Roster Speculation Part XI...$teven $tamko$?? Pony up for PK?

[Der Jaeger]

I'm all about Buffalo going hard after Stamkos...you have the opportunity to add a player like that, you do so. Worry about the back end when it's time to worry about the back end...it's worked just fine for Chicago after going all-in on Hossa. Different landscape of course, but similar situation of adding the final piece in free agency. Bonus that Stamkos is younger and better.

Since defensemen typically take longer to develop, and we already have our franchise forwards, why would Murray wait?

Chicago had Keith, Seabrook, and Hjalmarsson all on the team before they ever signed Hossa. They signed him on July 1st, 2009.

Keith was drafted in 2002.
Seabrook was drafted in 2003.
Hjalmarsson was drafted in 2005.

It worked fine for Chicago because they worried about the backend first, and had their top three already on the team (plus drafted Cam Barker and Anton Babchuk high in the draft) well before the drafted Toews and Kane. Regardless of how Keith and Hjalmarsson developed, the Blackhawks spent three first round pick on defensemen before drafting Toews and Kane.

Murray needs to be in defense development overdrive mode right now.

 

[jc17]

If the deadline doesn't begin a sizeable depth/role player churn I'll be disappointed.

I don't think it needs to. Foligno and McGinn could be the only real returns, and thats assuming that Tim Murray doesn't want an inexpensive big third liner in Foligno.

-We have to wait Moulson, Gorges and Gionta out.

-Legwand won't get much and neither would Weber even though its probably been his best season.

The only big possibility would be Girgensons or Ennis being moved with someone else for a d-man but with Ennis hurt that's slim. Maybe if Tim gives Kane the Zadorov oversleeping treatment, but i doubt it.

I'm guessing when we find out where we're picking thats when things will happen.

I think my biggest Tim Murray complaint is the Moulson, Gionta, Gorges contracts. Yes trades are options and so are buyouts but those types of things hurt your image as a team when UFAs are looking for somewhere to go.

 

[Der Jaeger]

That's kind of my thought on the whole thing. Last year Boston fans thought there was no way Hamilton would be dealt and that if he ever was it'd be for some huge haul. Sabres could definitely afford to offer sheet either Lindholm or Maata something around 6.5-6.8M per year over 7 years.

Also, isn't that basically what Columbus did to Chicago? I believe that's why they got Murray the bridge deal bc they were afraid someone would threaten to offer sheet him or jones or Jenner.

Best case who would you rather put the sheet on, Lindholm or Maatta?
I think Maatta might have better upside but Lindholm is the better player overall.
Also, Anaheim has a lot of RFA's (Lindholm, Vatanen, Andersen, Rakell) some big cap hits (Perry, Getzlaf, Kesler) along with some bad contracts (Stoner/Bieksa). All of that combined with an internal cap for the Ducks, makes me feel Lindholm is definitely susceptible to an offer sheet.

Anaheim fans all over will say "oh well match that, he's our best defensive player, etc etc" but that's exactly what Chicago and Boston fans thought about Saad and Hamilton, so to me, it's a possibility, especially since Anaheim has an internal budget, and looking at paying a other guy over $6M/yr might not appeal to them.

I'd rather have Lindholm, but Anaheim would match and make another move. They have cap space to maneuver higher then their internal cap for a period of time to re-sign Lindholm, and the get back under by making a trade.

Pittsburgh has far less maneuver space. I'd rather threaten offer sheet on Maatta because Pittsburgh probably can't match without shedding contracts for under market value. And Maatta-Ristolainen is a true #1 pairing that'd probably work well together.

 

[sabrebuild]

I don't really like the "for just money" argument in a cap world

In the 4th year of a hypothetical Stamkos contract, you have a 30 year old for 12 million in cap space.

Agreed, in my high risk hypo stamkos cap hit is alleviated by moving other pieces for good value.

Cap space isn't free, but its better than paying assets and cap space.

 

[Husko]

Gotta admit, while everyone else seems to have a super hard take on Stamkos, I'm totally conflicted and unsure

 

[Jame]

Agreed, in my high risk hypo stamkos cap hit is alleviated by moving other pieces for good value.

Cap space isn't free, but its better than paying assets and cap space.

I'd rather spend assets and cap space on 12 million worth of top 4 LD, than just the 12 million on Stamkos.

 

[Man of Principles]

I'll attempt to derail the Stamkos talk because I see it as unrealistic.

I hope Murray makes a sneaky acquisition or two... i.e. Joonas Donskoi/Tobias Rieder.

 

[DazedandConfused]

Gotta admit, while everyone else seems to have a super hard take on Stamkos, I'm totally conflicted and unsure

Agreed, which is why I'm just going to stay out of it. I can kind of see where both sides come from, outside of a few people's vision of the big picture and overall philosophy. I won't lose any sleep i we don't get him and if he wants 12+ he can hop on the QEW right up to Toronto.

But, I do think 2 Top 4 D >> Stamkos.

 

[NotABadPeriod]

Since defensemen typically take longer to develop, and we already have our franchise forwards, why would Murray wait?

Chicago had Keith, Seabrook, and Hjalmarsson all on the team before they ever signed Hossa. They signed him on July 1st, 2009.

Keith was drafted in 2002.
Seabrook was drafted in 2003.
Hjalmarsson was drafted in 2005.

It worked fine for Chicago because they worried about the backend first, and had their top three already on the team (plus drafted Cam Barker and Anton Babchuk high in the draft) well before the drafted Toews and Kane. Regardless of how Keith and Hjalmarsson developed, the Blackhawks spent three first round pick on defensemen before drafting Toews and Kane.

Murray needs to be in defense development overdrive mode right now.

In some ways, we did follow that blueprint.

Pysyk, Ristolainen, and Zadorov. Even Myers if you want to go back that far.

Of course, two of those guys are gone (though Bogosian added in), but it's not like we're Edmonton starting with...nothing. We do need one more stud D-man, but the situation isn't nearly as dire as your post would make it seem.

We probably look more like Tampa D-wise. We've got our Hedman (Ristolainen). We still need the Stralman to partner with him (but of course, Stralman was a UFA addition). The middle-pair Carle/Coburn/Garrison guys are there in Bogosian/Pysyk (we probably need more depth on that level as well). A shrewd trade/FA signing could definitely plug those holes, as could a guy like McCabe/Guhle panning out. So if we can add another name to that list in the draft, great. But it shouldn't be a reason not to go after an impact forward like Stamkos.

The question is, does spending 11M a year on Stamkos make more sense than using that money on a ~7M forward and a ~4M D-man (or ~7M D-man and ~4M forward, or any combination adding to 11).

 

[Samsonite23]

I'd rather spend assets and cap space on 12 million worth of top 4 LD, than just the 12 million on Stamkos.

Almost too simple. Exactly how I like it. This is how I've thought of the situation the entire time.

 

[rtfirefly]

The question is, does spending 11M a year on Stamkos make more sense than using that money on a ~7M forward and a ~4M D-man (or ~7M D-man and ~4M forward, or any combination adding to 11).

Each team's specific talent/age/salary situation should be the determining factor. In the case of the Sabres, the core talent can be said to be still in development. By all statistical models, they are several seasons away from their peak years, by which time the team would hope to be Stanley Cup contenders. Conversely, by those same statistical models, Stamkos is now at his peak production point (though in his case, a drop in production is actually accelerated relative to those models). Goal scorers, historically, decline most rapidly after the age of 29. Thus, Stamkos' production might be expected to fall off most dramatically just at the point that the younger Sabres are at their peak. At that point, of course, he will still be owed $10 or $11 million per, for four or five more years of diminishing value, and his contract becomes more an impediment to success than the most productive means to achieve it.

 

[Husko]

In some ways, we did follow that blueprint.

Pysyk, Ristolainen, and Zadorov. Even Myers if you want to go back that far.

Of course, two of those guys are gone (though Bogosian added in), but it's not like we're Edmonton starting with...nothing. We do need one more stud D-man, but the situation isn't nearly as dire as your post would make it seem.

We probably look more like Tampa D-wise. We've got our Hedman (Ristolainen). We still need the Stralman to partner with him (but of course, Stralman was a UFA addition). The middle-pair Carle/Coburn/Garrison guys are there in Bogosian/Pysyk (we probably need more depth on that level as well). A shrewd trade/FA signing could definitely plug those holes, as could a guy like McCabe/Guhle panning out. So if we can add another name to that list in the draft, great. But it shouldn't be a reason not to go after an impact forward like Stamkos.

The question is, does spending 11M a year on Stamkos make more sense than using that money on a ~7M forward and a ~4M D-man (or ~7M D-man and ~4M forward, or any combination adding to 11).

And that lack of elite dmen is a reason why Tampa doesn't look like a perennial superpower/cup contender like Chicago

 

[Yatzhee]

Many say Stamkos would be a mistake, defense first.

Still many say we have to wait, be patient, and address D.

Even still we have Chicago as an example.

Here's the reality. We didn't address D first. We drafted heavy forward talent with early round picks save Risto and Zads. Zads is gone to bring in a forward piece. Pysyk is meh. McCabe shows solid promise.

The remainder of our youth D is still either in question or have a few years to go developmentally before being called solid.

So where do people propose the magical unicorns of 2 D men, 1 an LHD top pairing guy and a 3/4 guy?
Trades, that is the common sense answer.

And I submit it's really only that top pairing LHD in need, not the remainder of the LD side. I see McCabe as the 2nd pairing LHD.

Scoring is still a very real problem with this team. On all levels.

 

[Der Jaeger]

In some ways, we did follow that blueprint.

Pysyk, Ristolainen, and Zadorov. Even Myers if you want to go back that far.

Of course, two of those guys are gone (though Bogosian added in), but it's not like we're Edmonton starting with...nothing. We do need one more stud D-man, but the situation isn't nearly as dire as your post would make it seem.

We probably look more like Tampa D-wise. We've got our Hedman (Ristolainen). We still need the Stralman to partner with him (but of course, Stralman was a UFA addition). The middle-pair Carle/Coburn/Garrison guys are there in Bogosian/Pysyk (we probably need more depth on that level as well). A shrewd trade/FA signing could definitely plug those holes, as could a guy like McCabe/Guhle panning out. So if we can add another name to that list in the draft, great. But it shouldn't be a reason not to go after an impact forward like Stamkos.

The question is, does spending 11M a year on Stamkos make more sense than using that money on a ~7M forward and a ~4M D-man (or ~7M D-man and ~4M forward, or any combination adding to 11).

I think Buffalo started out like Chicago, but as you say, traded away depth. Which is why I think Murray needs to re-attack.

I don't think signing Stamkos and addressing the defense is and "or" statement. It can be an "and" statement. I am hesitant to sign Stamkos due to financial reasons. I think it will make retaining the new core and supporting cast difficult.

 

[Wisent42]

The Stamkos situation in Tampa and the bunch of D in Anaheim (with Lindholm and Vaatanen being RFA's) really makes me just want to wait it all out. If Tampa and Stamkos come to terms, that will likely free up a couple of names. And as for Anaheim, they've got some descicions to make.

Instead of wearing himself out trying to chase the cat up the tree, Murray could just sit beneath it, patiently waiting for the cat to come down.

 

[Ace]

Many say Stamkos would be a mistake, defense first.

Still many say we have to wait, be patient, and address D.

Even still we have Chicago as an example.

Here's the reality. We didn't address D first. We drafted heavy forward talent with early round picks save Risto and Zads. Zads is gone to bring in a forward piece. Pysyk is meh. McCabe shows solid promise.

The remainder of our youth D is still either in question or have a few years to go developmentally before being called solid.

So where do people propose the magical unicorns of 2 D men, 1 an LHD top pairing guy and a 3/4 guy?
Trades, that is the common sense answer.

And I submit it's really only that top pairing LHD in need, not the remainder of the LD side. I see McCabe as the 2nd pairing LHD.

Scoring is still a very real problem with this team. On all levels.

That's why they outplay their opponents more when he's on the ice then anyone else in the d core. You can keep saying it...but it just doesn't get more true.

 

[Yatzhee]

That's why they outplay their opponents more when he's on the ice then anyone else in the d core. You can keep saying it...but it just doesn't get more true.

You can avoid what individuals like JW report, but that doesnt make it less true.
Is that how that works?

 

[TehDoak]

That's why they outplay their opponents more when he's on the ice then anyone else in the d core. You can keep saying it...but it just doesn't get more true.

Ah the flaw of advanced stats. He also gets the 6th most 5v5 TOI, lowest QoC, and most offensive zone starts. So, he's being sheltered. You have to take the corsi number in context. Pysyk hasn't done alot this season to set himself apart. He typically is solid positionally and a great first pass. However, is that enough to make him a top 4 d-man in the NHL? That remains to be seen. I think he COULD be, but he is also behind two established top 4 d-men in Risto and Bogo.

 

[Reddawg]

What? It's time... like right now.

I mean the back end of the deal, not talking about the defense. I agree that this trade deadline and upcoming offseason is the time to deal with the D.

 

[Jim Bob]

I'd rather spend assets and cap space on 12 million worth of top 4 LD, than just the 12 million on Stamkos.

Adding a $7M per LHD and a $5M per LHD to the roster would most certainly improve the team a lot more than adding Stamkos at $12M per.

The trick is getting two guys that slide into the spots and are worth the money.

 

[TehDoak]

Going back to LHD situation, what's the overall feel on McCabe. I know he's been underwhelming for alot of the year, but long term, where do you see him fitting? Is he a top 4 guy or will he get regulated to a bottom pair once our depth is better?

 

[Yatzhee]

I mean the back end of the deal, not talking about the defense. I agree that this trade deadline and upcoming offseason is the time to deal with the D.

Although it's been hammered on time and again, what is TM looking for?

With that question in mind, I listed the following keepers on D from a guessing standpoint.

Ristolainen
Bogosain
McCabe

Gorges?
Pysyk?

Then there is Weber. He's had a good season, is he gone?

My guesses.
Risto and Bogo RD 1 and 2 pairing, and McCabe graduates to the 2nd pairing LD next season.
So who's cooked long enough in the system, Leduc?
I guess that is my point, I don't see anyone stepping in next season from the system.

Trade for a top pair LD, fill in 5/6?

 

[Yatzhee]

Going back to LHD situation, what's the overall feel on McCabe. I know he's been underwhelming for alot of the year, but long term, where do you see him fitting? Is he a top 4 guy or will he get regulated to a bottom pair once our depth is better?

Underwhelming?
He's come along just fine in sheltered minutes early in the season. In case you haven't noticed, his time has increased.

 

[Der Jaeger]

Going back to LHD situation, what's the overall feel on McCabe. I know he's been underwhelming for alot of the year, but long term, where do you see him fitting? Is he a top 4 guy or will he get regulated to a bottom pair once our depth is better?

I like McCabe a lot. Been one of my favorite prospects since he was drafted. I do think he's got a shot at a top 4 spot.

 

[TehDoak]

Underwhelming?
He's come along just fine in sheltered minutes early in the season. In case you haven't noticed, his time has increased.

I have. However, it's hard to tell whether its because our left side depth is so awful or that its been earned.

I like McCabe a lot. Been one of my favorite prospects since he was drafted. I do think he's got a shot at a top 4 spot.

I am curious what his offensive numbers would be if Bylsma used a two d-man PP unit instead of 4 forwards all the time.