Mikhail Grigorenko...future 3rd line center?

[Der Jaeger]

I love how it has to turn into a VERSUS thing. Girgs vs. Grigo vs. Larsson.

We go so long without depth and options at center. Clamp ring for versatility and the luxury of moving guys around situationally without missing a beat.

Now, we have 4.5-5.5 guys in play in this format within the next half decade or so, and we want to start dealing?

This.

What a great problem to have Girgensons, Reinhart, Larsson, and Grigorenko as future centers, with a top 5 pick on the way.

I'm in no hurry to deal unless someone blows Murray away with an offer for Grigorenko (Arizona? Regier a believer?)

I don't really care where they slot right now.

I think Buffalo will be deep enough that line construction norms may not apply in the full sense.

 

[Jame]

Exactly. If Girgs were there, his stats would have been a lot better (than they were the start of the year) as the whole team got better after the deadline.

Not wanting to downplay Larsson's performance, but the whole team has been better after he got the first-line job (and his output is part of that, sure), which reflects to his stats as well.

I think the overall point you are making significantly downplays Larsson's performance.

 

[Push Dr Tracksuit]

I think the overall point you are making significantly downplays Larsson's performance.

given some of the comments being made Larsson needs his performance downplayed a bit in this thread

 

[Nikita Gucherov]

I still think if Grigs has a future on this team it will be on the wing. I wouldn't be surprised to see him dealt this summer, but if he does stay I'm guessing he plays wing next season.

Why is there so little talk of having Grigorenko converted to the wing (especially with Reinhart and McEichel in the mix)?

Most critics say that his main problem is on the defensive side of the puck. Playing the wing is quite a bit easier than playing in the middle. He could spend more energy creating offence (his greatest strength) and less energy chasing guys around in his own end.

 

[LottoPlease]

Why is there so little talk of having Grigorenko converted to the wing (especially with Reinhart and McEichel in the mix)?

Most critics say that his main problem is on the defensive side of the puck. Playing the wing is quite a bit easier than playing in the middle. He could spend more energy creating offence (his greatest strength) and less energy chasing guys around in his own end.

This.
Moulson-McEichel-Ennis
Kane-Girgensons-Grigorenko
Foligno-Larsson-Gionta

There's enough defensive ability to spread around IMO

 

[JLewyB]

given some of the comments being made Larsson needs his performance downplayed a bit in this thread

yeah again. I would imagine we've had the easiest schedule since the deadline. Toronto twice, Arizona twice, Carolina, Colorado, Dallas then even the good teams like Chicago and Washington we played while they were on their 2nd of back to backs.

A quarter of his points this year has come against his two games against Toronto.

 

[26CornerBlitz]

yeah again. I would imagine we've had the easiest schedule since the deadline. Toronto twice, Arizona twice, Carolina, Colorado, Dallas then even the good teams like Chicago and Washington we played while they were on their 2nd of back to backs.

A quarter of his points this year has come against his two games against Toronto.

Murray sees Larsson as a bottom six guy. His view is the one that matters.

 

[Sabresfansince1980]

I don't know that Grigorenko should be pegged for any specific spot in the line-up. He has some progress to make but I fail to see the need to move him this summer. Injuries are certain to poke holes in the top nine and Grigorenko could slot in at C or W. It seems convenient to hold onto a player with fairly high potential during a season without high expectations. There's not anyone currently worth keeping as an extra FW more than Grigs, and little risk seeing what else he has next season.

Larsson or Girgensons isn't in the way if you value depth and multiple C options. Gionta won't be around long and Foligno is uncertain as a top nine guy. Even Larsson is still unproven, but yet also versatile enough to play W if Grigorenko improves at C. So I don't weigh Grigorenko vs any current player. I weigh him against the lack of reasons to push him off the roster. Pretending you can tell his future doesn't count.

 

[kp2575]

This.
Moulson-McEichel-Ennis
Kane-Girgensons-Grigorenko
Foligno-Larsson-Gionta

There's enough defensive ability to spread around IMO

Reinhart?

 

[LottoPlease]

Reinhart?

too easy to forget about him, sad really

There goes my top 9

 

[OcAirlines]

A dream scenario for me would be having two top lines centered by McEichel and either Reinhart or Girgensons who can both score and draw the tough defensive assignments, and then if he pans out a developed Grigorenko on the third line with some other talented players who can take advantage of the other team's weaker units. Might be tough to get this done cap-wise if our big guns develop as we hope they do, but I think that Grigo could really thrive in a role like that where the pressure isn't that high and he could play either wing or center in that scenario, maybe even with a guy like Larsson or Girgs/Reinhart in the middle, if they don't crack the Top-6.

 

[Sabresfansince1980]

A dream scenario for me would be having two top lines centered by McEichel and either Reinhart or Girgensons who can both score and draw the tough defensive assignments, and then if he pans out a developed Grigorenko on the third line with some other talented players who can take advantage of the other team's weaker units. Might be tough to get this done cap-wise if our big guns develop as we hope they do, but I think that Grigo could really thrive in a role like that where the pressure isn't that high and he could play either wing or center in that scenario, maybe even with a guy like Larsson or Girgs/Reinhart in the middle, if they don't crack the Top-6.

If Grigorenko improves he can be a secondary scoring threat at either C or W, and could push Foligno to 4th line. That would add skill to that line, while improving the 4th line which is currently without a good option at RW...

Grigorenko/Larsson-Larsson/Grigorenko-Gionta (until retiring and Fasching)
Deslauriers-Schaller-Foligno

 

[Sabretip]

Is Larsson really that much better defensively? IMO he will be a much better player than Larsson and he would make an excellent 3rd line center.

Larsson is decisively better defensively - not only in keeping possession, winning faceoffs, anticipating the opponent's passing lanes on the forecheck but also in taking pucks off sticks of the opponent. Grigorenko has improved in getting into his defensive positions but he has a long way to go in matching all of the other aspects it takes to play defense like Larsson.

And if Grigorenko's only place on the roster ends up being the 3rd line - for a guy drafted 12th in the 1st round with all of his offensive talent - then he's destined to underachieve and be underutilized. Murray would be better off cashing him in as an asset to fill another hole elsewhere IMO.

 

[Heraldic]

I think the overall point you are making significantly downplays Larsson's performance.

When you see stats offered at least somehow in cherry-picking fashion, bringing up the whole context usually tends to downplay the target.

Shooting messengers is not uncommon, though.

 

[Heraldic]

Larsson is decisively better defensively - not only in keeping possession, winning faceoffs, anticipating the opponent's passing lanes on the forecheck but also in taking pucks off sticks of the opponent. Grigorenko has improved in getting into his defensive positions but he has a long way to go in matching all of the other aspects it takes to play defense like Larsson.

And if Grigorenko's only place on the roster ends up being the 3rd line - for a guy drafted 12th in the 1st round with all of his offensive talent - then he's destined to underachieve and be underutilized. Murray would be better off cashing him in as an asset to fill another hole elsewhere IMO.

This is the reason why it might seem I'm downplaying Larsson. But what can you do when you see completely false information offered? Grigorenko has been, and most likely will be the better face-off guy between those two:

This season:
http://www.nhl.com/stats/player?sea...viewName=summary&sort=faceOffWinPctg&ord=desc

Last season:
http://www.nhl.com/stats/player?sea...=2&team=BUF&position=S&country=&status=&viewN

I understand that some posters seem to dislike Grigorenko and love Larsson, but please at least try to be objective and not give false information.

edit. When Carolina played with six players and the face-off was at Sabres own end, Nolan put Grigorenko to take the face-offs. So that indicates that Nolan sees him if not superior, at least one of the most competent face-off-guys on this team atm.

More edit. To the idea that Grigorenko couldn't be our third-line-center for future.

I don't really see any reason why he couldn't. Sure, salary cap would most likely be an issuea, but outside of that. Penguins were able to handle Crosby-Malkin-Staal trio pretty well...

Let's make up this hypothetical, yet reasonable scenario.

We offer Grigo a QO next year. He plays in the third-line, having good chunk of PP-time and ends up potting 15+15 as a result. Nothing mind-blowing, but still enough to give him a two-year bridge deal, let's say caphit of 2,5 million. During that bridge deal we see a line-up something like this:

Moulson - Eichel - Girgs
Kane - Reinhart - Larsson/Ennis/acquisition
Foligno - Grigorenko - Fasching/Compher/Baptiste
fourth-line

So that everyone could be happy, I even inserted Larsson to a top-6-role.

If Grigo has prominent PP-time and good chunk of o-zone-starts (the second-line would be the heavy d-zone-line, with the fourth-line, if it can handle the minutes), I see no reason him being not able to put up production like 25+35, if he develops properly and his wingers can provide some offense with grit and defensive-game.

Grigorenko would also provide something to the PP that we don't really have. The most likely scenario is that we get Eichel (if we actually will be even that lucky) so our top-6-centers would be righties. At least what I have seen, Eichel likes to play almost as a point-man on a power play.

--------Kane--------Girgensons

Ristolainen---Eichel------Grigorenko

That would be a helluva powerplay line. All the players close to blue-line can really shoot the puck and Eichel and Grigo would be able to make plays easily. Kane and Girgensons would provide screen, rebound bouncing and ability to retrieve the lose puck down-low.

Then you would have Reinhart be the playmaker in the other PP unit. With Reinhart, because he doesn't have a deadly shot, you don't want to use the same formation. But you could insert guys like Moulson, Zadorov, perhaps McCabe who are left-handed shot in the same unit.

So, if Grigo would develop into a center who is at least average defensively, is good at face-offs and can produce something like 25+30-35 points while having good chunk of PP-time, he still had 3 RFA-years left after that bridge deal. Then you give him 5 years deal with about 5,5 million caphit (3 RFA-years and 2 UFA-years, same structure as Ennis had). If you let him play one more year and put up similar production and decided to trade him, he would net an extremely good return with 4 years left on his contract 5,5 caphit, no NTC/NMC yet kicking in and him being 24-25 years old.

That scenario was just an example for this "if he ends up being a third-liner, he's an underachiever" hogwash.

 

[Jame]

Murray sees Larsson as a bottom six guy. His view is the one that matters.

I'm sure Murray etched that opinion in stone

 

[Jame]

When you see stats offered at least somehow in cherry-picking fashion, bringing up the whole context usually tends to downplay the target

"the whole team playing better" isn't really context for the offensive production of the MLE line.

Shooting messengers is not uncommon, though.

relax

 

[Jame]

edit. When Carolina played with six players and the face-off was at Sabres own end, Nolan put Grigorenko to take the face-offs. So that indicates that Nolan sees him if not superior, at least one of the most competent face-off-guys on this team atm

.

it's probably a mistake to discern anything from Nolan's line dispersal.

 

[Heraldic]

"the whole team playing better" isn't really context for the offensive production of the MLE line.

I explicitly said that Larsson's own performance is one piece in the equation. But I don't think that anyone thinks that Larsson is the sole reason the team started to play better, because that would be pretty silly.

But it still is extremely silly that the mentality seems to be that the fact that Larsson is doing good, is somehow a knock against Grigo. And it seems almost completely negate the fact that Grigo is improving clearly. Improvement is exactly the thing we want to see from a 20-years old player with his ceiling. Is or is he not as competent defensively as Larsson, is actually irrelevant. They both have improved, and that is only a good thing.

Maybe this all comes from this pretty artificial stance, where Grigo and Larsson are competing against each other, and the one that "loses" is getting rid off. In reality, the fact that one of them improves more, might just get the one that improves traded (because his trade value increases) during the off-season.

.

it's probably a mistake to discern anything from Nolan's line dispersal.

While Nolan isn't best known for his tactical abilities, you don't seriously think that Grigo taking those face-offs, was a result of Nolan throwing dices?

If Larsson were the one taking those face-offs, I think the interpretation would be a quite different.

 

[Jame]

I explicitly said that Larsson's own performance is one piece in the equation. But I don't think that anyone thinks that Larsson is the sole reason the team started to play better, because that would be pretty silly.

You countered stats that illustrated the impact Larsson has had on a particular line, with the argument that the whole team was playing better and that was context for the Larsson and his lines' stats.

it wasn't context for that.

But it still is extremely silly that the mentality seems to be that the fact that Larsson is doing good, is somehow a knock against Grigo. And it seems almost completely negate the fact that Grigo is improving clearly. Improvement is exactly the thing we want to see from a 20-years old player with his ceiling. Is or is he not as competent defensively as Larsson, is actually irrelevant. They both have improved, and that is only a good thing.

it is not irrelevant

While Nolan isn't best known for his tactical abilities, you don't seriously think that Grigo taking those face-offs, was a result of Nolan throwing dices?

I think it's obviously more about giving a guy an opportunity at the end of a season, than it is about an opinion Nolan has about the player.

If Larsson were the one taking those face-offs, I think the interpretation would be a quite different.

So, Nolan sees Larsson as a #1 center then.

 

[Heraldic]

You countered stats that illustrated the impact Larsson has had on a particular line, with the argument that the whole team was playing better and that was context for the Larsson and his lines' stats.

it wasn't context for that.

You could also insert Meszaros, Weber and Ristolainen and find the same kind of correlation. Are you then saying, that the whole team hasn't played better? Or if it has been, it's solely because of Larsson?

it is not irrelevant

Correct. For those who for some reason want to create this arbitrary confrontation between those two.

I think it's obviously more about giving a guy an opportunity at the end of a season, than it is about an opinion Nolan has about the player.

This is something I almost need to save. So a coach, who has done everything to ruin our fans ending of the season by trying to win, suddenly starts to think that maybe Grigo should have that face-off, event though he doesn't think he shouldn't take that if he wants the team to win? Classic.

So, Nolan sees Larsson as a #1 center then.

I think it's clear that how Nolan assembles his lines and how he deploys them, is meaningful only when the subject is on "right" player. When the subject is on "wrong" player, you should just dismiss it all.

Or you could at least try to be objective and obey some sort of consistency.

 

[Jame]

You could also insert Meszaros, Weber and Ristolainen and find the same kind of correlation. Are you then saying, that the whole team hasn't played better? Or if it has been, it's solely because of Larsson?

the whole team playing better is not "offset" context to the impact Larsson has had on a particular line and linemates

Correct. For those who for some reason want to create this arbitrary confrontation between those two.

Correct, for those who recognize competition for roster spots and roles

This is something I almost need to save. So a coach, who has done everything to ruin our fans ending of the season by trying to win, suddenly starts to think that maybe Grigo should have that face-off, event hough I don't think he shouldn't take that if I want the team to win? Classic.

Andrey Makarov
/end

I think it's clear that how Nolan assembles his lines and how he deploys them, is meaningful only when the subject is on "right" player. When the subject is on "wrong" player, you should just dismiss it all.

Or you could at least try to be objective and obey some sort of consistency.

Correct, in being consistent with your view, Nolan sees Larsson as a #1 center.

 

[Heraldic]

the whole team playing better is not "offset" context to the impact Larsson has had on a particular line and linemates

I don't know how difficult this can be... The causation in that correlation clearly isn't just Larsson, when the stats of almost every player on that team improve. That's pretty simple.

Correct, for those who recognize competition for roster spots and roles

You mean for those who 1) see that there will be competition specificly between Larsson and Grigorenko 2) think that the team will be full of bottom-line veterans so there absolutely won't be space for him?

Andrey Makarov
/end

So you're actually comparing a decision to put a certain goalie there to a decision that happens strictly during the game. Murray may have told Nolan that he expects to see Makarov between the pipes somewhere or Nolan thought that Lindbäck needs rest (it was a back-to-back game, so that's the most plausible explanation, when Johnson and Hackett both were injured). Anyway, those situations are not comparable, and it should be obvious.

Correct, in being consistent with your view, Nolan sees Larsson as a #1 center.

Has someone said anything else (I mean, a number one center in this team, not in general because that would be ridiculous)? That doesn't contradict with the assumption that Nolan sees Grigorenko as a better face-off guy.

 

[Jame]

I don't know how difficult this can be... The causation in that correlation clearly isn't just Larsson, when the stats of almost every player on that team improve. That's pretty simple.

It's not that simple. You choose to simplify it

You mean for those who 1) see that there will be competition specificly between Larsson and Grigorenko 2) think that the team will be full of bottom-line veterans so there absolutely won't be space for him?

There will be competition for roles/roster spots next year. Larsson and Grigo will be PART of that competition. That's pretty simple.

So you're actually comparing a decision to put a certain goalie there to a decision that happens strictly during the game. Murray may have told Nolan that he expects to see Makarov between the pipes somewhere or Nolan thought that Lindbäck needs rest (it was a back-to-back game, so that's the most plausible explanation, when Johnson and Hackett both were injured). Anyway, those situations are not comparable, and it should be obvious.

Murray may have told Nolan to get Grigo some dzone faceoffs. If that's the way you want to play this.

Lindback didn't need rest, and Nolan would be riding the hot goalie if he wasn't also doing things in the interest of the long term. Makarov illustrates Nolan making decisions in the interest of the long term. Grigo taking a particular faceoff (during a game in which Staal dominated Larsson and Grigo), does not need to be read in to to the degree you are. There is larger context, but... you know, that type of context is only for the "right/wrong" player.

Regardless. You've chosen to see a Nolan decision in the context you prefer. Even though it doesn't jive with anything Nolan has done all season.

Has someone said anything else (I mean, a number one center in this team, not in general because that would be ridiculous)? That doesn't contradict with the assumption that Nolan sees Grigorenko as a better face-off guy.

No, but if all it takes is a single play...

 

[Heraldic]

It's not that simple. You choose to simplify it

You might actually consider trying to give some reasoning.

There will be competition for roles/roster spots next year. Larsson and Grigo will be PART of that competition. That's pretty simple.

Exactly.

Murray may have told Nolan to get Grigo some dzone faceoffs. If that's the way you want to play this.

So you actually think those situations are comparable?

Lindback didn't need rest, and Nolan would be riding the hot goalie if he wasn't also doing things in the interest of the long term. Makarov illustrates Nolan making decisions in the interest of the long term. Grigo taking a particular faceoff (during a game in which Staal dominated Larsson and Grigo), does not need to be read in to to the degree you are. There is larger context, but... you know, that type of context is only for the "right/wrong" player.

You're serious? We were playing 3 games in 4 nights, and you say that Lindbäck didn't need rest? That's one of the most ridiculous things I have read in a while. It's extremely rare to see the same goalie play back-to-back games. You also think that Dave Tippett thought that Domingue just should get a chance when he played him in the first game of the back-to-back with Sharks? Or might he just done what the majority of the coaches do and not play the same goalie in back-to-back games?

And here is an article you should read, because you apparently think that it is a good idea to play the same goalie in back-to-back games: http://www.broadstreethockey.com/20...a-flyers-goaltending-stats-back-to-back-games

And another one: http://www.nhl.com/ice/news.htm?id=734778

Regardless. You've chosen to see a Nolan decision in the context you prefer. Even though it doesn't jive with anything Nolan has done all season.

Yeah, it's totally me who have chosen. It's not like that the stats supports it.

No, but if all it takes is a single play...

Or maybe Nolan just made the decision that the stats also support? And maybe Nolan noticed, that after Larsson got beaten up by Toews in those face-offs which ultimately let us losing the Chicago games, that Larsson is not exactly too good in face-offs? Or maybe Nolan was just giving Larsson some chances despite wanting to win the game?

At the start of the season I watched 15-20 Amerks games, and Larsson, when he was a winger (and he was in almost every game), basically never took the face-offs. Not when he was playing with Schaller, not when he was playing with Grigorenko. Why so? Oh, wait. Next you're going to say that Cassidy just didn't know well enough.