Yandle scoring points in the playoffs isn't exactly the concern now is it. The concern is watching him get turn stiled by other teams in his own end.
Roster Speculation 2014-2015, Part VIII
- Thread starter tsujimoto74
- Start date
- Status
Yandle scoring points in the playoffs isn't exactly the concern now is it. The concern is watching him get turn stiled by other teams in his own end.
is my position that confusing?
The scoring defensemen who is a liability defensively has value in an 82 regular game season... but his liability defensively is not something you should want on the ice in a tight checking 7 game series.
I don't agree with him being bad defensively. He's passable and his production more than makes up for it. He's among the elite offensive producers and is exactly the type of player we need.
Jim Bob
RIP RJ
He's also only a -1 in the playoffs.
It's not like he's Any Elmore.
I'll take a 3rd pairing LHD that can make the PP hum.
joshjull
Registered User
Agreed. What a great deal that is. He is one of the gems of this league who is rarely talked about.
Sabretooth
Registered User
I've been looking at this...
Kane
Ennis
Moulson
Gionta
Girgensons
Foligno
Hodgson
Larsson
Grigorenko
McEichel
Reinhart
Possible Acquired Vet top 6 center
(Mitchell)
(Flynn)
(Des)
(McCormick)
(Kaleta)
(Varone)
(Schaller)
...and trying to piece together what our forward lineup might actually be next year.
There are hopes, and then there are realistic expectations.
-I hope some combination of the names in parentheses make up our 4th line and extra forward(s) next year. I don't want any of those names playing any higher in the lineup, but, if nolan is still coach for example, I'm not sure he can resist moving Mitchell, Flynn, or Des up the lineup if some of the others who should be top 9 are perceived as not trying hard enough for him.
-If grigs sticks around, I hope he can be the 3C. I think he's defensively responsible and should be capable of putting up 40-50 points (That would be eventually at his best, probably not next year). By defensively responsible, I don't mean that line would be the tough checking getting-top-matchups line, just that they wouldn't be a liability defensively. I think Grigs makes sense to keep at center if he's good enough because he's played center against pros in the AHL this year, whereas Reinhart and McEichel haven't.
-McEichel and Reinhart being 1C and 2C are hopes/dreams/eventualities, but I don't expect either of them to actually start at C next year. I expect Girgs to start the season at 1C or 2C, and hope we acquire a vet top 6 capable center for the other top 6 center. If/when we end up with Eichel, I could maybe see him being ready to play center at the pro level because he's at least been playing against young men at the NCAA level. I see Reinhart and McDavid starting at wings, even if they both will eventually end up centers. They've both played wing at the WJC level so neither would be entirely out of their element. I should also clarify that its not that I don't think either Reinhart or McDavid would be able to handle playing a top 6 center position next year, I just don't think it would be best.
-An alternate possibility is that we may be able to move grigs as part of a package to acquire a top 6 capable vet center, in which case McReinchel can center a sheltered 3rd line. I just think if Grigs is still on the team next season, the best place for him is 3C. I think he can be a Jordan Stall-esque 3C for us, without the PKing. Maybe even that could be developed eventually, but I think we might always have better options.
-Another likely alternate reality is that we are not able to acquire a top 6 vet C. We then have McReinchelrenko for 2C and 3C... I just think this path relies to much on grigs panning out, whereas acquiring that vet C gives us more options and hedges more bets.
-I think Kane, Moulson, and Ennis are likely locks to start the season as top 6 wingers. I also think Gionta isn't going anywhere and will have to be slotted into the top 9 somewhere.
-If you've been following along, then you'll notice right now I've ended up somewhere like this for a lineup (Don't pay too much attention to where the names are, only the open spaces)...
Kane-Girgs-Ennis
Moulson-Vet C-XXXX
YYYY-Grigs-Gionta
Des-Mitchell-Flynn
...Leaving XXXX and YYYY to be McEichel and Reinhart, respectively. I'd reaaaaaaally reaally love to swap Reinhart up to play with Kane and Girgs and send Ennis down to play with Grigs and Gionta... but I expect that ennis is a top 6 C here until he is outplayed for the spot. I want to keep Moulson with McEichel because I believe it would bring the best out of Moulson, even if they're both wings with a vet C. Thats why Ennis ends up with Kane, even if some people (myself included) don't like it.
-There may be some messaging around with the lines above depending on preferences, but the point I wanted to make was here is the list of players left out in that scenario...
Foligno
Larsson
Hodgson
...Foligno has been utilized as a top 9/middle 6 player this year, so who in that lineup would he displace? Larsson also should be a 3rd liner at worst, but again I can't make the argument for him replacing anyone listed. I suppose you could say goodbye to Mitchell and Flynn and roll a 4th line of...
Des-Larsson-Foligno
...Des could smash people, Foligno could play physical and occasionally score goals, and Larsson can drive possession from the center. It wouldn't be a bad 4th line, I'm just not sure murray sees Larsson and Foligno as 4th liners if they stay on the team going forward. It would also require a coach who sees the 4th line as something more than a "doghouse" line - a line that has a purpose and can be effective and given 10-12 min a night.
-Hodgson really is the odd man out. I've supported hodgson, been a borderline apologist really, and I definitely feel he could bounce back but I look at what we're going to have and objectively I'm not sure I can make a case for Hodgson being a better fit anywhere than the names I've already listed. Even Hodgson at his absolute best. I mean, lets look at 2 likely scenarios that could happen:
1) Grigs doesn't pan out and ends up waived or moved for a pick or packaged for something. Worst case scenario for grigs basically. Could you stomach a 3rd line centered by Reinhart with Hodgson and Gionta on the wings? Or would you rather, say, play Larsson at 3C with Reinhart and Gionta on the wings? I choose the latter - Larsson might never produce as much offensively as Hodgson at his best, but he drives possession, plays defensively sound, and can PK... pretty much a stereotypical 3C. Brandon Sutter, essentially.
2) Maybe we fail to acquire a vet C. Maybe in that case, we have...
Kane-Girgs-Reinhart
Moulson-McEichel-Ennis
XXXX-Grigs-Gionta
...Maybe Grigs/McEichel/Reinhart are somewhat interchangeable, but point is again, is hodgson the best option for that wing? Or would you rather see Foligno or Larsson there? I'd pick Foligno or Larsson.
Point is, no matter how I consider it, I think there needs to be at least 2-3 players be moved out/bust out/be held down to lower leagues/not acquired before there is room for hodgson. Maybe that is reason enough to keep him as an extra forward as a last resort just in case. Maybe we try to waive him to Rochester to start the year (not sure he'd like that) so we can call him back if we need to. I just can't justify giving him a roster spot over any of the other names I listed.
-Schaller could be a great 4C option, but doesn't seem to be on a path to becoming a NHL regular in murray's plans. Varone could probably be an NHLer in an absolutely ideal situation but is likely unable to become a regular in this roster. McCormick is still around next year right? I think he could be used at 4C or at the very least will be the extra forward healthy scratch on the roster. Kaleta will likely be out. I've included Mitchell in this post but I think he is a UFA at the end of the year (RIP Capgeek...)? If so he likely won't be around anyways but re-signing him could be an option. Flynn too maybe be a UFA? RFA? Idk. Thats partially what motivated the "say goodbye to mitchell and flynn and let larsson and foligno take their 4th line spots" part of the post. I'm pretty sure there's no other prospect at the AHL level or currently in the NCAA or wherever that could conceivably win a spot in our lineup next year.
-In conclusion it is all just a fun bit of roster gymnastics with some if/thens, what ifs, and maybe this/maybe that's until murray points the ship in a more concrete direction. But the result is there are like some names from the top of this post (the ones not in parenthesis) that will need to be moved out some way before the start of next season. And then some people are still considering we should maybe re-sign stewart. Well, that would push someone else out of the lineup. But who?
If our forward lineup is...
Kane-Girgs-Ennis
Moulson-Vet C-Eichel
Reinhart-Grigs-Gionta
Des-Larsson-Foligno
Missing:
Hodgson
McCormick
Mitchell
Flynn
Stewart
...to fit in stewart, do we... Not acquire a vet C, move Eichel to C to start the season? Trade Grigs+ for that vet C? Move Ennis? Move Gionta? I don't see how to keep everybody without forcing someone else to play where they shouldn't be playing, or out of the lineup alltogether. If keeping stewart makes the team better then sure you do it and find a way to make it work, I just want to think about who the casualty would be in order to keep him.
Kane
Ennis
Moulson
Gionta
Girgensons
Foligno
Hodgson
Larsson
Grigorenko
McEichel
Reinhart
Possible Acquired Vet top 6 center
(Mitchell)
(Flynn)
(Des)
(McCormick)
(Kaleta)
(Varone)
(Schaller)
...and trying to piece together what our forward lineup might actually be next year.
There are hopes, and then there are realistic expectations.
-I hope some combination of the names in parentheses make up our 4th line and extra forward(s) next year. I don't want any of those names playing any higher in the lineup, but, if nolan is still coach for example, I'm not sure he can resist moving Mitchell, Flynn, or Des up the lineup if some of the others who should be top 9 are perceived as not trying hard enough for him.
-If grigs sticks around, I hope he can be the 3C. I think he's defensively responsible and should be capable of putting up 40-50 points (That would be eventually at his best, probably not next year). By defensively responsible, I don't mean that line would be the tough checking getting-top-matchups line, just that they wouldn't be a liability defensively. I think Grigs makes sense to keep at center if he's good enough because he's played center against pros in the AHL this year, whereas Reinhart and McEichel haven't.
-McEichel and Reinhart being 1C and 2C are hopes/dreams/eventualities, but I don't expect either of them to actually start at C next year. I expect Girgs to start the season at 1C or 2C, and hope we acquire a vet top 6 capable center for the other top 6 center. If/when we end up with Eichel, I could maybe see him being ready to play center at the pro level because he's at least been playing against young men at the NCAA level. I see Reinhart and McDavid starting at wings, even if they both will eventually end up centers. They've both played wing at the WJC level so neither would be entirely out of their element. I should also clarify that its not that I don't think either Reinhart or McDavid would be able to handle playing a top 6 center position next year, I just don't think it would be best.
-An alternate possibility is that we may be able to move grigs as part of a package to acquire a top 6 capable vet center, in which case McReinchel can center a sheltered 3rd line. I just think if Grigs is still on the team next season, the best place for him is 3C. I think he can be a Jordan Stall-esque 3C for us, without the PKing. Maybe even that could be developed eventually, but I think we might always have better options.
-Another likely alternate reality is that we are not able to acquire a top 6 vet C. We then have McReinchelrenko for 2C and 3C... I just think this path relies to much on grigs panning out, whereas acquiring that vet C gives us more options and hedges more bets.
-I think Kane, Moulson, and Ennis are likely locks to start the season as top 6 wingers. I also think Gionta isn't going anywhere and will have to be slotted into the top 9 somewhere.
-If you've been following along, then you'll notice right now I've ended up somewhere like this for a lineup (Don't pay too much attention to where the names are, only the open spaces)...
Kane-Girgs-Ennis
Moulson-Vet C-XXXX
YYYY-Grigs-Gionta
Des-Mitchell-Flynn
...Leaving XXXX and YYYY to be McEichel and Reinhart, respectively. I'd reaaaaaaally reaally love to swap Reinhart up to play with Kane and Girgs and send Ennis down to play with Grigs and Gionta... but I expect that ennis is a top 6 C here until he is outplayed for the spot. I want to keep Moulson with McEichel because I believe it would bring the best out of Moulson, even if they're both wings with a vet C. Thats why Ennis ends up with Kane, even if some people (myself included) don't like it.
-There may be some messaging around with the lines above depending on preferences, but the point I wanted to make was here is the list of players left out in that scenario...
Foligno
Larsson
Hodgson
...Foligno has been utilized as a top 9/middle 6 player this year, so who in that lineup would he displace? Larsson also should be a 3rd liner at worst, but again I can't make the argument for him replacing anyone listed. I suppose you could say goodbye to Mitchell and Flynn and roll a 4th line of...
Des-Larsson-Foligno
...Des could smash people, Foligno could play physical and occasionally score goals, and Larsson can drive possession from the center. It wouldn't be a bad 4th line, I'm just not sure murray sees Larsson and Foligno as 4th liners if they stay on the team going forward. It would also require a coach who sees the 4th line as something more than a "doghouse" line - a line that has a purpose and can be effective and given 10-12 min a night.
-Hodgson really is the odd man out. I've supported hodgson, been a borderline apologist really, and I definitely feel he could bounce back but I look at what we're going to have and objectively I'm not sure I can make a case for Hodgson being a better fit anywhere than the names I've already listed. Even Hodgson at his absolute best. I mean, lets look at 2 likely scenarios that could happen:
1) Grigs doesn't pan out and ends up waived or moved for a pick or packaged for something. Worst case scenario for grigs basically. Could you stomach a 3rd line centered by Reinhart with Hodgson and Gionta on the wings? Or would you rather, say, play Larsson at 3C with Reinhart and Gionta on the wings? I choose the latter - Larsson might never produce as much offensively as Hodgson at his best, but he drives possession, plays defensively sound, and can PK... pretty much a stereotypical 3C. Brandon Sutter, essentially.
2) Maybe we fail to acquire a vet C. Maybe in that case, we have...
Kane-Girgs-Reinhart
Moulson-McEichel-Ennis
XXXX-Grigs-Gionta
...Maybe Grigs/McEichel/Reinhart are somewhat interchangeable, but point is again, is hodgson the best option for that wing? Or would you rather see Foligno or Larsson there? I'd pick Foligno or Larsson.
Point is, no matter how I consider it, I think there needs to be at least 2-3 players be moved out/bust out/be held down to lower leagues/not acquired before there is room for hodgson. Maybe that is reason enough to keep him as an extra forward as a last resort just in case. Maybe we try to waive him to Rochester to start the year (not sure he'd like that) so we can call him back if we need to. I just can't justify giving him a roster spot over any of the other names I listed.
-Schaller could be a great 4C option, but doesn't seem to be on a path to becoming a NHL regular in murray's plans. Varone could probably be an NHLer in an absolutely ideal situation but is likely unable to become a regular in this roster. McCormick is still around next year right? I think he could be used at 4C or at the very least will be the extra forward healthy scratch on the roster. Kaleta will likely be out. I've included Mitchell in this post but I think he is a UFA at the end of the year (RIP Capgeek...)? If so he likely won't be around anyways but re-signing him could be an option. Flynn too maybe be a UFA? RFA? Idk. Thats partially what motivated the "say goodbye to mitchell and flynn and let larsson and foligno take their 4th line spots" part of the post. I'm pretty sure there's no other prospect at the AHL level or currently in the NCAA or wherever that could conceivably win a spot in our lineup next year.
-In conclusion it is all just a fun bit of roster gymnastics with some if/thens, what ifs, and maybe this/maybe that's until murray points the ship in a more concrete direction. But the result is there are like some names from the top of this post (the ones not in parenthesis) that will need to be moved out some way before the start of next season. And then some people are still considering we should maybe re-sign stewart. Well, that would push someone else out of the lineup. But who?
If our forward lineup is...
Kane-Girgs-Ennis
Moulson-Vet C-Eichel
Reinhart-Grigs-Gionta
Des-Larsson-Foligno
Missing:
Hodgson
McCormick
Mitchell
Flynn
Stewart
...to fit in stewart, do we... Not acquire a vet C, move Eichel to C to start the season? Trade Grigs+ for that vet C? Move Ennis? Move Gionta? I don't see how to keep everybody without forcing someone else to play where they shouldn't be playing, or out of the lineup alltogether. If keeping stewart makes the team better then sure you do it and find a way to make it work, I just want to think about who the casualty would be in order to keep him.
struckbyaparkedcar
Guilty of Being Right
What? Offense from the blueline is a total luxury, can't be counted on in the playoffs, and we will have four developing defensive players on the roster next season that he won't make better.
Our transition game is horrendous. Not only that but we have absolutely no offensive spark on the back end. He'd be a great fit with Bogo
Great post. Just one general point though. Everyone seems to put Reinhart in their top9. Why not just let him play one year against older players in Rochester with Bailey, Baptiste & co? Then you could re-sign Stewart and bring in that veteran C. Again, make the kids earn their spots.
Kane-Girgs-Stewart
Moulson-Vet C-Ennis
Eichel-Grigs-Gionta
Des-Larsson-Foligno
Yeah that must totally be the reason why. Absolutely no other reason as to why I think that.
struckbyaparkedcar
Guilty of Being Right
Except his possession stats are typically to the level of his team, especially once you factor in his huge zone-start advantage.
We don't have offense from the blueline because our forwards are historically bad.
Bogo/Risto/Zads/Pysyk will do fine in transition, especially with a mobile, defensive vet like Coburn, Oduya or Sieds in the mix.
i guess the other explanation is that you're not a good judge of defensive play... but i was giving you the benefit of the doubt.
Or the other explanation is that I think he's been decent defensively in the games I've watched of him? It doesn't always have to be someone twisting things or not being able to judge accurately. I think he's a passable Defensive player. He's not great at it but he's not awful at it either
I don't see why you think that's so outlandish
I don't see why you think that's so outlandish
They'd do fine. Sure. But with Yandle you'd be adding one if the best offensive D-men in the game who's also one if the best transitional players in the game.
He's not MAB.
super soft, unable to separate the opponent from the puck, positioning is questionable, losing spacing on the rush... he's all sorts of not good when the pucks not on his stick
struckbyaparkedcar
Guilty of Being Right
He might as well be.
A) He costs assets that are better used on centers or better defensemen.
B) His acquisition means we're basically done building the blueline unless we're taking a loss on Bogo or Gorges, or moving one of the kids.
C) He doesn't abet the development of anyone he'd be playing alongside.
D) He takes D-zone starts and quality linemates from developing players.
Just no.
I think this Yandle discussion is a bit of a moot point. He's the best offensive d-man on the market right now and has a year left on his deal. I don't think he makes it past the deadline.
Either way, i doubt we're spending real assets on 30 year old d-men with expiring contracts next year.
Either way, i doubt we're spending real assets on 30 year old d-men with expiring contracts next year.
cramdizzl
cram it
Yandle is going to cost a lot to whoever wants him, both in assets and cap hit. For what he brings, its just not worth it. Offensive Dmen are superfluous parts, especially when their risk-taking produces goals against. They're already grooming two-way studs who can provide offense along with shutdown defense. I see no point in spending assets on a guy who will only do half of that.
Worried about the transition game? Put McEichel, Reinhart, and Kane in the top 6. Done.
Worried about the transition game? Put McEichel, Reinhart, and Kane in the top 6. Done.
these are all fair points and well articulated. THat doesn't make him MAB. Like I said I totally understand not wanting to pay the assets or something. But the flak he gets is unwarranted.
I don't watch enough of the yotes to have an opinion. Are there any good stats that support the idea he is good or bad on the defensive side?
Tangentially speaking, it has yet to occur to me that a big piece the team needs going forward is a top 4 offensive defensemen. Bogo, Risto, and Zadorov all strike me as good outlet passers with good to great shots. If we want a ppqb sure, but we could probably find a cheap one that plays mostly as a bottom pair, right?
Sabretooth
Registered User
It's possible, sure. I just don't expect it. I think Reinhart is going to be given every chance to make the Roster next season, but if Murray re-signs stewart and acquires a vet C then there's really no place for Reinhart in the roster unless one of grigs/moulson/gionta/ennis is part of the deal acquiring the vet C or moved out some other way. While I'm certain Murray would absolutley send Reinhart to Rochester if he had to and felt it was best, I don't think Murray ends up with a situation where Reinhart has virtually no chance of making the roster out of camp.
I never intended to exclude the possibility of Reinhart going to the A, only trying to open a dialog on moves that would be needed and players that would be excluded for everyone we're already likely to have at the start of next season to be in the roster. There's a chance if we get Eichel that he stays in college another year. If we get lucky and get McDavid, I don't think there's any way he's not on the roster next year.
About the same chance of an ice cream cone not melting on my face as I walked around Miami in July. I don't think I have to tell you how that turned out.
- Status
Ad
Upcoming events
-
Gold Medal 2024 IIHF WORLD CHAMPION - PICK ONLY ONE TEAMWagers: 7Staked: $36,600.00Event closes- Updated:
-
-
-
-