Roster Speculation 2015-16 Pt. III

[Husko]

Don't want to put to youngsters together like that (Eichel/Reinhart). You also forgot Gionta. Who will certainly be in the top 9.

Agreed. Barring any acquisition and assuming Reinhart makes the team, I'm fairly certain our top 9 will involve a line with Reinhart, a line with Eichel, and a line with Larsson. I'd also pencil in Foligno and Gionta to be a pair, probably with either Reinhart or Larsson. That'd leave Ennis, Moulson (whom I would pair together), Girgensons, and Kane (whom I would also pair together) to round out the top nine.

 

[joshjull]

Agreed. Barring any acquisition and assuming Reinhart makes the team, I'm fairly certain our top 9 will involve a line with Reinhart, a line with Eichel, and a line with Larsson. I'd also pencil in Foligno and Gionta to be a pair, probably with either Reinhart or Larsson. That'd leave Ennis, Moulson (whom I would pair together), Girgensons, and Kane (whom I would also pair together) to round out the top nine.

It will be very interesting to see what Murray does with the 4th line. Does he stick with the plan of a team that plays a heavy game and being in more Des types? Or does he see Grigs and Hodgson sticking around and starting off there? Because I don't see a spot for either in the top 9 barring trades or Eichel and/or Reinhart not in NHL

 

[Husko]

It will be very interesting to see what Murray does with the 4th line. Does he stick with the plan of a team that plays a heavy game and being in more Des types? Or does he see Grigs and Hodgson sticking around and starting off there? Because I don't see a spot for either in the top 9 barring trades or Eichel and/or Reinhart not in NHL

Grigorenko actually wouldn't be a terrible terrible fit at 4th line center. Big, defensively responsible, good on face-offs. But not the best place for his development.

My guess is Murray brings in at least one really good 4th liner, with the idea being the 4th line would be some combo of Des, that guy, and McCormick or Schaller, hell maybe even Kaleta. But if Bylsma wants to tinker with Grigorenko there so be it.

My guess regarding MG and CH (if they're not shipped off) is that they get the chance to compete for top 9 spots with Reinhart and Larsson. As of now there's be two spots for the four of them to compete for. If we bring someone in there might just be one. If the battle ends with one or more of them riding the bench until a week into the season when someone gets hurt, oh well.

 

[Jame]

OEL is great, but we are in no position to trade our 2016 1st, under any circumstancesl. Most untouchable asset we have after Eichel. There is a very good chance we are back in the basement again, even with OEL, and we don't have much margin of error even if things go well. We need to see where this ship is heading first.

You offered the 3rd overall in 2015 for Tarasenko and also offered (in separate offer) the 2016 unknown overall in an offersheet for Tarasenko...

But now that we have Eichel, we can't trade the 2016 1st under any circumstances

Stokesian

 

[sabrebuild]

Grigo. Zadorov, 21st, 2016 1st, hodgson,
For
OEL

Not enough. Maybe in total value but not in blue chip pieces.

If you trust Larsson enough to be that top six fill in guy or third line shut down center....

Girgs, Zadorov, 21st, 2016 first and Hodgson

Hurts too bad for me but I think Zona actually takes that. OEL is going to require knock your socks off assets.

 

[stokes84]

Strokes, how can you consider our 2016 pick a better asset than Reinhart when Reinhart was a #2 OA and even if we finish last in the league our chance at drafting in the top 2 will only be like 40%?

Moving known pieces can be strategic. Moving future 1st rounders hamstrings you going forward. Reinhart may very well end up being a more valuable asset, but if you are moving him, you know you aren't getting fleeced.

 

[stokes84]

You offered the 3rd overall in 2015 for Tarasenko and also offered (in separate offer) the 2016 unknown overall in an offersheet for Tarasenko...

But now that we have Eichel, we can't trade the 2016 1st under any circumstances

Stokesian

Yes, getting Eichel changes the way things should be approached. I don't know how that can possibly be viewed as strange. It's common sense.

 

[Jame]

Yes, getting Eichel changes the way things should be approached. I don't know how that can possibly be viewed as strange. It's common sense.

It does change how things should be viewed but not in the way you changed the view



Before we had the franchise mceichel you were willing to give up the elite picks for a winger... Once we have the franchise center you aren't willing to compliment him with an elite defensemen by giving up the same picks

It's just dopey

 

[stokes84]

It does change how things should be viewed but not in the way you changed the view



Before we had the franchise mceichel you were willing to give up the elite picks for a winger... Once we have the franchise center you aren't willing to compliment him with an elite defensemen by giving up the same picks

It's just dopey

Not by giving up next year's first, no.

If we didn't get McEichel, we would have been in a desperate situation, in that we would have tanked two straight seasons and still would be praying for an elite player. Desperate situations call for desperate measures. Tarasenko would have been a desperate measure. Thank goodness it didn't come to that.

 

[Jame]

Not by giving up next year's first, no.

If we didn't get McEichel, we would have been in a desperate situation, in that we would have tanked two straight seasons and still would be praying for an elite player. Desperate situations call for desperate measures. Tarasenko would have been a desperate measure. Thank goodness it didn't come to that.

So you wouldn't trade the 2016 1st for Tarasenko... Because we got Eichel...Got it.

 

[stokes84]

So you wouldn't trade the 2016 1st for Tarasenko... Because we got Eichel...Got it.

2016 1st straight up for Tarasenko? Sure. That awful package you put together that includes our 2016 1st for Tarasenko? God no.

 

[7 11 14]

My ideal lineup for next year would be:

Moulson-Girgensons-Ennis
Kane-Eichel-Gionta
Foligno-Larsson-Reinhart/UFA
Deslauriers-Campbell (UFA) - UFA

Gorges-Bogosian
Weber-Ristolainen
UFA-Pysyk

UFA/Trade
Johnson

Not a fancy lineup. Probably still a lottery team. The design of it was to try and shelter our young guys. This year is gonna be all about development. Of course that's also assuming there won't be any trades and I doubt that's gonna happen. Should be a fun offseason.

 

[B U F F A L O]

2016 1st straight up for Tarasenko? Sure. That awful package you put together that includes our 2016 1st for Tarasenko? God no.

Would you offer sheet Tarasenko? Because your basically giving up that kind of package for him (four 1st round picks).

The difference is, we can give them guys we already drafted with high pedigree who can be passed by others in the organization, or we dont draft in the 1st round for the next 4 years. I'd rather get Tarasenko and give up the guys that have been or could be passed up by others.

It doesnt matter who the 2016 1st round pick ends up being, Tarasenko is a proven commodity who is here now. Not in 1 year. Not in 2 years. Not in 3 years. We get that star player now. Tarasenko is an upgrade as a player over every single one of those pieces -- #21OA, 2016 1st, Grigorenko, Zadorov, Hodgson... I'd give up that package easily for Tarasenko. And for OEL too.

 

[Jame]

OEL is great, but we are in no position to trade our 2016 1st, under any circumstancesl. Most untouchable asset we have after Eichel. There is a very good chance we are back in the basement again, even with OEL, and we don't have much margin of error even if things go well. We need to see where this ship is heading first.

wiggle wiggle

2016 1st straight up for Tarasenko? Sure. That awful package you put together that includes our 2016 1st for Tarasenko? God no.

 

[stokes84]

Would you offer sheet Tarasenko? Because your basically giving up that kind of package for him (four 1st round picks).

The difference is, we can give them guys we already drafted with high pedigree who can be passed by others in the organization, or we dont draft in the 1st round for the next 4 years. I'd rather get Tarasenko and give up the guys that have been or could be passed up by others.

It doesnt matter who the 2016 1st round pick ends up being, Tarasenko is a proven commodity who is here now. Not in 1 year. Not in 2 years. Not in 3 years. We get that star player now. Tarasenko is an upgrade as a player over every single one of those pieces -- #21OA, 2016 1st, Grigorenko, Zadorov, Hodgson... I'd give up that package easily for Tarasenko. And for OEL too.

No, I absolutely would not offersheets Tarasenko anymore.

 

[stokes84]

wiggle wiggle

Fine. If someone offers their 25 and under superstar for our 2016 1st straight up, we can consider it. Because that is totally realistic. You sure got me.

 

[Jame]

Fine. If someone offers their 25 and under superstar for our 2016 1st straight up, we can consider it. Because that is totally realistic. You sure got me.

So you'd trade the "2nd most valuable asset" (your silly words), for a superstar under 25.

But you wouldn't add the filler to get it done...

Grigo has no future on this team
Zadorovs ceiling is as high as his floor is low.
21 doesn't matter
Hodgson doesn't matter

So in my view it's really 2016 1st and Zadorov for OEL... Our depth and high end talent makes the other pieces irrelevant.

But just to be clear, you think Phoenix/st Louis would accept this offer (since "God no you wouldn't do it)...

 

[Jame]

Super stars are hard to come by, potential super stars (hope) are not

 

[stokes84]

So you'd trade the "2nd most valuable asset" (your silly words), for a superstar under 25.

But you wouldn't add the filler to get it done...

Grigo has no future on this team
Zadorovs ceiling is as high as his floor is low.
21 doesn't matter
Hodgson doesn't matter

So in my view it's really 2016 1st and Zadorov for OEL... Our depth and high end talent makes the other pieces irrelevant.

But just to be clear, you think Phoenix/st Louis would accept this offer (since "God no you wouldn't do it)...

Pretty sure I said 2nd most untouchable, not most valuable. The difference is huge. Also disagree with your assessment of the so called filler. Grigo, Zadorov and 21 all matter to me.

 

[Jame]

No, I absolutely would not offersheets Tarasenko anymore.

So you'd give the 2016 hypothetical top 3 Pick straight up for Tarasenko
But you wouldn't give the additional mid to late 1sts for a super star top 5 winger who accelerates our window and makes us a better team? Because hypothetical talent rules!

 

[Jacob582]

My ideal lineup for next year would be:

Moulson-Girgensons-Ennis
Kane-Eichel-Gionta
Foligno-Larsson-Reinhart/UFA
Deslauriers-Campbell (UFA) - UFA
Gorges-Bogosian
Weber-Ristolainen
UFA-Pysyk

UFA/Trade
Johnson

I like how your think. My lineup is a little different:

Moulson-Larsson-Ennis
Kane-Girgensons-UFA/Gionta
Foligno-Eichel-Gionta/UFA
Deslauriers-McCormick/Mitchell(UFA) - UFA


Gorges-Bogosian
UFA-Ristolainen
Weber-Pysyk
Ruhwedel

Trade
UFA
Johnson
(competition in training camp)

 

[Havok89]

Grigo. Zadorov, 21st, 2016 1st, hodgson,
For
OEL

Sign me up, however I'm sure Reinhart needs to be in there to return OEL.

 

[struckbyaparkedcar]

Ask the 2003 Anaheim Ducks if that late first matters...

 

[OkimLom]

Ask 2003 Tim Murray if that late first matters...

Fixed

 

[TehDoak]

Ask the 2003 Anaheim Ducks if that late first matters...

Fun fact:

the 2003 ducks didn't have a late first. They traded picks 36+54 to the Stars to get 28th

http://www.prosportstransactions.com/hockey/DraftTrades/Years/2003.htm

We have 31+51. Imagine