Jump to content

Recommended Posts

Posted

I'm almost certain Halak is gone before Wednesday, but I think if they don't get anyone back in another trade, they would bring up hackett or someone else from Rochester to ride out the season over Dubnyk

Yeah I thought about this too I do not want another goalie back if/when we trade Halak, so the next man up would be Hackett but I think it would be more beneficial for him to finish the season in Rochester, maybe go through a playoff run with our younger guys than back up Enroth and play maybe a handful of games

Posted

They got him from the Oil when they signed Bryz. Maybe Rinne is ready to return from injury or they're trading for another Goaltender.

 

Pekka is back! He played a couple of games down on the farm in Milwaukee on a conditioning assignment and looked good in both (two wins). So he is back up with the Preds and may or may not start tomorrow against Pittsburgh.

 

As for the comment above about Dubnyk. ###### NO! He is the worst goaltender I have ever seen. He was terrible in Edmonton and both of his starts in Nashville were catastrophes. He is hopeless. I think the guy we dressed after the Miller trade is probably better than Dubnyk.

Posted

Murray has said he isn't going to tear up Rochester. He'll probably look for a stop-gap so Hackett and Lieuwen can stay down. Dubnyk would be a cheap example who wouldn't factor into the long-term plans.

 

Taking away the goalie who is getting maybe half the starts is hardly tearing up Rochester.

Posted

 

 

Taking away the goalie who is getting maybe half the starts is hardly tearing up Rochester.

 

Still going to shake them up for no reason. They'll probably want to keep the kids down there this year to make a run for the playoffs. Then Hackett up next year.

Posted

Still going to shake them up for no reason. They'll probably want to keep the kids down there this year to make a run for the playoffs. Then Hackett up next year.

 

If you are going to be trading away so many of these current NHL guys they're going to have to move someone up from Rochester. They body count was a wash in the Miller deal, but if they move others beyond Moulson, they're not bringing back NHL bodies in those deals.

Posted

I can't understand any argument for bringing up Hackett if we move Halak. Hackett is still developing and is much better off in Rochester growing with the other prospects, making a playoff run than he is getting called up to back up Enroth for a couple of games and playing with the worst team in the NHL right now when he probably isn't even NHL ready based on his numbers this season.

 

I am in favor of moving Halak, but I don't want his value to be diminished because we need a backup goalie in return. The sensible thing would be to claim Dubnyk because he only has 1 year remaining and would be a stopgap just for the rest of this season.

 

This increases the return in a trade involving Halak & Hackett can continue to grow in Rochester instead of ruining his confidence from playing with our team during this season.

Posted (edited)

I can't understand any argument for bringing up Hackett if we move Halak. Hackett is still developing and is much better off in Rochester growing with the other prospects, making a playoff run than he is getting called up to back up Enroth for a couple of games and playing with the worst team in the NHL right now when he probably isn't even NHL ready based on his numbers this season.

 

I am in favor of moving Halak, but I don't want his value to be diminished because we need a backup goalie in return. The sensible thing would be to claim Dubnyk because he only has 1 year remaining and would be a stopgap just for the rest of this season.

 

This increases the return in a trade involving Halak & Hackett can continue to grow in Rochester instead of ruining his confidence from playing with our team during this season.

No one is saying the deal for Halak has to contain a goalie coming back though, they could work out another deal that includes a goaltender who actually looks like he can play in the NHL.

If i was Murray, i would be looking at the Ducks and trying to get Fasth, if they won't give up Gibson, in a deal for either a defencemen or forward while dealing Halak to the Wild (or Philly), or use a 3rd and try to get Neuvirth from the Capitals. I would be looking to make a deal for a goaltender who can compete with Enroth for the #1 job now if disrupting the minor league teams playoff hopes isn't allowed.

 

of course I would be looking to try and make this team credible and competitive now with an eye towards the future, instead of throwing away the present and putting all the hope in the future.

Edited by apuszczalowski
Posted

that could be a strike against cory

But for a team who is currently starting a second line with D'agostini and has had Leino as a first liner, Conacher is an obvious scoring upgrade from those guys.

 

Other point of looking at waivers is to see the precursers of a trade. OTT is clearing up two players from active roster.

Posted

Timmy has his rating on Conacher. That number, whatever it is, I'm sure fits into a different place on the Sabres roster compared to the Sens.

 

Pick him up Timmy!

 

I also see Scott Clemmensen is on waivers - a very cheap pickup to finish the year as Enroths backup once Halak is traded.

Posted

But for a team who is currently starting a second line with D'agostini and has had Leino as a first liner, Conacher is an obvious scoring upgrade from those guys.

 

Other point of looking at waivers is to see the precursers of a trade. OTT is clearing up two players from active roster.

not by much

Conacher has 20 points in 59 games

Leino has 12 points in 42 games

D'Agostini has 9 points in 37 games

 

D'Agostini has the same amount of goals as Conacher does in less games

 

Timmy has his rating on Conacher. That number, whatever it is, I'm sure fits into a different place on the Sabres roster compared to the Sens.

 

Pick him up Timmy!

 

I also see Scott Clemmensen is on waivers - a very cheap pickup to finish the year as Enroths backup once Halak is traded.

Timmy would also know him well and why Ottawa would be willing to put a 24 year old that was a big part of the Bishop trade on waivers

If he is valuable or doesn't have some issues, why would they not be using him as trade bait or in a package deal? Couldn't they use him as part of a deal to Buffalo for Stewart?

Posted

not by much

Conacher has 20 points in 59 games

Leino has 12 points in 42 games

D'Agostini has 9 points in 37 games

 

D'Agostini has the same amount of goals as Conacher does in less games

Understood, but it wouldn't be a decision between Conacher and D'Agostini. It's Conacher or Matt Ellis/John Scott
Posted

Understood, but it wouldn't be a decision between Conacher and D'Agostini. It's Conacher or Matt Ellis/John Scott

I used those 2 because they were brought up

Also they are 2 guys that fans seem to bring up as being worthless or shouldn't be here, yet in less games, their stats aren't off of Conachers by much

 

as for Ellis/Scott, Ellis in 29 games playing on the 4th line has one less goal then Conacher and his role here is more for leadership then point production. will you get that from Conacher?

Scotts role here on the 4th line is also not for point production, its to be an enforcer/good/intimidation, will you get that from Conacher? (Scott is also versatile that he can play defence in emergency situations)

 

I'm not against bringing in a 24 year old Conacher, but I really question why Ottawa would be wiling to expose him to waivers, and was pointing out that points/goal scoring from him isn't that much off of what the Sabres currently have in guys fans want run out of town

Posted

I used those 2 because they were brought up

Also they are 2 guys that fans seem to bring up as being worthless or shouldn't be here, yet in less games, their stats aren't off of Conachers by much

 

as for Ellis/Scott, Ellis in 29 games playing on the 4th line has one less goal then Conacher and his role here is more for leadership then point production. will you get that from Conacher?

Scotts role here on the 4th line is also not for point production, its to be an enforcer/good/intimidation, will you get that from Conacher? (Scott is also versatile that he can play defence in emergency situations)

 

I'm not against bringing in a 24 year old Conacher, but I really question why Ottawa would be wiling to expose him to waivers, and was pointing out that points/goal scoring from him isn't that much off of what the Sabres currently have in guys fans want run out of town

I agree with pretty much everything you mention here.

 

My point of contention is more that Conacher, at 24 years old, given his production in Tampa, has a much higher ceiling than that of established quantities named above. And the opportunity cost of acquiring him is losing any current roster player to the AHL. That can be the Ellis/Scott/Sultzers of the world.

 

Just a year ago Conacher had 24 points in 35 games. Our worst roster player (whoever you think it is) doesn't have that kind of scoring potential.

Posted

Sabres have first refusal...

 

An underhand move in a trade? (something to do with the number of player contracts we have - this gives us 24 hours to make room but gives them instant room to accept players?)

Posted

I agree with pretty much everything you mention here.

 

My point of contention is more that Conacher, at 24 years old, given his production in Tampa, has a much higher ceiling than that of established quantities named above. And the opportunity cost of acquiring him is losing any current roster player to the AHL. That can be the Ellis/Scott/Sultzers of the world.

 

Just a year ago Conacher had 24 points in 35 games. Our worst roster player (whoever you think it is) doesn't have that kind of scoring potential.

After tomorrow I doubt our best roster player has that potential. Like I said, I have no problem with trying to get him, but I question why Ottawa would be willing to put him on waivers and lose him for nothing when he could be packaged in a deal or traded if he doesn't have issues/bagage

 

Sabres have first refusal...

 

An underhand move in a trade? (something to do with the number of player contracts we have - this gives us 24 hours to make room but gives them instant room to accept players?)

But why not just include him in the trade?
This topic is OLD. A NEW topic should be started unless there is a VERY SPECIFIC REASON to revive this one.

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Restore formatting

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
×
×
  • Create New...