deluca67 Posted March 24, 2014 Report Share Posted March 24, 2014 Who's to say Skinner won't do that in 5 years? He's locked up for that long. I'll admit I don't watch much of Kessel, can anyone confirm or deny this? I know he's not Ovechkin bad, but he isn't Datsyuk either Kessel has become one of the leagues better, more dominant forces but nobody confuses him with Frank Selke. He is more mature and at least knows where the defensive zone is. He was, however, just like Skinner when Boston dealt him to the Leafs Skinner just might turn into a Kessel level player over the next five years. I'm just not willing to take that gamble. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WildCard Posted March 24, 2014 Report Share Posted March 24, 2014 Kessel has become one of the leagues better, more dominant forces but nobody confuses him with Frank Selke. He is more mature and at least knows where the defensive zone is. He was, however, just like Skinner when Boston dealt him to the Leafs Skinner just might turn into a Kessel level player over the next five years. I'm just not willing to take that gamble. Thanks for the insight TW :thumbsup: I'd take that gamble Deluca, but again I guess we'll agree to disagree. Building off of this though, even if you don't want him, what do you (and everyone else) think it would take to get him? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tom webster Posted March 24, 2014 Report Share Posted March 24, 2014 Skinner just might turn into a Kessel level player over the next five years. I'm just not willing to take that gamble. He wouldn't be my top choice either but I think it's nonsense that you can't win a Cup without his type of player on your team Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hoss Posted March 24, 2014 Report Share Posted March 24, 2014 I don't think anyone thinks those three players would be your top 3 forwards and most of us realize that you can not have both Ennis and Hodgson on the team You can. If your goal is to draft high. ;) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JJFIVEOH Posted March 24, 2014 Report Share Posted March 24, 2014 Wasn't it just a couple of years ago the rumors were flying about Kessel getting moved because he was too one dimensional and was notorious for disappearing for several games at a time? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
deluca67 Posted March 24, 2014 Report Share Posted March 24, 2014 Thanks for the insight TW :thumbsup: I'd take that gamble Deluca, but again I guess we'll agree to disagree. Building off of this though, even if you don't want him, what do you (and everyone else) think it would take to get him? The Canes just invested big in Semin and Jordan Staal so I don't they are in rebuild mode which takes off the table what the Sabres have to offer which is picks and prospects. If the Canes are going to move Skinner, IMO, they are going to do so with the mindset of moving forward. It may take a three team type deal where the move picks and prospects to a third team that sends an NHL roster player to the Canes and Skinner to the Sabres. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Eleven Posted March 24, 2014 Report Share Posted March 24, 2014 The Canes just invested big in Semin and Jordan Staal so I don't they are in rebuild mode which takes off the table what the Sabres have to offer which is picks and prospects. If the Canes are going to move Skinner, IMO, they are going to do so with the mindset of moving forward. It may take a three team type deal where the move picks and prospects to a third team that sends an NHL roster player to the Canes and Skinner to the Sabres. Silly Canes! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Andrew Amerk Posted March 24, 2014 Report Share Posted March 24, 2014 Jeff Skinner, Tyler Ennis, Cody Hodgson. Striking fear into the hearts of the enemy. You left out Conacher. Imposing, indeed. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hoss Posted March 24, 2014 Report Share Posted March 24, 2014 Jeff Skinner, Tyler Ennis, Cody Hodgson. Striking fear into the hearts of the enemy. Shoot, I forgot that we HAVE to keep everybody on this current team around even after acquiring Skinner. Seriously, I can play this game all day. Point is, Skinner is a piece. One player. There are 11 other forward spots for the "perfect player" that you require. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Andrew Amerk Posted March 24, 2014 Report Share Posted March 24, 2014 Shoot, I forgot that we HAVE to keep everybody on this current team around even after acquiring Skinner. Seriously, I can play this game all day. Point is, Skinner is a piece. One player. There are 11 other forward spots for the "perfect player" that you require. Point is, we already have that piece. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hoss Posted March 24, 2014 Report Share Posted March 24, 2014 Point is, we already have that piece. No, we don't. Skinner would be our best forward. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
That Aud Smell Posted March 24, 2014 Report Share Posted March 24, 2014 IMO, there's not a single player on our roster who's got Skinner's upside. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dEnnis the Menace Posted March 24, 2014 Report Share Posted March 24, 2014 IMO, there's not a single player on our roster who's got Skinner's upside. This I can agree with on the surface. I'm not sure what Armia's upside is to be honest, and who knows what Hodgson would be able to do with a better winger? I would however take Skinner over Hodgson (and I like Hodgson!) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LGR4GM Posted March 24, 2014 Author Report Share Posted March 24, 2014 IMO, there's not a single player on our roster who's got Skinner's upside. Hmmm I actually had to think about this and offensive upside, yes. Skinner would be the most prolific offensive force on the Sabres. His defensive zone play is weak (I've a few exrta canes games this year on TV) but that is why you put him on a line with a guy like Pominville for instance or Girgensons. Skinner in my mind could fit on this team but I am not sure giving up a ton for him is wise, his game does have many holes. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
qwksndmonster Posted March 24, 2014 Report Share Posted March 24, 2014 I'm not sure there are many 21 year olds that don't have holes in their game. Skinner might raise his game in the playoffs, who knows. He'll never be a physical presence, which is a definite detriment in playoff hockey, but players have overcome that in the past (see: Briere, Daniel and Leino, Ville). I would take Skinner over any 2 Sabres forwards/F prospects in a heartbeat. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
That Aud Smell Posted March 24, 2014 Report Share Posted March 24, 2014 and who knows what Hodgson would be able to do as with a better winger? as modified, i think this may be where hodgson ultimately fits on a competitive playoff club. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
qwksndmonster Posted March 24, 2014 Report Share Posted March 24, 2014 (edited) as modified, i think this may be where hodgson ultimately fits on a competitive playoff club. I would love to have Hodgson as a 2nd line winger/spare center. Hopefully that's where he fits in a couple of years. Edited March 24, 2014 by qwksndmonster Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JJFIVEOH Posted March 24, 2014 Report Share Posted March 24, 2014 I think the Sabres should go after 30+ goal scorers with speed that have a defensive upside as well. After all, they're a dime a dozen. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
shrader Posted March 24, 2014 Report Share Posted March 24, 2014 I think the Sabres should go after 30+ goal scorers with speed that have a defensive upside as well. After all, they're a dime a dozen. Yes, they must sign 14 of these. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dEnnis the Menace Posted March 24, 2014 Report Share Posted March 24, 2014 as modified, i think this may be where hodgson ultimately fits on a competitive playoff club. more than likely. I can't disagree with this Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Trettioåtta Posted March 24, 2014 Report Share Posted March 24, 2014 I think the Sabres should go after 30+ goal scorers with speed that have a defensive upside as well. After all, they're a dime a dozen. Yes. But if they are going to be good defensively then they need to hit at least 200 times a season. And I see that the good offensive players are often a little taller so I really wouldn't want anyone below 6'4'. Thus it is settled. We shall have 11 6'4', 30+ goal scoring forwards who are good defensively through their physicality. And Hodgson. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Robviously Posted March 24, 2014 Report Share Posted March 24, 2014 Yes. But if they are going to be good defensively then they need to hit at least 200 times a season. And I see that the good offensive players are often a little taller so I really wouldn't want anyone below 6'4'. Thus it is settled. We shall have 11 6'4', 30+ goal scoring forwards who are good defensively through their physicality. And Hodgson. It's so simple. Why didn't we think of this before? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LTS Posted March 24, 2014 Report Share Posted March 24, 2014 (edited) I think the Sabres should go after 30+ goal scorers with speed that have a defensive upside as well. After all, they're a dime a dozen. Yes, they must sign 14 of these. Reality doesn't apply here, you know that. People just assume we have a roster of Perry, Getlzaf, Crosby, Malkin, Toews, and Kane. One thing I find interesting going into this off season will be the balance that teams have to play with: 1 - Having compliance buyouts left. 2 - Having to meet the salary floor 3 - The waiting game GMs play on a player they think will be a buyout Why trade away assets if I think you'll just buy out a player if you can't find the right deal. Why buy out a player if I then need to turn around and sign someone else to meet the floor. It's intriguing because you look at it in terms of just next year and you might think to yourself, no big deal. But that salary you left on your roster could be a real albatross in 2-3 years (assuming a longer contract) and you find yourself handcuffed because now you have a player you wanted to get rid of years earlier and can't at a salary that kills your cap. Should be fun! Edited March 24, 2014 by LTS Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
That Aud Smell Posted March 24, 2014 Report Share Posted March 24, 2014 Thus it is settled. We shall have 11 6'4', 30+ goal scoring forwards who are good defensively through their physicality. ZOMG, we're gonna be awesome! And Hodgson. :lol: Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
qwksndmonster Posted March 24, 2014 Report Share Posted March 24, 2014 Yes. But if they are going to be good defensively then they need to hit at least 200 times a season. And I see that the good offensive players are often a little taller so I really wouldn't want anyone below 6'4'. Thus it is settled. We shall have 11 6'4', 30+ goal scoring forwards who are good defensively through their physicality. And Hodgson. Noooooo then we'll be too soft. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.