Jsixspd Posted January 20, 2016 Report Share Posted January 20, 2016 (edited) Chicago never tanked. They missed the playoffs 9 out of 10 years prior to their rise. They were bad because they had an owner that made OSP look like a credit card addict. A tank by any other name... The point being - two godawful teams used accumulated draft picks, and under new ownership/ management, rebuilt from the ground up. Let's call them rebuilds, rather than get derailed by semantics. Chicago was in a bad way when Rocky Wirtz took over after his dad, "Dollar Bill" died; as bad as the Sabres lowly state. . I'm just interested in seeing how our rebuild compares to Chicago's. Blackhawk's rebuild has been an unbelievable success; and they've been a strong post season contender for the past 7 seasons. Chicago managed 88 points in their first rebuild season, Sabres are at 42 after 46 games; staying with that average, the Sabres hit 75 at the end of the season. Doesn't look so far as if our rebuild is quite as successful as Chicago's. It's a bit discouraging; but perhaps the Sabres will improve their average of .91 points per game at this tie. We hit 80 or higher, I'll be more optimistic. Edited January 20, 2016 by Jsixspd Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Crusader1969 Posted January 20, 2016 Report Share Posted January 20, 2016 Ok. Since I want an actual player back for him, and since that's not going to happen, it had better be a first round pick that Murray can use to trade for an actual player before the draft. I have no interest whatsoever in trading McGinn for a NHLer in 2021. Zero. so you are perfectly ok with keeping him around for the remainder of this year, not make the play-offs and see him walk for nothing in the summer? Just because you get a 2nd rounder for him - doesn't actually mean you have to use the pick, it can be traded, or perhaps you trade the prospect, or maybe the guy you draft in the 2nd round turns out to be the next ROR? Also, can't believe the "love" for a guy who has 10 goals! At the end of the day - McGinn playing in the top 6 is an indictment on the Sabres current depth. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TrueBlueGED Posted January 20, 2016 Report Share Posted January 20, 2016 Ok. Since I want an actual player back for him, and since that's not going to happen, it had better be a first round pick that Murray can use to trade for an actual player before the draft. I have no interest whatsoever in trading McGinn for a NHLer in 2021. Zero. What if McGinn doesn't want to re-sign before free agency? There's no reason not to trade him at the deadline if that's the case. Same goes if he's willing to re-sign, but is seeking silly money. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Eleven Posted January 20, 2016 Report Share Posted January 20, 2016 so you are perfectly ok with keeping him around for the remainder of this year, not make the play-offs and see him walk for nothing in the summer? Just because you get a 2nd rounder for him - doesn't actually mean you have to use the pick, it can be traded, or perhaps you trade the prospect, or maybe the guy you draft in the 2nd round turns out to be the next ROR? Also, can't believe the "love" for a guy who has 10 goals! At the end of the day - McGinn playing in the top 6 is an indictment on the Sabres current depth. I don't see him as a top 6 forward, but I certainly see him as a great third liner. I'm not sure what a second round pick buys in June. Probably not much. What if McGinn doesn't want to re-sign before free agency? There's no reason not to trade him at the deadline if that's the case. Same goes if he's willing to re-sign, but is seeking silly money. If that's the case. There's no indication that it is. Also no indication that it isn't, I get it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TrueBlueGED Posted January 20, 2016 Report Share Posted January 20, 2016 so you are perfectly ok with keeping him around for the remainder of this year, not make the play-offs and see him walk for nothing in the summer? Just because you get a 2nd rounder for him - doesn't actually mean you have to use the pick, it can be traded, or perhaps you trade the prospect, or maybe the guy you draft in the 2nd round turns out to be the next ROR? Also, can't believe the "love" for a guy who has 10 goals! At the end of the day - McGinn playing in the top 6 is an indictment on the Sabres current depth. And this is really my main concern about giving him a new contract regardless of whether we trade him first. I'm not sure he cracks the top-6 on a contending team, and whole he could play a 3rd line role I the abstract, he doesn't have nearly the defensive chops to play on Bylsma's 3rd line. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Crusader1969 Posted January 20, 2016 Report Share Posted January 20, 2016 If he doesn't play on the top PP unit and plays with Larrson/Girgensons instead of O'Reilly / Eichel. How many goals does he have? I'd guess 3 or 4. I think we should be ecstatic that he has had a good enough season to get a 2nd rounder (potentially) for him. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PASabreFan Posted January 20, 2016 Report Share Posted January 20, 2016 every team gets hot for a couple of games. Even the 14-15 sabres had a hot streak. They are what they are - not quite a .500 hockey team and there is nothing wrong with that. Its great progress over last year. Cue up the broken record. There is no point in comparing this year's team to last year's team. A historically bad team is not "not quite a .500" team. A team that was expected to be in the playoff conversation is not quite a .500 team, and that's a problem. They do look to be coming around though. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Claude_Verret Posted January 20, 2016 Report Share Posted January 20, 2016 Cue up the broken record. There is no point in comparing this year's team to last year's team. A historically bad team is not "not quite a .500" team. A team that was expected to be in the playoff conversation is not quite a .500 team, and that's a problem. They do look to be coming around though. The Sabres of 2015/16 were expected to be in the playoff conversation? News to me. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Crusader1969 Posted January 20, 2016 Report Share Posted January 20, 2016 who the heck expected them to be in the playoff conversation? just because you did doesn't make it so! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MattPie Posted January 20, 2016 Report Share Posted January 20, 2016 Cue up the broken record. There is no point in comparing this year's team to last year's team. A historically bad team is not "not quite a .500" team. A team that was expected to be in the playoff conversation is not quite a .500 team, and that's a problem. They do look to be coming around though. I'm not sure too many people outside area code 716 (and 814, hat tip to you) expected the Sabres to be in the conversation. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TrueBlueGED Posted January 20, 2016 Report Share Posted January 20, 2016 I don't see him as a top 6 forward, but I certainly see him as a great third liner. That's the problem, I think. If we assume Bylsma is going to be around for awhile, then McGinn has to be a top-6 player here to be useful. Going back to Pittsburgh, Bylsma uses his 3rd line in a highly defensive role, which is not McGinn's game, and it shows earlier in the year. McGinn wasn't doing squat until he was moved into the top-6. So I don't think the question is whether you'd prefer McGinn or a draft pick, but rather, do you want to commit to McGinn as a top-6 player both in terms of roster spot and contract? I'd rather keep McGinn than get a pick, but I don't want to tie myself to him as a top-6 player either (especially if it requires Abdelkader money). Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
That Aud Smell Posted January 20, 2016 Report Share Posted January 20, 2016 I don't know. It's going to take two things: (1) a team willing to give up a first for McGinn, and (2) a team willing to trade a player for a first over the summer. I think #1 is pretty sure to be the case. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PASabreFan Posted January 20, 2016 Report Share Posted January 20, 2016 The Sabres of 2015/16 were expected to be in the playoff conversation? News to me. All of my posts go to my legal eagles for review before publication; we stand behind "conversation." Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pi2000 Posted January 20, 2016 Report Share Posted January 20, 2016 McGinn is getting traded, he's as good as gone, no doubt in my mind, and rightfully so. He will be a key piece for a playoff team looking to add depth to their lineup, so I expect at least a 2nd in return, which is fair. A 1st just isn't going to happen. But there's nothing that says he also can't be part of a larger deal for more significant pieces coming back in return. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WildCard Posted January 20, 2016 Report Share Posted January 20, 2016 McGinn can fetch a first Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
That Aud Smell Posted January 20, 2016 Report Share Posted January 20, 2016 McGinn can fetch a first Yepper. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Claude_Verret Posted January 20, 2016 Report Share Posted January 20, 2016 All of my posts go to my legal eagles for review before publication; we stand behind "conversation." Ok, since the lawyers are involved... what you really meant was in the conversation of teams very likely to not make the playoffs, right? :nana: Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pi2000 Posted January 20, 2016 Report Share Posted January 20, 2016 McGinn can fetch a first No way. A 15-18 goal scoring minus player doesn't fetch a first. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
qwksndmonster Posted January 20, 2016 Report Share Posted January 20, 2016 It depends on the deadline market. If Paul Gaustad is good for a late 1st... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WildCard Posted January 20, 2016 Report Share Posted January 20, 2016 It depends on the deadline market. If Paul Gaustad is good for a late 1st...Exactly. Pretty sure we spent a first on Zubrus too Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pi2000 Posted January 20, 2016 Report Share Posted January 20, 2016 Exactly. Pretty sure we spent a first on Zubrus too We only got a second for Stewart. I don't think anybody will value McGinn higher than Stewart at that time. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
qwksndmonster Posted January 20, 2016 Report Share Posted January 20, 2016 And I'm with PA. This team has enough talent to be in the conversation. Maybe even to steal the #8 spot. Not with disappearing acts from 22, 26, 28, and 63; however. (I know Larsson and Zemgus have played better lately, but they were two of our better scorers last year) We only got a second for Stewart. I don't think anybody will value McGinn higher than Stewart at that time.Stewart has wheels and is good at punching people, and that's it. I don't think I've ever seen anybody so big so bad at battling for the puck. We swindled the Wild out of that 2nd. McGinn is 10 times the hockey play that Stewart is. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pi2000 Posted January 20, 2016 Report Share Posted January 20, 2016 And I'm with PA. This team has enough talent to be in the conversation. Maybe even to steal the #8 spot. Not with disappearing acts from 22, 26, 28, and 63; however. (I know Larsson and Zemgus have played better lately, but they were two of our better scorers last year) Stewart has wheels and is good at punching people, and that's it. I don't think I've ever seen anybody so big so bad at battling for the puck. We swindled the Wild out of that 2nd. McGinn is 10 times the hockey play that Stewart is. Yeah, I think McGinn is a better player too, but Stewart had more potential because of his size and the fact he scored 28 goals with the Avs when he was a 22 y/o. Min was hoping he'd regain that form playing with better offensive talent than what the Sabres had to offer.... we all know how that worked out. That said, McGinn is older and hasn't scored 20, he's been traded twice now and doesn't have great size or play a strong defensive game. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nfreeman Posted January 20, 2016 Report Share Posted January 20, 2016 No way. A 15-18 goal scoring minus player doesn't fetch a first. It depends on the deadline market. If Paul Gaustad is good for a late 1st... IIRC, it was Gaustad plus a 4th for a 1st. I could see something like that with McGinn, although it might have to be McGinn plus a 3rd. Still worth doing. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pi2000 Posted January 20, 2016 Report Share Posted January 20, 2016 IIRC, it was Gaustad plus a 4th for a 1st. I could see something like that with McGinn, although it might have to be McGinn plus a 3rd. Still worth doing. ...and BUF has three 3rds this year, so I could easily see that happening. 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.