Iron Crotch Posted February 10, 2015 Report Share Posted February 10, 2015 A puck mover is more than a guy who works the offensive blueline. Right now, I think Myers is very good at retrieving the puck in his zone and skating it out of danger. He also makes a solid first pass; the turnovers that plagued him so much two or three years ago still happen, but not nearly as much as they used to, and not that often if you consider how frequently he has the puck in comparison to the other blue liners on this team. He doesn't do it nearly as often as he used to, but he can lead a rush and join a rush better than 2/3rds of the dmen in this league. Where he falls down offensively is he hasn't shown great ability to finish in those situations, or make a nice pass to someone who can. And he is a mediocre point man. Stay-at-home guys are like Weber and Gorges and Regehr. I think Myers offers so much more than guys like that. This is more-or-less what I see. My opinion on what a modern defense corp should ideally look like is strongly influenced by watching the Preds group. Top-to-bottom they all have offensive ability (except for Volchenkov, but he doesn't get much ice time). Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
... Posted February 10, 2015 Report Share Posted February 10, 2015 Some of you people are f?&cking crazy. You'd give up Ennis for Kane? Why does Kane's record remind me of Stafford's? Who is one of the few forwards presently on the Sabres who hits and has offensive skill? I have yet to see an argument that convinces me Kane is worth all of the wacko talk going on here and on the radio. And, FFS, what's wrong with Myers? He's been good all around this year. The concern over his supposed lack of development is beyond mis-placed. The dude has been "developing" on a miserable team, and look at what he brings; when he's absent from the roster the game is certain to be horrible. He's going to be more important to the future here than a lot of folks believe. That is, unless Murray gets the desperate over-payment he mentions every time he's asked about a Myers trade. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
thewookie1 Posted February 10, 2015 Report Share Posted February 10, 2015 Didn't read the whole post but an UFA, a decent prospect and a first is absolutely not asking too much for Kane. But we all know you like to try and rob teams with your trade offers. :P Armia is better than a decent prospect. He's a high end prospect, If they want Armia they get a 2nd, if you give them a decent (slightly above average) prospect you can give them a 1st. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Randall Flagg Posted February 10, 2015 Report Share Posted February 10, 2015 Armia is better than a decent prospect. He's a high end prospect, If they want Armia they get a 2nd, if you give them a decent (slightly above average) prospect you can give them a 1st.where do you think he falls in a ranking of all prospects? I don't think it's very high... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
thewookie1 Posted February 10, 2015 Report Share Posted February 10, 2015 where do you think he falls in a ranking of all prospects? I don't think it's very high... I'd say Carrier is more a decent level prospect Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sicknfla Posted February 10, 2015 Report Share Posted February 10, 2015 where do you think he falls in a ranking of all prospects? I don't think it's very high... We have one high level prospect in the organization. And that of course is Reinhart. The rest of the guys are no different than every other team has. The only thing that seperates us in "top prospects" in the league BS is we have more than every other team. Quantity doesn't always equal quality. What irks me is Anaheim is absolutely stacked with high end prospects. They are also one of the top teams in the league. Maybe I missed it but I don't recall them tanking to get that way. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Derrico Posted February 10, 2015 Report Share Posted February 10, 2015 We have one high level prospect in the organization. And that of course is Reinhart. The rest of the guys are no different than every other team has. The only thing that seperates us in "top prospects" in the league BS is we have more than every other team. Quantity doesn't always equal quality. What irks me is Anaheim is absolutely stacked with high end prospects. They are also one of the top teams in the league. Maybe I missed it but I don't recall them tanking to get that way. Keep in mind that Zad and Risto are what? 19 and 20? Girgs is 21? Those guys came through this rebuild and are only not prospects because they are already playing for us. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Claude_Verret Posted February 10, 2015 Report Share Posted February 10, 2015 We have one high level prospect in the organization. And that of course is Reinhart. The rest of the guys are no different than every other team has. The only thing that seperates us in "top prospects" in the league BS is we have more than every other team. Quantity doesn't always equal quality. What irks me is Anaheim is absolutely stacked with high end prospects. They are also one of the top teams in the league. Maybe I missed it but I don't recall them tanking to get that way. Still going with the implication that most of us think that tanking is the only way to build a cup contender? Might as well take that strawman right to the bitter end I suppose. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SwampD Posted February 10, 2015 Report Share Posted February 10, 2015 Still going with the implication that most of us think that tanking is the only way to build a cup contender? Might as well take that strawman right to the bitter end I suppose. Might as well deny it 'til the bitter end, as well. :devil: Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sicknfla Posted February 10, 2015 Report Share Posted February 10, 2015 Keep in mind that Zad and Risto are what? 19 and 20? Girgs is 21? Those guys came through this rebuild and are only not prospects because they are already playing for us. Again, what makes that any different than most teams in the league? We are not unique in having a few guys under 21. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
North Buffalo Posted February 10, 2015 Report Share Posted February 10, 2015 (edited) Might as well deny it 'til the bitter end, as well. :devil: Yup and so close...Still going with the implication that most of us think that tanking is the only way to build a cup contender? Might as well take that strawman right to the bitter end I suppose.Little late to be complaining.. P.s Sabres tried the other way under Darcy, look how that turned out... Edited February 10, 2015 by Icehole Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TrueBlueGED Posted February 10, 2015 Report Share Posted February 10, 2015 We have one high level prospect in the organization. And that of course is Reinhart. The rest of the guys are no different than every other team has. The only thing that seperates us in "top prospects" in the league BS is we have more than every other team. Quantity doesn't always equal quality. This is exactly what you want your system to look like. Get a few can't miss prospects, then load up on as many second tier guys as possible because a large number of those second tier guys are going to miss. You need redundancy in the system to account for this reality. As much as we'd all love to have 15 elite prospects, that's just not possible; so load up on decent prospects knowing in advance many won't make it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Derrico Posted February 10, 2015 Report Share Posted February 10, 2015 Again, what makes that any different than most teams in the league? We are not unique in having a few guys under 21. I know but your quote was implying the rebuild has only brought us one legit prospect and that's just not true. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
woods-racer Posted February 10, 2015 Report Share Posted February 10, 2015 This is exactly what you want your system to look like. Get a few can't miss prospects, then load up on as many second tier guys as possible because a large number of those second tier guys are going to miss. You need redundancy in the system to account for this reality. As much as we'd all love to have 15 elite prospects, that's just not possible; so load up on decent prospects knowing in advance many won't make it. Jimmy Johnson said the exact same thing about his draft picks. All the Super Bowls successes he accounted to having more draft picks than almost any other team. The more changes you give yourself to succeed, the greater the chance of success, or something to that nature is what I believe Jimmy said. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Claude_Verret Posted February 10, 2015 Report Share Posted February 10, 2015 Might as well deny it 'til the bitter end, as well. :devil: Believing that it was/is the best way forward for the Sabres doesn't mean the same thing as believing no other way could have worked. But we've been through this before. There are a myriad of variables unique to every organization when confronted with a rebuild. For DR, GMTM and many posters here those variables when taken into full account overwhelmingly pointed towards tanking as the best way forward. We're almost there. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sicknfla Posted February 10, 2015 Report Share Posted February 10, 2015 I know but your quote was implying the rebuild has only brought us one legit prospect and that's just not true. I don't consider the 3 on the team prospects anymore. They are now regulars on the worse team in the league. I don't consider Mackinnon, Eckblad, etc prospects either. They have made the jump. What we have behind these 3 is one top prospect and a whole bunch of question marks. Am I the only guy who isn't slightly concerned with this??? Yes, we have McEichel possibly coming. And we have probably 4 more players that we can add to the prospect pool. Call me Debbie Downer but I am not hanging my hat on the two guys in Rochester. They could go either way IMO. As for players in juniors and college. You might get 2-3 guys that can help in 2-4 years. Why do I say all this?? Because Murray is not going to sniff a Cup by sitting on his hands with what he has in his toolbox. He has to take a few risks. Turning Myers into 3-4 players is a risk I can live with. Taking a gamble on Kane is worth it IMO. I will get butchered for this but I can honestly see a team next year without Stafford/Stewart/Mitchell/ and Enroth being worse than this year. He needs to be aggressive!! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MattPie Posted February 10, 2015 Report Share Posted February 10, 2015 We have one high level prospect in the organization. And that of course is Reinhart. The rest of the guys are no different than every other team has. The only thing that seperates us in "top prospects" in the league BS is we have more than every other team. Quantity doesn't always equal quality. What irks me is Anaheim is absolutely stacked with high end prospects. They are also one of the top teams in the league. Maybe I missed it but I don't recall them tanking to get that way. This is exactly what you want your system to look like. Get a few can't miss prospects, then load up on as many second tier guys as possible because a large number of those second tier guys are going to miss. You need redundancy in the system to account for this reality. As much as we'd all love to have 15 elite prospects, that's just not possible; so load up on decent prospects knowing in advance many won't make it. Jimmy Johnson said the exact same thing about his draft picks. All the Super Bowls successes he accounted to having more draft picks than almost any other team. The more changes you give yourself to succeed, the greater the chance of success, or something to that nature is what I believe Jimmy said. Exactly. From what I read here (and trust), even first rounders (outside the top 5 or so picks) are 50/50 to have a meaningful career. So having a lot of picks still means (hopefully) half of them hit and you still have more hits than the other teams we're talking about. That's the point of loading up on picks. And maybe somewhere down the road you trade one of those mid-level hits and some other stuff for a borderline 1/2 liner or #2 D that you need. The Sabres are got a "can't miss" (evershot ;)) pick last year and another top-5 this year, plus they'll have extra 50/50 (1st round) picks. Sure, some of those might miss and this might go up in flames, and some traded players (I'm looking at you Hodgson) go down in flames too. Picking up more assets just gives the team more capital to spend. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MattPie Posted February 10, 2015 Report Share Posted February 10, 2015 I don't consider the 3 on the team prospects anymore. They are now regulars on the worse team in the league. I don't consider Mackinnon, Eckblad, etc prospects either. They have made the jump. What we have behind these 3 is one top prospect and a whole bunch of question marks. Am I the only guy who isn't slightly concerned with this??? Yes, we have McEichel possibly coming. And we have probably 4 more players that we can add to the prospect pool. Call me Debbie Downer but I am not hanging my hat on the two guys in Rochester. They could go either way IMO. As for players in juniors and college. You might get 2-3 guys that can help in 2-4 years. Why do I say all this?? Because Murray is not going to sniff a Cup by sitting on his hands with what he has in his toolbox. He has to take a few risks. Turning Myers into 3-4 players is a risk I can live with. Taking a gamble on Kane is worth it IMO. I will get butchered for this but I can honestly see a team next year without Stafford/Stewart/Mitchell/ and Enroth being worse than this year. He needs to be aggressive!! For what it's worth, I'd guess that most reasonable trades that involve Myers will be one young player (who has been playing the NHL but doesn't have a ton of work to "ensure" he'll be an NHL regular (worst case: Lieno)) and a bunch of, as you'd call them, question marks. So are you now saying that the quantity argument has merit? As for E. Kane, maybe he does need a change of scenery but if he really is a gigantic disruption in the locker room and never plays to his potential, you've now given up assets AND have him hanging around 3 more years. don't get me wrong, I won't be upset if GMTM takes the gamble (depending on what goes the other way), but it IS a GAMBLE, which could set the team back. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
respk Posted February 10, 2015 Report Share Posted February 10, 2015 I don't consider the 3 on the team prospects anymore. They are now regulars on the worse team in the league. I don't consider Mackinnon, Eckblad, etc prospects either. They have made the jump. What we have behind these 3 is one top prospect and a whole bunch of question marks. Am I the only guy who isn't slightly concerned with this??? Yes, we have McEichel possibly coming. And we have probably 4 more players that we can add to the prospect pool. Call me Debbie Downer but I am not hanging my hat on the two guys in Rochester. They could go either way IMO. As for players in juniors and college. You might get 2-3 guys that can help in 2-4 years. Why do I say all this?? Because Murray is not going to sniff a Cup by sitting on his hands with what he has in his toolbox. He has to take a few risks. Turning Myers into 3-4 players is a risk I can live with. Taking a gamble on Kane is worth it IMO. I will get butchered for this but I can honestly see a team next year without Stafford/Stewart/Mitchell/ and Enroth being worse than this year. He needs to be aggressive!! The current crop of prospects seems to have a lack of scoring/top line talent. I've read through many, but definitely not all or even most, of the write ups on the prospects. IIRC there are only 3 forwards that are rated to have top line play making/scoring potential, Reinhardt, Grigorenko and Armia. The rest of the prospects are identified as 2nd or 3rd line prospects that may very well be good players but probably aren't going to be top line scoring players. This is a very big reason why we need to get McEichel out of this draft. And Murray needs to trade for some scoring. I'm not sure Kane is that player, but Murray may need to take a chance that he is. I would prefer that Myers stay but if Murray can get his asking price Myers may be worth more in a trade than he will be as a single player. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hoss Posted February 10, 2015 Author Report Share Posted February 10, 2015 Armia is better than a decent prospect. He's a high end prospect, If they want Armia they get a 2nd, if you give them a decent (slightly above average) prospect you can give them a 1st. Armia is not a high end prospect. I don't want to trade him but he's the definition of a mid-level prospect. He has more value to our organization than he ever would in a trade. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Iron Crotch Posted February 10, 2015 Report Share Posted February 10, 2015 E. Kane article: http://www.sportsnet.ca/hockey/nhl/why-fiercely-independent-kane-must-change-ways/ Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sicknfla Posted February 10, 2015 Report Share Posted February 10, 2015 For what it's worth, I'd guess that most reasonable trades that involve Myers will be one young player (who has been playing the NHL but doesn't have a ton of work to "ensure" he'll be an NHL regular (worst case: Lieno)) and a bunch of, as you'd call them, question marks. So are you now saying that the quantity argument has merit? As for E. Kane, maybe he does need a change of scenery but if he really is a gigantic disruption in the locker room and never plays to his potential, you've now given up assets AND have him hanging around 3 more years. don't get me wrong, I won't be upset if GMTM takes the gamble (depending on what goes the other way), but it IS a GAMBLE, which could set the team back. More than anything I am saying I don't have a huge amount of confidence in our current prospect group. I don't see offense- even with Reinhart. Myers is probably our only realistic chance to add offense. Any deal for him better involve a top 6 forward and a very good offensive prospect. Not sure he gets that but I have no interest in a Fowler/Gibson type deal. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
woods-racer Posted February 10, 2015 Report Share Posted February 10, 2015 I don't consider the 3 on the team prospects anymore. They are now regulars on the worse team in the league. I don't consider Mackinnon, Eckblad, etc prospects either. They have made the jump. What we have behind these 3 is one top prospect and a whole bunch of question marks. Am I the only guy who isn't slightly concerned with this??? Yes, we have McEichel possibly coming. And we have probably 4 more players that we can add to the prospect pool. Call me Debbie Downer but I am not hanging my hat on the two guys in Rochester. They could go either way IMO. As for players in juniors and college. You might get 2-3 guys that can help in 2-4 years. Why do I say all this?? Because Murray is not going to sniff a Cup by sitting on his hands with what he has in his toolbox. He has to take a few risks. Turning Myers into 3-4 players is a risk I can live with. Taking a gamble on Kane is worth it IMO. I will get butchered for this but I can honestly see a team next year without Stafford/Stewart/Mitchell/ and Enroth being worse than this year. He needs to be aggressive!! I have absolutely no arguments with all this except .. He needs to be aggressive!! Murray needs to be one of the best GM's in the league, to build one of the best teams in the league. Aggressive is considered a good trait for a GM, but one of many. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
inkman Posted February 10, 2015 Report Share Posted February 10, 2015 Armia is not a high end prospect. I don't want to trade him but he's the definition of a mid-level prospect. He has more value to our organization than he ever would in a trade. Not that I disagree but what's your definition of a high end prospect? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hoss Posted February 10, 2015 Author Report Share Posted February 10, 2015 Not that I disagree but what's your definition of a high end prospect? Seen as at least somewhat of a sure fire top six potential. That's not Armia. 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.