Roster Speculation 2015-16 Pt. III

[joshjull]

Well what I said would be sheltering players. If you're just arguing he will be center then I agreed as much already, but I don't see why he'd definitely be the "#1" center.

He is viewed as the #1 center coming out of camp by myself and Mit Yarrum. So I'm not quite sure why you keep wondering if we are arguing if he will be a center.

As for why he would be the #1 center coming out of camp. He is the best option barring a trade. I also can't imagine him doing much sheltering without getting a good chunk of ES minutes.

 

[sabrebuild]

If we play with the scenario that Grigo needs to go... would anyone consider Sharp for Grigo and our second

 

[Beerz]

If we play with the scenario that Grigo needs to go... would anyone consider Sharp for Grigo and our second

**** no.

 

[Irving Zisman]

**** no.

I can see why Murray would turn it down, but I don't think that type of proposal warrants a "**** no," either.

I do Grigs for Sharp straight-up all day, everyday.

He'd do wonders for the kids: Leadership, 2 (or 3) Cups, versatile, responsible defensively, etc. Just keep him an extra few feet away from the wives' club at the Christmas party.

He's a quality veteran with some mileage left, and would be perfect for taking pressure off of the kids.

 

[Beerz]

I can see why Murray would turn it down, but I don't think that type of proposal warrants a "**** no," either.

I do Grigs for Sharp straight-up all day, everyday.

He'd do wonders for the kids: Leadership, 2 (or 3) Cups, versatile, responsible defensively, etc. Just keep him an extra few feet away from the wives' club at the Christmas party.

He's a quality veteran with some mileage left, and would be perfect for taking pressure off of the kids.

It's wasting quality assets for a guy on the downside of his career. Absolutely no reason to try and rush things and waste assets for the assumption of "leadership" and "protection" ... Use your assets for players that will be able to contribute long term and in a real way. You can find quality vets for cheap and even free. I stand by the "**** No".

 

[Paxon]

If we play with the scenario that Grigo needs to go... would anyone consider Sharp for Grigo and our second

No. Considering his sharp decline banana I have no interest in acquiring him. If we simply dump Grigorenko off I'd just as soon collect another pick in a future draft which can be used to keep the prospects stable stocked year after year. Of course I'd prefer to package him for an under-24 type that Murray references (ROR), but I'd rather just dump him for a pick than package him for someone like Sharp. I don't buy into the "Grigo needs to go" mindset, though.

 

[Paxon]

He is viewed as the #1 center coming out of camp by myself and Mit Yarrum. So I'm not quite sure why you keep wondering if we are arguing if he will be a center.

As for why he would be the #1 center coming out of camp. He is the best option barring a trade. I also can't imagine him doing much sheltering without getting a good chunk of ES minutes.

I don't know where you get the idea that I "keep" wondering if you are arguing he will be a center. All I said is if you were arguing that he is a lock to be a center then I'd agree but the notion that we will have a clearcut #1 center and it is definitely going to be Girgensons is not supported by what Bylsma said. It's an assumption. Bylsma said that Girgensons can shelter young(er) players and take tough minutes. The only certainty to draw from that is that he's going to be leaned on for defensive zone draws, match-ups, etc. That doesn't necessitate he be some clear #1 center. This may all be semantics but my point is that I just don't agree with referring to something so variable as what a #1 center on this team is going to be as a lock.

Going by the players Bylsma continually namedrops, forwards we should assume he's going to lean on in the top 6 are Girgensons, Ennis, Moulson, and Kane. If Eichel winds up playing with two of those guys out of camp I don't see why he couldn't challenge the notion of someone else being the #1 center. Frankly I see a roster that lends itself to having three lines of equal use and importance depending on what Eichel and Reinhart can bring. I agree that Girgensons is going to be the guy Bylsma leans on when he has to lean on someone, until Eichel and Reinhart fully earn that trust, but that can be true regardless of what arbitrary ordering someone puts on their projected lines. The more I type the more I feel like this is a meaningless argument though.

 

[joshjull]

I don't know where you get the idea that I "keep" wondering if you are arguing he will be a center.

I get it from you twice responding with …if we (Mit and myself) are arguing Girgs will be a center then you agree with us. From my pov thats a tad confusing since being the #1 center requires playing center. So not sure why you need to agree with us about him being a center. But it doesn't really matter at this point.

All I said is if you were arguing that he is a lock to be a center then I'd agree but the notion that we will have a clearcut #1 center and it is definitely going to be Girgensons is not supported by what Bylsma said. It's an assumption. Bylsma said that Girgensons can shelter young(er) players and take tough minutes. The only certainty to draw from that is that he's going to be leaned on for defensive zone draws, match-ups, etc. That doesn't necessitate he be some clear #1 center. This may all be semantics but my point is that I just don't agree with referring to something so variable as what a #1 center on this team is going to be as a lock.

I agree he isn't a lock. Though the likelihood is very high he will be the #1 out of camp. I also didn't base my opinion entirely on Bylsma's comments. Though they were part of it.

But I did quote a poster that felt he was a "mortal" lock to be the #1.

Going by the players Bylsma continually namedrops, forwards we should assume he's going to lean on in the top 6 are Girgensons, Ennis, Moulson, and Kane. If Eichel winds up playing with two of those guys out of camp I don't see why he couldn't challenge the notion of someone else being the #1 center. Frankly I see a roster that lends itself to having three lines of equal use and importance depending on what Eichel and Reinhart can bring. I agree that Girgensons is going to be the guy Bylsma leans on when he has to lean on someone, until Eichel and Reinhart fully earn that trust, but that can be true regardless of what arbitrary ordering someone puts on their projected lines.

Thats pretty much what I think.

The more I type the more I feel like this is a meaningless argument though.

Not so much meaningless as disjointed with both of us talking past each other.

 

[joshjull]

If we play with the scenario that Grigo needs to go... would anyone consider Sharp for Grigo and our second

I disagree with this premise.

 

[Zman5778]

If we play with the scenario that Grigo needs to go... would anyone consider Sharp for Grigo and our second

1.) No. Sharp really looks about done.

2.) I take issue with the use of your word "need". He doesn't "need" to go. Not even close to it. MIGHT he be gone? Sure. Does he NEED to be gone? Noooooope.

 

[SabresGuy*]

I like your thinking on this in terms of rolling 3 roughly equal lines. I also agree a combo a Kane/Girgs could do the heavy lifting defensively.




Like this idea as well. I've been imagining Eichel between Moulson/Ennis myself.



A few issues with this line. FIrst larsson should be the center because he is the better option. My other issue is the lack of speed on this line.




I like the idea of them together because Kane spends a lot of his time with the puck on his stick. Having a line mate like that is something Girgs got used to last season with Ennis. He not only got used to it but learned to play well off of a line mate like that. They (Kane/Girgs) both also have great speed and play a hard 200ft game.



I'm curious why you don't have Grigs with these two trying to prove he belongs on the roster. He has yet to do enough to warrant being a lock on the roster let alone centering one of the top 3 lines.



Not sure what makes the most sense with Hodgson and I agree he may not fit the overall mold of the team Murray is building. But I'm not a fan of wasting cap space for 8 years just to get rid of him with a buyout. I'd rather see an attempt to rehabilitate him or trade him.



Eichel will be that guy. But I agree that it likely won't happen this year. Not really sure how Grigs got lumped into this group (Eichel/Reinhart). His upside is not on the same level of those two.



The truth is WE DO HAVE DEPTH or more will likely be added. Its just mostly unproven depth as opposed to last year when it was proven non-NHL depth. We are also NOT the worst team in hockey any more. That team stopped existing at the end of last season. Not sure where we are in the league until the roster is rounded out.



I know you asked McBurn but I will give you my lines to the point I have them. I don't really have set lines in my mind yet but combos I'd like together Such as………..


Kane/Girgs/AAA
Mouslon/BBB/Ennis
Foligno/CCC/Gionta
Des/DDD/Kaleta

In House...
Options for AAA --> Eichel, Larsson, Hodgson
Options for BBB --> Eichel, Larsson
Options for CCC --> Larsson, Reinhart, Grigs and Hodgson
Options for DDD ---> McCormick, Schaller




Obviously options can be found for 1 possibly even 2 of those spots via trade and /or free agency or maybe even an offersheet. The dream add being ROR.


EDIT: sorry for chopping up your post but its easier for me to respond this way.

Good insights here. I want to respond here, some of which isn't directed to you specifically, but fits the context of the discussion.

The duo's you outlined are pretty cool. Maybe try AAA - Hodgson, BBB - Eichel, CCC - Larsson and DDD - Grigo. Can Larsson play right wing? See my last paragraph on the fourth line.

I am a big Eichel fan, I think there is a very good chance he has a better career then McDavid. But, he is going to struggle at times next year. To think he is going to be a "true" #1 center anytime this year is overly optimistic. I suppose I could see him being the best center on this team, but that's because of how weak we are.

The situation with GregORenko is unique with his inability to be assigned to Rochester without being scooped up. My preferred method in developing young players is to make them earn a spot. It is what it is, he has to play in the NHL and needs adequate ice time. I am not opposed to giving him 4th line duty to start, with the ability to move up the lineup as injuries / effort dictate.

I definitely prefer to have guys earn a spot, but part of developing a young team is "seeing what you have" and giving players a shot in certain roles, even when they haven't exactly proven they deserve it. Larsson is a good example of a guy who really took a step when given more ice time with better players. Why not give Grigo a shot with Kane at some point? Maybe he takes the ball and runs with it when given more responsibility.

I disagree with you on the depth thing. This team is the worst team in the NHL until proven otherwise. I certainly agree that they will be better next year. I actually think they could push for a playoff spot if some of the unknown guys contribute (Grigo, Larsson) and younger veterans continue their development (Bogo, Foligno, Ennis). Kane, while talented, still is a wild card. New team, coming off injury. With all of the talent and hype, there is still alot to prove.

On the fourth line - it seems like we are going to have someone that is better geared to play on a scoring line bumped to the fourth line (Hodgson, Grigo seem the most likely candidates). I am ok with this on paper. That tenth forward will play plenty in the top nine as injuries happen.

 

[zenthusiast]

If Grigorenko wasn't Russian would we be more optimistic

 

[Zman5778]

If Grigorenko wasn't Russian would we be more optimistic

Going down that rabbit hole a little further.....

If Grigorenko wasn't Russian, he wouldn't be a Sabre -- he would have been selected way before he was.

 

[SamuraiArt]

Original proposal
Kane Eichel Ennis
Larsson/Foligno Girgensons Gionta
Moulson Grigorenko Hodgson
DesLauriers McCormick Kaleta
Schaller

Where do Foligno/Larsson go if they're not with Girgs/Gionta? Because that would obviously alter one of your other lines.

Moulson/Grigs/Hodgson is scary and not in a good way. That group is slow with little defensive ability.

I figured the loser of L/F would displace Hodgson or Kaleta.

I agree about the scariness of MGH - this is what happens when you're left with a couple misfit pieces.

I like KEE - although they all like to have the puck, I don't think it'll be as big an issue as it is portrayed to be. I think there are few who wouldn't say that they are our 3 best offensive threats - why not see what they can do together?

I liked the Foligno/Grig/Gio line last season. If we kept that going, our four extra pieces are Girgs, Larsson, Moulson, Hodgson. Moulson and Hodgson are the either/or for me. A line with both has too many defensive liabilities for Girgs or Larss to cover. scratch one of M/H until injuries hit.

So

Kane Eichel Ennis
Moulson Girgensons Larsson
Foligno Grigorenko Gionta
Des McCormick Kaleta
Hodgson

Or Moulson and Foligno could flip for an extra gritty second line and Grigs could have a finisher

 

[CatsforReinhart]

Grigs is going to be a solid NHL player and was really showing it near the end of the season. I think he has a roster spot next year.

 

[Doohickie]

**** no.

You took the **** right out of my mouth!

 

[Zip15]

If Grigorenko wasn't Russian would we be more optimistic

Speaking only for myself, his nationality has nothing to do with it. I think he processes the play too slowly. I hope that improves with more experience.

Grigs is going to be a solid NHL player and was really showing it near the end of the season. I think he has a roster spot next year.

Forgive my skepticism, but I heard this a few too many times two years ago. Recall all of the "he was the best player on the ice in the season finale against the Islanders" posts in summer 2013.

 

[sabrebuild]

I disagree with this premise.

That's funny I consider you to be the loudest person who pushes their is no place for Grigo mindset.

 

[sabrebuild]

No. Considering his sharp decline banana I have no interest in acquiring him. If we simply dump Grigorenko off I'd just as soon collect another pick in a future draft which can be used to keep the prospects stable stocked year after year. Of course I'd prefer to package him for an under-24 type that Murray references (ROR), but I'd rather just dump him for a pick than package him for someone like Sharp. I don't buy into the "Grigo needs to go" mindset, though.

I don't think Grigo needs to go either, but if we were to assume that idea as true I think I would rather have a guy like Sharp than an early second or late first.

To be honest at this point what type of puck is any team going to realistically give for grigo.

 

[Paxon]

I don't think Grigo needs to go either, but if we were to assume that idea as true I think I would rather have a guy like Sharp than an early second or late first.

To be honest at this point what type of puck is any team going to realistically give for grigo.

Probably a 2nd like Baertschi got, which is part of why I'd rather keep than trade him, but I'd rather have two 2nd's (Grigorenko==2nd + the 2nd packaged for Sharp) than Sharp. Sharp looked like a guy about to drop off a cliff this season. I'm not opposed to adding veteran support but it's not that important. We aren't bereft of it. If there's the right guy for the right deal in free agency, then have at it. Two seasons of Sharp just doesn't seem worth much of anything besides money to me.

 

[sabrebuild]

Probably a 2nd like Baertschi got, which is part of why I'd rather keep than trade him, but I'd rather have two 2nd's (Grigorenko==2nd + the 2nd packaged for Sharp) than Sharp. Sharp looked like a guy about to drop off a cliff this season. I'm not opposed to adding veteran support but it's not that important. We aren't bereft of it. If there's the right guy for the right deal in free agency, then have at it. Two seasons of Sharp just doesn't seem worth much of anything besides money to me.

Ya I didn't watch a ton of Chicago's regular season, but in the playoffs he seems like he is keeping pace pretty well if not at an elite level.

I'm not sure how highly I value two seconds over a guy like Sharp who could make our top six look respectable right away.

Sharp Eichel Ennis
Kane Reinhart Girgs
Moulson Larsson Gionta
Des Schaller Foligno

That's a quality offensive group depending on how readyou Reinhart is. And in two years when Sharp gets to old or we don't want to resign him you are ready for one of the prospects to barge in. Absolutely not an ideal addition but certainly one that would be a bridge improvement until other options become available.

But I would absolutely find room for grigo to stay as a first option.

 

[Push Dr Tracksuit]

That's funny I consider you to be the loudest person who pushes their is no place for Grigo mindset.

I think there's a subtle difference in his position. Kind of like there's a big game of musical chairs going on and Murray's getting ready for the music to stop. As he watches everyone circling he has to pick who he thinks is least likely to get a chair. Any player not in chair is lost forever. Of all the players circling the chairs, Grigorenko is one of the least likely to get to a chair.

 

[joshjull]

That's funny I consider you to be the loudest person who pushes their is no place for Grigo mindset.

I am a proponent of the idea that Grigs has no spot in the top 9. But thinking that doesn't mean I think he needs to go. Needs to go to me means him staying causes a problem. Which I don't think is the case at all. At worst he could be cheap depth. At best, he surprises and becomes a contributor.

 

[Reddawg]

Probably a 2nd like Baertschi got

We really should have been in on Baertschi, makes me mad ever time I think about it.

 

[Heraldic]

We really should have been in on Baertschi, makes me mad ever time I think about it.

Because he's scoring in AHL in last year of his waiver exemption?

I'd rather wait and see what he can do in NHL before shedding any tears.