Trade: C Ryan McLeod - Oilers for Matt Savoie

[mjd1001]

3 hours ago, JustOneParade said:

I like McLeod a lot. I'll be happier seeing him get to 20 goals than I will Tage getting to 40. Would be an excellent 3C on a good playoff team.

That would be an excellent #2 center on a playoff team.  For some reason people think 20 goals is third line territory.  This was posted in another thread with links to the data, but an average 2ND line center is right around 20 goals (actually a bit less).

If you think he is good defensively (many do)...and above average defensive player with 20 goals is actually a good 2nd line center.  Maybe not the best 2nd line center in the league, but there are playoff teams that don't get that production, at least not with good defensive responsibility going with it.

Now, if someone wants to say they don't want to rely on him to get 20 goals ever year....if someone says he is a 3C because they only expected 10-15 goals out of him..then sure, he is a 3C.  But if you think you can get 20+ goals out of him with good defensive play...then you want that guy on the ice for 17+ minutes per game.  Guess what? 3rd line centers don't get 17+ minutes per game, that is what 2nd line players get.

Edited April 2 by mjd1001

[Thorner]

1 hour ago, mjd1001 said:

That would be an excellent #2 center on a playoff team.  For some reason people think 20 goals is third line territory.  This was posted in another thread with links to the data, but an average 2ND line center is right around 20 goals (actually a bit less).

If you think he is good defensively (many do)...and above average defensive player with 20 goals is actually a good 2nd line center.  Maybe not the best 2nd line center in the league, but there are playoff teams that don't get that production, at least not with good defensive responsibility going with it.

Now, if someone wants to say they don't want to rely on him to get 20 goals ever year....if someone says he is a 3C because they only expected 10-15 goals out of him..then sure, he is a 3C.  But if you think you can get 20+ goals out of him with good defensive play...then you want that guy on the ice for 17+ minutes per game.  Guess what? 3rd line centers don't get 17+ minutes per game, that is what 2nd line players get.

You mean excellent 3C on a playoff team 

He’s a perfect Sabres 2C. Squint and it’s good enough 

[ska-T Palmtown]

@mjd1001 It is overly simplistic, but on NHL.com, he ranks amongst "centers"

• 62nd in goals (his 16 EV goals is actually only one behind McJesus)
• 55th in points
• 60th in P/PG

He is a borderline 2/3 C. The caveat being that many of the 2Cs probably get decidedly more powerplay time than McL - but who knows, he might be the second coming of Cozens on the powerplay?

I would wager he is above average at the defensive aspects of the game (his +14 is 23rd), so that possibly slides him up into "solid NHL 2C" ... and given that half the league does not make the playoffs, @Thorner's point of "excellent" 3C on playoff team seems to hold water.

[Thorner]

Just now, ska-T Palmtown said:

@mjd1001 It is overly simplistic, but on NHL.com, he ranks amongst "centers"

• 62nd in goals (his 16 EV goals is actually only one behind McJesus)
• 55th in points
• 60th in P/PG

He is a borderline 2/3 C. The caveat being that many of the 2Cs probably get decidedly more powerplay time than McL - but who knows, he might be the second coming of Cozens on the powerplay?

I would wager he is above average at the defensive aspects of the game (his +14 is 23rd), so that possibly slides him up into "solid NHL 2C" ... and given that half the league does not make the playoffs, @Thorner's point of "excellent" 3C on playoff team seems to hold water.

I think he actually meant to type excellent 3C tbh 

[mjd1001]

1 hour ago, ska-T Palmtown said:

@mjd1001 It is overly simplistic, but on NHL.com, he ranks amongst "centers"

• 62nd in goals (his 16 EV goals is actually only one behind McJesus)
• 55th in points
• 60th in P/PG

He is a borderline 2/3 C. The caveat being that many of the 2Cs probably get decidedly more powerplay time than McL - but who knows, he might be the second coming of Cozens on the powerplay?

I would wager he is above average at the defensive aspects of the game (his +14 is 23rd), so that possibly slides him up into "solid NHL 2C" ... and given that half the league does not make the playoffs, @Thorner's point of "excellent" 3C on playoff team seems to hold water.

The only issue with NHL.com is that they list a lot of players as centers that aren't actively playing center.  I just took a quick look at the site, anyone who has played 35 games (half the season): 104 left wingers, 92 Right wingers, 204 listed as center.  So while all forwards should have one primary position, 33.3% as LW, 33.3% as C and 33.3% as right wing.....NHL.com has 51% of forwards that have played half the season or more listed as a center.

So its hard to break things down, but I would think his numbers among true centers would rank closer to 40th overall in goals, 36th in points, and 38th in P/GP. (to get from the NHL.com 51% of centers down to the 33.3%, you need to multiply by a factory of .65.  If you apply that factor to your points above, that is what you get).

Again, without having an accurate breakdown of players who play most of their minutes at Center, that is what the best 'math guestimate' gives us.  

Or Break it down among all forwards on NHL.com. Again, 400 total fowards have played 35 games or more.  Statistically, the 'top 100' could be 1st liners, the 2nd 100 can be 2nd liners...all the way down to 4th liners being ranked 301-400.  So in terms of production, a 2nd liner would be ranked from 101-200, and a 3rd liner ranked from201-300....

McLeod among forwards in goals ranks 126th (toward the top of 2nd line status). In points he ranks tied for 98th (at the bottom of 1st line territory/the top 25%), in G/GP tied for 116th, and P/GP tied for 105th overall.

So, this year, his production in terms of pure points and in terms of points per game puts him in 2nd line territory (2nd 25%), but on the upper end of that.

Oh, and +/- is an imperfect stat, but it does have meaning. After all, it shows how many goals you were on the ice for against vs for....if you want to use that as the most basic overview of his defensive play without going too deep into the analytics...he is tied for 41st among 400 forwards, for sure deep into the very first quarter of all forwards.

He is doing the above tied for 150th overall in ice time per game. So all of his production numbers exceed where he should rank based on his ice time.

I know just numbers, but then again....numbers!

 

Here is the bottom line. My definition of a 1st, 2nd, 3rd, and 4th liner is simply who gets used the most. My first line center gets the most minutes, 2nd line center the 2nd most, etc.

In the NHL, first liners get 18 minutes and up on average

2nd liners get 15 1/2 up to 18 minutes (Sabres 2nd line gets 16-17 minutes)

3rd liners get about 13 minutes to 15 1/2 minutes (Sabres 3rd line gets 14.5 to 15 minutes)

4th liners average under 13 minutes.

If McLeod plays the 2 way game he does, I do not want him only playing 13 to 15 1/2 minutes like a typical 3rd liner. I want him with more minutes than that...in the Sabres case their 2nd line gets 16-17 minutes...That is the number of minutes I want him playing.

If you want to bring in someone who puts up more points and 'call that person the 2nd center, and call McLeod the 3rd center', fine. But to me if McLeod plays 16+ minutes per game, to ME that is a 2C.

 

So here is the question I'd like others to answer (no sarcasm at all I'm really curious):

If a 1C on this team gets about 18-19 minutes per game...

and a 2C on the Sabres gets 16-17 minutes

and a 3C gets about 14.5 minutes

and a 4C gets a lot less.......

Who are your 4 primary centers next year...and how do you position them in terms of ice time? Maybe you go 1C=18m, 2C=17m, 3C=16m and 4C=9? No way you could keep things to plan over whole season. In that case I don't think you have a !c, 2C, and 3C..you simply have an interchangeable top 3Cs.

Edited April 2 by mjd1001

[Porous Five Hole]

I appreciate the minutes analysis by @mjd1001 above. My take isn’t about his minutes in 2024-25 because I think that will evolve with Tage & Norris over time.
 

I watched McLeod in Edmonton.  His rise is tough to quantify.  I am glad he did more for Buffalo than skate 100mph into the corner with the puck, cuz that’s what it looked like for the Oilers. He always had the upside but never showed it. 
 

Maybe he figured it out at age 26 and we can plan on this (20G, great defensively) as a baseline for future years, but I would not sign him for longer than two years because I need to see more before I hand out a 4-6 year deal. I’m hopeful, but cautious on this player.  
 

Good trade, but let’s not hand out a long term deal because he wants to “be here.” If he needs a one year deal because he’s a UFA in twelve months, I’m rolling the dice with a RFA bridge verses a long term deal. 

[Big Guava]

13 hours ago, JustOneParade said:

I like McLeod a lot. I'll be happier seeing him get to 20 goals than I will Tage getting to 40. Would be an excellent 3C on a good playoff team.

[Porous Five Hole]

5 minutes ago, Big Guava said:

I’m happy too, but it doesn’t mean it is sustainable. 

[Thorner]

16 hours ago, mjd1001 said:

The only issue with NHL.com is that they list a lot of players as centers that aren't actively playing center.  I just took a quick look at the site, anyone who has played 35 games (half the season): 104 left wingers, 92 Right wingers, 204 listed as center.  So while all forwards should have one primary position, 33.3% as LW, 33.3% as C and 33.3% as right wing.....NHL.com has 51% of forwards that have played half the season or more listed as a center.

So its hard to break things down, but I would think his numbers among true centers would rank closer to 40th overall in goals, 36th in points, and 38th in P/GP. (to get from the NHL.com 51% of centers down to the 33.3%, you need to multiply by a factory of .65.  If you apply that factor to your points above, that is what you get).

Again, without having an accurate breakdown of players who play most of their minutes at Center, that is what the best 'math guestimate' gives us.  

Or Break it down among all forwards on NHL.com. Again, 400 total fowards have played 35 games or more.  Statistically, the 'top 100' could be 1st liners, the 2nd 100 can be 2nd liners...all the way down to 4th liners being ranked 301-400.  So in terms of production, a 2nd liner would be ranked from 101-200, and a 3rd liner ranked from201-300....

McLeod among forwards in goals ranks 126th (toward the top of 2nd line status). In points he ranks tied for 98th (at the bottom of 1st line territory/the top 25%), in G/GP tied for 116th, and P/GP tied for 105th overall.

So, this year, his production in terms of pure points and in terms of points per game puts him in 2nd line territory (2nd 25%), but on the upper end of that.

Oh, and +/- is an imperfect stat, but it does have meaning. After all, it shows how many goals you were on the ice for against vs for....if you want to use that as the most basic overview of his defensive play without going too deep into the analytics...he is tied for 41st among 400 forwards, for sure deep into the very first quarter of all forwards.

He is doing the above tied for 150th overall in ice time per game. So all of his production numbers exceed where he should rank based on his ice time.

I know just numbers, but then again....numbers!

 

Here is the bottom line. My definition of a 1st, 2nd, 3rd, and 4th liner is simply who gets used the most. My first line center gets the most minutes, 2nd line center the 2nd most, etc.

In the NHL, first liners get 18 minutes and up on average

2nd liners get 15 1/2 up to 18 minutes (Sabres 2nd line gets 16-17 minutes)

3rd liners get about 13 minutes to 15 1/2 minutes (Sabres 3rd line gets 14.5 to 15 minutes)

4th liners average under 13 minutes.

If McLeod plays the 2 way game he does, I do not want him only playing 13 to 15 1/2 minutes like a typical 3rd liner. I want him with more minutes than that...in the Sabres case their 2nd line gets 16-17 minutes...That is the number of minutes I want him playing.

If you want to bring in someone who puts up more points and 'call that person the 2nd center, and call McLeod the 3rd center', fine. But to me if McLeod plays 16+ minutes per game, to ME that is a 2C.

 

So here is the question I'd like others to answer (no sarcasm at all I'm really curious):

If a 1C on this team gets about 18-19 minutes per game...

and a 2C on the Sabres gets 16-17 minutes

and a 3C gets about 14.5 minutes

and a 4C gets a lot less.......

Who are your 4 primary centers next year...and how do you position them in terms of ice time? Maybe you go 1C=18m, 2C=17m, 3C=16m and 4C=9? No way you could keep things to plan over whole season. In that case I don't think you have a !c, 2C, and 3C..you simply have an interchangeable top 3Cs.

But you meant to say he’d be an “excellent” 3C on a playoff team, no? 

You’d think the connotation of excellent 2C would be one bordering on 1 and McLeod isn’t that. Debate here is between 2 and 3 

good 2C, excellent 3C was I thought your argument 

Edited April 3 by Thorner

[Doohickie]

On 4/2/2025 at 8:35 AM, LGR4GM said:

I don't think you should toss out 85 shots from his sample which is basically 1/4 of his total shots taken just because it bumps up his avg.

He's saying compare "THIS" to "THAT", not compare "THIS" to "THIS + THAT"

[mjd1001]

13 minutes ago, Thorner said:

But you meant to say he’d be an “excellent” 3C on a playoff team, no? 

You’d think the connotation of excellent 2C would be one bordering on 1 and McLeod isn’t that. Debate here is between 2 and 3 

good 2C, excellent 3C was I thought your argument 

It kinda is my argument, but the short point of my long post is...how many minutes do you want him to play?

If you want him to play only 15 minutes (give or take) then he is your 3C.

If you want him to play 17+ minutes, that is your 2C...as very few 3C's get considerably less minutes.

So, 2C, 3C, its a matter of semantics.  Is who you label a 2C or a 3C a matter of their assigned role on the team (who you think is better) or who plays in more situations (who gets more ice time).

I guess my point is tell me how many minutes you expect him to play, or want him to average, and I'll tell you then whether I consider that a 2C or a 3C.

[Thorner]

11 minutes ago, mjd1001 said:

It kinda is my argument, but the short point of my long post is...how many minutes do you want him to play?

If you want him to play only 15 minutes (give or take) then he is your 3C.

If you want him to play 17+ minutes, that is your 2C...as very few 3C's get considerably less minutes.

So, 2C, 3C, its a matter of semantics.  Is who you label a 2C or a 3C a matter of their assigned role on the team (who you think is better) or who plays in more situations (who gets more ice time).

I guess my point is tell me how many minutes you expect him to play, or want him to average, and I'll tell you then whether I consider that a 2C or a 3C.

In the end the differential of distinction isn’t going to sway me on the level of forward add we need: the best we can get. 

McLeod can be defensible as a 2C, but the combination of Norris and McLeod being a capable 1-2 punch doubles the bet and makes it far more unlikely to work out: the sort of thing we constantly do. If Thompson is on the wing, we essentially need an add at centre if we are serious about configuring a roster that’s going to make the playoffs.

If Thompson is at C, the likelihood of ONE of McLeod or Norris locking down 2C does goes way up: much better bet. It’s why I like/want Tage back at C. We still need to add in this case if we can, but it can be at wing, and therefore much more attainable 

there’s a Marner sized hole at RW, or we can run back Quinn and hope for the best. Marner may be a pipe dream, but a top 6 wing would go a long way

you are looking to add to the roster in any way you can if you are in 27th place and your *best* stats are mid pack. Your weaknesses are too strong and your strengths aren’t strong enough to balance out the weaknesses. Still in a position to add to strengths and address weaknesses, both 

unless you are good with configuring teams that have a chance at playoffs if almost eveything works out in our favour, and Dahlin doesn’t miss any games 

Edited April 3 by Thorner

[mjd1001]

6 minutes ago, Thorner said:

In the end the differential of distinction isn’t going to sway me on the level of forward add we need: the best we can get. 

McLeod can be defensible as a 2C, but the combination of Norris and McLeod being a capable 1-2 punch doubles the bet and makes it far more unlikely to work out: the sort of thing we constantly do. If Thompson is on the wing, we essentially need an add at centre if we are serious about configuring a roster that’s going to make the playoffs.

If Thompson is at C, the likelihood of ONE of McLeod or Norris locking down 2C does goes way up: much better bet. It’s why I like/want Tage back at C. We still need to add in this case if we can, but it can be at wing, and therefore much more attainable 

there’s a Marner sized hole at RW, or we can run back Quinn and hope for the best. Marner may be a pipe dream, but a top 6 wing would go a long way

you are looking to add to the roster in any way you can if you are in 27th place and your *best* stats are mid pack. Your weaknesses are too strong and your strengths aren’t strong enough to balance out the weaknesses. Still in a position to add to strengths and address weaknesses, both 

unless you are good with configuring teams that have a chance at playoffs if almost eveything works out in our favour, and Dahlin doesn’t miss any games 

If you were ever going to overpay compared to everyone else for a player, Marner would be it for me. Open up the checkbook.

[LGR4GM]

https://www.thescore.com/nhl/news/2936236

Quote

In summary, McLeod is a great fit for the Sabres, but the price to acquire him was a bit too steep.

Grade: C

There are very few sure things when it comes to prospects. Savoie could very well join the long list of undersized forwards who tore up junior but could never quite hack it in the NHL but, given his game-breaking upside, this is a swing worth taking for the Oilers. Especially because they already have internal replacements for McLeod.

Grade: A

https://www.eliteprospects.com/news/nhl/trade-analysis-edmonton-and-buffalo-both-did-well-in-the-matt-savoie-for-ryan-mcleod-deal

Quote

Instead of sitting on a depreciating asset, Buffalo was proactive. They dealt from a surplus, trading uncertainty and upside for a known quantity in McLeod. This move may backfire, as with any trade involving prospects, but from what we know of these players right now, it’s more than a defendable one. 

More teams should be confident in their ability to pull off such plays more often, instead of watching high-drafted prospects stagnate or fail to seize on their potential within their lineup.

https://edmontonjournal.com/sports/hockey/nhl/cult-of-hockey/edmonton-oilers-trade-ryan-mcleod-for-hot-shot-edmonton-area-prospect

This has the best summary of comments about the trade I have seen including this laughable part:

Quote

Said NHL insider Frank Seravalli of The Daily Faceoff: “Oilers and Sabres started talking about this deal last Friday, Round 1 at Draft and kept dialogue going. Interesting deal, that’s for sure. McLeod has speed to burn, fits in with what Buffalo is building. Some think Savoie, an Edmonton native, may already be as good as McLeod."

And former NHL Matthew Barnaby: “Sabres pay HEAVY price for McLeod. He def makes team better and faster in short term but I don’t think I make this trade.”

And a rave review from Matt Larkin, writer and editor for The Daily Faceoff: “Savoie trade has (Filip) Forsberg for Erat/Latta vibes. My jaw is on the floor.”

 

This is why I say that anyone interested in prospects should have an Elite Prospects subscription. They have really good and balanced write ups. 

[Flashsabre]

I gladly make this trade again. I think McLeod has more progression to his game.

His problem was his feet moved faster than his brain but he seems to have figured it out. You can plug him anywhere in the lineup, he is tremendous in the PK. Fantastic wheels. 

[LGR4GM]

This one is my favorite

https://chicagohockeynow.com/2024/07/06/chicago-blackhawks-daily-matt-savoie-trade-buffalo-sabres/

Quote

Trades like this explain why they have been so inept for that long.

No sunshine, not making trades like this have been why Buffalo has been inept for so long. Buffalo has treated every single prospect from the first 3 rounds as though they are the 2nd coming of McDavid. If anything Noah Östlund has made Savoie even more expendable. 

Savoie: 18g, 29a, 60games, 0.783ppg, +16

Ostulnd: 19g, 17a, 44games, 0.818ppg, +20

[shrader]

13 minutes ago, LGR4GM said:

This one is my favorite

https://chicagohockeynow.com/2024/07/06/chicago-blackhawks-daily-matt-savoie-trade-buffalo-sabres/

No sunshine, not making trades like this have been why Buffalo has been inept for so long. Buffalo has treated every single prospect from the first 3 rounds as though they are the 2nd coming of McDavid. If anything Noah Östlund has made Savoie even more expendable. 

Savoie: 18g, 29a, 60games, 0.783ppg, +16

Ostulnd: 19g, 17a, 44games, 0.818ppg, +20

It’s a big example of why I hate grading trades so much. It’s rough enough with one year of results to look at, doing so after 0 games played is so damn stupid. But hey, this is the kind of stuff we get with the 24/7 news cycle. 

[dudacek]

1 hour ago, Flashsabre said:

I gladly make this trade again. I think McLeod has more progression to his game.

His problem was his feet moved faster than his brain but he seems to have figured it out. You can plug him anywhere in the lineup, he is tremendous in the PK. Fantastic wheels. 

I was thinking about how McLeod and Tuch seem to be fantastic penalty killers.

And how Benson, Greenway and Malenstyn look pretty competent as well.

Are our PK shortcomings largely the fault of the defence and/or the goalies?

Does anybody have access to PK SV%s and can access how our guys stack up?

[LGR4GM]

11 minutes ago, dudacek said:

I was thinking about how McLeod and Tuch seem to be fantastic penalty killers.

And how Benson, Greenway and Malenstyn look pretty competent as well.

Are our PK shortcomings largely the fault of the defence and/or the goalies?

Does anybody have access to PK SV%s and can access how our guys stack up?

UPL's pp sv% is .811%

He's 3rd in pp goals against at 37 with Columbus and Boston being tied for 1st at 38. 

[LGR4GM]

He's 2nd worst in the NHL in goals saved against average at -22.3 trailing only Georgiev at -32.7

I don't see a way to specifically look at his pp sv% versus others on here without doing it individually. 

[ska-T Palmtown]

2 hours ago, shrader said:

It’s a big example of why I hate grading trades so much. It’s rough enough with one year of results to look at, doing so after 0 games played is so damn stupid. But hey, this is the kind of stuff we get with the 24/7 news cycle. 

If some chump on TikTok does not do an "instant reaction" did the subject event even happen??!??

[shrader]

Just now, ska-T Palmtown said:

If some chump on TikTok does not do an "instant reaction" did the subject event even happen??!??

From my point of view, the reaction on tick tock is the tree falling in the woods with no one around. 

[ska-T Palmtown]

1 minute ago, shrader said:

From my point of view, the reaction on tick tock is the tree falling in the woods with no one around. 

I have been lead to believe that the Tick Tocks is very popular amongst the youths.

[shrader]

46 minutes ago, ska-T Palmtown said:

I have been lead to believe that the Tick Tocks is very popular amongst the youths.

Just once I wish they’d lean into the seniors and their apps instead. Maybe generate ratings based on the number of life alert alarms went off at the time of the trade. If a trade makes grandma fall and she can’t get up, it is drawing attention.