tom webster Posted February 29, 2016 Report Share Posted February 29, 2016 The problem with McGinn is he doesn't bring enough to the table. He scores good enough that he qualifies for the second line play. but does nothing else if you want to move him on the third and fourth line. He doesn't skate well enough, not great defensively. They want guys like Kane that can play anywhere throughout the top 3 lines. to go along with a top 4 that presently consist of Jack, Sam and Ryan and to be determined. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JJFIVEOH Posted February 29, 2016 Report Share Posted February 29, 2016 I just got a vibe that it wasn't okay that he got something for an expiring contract. Since it appears that he did have talks regarding an extension but couldn't get close, and that it isn't wise to overpay somebody, is it just that you don't trust Murray's judgment of what is an appropriate contract for McGinn? Because that's the only reason I can find to spin getting anything for him after attempting to negotiate into a bad outcome. I didn't expect him to re-sign before the deadline. It's not a good idea for the player and the GM. It's like making the first offers when bidding on an item. Nobody is going to agree on each offer. At some point you need to start looking forward, losing another top scorer is just going to help this team finish off a season on another downswing. In a tank year it might make sense. I'm sick of watching it. I don't want to watch this team win 6 times in the next 19 games. This is getting really old. The problem with McGinn is he doesn't bring enough to the table. He scores good enough that he qualifies for the second line play. but does nothing else if you want to move him on the third and fourth line. He doesn't skate well enough, not great defensively. They want guys like Kane that can play anywhere throughout the top 3 lines. to go along with a top 4 that presently consist of Jack, Sam and Ryan and to be determined. The types of players that have a great all around game cost big money. You can't afford to have two complete lines of players that cost $6+mil/yr. At some point you need to find a combination of guys that can either score, or defend. 20 goal/82 game generally gets you a 2nd line position. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LGR4GM Posted February 29, 2016 Report Share Posted February 29, 2016 I think murray got good value for an asset that was walking anyways. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
thewookie1 Posted February 29, 2016 Report Share Posted February 29, 2016 I'm sick of watching a depleted lineup to finish off another season. And now with the 2nd and 5th leading scorers on the team gone, it's going to be another miserable end to the season. GMTM didn't injure ROR, whose still 1st at the moment, and McGinn was 5th on the team in scoring, not 1st. By the way it sounds McGinn wants to test the UFA market and I can't say I wouldn't in his position. So we got an asset for him, he may or may not comeback, but a 3rd/2nd is far better than keeping a player for 20 garbage games. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tom webster Posted February 29, 2016 Report Share Posted February 29, 2016 (edited) I didn't expect him to re-sign before the deadline. It's not a good idea for the player and the GM. It's like making the first offers when bidding on an item. Nobody is going to agree on each offer. At some point you need to start looking forward, losing another top scorer is just going to help this team finish off a season on another downswing. In a tank year it might make sense. I'm sick of watching it. I don't want to watch this team win 6 times in the next 19 games. This is getting really old. The types of players that have a great all around game cost big money. You can't afford to have two complete lines of players that cost $6+mil/yr. At some point you need to find a combination of guys that can either score, or defend. 20 goal/82 game generally gets you a 2nd line position. Read better. I continue to say it's a top 4 not 6. Chicago has proven you pay 4 forwards, 2-3 defenseman and a goalie. You don't pay guys like McGinn $4M plusThey have s little leeway for two more years because Jack and Sam will be on entry level deals but that's the framework Edited February 29, 2016 by tom webster Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Taro T Posted February 29, 2016 Report Share Posted February 29, 2016 I'm sick of watching a depleted lineup to finish off another season. And now with the 2nd and 5th leading scorers on the team gone, it's going to be another miserable end to the season. They have 2 key pieces on IR & traded away 2 non-key pieces. How is trading McGinn & Weber "depleting" the lineup? McGinn right now believes he can get close to $4×4. He's not worth that to this team. If the Sabres could get him for his current contract, I expect they'd've re-signed him. He wasn't going to sign for his current contract today because this off-season is his best chance for the "career" contract. Assuming no major trades (a poor one, I would guess), they've got at least Kane, Ennis, Girgensons, & Reinhart in the top 6 W slots. Bailey & Fasching are also in the mix for 2nd line & Foligno & Gionta are in the mix for 3rd line. McGinn does NOT fit on DB's 3rd line. He probably belongs on 2nd line, but I'd like more speed on Eichel's line than that. (Maybe he goes to the O'Reilly Reinhart line but he isn't really a great fit on the 1st line.) Based on that, on THIS team he's a pp specialist playing on the 4th line. That isn't a good fit either - not at $4/yr. The Sabres could be the only team in the league w/ a $10MM 10th-13th forwards. Yeeeeaaaa. <_< I'd like him back, but don't expect it to work out. But his departure doesn't "deplete" this roster. Plus, you still have Johnson. ;) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brawndo Posted February 29, 2016 Report Share Posted February 29, 2016 Absolutely. And he's a lot cheaper to boot--contract is less than 1/3 of McGinn's. Career PPG and relative CF: Stempniak: .53 and .6 McGinn: .36 and -4 Murray gets it, I think. I'd be surprised if McGinn were in a Sabres uniform come fall unless his asking price drops through the floor. Travis Yost from TSN, has said on repeated occasions that Tim Murray is one of the first NHL Front Office Executives to embrace analytics. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JJFIVEOH Posted February 29, 2016 Report Share Posted February 29, 2016 GMTM didn't injure ROR, whose still 1st at the moment, and McGinn was 5th on the team in scoring, not 1st. By the way it sounds McGinn wants to test the UFA market and I can't say I wouldn't in his position. So we got an asset for him, he may or may not comeback, but a 3rd/2nd is far better than keeping a player for 20 garbage games. OK, and? Didn't I say McGinn was 5th? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
That Aud Smell Posted February 29, 2016 Report Share Posted February 29, 2016 Read better. I continue to say it's a top 4 not 6. Chicago has proven you pay 4 forwards, 2-3 defenseman and a goalie. You don't pay guys like McGinn $4M plus They have s little leeway for two more years because Jack and Sam will be on entry level deals but that's the framework I think this is precisely right. Travis Yost from TSN, has said on repeated occasions that Tim Murray is one of the first NHL Front Office Executives to embrace analytics. Interesting, especially since the one quote I recall from GM TM on #fancystats is that they're useful, but that, the more you know about the game, the less (independently?) useful they become. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JJFIVEOH Posted February 29, 2016 Report Share Posted February 29, 2016 Read better. I continue to say it's a top 4 not 6. Chicago has proven you pay 4 forwards, 2-3 defenseman and a goalie. You don't pay guys like McGinn $4M plus They have s little leeway for two more years because Jack and Sam will be on entry level deals but that's the framework Explain yourself better. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TrueBlueGED Posted February 29, 2016 Report Share Posted February 29, 2016 I think this is precisely right. Interesting, especially since the one quote I recall from GM TM on #fancystats is that they're useful, but that, the more you know about the game, the less (independently?) useful they become. I think Murray plays coy with this in public. I'll never forget his "entrance interview" with Schopp & Bulldog, and Schopp asked about analytics. Murray's response? "Oh, you mean like Pension Plan Puppets and those guys?" Why in the world would he specifically name a Leafs-based analytics blog if he's not really into it? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JJFIVEOH Posted February 29, 2016 Report Share Posted February 29, 2016 They have 2 key pieces on IR & traded away 2 non-key pieces. How is trading McGinn & Weber "depleting" the lineup? McGinn right now believes he can get close to $4×4. He's not worth that to this team. If the Sabres could get him for his current contract, I expect they'd've re-signed him. He wasn't going to sign for his current contract today because this off-season is his best chance for the "career" contract. Assuming no major trades (a poor one, I would guess), they've got at least Kane, Ennis, Girgensons, & Reinhart in the top 6 W slots. Bailey & Fasching are also in the mix for 2nd line & Foligno & Gionta are in the mix for 3rd line. McGinn does NOT fit on DB's 3rd line. He probably belongs on 2nd line, but I'd like more speed on Eichel's line than that. (Maybe he goes to the O'Reilly Reinhart line but he isn't really a great fit on the 1st line.) Based on that, on THIS team he's a pp specialist playing on the 4th line. That isn't a good fit either - not at $4/yr. The Sabres could be the only team in the league w/ a $10MM 10th-13th forwards. Yeeeeaaaa. <_< I'd like him back, but don't expect it to work out. But his departure doesn't "deplete" this roster. Plus, you still have Johnson. ;) Does losing your 5th leading goal scorer make the lineup any better? I think Fasching is a long ways off from making a 2nd line on this team. Maybe we can put Johnson on the 3rd line. B-) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nucci Posted February 29, 2016 Report Share Posted February 29, 2016 Actually, I'm pretty sick and tired of watching the GM throwing in the towel every single year. Fans bitch that we don't have enough gritty, crash the net, 2nd/3rd line forwards who put in an effort every single night.......... so it makes sense to trade one away when we get one instead of keeping him and try to work on a new contract. I thought it would be a good idea to try to finish off the season looking strong so that the players have something to look forward to in the offseason. With O'Reilly out. that's unlikely to happen when you get rid of somebody who was playing a moderate role in the scoring department. I get what you're saying but would you have re-signed him to a new deal? I know this will sound dumb but I think Murray makes a move to sign Stamkos and not re-signing McGinn saves cap room. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TrueBlueGED Posted February 29, 2016 Report Share Posted February 29, 2016 Does losing your 5th leading goal scorer make the lineup any better? I think Fasching is a long ways off from making a 2nd line on this team. Maybe we can put Johnson on the 3rd line. B-) If you can replace your 5th leading scorer with another guy who ends up your 5th leading scorer and can also kill penalties, all for half the price while acquiring an asset for another deal, then yes, you did make your lineup better. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JJFIVEOH Posted February 29, 2016 Report Share Posted February 29, 2016 If you can replace your 5th leading scorer with another guy who ends up your 5th leading scorer and can also kill penalties, all for half the price while acquiring an asset for another deal, then yes, you did make your lineup better. Who is that going to be? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
darksabre Posted February 29, 2016 Report Share Posted February 29, 2016 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tom webster Posted February 29, 2016 Report Share Posted February 29, 2016 Explain yourself better. Excuse me? Show me anywhere I ever said anything about paying 6 forwards $6M per year! I've been pretty consistent in talking about a top 4 and giving yourself flexibility in the bottom 9. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nfreeman Posted February 29, 2016 Report Share Posted February 29, 2016 Who is that going to be? You haven't answered the only really important question: would you have paid McGinn the amount he required in order to keep him out of free agency? Let's assume that number is $4MM x 4 years, or thereabouts. Would you have given him that contract? FWIW, I like McGinn, but I would not have given him that contract, or any contract for more than 3 years x $3.25MM -- and I don't think he would've accepted that offer at this point. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SwampD Posted February 29, 2016 Report Share Posted February 29, 2016 More like a decade of Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
That Aud Smell Posted February 29, 2016 Report Share Posted February 29, 2016 I think Murray plays coy with this in public. Ha - point well taken. Hearing GM TM talk on it, I can't see there being an actual debate over whether it made sense to move McGinn at this time. McGinn is quite clearly eyeing a payday in free agency, as is his right and as well he should. No need for the Sabres to try to pay for that now, without knowing where that market will be. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CallawaySabres Posted February 29, 2016 Report Share Posted February 29, 2016 I'm sick of watching a depleted lineup to finish off another season. And now with the 2nd and 5th leading scorers on the team gone, it's going to be another miserable end to the season. Miserable end? This whole season has sucked Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TrueBlueGED Posted February 29, 2016 Report Share Posted February 29, 2016 Who is that going to be? Off the top of my head, players with similar offensive production who are much cheaper (a few of which also do something other than score): Weise, Stempniak, Pirri, Fleischmann, Parenteau, Boyes. 30-35 point players get moved around all the time for cheap and regularly sign contracts under $2 million. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JJFIVEOH Posted February 29, 2016 Report Share Posted February 29, 2016 You haven't answered the only really important question: would you have paid McGinn the amount he required in order to keep him out of free agency? Let's assume that number is $4MM x 4 years, or thereabouts. Would you have given him that contract? FWIW, I like McGinn, but I would not have given him that contract, or any contract for more than 3 years x $3.25MM -- and I don't think he would've accepted that offer at this point. I made it pretty clear that neither the GM or the player would take any offers made before the deadline. The point is that now they can't make any offers. The other point is that now I get to watch a worse team than we've had finish off the season, which has been painful at best up to this point. It's getting really old. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WildCard Posted February 29, 2016 Report Share Posted February 29, 2016 Miserable end? This whole season has sucked Not in my book. Miserable end? So we'll go sub .500 for the remainder, who gives a . Like Jamie McGinn was going to propel this team into something better this year, or anything beyond that. FFS, we got rid of Jamei McGinn, and we're acting like we traded ROR to start the process all over again. :doh: Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JJFIVEOH Posted February 29, 2016 Report Share Posted February 29, 2016 Off the top of my head, players with similar offensive production who are much cheaper (a few of which also do something other than score): Weise, Stempniak, Pirri, Fleischmann, Parenteau, Boyes. 30-35 point players get moved around all the time for cheap and regularly sign contracts under $2 million. Should I just say that this is a fantastic trade and that Murray is a genius? Would that make everybody happy? 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.