2015 / 2016 Line Up

[LGR4GM]

There is talk of Foligno's role in another thread but this seems more appropriate here.  From my understanding Foligno went through the same shoulder surgery is E Kane did.  His play after returning and getting back up to NHL speed last year, in my mind, makes him a lock for a 3rd line.  He seems to be the developing into the perfect fit for that.

[Doohicksie]

Zadorov (L)- Ristolainen ®

Sekera (L) - Bogosian ® 

Gorges (L) - Pysk ®

7th:  Weber

 

Maybe someday Zads/Risto is our first line, but not yet.  Risto looks ready for primetime, but Zads is still a question mark as far as I'm concerned.  If he and Bylsma clash he could become trade bait.  I would see Sekera/Bogo as the top pair, Gorges/Risto as the second pair if Zadorov was moved.

 

Did you watch Larsson at the end of the year? I do believe he probably ends up as a 4th liner but he showed much more than 4th-line potential.

 

And that's the point, I think, in bringing all the talent in at center.  It was our weakest position; now it's a position of strength and depth.  Having a guy like Larsson on the 4th line who is capable of playing top-six means that if Eichel breaks a nail your team doesn't drop off as much and you can still conceivably roll four lines (with Grigo or Girgs moving from wing to center, depending on how the lineup ends up).

 

When GMTM took over, he probably felt like a kid in a candy store with the picks (and prospects) he had to work with.  He's had a chance to take those assets and mold them into what looks to be a contending team as they mature.  Now you bring in DDB and he must feel the same way- kid in a candy store- considering the team GMTM has put together for him.  I mean sure we have Eichel (hopefully) and Rienhart as a superior 1-2 center combination, PLUS you have best two of Grigo, Girgs and Larsson holding up the bottom end.  (I don't profess to know how that will play out in training camp; I can see any two of those playing center, or maybe McCormick keeps a center spot and two of those guys play wing.)  The toolbox is stocked; all we need is a goalie, and I'm not worried about that if we can hang onto the Goalie Whisperer.

[LGR4GM]

Reasons I love Zemgus.  This is old news but when asked about how well he played after the Amerks were eliminated a couple years ago from the playoffs: “We lost,” he said. “I could have done more.”

 

That said what will he play under Bylsma

http://www.wgr550.com/How-will-Bylsma-use-Zemgus-Girgensons-/21580539

This article helps illustrate why I don't think Zemgus will be less then a top 6 player. 

[TrueBlueGED]

Reasons I love Zemgus. This is old news but when asked about how well he played after the Amerks were eliminated a couple years ago from the playoffs: “We lost,” he said. “I could have done more.”

 

That said what will he play under Bylsma

http://www.wgr550.com/How-will-Bylsma-use-Zemgus-Girgensons-/21580539

 

This article helps illustrate why I don't think Zemgus will be less then a top 6 player.

We should want Girgensons to be on the 3rd line because that means we're a legit contender. Long term, that is. I expect Girgensons to be in the top-6 next year in some capacity.

[woods-racer]

We both could be reading into it what we want, but I see it more as we are going to develop our kids, not push them aside for more proven veterans.

To me it means Larson and Pysyk and Grigorenko won't be in the minors or traded because we went after Stoll, or Beauchemin or Williams - development over instant gratification.

 

It's interesting that Bylsma was roundly criticized for not developing kids in Pittsburgh, but he seems to be here to do exactly that.

I think the vision for last year was to shelter the kids and add another core piece. This year it is to see how our young core grows and add to it if we can.

 

I think Bylsma's basic assignment is turning Eichel, Reinhart, Kane, Larson, Foligno, Girgensons, Ennis, Grigorenko, Pysyk, Ristolainen, Bogosian and Zadorov into Toews, Kane, Ladd, Bolland, Bickell, Brouwer, Sharp, Versteeg, Hjalmarsson, Keith, Seabrook and Byfuglien.

I'm agreeing, but with one minor caveat.

 

I don't believe the vision for last year was to protect or shelter the kids. They where miss-handled by Nolan, and they didn't get a chance to play until injuries and trades forced Nolan to put them on the ice. Then we started to see what potential there was. I believe we are 3 months behind realizing the potential of Larson and Grigs, they should have been playing more in January, but it wasn't till March they got their chance.

 

Slight difference, but I believe we still have the same idea that this up coming season is still not about the number of wins, but the growth of players within the organization. Which may have been last seasons vision, but Nolan didn't coach it that way.

 

And I am excited that GMTM and DDB are on the same page as to wanting growth of the youth as opposed to trade for instant gratification. I was not that keen on trading the future for RW now, when now is not our time.

Edited June 1, 2015 by Woods-Racer

[Hoss]

I'm very interested in both Eddie Lack and Jacob Markstrom. With the news that Vancouver is interested in moving Lack I'm assuming that means they want to give Markstrom a real shot... He's been unbelievable in the AHL this year.

 

A .934 save percentage in 32 Utica games. 5 shutouts. 1.88 GAA.

In the playoffs. .928 save percentage in 17 games. 1 shutout. 1.97 GAA.

 

He has struggled in the NHL thus far (that might be an understatement), but I would like to see how he does with a full offseason knowing he's going to be on an NHL roster. Irbe would work wonders with the 6-6 tender.

I'm all in on landing whichever goalie the Canucks move.

[Doohicksie]

Slight difference, but I believe we still have the same idea that this up coming season is still not about the number of wins, but the growth of players within the organization. Which may have been last seasons vision, but Nolan didn't coach it that way.

 

I think we saw at the end of the season that the "mishandled kids" were ready to assume roles that would help the team win.  From that perspective, I think it's not necessarily a bad thing that they were "mishandled."  The Tank was close enough as it was. 

[woods-racer]

I think we saw at the end of the season that the "mishandled kids" were ready to assume roles that would help the team win.  From that perspective, I think it's not necessarily a bad thing that they were "mishandled."  The Tank was close enough as it was.

Completely agree things ended good for a few of the youngins, but with no pressure to win their playing time should have been increased earlier.

 

Unless some one has a bunch of statistics that show as Larson and Grigeranko starting showing promise the teams' corsi, time of possession, shots on goal all began to improve and they where giving us a better chance to win, they were finishing last.

 

If you're implying that the Larson and Grigeranko where intentionally held back by Nolan to achieve last place I will disagree. Nolan has many faults as coach, but I really do believe his greatest fault was he thought he was doing his absolute best to coach them to a win by playing older less talented and yet less mistake prone players over younger ones. That's my description of "mishandled" in this case.

[Huckleberry]

If Reinhart shows he can physically handle the NHL, we'll have a luxury problem and one of our young centers will move to wing.

But if murray feels he better starts out in the AHL, then there really is no reason for Grigorenko or Larsson to be traded.

 

Glad you guys see the positive steps forward these two kids have made, if i read other sabre forums they want to use them both as trade bait.

[woods-racer]

If Reinhart shows he can physically handle the NHL, we'll have a luxury problem and one of our young centers will move to wing.

But if murray feels he better starts out in the AHL, then there really is no reason for Grigorenko or Larsson to be traded.

 

Glad you guys see the positive steps forward these two kids have made, if i read other sabre forums they want to use them both as trade bait.

 

The trade bait had me confused also. I was glad to read that GMTM and DDB where willing to accept growing pains. I just want to watch younger players grow from prospect to farm to big leagues.

[dudacek]

The trade bait had me confused also. I was glad to read that GMTM and DDB where willing to accept growing pains. I just want to watch younger players grow from prospect to farm to big leagues.

 

I wonder how much Ted Nolan's unwillingness to accept growing pains with the kids factored into his failed relationship with Murray.

[woods-racer]

I wonder how much Ted Nolan's unwillingness to accept growing pains with the kids factored into his failed relationship with Murray.

 

I'm assuming it was huge.

 

Someone posted it and I'm sorry I can't remember exactly the line, but weren't GMTM and DDB talking this past winter about how they both were on the same page as how to develop the Sabres roster and it was the compete opposite of what we were seeing on the ice under Nolan?

[LGR4GM]

Evander Kane interview the day we hired Bylsma

 

http://video.sabres.nhl.com/videocenter/console?catid=668&id=827260&lang=en

[Doohicksie]

If you're implying that the Larson and Grigeranko where intentionally held back by Nolan to achieve last place I will disagree. Nolan has many faults as coach, but I really do believe his greatest fault was he thought he was doing his absolute best to coach them to a win by playing older less talented and yet less mistake prone players over younger ones. That's my description of "mishandled" in this case.

 

I have the same definition.  I'm not 100% sure that Nolan was doing his level best though, but I think he does, as you say, prefer less-talented, less-mistake-prone veterans over youngsters and he was allowed to run the team that way.

[Thorner]

 

Dan Bylsma said he watched Buffalo “quite a bit” last season and talked to GM Tim Murray before the World Championships, then during the event. He said both agreed there is no use signing anyone “just to win one more hockey game next year. Let’s develop and get younger players on the roster.”

 

Yeap. A further reassurance that he meant exactly that. I don't think it rules out O'Reilly or similar, but I don't see us getting in on guys like Sharp or other aged vets.

 

I'm more in line with dudacek's thinking on this. I don't read the new information in a way that says Murray's goal for next year is to be in the lottery. The gist of the quote I think is simply that they aren't prepared to replace a young player that presumably has a bright future on the roster with a much older player that provides a short term upgrade. Like a move the Leafs would make.

 

It's significant that he mentions "signing" too. I think trading for young talent is well within the range of Murray's plan, and acquiring an O'Reilly type not only makes us much better next year, it fits with the stated idea of getting youth on the roster. Signing a guy like Sharp, he'll be what, 36 by the time we are seriously contending? It doesn't make much sense.

 

Add to the youth we have, and develop the youth already here. It doesn't mean Murray isn't going to try and supplement what we have currently. He just wants to do it the right way, for where we are at.

Edited June 2, 2015 by Thorny

[Doohicksie]

When we talk about "Murray's plan" we need to remember that while he may have certain players targeted for acquisition, and probably certain players he wants to trade, we have to remember that it takes two to tango.  We can see the outcome of a trade (such as the deal with WPG) and criticize it, saying he gave too much, but you don't know what other options were on the table, what was demanded by the other side.  So we moan about losing Brendan Lemieux in that trade but there was some talk about him not wanting to sign with Buffalo which maybe put him on Murray's "move" list, and maybe WPG was asking fore Ennis instead of Staff, so adding Lemiuex made the deal and protected Ennis, while still bringing future value to the club and enhancing the tank at the same time.  That may not have been what "Murray's plan" was out the outset, but that's what it took to get it done.

 

So going forward I think it's important to see Murray's plan as not something set in stone but something that's fluid and has to be adapted to the demands of working with the other GMs.  Murray's plan was to bring in Babcock but he didn't know that Babs was just playing Buffalo to get more money out of TO.  Is that a failure on Murray's part?  I don't think so; the important thing is that he provide the best coach he can and it may be that Bylsma is the better fit anyway.  I see Murray as a guy who swings for the seats but may end up with an extra base hit instead of a home run, and that's okay as long as he's increasing the score.

[WildCard]

Does anyone else think Grigorenko to Chicago could be a possibility? 

[Hoss]

Does anyone else think Grigorenko to Chicago could be a possibility?

What would they be sending back? I don't think Bickell would be worth it. Patrick Sharp would (we'd send more), but I don't know what a Sharp acquisition does for us if he agrees to waive his no-movement clause. He'll be 34 in December. Would be gone by the time we're really ready to compete.

I don't see them moving Hjalmarsson or Seabrook, but Grigorenko could be a small piece of those deals.

[Iron Crotch]

Here is an interesting blog from "Garth" about a potential trade with Ottawa for one of their excess goaltenders...   http://www.hockeybuzz.com/blog.php?post_id=69070

 

[LabattBlue]

Here is an interesting blog from "Garth" about a potential trade with Ottawa for one of their excess goaltenders...   http://www.hockeybuzz.com/blog.php?post_id=69070

Depends on his definition of wanting a top 6 forward? Top 6 from one of the best offensive teams in the NHL, or Arizona?  Top 6 meaning better than any 6 forwards Ottawa currently has?  

 

That being said, I wouldn't give up anything close to one of the Sabres best 6 forwards for either of them, but if I was looking to acquire one of them at a lower cost, I'd go with Anderson and let him be a very good stop gap for the next two years of so.

[dudacek]

Here is an interesting blog from "Garth" about a potential trade with Ottawa for one of their excess goaltenders...   http://www.hockeybuzz.com/blog.php?post_id=69070

 

 

If Ottawa is looking for a top-six "now" forward, we're probably not a good trade partner.

Kane: not available 

Ennis: Senators would have to add in a bigger deal.

Moulson: possibly, but doesn't he have a no-trade?

 

I guess if you really stretch the boundaries of "top six" Hodgson, Foligno, Larsson, Grigorenko, Gionta might qualify, but I doubt it.

 

Then again, could Lehner or Anderson return a "real" top six player?

Edited June 4, 2015 by dudacek

[Iron Crotch]

Maybe Ottawa would take Hodgson for Lehner?   ... doubt it.  Hodgson's contract is an albatross.

[LabattBlue]

Maybe Ottawa would take Hodgson for Lehner?   ... doubt it.  Hodgson's contract is an albatross.

I am willing to give Hodgson another year.  Unless he is a really bad influence to younger players both on and off the ice, let's see if he can at least revert back to being a 45-50 point player.

[Hoss]

I am willing to give Hodgson another year. Unless he is a really bad influence to younger players both on and off the ice, let's see if he can at least revert back to being a 45-50 point player.

Revert back? He's never had 45 points in a season. One 44 point season and a few in the 30s.

 

I want Hodgson to get another shot SOMEWHERE. I'm okay if it's not here. The kid has talent, and I want the best talent playing at the highest level.

[LabattBlue]

Revert back? He's never had 45 points in a season. One 44 point season and a few in the 30s.

 

I want Hodgson to get another shot SOMEWHERE. I'm okay if it's not here. The kid has talent, and I want the best talent playing at the highest level.

So he will be REVERTING back to 12-13, right?  ;)