What is Ryan McLeod worth to you?

[tom webster]

13 minutes ago, LGR4GM said:

I think we should view more as a 3c+ where he can fill in for the 2c due to injury or other shenanigans. Issue is that leaves us without a 1c still as Norris is a 2c and also.. injured... again. 

I think this is exactly right.

[LGR4GM]

7 minutes ago, tom webster said:

I think this is exactly right.

I keep telling Terry to hire me but he won't return my calls. 

[dudacek]

Lot of overthinking here. 
McLeod seems like the definition of a good 3C. 
Pay him like one, use him like one, support him like one.

[mjd1001]

2 minutes ago, dudacek said:

Lot of overthinking here. 
McLeod seems like the definition of a good 3C. 
Pay him like one, use him like one, support him like one.

The 'overthinking' is what people think paying him like a good 3c is. Wide variety of opinions on that topic.

[Thorner]

1 hour ago, LGR4GM said:

I think we should view more as a 3c+ where he can fill in for the 2c due to injury or other shenanigans. Issue is that leaves us without a 1c still as Norris is a 2c and also.. injured... again. 

We need to add in the top 6 somewhere. If Thompson is going to be at wing then it should be at C. Failing that, LW, I guess. We can take a couple chances but you can’t be taking chances everywhere. If Thompson is at C, I’m comfortable with a Norris/McLeod 2C platoon (taking a chance there) with Thompson holding down C and the unit’s overall talent supplemented by that addition 

Non additions at all in top 6 looks like 

Peterka - Norris - Thompson

Benson - McLeod - Tuch

Zucker - Krebs - Kulich

or

Peterka - Thompson - Tuch

Benson - Norris - Zucker

Krebs - McLeod - Kulich

 

..to my eye both are severely lacking a talent, be it at C, or W. Pick your poison 

Edited Tuesday at 07:05 PM by Thorner

[Night Train]

He's a keeper. 3C and versatile if injuries occur. Good PK and could earn PP looks. Glad he's here. 

[LGR4GM]

21 minutes ago, Thorner said:

We need to add in the top 6 somewhere. If Thompson is going to be at wing then it should be at C. Failing that, LW, I guess. We can take a couple chances but you can’t be taking chances everywhere. If Thompson is at C, I’m comfortable with a Norris/McLeod 2C platoon (taking a chance there) with Thompson holding down C and the unit’s overall talent supplemented by that addition 

Non additions at all in top 6 looks like 

Peterka - Norris - Thompson

Benson - McLeod - Tuch

Zucker - Krebs - Kulich

or

Peterka - Thompson - Tuch

Benson - Norris - Zucker

Krebs - McLeod - Kulich

 

..to my eye both are severely lacking a talent, be it at C, or W. Pick your poison 

I think this:

Peterka/Benson - Norris - Thompson

Benson/Peterka - McLeod - Tuch

Zucker - Kulich - Greenway

Not saying I want that, just what no changes looks like

[Flashsabre]

Peterka Thompson Tuch

Benson Norris Kulich

Zucker McLeod Quinn

Edited Tuesday at 07:55 PM by Flashsabre

[Thorner]

30 minutes ago, LGR4GM said:

I think this:

Peterka/Benson - Norris - Thompson

Benson/Peterka - McLeod - Tuch

Zucker - Kulich - Greenway

Not saying I want that, just what no changes looks like

Ya the difference there is just switching out Krebs for Greenway, wouldn’t have issue with that 

[GASabresIUFAN]

25 minutes ago, LGR4GM said:

I think this:

Peterka/Benson - Norris - Thompson

Benson/Peterka - McLeod - Tuch

Zucker - Kulich - Greenway

Not saying I want that, just what no changes looks like

As of right now, these 9 players are the most likely scenario.  I know Ruff has moved TNT back to wing since returning from injury, but I like him at center.  I think the lineup flows better with him there.  I don't think a Norris/TNT combo is a good fit.

JJP TNT ????

???? Norris Tuch

????  McLeod Greenway

After those pairs, I'd like to see how well Benson, Kulich and Zucker work with each center before slotting them.

[Thorner]

Ya we are definitely just all shifting around the same 8 guys 

Thompson

Norris

McLeod

Peterka

Benson

Tuch

Kulich

Zucker

…whoever the 9th man is it isn’t someone people have confidence in, and the top 8 doesn’t look good enough as a top 8, anyways. Screams one big outside F addition

And Kulich is already a question mark / bet placed there, to boot. 

[Archie Lee]

2 minutes ago, Thorner said:

Ya we are definitely just all shifting around the same 8 guys 

Thompson

Norris

McLeod

Peterka

Benson

Tuch

Kulich

Zucker

…whoever the 9th man is it isn’t someone people have confidence in, and the top 8 doesn’t look good enough as a top 8, anyways. Screams one big outside F addition

And Kulich is already a question mark / bet placed there, to boot. 

With the extension and raise for Greenway, I imagine he will be in the middle-6. 

If we assume that Adams is back and that he isn’t likely to trade the recently extended Zucker and Greenway, or the recently acquired Norris, or core pieces Thompson and Tuch, or their currently most reliable centre in McLeod, then that leaves Peterka, Kulich, Benson as the players that could be moved to alter the make-up of the top 9. This makes some sense as it is basically fan consensus that the fatal line-up flaw this season is inexperience. I don’t think Benson is going anywhere. 

[GASabresIUFAN]

10 minutes ago, Archie Lee said:

With the extension and raise for Greenway, I imagine he will be in the middle-6. 

Yep.

[matter2003]

20 hours ago, dudacek said:

It would seem to be the most Sabreish thing to play hardball with an unheralded player they watch emerging before their eyes while ignoring lack of same with their touted high picks.

Yet this is the same leadership that went all in on Tage Thompson, so perhaps that comment isn’t fair at all.

I just wish I had more reason to trust their judgement.

that turned out to be a pretty great contract for 30-40+ goals every year

[kas23]

22 minutes ago, matter2003 said:

that turned out to be a pretty great contract for 30-40+ goals every year

Does this mean we won The Trade?

[DarthEbriate]

10 minutes ago, kas23 said:

Does this mean we won The Trade?

From Pegula's perspective we already won because they didn't have to pay ROR that $7.5M signing bonus.

[Thorner]

1 hour ago, Archie Lee said:

With the extension and raise for Greenway, I imagine he will be in the middle-6. 

If we assume that Adams is back and that he isn’t likely to trade the recently extended Zucker and Greenway, or the recently acquired Norris, or core pieces Thompson and Tuch, or their currently most reliable centre in McLeod, then that leaves Peterka, Kulich, Benson as the players that could be moved to alter the make-up of the top 9. This makes some sense as it is basically fan consensus that the fatal line-up flaw this season is inexperience. I don’t think Benson is going anywhere. 

I wouldn’t necessarily make any of those assumptions, but:

Moving Peterka just creates another hole. I still could easily see Greenway on L4, or you can easily bump Kulich down. Or, sure, you can trade him, too. Or you can just play him as an injury fill in because someone is *going* to be hurt. There’s always an erroneous element of rigidity when we do these things because we need more than 12 guys for 12 spots. 

There will be room for a good player. We NEED to make room for a good player

[Archie Lee]

30 minutes ago, Thorner said:

I wouldn’t necessarily make any of those assumptions, but:

Moving Peterka just creates another hole. I still could easily see Greenway on L4, or you can easily bump Kulich down. Or, sure, you can trade him, too. Or you can just play him as an injury fill in because someone is *going* to be hurt. There’s always an erroneous element of rigidity when we do these things because we need more than 12 guys for 12 spots. 

There will be room for a good player. We NEED to make room for a good player

I agree that they could move anyone. Also, if Adams is gone it perhaps increases the likelihood that a recently extended or acquired player could be dealt. The Sabres have flexibility because they currently have no players with significantly restrictive trade or movement clauses. But, assuming we aren’t planning to walk away from Peterka or McLeod or Byram, then we have reached a point where taking on a contract will mean a comparable contract will need to go out. They won’t have the cap space to add an established NHL player who makes north of $3 million, without a similar contract going out. 

[Thorner]

17 minutes ago, Archie Lee said:

I agree that they could move anyone. Also, if Adams is gone it perhaps increases the likelihood that a recently extended or acquired player could be dealt. The Sabres have flexibility because they currently have no players with significantly restrictive trade or movement clauses. But, assuming we aren’t planning to walk away from Peterka or McLeod or Byram, then we have reached a point where taking on a contract will mean a comparable contract will need to go out. They won’t have the cap space to add an established NHL player who makes north of $3 million, without a similar contract going out. 

Byram is still popping off the page, here