That Aud Smell Posted January 13, 2016 Report Share Posted January 13, 2016 (edited) As for Ennis, he should be involved in a hockey trade which are few and far between at deadline time. Good point. Well, GMTM gave Ennis an extension, so I don't think he view Ennis as a weak-kneed Darcy remnant. And given Ennis' poor season, his value is probably pretty low, so I tend to doubt that he'll be moved. But anything is possible. Fair. But perhaps he signed him to a manageable deal with the idea (or at least the option) that he'd be made more valuable in a deal that way. Also, and I know we kick this around from time to time, but: Why do we need national reporters to pass along these kinds of quotes from GM TM? Or do I miss them when they appear in the local MSM? Edited January 13, 2016 by That Aud Smell Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Eleven Posted January 13, 2016 Report Share Posted January 13, 2016 Good point. Fair. But perhaps he signed him to a manageable deal with the idea (or at least the option) that he'd be made more valuable in a deal that way. Also, and I know we kick this around from time to time, but: Why do we need national reporters to pass along these kinds of quotes from GM TM? Or do I miss them when they appear in the local MSM? Here you go: http://sabres.buffalonews.com/2016/01/13/43076/ Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Weave Posted January 13, 2016 Report Share Posted January 13, 2016 I don't want a 1st for Mcginn. A first from a playoff team is a 50/50 shot to be an NHL'er 2-4 yrs down the road. I'd rather resign McGinn and have him for the next 3 years. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rasmus_ Posted January 13, 2016 Report Share Posted January 13, 2016 Ennis, Reinhart, and Gorgeous Gorges for Barrie and Rantanen. I would love that trade, but that's not nearly enough for Barrie/Rantanen... maybe Barrie and a guy like Comeau or Skille or we can get Compher back, or... I JUST WANT TYSON BARRIE DAMMIT! No thanks. I don't want to part with Reinhart. And if you think giving up Reinhart with two other useful players for Barrie and Comeau/Skille who was picked up off the dumpster pile, you're nuts. Barrie is a top notch defensemen, but this makes 0 sense. I don't want a 1st for Mcginn. A first from a playoff team is a 50/50 shot to be an NHL'er 2-4 yrs down the road. I'd rather resign McGinn and have him for the next 3 years. Or you do what you did with Moulson and trade him for value, and bring him back. Keep the lines of communication open and he could easily return. He's been given new life here. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MattPie Posted January 13, 2016 Report Share Posted January 13, 2016 (edited) But I think the $2.5MM would count against the Sabres' cap, innit? So the cap hit would be pretty close to what they'd get from a buyout? I continue to think a Moulson buyout is highly likely this summer. I'm fairly sure the buyout would last longer. If traded, he'd cost the Sabres $2.5M for three seasons after this. From this, it looks like buying out would cost the Sabres more years and more cap hit than trade retaining 50%. The cost is either 1/3 or 2/3 of the remaining salary, averaged out over twice as many years that were left on the contract. This is determined by the age of the player at the time of the buyout - if they are under 26, they get 1/3, if they are 26 or older they get 2/3. It is worth mentioning that any salary slide on the remaining years goes out the window. If a 26+ player has a year at $4.2m and a year at $3.6m left, they don't get $1.4m, $1.4m, $1.2m, $1.2m - they get $1.3m in each of the 4 years. http://www.silversevensens.com/2015/6/10/8737195/nhl-buyout-rules-refresher-guide EDIT: Oops, that's the cost (as in paycheck). The cap hit is different, but difficult to explain. There's an example in the linked article. It sounds like he'd be on the book for 6 years with a cap hit of $1.8M for years 4-6. No thanks, we need to worry about Ristolainen, Eichel, Reinhart, etc. by then. Edited January 13, 2016 by MattPie Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Weave Posted January 13, 2016 Report Share Posted January 13, 2016 No thanks. I don't want to part with Reinhart. And if you think giving up Reinhart with two other useful players for Barrie and Comeau/Skille who was picked up off the dumpster pile, you're ###### nuts. Barrie is a top notch defensemen, but this makes 0 sense. Or you do what you did with Moulson and trade him for value, and bring him back. Keep the lines of communication open and he could easily return. He's been given new life here. That assumes he comes back of course. I'm not willing to assume that. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
That Aud Smell Posted January 13, 2016 Report Share Posted January 13, 2016 Here you go: http://sabres.buffalonews.com/2016/01/13/43076/ Thanks. Vogl is quoting the ESPN article, though. :blink: Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
darksabre Posted January 13, 2016 Report Share Posted January 13, 2016 I don't want a 1st for Mcginn. A first from a playoff team is a 50/50 shot to be an NHL'er 2-4 yrs down the road. I'd rather resign McGinn and have him for the next 3 years. Agreed. This was the line of thought I was getting at. I understand trying to get value for guys, but it has to be at the right time and it has to be the right guys. McGinn has proven himself quite valuable to this young team. This is a different scenario than the typical "cagey vet rental". Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TrueBlueGED Posted January 13, 2016 Report Share Posted January 13, 2016 I just think McGinn is getting overrated. He's a nice enough player for what he is, but at the end of the day he's a ~35 point player who doesn't bring much of any value defensively and doesn't drive possession. Guys like him are replaceable. If I can get a 1st for him I do it...not because I want another pick in the mid-20s, but because I want an additional asset to include in a trade for a top-4 LHD. I'm fairly sure the buyout would last longer. If traded, he'd cost the Sabres $2.5M for three seasons after this. From this, it looks like buying out would cost the Sabres more years and more cap hit than trade retaining 50%. http://www.silversevensens.com/2015/6/10/8737195/nhl-buyout-rules-refresher-guide EDIT: Oops, that's the cost (as in paycheck). The cap hit is different, but difficult to explain. There's an example in the linked article. It sounds like he'd be on the book for 6 years with a cap hit of $1.8M for years 4-6. No thanks, we need to worry about Ristolainen, Eichel, Reinhart, etc. by then. Exactly. Getting him off the books 3 years sooner with a little larger cap hit is by far the superior solution. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Weave Posted January 13, 2016 Report Share Posted January 13, 2016 I just think McGinn is getting overrated. He's a nice enough player for what he is, but at the end of the day he's a ~35 point player who doesn't bring much of any value defensively and doesn't drive possession. Guys like him are replaceable. If I can get a 1st for him I do it...not because I want another pick in the mid-20s, but because I want an additional asset to include in a trade for a top-4 LHD. Exactly. Getting him off the books 3 years sooner with a little larger cap hit is by far the superior solution. If 35 pt wingers are so replaceable why do we only have 2? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rasmus_ Posted January 13, 2016 Report Share Posted January 13, 2016 I just think McGinn is getting overrated. He's a nice enough player for what he is, but at the end of the day he's a ~35 point player who doesn't bring much of any value defensively and doesn't drive possession. Guys like him are replaceable. If I can get a 1st for him I do it...not because I want another pick in the mid-20s, but because I want an additional asset to include in a trade for a top-4 LHD. Exactly. Getting him off the books 3 years sooner with a little larger cap hit is by far the superior solution. Exactly, he's a nice piece to have at the deadline, he'll be cheap enough for a lot of teams to fit in, and even if you cover 30%, you're going to get something valuable. Murray can be frank with him just like he was with Moulson and McCormick. It's not impossible or improbable that he wouldn't come back. We're talking about a guy fitting in the top six that is really a lower six player. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TrueBlueGED Posted January 13, 2016 Report Share Posted January 13, 2016 If 35 pt wingers are so replaceable why do we only have 2? Because we just spent two years trying to lose and Moulson's body decided it wanted to retire early. In my view McGinn is a lesser version of Stafford. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Weave Posted January 13, 2016 Report Share Posted January 13, 2016 Because we just spent two years trying to lose and Moulson's body decided it wanted to retire early. In my view McGinn is a lesser version of Stafford. He fits in well with our personnel. I see no reason to mess with that. We're on different wavelengths here. I've been yelling no more picks for two + seasons now. I've had enough of it. We have a good mix. I don't want subtractions from it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
darksabre Posted January 13, 2016 Report Share Posted January 13, 2016 He fits in well with our personnel. I see no reason to mess with that. We're on different wavelengths here. I've been yelling no more picks for two + seasons now. I've had enough of it. We have a good mix. I don't want subtractions from it. Yup. Blue, you can argue that McGinn is overvalued all you want, but this team is noticeably better with him on the ice. I think that's valuable. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Iron Crotch Posted January 13, 2016 Report Share Posted January 13, 2016 At the bottom of Garth's blog he notes which guys are likely to be on the block and which are likely to stay: http://www.hockeybuzz.com/blog/GARTHS-CORNER/Murrency/6/73974 McGinn is on the "stay" list. I'm fine with everyone on the "go" list other than I'm one of the few on here who still likes Ennis when healthy. I think he has puck skills that are useful on the power play. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TrueBlueGED Posted January 13, 2016 Report Share Posted January 13, 2016 Yup. Blue, you can argue that McGinn is overvalued all you want, but this team is noticeably better with him on the ice. I think that's valuable. I don't want to trade him for the sake of it, but rather, to help address what I consider to be a more important need. I also feel that players of McGinn's caliber are the ones who routinely get overpaid by a fair margin, and I have no interest in doing that. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Eleven Posted January 13, 2016 Report Share Posted January 13, 2016 Thanks. Vogl is quoting the ESPN article, though. :blink: Oops. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
darksabre Posted January 13, 2016 Report Share Posted January 13, 2016 I don't want to trade him for the sake of it, but rather, to help address what I consider to be a more important need. I also feel that players of McGinn's caliber are the ones who routinely get overpaid by a fair margin, and I have no interest in doing that. I'm not advocating over-payment, but I don't want to open up an area of need at the expense of trying to close another. McGinn is a glue guy. We can fix our defense with him, but at what cost to the team in other vital areas? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WildCard Posted January 13, 2016 Report Share Posted January 13, 2016 Because we just spent two years trying to lose and Moulson's body decided it wanted to retire early. In my view McGinn is a lesser version of Stafford. Sorry True, but there is no way that comparison is accurate. I understand that he may be a little overrated on here, but you can't deny how much better he's played then anyone anticipated. He certainly has a future here as a 3rd line winger, and I don't think GMTM will overpay on him. My worry with moving him at the deadline is locker room chemistry, and that's not something I usually concern myself with at all. He provides a great example, works well with ROR (and is his best friend), and is another young but veteran presence in that room. I really, really don't want to become Edmonton. If McGinn wants to resign, resign him. If he's absolutely unwilling, move him. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TrueBlueGED Posted January 13, 2016 Report Share Posted January 13, 2016 Sorry True, but there is no way that comparison is accurate. I understand that he may be a little overrated on here, but you can't deny how much better he's played then anyone anticipated. He certainly has a future here as a 3rd line winger, and I don't think GMTM will overpay on him. My worry with moving him at the deadline is locker room chemistry, and that's not something I usually concern myself with at all. He provides a great example, works well with ROR (and is his best friend), and is another young but veteran presence in that room. I really, really don't want to become Edmonton. If McGinn wants to resign, resign him. If he's absolutely unwilling, move him. Why is the comparison invalid? Stafford has better offensive numbers and isn't any worse defensively. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
thewookie1 Posted January 13, 2016 Report Share Posted January 13, 2016 If O'Reilly and McGinn are good friends just tell ROR to get him to return. If he fetches me a 1st or a couple seconds I'd have to take it as long as it's a playoff team. You can take that currency to acquire that D prospect or winger prospect (varies what we draft) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WildCard Posted January 13, 2016 Report Share Posted January 13, 2016 Why is the comparison invalid? Stafford has better offensive numbers and isn't any worse defensively. Because Stafford takes every other shift off and McGinn doesn't Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
darksabre Posted January 13, 2016 Report Share Posted January 13, 2016 Why is the comparison invalid? Stafford has better offensive numbers and isn't any worse defensively. I'm just going to say it. Intangibles. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
beerme1 Posted January 13, 2016 Report Share Posted January 13, 2016 Moulson, Ennis for Phanuef. Help me help you. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WildCard Posted January 13, 2016 Report Share Posted January 13, 2016 Moulson, Ennis for Phanuef. Help me help you. Fack no. Sorry, I want nothing to do with Phanuef Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
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.