Robviously Posted January 7, 2014 Report Share Posted January 7, 2014 Big fan of Reinhart but he's not a franchise changer. Next year there are two such types. Tank on. I think he'd change our franchise a lot and we'd be extremely lucky to get him. Don't let perfect be the enemy of good. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Claude_Verret Posted January 7, 2014 Report Share Posted January 7, 2014 Seriously! We've come too far and endured too much to not finish the job! Strengthen your resolve people! Yes. An honest and true embrace of the tank should elicit feelings of hope and wonder. Steel that resolve and do not let your fortitude waver. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Weave Posted January 7, 2014 Report Share Posted January 7, 2014 I think he'd change our franchise a lot and we'd be extremely lucky to get him. Don't let perfect be the enemy of good. I really believe that if the upcoming draft is handled correctly we won't need to tank again next season. Lets get our center and another top 6 winger and start winning some games dammit. Let's show the league a new way to win the Stanley Cup, with oodles of big, mobile, aggressive D-men and 3 lines of good-but-not-great forwards. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BuffaloBorn Posted January 7, 2014 Report Share Posted January 7, 2014 I really believe that if the upcoming draft is handled correctly we won't need to tank again next season. Lets get our center and another top 6 winger and start winning some games dammit. Let's show the league a new way to win the Stanley Cup, with oodles of big, mobile, aggressive D-men and 3 lines of good-but-not-great forwards. I'll see how these first 15 games or so go before I decide on tanking next year Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hoss Posted January 7, 2014 Report Share Posted January 7, 2014 I think he'd change our franchise a lot and we'd be extremely lucky to get him. Don't let perfect be the enemy of good. I see Reinhart as a 30-40-70 guy in his prime. That's a great contributor but not necessarily the type of play that will chance the fortunes of a team that has never won the stanley cup. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WildCard Posted January 7, 2014 Report Share Posted January 7, 2014 (edited) I'm not sure if this is the front page for anyone else when they come here, but mine contains three adds selling: 1) actual tanks, 2) some sort of water-tank supplies, and 3) tank tops :w00t: Edited January 7, 2014 by WildCard Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Robviously Posted January 8, 2014 Report Share Posted January 8, 2014 I see Reinhart as a 30-40-70 guy in his prime. That's a great contributor but not necessarily the type of play that will chance the fortunes of a team that has never won the stanley cup. Even if he is only good for 70 points/season, how many guys like that do we have in our entire organization? Hodgson can put up the points but can't play defense. Ennis' best year was 49 points in 82 games. Armia and Grigorenko are giant "maybes." Zemgus is probably our top forward prospect right now but he looks more like a 60-70 point two-way player. 70 points/season is disappointing for a no.1 overall pick, but he'd be a huge addition to us if he could do that as part of a two-way game. You also don't *need* a generational player like Crosby to win. The Bruins didn't have one when they won. The 2006 Sabres were the best team in the NHL and their leading scorer was Afinogenov with 73 points (no one else broke 70). The only guy on the 2010 Blackhawks with more than 70 points was Patrick Kane. Roll four lines and get balanced scoring and you can win. Praying to draft first or second overall in 18 months is not the answer. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Eleven Posted January 8, 2014 Report Share Posted January 8, 2014 Even if he is only good for 70 points/season, how many guys like that do we have in our entire organization? Hodgson can put up the points but can't play defense. Ennis' best year was 49 points in 82 games. Armia and Grigorenko are giant "maybes." Zemgus is probably our top forward prospect right now but he looks more like a 60-70 point two-way player. 70 points/season is disappointing for a no.1 overall pick, but he'd be a huge addition to us if he could do that as part of a two-way game. You also don't *need* a generational player like Crosby to win. The Bruins didn't have one when they won. The 2006 Sabres were the best team in the NHL and their leading scorer was Afinogenov with 73 points (no one else broke 70). The only guy on the 2010 Blackhawks with more than 70 points was Patrick Kane. Roll four lines and get balanced scoring and you can win. Praying to draft first or second overall in 18 months is not the answer. This is the formula. And draft picks are not the way to get there. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Robviously Posted January 8, 2014 Report Share Posted January 8, 2014 This is the formula. And draft picks are not the way to get there. They are the way to get there, especially when you're a small market team that doesn't attract free agents. You need to hit some home runs in the draft to get there. Trying to tank for 2 straight years to draft one specific player is not the way to get there. (shhhhhhh.... We shouldn't argue. Tonight is the night I just want to hug it out with you, man.) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Eleven Posted January 8, 2014 Report Share Posted January 8, 2014 They are the way to get there, especially when you're a small market team that doesn't attract free agents. You need to hit some home runs in the draft to get there. Trying to tank for 2 straight years to draft one specific player is not the way to get there. (shhhhhhh.... We shouldn't argue. Tonight is the night I just want to hug it out with you, man.) No, we should argue, because it's good. I think we're saying the same thing, though. I don't mind a team that has some depth in 2016. I do mind a team that continually trades for pick after pick after, look, it's Edmonton! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Robviously Posted January 8, 2014 Report Share Posted January 8, 2014 No, we should argue, because it's good. I think we're saying the same thing, though. I don't mind a team that has some depth in 2016. I do mind a team that continually trades for pick after pick after, look, it's Edmonton! We should be trading for specific prospects or young players at this point. We should have been already. Darcy was asleep at the wheel last year when the Caps were shopping Forsberg, for example. We'll see what the new GM does with Ott, Moulson, and Miller. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LGR4GM Posted January 8, 2014 Report Share Posted January 8, 2014 No, we should argue, because it's good. I think we're saying the same thing, though. I don't mind a team that has some depth in 2016. I do mind a team that continually trades for pick after pick after, look, it's Edmonton! Right we can't keep collecting picks at this point we need to start collecting prospect and also look to find high end talent (Trades) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hoss Posted January 8, 2014 Report Share Posted January 8, 2014 (edited) For the record, sometimes you take what you can get when your hands are tied. We got an extra asset for Vanek on top of the picks. We got two prospects along with the picks for Vanek. It'd be nice to acquire high-end prospects instead of picks, but teams aren't giving away their high-end prospects so you have to settle on assets and picks mixed together. At the deadline, this is especially true. Better to acquire picks than nothing. Eventually, it's likely that some of those picks are used to either move around in the draft to acquire the best prospects possible or are moved in deals that bring in legitimate players. That's the idea. Edited January 8, 2014 by DStebb Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TrueBlueGED Posted January 8, 2014 Report Share Posted January 8, 2014 Even if he is only good for 70 points/season, how many guys like that do we have in our entire organization? Hodgson can put up the points but can't play defense. Ennis' best year was 49 points in 82 games. Armia and Grigorenko are giant "maybes." Zemgus is probably our top forward prospect right now but he looks more like a 60-70 point two-way player. 70 points/season is disappointing for a no.1 overall pick, but he'd be a huge addition to us if he could do that as part of a two-way game. You also don't *need* a generational player like Crosby to win. The Bruins didn't have one when they won. The 2006 Sabres were the best team in the NHL and their leading scorer was Afinogenov with 73 points (no one else broke 70). The only guy on the 2010 Blackhawks with more than 70 points was Patrick Kane. Roll four lines and get balanced scoring and you can win. Praying to draft first or second overall in 18 months is not the answer. I wouldn't even really call it disappointing. I mean, in the last full season only 20 players in the entire league produced more than that. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
spndnchz Posted January 10, 2014 Report Share Posted January 10, 2014 Just a thought... With Murray talking so much about how the 2014 draft is nothing to look at and the 2015 draft being so much better... Wouldn't it make sense to trade players and/or current picks to get more 1st round picks in 2015? Sure, you run the risk of whoever you got the pick from doing well next year and the pick is late first round but put a few of those together and get that number 1 pick. Would it really be so tragic if you had no 1st round picks this year? We won't be competitive next year either so why not? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Robviously Posted January 10, 2014 Report Share Posted January 10, 2014 Just a thought... With Murray talking so much about how the 2014 draft is nothing to look at and the 2015 draft being so much better... Wouldn't it make sense to trade players and/or current picks to get more 1st round picks in 2015? Sure, you run the risk of whoever you got the pick from doing well next year and the pick is late first round but put a few of those together and get that number 1 pick. Would it really be so tragic if you had no 1st round picks this year? We won't be competitive next year either so why not? I doubt there's any chance anyone is trading either of the top 2 picks in 2015 for any number of later picks in the draft. I'm fine with them collecting more picks both this year and next. 2015 first rounders are especially nice as lotto tickets for McDavid. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
spndnchz Posted January 10, 2014 Report Share Posted January 10, 2014 I doubt there's any chance anyone is trading either of the top 2 picks in 2015 for any number of later picks in the draft. I'm fine with them collecting more picks both this year and next. 2015 first rounders are especially nice as lotto tickets for McDavid. No not that. I mean instead of say, Miller for a number one in 2014, say Miller for a 1st rnd in 2015. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Robviously Posted January 10, 2014 Report Share Posted January 10, 2014 No not that. I mean instead of say, Miller for a number one in 2014, say Miller for a 1st rnd in 2015. Totally fine by me. When you wrote "get that number one pick" I thought you meant stockpile picks next year and then trade up. We have plenty of 2014 picks now. If we focus on 2015 picks when we move guys this year, no problem. And if the Sabres feel strongly that next year's class is a lot better, they should definitely do it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
zevo Posted January 10, 2014 Report Share Posted January 10, 2014 I think this is why it is important for islanders to suck so bad that they pass on giving us this years 1st....they could be bad again next year and having two lotto picks would be great Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Who Else? Posted January 10, 2014 Report Share Posted January 10, 2014 This is my best case scenario for the next two years. Finish this tears tank job. Pray for the Islanders continue as they are or worse (currently 4th from last). Persuade the Isles to keep the high top ten pick giving the Sabres the Islanders 2015 first round pick regardless of place. Forget about the Sabres finishing last for a second year. Bring in the hope and cheer, because the Islanders will always have a chance of finishing last, especially in that division they are in. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Robviously Posted January 10, 2014 Report Share Posted January 10, 2014 This is my best case scenario for the next two years. Finish this tears tank job. Pray for the Islanders continue as they are or worse (currently 4th from last). Persuade the Isles to keep the high top ten pick giving the Sabres the Islanders 2015 first round pick regardless of place. Forget about the Sabres finishing last for a second year. Bring in the hope and cheer, because the Islanders will always have a chance of finishing last, especially in that division they are in. I watched the last two Isles games (Dallas and Toronto) and they actually looked pretty good. Maybe they're climbing out of the gutter. Worst case scenario for that pick is that we end up with a mid first rounder this year. Not sure if I'd even want 6 through 10 over another chance next year. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sicknfla Posted January 10, 2014 Report Share Posted January 10, 2014 TM, by openly saying this draft is far weeker than next, could also be playing some mind games with Snow. Of course Snow knows the difference in the drafts but it's almost daring him to defer the pick. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dudacek Posted January 10, 2014 Report Share Posted January 10, 2014 Murray professed a love for strong-skating defencemen who can get the puck and turn back up ice. Out of context obviously, but a point for Ekblad Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Derrico Posted January 10, 2014 Report Share Posted January 10, 2014 No not that. I mean instead of say, Miller for a number one in 2014, say Miller for a 1st rnd in 2015. I think this is easier said than done. If casual fans already realize 2015 is a much better draft than '14, I would think every other NHL scout and GM knows this. I doubt too many want to part with their pick in 2015. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Koomkie Posted January 10, 2014 Report Share Posted January 10, 2014 Just a thought... With Murray talking so much about how the 2014 draft is nothing to look at and the 2015 draft being so much better... Wouldn't it make sense to trade players and/or current picks to get more 1st round picks in 2015? Sure, you run the risk of whoever you got the pick from doing well next year and the pick is late first round but put a few of those together and get that number 1 pick. Would it really be so tragic if you had no 1st round picks this year? We won't be competitive next year either so why not? i was thinking about this as well this morning...but in regard to all of our 2nd round picks. do you think we could trade a couple of our seconds for a teams 1st next year? 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.