Roster Speculation: 2014-2015 Part One

[La Cosa Nostra]

I just want to build a *winning* team.

A season ago we want to build a Bruins like team. During the season/playoffs we wanted to be like the Blackhawks. Now after the cup it's the Kings. Whatever we try to do let's hope we are the innovators and not the followers. Followers don't set trends or win, they just try to emulate successful teams a year or two late.

 

[haseoke39]

Re: innovators/followers, I don't think any of these teams are innovators. I think they just put together a group of players that are collectively excellent and collectively have an identity. If someone came along with a group of players that looked and played like the 1980's Oilers, it wouldn't matter that they were followers.

In my mind, just one thing that's not worth having anxiety about. If we put together enough god players in a style taht suits their strengths, it won't matter if we're playing 2007 Ducks hockey, 2009 Penguins hockey, or 2014 Kings hockey.

 

[struckbyaparkedcar]

Things every championship team needs:
1) Scoring line to draw other checking lines
2) Checking line to draw top matchups
3) Shutdown pairing to draw top matchups
4) Goaltending
5) To-die-for depth at one or several positions

You need 4/5. 5 can typically make up whatever shortcomings you have. The 06 Hurricanes depth at C,W and in net offset their relatively atrocious defense, the Pens obviously didn't care much about their lack of wing scoring, the 13 Hawks played Michael effing Handzus as their second scoring C, but it didn't matter because they could play Sharp/Kane/Hossa/Saad/Bickell on the wings and their D was stacked, etc...

 

[Der Jaeger]

I just want to build a *winning* team.

A season ago we want to build a Bruins like team. During the season/playoffs we wanted to be like the Blackhawks. Now after the cup it's the Kings. Whatever we try to do let's hope we are the innovators and not the followers. Followers don't set trends or win, they just try to emulate successful teams a year or two late.

The chances of innovating in a sport with so many set parameters and rules is slim. The last "innovation" in the National Hockey League was when the Devils introduced the neutral zone trap. And I'm not even sure that's innovation, since it probably was used sometime earlier in the NHL.

Typically, the "genius" is the person that can take parts and pieces of already existing things and put them together in a new way. Jame prefers the Los Angeles, Boston style of hockey. I preferred the Chicago style of hockey.

Putting those together is the closest you come to innovation. If you could have a buffalo team that was big and physical on the wings and defense, but also extremely mobile on the defense and had a one two punch like Toews and Kane, then you'd get a team that's sort of new but it's really just combining the styles of two or three other teams.

Also, style = model. So yes, style is important when building a team. I want Murray to have a framework style blueprint in mind as he's acquiring players over the next 2 to 3 seasons.

 

[Der Jaeger]

So, here's my model: i'd like to build Chicago just with some modifications. I think Chicago's skating ability from the top to the bottom of their roster is a huge advantage over everyone they play. While I fully understand they don't play quite as physical as Los Angeles or Boston, they do have plenty of physical players and most of the players on the roster can play through a physical style of opponent.

The modification that I would make is the scoring ability that Chicago gets from Patrick Kane would be better served if he played center. I think Chicago would be more effective if they had Toews at center and Kane's scoring coming from a center position. Saad, Bickell, Sharp, and Hossa fill out a tremendous top six.

Buffalo can get this type of top six by drafting Reinhart and McDavid/Eichel. Then they need to surround those two with physical forwards (Larsson, Carrier, maybe Foligno), wingers that can play through a physical game (Fasching, maybe Armia and Stafford, if he stays), and support those top two lines with a shutdown line (Girgensons).

The back end needs to be big and mobile. Buffalo still needs to find a power play quarterback and a primary puck mover. I like the bigger goaltenders that Buffalo is collecting. I think they will serve the team well in being able to play through the physical opponents the Sabres are likely to play against.

I think there is still room for players like Ennis and Hodgson, as well as players like Possler and Hurley.

Possible future:

Carrier - McDavid - Armia
Ennis - Reinhart - Fasching
Larsson - Girgensons - Hodgson
Foligno - Kea - Deslauriers
Schaller - Flynn

Zadarov - Myers
Ristolainen - Pysyk
McCabe - PP QB

Ullmark
Makarov

 

[WNY to NoVA]

Things every championship team needs:
1) Scoring line to draw other checking lines
2) Checking line to draw top matchups
3) Shutdown pairing to draw top matchups
4) Goaltending
5) To-die-for depth at one or several positions

You need 4/5. 5 can typically make up whatever shortcomings you have. The 06 Hurricanes depth at C,W and in net offset their relatively atrocious defense, the Pens obviously didn't care much about their lack of wing scoring, the 13 Hawks played Michael effing Handzus as their second scoring C, but it didn't matter because they could play Sharp/Kane/Hossa/Saad/Bickell on the wings and their D was stacked, etc...

I think 1 = skill with speed. Who has the best mix on the current roster? Ennis? Need 2 or 3 guys better than that

 

[ZeroPT*]

So, here's my model: i'd like to build Chicago just with some modifications. I think Chicago's skating ability from the top to the bottom of their roster is a huge advantage over everyone they play. While I fully understand they don't play quite as physical as Los Angeles or Boston, they do have plenty of physical players and most of the players on the roster can play through a physical style of opponent.

The modification that I would make is the scoring ability that Chicago gets from Patrick Kane would be better served if he played center. I think Chicago would be more effective if they had Toews at center and Kane's scoring coming from a center position. Saad, Bickell, Sharp, and Hossa fill out a tremendous top six.

Buffalo can get this type of top six by drafting Reinhart and McDavid/Eichel. Then they need to surround those two with physical forwards (Larsson, Carrier, maybe Foligno), wingers that can play through a physical game (Fasching, maybe Armia and Stafford, if he stays), and support those top two lines with a shutdown line (Girgensons).

The back end needs to be big and mobile. Buffalo still needs to find a power play quarterback and a primary puck mover. I like the bigger goaltenders that Buffalo is collecting. I think they will serve the team well in being able to play through the physical opponents the Sabres are likely to play against.

I think there is still room for players like Ennis and Hodgson, as well as players like Possler and Hurley.

Possible future:

Carrier - McDavid - Armia
Ennis - Reinhart - Fasching
Larsson - Girgensons - Hodgson
Foligno - Kea - Deslauriers
Schaller - Flynn

Zadarov - Myers
Ristolainen - Pysyk
McCabe - PP QB

Ullmark
Makarov

No Compher..?

 

[Der Jaeger]

No Compher..?

Compher, and guys from the 2014 and 2015 drafts, will eventually be in the mix. Chicago was so deep after their first championship that they had to trade/let go of some good players to get under the cap (Ladd, Buff, Versteg, Campbell, etc).

Buffalo will eventually be in that position. Guys like Compher will fill the gaps.

 

[1972]

A winning team has 1) good players 2) team players that will accept any role the are put into 3) luck. The notion that a certain type of player can't fit on a winning team is a fallacy, they just need to be able to adapt their game to help the team.

 

[haseoke39]

No Compher..?

The poster projected multiple other prospects into our starting lineup that were taken after the first round - a pretty liberal prognostication to begin with. You can't seriously just run a list of all the prospects in the organization as our future lineup. You've gotta have a little deference for the odds, and the odds say <25% that any of these round 2+ picks even make the NHL.

 

[Savitar]

Baptiste will have a prominent role in the future

 

[ZeroPT*]

Compher, and guys from the 2014 and 2015 drafts, will eventually be in the mix. Chicago was so deep after their first championship that they had to trade/let go of some good players to get under the cap (Ladd, Buff, Versteg, Campbell, etc).

Buffalo will eventually be in that position. Guys like Compher will fill the gaps.

I'm assuming this will be in 3-4 years.

Compher will be 22-23 and will be good enough to play on the roster. I don't think both Ennis and Hodgson will be on the team by then. I think this year (14-15) will be a final evaluation for TM and he will then package the one he likes less along with picks and other pieces for a proven top 6 forward (like the Carter/Richards trades)

If Carrier is good enough to be on the team, Compher will too.

 

[sabresandcanucks]

My top three,

1) Speed
2) Size
3) Ability to move the puck quickly

 

[ZeroPT*]

My top three,

1) Speed
2) Size
3) Ability to move the puck quickly

1)hockey sense
2)hockey IQ
3)ICE Q

the rest are luxuries IMO.

Obviously I want other qualities but Hockey sense is the #1 requirement IMO. Size and Speed are other qualities I like, same with 2-way ability.

 

[Der Jaeger]

The poster projected multiple other prospects into our starting lineup that were taken after the first round - a pretty liberal prognostication to begin with. You can't seriously just run a list of all the prospects in the organization as our future lineup. You've gotta have a little deference for the odds, and the odds say <25% that any of these round 2+ picks even make the NHL.

Interesting that you missed this at the very beginning of the line-up:

Possible future

It was illustrative, designed to illustrate my point about having a prospect pool similar to what Chicago ices now, and in-line with my model.

 

[Der Jaeger]

I'm assuming this will be in 3-4 years.

Compher will be 22-23 and will be good enough to play on the roster. I don't think both Ennis and Hodgson will be on the team by then. I think this year (14-15) will be a final evaluation for TM and he will then package the one he likes less along with picks and other pieces for a proven top 6 forward (like the Carter/Richards trades)

If Carrier is good enough to be on the team, Compher will too.

You are taking that lineup too literally. That lineup was designed to show how Buffalo could ice a team similar to what Chicago ices now.

The point is that Buffalo has a prospect pool capable of doing what Chicago does now, with the addition of Reinhart and McDavid/Eichel. Mix, match, and time the other prospects in the Sabres' pool how you wish. The endpoint is the same.

 

[Push Dr Tracksuit]

That's sort of like drafting QBs in the 6th round because Tom Brady was picked there. Or having faith in your undrafted QB because Tony Romo went undrafted.

For every waived or cut player who eventually made it, there are hundreds that didn't. Chances are that Conacher never pans out. Hope I'm wrong.

all he said was "lol he was on waivers last year" like that alone meant something to the conversation, if hes not gonna show why Conacher being on waivers is significant then its just Jame being Jame, and its always fun to poke the bear when Jame thinks hes being internet tough guy

Conacher isn't a trade-able asset but "because he was on waivers" isn't a reason why, its because he's bad, being on waivers is a result of that but you can end up on waivers for many other reason

 

[Tampacuseforever]

all he said was "lol he was on waivers last year" like that alone meant something to the conversation, if hes not gonna show why Conacher being on waivers is significant then its just Jame being Jame, and its always fun to poke the bear when Jame thinks hes being internet tough guy

Conacher isn't a trade-able asset but "because he was on waivers" isn't a reason why, its because he's bad, being on waivers is a result of that but you can end up on waivers for many other reason

Good post. If you think he's bad fine, but I feel he is well worth giving a longer look to you never know. He was highly regarded no more than a year ago. These are the types we need to roll the dice with the next couple of years. While we are at it see what it would cost to get a guy like Brett Connoly here he is getting lost in the shuffle in Tampa Bay. Wouldn't mind taking a flyer on Jordan Caron as well.

 

[Jame]

all he said was "lol he was on waivers last year" like that alone meant something to the conversation, if hes not gonna show why Conacher being on waivers is significant then its just Jame being Jame, and its always fun to poke the bear when Jame thinks hes being internet tough guy

Conacher isn't a trade-able asset but "because he was on waivers" isn't a reason why, its because he's bad, being on waivers is a result of that but you can end up on waivers for many other reason

When someone suggest we can trade Conacher for a 3rd round pick, the fact that he was very recently on waivers is relevant.

Everything doesn't have to be spelled out (unless you're an Internet whiner)

Waivers -> Bad -> no trade value


What's not relevant is comparing the situation to Pominvilles

 

[enthusiast]

Wasn't there a trade last year where a player picked up on waivers was moved for a 2nd or 3rd that same year?

 

[Der Jaeger]

all he said was "lol he was on waivers last year" like that alone meant something to the conversation, if hes not gonna show why Conacher being on waivers is significant then its just Jame being Jame, and its always fun to poke the bear when Jame thinks hes being internet tough guy

Conacher isn't a trade-able asset but "because he was on waivers" isn't a reason why, its because he's bad, being on waivers is a result of that but you can end up on waivers for many other reason

Float a Conacher trade on the main board. Get the opinion if other fans. See if any would trade a 3rd round pick for him.

Typically, GMs trade players after they attempt to trade them, and get no offer back.

 

[Der Jaeger]

Wasn't there a trade last year where a player picked up on waivers was moved for a 2nd or 3rd that same year?

Selective observation. How many players were waived and not traded?

 

[enthusiast]

Selective observation. How many players were waived and not traded?

About 10-15 players are actually waived and deemed good enough to be picked up by another team each year, so out of that pool it's not ridiculous to assume Conacher's at the top end being a 24 year old with a 30-40 point pace for his career

 

[Der Jaeger]

About 10-15 players are actually waived and deemed good enough to be picked up by another team each year, so out of that pool it's not ridiculous to assume Conacher's at the top end

Conacher being at the top end of waved players wasn't the argument. The argument was that he was good enough to be traded for a third round pick, correct?

 

[Beerz]

Conacher being at the top end of waved players wasn't the argument. The argument was that he was good enough to be traded for a third round pick, correct?

To be fair....the guy said he might be able to be traded for a 3rd round pick in a few years...