest with shoulder or gloves. I suppose he adapted that because of his size.

I agree but "stupid" might be too strong. there is an advantage to be able to take the quick shot or control the point faster with the puck coming up the wall.

Tkachuk?

I only meant "wrong side" with the traditional shoots left or shoots right thing. I personally think the righty/lefty aspect is not a huge thing on D for many players. Power played "wrong" side at the worlds too and was just fine. Clifton's played both sides. The important thing is who pairs best with him and how you utilize that pairing situationally. My personal view is usually pairings of a more offensive puck moving guy with a more physical stay at home guy and so I liked the Dahlin Samuelsson pairing and would probably keep that but idk what they have planned. Having said that though, 2 guys who click together and communicate well covering for each other in a system where when one rushes one drops in support etc etc is invaluable and that just has to be found by Granato and stuck with.

Bruins basically retained the same defensive system they'd been using with Cassidy. This is hard for us to employ because it requires a lot of disciplined structure from the forwards. Good luck getting Skinner to buy into that. Hopefully we figure out something. In terms of the D, we already employ what Monty brought. He just let the D drive and join the rush. I've said for a while I think Clifton is a seamless fit for us because of that. He has the speed and he already has the style. he pairs perfectly with Power or Dahlin. He blocks shots and hits a lot as well. Only drawbacks are his size/reach and his tendency to sometimes go for the extra hit and get caught out of position.

That's definitely true, but an on ice pairing is a constant relationship. It is one of the things we were lacking last year imo. It of course depends on what (if anything) Johnson has left.

I don't disagree, but I also think we shouldn't make any assumptions on pairings and lines based on last year. I am hoping that Granato will start from scratch with winning and playoffs in mind and "development" leashes will be short or non existent. Right now the D pairings have a few different options. My biggest concern for this team is PK and face offs. We didn't address that at all. (goaltending also remains the biggest question, but there's nothing to discuss there, as the rookie is great or he isn't)

Clifton won't outperform Samuelsson, but he does bring a different dynamic to this team. He played up and down the line up in Boston and he has also spent time on the wrong side when they had multiple injuries. He's not a perfect D man by any stretch, but he is versatile. I think his best pairing is with Power, but some of this might depend on how they plan to use Johnson and whether or not he has anything left in the tank. I am wondering if the idea of a veteran mentor for Power for one year isn't in their minds.

I wouldn't necessarily either but how does it put anyone out of their element? Dahlin's playing on his wrong side now. As for Muel wasted, it would be a shutdown pairing that plays heavy PK minutes and goes up against top offensive opposition. If you want to roll with heavy minutes for your top pairing and limited time for the 3rd pairing sure, but it's a long season and having 3 good D pairs isn't a terrible idea.

Actually I think it makes a lot of sense. But I think he'd want to go to a team with a good D where he is in a position to succeed. Not many teams have any money left and don't want to sign up guys for long term but when the cap goes up and reportedly up and up again after that the vaults will open so he can then get his long deal right into the end of his career. A year from now he gets a bigger deal than signing one now, bet on it.