Sabres interested in Yegor Chinakhov?

[DarthEbriate]

49 minutes ago, dudacek said:

It seems like just last week this board was clamouring to trade Byram for a forward and screaming how are we going to replace Peterka’s scoring.

Did you think we were getting a special roster exemption for that guy?

Chinakov has 23 goals in his last 83 games, Peterka has 27 in his last 77.

Come on people, this isn’t rocket surgery.

I guess my thought is that Quinn is the replacement for Peterka. Quinn has 19 goals in his last 81 games and that's with a bunch of 4th line time and a 20-game disappearing act at the start of last season. I believe his ceiling is higher than Chinakov's (and from an Adams/EEE perspective, they just paid Quinn, why would they add Quinn-lite?)   Put Quinn into the top 6 with two defensively responsible/all-around players on his line instead of Cozens or JJP and he might take that step that could/should have happened last year.

I don't deny that Chinakov would be a solid 3rd line edition (if Quinn is in the top 6), but then Chinakov doesn't displace Zucker on the left and it depends on what kind of checking line/tough to play against you're going for whether he'd be a better option than Greenway/Doan on the right. Scoring, yes. Physical? No. If Chinakov were to fall to the 4th line, his goal potential goes down. (Unless he had exemplary chemistry with Danforth -- which, they didn't. Only 27 minutes together last season and a CF% together of 36%.)

Edited 3 hours ago by DarthEbriate

[dudacek]

10 minutes ago, LGR4GM said:

Doan has 12g in his last 62. That's 16g in 83 games. Is Chinakov better defensively than Doan? 

You can trade for him but who are you moving out?

Out of NhL roster? The current 14th forward and 8th defenceman, so Kozak and Johnson?

Out of the starting lineup, assuming full health? Whichever 2 of Malensten, Krebs, Danforth, Quinn, Kulich and Doan he happens to be outplaying?

Id also include Greenway and Zucker in that group, but Lindy won’t.

And doesn’t Sabrespace just assume one of Norris and Greenway will be out anyway?

Should we just ignore that possibility?

Edited 3 hours ago by dudacek

[LGR4GM]

3 minutes ago, dudacek said:

Out of NhL roster? The current 14th forward and 8th defenceman, so Kozak and Johnson?

Out of the starting lineup, assuming full health? Whichever 2 of Malensten, Krebs, Danforth, Quinn, Kulich and Doan he happens to be outplaying?

Id also include Greenway and Zucker in that group, but Lindy won’t.

And doesn’t Sabrespace just assume one of Norris and Greenway will be out anyway?

Should we just ignore that possibility?

No, but I am not running to the NHL to make the trade call. It has merit but it isn't some make or break decision. 

Also if you assume Norris and Greenway will be injured, you should assume Chinakov will be injured. 

Edited 3 hours ago by LGR4GM

[dudacek]

6 minutes ago, DarthEbriate said:

I guess my thought is that Quinn is the replacement for Peterka. Quinn has 19 goals in his last 81 games and that's with a bunch of 4th line time and a 20-game disappearing act at the start of last season. I believe his ceiling is higher than Chinakov's (and from an Adams/EEE perspective, they just paid Quinn, why would they add Quinn-lite?)   Put Quinn into the top 6 with two defensively responsible/all-around players on his line instead of Cozens or JJP and he might take that step that could/should have happened last year.

I don't deny that Chinakov would be a solid 3rd line edition (if Quinn is in the top 6), but then Chinakov doesn't displace Zucker on the left and it depends on what kind of checking line/tough to play against you're going for whether he'd be a better option than Greenway/Doan on the right. Scoring, yes. Physical? No. If Chinakov were to fall to the 4th line, his goal potential goes down. (Unless he had exemplary chemistry with Danforth -- which, they didn't. Only 27 minutes together last season and a CF% together of 36%.)

So essentially we’re only looking for another forward if he is a clear and obvious top 6 upgrade on Quinn or Kulich?

We’re deep enough otherwise?

[dudacek]

5 minutes ago, LGR4GM said:

No, but I am not running to the NHL to make the trade call. It has merit but it isn't some make or break decision. 

Also if you assume Norris and Greenway will be injured, you should assume Chinakov will be injured. 

For sure. I don’t see Chinakov as a make-or-break decision, or as an obvious answer.

I would like to add another NHL forward who is at least a 2nd-liner or could play on the 2nd line, full stop.

Hes an option Id consider.

Edited 3 hours ago by dudacek

[DarthEbriate]

Looking more at Chinakov's good season in 2023-24...  it does appear to be boosted by playing with Voronkov and Marchenko. 

His GF% with Marchenko was 63.64 and with Voronkov 64.29.

However, their expected GF% were 49 and 47, respectively. 

Potentially, his good season was a very big statistical outlier -- and given those two are moving up the lineup and Chinakov hasn't based on ice time (at least under Evason), they made their choice on which two players drive the offense.

[inkman]

29 minutes ago, LGR4GM said:

Doan has 12g in his last 62. That's 16g in 83 games. Is Chinakov better defensively than Doan? 

You can trade for him but who are you moving out?

Quinn would be the natural target.  Similar injury history.  Both have plenty of upside.  Similar ceiling.  I’d do it.  Maybe swab Rosen for a prospect that’s got some jam. 

[Eleven]

23 minutes ago, LGR4GM said:

No, but I am not running to the NHL to make the trade call. It has merit but it isn't some make or break decision. 

Also if you assume Norris and Greenway will be injured, you should assume Chinakov will be injured. 

He should be named "Chinadoll" instead.

Seriously, if he can stay healthy, he's be a decent get.  But it's a huge if.

[DarthEbriate]

15 minutes ago, dudacek said:

So essentially we’re only looking for another forward if he is a clear and obvious top 6 upgrade on Quinn or Kulich?

We’re deep enough otherwise?

Not only.

Kulich is the wildcard -- unproven center, let alone top 6 at this point. But overall, yes, I think they are a real first-line player away from a playoff-caliber forward** lineup. Preferably a center. But someone to push Benson/Kulich to line two and cascade it down from there. That could compete with the aging Tampas, rising Habs, flat Wings, and whatever Ottawa is (Ullmark-led?) of the division. Their depth is NHL depth at this point -- albeit not playoff-tested.

 

**All forward lineup discussions are moot if they don't play sound defense and get average-to-above average goaltending.

[Brawndo]

Sounds vaguely familiar 

[ponokasabre]

13 minutes ago, Brawndo said:

Sounds vaguely familiar 

I mean i certainly would take a flyer on him if the acquisition costs are minimal. I mean remember guys are injury prone sometimes and they suddenly they aren't. This is a gamble that good teams would take

If it didnt work he is only signed for one year at 2.1 million and is an RFA after so we would control him if it didnt work. If it was between say Roslovic or Chinakov id lean Chinakov because i think his ceiling is higher, but it it was between Chinakov or McTavish, obviously you go MacTavish, though the acquisition costs to get McTavish would be large

[LGR4GM]

54 minutes ago, Brawndo said:

Sounds vaguely familiar 

Yikes, I'll pass 

[That Aud Smell]

2 hours ago, LGR4GM said:

Also @dudacek I'm very much on record as saying we need a 17% goals against reduction more than anything else. We lost about 50ish goals but brought in around 40.

oh we on that moneyball sh1t right now. we DOIN' it!!

35 minutes ago, LGR4GM said:

Yikes, I'll pass 

yeah - that's concerning.

[JohnC]

2 hours ago, dudacek said:

For sure. I don’t see Chinakov as a make-or-break decision, or as an obvious answer.

I would like to add another NHL forward who is at least a 2nd-liner or could play on the 2nd line, full stop.

Hes an option Id consider.

The problem isn't that he shouldn't be considered but rather what would you give up for him? Hypothetically, would you give up Quinn or Kulich for him? I wouldn't. Would you give up one of our top prospects such as Helenius and a first-round pick? I wouldn't. Would I give up Krebs and maybe Helenius? I would seriously consider such a proposal. 

[Eleven]

17 minutes ago, JohnC said:

The problem isn't that he shouldn't be considered but rather what would you give up for him? Hypothetically, would you give up Quinn or Kulich for him? I wouldn't. Would you give up one of our top prospects such as Helenius and a first-round pick? I wouldn't. Would I give up Krebs and maybe Helenius? I would seriously consider such a proposal. 

None of the above for me.  He's second or third round pick territory.  Maybe some depth from Rochester, but not Helenius.  And *not* Krebs.

[Archie Lee]

2 hours ago, dudacek said:

So essentially we’re only looking for another forward if he is a clear and obvious top 6 upgrade on Quinn or Kulich?

We’re deep enough otherwise?

I personally don't think the Sabres have a depth issue at forward.  Certainly not like they did two off-seasons ago, when Quinn was injured. That year they went into camp with a hole in the forward group that they intended to fill with the rookie who had the best camp. It ended up being Benson. This year, there is no spot being left open for the highest performing 18-20 year old in camp.  There isn't even a spot open for Rosen, who at 22 and having been a scoring leader in the AHL, should be in-line for a middle-6 opportunity on a line with actual NHL players. 

I would have no great issue if we traded a 3rd or Rosen or Kozak or the like for Chinakhov; I wouldn't myself, but if it happens it won't register for me as material to the goal of Playoffs-2026.  It just isn't what the Sabres need. I think, to become a playoff team, we need to trade some combination of Kulich, Quinn, a prospect, a high draft pick, for Necas or Rossi or McTavish, who would upgrade our top 6.  

Edited 56 minutes ago by Archie Lee

[Thorny]

3 hours ago, dudacek said:

It seems like just last week this board was clamouring to trade Byram for a forward and screaming how are we going to replace Peterka’s scoring.

Did you think we were getting a special roster exemption for that guy?

Chinakov has 23 goals in his last 83 games, Peterka has 27 in his last 77.

Come on people, this isn’t rocket surgery.

Obviously I agree with your logic and strategy but I’m putting in my “you always leave out assists for some reason” disclaimer for posterity 

Edited 53 minutes ago by Thorny

[JohnC]

3 minutes ago, Eleven said:

None of the above for me.  He's second or third round pick territory.  Maybe some depth from Rochester, but not Helenius.  And *not* Krebs.

If it simply was Krebs for him I would be open to a deal. The Columbus player is not someone I would stretch too far to get. 

[Thorny]

2 hours ago, dudacek said:

So essentially we’re only looking for another forward if he is a clear and obvious top 6 upgrade on Quinn or Kulich?

We’re deep enough otherwise?

This new fellow however you spell his name would fall under a “no stone unturned” mindset and it’s the correct tact to take.

you know, enemy of perfect/good?

can’t let “not a guarantee of improvement and probably not a ton if any” be the enemy of “a chance for improvement”

This team isn’t in a position historically to turn its nose up at a single grain of rice 

Edited 49 minutes ago by Thorny

[Thorny]

2 hours ago, dudacek said:

For sure. I don’t see Chinakov as a make-or-break decision, or as an obvious answer.

I would like to add another NHL forward who is at least a 2nd-liner or could play on the 2nd line, full stop.

Hes an option Id consider.

Maybe even “middle(!) 6” if we are lucky 

 

oooo middle 6