FLYNNSanity Posted April 26, 2015 Report Posted April 26, 2015 I like Ramo but I doubt hes leaving Calgary. Quote
mjd1001 Posted April 26, 2015 Report Posted April 26, 2015 I'd say Neuvirth or Lindback as the starter. Chad Johnson as the backup. Why? This team is going through a lot of changes. That fine, but you aren't winning the cup next year (I really don't think so) so play with a goalie who was well liked by his teamates. From what we have heard from the media, both Neuvirth and Lindback were well liked by their teammates. If after a year of them, they aren't good enough make another decision. Quote
nfreeman Posted April 26, 2015 Report Posted April 26, 2015 I expect TM to bring in 2 new goalies. Quote
Eleven Posted April 27, 2015 Report Posted April 27, 2015 No, Taro's right. I didn't include backups on the list. Completely missed Tim Thomas. No, for once, ONCE, he's wrong! He's never wrong except NOW. The Leaves traded Rask for Raycroft. I remember this like it was yesterday. Check me if I'm wrong. I expect TM to bring in 2 new goalies. So do I. Quote
Hoss Posted April 27, 2015 Report Posted April 27, 2015 No, for once, ONCE, he's wrong! He's never wrong except NOW. The Leaves traded Rask for Raycroft. I ###### remember this like it was yesterday. Check me if I'm wrong. No, you're right. But that wasn't Taro's point. Rask was a backup. His point wasn't that he was always a Bruin. Quote
Weave Posted April 27, 2015 Report Posted April 27, 2015 No, you're right. That one always gets me. Quote
Taro T Posted April 27, 2015 Report Posted April 27, 2015 But he was a Leaf before that. True, but what one of these things is not like the others? Hasek Giguere Rask Khabibulin Roy (Hint: though they ALL have been Stanley Cup champs after being TRADED, ONE hasn't been a starter in the Finals on a Stanley Cup winning team.) Quote
Hoss Posted April 27, 2015 Report Posted April 27, 2015 No, you're right. That one always gets me. Are you familiar with the French term "si." It's a "no, yes" kinda thing. Quote
Weave Posted April 27, 2015 Report Posted April 27, 2015 Are you familiar with the French term "si." It's a "no, yes" kinda thing. Ahhhh, you were speaking french. Quote
Hoss Posted April 29, 2015 Report Posted April 29, 2015 I think New York pursuing O'Connor so strongly makes it pretty clear they're planning to cash in on Talbot's streak. I'm definitely interested. He would be the immediate starter. He's only signed for one more year under $2M so he doesn't take away any flexibility. If we could acquire him using 31 and a mid-level prospect like Carrier then I would do it. The Rangers do not have a first this year, so 31 would be appealing to get them right at the front of the second. Wouldn't be hard to trade up from there if they want into the first. I'm not trading a first for a guy that's only locked up for one year and would be relying on one stretch of games. Quote
sabresith Posted April 29, 2015 Report Posted April 29, 2015 I think New York pursuing O'Connor so strongly makes it pretty clear they're planning to cash in on Talbot's streak. I'm definitely interested. He would be the immediate starter. He's only signed for one more year under $2M so he doesn't take away any flexibility. If we could acquire him using 31 and a mid-level prospect like Carrier then I would do it. The Rangers do not have a first this year, so 31 would be appealing to get them right at the front of the second. Wouldn't be hard to trade up from there if they want into the first. I'm not trading a first for a guy that's only locked up for one year and would be relying on one stretch of games. Hockey Central guys commented on this today and they made it seem like just a second would get this done. So I say drop Carrier and offer the 48 or whatever it's going to be pick. If it does take the 31 pick then I'm fine with that. Quote
WildCard Posted April 29, 2015 Report Posted April 29, 2015 I think New York pursuing O'Connor so strongly makes it pretty clear they're planning to cash in on Talbot's streak. I'm definitely interested. He would be the immediate starter. He's only signed for one more year under $2M so he doesn't take away any flexibility. If we could acquire him using 31 and a mid-level prospect like Carrier then I would do it. The Rangers do not have a first this year, so 31 would be appealing to get them right at the front of the second. Wouldn't be hard to trade up from there if they want into the first. I'm not trading a first for a guy that's only locked up for one year and would be relying on one stretch of games. Hockey Central guys commented on this today and they made it seem like just a second would get this done. So I say drop Carrier and offer the 48 or whatever it's going to be pick. If it does take the 31 pick then I'm fine with that. Agreed, a 1st is too pricey for me. I'll take a flier on him for a 2nd or even some package of later picks though. Quote
dudacek Posted April 30, 2015 Report Posted April 30, 2015 I think I'd be disappointed if we did 31 for Talbot, very happy if the Islanders second did it. I know, I know.... Quote
bunomatic Posted April 30, 2015 Report Posted April 30, 2015 This guy might be available. Flexibility might be an issue Quote
rickshaw Posted June 4, 2015 Report Posted June 4, 2015 Wondering what others think of possibly moving a pick to Vancouver in exchange for Eddie Lack? The kid is an amazing person, first off, and secondly he's a good young goalie who should get better. With Miller signed 2 more years and Jakob Markstrom lighting it up in the AHL, the Canucks need to move either Lack or Markstrom. I think Lack would be a good pick up for the Sabres, along with another tender who can play 25-30 games. I'd guess the Canucks would want a 2nd round pick for Lack. Thoughts? Quote
Hoss Posted June 4, 2015 Report Posted June 4, 2015 (edited) It's been discussed quite a bit here: http://forums.sabrespace.com/topic/23201-2015-2016-line-up/ and here: http://forums.sabrespace.com/topic/23299-next-years-starting-goaltender-2015-ed/ if you want more info on what some people think. I think there should be more discussion than there already is on this because it's the most interesting situation going into the offseason. Lehner is somebody most have talked about. I would rather have Lack. The rumor is they want a 2nd for Lack. I would give them 51 for Lack if they'll take it. I would even be willing to throw in somebody like Dan Catenacci or Chad Ruhwedel (that probably doesn't have an NHL future but could maybe get a shot elsewhere). Edited June 4, 2015 by Hoss Quote
dudacek Posted June 4, 2015 Report Posted June 4, 2015 I like Eddie. He's a decent goalie and seems like a very likeable human being. (It's no surprise Canuck fans like him over the angsty Mr. Miller) But for the same pick, I'd rather have Lehner, or another younger goalie with more upside. I think Eddie is at a similar level to Neuvirth and I'd rather sign Neuvirth and use 51 to pick another player. It's definitely a buyers' market on the goalie front. Lots of choices out there. Quote
LabattBlue Posted June 5, 2015 Report Posted June 5, 2015 Very surprised...just looked up Lack's stats and discovered he was born in Sweden. Eddie Lack? Not Gustav Lack or Swen Lackstrom? LOL Quote
Huckleberry Posted June 5, 2015 Report Posted June 5, 2015 I like Eddie. He's a decent goalie and seems like a very likeable human being. (It's no surprise Canuck fans like him over the angsty Mr. Miller) But for the same pick, I'd rather have Lehner, or another younger goalie with more upside. I think Eddie is at a similar level to Neuvirth and I'd rather sign Neuvirth and use 51 to pick another player. It's definitely a buyers' market on the goalie front. Lots of choices out there. Nah, I'd go for lack , Lehner has been out with concussions two times already. Quote
LGR4GM Posted June 5, 2015 Author Report Posted June 5, 2015 with Murray stating they are picking a goalie fairly early in this draft, I would guess they look for a 3 year stop gap type of player. Someone solid for at least this year who can be edged into the backup role if one of the kids is good. Quote
darksabre Posted June 5, 2015 Report Posted June 5, 2015 with Murray stating they are picking a goalie fairly early in this draft, I would guess they look for a 3 year stop gap type of player. Someone solid for at least this year who can be edged into the backup role if one of the kids is good. Where'd he say that? I must have missed it. Quote
Randall Flagg Posted June 5, 2015 Report Posted June 5, 2015 (edited) He said Samsonov is ranked on his list similar to where our first islander pick is, and said it is likely we take a goalie in the draft but didn't guarantee it'd be early Edited June 5, 2015 by Randall Flagg Quote
Taro T Posted June 5, 2015 Report Posted June 5, 2015 Where'd he say that? I must have missed it. In the combine thread & 1 other there was a tweet the TM would consider goalie @ 21 or 31. Quote
Lanny Posted June 5, 2015 Report Posted June 5, 2015 Where'd he say that? I must have missed it. Towards the end of today's segment on WGR http://media.wgr550.com/a/106130101/6-4-sabres-gm-tim-murray-loves-halo.htm Quote
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.