#freejame Posted February 28, 2015 Report Share Posted February 28, 2015 It's like waiting until the 10th date to grab a little titty Is that not the usual, prescribed amount of time? Maybe I'm doing my dating life all wrong too... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
thesportsbuff Posted March 1, 2015 Report Share Posted March 1, 2015 (edited) I present an ambitious scenario that may very well have already been posted by somebody else. I know I'm not the only optimist here! Let me lay it out: - Sabres trade Stewart (I think a 1st rounder is reasonable, but some would say a 2nd is pushing it. Either could work.) - Sabres draft McDavid/Eichel (Just going to refer to it as McDavid from here on in this post for my own ease) - Sabres trade for O'Reilly at draft (NYI 1st + Grigorenko + a 2nd round pick or prospect not named Pysyk/McCabe) - Sabres trade for P. Sharp at draft (1st/2nd from Stewart + additional pick(s) + prospect not named Pysyk/McCabe) - Sabres sign college FA goaltender Matt O'Connor from BU (This would be icing on the cake but not crucial to the scenario) So, by now you can see where I am going with this. 1: Ennis - O'Reilly - E. Kane 2: Sharp - Girgensons - Reinhart 3: Moulson - McDavid - Foligno 4: Deslaurier - Hodgson - Kaleta Extras: McCormick, Flynn, whoever 1: Ristolainen - Zadorov 2: Bogosian - Pysyk 3: Weber - Gorges Extras: McCabe (not saying to carry him as a 7th D but he would be first call up) G1: Neuvirth G2: O'Connor / whoever There you have it. Now, a few things to address: - A HUGE LOG JAM AT FORWARD would mean at least one of Gionta/Hodgson has to be moved one way or another, among other less relevant players. I chose to exclude Gionta, but it's probably more likely they would find a way to move Hodgson. Especially because... - It's not really realistic for Hodgson to be "penciled in" as a fourth liner. They would be paying him too much to play on the fourth line, even if he has had an awful season. So maybe they move him for a pick to a team who thinks they can fix him, OR maybe... - Due to the same HUGE LOG JAM AT FORWARD, only one of McDavid/Reinhart plays in the NHL next season. There just isn't room for them both if Hodgson and/or Gionta are still in the picture. In this case Hodgson would be bumped up to the third line, or even the second line and let Reinhart/McDavid center the third. - I did not do any salary cap analysis to see if this could even fit. But why let facts get in the way of a good story? - I know there will be some disagreement on whether the trades I listed are realistic. The important part is the trades get done without including the guys I listed on my roster. If it costs them an extra pick, or an extra prospect, or whatever -- the idea is the deal gets done using mostly picks and prospects. TM has done a great job gathering assets, and the Kane trade proved that he is willing to move some if it helps expedite the rebuild. I think getting Sharp and O'Reilly would be worth it, even if it meant we only draft once in the first two rounds the next few years. I may even go as far as to include our 2016 first. - Finally, I love Chris Stewart and hope he re-signs here this summer, but I would rather have Foligno. And in this scenario, the only way we'd bring back Stewart is if we had to include Foligno in the ROR/Sharp deals. Edited March 1, 2015 by thesportsbuff Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
inkman Posted March 1, 2015 Report Share Posted March 1, 2015 You'd have to give up way more than the proposed for either Sharp or O'Reilly Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
thesportsbuff Posted March 1, 2015 Report Share Posted March 1, 2015 You'd have to give up way more than the proposed for either Sharp or O'Reilly As I noted at the end of the my post, the important part is the deal gets done without including the mainstays of the roster I listed. The driving force behind Chicago trading Sharp would be to preserve salary, so a package of picks and prospects would probably satisfy their needs more than an established roster player. It doesn't really matter how big of a package it takes to get it done. As for ROR, you may be right. But the basis is there. A first round pick, a second round pick, and a former first round pick who isn't exactly in "bust" territory yet at only 20 years old -- that's a pretty good haul for anybody. Add another second if you need to. Or another prospect. I also left open the possibility of including our 2016 first round pick and Foligno in either of those deals. But again, let's not argue about specifics in the deals. The point is they have the assets to make trades similar to the ones I listed. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LGR4GM Posted March 1, 2015 Report Share Posted March 1, 2015 I would say: Reinhart isn't a winger. O'Reilly is not a 1st line center. I wouldn't trade for a LW when I need a right. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
thesportsbuff Posted March 1, 2015 Report Share Posted March 1, 2015 I would say: Reinhart isn't a winger. O'Reilly is not a 1st line center. I wouldn't trade for a LW when I need a right. Fair points, but I would counter with the following: 1. It is common practice for young centers to begin their pro careers on the wing. But given that Reinhart has proven to be a natural centerman so far in his junior career, you can go ahead and swap him and Zemgus. Or, as I mentioned at the end of my post, if only one of Reinhart/McDavid make the team, the third line center role is theirs for the taking. 2. O'Reilly is the first line center by default. Your "first line center" is McDavid or Reinhart, but I think it's unlikely they throw them to the wolves and slot them there from Day 1. Obviously they aren't going to go trade for or sign a legit #1 center with McDavid and Reinhart (especially if it's such a sin to play one of them on the wing), so I feel that O'Reilly would be the best option on the roster for the role. 3. I think Sharp has played a little bit of both wings over the course of his career. But yes, you are right, a RW would make more sense in the grand scheme of things. I'd still take him. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LGR4GM Posted March 1, 2015 Report Share Posted March 1, 2015 Fair points, but I would counter with the following: 1. It is common practice for young centers to begin their pro careers on the wing. But given that Reinhart has proven to be a natural centerman so far in his junior career, you can go ahead and swap him and Zemgus. Or, as I mentioned at the end of my post, if only one of Reinhart/McDavid make the team, the third line center role is theirs for the taking. 2. O'Reilly is the first line center by default. Your "first line center" is McDavid or Reinhart, but I think it's unlikely they throw them to the wolves and slot them there from Day 1. Obviously they aren't going to go trade for or sign a legit #1 center with McDavid and Reinhart (especially if it's such a sin to play one of them on the wing), so I feel that O'Reilly would be the best option on the roster for the role. 3. I think Sharp has played a little bit of both wings over the course of his career. But yes, you are right, a RW would make more sense in the grand scheme of things. I'd still take him. Zemgus gives me everything O'Reilly does without the contract questions or the assets given up. As for Reinhart, his job is puck distribution. He needs the center of the ice to be able distribute the puck properly. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hoss Posted March 1, 2015 Report Share Posted March 1, 2015 Zemgus gives me everything O'Reilly does without the contract questions or the assets given up. No he doesn't. I see O'Reilly with better leadership qualities at Zemgus' essential ceiling. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LGR4GM Posted March 1, 2015 Report Share Posted March 1, 2015 No he doesn't. I see O'Reilly with better leadership qualities at Zemgus' essential ceiling. So you want to trade for "leadership qualities"? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Crusader1969 Posted March 1, 2015 Report Share Posted March 1, 2015 Fair points, but I would counter with the following: 1. It is common practice for young centers to begin their pro careers on the wing. But given that Reinhart has proven to be a natural centerman so far in his junior career, you can go ahead and swap him and Zemgus. Or, as I mentioned at the end of my post, if only one of Reinhart/McDavid make the team, the third line center role is theirs for the taking. 2. O'Reilly is the first line center by default. Your "first line center" is McDavid or Reinhart, but I think it's unlikely they throw them to the wolves and slot them there from Day 1. Obviously they aren't going to go trade for or sign a legit #1 center with McDavid and Reinhart (especially if it's such a sin to play one of them on the wing), so I feel that O'Reilly would be the best option on the roster for the role. 3. I think Sharp has played a little bit of both wings over the course of his career. But yes, you are right, a RW would make more sense in the grand scheme of things. I'd still take him. not sure about your line combinations but would love to see you right about the roster. Glad to see your an optimist with McDavid on the team! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hoss Posted March 1, 2015 Report Share Posted March 1, 2015 So you want to trade for "leadership qualities"? What? I want to try for O'Reilly who I said has less leadership skills but is already the player we dream of Zemgus being. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LGR4GM Posted March 1, 2015 Report Share Posted March 1, 2015 No he doesn't. I see O'Reilly with better leadership qualities at Zemgus' essential ceiling. What? I want to try for O'Reilly who I said has less leadership skills but is already the player we dream of Zemgus being. Okay, not at all how I read that even now hearing the explanation. I think O'Reilly is a fine player, but I would spend assets elsewhere. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Drunkard Posted March 1, 2015 Report Share Posted March 1, 2015 I have no interest in giving up valuable assets plus $7+ million per season for O'Reilly at this point. - He doesn't generate enough offense to warrant the salary it would take to extend him - The amount of assets we'd have to give up would be substantial - He's a left handed shot and plays left wing when he isn't playing center and we are much more stocked up on the left side than the right side Given all of that the only way I'd be interested in trading for him would be if we end up winning too many games to draft McDavid or Eichel. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tondas Posted March 1, 2015 Report Share Posted March 1, 2015 I have no interest in giving up valuable assets plus $7+ million per season for O'Reilly at this point. - He doesn't generate enough offense to warrant the salary it would take to extend him - The amount of assets we'd have to give up would be substantial - He's a left handed shot and plays left wing when he isn't playing center and we are much more stocked up on the left side than the right side Given all of that the only way I'd be interested in trading for him would be if we end up winning too many games to draft McDavid or Eichel. I agree with Drunkard. Story of my life. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SabresFanInRochester Posted March 3, 2015 Report Share Posted March 3, 2015 With the placement of D'Amigo in tonight's starting lineup, now I think we can call this the rock bottom. I cannot take much more of this. I used to watch Sabres games religiously; now I might see 10 minutes of a game. I used to love watching to see if Miller would get a shut out, or Vanek would score, or John Scott would get into a scrap or photobomb someone. Other than checking the score, I could almost care less about this team and that feeling sucks. I was just thinking that if next year, they refrain from playing their youth: Another year with no Reinhart, McEichel, Baptiste, ... Just playing a horrible lineup to let the kids mature. I don't know if I can take that. I know we are looking to the future, but this really sucks. Give the team an identity other than, someday they'll be good. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WildCard Posted March 3, 2015 Report Share Posted March 3, 2015 With the placement of D'Amigo in tonight's starting lineup, now I think we can call this the rock bottom. I cannot take much more of this. I used to watch Sabres games religiously; now I might see 10 minutes of a game. I used to love watching to see if Miller would get a shut out, or Vanek would score, or John Scott would get into a scrap or photobomb someone. Other than checking the score, I could almost care less about this team and that feeling sucks. I was just thinking that if next year, they refrain from playing their youth: Another year with no Reinhart, McEichel, Baptiste, ... Just playing a horrible lineup to let the kids mature. I don't know if I can take that. I know we are looking to the future, but this really sucks. Give the team an identity other than, someday they'll be good. Don't count on Baptiste playing, and don't count on McEichel not playing; both of those are almost guaranteed . Reinhart's the only if in that equation (assuming we win the CHL). I'll be really disappointed if he's not in with the big club next season. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dudacek Posted March 3, 2015 Report Share Posted March 3, 2015 I wonder if we could get a look at Reinhart before season's end if Kootenay bows out early. Or does the fact he's played his nine games preclude that? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Taro T Posted March 3, 2015 Report Share Posted March 3, 2015 I wonder if we could get a look at Reinhart before season's end if Kootenay bows out early. Or does the fact he's played his nine games preclude that? He can play in the AHL, but if he plays in game 10 w/ the crossed swords on his chest, he's got an NHL season under his belt. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Huckleberry Posted March 3, 2015 Report Share Posted March 3, 2015 He can play in the AHL, but if he plays in game 10 w/ the crossed swords on his chest, he's got an NHL season under his belt. Yeah i'd just have him finish his season in rochester :D Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Crusader1969 Posted March 3, 2015 Report Share Posted March 3, 2015 Don't count on Baptiste playing, and don't count on McEichel not playing; both of those are almost guaranteed . Reinhart's the only if in that equation (assuming we win the CHL). I'll be really disappointed if he's not in with the big club next season. Im sorry, you are right about Baptiste but not about McDavid is 100% in the NHL next year and Eichel is 90% (if he wants to play in NHL he will - though could return to college). Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LGR4GM Posted March 3, 2015 Report Share Posted March 3, 2015 I have this odd feeling Reinhart is going to surprise people next season. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WildCard Posted March 3, 2015 Report Share Posted March 3, 2015 (edited) Im sorry, you are right about Baptiste but not about McDavid is 100% in the NHL next year and Eichel is 90% (if he wants to play in NHL he will - though could return to college). You might wanna go back and reread what I posted. ;) Don't count on Baptiste playing, and don't count on McEichel not playing; both of those are almost guaranteed . Reinhart's the only if in that equation (assuming we win the CHL). I'll be really disappointed if he's not in with the big club next season. Or is this a SS Territory Throw-Down?!?!? Eh Crusader! I await your challenge! Edited March 3, 2015 by WildComrade Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Samson's Flow Posted March 3, 2015 Report Share Posted March 3, 2015 Im sorry, you are right about Baptiste but not about McDavid is 100% in the NHL next year and Eichel is 90% (if he wants to play in NHL he will - though could return to college). You might wanna go back and reread what I posted. ;) Or is this a SS Territory Throw-Down?!?!? Eh Crusader! I await your challenge! Don't poke the Bear Crusader. Bad things man... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SabresFanInRochester Posted March 3, 2015 Report Share Posted March 3, 2015 I think I found the analogy that describes my disinterest in the team this season, which is strange considering I am a die-hard fan. Years ago, when the NFL had a strike, they replaced the players with scabs. Sure, it was still the Buffalo Bills, but the games were meaningless and the players were not people who you would associate or get behind. That is where I am now. I want to see Risto, Zadarov, Ennis, and Girgensons succeed. But even when they're not injured, you see them for 1/3 of the game due to shifts and so 2/3 of the game is filled with players who likely will not be on the roster next year. My mindset is -- why bother rooting for them to win. A win is meaningless, and better yet, a loss is worthy of a prize. Tank and improve long-term so I have something I can cling to. I think back to the scab games and I recall fans still going to the game. This is our tank vs anti-tank conflict. I just look forward to getting through all this and having one big-arse party in a few years to celebrate a Cup, where both tank and anti-tankers can cheer in harmony. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
inkman Posted March 3, 2015 Report Share Posted March 3, 2015 I think I found the analogy that describes my disinterest in the team this season, which is strange considering I am a die-hard fan. Years ago, when the NFL had a strike, they replaced the players with scabs. Sure, it was still the Buffalo Bills, but the games were meaningless and the players were not people who you would associate or get behind. That is where I am now. I want to see Risto, Zadarov, Ennis, and Girgensons succeed. But even when they're not injured, you see them for 1/3 of the game due to shifts and so 2/3 of the game is filled with players who likely will not be on the roster next year. My mindset is -- why bother rooting for them to win. A win is meaningless, and better yet, a loss is worthy of a prize. Tank and improve long-term so I have something I can cling to. I think back to the scab games and I recall fans still going to the game. This is our tank vs anti-tank conflict. I just look forward to getting through all this and having one big-arse party in a few years to celebrate a Cup, where both tank and anti-tankers can cheer in harmony. I felt this way about the Vanek - Pominville - Miller led Sabres. I kinda felt that way about the Drury - Briere led Sabres. :ph34r: 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.