joshjull
Registered User
Ray mentioned during the broadcast last night that they were going to bring up a few guys to give them a look. Bailey makes as much sense as anyone to get called up.
Roster speculation part XIV
- Thread starter joshjull
- Start date
- Status
Ray mentioned during the broadcast last night that they were going to bring up a few guys to give them a look. Bailey makes as much sense as anyone to get called up.
joshjull
Registered User
In theory thats not a bad idea. But I believe I read that Johnson is looking for more than 1 year in his next deal and he would like it to be here.
I didn't read that but I kinda figured. I'd hope that he takes the extra $$, but if he stands firm on the term then let him walk.
I just don't think it's a good scenario for either Johnson or TM if he's re-signed long-term. If Lehner stays healthy and becomes the #1 that TM paid for, then Johnson is left out and that's not fair to him. If Lehner can't stay healthy and Johnson starts 40+ games, then TM is stuck paying higher $ for the goalie position in total and that's not good for the team. I don't see a happy medium that both sides would agree to.
It's been discussed a little recently, but anyone in favor of bringing Legwand back as the 4C for next season?
I didn't like his play earlier this year (particularly on the PK) but he's won me over. He's been a quality addition and has become a boon for the PK as things have moved along. He also seems to be a respected vet presence in the room. I'd like for him to be retained.
I didn't like his play earlier this year (particularly on the PK) but he's won me over. He's been a quality addition and has become a boon for the PK as things have moved along. He also seems to be a respected vet presence in the room. I'd like for him to be retained.
Der Jaeger
Generational EBUG
I'm cool with bringing him back for the reasons you listed. 1 year deal, go year to year.
Beerz
Registered User
- Jun 28, 2011
- 36,767
- 13,059
I wouldn't mind it. Does Schaller need to pass thru waivers next year? I'd like to see a platoon of Schaller Legwand in that 4th Center spot
Der Jaeger
Generational EBUG
Sunday spaghetti at the wall:
- Ennis to Arizona for Fischer, RW and a 2017 3rd.
- 2016 3rd to Columbus for Tyutin, D
- 2016 1st, Pysyk, and 2017 2nd to Philadelphia for Sanheim, D.
- 2016 2nd and two 2016 3rds for late 2016 1st (Grundstrom, LW).
- 2017 1st and 2017 2nd to Winnipeg for Toby Enstrom, D.
- Re-sign Legward for 1-year.
- Re-sign Johnson for 2-years.
- Re-sign RFAs (Ristolainen for 7 years).
Kane - R. O'Reilly - Fasching
Girgensons - Eichel - Reinhart
Foligno - Larsson - Gionta
Moulson - Legwand - Deslauriers
x C. O'Reilly
Enstrom - Ristolainen
Tyutin - Bogosian
McCabe - Nelson
x Franson
Lehner
Johnson
- Ennis to Arizona for Fischer, RW and a 2017 3rd.
- 2016 3rd to Columbus for Tyutin, D
- 2016 1st, Pysyk, and 2017 2nd to Philadelphia for Sanheim, D.
- 2016 2nd and two 2016 3rds for late 2016 1st (Grundstrom, LW).
- 2017 1st and 2017 2nd to Winnipeg for Toby Enstrom, D.
- Re-sign Legward for 1-year.
- Re-sign Johnson for 2-years.
- Re-sign RFAs (Ristolainen for 7 years).
Kane - R. O'Reilly - Fasching
Girgensons - Eichel - Reinhart
Foligno - Larsson - Gionta
Moulson - Legwand - Deslauriers
x C. O'Reilly
Enstrom - Ristolainen
Tyutin - Bogosian
McCabe - Nelson
x Franson
Lehner
Johnson
I like keeping Legwand for another year. The fourth line gets better overall when Schaller replaces Moulson/COR
Djp
Registered User
I am fine signing him to 1-2 yr deal.
Schaller is a group 6 free agent this offseason given he is 25, 3 yrs under contract, and hasn't played 80 games as a skater(28 as a goalie). If he is still resigned by Buffalo he will have to clear waivers for Rochester.
I don't think its necessarily a Schaller vs bringing Legwand back/UFA signing
Djp
Registered User
I think a healthy Ennis is worth more than that
What I have here is Tyultin hasn't been all that good...maybe 2 5ths(BUF and MON) for him.
If Buffalo is drafting 37-39 it would cost more like BUF 2nd+ BUF 3rd to trade up into 25-30 range of the 1st.
Don't have issue with these
2017 1st lottery protected or 2016 2nd + 2017 2nd
I do not like this trade...this is a serious overpayment.
Sanheim was drafted 17 in 2014, and hasn't played an NHL game.
Sanheim+ PHL 1st=BUF 1st.
id be fine with Sanheim+ PHL 1st for Pysyk+ BUF 1st.
MackAttack26
Registered User
- Ennis trade - Sure, I like Fischer. Don't see Ennis here longterm but his value is really low right now, doubt we get much for him, better to wait it out and hope he can bring back a top-4 LHD with a package.
- Columbus fans want to get rid of Tyutin, which worries me. Not a top-4 solution.
- Think that's mad overpay for Sanheim. I don't see Philly willing to do it unless for mad overpay however, which is why I pass.
- I wouldn't be surprised if Grundstrom made it to our 2nd, and there is a mass of guys around his level early 2nd so pass. If that was for Dahlen however, sure.
- I'd do that for Enstrom. Bet Winnipeg would want McCabe back in any deal though.
- Sure to re-signings, although I bet Risto gets 6 years.
Yes and also Schaller's a group VI UFA, so while it would be nice to have him around, it's going to be an opportunity for him if he gets a better offer. Legwand's game seemed to come around when Schaller came up the second time and played in the middle with Legwand on LW. Since then, he's been Hannan-esque, and I like that in a fourth line center.
NotABadPeriod
ForFriendshipDikembe
- Oct 28, 2006
- 53,056
- 10,161
OK, here's a crazy thought that is almost certainly not plausible...but here goes.
xxx-ROR-Reinhart
Ennis-Eichel-yyy
Kane-Girgensons-Fasching/Bailey
Foligno-Larsson-Gionta
Could you imagine rolling those bottom 2 lines back-to-back? Defenses would get worn down so fast...
But we'd need to add 2 top 6 forwards for that to happen, and that probably doesn't make sense cap wise. Too bad Moulson forgot how to play hockey, because if he could have taken one of those spots, then we could be in business.
xxx-ROR-Reinhart
Ennis-Eichel-yyy
Kane-Girgensons-Fasching/Bailey
Foligno-Larsson-Gionta
Could you imagine rolling those bottom 2 lines back-to-back? Defenses would get worn down so fast...
But we'd need to add 2 top 6 forwards for that to happen, and that probably doesn't make sense cap wise. Too bad Moulson forgot how to play hockey, because if he could have taken one of those spots, then we could be in business.
Uberpecker
Registered User
- Mar 3, 2011
- 3,597
- 1,731
Looks mostly good and realistic.
Except I wouldn't bother with Tyutin, according to CBJ fans he isn't more than an expensive bottom pairing dman at this point. Just keep Gorges next to Bogo and maybe add a guy like Wiercioch as insurance policy on the left side.
Also, one should be really confident that Sanheim is the 1st pairing dman and Risto partner of the future. The price for him is awfully close to what they payed for ROR in terms of value.
Der Jaeger
Generational EBUG
I think the 4 center line-up might be the way to go. With some projection:
Kane - O'Reilly - Ennis
Girgensons - Eichel - Bailey
Carrier - Reinhart - Fasching
Foligno - Larsson - Gionta
Eventually replace Gionta, Ennis, and maybe Kane with Caggiula, Olofsson.
Der Jaeger
Generational EBUG
I forget about Gorges when I threw it together, and forgot that Tyutin is Russian. So it's a no-go.
I do think Sanheim is nearly perfect for what Buffalo needs on the left side: puck mover, mobile, bigger, good decision maker, not bad in his own end.
I don't think Ennis is going to ever be worth that much again, and Fischer is who I wanted at 31 last year. Good, 2-way RW that plays heavy and smart. Re: Sanheim. If Chychrun and Juolevi are gone, and he wants someone comparable in the organization, that's what it's take to trade.
I don't think his development timeline matters. He's going to be good. Developing more at the appropriate level is what's advanced Sanheim. And Philly has no reason to trade him. That's why it'd take a deal like what I put together. Overpayment? Sure. That's the cost of get a top 4, potential top 2 defenseman for what Buffalo has.
JThorne
Stop accepting failure
Not enough ice time for four lines of impactful play. Fourth liners are a thing because of the lack of ice time not hurting a team. No reason to reinvent the wheel.
Uberpecker
Registered User
- Mar 3, 2011
- 3,597
- 1,731
Agreed, but look at the ROR trade as a comparable:
Zadorov = 2016 1st
Grigorenko = Pysyk
2nd ´15 > 2nd ´17 (but close)
That leaves Compher + a 2nd (what we got for McGinn) as difference between ROR and Sanheim. Would you do ROR for Sanheim, Compher, 2nd?
I'd say your trade could make sense if TM is really confident in Sanheim's abilities, but it's a clear overpayment.
thewookie1
Registered User
- Jan 21, 2015
- 1,557
- 1,316
I forget about Gorges when I threw it together, and forgot that Tyutin is Russian. So it's a no-go.
I do think Sanheim is nearly perfect for what Buffalo needs on the left side: puck mover, mobile, bigger, good decision maker, not bad in his own end.
Good, 2-way RW that plays heavy and smart. Re: Sanheim. If Chychrun and Juolevi are gone, and he wants someone comparable in the organization, that's what it's take to trade.
I don't think his development timeline matters. He's going to be good. Developing more at the appropriate level is what's advanced Sanheim. And Philly has no reason to trade him. That's why it'd take a deal like what I put together. Overpayment? Sure. That's the cost of get a top 4, potential top 2 defenseman for what Buffalo has.
Overpayment by way to much in my opinion, that would literally be 9, a 2nd and young defenseman for a guy who has never stepped onto even an AHL rink yet. Not only would it be detrimental to our team in the short term, but if he fails to pan out we will have been completely shafted. I'd expect at very least a young dman with potential who has some experience in the NHL for that sort of package.
To be honest none of the trades seem all that useful, we'd be gutting our draft pick stock.
I'd give the 9th, if none of the top 3 D are left, Pysyk/McCabe and a 2017 2nd for Cam Fowler.
Remember ROR and Kane/Bogo are already known players with experience and potential vs an unknown with potential.
Djp
Registered User
If he projected to be that good...why didn't he get drafted higher?
If bufalo was 8-9 they can trade uptyo 6 at less cost than what you are proposing for Sanheim.
I don't hink that matters much. If anything what would be more likely to happen would be Reinhart taking baileys spot. So Bailey carrier snd Fasching getting less time.
The other option would be to shift and operate like LA has where you have 4 players make up a line and players rotate.
dotcommunism
Moderator
- Aug 16, 2007
- 5,195
- 3,396
Because he was drafted in 2014? A lot of players rise in their draft+1 year alone, and Sanheim's just completed his draft+2 season. Dylan Larkin was drafted 15th in the same draft. Kyle Connor was drafted 17th (the same position as Sanheim) last year and is expected to win the Hobey Baker this year. Draft position means way way less than how a player's performed and developed since being drafted.
Whether it's worth trading all that for Sanheim is another issue, but if you're going to debate it, pointing to his draft position is a rather weak argument.
I didn't know anything about Sanheim until the last few days and now I can't stop fantasizing about acquiring him. He sounds perfect. Which makes it seem impossible that he's available.
Philly isnt trading Sanheim, this place gets too obsessed with pipe dreams.
It's like saying, well Buffalo is deep at center now, maybe they'll trade Reinhart...just because
It's like saying, well Buffalo is deep at center now, maybe they'll trade Reinhart...just because
stokes84
Registered User
The Sanheim stuff is strange, mainly because there will be better prospects available when we pick. So we are talking about throwing in some pretty solid additions for the idea of fast tracking. But the only expert that I've heard comment on how far away Sanheim is, has said he needs AT LEAST one year in the AHL. So even the fast tracking idea doesn't add up.
- Status
