Thorny Posted March 1, 2016 Report Share Posted March 1, 2016 I am quite confident we will add at least 1 top-4 LHD, even if it's not one of those names. I really think either one or both is realistic, although Fowler depends a lot on the Vatanen/Lindolm situation--I just don't see Anaheim keeping all three of them. And we can pay Yandle as much as anyone else, so why not? I refuse to do the whole "because Buffalo" thing many do :) I think this offseason Murray makes a major UFA acquisition and a major trade--one of those had better be a top-4 defenseman, even if the name isn't Yandle or Fowler. Not adderssing the defense in a major way would be a colossal failure IMO. Agreed on the bolded. Defense is by far our most pressing need. As for Yandle and Fowler, my skepticism on acquiring one or both of them isn't rooted in the "Because Buffalo" mantra, it's very much a roulette based perspective: why Buffalo, over the likely numerous other teams interested. The odds just aren't great on the purely basic level. Perhaps the variables up our chances if we delve in deeper, but I'm not so sure. If we broaden it out a bit, as you said, by including the possibility of some sort of acquiring of a top 4 D presence, I start to have a little more confidence. Let's hope! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dudacek Posted March 1, 2016 Report Share Posted March 1, 2016 It was interesting that Murray today pointed out how well we played defensively on the road trip and how we desperately need more scoring. While I do tend to agree with Blue, I'm not sure Murray does. I know I am I the minority, but I still think we are planning on going hard after Stamkos. Murray and Pegula are both about big moves. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Taro T Posted March 1, 2016 Report Share Posted March 1, 2016 Agreed on the bolded. Defense is by far our most pressing need. As for Yandle and Fowler, my skepticism on acquiring one or both of them isn't rooted in the "Because Buffalo" mantra, it's very much a roulette based perspective: why Buffalo, over the likely numerous other teams interested. The odds just aren't great on the purely basic level. Perhaps the variables up our chances if we delve in deeper, but I'm not so sure. If we broaden it out a bit, as you said, by including the possibility of some sort of acquiring of a top 4 D presence, I start to have a little more confidence. Let's hope! Why Buffalo? (Not as big a deal for western Canadians, but) it is the closest US city to TO. The cost of living is a fraction of TO & they can be in TO very quickly & easily if they want (or NF, Hamilton, Welland & even Kitchener & Waterloo w/ a slightly longer drive). Ask Dionne, Sittler, or any of the other former Sabres & former non-Sabre NHLers "why Buffalo." There's a LOT that can answer the question. It was interesting that Murray today pointed out how well we played defensively on the road trip and how we desperately need more scoring. While I do tend to agree with Blue, I'm not sure Murray does. I know I am I the minority, but I still think we are planning on going hard after Stamkos. Murray and Pegula are both about big moves. I expect them to end up w/ a Bolt that desperately wants out, but I'd expect it to be Drouin. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thorny Posted March 1, 2016 Report Share Posted March 1, 2016 It was interesting that Murray today pointed out how well we played defensively on the road trip and how we desperately need more scoring. While I do tend to agree with Blue, I'm not sure Murray does. I know I am I the minority, but I still think we are planning on going hard after Stamkos. Murray and Pegula are both about big moves. He could have been referring to how well we played as a team defensively, and I would hope he is fully aware of how much offense is generated from the back-end. He may be of the opinion that upgrading at D would increase our offense. I hope so, anyways. That's not to rule out a potential run at Steven Stamkos. Why Buffalo? (Not as big a deal for western Canadians, but) it is the closest US city to TO. The cost of living is a fraction of TO & they can be in TO very quickly & easily if they want (or NF, Hamilton, Welland & even Kitchener & Waterloo w/ a slightly longer drive). Ask Dionne, Sittler, or any of the other former Sabres & former non-Sabre NHLers "why Buffalo." There's a LOT that can answer the question. I expect them to end up w/ a Bolt that desperately wants out, but I'd expect it to be Drouin. Perhaps I worded my post poorly. I didn't mean to imply that there weren't lots of good reasons for coming to Buffalo. In fact I believe quite the opposite. I was more trying to allude to the fact that there are a lot of places with a lot of positives and that when you look at it from the macro perspective the odds aren't great of any given player coming here. Not that Buffalo isn't a great option, just that there are always several great options, depending on the POV of the player. When not trying to narrow it down to a single specific player or two, obviously our odds increase. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Taro T Posted March 1, 2016 Report Share Posted March 1, 2016 He could have been referring to how well we played as a team defensively, and I would hope he is fully aware of how much offense is generated from the back-end. He may be of the opinion that upgrading at D would increase our offense. I hope so, anyways. That's not to rule out a potential run at Steven Stamkos. I'm sure he is and could absolutely see Chychrun & Fowler here by early July at the latest. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TrueBlueGED Posted March 1, 2016 Report Share Posted March 1, 2016 Agreed on the bolded. Defense is by far our most pressing need. As for Yandle and Fowler, my skepticism on acquiring one or both of them isn't rooted in the "Because Buffalo" mantra, it's very much a roulette based perspective: why Buffalo, over the likely numerous other teams interested. The odds just aren't great on the purely basic level. Perhaps the variables up our chances if we delve in deeper, but I'm not so sure. If we broaden it out a bit, as you said, by including the possibility of some sort of acquiring of a top 4 D presence, I start to have a little more confidence. Let's hope! Sorry, didn't mean to imply you were. But that sentiment is definitely out there. It was interesting that Murray today pointed out how well we played defensively on the road trip and how we desperately need more scoring. While I do tend to agree with Blue, I'm not sure Murray does. I know I am I the minority, but I still think we are planning on going hard after Stamkos. Murray and Pegula are both about big moves. I might be guilty of parsing his words too closely to what I believe about this roster, but being happy with the defensive play doesn't mean he's happy with the defensemen, and being unhappy with the scoring doesn't mean he's unhappy with the forwards. Defense != defensemen and scoring != forwards. Not necessarily, any way. He could have been referring to how well we played as a team defensively, and I would hope he is fully aware of how much offense is generated from the back-end. He may be of the opinion that upgrading at D would increase our offense. I hope so, anyways. Beat me by *that* much. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dudacek Posted March 1, 2016 Report Share Posted March 1, 2016 (edited) For the record, I think the Leafs are the most likely destination for Stamkos. No one can or will touch their financial offer. I think if he decides Toronto is not for him for what ever reason, Buffalo is next on the cash tree and has a lot of supplemental things going for it. Fowler would be the perfect Number two between Risto and Bogo. Edited March 1, 2016 by dudacek Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hoss Posted March 1, 2016 Author Report Share Posted March 1, 2016 (edited) For the record, I think the Leafs are the most likely destination for Stamkos. No one can or will touch their offer. I think if he decides Toronto is not for him for what ever reason, Buffalo is next on the cash tree and has a lot of supplemental things going for it. Fowler would be the perfect Number two between Risto and Bogo. We mostly certainly can touch their offer, as can a few other teams. Whether we should or will is another question. I also don't think Stamkos is going to the market looking for the most money. Edited March 1, 2016 by Hoss Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thorny Posted March 1, 2016 Report Share Posted March 1, 2016 (edited) I might be guilty of parsing his words too closely to what I believe about this roster, but being happy with the defensive play doesn't mean he's happy with the defensemen, and being unhappy with the scoring doesn't mean he's unhappy with the forwards. Defense != defensemen and scoring != forwards. Not necessarily, any way. It's always odd playing armchair GM, but I would be sorely upset if Murray didn't realize our biggest need is D. I think he does, but I, like you run the risk of potentially reading his words with healthy dose of confirmation bias based on what I think the roster needs. Who knows, maybe I'm wrong about our greatest need. (but you aren't :D ) For the record, I think the Leafs are the most likely destination for Stamkos. No one can or will touch their financial offer. I think if he decides Toronto is not for him for what ever reason, Buffalo is next on the cash tree and has a lot of supplemental things going for it. Fowler would be the perfect Number two between Risto and Bogo. Watching tradecentre today on TSN, and the entire front line panel, including Pierre McGuire, Ray Ferraro, and others mentioned that they didn't think Toronto was Stamkos's likely destination, for the reason that they believe Stamkos wants to win now, and sees Toronto as far off. That he is aware his prime years are now and he doesn't want to "waste" them. They seemed pretty certain. Not sure what that says about the Sabres, though. Edited March 1, 2016 by Thorny Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dudacek Posted March 1, 2016 Report Share Posted March 1, 2016 We mostly certainly can touch their offer, as can a few other teams. Whether we should or will is another question. I also don't think Stamkos is going to the market looking for the most money. I thought the Leafs had cleared enough space they could make a maximum offer and still take care of all their RFAs and open roster holes. Didn't think anyone else as in that position without dumping contracts. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hoss Posted March 1, 2016 Author Report Share Posted March 1, 2016 I thought the Leafs had cleared enough space they could make a maximum offer and still take care of all their RFAs and open roster holes. Didn't think anyone else as in that position without dumping contracts. I'm sure the Leafs can do that. I don't think it would take much acrobatics for us to do the same. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dudacek Posted March 1, 2016 Report Share Posted March 1, 2016 I'm sure the Leafs can do that. I don't think it would take much acrobatics for us to do the same. If we sign Risto for cheap and dump Moulson we can. That second thing might be kinda hard. And we're in better shape than any other team from what I've seen. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TrueBlueGED Posted March 1, 2016 Report Share Posted March 1, 2016 I'm sure the Leafs can do that. I don't think it would take much acrobatics for us to do the same. I don't think it's hard for us to fit Stamkos. I think it's damn hard to fit Stamkos and meaningfully improve the blue line. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thorny Posted March 1, 2016 Report Share Posted March 1, 2016 I don't think it's hard for us to fit Stamkos. I think it's damn hard to fit Stamkos and meaningfully improve the blue line. I heard from a guy who's friends with Stamkos's dog walker that Stamkos is seriously considering switching to D. He won't be a physical presence back there, but he will provide us with a real puck mover if we sign him and facilitate his shift to Right Defense. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
thewookie1 Posted March 1, 2016 Report Share Posted March 1, 2016 I'd try to get Risto to sign a 6 to 8 year deal at 6.5mil. I'm not risking a bridge deal. From there lets guess we end up with any of the players in the Top 4 (Matthews, Laine, Puja, Tachuck) and Fasching is a Sabre DraftPick-Eichel-Girgs Kane-ROR-Reinhart Foligno-Larsson-Fasching Deslauries-Schaller-Gionta Moulson Defensively we need to acquire Cam Fowler, we have Ennis, "Moulson", 2017's 1st a bunch of other picks Fowler-Risto McCabe-Bogo Gorges-Pysyk Franson? I'd really rather not tie up money in Yandle who is very one dimensional. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Huckleberry Posted March 1, 2016 Report Share Posted March 1, 2016 Read somewhere that buying out moulson is the most interesting after the end of next season. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
inkman Posted March 1, 2016 Report Share Posted March 1, 2016 Read somewhere that buying out moulson is the most interesting after the end of next season. Buying him out will not be a benefit this early into his deal Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nfreeman Posted March 1, 2016 Report Share Posted March 1, 2016 I also said Hamilton is close to 6 mill, and Leddy will be averaging 6.5 the last 3 years of his contract. Leddy will be getting 7 in his final year. As for Risto, it comes down to the length of the contract. If it's 6 years, it'll be 6.??? If it's only 3, it'll be around 7 mill. This would matter if the Sabres had cash budget issues, but they do not, so it is pretty much irrelevant. The cap hit is what matters, and Leddy's is less than $6MM -- which Risto's will be as well. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MattPie Posted March 1, 2016 Report Share Posted March 1, 2016 I also said Hamilton is close to 6 mill, and Leddy will be averaging 6.5 the last 3 years of his contract. Leddy will be getting 7 in his final year. As for Risto, it comes down to the length of the contract. If it's 6 years, it'll be 6.??? If it's only 3, it'll be around 7 mill. This would matter if the Sabres had cash budget issues, but they do not, so it is pretty much irrelevant. The cap hit is what matters, and Leddy's is less than $6MM -- which Risto's will be as well. Agreed, for this team actual salary doesn't mean much, only cap hit. They could pay Risto $48M in the first year and $13k for the remaining 7 years and I could care less. The only number we need to worry about is the $7M year cap hit. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
North Buffalo Posted March 1, 2016 Report Share Posted March 1, 2016 (edited) Upgrade the defense and the offense will come. I'd like to add a top-6 winger, but my prime objective is to get two LHD who can play important minutes and transition the puck up ice. Replace Gorges and McCabe in the top-4 with Yandle and Fowler and watch the offense flourish.3 Guys are in pipeline on D, not convinced scoring wingers are. No 1 draft a scorer or 2 then D and develop, trade for one but draft a scorer #1 Darcy proved O will not come:( Edited March 1, 2016 by North Buffalo Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ParkMeadow Posted March 1, 2016 Report Share Posted March 1, 2016 I came to this topic looking for an update on RORs injury and projected return. Guess I have the wrong thread... :oops: Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Derrico Posted March 1, 2016 Report Share Posted March 1, 2016 3 Guys are in pipeline on D, not convinced scoring wingers are. No 1 draft a scorer or 2 then D and develop, trade for one but draft a scorer #1 Darcy proved O will not come:( D takes so much longer to develop then O that I agree with this. Pray we pick in the top 3 for an elite talent. If not, hopefully draft Tkachuk, Dubois or Nylander. Find a way to trade for that young D. It'll take a lot but Fowler or Theodore type guys are ready for potential top pairing minutes today. Chychurn/Juolevi guys are atleast 3 years away from that. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TrueBlueGED Posted March 1, 2016 Report Share Posted March 1, 2016 3 Guys are in pipeline on D, not convinced scoring wingers are. No 1 draft a scorer or 2 then D and develop, trade for one but draft a scorer #1 Darcy proved O will not come:( None of the defensemen in the pipeline project to a top pairing. Thing about scoring wingers is with Eichel, O'Reilly, and Reinhart, we can afford to skimp on the wingers. You don't want a Deslauriers type in your top-6 of course, but you don't have to load up on expensive wingers either. Don't get me wrong, if we can draft one of the Finns, I'm all for it. But let's not be Edmonton here by thinking that Guhle's of the world will solidify our blue line. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
North Buffalo Posted March 1, 2016 Report Share Posted March 1, 2016 Disagree Borgen poss, and Chewy may be a hidden gem has a rocket shot and very good skater plus size, needs to be nastier but can be physical when needed. Only a frshman top D pairing at UMass. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LGR4GM Posted March 2, 2016 Report Share Posted March 2, 2016 3 Guys are in pipeline on D, not convinced scoring wingers are. No 1 draft a scorer or 2 then D and develop, trade for one but draft a scorer #1 Darcy proved O will not come:( Bailey, olofsson, possler are all scoring wingers. I think what you want is a sniper. 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.