Jason Robertson rumored to be on the trade block

[ponokasabre]

33 minutes ago, DarthEbriate said:

Per capwages he has a 10-team no trade list. That's 1/3 of the league which means Buffalo is likely on it. 

If you can convince him to waive the NTC...  RFA Quinn with 2 years of control for 1 year of Marchment? Who says no? And if no, what pick(s) balance it out.

Dallas gets a kid who can score and has untapped potential and might just pop with another year clear from his injuries and the "no longer in Buffalo" issues; Buffalo gets a another Zucker/Greenway experienced guy. Overpaid, but fully capable of 20 goals and being a punk. He also plays on the edge of safe and will likely get suspended for a couple games, which frankly, this team could use one guy like that.

I think there is no way Dallas says no to that, its just can we get him to waive.

 

And honestly Quinn could flourish in Dallas. But I dont care, we need Marchment here, then you use 9 and prospects to bring in a D man, and still maybe move Byram for a different type of D man

[thewookie1]

41 minutes ago, DarthEbriate said:

Per capwages he has a 10-team no trade list. That's 1/3 of the league which means Buffalo is likely on it. 

If you can convince him to waive the NTC...  RFA Quinn with 2 years of control for 1 year of Marchment? Who says no? And if no, what pick(s) balance it out.

Dallas gets a kid who can score and has untapped potential and might just pop with another year clear from his injuries and the "no longer in Buffalo" issues; Buffalo gets a another Zucker/Greenway experienced guy. Overpaid, but fully capable of 20 goals and being a punk. He also plays on the edge of safe and will likely get suspended for a couple games, which frankly, this team could use one guy like that.

I’d need a bit more back but the idea is solid.

[JohnC]

1 hour ago, DarthEbriate said:

Per capwages he has a 10-team no trade list. That's 1/3 of the league which means Buffalo is likely on it. 

If you can convince him to waive the NTC...  RFA Quinn with 2 years of control for 1 year of Marchment? Who says no? And if no, what pick(s) balance it out.

Dallas gets a kid who can score and has untapped potential and might just pop with another year clear from his injuries and the "no longer in Buffalo" issues; Buffalo gets a another Zucker/Greenway experienced guy. Overpaid, but fully capable of 20 goals and being a punk. He also plays on the edge of safe and will likely get suspended for a couple games, which frankly, this team could use one guy like that.

I say no to trading Quinn for Marchment. I believe that Quinn will come into camp healthy and stronger. And I strongly believe that he has enough experience now to get a return on his offensive talents. I also have the same approach to Kulich and Power. I'm tired of seeing our traded young players producing at a high level for other teams. The Sabres still have plenty of other assets to parlay, such as Byram, prospects and picks. Let's stop making the same mistake over and over, watching other teams benefit while we continue to churn in place. The idea of trading for Marchment, a player we will only have one year of control of, while giving up a good young player with a lot more upside makes no sense to me. Put me in the steadfast no category on your proposed deal. 

[inkman]

1 hour ago, JohnC said:

I say no to trading Quinn for Marchment. I believe that Quinn will come into camp healthy and stronger. And I strongly believe that he has enough experience now to get a return on his offensive talents. I also have the same approach to Kulich and Power. I'm tired of seeing our traded young players producing at a high level for other teams. The Sabres still have plenty of other assets to parlay, such as Byram, prospects and picks. Let's stop making the same mistake over and over, watching other teams benefit while we continue to churn in place. The idea of trading for Marchment, a player we will only have one year of control of, while giving up a good young player with a lot more upside makes no sense to me. Put me in the steadfast no category on your proposed deal. 

You don’t make the trade without a contract extension in place. It’s how these things usually go. 

[JohnC]

8 minutes ago, inkman said:

You don’t make the trade without a contract extension in place. It’s how these things usually go. 

Still no for me.

[7+6=13]

8 minutes ago, JohnC said:

Still no for me.

I'm not sure if you specifically don't want Marchment but I think you made it pretty clear above, you don't have a proclivity for trading young talent.

This is where I get in a real quandary.  I don't like giving up or giving up on our young players, but at the same time I realize to get better or better "fits", we likely need to use these young players to acquire them.  

I honestly don't know where I lean on this, especially since we've lived through the pain of the build from within philosophy.  

[JohnC]

13 minutes ago, 7+6=13 said:

I'm not sure if you specifically don't want Marchment but I think you made it pretty clear above, you don't have a proclivity for trading young talent.

This is where I get in a real quandary.  I don't like giving up or giving up on our young players, but at the same time I realize to get better or better "fits", we likely need to use these young players to acquire them.  

I honestly don't know where I lean on this, especially since we've lived through the pain of the build from within philosophy.  

I prefer Quinn over Marchant. And I’m not moving Kulich or Power. There are other assets such as Byrum, draft picks and prospects in the system to parlay. There are also mid-level free agents (such as Zucker was) that can be considered on prove it deals.

Our biggest need is in net. Solidify that position and this team should be so much better. I’m not advocating for the blockbuster deal/s that strip this team for a short term gain. A few smart deals like was done in the acquisitions of Greenway, Zucker and McCleod are doable. 

[7+6=13]

11 minutes ago, JohnC said:

I prefer Quinn over Marchant. And I’m not moving Kulich or Power. There are other assets such as Byrum, draft picks and prospects in the system to parlay. There are also mid-level free agents (such as Zucker was) that can be considered on prove it deals.

Our biggest need is in net. Solidify that position and this team should be so much better. I’m not advocating for the blockbuster deal/s that strip this team for a short term gain. A few smart deals like was done in the acquisitions of Greenway, Zucker and McCleod are doable. 

I agree that a net minder should be priority 1.  I gotcha, so it's more specifically Quinn and a couple others.  We've agreed before that the blockbuster is not something I'd entertain either.  

[inkman]

11 hours ago, JohnC said:

Still no for me.

 

10 hours ago, 7+6=13 said:

I'm not sure if you specifically don't want Marchment but I think you made it pretty clear above, you don't have a proclivity for trading young talent.

This is where I get in a real quandary.  I don't like giving up or giving up on our young players, but at the same time I realize to get better or better "fits", we likely need to use these young players to acquire them.  

I honestly don't know where I lean on this, especially since we've lived through the pain of the build from within philosophy.  

 

10 hours ago, JohnC said:

I prefer Quinn over Marchant. And I’m not moving Kulich or Power. There are other assets such as Byrum, draft picks and prospects in the system to parlay. There are also mid-level free agents (such as Zucker was) that can be considered on prove it deals.

Our biggest need is in net. Solidify that position and this team should be so much better. I’m not advocating for the blockbuster deal/s that strip this team for a short term gain. A few smart deals like was done in the acquisitions of Greenway, Zucker and McCleod are doable. 

 

10 hours ago, 7+6=13 said:

I agree that a net minder should be priority 1.  I gotcha, so it's more specifically Quinn and a couple others.  We've agreed before that the blockbuster is not something I'd entertain either.  

Quinn is a part of the problem. A defensive liability with no agression.  Nice offensive player but he’s easy to get off the puck and wilts when the going gets tough. Another player running for the bus when things get difficult on the ice.  
 

You don’t want a blockbuster?  This teams needs to make wholesale changes.  The roster is not good enough.  Thatcher Demko isn’t going to turn this into a 100 point team. 
 

I’m moving Peterka, Quinn, Byram, UPL, Samuelsson.  These guys aren’t play drivers like Eichel & Reinhart.  They may have success elsewhere but it’s not because they are burgeoning stars being muffled by Buffalo’s incompetence.  They are the problem.  

[Archie Lee]

10 hours ago, JohnC said:

I prefer Quinn over Marchant. And I’m not moving Kulich or Power. There are other assets such as Byrum, draft picks and prospects in the system to parlay. There are also mid-level free agents (such as Zucker was) that can be considered on prove it deals.

Our biggest need is in net. Solidify that position and this team should be so much better. I’m not advocating for the blockbuster deal/s that strip this team for a short term gain. A few smart deals like was done in the acquisitions of Greenway, Zucker and McCleod are doable. 

The Sabres currently have 15 forwards whose skill, contract, or developmental progress, puts them in the NHL or at an NHL calibre for next season  (Thompson, Norris, Benson, Peterka, Mcleod, Tuch, Zucker, Kulich, Greenway, Quinn, Malenstyn, Krebs, Lafferty, Kozak, Rosen). The Sabres don’t have the roster spots or the cap space to just move out Byram and some picks and prospects for upgrades. Sure, they can dump 4th liners like Lafferty or Krebs or Malenstyn, but their salaries are such that dumping them only makes room for comparably paid players. We don’t have the cap space to add another Zucker or Greenway unless we move out a comparable contract. We could move an overpaid D-man like Clifton, but we want D upgrades which would mean paying more for the new D-man than we are paying Clifton. 

To summarize, we can’t keep every young NHL player (except for Byram) AND add multiple quality veteran talents. Change will mean some good young players (Quinn, Peterka, Byram being the most likely), will need to be moved. Otherwise, it’s just mostly status quo. This is the reality of our roster situation. 

[JohnC]

2 minutes ago, inkman said:

 

 

 

Quinn is a part of the problem. A defensive liability with no agression.  Nice offensive player but he’s easy to get off the puck and wilts when the going gets tough. Another player running for the bus when things get difficult on the ice.  
 

You don’t want a blockbuster?  This teams needs to make wholesale changes.  The roster is not good enough.  Thatcher Demko isn’t going to turn this into a 100 point team. 
 

I’m moving Peterka, Quinn, Byram, UPL, Samuelsson.  These guys aren’t play drivers like Eichel & Reinhart.  They may have success elsewhere but it’s not because they are burgeoning stars being muffled by Buffalo’s incompetence.  They are the problem.  

What blockbuster deal are you proposing that is realistic in coming to fruition? What value does Samuelsson have with his bloated contract? 

I'm not arguing to keep Byram, UPL or Samuelsson. The only value I see is with Byram. I would love to work out a deal such as trading him to the Rangers for K'Andre Miller. You don't need blockbuster deals to bring in a couple of experienced and rugged blueliners. They can be had on the market for reasonable second tier prices. 

Quinn and JJP are in my view 30+ goal scorers on a better team. You don't think that this team needs that output? Last year, Zucker and McCleod were brought in, and the year before Greenway was added. Those were quality support pieces. How about duplicating those roster improving moves that helped to reshape the roster and how it plays? 

Making a point that I have belabored into exhaustion is that the bringing in a reliable goalie will do more to enhance this team than any move. That's a priority that if it is not accomplished will undercut other transactions that would be made. 

There is too much attention is pursued for dramatic moves. How about making a series of smart moves better shapes and improves this roster? 

[JohnC]

1 minute ago, Archie Lee said:

The Sabres currently have 15 forwards whose skill, contract, or developmental progress, puts them in the NHL or at an NHL calibre for next season  (Thompson, Norris, Benson, Peterka, Mcleod, Tuch, Zucker, Kulich, Greenway, Quinn, Malenstyn, Krebs, Lafferty, Kozak, Rosen). The Sabres don’t have the roster spots or the cap space to just move out Byram and some picks and prospects for upgrades. Sure, they can dump 4th liners like Lafferty or Krebs or Malenstyn, but their salaries are such that dumping them only makes room for comparably paid players. We don’t have the cap space to add another Zucker or Greenway unless we move out a comparable contract. We could move an overpaid D-man like Clifton, but we want D upgrades which would mean paying more for the new D-man than we are paying Clifton. 

To summarize, we can’t keep every young NHL player (except for Byram) AND add multiple quality veteran talents. Change will mean some good young players (Quinn, Peterka, Byram being the most likely), will need to be moved. Otherwise, it’s just mostly status quo. This is the reality of our roster situation. 

We both agree that Byram should be moved because he has the greatest market value. I strenuously disagree with you that both Quinn and JJP need to be moved. For me, they are at a point of development where they should be 30 goal scorers. Too many people are dismissive of their offensive potential. I'm aware that they are not defensive juggernauts but they have the ability to improve defensively to the point where they are not glaring liabilities.   

As I stated in multiple posts, our greatest need is addressing the goalie position. If that is not done, everything else done will be wasted. My proposal compared to most other proposals here is a moderate/modest view that enhances what we now have as opposed to shredding the assets that we do have. We need to address the goalie position (priority #1), bring in a couple of veteran and bulky defenseman (reasonably attainable) and add two or three players that fall in category of players of hardnosed players who are Zucker like players. These are not show stopping transactions; they are smart deals that enhance what you already have on the roster. This cartoonish organization under the silent ownership of Pegula has had too many start and stop rebuilding efforts. It's time to stabilize and act judiciously and not reactively. 

[DarthEbriate]

13 hours ago, JohnC said:

I say no to trading Quinn for Marchment. I believe that Quinn will come into camp healthy and stronger. And I strongly believe that he has enough experience now to get a return on his offensive talents. I also have the same approach to Kulich and Power. I'm tired of seeing our traded young players producing at a high level for other teams. The Sabres still have plenty of other assets to parlay, such as Byram, prospects and picks. Let's stop making the same mistake over and over, watching other teams benefit while we continue to churn in place. The idea of trading for Marchment, a player we will only have one year of control of, while giving up a good young player with a lot more upside makes no sense to me. Put me in the steadfast no category on your proposed deal. 

The reason I give up Quinn is that I don't see his future role on the team (if Ruff is coach/involved in the hockey ops side) -- if Tuch is also in the future. And the only way for Quinn to prove he could step into the top-6 this year is through amazing production caused by injuries to TNT/Tuch. Going into this season, Quinn's role is a bottom 6 RW and shootout specialist. The shootout specialist has a bunch of value.

But Marchment has outproduced Quinn over the last 3 years and is a much better fit as a 3/4 W.

As @inkman noted above, I've only got the one year of Marchment, so I'm not making this deal unless I can get him to waive/extend. That's the rub. Or, I really pray he helps the Sabres make the playoffs and the fit is amazing and he signs an extension before the trade deadline.

(And yes, all this thread is about Robertson, and nothing stated here changes the fact they need a top-4 RHD for Power and a goalie.)

[JohnC]

3 minutes ago, DarthEbriate said:

The reason I give up Quinn is that I don't see his future role on the team (if Ruff is coach/involved in the hockey ops side) -- if Tuch is also in the future. And the only way for Quinn to prove he could step into the top-6 this year is through amazing production caused by injuries to TNT/Tuch. Going into this season, Quinn's role is a bottom 6 RW and shootout specialist. The shootout specialist has a bunch of value.

But Marchment has outproduced Quinn over the last 3 years and is a much better fit as a 3/4 W.

As @inkman noted above, I've only got the one year of Marchment, so I'm not making this deal unless I can get him to waive/extend. That's the rub. Or, I really pray he helps the Sabres make the playoffs and the fit is amazing and he signs an extension before the trade deadline.

(And yes, all this thread is about Robertson, and nothing stated here changes the fact they need a top-4 RHD for Power and a goalie.)

Our fundamental disagreement that can't be breached is in our views on Quinn as a player. I believe that his upside is higher than you do, thus his value. There is no circumstance that I see him as a lower line player or merely as a shootout specialist. If the issue is reduced between Marchment and Quinn, I'm still siding with keeping Quinn and eschewing Marchment. I'm not dispatching a player with more upside to tap. We disagree, that's okay. 

[Pimlach]

13 hours ago, JohnC said:

I say no to trading Quinn for Marchment. I believe that Quinn will come into camp healthy and stronger. And I strongly believe that he has enough experience now to get a return on his offensive talents. I also have the same approach to Kulich and Power. I'm tired of seeing our traded young players producing at a high level for other teams. The Sabres still have plenty of other assets to parlay, such as Byram, prospects and picks. Let's stop making the same mistake over and over, watching other teams benefit while we continue to churn in place. The idea of trading for Marchment, a player we will only have one year of control of, while giving up a good young player with a lot more upside makes no sense to me. Put me in the steadfast no category on your proposed deal. 

In a better scenario you trade for Quinn for Marchment assuming you can work out an extension for him.   

Marchment is bigger and stronger and much grittier.   He also has a higher PPG and GPG than Quinn.  Sure, Quinn has a higher scoring ceiling but injuries and lackluster play are preventing him from getting there.   Quinn's two-way game was not there under Lindy, maybe he gets it in another year?  

You are tired of seeing our young players traded away and then play well for other teams, and I can understand that since we have a recent history of trading the wrong players for the wrong reasons. 

You prefer to trade Byram over Quinn.   Keep in mind that Byram is only 8 months older than Quinn, both are 23.  Byram was far better than Quinn last season, and in the seasons prior.  To say that Quinn should be kept over Byram is your opinion but Byram is just as young, has won a cup, and is the better player of the two.

Sounds like Quinn is getting preferred status from you because he was a Buffalo first rounder but I think Byram is the better player.  

They only reason I would trade Byram is that we have a surplus of defenseman with his same skill set and he can actually bring more back in trade than a guy like Quinn.  

 

 

 

[Archie Lee]

44 minutes ago, JohnC said:

We both agree that Byram should be moved because he has the greatest market value. I strenuously disagree with you that both Quinn and JJP need to be moved. For me, they are at a point of development where they should be 30 goal scorers. Too many people are dismissive of their offensive potential. I'm aware that they are not defensive juggernauts but they have the ability to improve defensively to the point where they are not glaring liabilities.   

As I stated in multiple posts, our greatest need is addressing the goalie position. If that is not done, everything else done will be wasted. My proposal compared to most other proposals here is a moderate/modest view that enhances what we now have as opposed to shredding the assets that we do have. We need to address the goalie position (priority #1), bring in a couple of veteran and bulky defenseman (reasonably attainable) and add two or three players that fall in category of players of hardnosed players who are Zucker like players. These are not show stopping transactions; they are smart deals that enhance what you already have on the roster. This cartoonish organization under the silent ownership of Pegula has had too many start and stop rebuilding efforts. It's time to stabilize and act judiciously and not reactively. 

Quinn for Marchment would be exactly that type of move. Every team in the league that wants to make the playoffs (and has the cap space) would take Marchment over Quinn for the coming season.    

[Drag0nDan]

15 hours ago, ponokasabre said:

I think there is no way Dallas says no to that, its just can we get him to waive.

 

And honestly Quinn could flourish in Dallas. But I dont care, we need Marchment here, then you use 9 and prospects to bring in a D man, and still maybe move Byram for a different type of D man

Marchment has a M-NTC so... its not Dallas you have to convince.  

[Pimlach]

1 hour ago, JohnC said:

What blockbuster deal are you proposing that is realistic in coming to fruition? What value does Samuelsson have with his bloated contract? 

I'm not arguing to keep Byram, UPL or Samuelsson. The only value I see is with Byram. I would love to work out a deal such as trading him to the Rangers for K'Andre Miller. You don't need blockbuster deals to bring in a couple of experienced and rugged blueliners. They can be had on the market for reasonable second tier prices. 

Quinn and JJP are in my view 30+ goal scorers on a better team. You don't think that this team needs that output? Last year, Zucker and McCleod were brought in, and the year before Greenway was added. Those were quality support pieces. How about duplicating those roster improving moves that helped to reshape the roster and how it plays? 

Making a point that I have belabored into exhaustion is that the bringing in a reliable goalie will do more to enhance this team than any move. That's a priority that if it is not accomplished will undercut other transactions that would be made. 

There is too much attention is pursued for dramatic moves. How about making a series of smart moves better shapes and improves this roster? 

Ok.  I just acquired Zucker#2 and McLeod #2 at your request - both players are middle 6.   Which forwards do you move?  

Not including the 4th line we have Thompson, Norris, Peterka, Benson, Kulich, Tuch, McLeod, Zucker, Greenway, and Quinn.  That is 10 forwards plus your 2 new vets, 12 players for 9 slots.  

You could move Greenway to the 4th line plus PK duty and that could work.   You still have two more players in excess.  

Quinn jumps out before any of the others.  

Edited 21 hours ago by Pimlach

[inkman]

2 hours ago, JohnC said:

What blockbuster deal are you proposing that is realistic in coming to fruition? What value does Samuelsson have with his bloated contract? 

I'm not arguing to keep Byram, UPL or Samuelsson. The only value I see is with Byram. I would love to work out a deal such as trading him to the Rangers for K'Andre Miller. You don't need blockbuster deals to bring in a couple of experienced and rugged blueliners. They can be had on the market for reasonable second tier prices. 

Quinn and JJP are in my view 30+ goal scorers on a better team. You don't think that this team needs that output? Last year, Zucker and McCleod were brought in, and the year before Greenway was added. Those were quality support pieces. How about duplicating those roster improving moves that helped to reshape the roster and how it plays? 

Making a point that I have belabored into exhaustion is that the bringing in a reliable goalie will do more to enhance this team than any move. That's a priority that if it is not accomplished will undercut other transactions that would be made. 

There is too much attention is pursued for dramatic moves. How about making a series of smart moves better shapes and improves this roster? 

The blockbuster, or at least one of the scenarios I’m eyeing is in the very thread.  Robertson.  It’s gonna take Peterka, Byram or 9 OA.   Go get Rossi or Pettersson as well.  Bring in a RHD or two.  Blow this roster up.  I doubt anything resembling that happens but it’s what needs to happen.  The foundation of the team is Rasmus, Tage, Tuch and maybe Power.  Build around those guys (I’d move power myself but Kevyn is in lurve with his soft gentle giant).  

[DarthEbriate]

1 hour ago, JohnC said:

Our fundamental disagreement that can't be breached is in our views on Quinn as a player. I believe that his upside is higher than you do, thus his value. There is no circumstance that I see him as a lower line player or merely as a shootout specialist. If the issue is reduced between Marchment and Quinn, I'm still siding with keeping Quinn and eschewing Marchment. I'm not dispatching a player with more upside to tap. We disagree, that's okay. 

I have an extremely positive view for Quinn long-term (if he remains healthy). I was one of the folks who was on the Quinn Train Spacecruiser last year and I still think he can be top 6.

https://www.sabrespace.com/community/topic/37296-sabrespace-season-predictions-2024-25/

My reasoning for Quinn as the offer is that the right wings on the roster this year are TNT-Tuch-Quinn-Greenway. Quinn doesn't fit there. Now, if Tuch is set on moving out next summer, then keeping Quinn is a fair solution because he becomes RW2. But, personally, I'd rather have an early-30s Tuch than mid-20s Quinn in the top 6 because of all the other things Tuch does defensively.

[JohnC]

2 hours ago, Pimlach said:

Ok.  I just acquired Zucker#2 and McLeod #2 at your request - both players are middle 6.   Which forwards do you move?  

Not including the 4th line we have Thompson, Norris, Peterka, Benson, Kulich, Tuch, McLeod, Zucker, Greenway, and Quinn.  That is 10 forwards plus your 2 new vets, 12 players for 9 slots.  

You could move Greenway to the 4th line plus PK duty and that could work.   You still have two more players in excess.  

Quinn jumps out before any of the others.  

Having depth and players competing for positions are not bad things. And having players such as Quinn, JJP and even Kulich who can move up to higher lines is what you want in an injury plagued crash sport.

The priority is the goalie position. And the next priority is to bulk up the blueline with a couple more muscular defenders. We have the assets in Byrum, draft picks and prospects to accomplish those doable additions.

Acting on frustration gives other more enlightened GMs opportunities to fleece us. Being smart is better than being dumb. 

 

 

[CallawaySabres]

Why is this even being talked about as an idea if he has a 10 team list on no trade. If Buffalo is not #1 on that list, it's pretty close. ZERO chance people like him will choose to ruin their career by coming to Buffalo.

[JohnC]

4 hours ago, Pimlach said:

In a better scenario you trade for Quinn for Marchment assuming you can work out an extension for him.   

Marchment is bigger and stronger and much grittier.   He also has a higher PPG and GPG than Quinn.  Sure, Quinn has a higher scoring ceiling but injuries and lackluster play are preventing him from getting there.   Quinn's two-way game was not there under Lindy, maybe he gets it in another year?  

You are tired of seeing our young players traded away and then play well for other teams, and I can understand that since we have a recent history of trading the wrong players for the wrong reasons. 

You prefer to trade Byram over Quinn.   Keep in mind that Byram is only 8 months older than Quinn, both are 23.  Byram was far better than Quinn last season, and in the seasons prior.  To say that Quinn should be kept over Byram is your opinion but Byram is just as young, has won a cup, and is the better player of the two.

Sounds like Quinn is getting preferred status from you because he was a Buffalo first rounder but I think Byram is the better player.  

They only reason I would trade Byram is that we have a surplus of defenseman with his same skill set and he can actually bring more back in trade than a guy like Quinn.  

 

 

 

The Byrum issue relates to style of play within the current mix. And another consideration is the next contract cost. If he gets the gilded long term deal that I expect, there will be a poor cap distribution within the roster. I want to make it clear that I like him a lot.

[Weave]

7 minutes ago, JohnC said:

The Byrum issue relates to style of play within the current mix. And another consideration is the next contract cost. If he gets the gilded long term deal that I expect, there will be a poor cap distribution within the roster. I want to make it clear that I like him a lot.

I don’t understand how you don’t see Quinn’s expendability as a style of play mix as well.  As stated earlier, we have Tuch and Tage as top 6 RWs.  We need a player better suited to middle 6 for the spot Quinn occupies.  Maybe Quinn blossoms elsewhere.  So what?  This team needs a different mix.  Given that we aren’t moving on from Tage or Tuch, it makes sense to use Quinn to get the different skillset that helps balance out the forward roster.  That he has the potential to blossom just makes it more likely we can get a better example of the skillset we lack than if he wasn’t so young.

[JohnC]

33 minutes ago, Weave said:

I don’t understand how you don’t see Quinn’s expendability as a style of play mix as well.  As stated earlier, we have Tuch and Tage as top 6 RWs.  We need a player better suited to middle 6 for the spot Quinn occupies.  Maybe Quinn blossoms elsewhere.  So what?  This team needs a different mix  Given that we aren’t moving on from Tage or Tuch, it makes sense to use Quinn to get the different skillset that helps balance out the forward roster.  That he has the potential to blossom just makes it more likely we can get a better example of the skillset we lack than if he wasn’t so young.

Why not have Tage and Tuch on the top line together? Tage can play either on the wing or center with Tuch on the other side. Norris can play center on the top line or second line. Where I separate myself with people taking the same position as you are regarding Quinn is that I see more upside from him than many others do. And I see that potential coming to fruition sooner than others see it. Again, with respect to this particular player I steadfastly say no. The priorities this offseason  is in net and on the blueline. The blueline needs to be reconfigured with a better mix.