Speculation: Roster Speculation: Part XVI (Off-Season Madness)

[Djp]

Craig Custance of ESPN writing about Chicago's cap problems suggested Andrew Shaw may be a player they decide/have to trade. He mentioned Buffalo as a possible destination.

Interested?

He has 2 yrs left till UFA---how much does he cost and would he be worth it at that price? right now he would like a longer and higher term deal.

If you sign him to an extension who will be gone then?

Remember you have Girgs, Larsson, and Foligno RFAs this year on forward.

8 Skaters, 1 Goalie: Risto, Brodin, Fowler, Bogo, ROR, Larsson, Girgs, Foligno, Lehner
Jack and Sam don't need to be protected.

What am I missing?

Am I supposed to sweat losing one of McCabe, Pysyk, Ennis ?

Besides... we are just going to give someone a nice pick/prospect package to take Matt Moulson off our hands, or Cody Franson

the expansion draft is super Chicken Little

I think the issue he is talking about are threefold.....

1. If we are forced to protect 4 Dmen, then that exposes some other players

2. In 2018 there will be a lot of people due for new contracts which could be an offer sheet problem.

3. If there is an expansion draft and you acquire player A for players W, X, and Y and the trade is a fair deal, you also need to take into account that by acquiring A means player Z gets exposed. In essence the real cost for player A was W,X,Y, and Z

 

[TehDoak]

The NMC rule combined with the 25% rule makes the expansion draft tricky for Chicago

Kane
Toews
Hossa
Keith
Seabrook
Hjalmarsson
Crawford

ALL have NMCs

~47.7M in NMCs auto protected.

So, 64% of the 74M salary cap is protected.

That means pretty much, they can pick maybe 1-2 players to protect outside that group. Anisimov, Panarin and Kruger might ALL get exposed.

I'm wondering if this summer one of that CORE group gets moved. If so, who?

 

[TehDoak]

I've got a bad feeling about this:

Tim has described a few things:

#1. He wants a "PP QB" player
#2. He's talked about teams against the cap, and how he's already had discussions about players at the dead, but teams wanted to "keep them around" for the playoffs

One D-man that describes nearly to a T is one Matthew Carle. He would cost next to nothing to acquire (heck, we might even incentivized to take him on) and his contract expires before Reinhart/Eichel..

I fear....this might be the target. I hope I'm not right.....

 

[Zman5778]

Tim has described a few things:

#1. He wants a "PP QB" player

He never once specified "PP QB". He said "Quarterback" in the general sense....one that he couldn't likely acquire via trading our 1st rounder.

The clear implication was a #1, all-situations, game-settling LHD.

 

[sabrebuild]

I've got a bad feeling about this:

Tim has described a few things:

#1. He wants a "PP QB" player
#2. He's talked about teams against the cap, and how he's already had discussions about players at the dead, but teams wanted to "keep them around" for the playoffs

One D-man that describes nearly to a T is one Matthew Carle. He would cost next to nothing to acquire (heck, we might even incentivized to take him on) and his contract expires before Reinhart/Eichel..

I fear....this might be the target. I hope I'm not right.....

Settle down before you give yourself an unnecessary fear *****.....

 

[dotcommunism]

I've got a bad feeling about this:

Tim has described a few things:

#1. He wants a "PP QB" player
#2. He's talked about teams against the cap, and how he's already had discussions about players at the dead, but teams wanted to "keep them around" for the playoffs

Hasn't this quote already been taken sorely out of context enough? He talked about a quarterback defenseman, not necessarily strictly a powerplay quarterback. He also said that he wasn't sure he'd be able to make such a trade. Clearly he wasn't talking about Matt Carle.

 

[Jim Bob]

If Backes hits UFA, I'd want him to be a priority signing.

I just get the feeling that he would fit what Murray is doing to a T.

 

[Myllz]

If Backes hits UFA, I'd want him to be a priority signing.

I just get the feeling that he would fit what Murray is doing to a T.

I'd love Backes. I feel like he's the kind of guy that would get a ridiculous overpayment on as a UFA, though.

 

[stokes84]

He never once specified "PP QB". He said "Quarterback" in the general sense....one that he couldn't likely acquire via trading our 1st rounder.

The clear implication was a #1, all-situations, game-settling LHD.

clear implication? That's a pretty liberal interpretation.

He meant PP QB, and in fact, during his segment that we are discussing, he said if he couldn't find a QB, we had good young defensemen or some top forwards that could fill the role. It's very clear that he meant PP QB.

 

[struckbyaparkedcar]

He's got McGinn-level underlying metrics, but he has that sort of right ******* level to his game. I'm torn.

Moving Shaw to the top 6 as a shot in the arm has generally paid off for Q, so I can see emotion seeping into that statement a lil' bit.

Agreed that while his stats are comparable to McGinn, he's intangibly preferable. Maybe because he'll at least be a pest for 82 games, vs 30 games of hitting, 30 games of offense, 22 no-shows and 82 games of no defense?

 

[struckbyaparkedcar]

Considering that poised breakouts leading to shot generation was the biggest problem of the current defense and our PP already has 3 forwards and a D that can be its primary generator, I'm thinking it was a broad statement about adding puck skills to the defense.

 

[stokes84]

Considering that poised breakouts leading to shot generation was the biggest problem of the current defense and our PP already has 3 forwards and a D that can be its primary generator, I'm thinking it was a broad statement about adding puck skills to the defense.

Go back and re-listen. It was very defined to PP.

 

[TehDoak]

Love this up until the bit about Stamkos... He'd be a horrible signing long term IMO.

Not sure the Ducks would want Kane as a main piece coming back for Fowler either (too much salary) - maybe Girgs++ gets it done ? Would assume the picks are switched as well (ie '17 to MIN '16 to ANA) ?

Brodin for Fasching + '17 1st
Fowler for Girgs + '16 1st

We can add throw ins to either or both deals as well.

Either way you then protect ROR, Larsson, Kane, Risto, Bogo, Fowler, Brodin, Lehner + one other of your choice (does Moulson automatically have to be protected ?) Reinhart / Eichel wouldn't need protecting as I understand it. That's a mighty fine 'core'.

Any expansion draft should never be an issue for us unless we start handing out stupid FA contracts with NMCs (read Stamkos).

I would rate both as overpayments.

You'd "fix" the defense, but at the same time cripple the prospect pool. While I'm not opposed to adding 2 LHD, I think there are better ways that don't involve giving up 2 consecutive 1st rounders.

Trading 2017 1st: Not really happy with, but can deal with it as long as we fill a long term need
Trading 2016 1st: Would need to be an under 23 top pairing d-man.

Buffalo needs to continually build out the prospect pool and farm system. Despite our volume of picks the last few years, our farm system is still pretty bare in terms of NHL level prospects. True, some of them are still developing, but we need to build out our team. You need to look no further than the Rangers to see the danger of continually moving first rounders.

 

[OkimLom]

If Backes hits UFA, I'd want him to be a priority signing.

I just get the feeling that he would fit what Murray is doing to a T.

Been on this train for a while now. Would look really good next to either ROR or Eichel.

 

[Chainshot]

So does tonight's lottery move the needle at all for Caggiula? It'd be nice to get another mid-line wing prospect into the fold before the draft.

 

[Woodhouse]

So does tonight's lottery move the needle at all for Caggiula? It'd be nice to get another mid-line wing prospect into the fold before the draft.

Do these lottery results really change anything for the final suitors though: CHI, EDM, PHI, VAN, OTT, BUF? I think all the approaches remain status quo.

 

[Chainshot]

Do these lottery results really change anything for the final suitors though: CHI, EDM, PHI, VAN, OTT, BUF? I think all the approaches remain status quo.

Four lottery teams, none of them now in position to get one of the Finns but also no one with Matthews either. It clears possible obstructions.

 

[Woodhouse]

Four lottery teams, none of them now in position to get one of the Finns but also no one with Matthews either. It clears possible obstructions.

In other words, still: Toews & Kane; McDavid & Draisaitl; Hakstol; Boeser & Stecher; idk; Eichel & Reinhart.

 

[Aladyyn]

While we had good timing in getting the last guaranteed top 2 pick, it's a real shame we missed out on getting Nick Leddy. He seems like the exact guy Murray is looking for but he became available a year or two too soon.

Would it be greedy not to rush trying to get a long term LHD until next offseason to wait for a similar opportunity?

 

[AustonsNostrils]

Who's the better catch, Caggiula or Vesey?

I want Nylander now, ratchet up this Sabres-Leaf rivalry to fratricidal levels

 

[wunderpanda]

Hasn't this quote already been taken sorely out of context enough? He talked about a quarterback defenseman, not necessarily strictly a powerplay quarterback. He also said that he wasn't sure he'd be able to make such a trade. Clearly he wasn't talking about Matt Carle.

Did he specify where the qb would come from or just acknowledged the need? The right partner could turn Risto or Bogo into a qb. Not that I think Carle is that guy either way, but that interpretation would increase the number of potential targets.

 

[stokes84]

Well, now that we know we aren't too 3, get offer sheet ready for Lindholm, Tim.

 

[Chainshot]

Who's the better catch, Caggiula or Vesey?

I want Nylander now, ratchet up this Sabres-Leaf rivalry to fratricidal levels

Vesey is probably the better of the two. Why not both?

Well, now that we know we aren't too 3, get offer sheet ready for Lindholm, Tim.

Draft pick compensation would start in 2017.

 

[Rowley Birkin]

Well, now that we know we aren't too 3, get offer sheet ready for Lindholm, Tim.

I've said this before - but why doesn't Anaheim match any remotely sensible offer sheet ?

Don't get me wrong I'd love Lindholm - but for anything close to $10m/per I probably wouldn't...

I would rate both as overpayments.

You'd "fix" the defense, but at the same time cripple the prospect pool. While I'm not opposed to adding 2 LHD, I think there are better ways that don't involve giving up 2 consecutive 1st rounders.

Trading 2017 1st: Not really happy with, but can deal with it as long as we fill a long term need
Trading 2016 1st: Would need to be an under 23 top pairing d-man.

Buffalo needs to continually build out the prospect pool and farm system. Despite our volume of picks the last few years, our farm system is still pretty bare in terms of NHL level prospects. True, some of them are still developing, but we need to build out our team. You need to look no further than the Rangers to see the danger of continually moving first rounders.

I think the forward group is both deep enough & young enough to sustain doing something like this.

I understand the need for continued players coming in on ELCs... I just don't think the we are at the stage to worry about this too much just now. Especially while the defence is as it is.

In the above scenario you could still start next year with a top 9 something like:

Kane-ROR-Reinhart
X-Eichel-Ennis
Foligno-Larsson-Gionta

With X being one of the young guys ready to make the jump (Bailey/Baptiste/Carrier etc.), a FA signing, or the return in another trade (eg for Pysyk).

We'd have a strong centre spine plus a good top 4. For me these are the two crucial ingredients of a successful team.

 

[Aladyyn]

I've said this before - but why doesn't Anaheim match any remotely sensible offer sheet ?

Don't get me wrong I'd love Lindholm - but for anything close to $10m/per I probably wouldn't...



I think the forward group is both deep enough & young enough to sustain doing something like this.

I understand the need for continued players coming in on ELCs... I just don't think the we are at the stage to worry about this too much just now. Especially while the defence is as it is.

In the above scenario you could still start next year with a top 9 something like:

Kane-ROR-Reinhart
X-Eichel-Ennis
Foligno-Larsson-Gionta

With X being one of the young guys ready to make the jump (Bailey/Baptiste/Carrier etc.), a FA signing, or the return in another trade (eg for Pysyk).

We'd have a strong centre spine plus a good top 4. For me these are the two crucial ingredients of a successful team.

I envision our top 6 barring any big personnel changes as being:

Girgensons-ROR-Ennis
Kane-Eichel-Reinhart

Girgs and ROR can cover up for Ennis and let him do stuff with the puck on offense Can't separate Jack and Sam, they are too good together. And Kane played his best hockey alongside them. But a lot of things can change obviously.