2016-'17 Lineup

[dudacek]

I want 100% nothing to do with Stamkos. Everything from production, to money, to his large presence in the locker room. He's just not a fit here, IMO

 

Interesting. On a team that struggles to score, you don't want to add perhaps the best scorer in the league?

I get the value for money argument when you start talking Patrick Kane money, but what if he's available for less?

Why not aim for a cup when Sam, Jack and Risto are all on their bridge or rookie deals?

 

I like where you're going conceptually, and it's something I'd be in favor of. Just don't think it's happening with Bylsma, since it didn't happen when he was in Pittsburgh and he's shown no signs of favoring that approach here. Two other things.

 

1) I never, ever, want to see Larsson on the wing again. On your proposed 3rd pair, he'd have to center with Girgensons on the wing.

 

2) Not only do I think Kane has to be the primary puck handler on his line, I think he has to be the top offensive force. Maybe I'll dig them up tomorrow to give specifics, but O'Reilly, Eichel, and Reinhart are all worse offensively when with Kane.

 

1) agreed that Larsson has been much better as a centre, but I think you also have to think about the quality of his linemates making up for that.

2) agree with what you've seen, but I'd like to see more of him with Reinhart before conceding that point.

Edited February 10, 2016 by dudacek

[Randall Flagg]

No ######, as soon as I posted that, I knew I shot myself in the foot  :lol:

 

He's a 3rd liner on this team for what we have, and unless he has a short term, the $4+m he'll get we'll be detrimental to the other contracts we need to shell out soon enough 

I want 100% nothing to do with Stamkos. Everything from production, to money, to his large presence in the locker room. He's just not a fit here, IMO

so like 0% to do with him? 

[WildCard]

Interesting. On a team that struggles to score, you don't want to add perhaps the best scorer in the league?

I get the value for money argument when you start talking Patrick Kane money, but what if he's available for less?

Why not aim for a cup when Sam, Jack and Risto are all on their bridge or rookie deals?

I don't think Stamkos gets us to a Cup, in all honesty. I think we could possibly make a Cup before the ELC's end on Reinhart and Jack, but not with Stamkos. ROR is our leader and our Captain, and Jack and Samson are our future, not Stamkos. Bringing him in is just such a huge message and to me it reads "This is now Stamkos' team" It just wouldn't work, even if we got him for cheap. To me, getting Stamkos would need to be something so absurd I couldn't possibly deny it 

so like 0% to do with him? 

Well, I guess 5%, if he came here at 3X5 or so. 

Edited February 10, 2016 by WildCard

[Randall Flagg]

I don't think Stamkos gets us to a Cup, in all honesty. I think we could possibly make a Cup before the ELC's end on Reinhart and Jack, but not with Stamkos. ROR is our leader and our Captain, and Jack and Samson are our future, not Stamkos. Bringing him in is just such a huge message and to me it reads "This is now Stamkos' team" It just wouldn't work, even if we got him for cheap. To me, getting Stamkos would need to be something so absurd I couldn't possibly deny it 

Well, I guess 5%, if he came here at 3X5 or so. 

I don't want Stamkos for what he'll get, but I definitely can't say that I wouldn't have an erection for the entire 3 years if we got him here 3X5.

[TrueBlueGED]

Interesting. On a team that struggles to score, you don't want to add perhaps the best scorer in the league?

I get the value for money argument when you start talking Patrick Kane money, but what if he's available for less?

Why not aim for a cup when Sam, Jack and Risto are all on their bridge or rookie deals?

 

 

1) agreed that Larsson has been much better as a centre, but I think you also have to think about the quality of his linemates making up for that.

2) agree with what you've seen, but I'd like to see more of him with Reinhart before conceding that point.

Totally fair points.

 

On Stamkos, I've made my case before, but I'll directly address what you said here. On the money, if he were available for less than Kane money I don't see why Tampa would allegedly balk at that price. If he could be had for Tarasenko money I'm listening, I just can't get my head to a spot where that's the case.

 

As to why I wouldn't gun for a cup when our young stars are cost controlled, I have two reasons:

 

1) That's only for two more years. I worry that a Stamkos contract cripples our ability to build a complete roster long term because of the lack of back diving contracts, and slowing cap growth. I know not everyone feels this way, but I want a roster structured to compete for 12 years, not one that goes for broke then has to spend 3 years retooling, or worse, stagnates completely a la Pittsburgh.

 

2) I don't think we're a Stamkos away from winning. Defense and wings have to be addressed in a real way, and unless we can miraculously shed Moulson, Gionta and Gorges this offseason, I don't see how we fit a Stamkos contract and address those other areas AND extend Risto (bridging him would be a colossal blunder IMO). Now, you could certainly argue to get the 40 goal scorer and worry about the rest later without being called crazy. I just fall on the other side of that fence.

[WildCard]

I don't want Stamkos for what he'll get, but I definitely can't say that I wouldn't have an erection for the entire 3 years if we got him here 3X5.

Collections of random talents never work, no matter how good they look on paper. It happens in every sport. The reason the Pats win every year is because they know how to get guys to fit their system and model. Stamkos just doesn't fit here. 

[dudacek]

I don't think Stamkos gets us to a Cup, in all honesty. I think we could possibly make a Cup before the ELC's end on Reinhart and Jack, but not with Stamkos. ROR is our leader and our Captain, and Jack and Samson are our future, not Stamkos. Bringing him in is just such a huge message and to me it reads "This is now Stamkos' team" It just wouldn't work, even if we got him for cheap. To me, getting Stamkos would need to be something so absurd I couldn't possibly deny it 

 

This is all relevant. You'd need a very good handle on Stamkos' personality for sure.

 

 

Totally fair points.

 

On Stamkos, I've made my case before, but I'll directly address what you said here. On the money, if he were available for less than Kane money I don't see why Tampa would allegedly balk at that price. If he could be had for Tarasenko money I'm listening, I just can't get my head to a spot where that's the case.

 

As to why I wouldn't gun for a cup when our young stars are cost controlled, I have two reasons:

 

1) That's only for two more years. I worry that a Stamkos contract cripples our ability to build a complete roster long term because of the lack of back diving contracts, and slowing cap growth. I know not everyone feels this way, but I want a roster structured to compete for 12 years, not one that goes for broke then has to spend 3 years retooling, or worse, stagnates completely a la Pittsburgh.

 

2) I don't think we're a Stamkos away from winning. Defense and wings have to be addressed in a real way, and unless we can miraculously shed Moulson, Gionta and Gorges this offseason, I don't see how we fit a Stamkos contract and address those other areas AND extend Risto (bridging him would be a colossal blunder IMO). Now, you could certainly argue to get the 40 goal scorer and worry about the rest later without being called crazy. I just fall on the other side of that fence.

 

Great stuff. Let's assume Stamkos can be had for seven years, $70 million.

 

1) We nearly have room under the cap for this right now.

Assuming no-trades for ROR and Stamkos, in two years we will likely have to make a call on trading one of Samson, Jack or Kane.

The futures from that deal could hold off stagnation.

 

2) We'd need another D-Man, but don't minimize the addition of 40 goals.

Would you rather have McGinn, Moulson and Ennis for the next three years, or Stamkos, Fasching and low-wage UFA?

Cost is similar and you still have money left to pay Risto and exchange Gorges's cap hit for a better UFA or trade option.

Edited February 10, 2016 by dudacek

[thesportsbuff]

Collections of random talents never work, no matter how good they look on paper. It happens in every sport. The reason the Pats win every year is because they know how to get guys to fit their system and model. Stamkos just doesn't fit here. 

in my opinion, every sports team on the planet is little more than a random collection of talent.

 

i see your point about the Patriots, but that's football. Asking a hockey player to play a different forecheck, or backcheck a little more than they are used to is not the same as asking a linebacker to become a defensive end or vice versa. the patriots also have the best quarterback probably of all time, in a sport that revolves around that position. Give the Patriots Brandon Weeden and see if they are still a model of consistency. But back on topic...

 

For the record, I believe there is no way the Sabres even attempt to go after Stamkos, and I won't be disappointed when he signs elsewhere or re-signs in Tampa. But if the Sabres do manage to sign him, I'd be pretty pumped. I don't see anything wrong with adding an elite goal scorer to your hockey team, and while I agree with others about making sure not to jeopardize our ability to re-sign our home-grown stars down the road, i think TM and co. are pretty smart people and probably wouldn't make the move unless they were pretty damn confident they'd be able to keep our own.

 

i'm curious what makes you think Stamkos isn't a fit here? (other than his salary)

Edited February 10, 2016 by thesportsbuff

[WildCard]

in my opinion, every sports team on the planet is little more than a random collection of talent.

 

i see your point about the Patriots, but that's football. Asking a hockey player to play a different forecheck, or backcheck a little more than they are used to is not the same as asking a linebacker to become a defensive end or vice versa. the patriots also have the best quarterback probably of all time, in a sport that revolves around that position. Give the Patriots Brandon Weeden and see if they are still a model of consistency. But back on topic...

 

For the record, I believe there is no way the Sabres even attempt to go after Stamkos, and I won't be disappointed when he signs elsewhere or re-signs in Tampa. But if the Sabres do manage to sign him, I'd be pretty pumped. I don't see anything wrong with adding an elite goal scorer to your hockey team, and while I agree with others about making sure not to jeopardize our ability to re-sign our home-grown stars down the road, i think TM and co. are pretty smart people and probably wouldn't make the move unless they were pretty damn confident they'd be able to keep our own.

 

i'm curious what makes you think Stamkos isn't a fit here?

Great QB's surrounded by the wrong teammates won't do anything. There are a million examples of these guys. They'll have enough talent to make the playoffs, and make some noise, but that's it. The same can be said for baseball (Yankees for a long time, Sox last year), and even hockey, in Pittsburgh and perhaps to a lesser extent the Leafs with Kessel and company. I'm sure there are other examples other posters can think of too. In every sport, a team is only as good as how good the players play with one another. It's the reason the Kings and Blackhawks dominate, and Kane can't play with Jack.

 

The bottom line for Stamkos for me, is that he is a Captain, and for nearly his entire career he's been the face of that franchise. He was their #1 overall, their next savior, and he delivered. He's the man in that locker room, and easily the most important player to that organization. He's not going to just come here and step out of that role, a role I believe firmly belongs to ROR mostly and Jack and Reinhart eventually. Forget the money (which I really, really don't think we can do) or anything else, he just doesn't fit here. He wouldn't fit in Chicago, Dallas, or a ton of other places that already have their franchise faces. If he leaves, he needs to go to a city where there is that void, and he can just step right in. Toronto, Columbus, hell, maybe even Montreal. 

[thesportsbuff]

Great QB's surrounded by the wrong teammates won't do anything. There are a million examples of these guys. They'll have enough talent to make the playoffs, and make some noise, but that's it. The same can be said for baseball (Yankees for a long time, Sox last year), and even hockey, in Pittsburgh and perhaps to a lesser extent the Leafs with Kessel and company. I'm sure there are other examples other posters can think of too. In every sport, a team is only as good as how good the players play with one another. It's the reason the Kings and Blackhawks dominate, and Kane can't play with Jack.

 

The bottom line for Stamkos for me, is that he is a Captain, and for nearly his entire career he's been the face of that franchise. He was their #1 overall, their next savior, and he delivered. He's the man in that locker room, and easily the most important player to that organization. He's not going to just come here and step out of that role, a role I believe firmly belongs to ROR mostly and Jack and Reinhart eventually. Forget the money (which I really, really don't think we can do) or anything else, he just doesn't fit here. He wouldn't fit in Chicago, Dallas, or a ton of other places that already have their franchise faces. If he leaves, he needs to go to a city where there is that void, and he can just step right in. Toronto, Columbus, hell, maybe even Montreal. 

 

Well, I agree he doesn't "fit" in the sense that we already have our future face of the franchise, and that there's not enough ice time to go around for three #1 centers -- which is why I don't expect the Sabres to be heavily involved in any Stamkos talks.

 

I guess I interpreted your post as saying he wouldn't fit into the team's system or locker room dynamic, which is probably my bad. If that were the case, I would say that he's an elite professional athlete and will probably adapt to whatever "system" he is played in. I realize it's not as black and white as saying "we need more goals and this guy scores goals so it's a perfect match" but a good coach (whether that's Dan or someone else) would find a way to make it work. And with his resume of leadership that you referred to, I don't think we'd really have to worry about anything in the locker room.

 

Now, on-ice chemistry is a different story. I can't deny that some players just don't work well together (although personally I have no problem with Kane/Eichel together). But you'll never know until you try, I guess. You could say that about any player. 

 

But it's basically a moot point anyway since the chances of Stamkos even meeting with TM are probably pretty slim for the reasons you/i/everyone in the thread mentioned above. 

[SwampD]

There's just no place for a 40 goal scorer on the Sabres.

 

 

 

 

 

:wallbash:

[nfreeman]

FWIW, I think Stamkos would only come to the Sabres if they offer the most cash.  If he wants to win, he'll stay in TB, and if he wants to go home, he'll go to Toronto -- which will almost certainly offer the most cash anyway. 

 

And while I would love to add Stamkos, I'm not interested if it means they have to unload Kane, ROR or Reinhart for cap reasons (Eichel is of course inconceivable).  And no one is going to take Moulson.

 

However, I'm not sure that one of those guys would need to be unloaded.  The Canadian dollar will probably rebound at some point in the next couple of years, which will increase the cap again.

[Hoss]

I wouldn't be worried about losing Kane or Reinhart if it meant we had Stamkos. He's a better player than the two will ever be combined, and I'm confident in saying so. But I also don't think it means we'll absolutely have to move either anytime soon. Sacrifices would obviously have to be made.

 

I would also bet it wouldn't be hard to sell Stamkos on the idea that signing with Buffalo would mean signing with a winner who would be able to attractive defensive pieces to set him and the rest of the team up for a good 7-8 years of winning.

[WildCard]

There's just no place for a 40 goal scorer on the Sabres.

 

 

 

 

 

:wallbash:

You want to go get Vanek?

[MattPie]

I wouldn't be worried about losing Kane or Reinhart if it meant we had Stamkos. He's a better player than the two will ever be combined, and I'm confident in saying so. But I also don't think it means we'll absolutely have to move either anytime soon. Sacrifices would obviously have to be made.

 

I would also bet it wouldn't be hard to sell Stamkos on the idea that signing with Buffalo would mean signing with a winner who would be able to attractive defensive pieces to set him and the rest of the team up for a good 7-8 years of winning.

 

Kane: Absolutely. Reinhart: maybe. Stamkos is better than Samson now for sure, I'm not sure if that'll be true in 5 years.

[thesportsbuff]

I wouldn't be worried about losing Kane or Reinhart if it meant we had Stamkos. He's a better player than the two will ever be combined, and I'm confident in saying so. But I also don't think it means we'll absolutely have to move either anytime soon. Sacrifices would obviously have to be made.

 

I would also bet it wouldn't be hard to sell Stamkos on the idea that signing with Buffalo would mean signing with a winner who would be able to attractive defensive pieces to set him and the rest of the team up for a good 7-8 years of winning.

 

I would disagree on Sam for now, because you never know. He made tremendous strides in the past year or two and some nights looks like more of a NHL player than Eichel. He'll never be the goal scorer that Stamkos is, but he could dominate in other ways.

 

Crazy (stupid) idea from bizarro world: Offer Stamkos the league maximum salary (which I believe is 14.2 mil?) for three years, and remind him that Toronto still has a season or two of 'suffering' left before they'll really be rebuilding in earnest. 

 

- Risky move for Stamkos to sign short term, especially considering he's already had a major injury that could have derailed his career. But he'd basically be getting paid four years worth of salary for only three seasons, and then can negotiate a long term deal with the Leafs -- maybe even giving them a hometown discount to sign other weapons.

 

- Sabres use up a ton of cap for the next three years, but it wouldn't be the end of the world and probably wouldn't force any major roster moves. Maybe we lose Ennis, or Kane eventually.

 

- Stamkos comes off the books after 2018-19, the same time that Moulson and potentially Ennis do. I would expect Ennis to have been traded by this point, but if not, that's 20+ mil of salary coming off the books on July 1st. No point in looking ahead to potential 2019 UFAs  :P , but the Sabres could be big players.

[MattPie]

I would disagree on Sam for now, because you never know. He made tremendous strides in the past year or two and some nights looks like more of a NHL player than Eichel. He'll never be the goal scorer that Stamkos is, but he could dominate in other ways.

 

Crazy (stupid) idea from bizarro world: Offer Stamkos the league maximum salary (which I believe is 14.2 mil?) for three years, and remind him that Toronto still has a season or two of 'suffering' left before they'll really be rebuilding in earnest. 

 

- Risky move for Stamkos to sign short term, especially considering he's already had a major injury that could have derailed his career. But he'd basically be getting paid four years worth of salary for only three seasons, and then can negotiate a long term deal with the Leafs -- maybe even giving them a hometown discount to sign other weapons.

 

- Sabres use up a ton of cap for the next three years, but it wouldn't be the end of the world and probably wouldn't force any major roster moves. Maybe we lose Ennis, or Kane eventually.

 

- Stamkos comes off the books after 2018-19, the same time that Moulson and potentially Ennis do. I would expect Ennis to have been traded by this point, but if not, that's 20+ mil of salary coming off the books on July 1st. No point in looking ahead to potential 2019 UFAs  :P , but the Sabres could be big players.

 

Interesting idea. You mention the downside for Stamkos. What's the upside for the Sabres? Best I can tell, they'll (probably) be better for the next few years. But what happens when Stamkos leaves a big hole in the line-up in 2019?

[nfreeman]

You want to go get Vanek?

 

Vanek was healthy-scratched the other night due to general suckitude.

 

I would disagree on Sam for now, because you never know. He made tremendous strides in the past year or two and some nights looks like more of a NHL player than Eichel. He'll never be the goal scorer that Stamkos is, but he could dominate in other ways.

 

Crazy (stupid) idea from bizarro world: Offer Stamkos the league maximum salary (which I believe is 14.2 mil?) for three years, and remind him that Toronto still has a season or two of 'suffering' left before they'll really be rebuilding in earnest. 

 

- Risky move for Stamkos to sign short term, especially considering he's already had a major injury that could have derailed his career. But he'd basically be getting paid four years worth of salary for only three seasons, and then can negotiate a long term deal with the Leafs -- maybe even giving them a hometown discount to sign other weapons.

 

- Sabres use up a ton of cap for the next three years, but it wouldn't be the end of the world and probably wouldn't force any major roster moves. Maybe we lose Ennis, or Kane eventually.

 

- Stamkos comes off the books after 2018-19, the same time that Moulson and potentially Ennis do. I would expect Ennis to have been traded by this point, but if not, that's 20+ mil of salary coming off the books on July 1st. No point in looking ahead to potential 2019 UFAs  :P , but the Sabres could be big players.

 

There is zero possibility of Stamkos taking $40MM guaranteed when he can get $80MM guaranteed.

[thesportsbuff]

Interesting idea. You mention the downside for Stamkos. What's the upside for the Sabres? Best I can tell, they'll (probably) be better for the next few years. But what happens when Stamkos leaves a big hole in the line-up in 2019?

 

Well, of course any time a player like Stamkos exits it's going to leave a hole, but I guess the hope would be that Eichel and Reinhart (and whoever we draft this year) are in their prime and close to if not already elite players by that point. Also if there's any money left over after giving everyone their proper extensions, you could shop the FA market to plug a few holes.

[jsb]

To me you find a fit for a talent like Stamkos but having said that, I don't think there is any way he comes here. If he leaves Tampa Bay, there will be a bidding war for his services with at least the leaves and I don't think we have the allure or the available cash to overpay what Toronto would be willing to do especially after they rid themselves of Fanoff.

 

I would prefer they do a 2 player UFA deal for a 1st pairing offensive LHD (Goligoski or Yandle) and a speedy productive winger like Boedeker. Maybe make a deal for Fowler, hit on a top 3 draft choice and we're viable again.

Yandle-Risto

Fowler-Bogo

McCabe-Pysyk

 

Boedeker-ROR-Reinhart.......... Boedeker adds speed to this mix

Girgs-Eichel-Draft Pick (Laine)......... Girgs-Eichel seem to mesh sell

Kane-Larrson-Gionta/Fasching........ Hopefully the Kane Larsson partnership keeps going strong

4th liners...... Moulson-Foligno-Schaller-Desa???

That looks pretty good also........... Not far off from what others pick

That leaves Ennis/Gorges/Franson future draft pick to try and get Fowler

[Sabres Fan in NS]

Why would any Sabre fan not want a top 5 league wide talent on the roster.

 

I don't think Stamkos will want to come here, but you never know for sure.  He will likely end up being offered the league max by Toronto, either that or want to stay in Tampa and try to finish what they are building towards ... almost made it last year.

 

If I am the Sabres and I want Stamkos I go real big for him ... 8 years 80 million and have him as the offensive cornerstone of the franchise, with ROR the future captain.

Edited February 10, 2016 by Sabres Fan In NS

[WildCard]

I can't be the only one that doesn't want Stamkos, right?

[thesportsbuff]

There is zero possibility of Stamkos taking $40MM guaranteed when he can get $80MM guaranteed.

 

I mean yeah, most likely. As in, 99,9999% likely. Lol. But it's fun to think about.

 

You have to at least consider that it depends what he's looking for. I mean if he wants to win a cup, he'll probably just stay in Tampa unless there's really a beyond-the-point-of-no-return disconnect with the coaches. But if he leaves there and still wants to win, a team with lots of cheap talented youngsters would probably be ideal, right? (Of course Buffalo isn't the only team that fits that bill.) Another option is that he just wants to go home and play for his hometown Leafs, which we really can't do anything about. And another option is he just wants to go to the highest bidding team. The deal I proposed is kind of a perfect medium of all of those options.Yes he would be taking a HUGE financial risk, but really the numbers are on his side. How many career-ending injuries do we see per season? He could take the short term, absurdly overpriced deal and make a boatload of cash and hopefully have a chance to win in Buffalo, before taking a more realistic 9-10 mil longterm deal in his home town. It wouldn't be "guaranteed" until 3 years down the line but he'd end up with more in the long run.

 

Ok, I have to get back to work so I'll stop my fairy tale novel here :) 

[SwampD]

You want to go get Vanek?

Vanek at a similar point in his career, absolutely. Heck, Vanek probably makes this team better right now, although, I really enjoyed watching McCabe on Jack's wing. :blink:

[spndnchz]

Vanek at a similar point in his career, absolutely. Heck, Vanek probably makes this team better right now, although, I really enjoyed watching McCabe on Jack's wing. :blink:

 

When Bylsma was asked how he thought the 7th Dman worked last night he basically said "yeah, I'm never doing that again".