Murray defines current core and players' roles next season and beyond

[Paxon]

It's pretty clear he's using the term 'core' differently here than we do. He's basically describing the players who will be on the team next season. The interesting parts are things like saying Girgensons could be a center or winger but will be in the top 6, which is how a good number of us see it now as opposed to him being a third line center.

 

[Bearbait]

No one has said that. I certainly didn't in the OP. So I don't know why you're arguing it. Plus the trade example you used is a bit absurd to the point of being meaningless.

I wasn't arguing, those are your words, not mine. The trade example was meant to be "over-the-top" for emphasis.

Why are you looking for a fight when there isn't one here? I made an observation, my opinion, if you don't like it, may I suggest that you don't start threads in a public forum where it's open to anyone to comment on.

The sad part here is that you just said the same thing at the end of this post that you attacked me for saying in my post. That people are misconstruing what he meant by "core", that was my exact point.

 

[SiDC1]

Don't read into his comments too much. It's tough to ramble off that many names during an interview.

While I was watching the interview I knew people would take this as gospel. He was trying his best to remember names so I'll take this interview with a grain of salt

 

[Cap'n]

felt like he was simply naming off the NHL regulars. Hodgson may have been an intentional omission while BoGo was clearly the name he had forgotten.

While I do think of Moulson and Gorges as part of the core going forward I do agree that Gionta was likely just to avoid PR concerns. Weber was the name that was included that caught me off guard as how many teams consider their 6/7 dman Core?

 

[Royisgone]

A disproportionate amount of Tim Murray's head exists above his eye-line.

It's a little creepy, but I still love him.

It's a tad early to discuss "core". Rheinhart might bust. He might also be one of the best National league players in the last 30 years. We won't know for 3 or 4 years.

 

[SamuraiArt]

felt like he was simply naming off the NHL regulars. Hodgson may have been an intentional omission while BoGo was clearly the name he had forgotten.

While I do think of Moulson and Gorges as part of the core going forward I do agree that Gionta was likely just to avoid PR concerns. Weber was the name that was included that caught me off guard as how many teams consider their 6/7 dman Core?

I think Murray considers Weber a leader in the locker room. Drew was probably added more as a nod to that rather than viewing him as an essential skill piece. Murray's comments make more sense (to me) if I see his list as more of a leadership core rather than pure skill. Obviously, the younger guys aren't quite leaders yet but down the road it's possible most of them could fit in that role.

 

[Kublakhan]

Moulson and Weber as part of the future core... interesting.

I wonder who the 3C is going to end up being. I don't see Grigorenko in that role.

I don't see Grigs getting a full time center job either, I find it funny though the only part of Grigs game I like is on the dot..People here think he is a wonder boy though,I would like for him to prove their right..

 

[Husko]

Yeah, I definitely don't think his "core" comments mean anything.

More important takeaway, IMO, is that he sees both Girgensons and Ennis in top-3 roles, and see center/wing flexibility for both of them depending on how the roster shapes out.

 

[Sabretip]

-He defines current core as; Gionta, Moulson, Gorges, Foligno, Girgs, Risto, Zads, Weber and said he's probably leaving someone out.

He also singled out the following players to be key parts of the core/team next year.

-Expects Kane to come in and play a top 3 role. (not sure if that means one of the 3 best players or three best forwards or just top line)

-Ennis to play center or wing in a top 6 role

-Girgs, depending on what they do, will play center or wing. But is definitely in top 6 role.

As for Weber, he's actually had a decent year and would be a solid 6/7 next year. Keep in mind who he has played with all season. Players who when paired with Risto, Myers and Bogo have given those three all they can handle trying to cover for them. Obviously Weber isn't on the level of those 3 and is not going to be able to cover for the likes of Mess, Benoit or Strachan. Put him out there with a Psysk or a good 5/6 dman and he will be fine.

It's odd he left out Kane and Bogo , but mentioned Weber. Weber's leadership qualities must be highly valued by Murray, because he's pure shirt on the ice. Love the guys attitude but I will blow my brains out if he's anything more than a 7th d man next year.

That's it right there: Weber may be short on talent compared to Ristolainen, Zadorov or Bogosian but he's a heart-and-soul type that sticks up for his teammates and plays the "heavy" game Murray likes, just like Girgensons. Add that to the fact that next season's blueline will likely have 4 guys age 25 or younger (Risto, Zadorov, Bogosian and Pysyk) and Murray probably sees the need for Weber's veteran experience to complement Gorges as mentors.

I think posters are getting too carried away with Murray's use of the word "core".

That's a sensitive word for many Sabres fans, given the frustrations fans and media had with Regier's 'Rochester core'

I wonder who the 3C is going to end up being. I don't see Grigorenko in that role.

Agreed - count me in the camp that thinks Murray will use Grigorenko as his next biggest trade chip now that he's dealt Myers.

I also agree with most that Hodgson is not on the opening night roster - be it due to trade or buyout or even waivers. Even though Murray insinuated that Nolan's handling of Hodgson has a lot to do with his poor stats this year, it's obvious that Hodgson's one-dimensional, non-confrontational perimeter game doesn't fit with Murray's vision of "how the game is supposed to be played" or of a team difficult to play against.

Moulson and Weber as part of the future core... interesting.

Since Murray signed Moulson to a 5 year deal, I think it's a given he'll stick with him for the foreseeable future....

I really like the idea of keeping Foligno-Larsson-Deslauriers together as a 4th line for the future. Maybe Foligno will be good enough to slide into 3LW, but it would be as good of a 4th line as they come.

XX-Eichel-Girgensons
Kane-Reinhart-Ennis
XX-XX-XX
Foligno-Larsson-Deslauriers

...so Moulson should be assumed in top 6 next year as well.

On Larsson, I'd agree he's the better choice but it seems too many posts I've read are assuming McCormick is off the roster next season. I don't see that happening unless his concussion situation becomes career-threatening - Murray signed him for 3 years for a reason, likely as another veteran leader to teach the kids. Reinhart mentioned Gionta, Moulson and McCormick by name in recent interviews as guys who showed him the ropes in camp.

Personally, I'd see the pieces being:

Kane-McDavid-Ennis (*)
Moulson-Reinhart-Girgensons
Foligno-Larsson-Gionta
Deslauriers-McCormick- (**)

(*) - If Murray chases after O'Reilly, I suspect he'll be willing to include Ennis in the package going back to Denver. As others have noted in other threads, I would think ROR would slide into the RW spot alongside McDavid as a defensive and faceoff insurance to the rookie like he was to MacKinnon.

(**) - I wouldn't dismiss Kaleta entirely but I could see Murray signing another UFA like Condra or other to fill out the 4th line.

 

[Husko]

That's it right there: Weber may be short on talent compared to Ristolainen, Zadorov or Bogosian but he's a heart-and-soul type that sticks up for his teammates and plays the "heavy" game Murray likes, just like Girgensons. Add that to the fact that next season's blueline will likely have 4 guys age 25 or younger (Risto, Zadorov, Bogosian and Pysyk) and Murray probably sees the need for Weber's veteran experience to complement Gorges as mentors.



That's a sensitive word for many Sabres fans, given the frustrations fans and media had with Regier's 'Rochester core'



Agreed - count me in the camp that thinks Murray will use Grigorenko as his next biggest trade chip now that he's dealt Myers.

I also agree with most that Hodgson is not on the opening night roster - be it due to trade or buyout or even waivers. Even though Murray insinuated that Nolan's handling of Hodgson has a lot to do with his poor stats this year, it's obvious that Hodgson's one-dimensional, non-confrontational perimeter game doesn't fit with Murray's vision of "how the game is supposed to be played" or of a team difficult to play against.



Since Murray signed Moulson to a 5 year deal, I think it's a given he'll stick with him for the foreseeable future....



...so Moulson should be assumed in top 6 next year as well.

On Larsson, I'd agree he's the better choice but it seems too many posts I've read are assuming McCormick is off the roster next season. I don't see that happening unless his concussion situation becomes career-threatening - Murray signed him for 3 years for a reason, likely as another veteran leader to teach the kids. Reinhart mentioned Gionta, Moulson and McCormick by name in recent interviews as guys who showed him the ropes in camp.

Personally, I'd see the pieces being:

Kane-McDavid-Ennis (*)
Moulson-Reinhart-Girgensons
Foligno-Larsson-Gionta
Deslauriers-McCormick- (**)

(*) - If Murray chases after O'Reilly, I suspect he'll be willing to include Ennis in the package going back to Denver. As others have noted in other threads, I would think ROR would slide into the RW spot alongside McDavid as a defensive and faceoff insurance to the rookie like he was to MacKinnon.

(**) - I wouldn't dismiss Kaleta entirely but I could see Murray signing another UFA like Condra or other to fill out the 4th line.

The big question I want one of our reporters to ask Murray is what he views the role of the third line as. Is it a traditional, defensive, checking, possession-driving third line? If so, Foligno, Larsson, and Gionta make a ton of sense. Or does he see it more in the "RAV" build? A scoring line that can exploit easy matchups? If that's the case, I think a line line Foligno-Grigorenko-Hodgson could be interesting. (Gionta, Larsson, McCormick, Des can mash together into a defense/grinding 4th line).

 

[TehDoak]

Yes and no. Sometimes a GM and coach work together to determine where players play best. Thats particularly true with youngsters. Other times the organization will tell the coach outright we want player X at center. That doesn't mean the coach can't move them for various reasons later.


To use Grigs as an example. When Nolan first got here last season he wanted to play him at center and he did. It was only for a game or two then he moved him back to the wing. When asked why Nolan responded that the organization sees him as a wing right now. Later when Murray came on board Nolan was told to put him back at center. So he did.


I would also add that Murray was known to get involved a times with coaching decisions with the Sens farm team. He was the GM of that team as well as the Sens Asst GM. So it shouldn't be a surprise he may get involved from time to time with his NHL team.

I am very curious to see that if (maybe a matter of when) Nolan is fired out the dynamic between Nolan and Murray is spelled out.

While I agree with you that coaches/GMs work together in a typical setup, there definitely seems to be a schism between what Murray would want to happen on the NHL club (i.e. what lines players play, etc) and what Nolan delivers.

Especially now that the "pecking" order of the bills has been stated (GM, Team President, and Head coach all report directly to Ownership, rather than Coach reporting to GM, GM reporting to team president, etc).

I am curious if Ted/Tim have the same pecking order (both report directly to Terry rather than Ted reports to Tim, etc), then I think alot of things suddenly make a bit more sense of Ted/Tim being a bit adversarial rather than working together.

 

[CatsforReinhart]

I think Ted Nolan has the ability to demoralize players. Once you get in his dog house it is hard to get out. I hope the new coach is better at reading players. Nolan seems to only have one way to get a player to preform and that is the threat of benching. When a young player makes a mistake it would be nice to see Nolan put him back out instead of benching him for the rest of the game

 

[brian_griffin]

I think Ted Nolan has the ability to demoralize players. Once you get in his dog house it is hard to get out. I hope the new coach is better at reading players. Nolan seems to only have one way to get a player to preform and that is the threat of benching. When a young player makes a mistake it would be nice to see Nolan put him back out instead of benching him for the rest of the game

That post speaks of absolutes and dichotomies. We've seen a gamut of approaches taken.

 

[jBuds]

I love this convo. Core.

Murray's list wasn't thought out and I don't put too much stock into it because he names guys you'd expect him to name. He also said it is subject to change. Obviously. And he left out Bogosian, so it was clearly off the cuff.


----------

More interesting to me was the comment of guys proving they can play here and not have to go to the KHL, depth guys that can earn a short term one way deal.

He also said, verbatim, exactly why I want Varone in the system. He can go up and down the lineup while going up and down between the two teams. He can play any type of game adequately, yet no type spectacularly, and is a fine depth option and someone to keep around.

Kind of like Phlin, another guy I'd have loved in the organizational fold.

 

[jBuds]

I think Ted Nolan has the ability to demoralize players. Once you get in his dog house it is hard to get out. I hope the new coach is better at reading players. Nolan seems to only have one way to get a player to preform and that is the threat of benching. When a young player makes a mistake it would be nice to see Nolan put him back out instead of benching him for the rest of the game

Yikes.

As a Nolan basher, I can tell you the problem isn't with how he handles guys off the ice and how he works with various personalities and ages. It's with how he doesn't utilize them on the ice properly or coach them to accent strengths, mask flaws, and get better. He's a hole plugger, not a creamchurner.

 

[mikemcburn]

Where posters have commented that Kane and Ennis were left out of TM's reference to core, it seems to be correct. Technically, anyway.

Before naming names, TM states that the core fluctuates according to circumstance "but right now..." and then leads with Gionta, Moulson and Jorges. He then goes on to name Girgensens, Foligno, etc. but doesn't initially include Kane or Ennis before taking a pause. Zads & Risto aren't named exactly, but he does refer to the "two kids on the blue line".

Then he says the hope is Kane will come into the top 3, then names Ennis' potential role as center or winger, then refers again to Girgensens as a center or winger "depending on what they do but in the top 6". None of the AHLers presently up were named, only referred to as a whole where it went to getting the chance to audition. Some prolonged talk about what Reinhart needs to do to become NHL ready).

To the extent it's unlikely TM is building the future roster around the likes of aged vets Gionta, Moulson or Jorges, he was clearly being political and respectful about the "here and now". Given the prospect of drafting McDavid/Eitchel, and with Girgensens, Kane, Reinhart, Moulson, etc. already in the mix, it's equally doubtful TM truly meant that the roster was being build around support case ala Foligno, for example.

All in, my take is that TM was speaking off the cuff, mixing the "but right now" with the future view, and generally giving a broad "future is in flux" message. Realistically, I don't think it means anything if TM mentioned a name (ie: Foligno) or neglected a name (ie: Bogo). So it's probably a wasted exercise to start dreaming up line combos on the basis of that interview.

(side note: I still think it's possible that TM was yakking with Benning pre: tradeline on a deal to swap back Hodgson for one of the Canucks' quality backups, and given his reference to resuming those talks in the offseason, wouldn't be surprised to see that happen... Stunned, sure, bouts of laughter definitely, but not surprised)

 

[brian_griffin]

@SabreTip: When did you move to Phoenix? I thought you used to be in LA area?

I love this convo. Core.

Murray's list wasn't thought out and I don't put too much stock into it because he names guys you'd expect him to name. He also said it is subject to change. Obviously. And he left out Bogosian, so it was clearly off the cuff.


----------

More interesting to me was the comment of guys proving they can play here and not have to go to the KHL, depth guys that can earn a short term one way deal.

He also said, verbatim, exactly why I want Varone in the system. He can go up and down the lineup while going up and down between the two teams. He can play any type of game adequately, yet no type spectacularly, and is a fine depth option and someone to keep around.

Kind of like Phlin, another guy I'd have loved in the organizational fold.

Good observation. Definitely room for Flynn (& Varone) types.

A lot like Derek Smith from the late-70s / early-80's Sabre teams. Play any forward spot, PK, defensively responsible. Adequate offensive talent.

 

[CatsforReinhart]

Yikes.

As a Nolan basher, I can tell you the problem isn't with how he handles guys off the ice and how he works with various personalities and ages. It's with how he doesn't utilize them on the ice properly or coach them to accent strengths, mask flaws, and get better. He's a hole plugger, not a creamchurner.

Yikes, where did I say anything about off the ice???? What I posted was about how he handles them on the ice. Yikes!

 

[joshjull]

I wasn't arguing, those are your words, not mine.

Argue --> give reasons or cite evidence in support of an idea, action, or theory, typically with the aim of persuading others to share one's view:

I wasn't saying you were being disagreeable or looking to get into a pissing match.

The trade example was meant to be "over-the-top" for emphasis.

You're hoping he would be open to beneficial trades and used an over the top example. I get that. My point was why would you feel the need to clarify the obvious?

Why are you looking for a fight when there isn't one here? I made an observation, my opinion, if you don't like it, may I suggest that you don't start threads in a public forum where it's open to anyone to comment on.

I disagreed with your post. As you pointed out, its a public forum. if you don't want your opinion commented on then ………..

The sad part here is that you just said the same thing at the end of this post that you attacked me for saying in my post. That people are misconstruing what he meant by "core", that was my exact point.

If you had only said that I would agree. But you put forth other ideas as well. My point was more about being frustrated that you and several others are so focused on Murray's "core" comments. Its a small portion of what he said. His comments in the video give a rough sketch of his vision for the team next season. One example being where he sees Girgs. He sees him as a top 6 forward next season as a wing or center. Thats something new we learned. There are several other things he laid out as well. The core comments were just a jumping off point in response to Duff poising the question. Then Murray got into many other things. It wasn't fair for me to single you out on this since several others had a similar focus. So my bad on that.

 

[joshjull]

Where posters have commented that Kane and Ennis were left out of TM's reference to core, it seems to be correct. Technically, anyway.

Before naming names, TM states that the core fluctuates according to circumstance "but right now..." and then leads with Gionta, Moulson and Jorges. He then goes on to name Girgensens, Foligno, etc. but doesn't initially include Kane or Ennis before taking a pause. Zads & Risto aren't named exactly, but he does refer to the "two kids on the blue line".

Then he says the hope is Kane will come into the top 3, then names Ennis' potential role as center or winger, then refers again to Girgensens as a center or winger "depending on what they do but in the top 6". None of the AHLers presently up were named, only referred to as a whole where it went to getting the chance to audition. Some prolonged talk about what Reinhart needs to do to become NHL ready).

To the extent it's unlikely TM is building the future roster around the likes of aged vets Gionta, Moulson or Jorges, he was clearly being political and respectful about the "here and now". Given the prospect of drafting McDavid/Eitchel, and with Girgensens, Kane, Reinhart, Moulson, etc. already in the mix, it's equally doubtful TM truly meant that the roster was being build around support case ala Foligno, for example.

All in, my take is that TM was speaking off the cuff, mixing the "but right now" with the future view, and generally giving a broad "future is in flux" message. Realistically, I don't think it means anything if TM mentioned a name (ie: Foligno) or neglected a name (ie: Bogo). So it's probably a wasted exercise to start dreaming up line combos on the basis of that interview.

(side note: I still think it's possible that TM was yakking with Benning pre: tradeline on a deal to swap back Hodgson for one of the Canucks' quality backups, and given his reference to resuming those talks in the offseason, wouldn't be surprised to see that happen... Stunned, sure, bouts of laughter definitely, but not surprised)

Yes and no.

His comments about the core were pretty much just stating what he already has as building blocks for next year's team. So those comments in and of themselves are fairly generic. But he also laid out some specifics with certain players, what he hopes for with a couple others and it gives us a rough idea of his plans for next year, particularly at forward.

- That being Kane, Ennis and Girgs are in the top 6. He gave us half of our top 6 for next season.

- He's hoping Reinhart and our 2015 pick are ready to go. Murray's ideal situation would have our 2015 pick and Reinhart on the roster. If they're not ready to go we have players in the minors auditioning for spots right now. I take this to mean if Reinhart and our 2015 first are ready to go they are on the team ahead of any of our guys in the minors. Which means pretty tough sledding to make the team for the AHL guys.

- Moulson has a modified NTC and Gionta has a NTC. There not likely to be going anywhere. You also have Foligno mentioned multiple times in previous interviews by Murray as a player thats not going anywhere. He's generally listed with Girgs and the other youngsters when Murray talks.

With the above in mind the forward corp starts taking shape but isn't fully fleshed out.

 

[MayDayMayDay]

That's it right there: Weber may be short on talent compared to Ristolainen, Zadorov or Bogosian but he's a heart-and-soul type that sticks up for his teammates and plays the "heavy" game Murray likes, just like Girgensons. Add that to the fact that next season's blueline will likely have 4 guys age 25 or younger (Risto, Zadorov, Bogosian and Pysyk) and Murray probably sees the need for Weber's veteran experience to complement Gorges as mentors.



That's a sensitive word for many Sabres fans, given the frustrations fans and media had with Regier's 'Rochester core'



Agreed - count me in the camp that thinks Murray will use Grigorenko as his next biggest trade chip now that he's dealt Myers.

I also agree with most that Hodgson is not on the opening night roster - be it due to trade or buyout or even waivers. Even though Murray insinuated that Nolan's handling of Hodgson has a lot to do with his poor stats this year, it's obvious that Hodgson's one-dimensional, non-confrontational perimeter game doesn't fit with Murray's vision of "how the game is supposed to be played" or of a team difficult to play against.



Since Murray signed Moulson to a 5 year deal, I think it's a given he'll stick with him for the foreseeable future....



...so Moulson should be assumed in top 6 next year as well.

On Larsson, I'd agree he's the better choice but it seems too many posts I've read are assuming McCormick is off the roster next season. I don't see that happening unless his concussion situation becomes career-threatening - Murray signed him for 3 years for a reason, likely as another veteran leader to teach the kids. Reinhart mentioned Gionta, Moulson and McCormick by name in recent interviews as guys who showed him the ropes in camp.

Personally, I'd see the pieces being:

Kane-McDavid-Ennis (*)
Moulson-Reinhart-Girgensons
Foligno-Larsson-Gionta
Deslauriers-McCormick- (**)

(*) - If Murray chases after O'Reilly, I suspect he'll be willing to include Ennis in the package going back to Denver. As others have noted in other threads, I would think ROR would slide into the RW spot alongside McDavid as a defensive and faceoff insurance to the rookie like he was to MacKinnon.

(**) - I wouldn't dismiss Kaleta entirely but I could see Murray signing another UFA like Condra or other to fill out the 4th line.

I think the bolded is close.

Not that McEichel wouldn't still be a fantastic C for EK, I would just like to see Kane on a line with someone who is going to focus more on feeding him the puck in good scoring situations. To me, that's Reinhart. I think Samson will be more inclined in the offensive end to be a distributor, which is why I'd like to see him with a pure shoot-first sniper like Kane. That and Reinhart's scoring prowess is more habitually opportunistic (right place, right time, was thinking it 5 seconds ago) as opposed to demandingly assertive. I could see 3/4 of Reinhart's goals coming off of Kane rebounds or odd-man rushes w/ Kane.

McEichel can do all of these things just as effectively as Samson, but McEichel is also more of a finisher. Thus, I'd like to see McEichel on his own line where the other two pieces complement him well (manufacture space, crash the net, feed it to him on the half boards, set screens, pot rebounds, etc.).

I'd like a top six of:

Kane-Reinhart-Ennis
Moulson-McEichel-Girgensons

 

[Sabretip]

@SabreTip: When did you move to Phoenix? I thought you used to be in LA area?.

I lived in Phoenix for 13 years before a 3-year stint ('10-'13) in LA for work reasons. Thankfully, things worked out and am back in Phoenix for a year now where the hockey team is bad but the golf is great!

 

[Sabretip]

I think the bolded is close.

Not that McEichel wouldn't still be a fantastic C for EK, I would just like to see Kane on a line with someone who is going to focus more on feeding him the puck in good scoring situations. To me, that's Reinhart. I think Samson will be more inclined in the offensive end to be a distributor, which is why I'd like to see him with a pure shoot-first sniper like Kane.

Part of me is hoping that the speed that a Kane-McDavid tandem may display together will rekindle the excitement the Sabres fans felt they saw LaFontaine-Mogilny together. I've really hated how the Sabres' team speed - from skating to passing to overall decision-making - has fallen off in the past 5-6 years. I'm hoping that in Murray's mantra of being a team that's hard to play against, it entails not only being physically strong on the puck pursuit along boards, in the corners and at front of the net but in how fast they get in on the forecheck and transition from defense to offense and back.

Granted, I can see Reinhart as a playmaking, defensive conscience also working well with Kane but it'd be more of a case of feeding the puck into the open areas where he sees Kane going rather than in creating odd man rushes together like I could see McDavid-Kane doing.