Speculation: Sabres Roster Speculation - Pre-season 2023 Edition

[StrompTroller]

There was an insignificant amount of ice time separating the 2, 3 and 4th lines.

and Tage was on first and Cozens on second. Thats where we focus.

But show your work...I'm honestly all ears. If you think we can roll those 4 lines with our "4th" being that high leverage shutdown role eating up valuable minutes that I agree should be going to higher end players then so be it, That fourth is gonna get run again heavy because we dont have top 9 players with defensive chops. Those minutes will matter...

 

[Old Navy Goat]

The similarity in ice time between the lines was due to manipulation by Granato when he'd bench Peterka and Quinn to close out games.

I'm still advocating for
Greenway - Tage - Cozens
Skinner - Mitts - Tuch
Peterka - Krebs - Olofsson
Girgs- Savoie - Okposo

 

[K8fool]

(4 years after Skinner contract ends)
Rosen-Thompson-Tuch
Peterka-Cozens-Quinn
Mittelstadt-Benson-Savoie
Greenway-Krebs-Ostlund

Dahlin-Samuelsson
Power-Strbak
Johnson-Clifton

Levi
UPL

We can keep most the kids with this lineup.

The world will not exist as you've come to understand it

 

[Matt Ress]

and Tage was on first and Cozens on second. Thats where we focus.

But show your work...I'm honestly all ears. If you think we can roll those 4 lines with our "4th" being that high leverage shutdown role eating up valuable minutes that I agree should be going to higher end players then so be it, That fourth is gonna get run again heavy because we dont have top 9 players with defensive chops. Those minutes will matter...

That makes a lot of sense and I'm not really 100% sure that my idea is the best one. I suppose that one or two more net positive lines would solve all of these issues. I think the mentality for the top 9 last season was to outshoot opponents. The first line was really the only successful line at that in the grand scheme.

I like the idea of rolling 4 lines and we have a great 4th line when you need to tilt the ice or stifle a line. They have been very predictable in that regard. So I'm just looking for a way to manufacture more net positive lines. I don't have any work to show though and I don't think they are going to play the same stylistically as last year. So it's all theoretical really but that's my thought process so it is completely reasonable to believe I'm out to lunch.

 

[Push Dr Tracksuit]

The similarity in ice time between the lines was due to manipulation by Granato when he'd bench Peterka and Quinn to close out games.

I'm still advocating for
Greenway - Tage - Cozens
Skinner - Mitts - Tuch
Peterka - Krebs - Olofsson
Girgs- Savoie - Okposo

Greenway looks like a fetid oozing corpuscle in that lineup.

 

[joshjull]

Granato has been praised for 2 years for being the one who recognized that Thompson would be better as a center.

And now we're going to move him back to wing???

We were dying for a top center for years, even tanked to get one, had to trade him, and then we miraculously found another one. Have we risen so far that now we're moving a top 10ish center in the game back to wing??

I mean no disrespect... but that is insane. If we're going to break up one of the top lines in hockey to improve our second line, can we at least have Cozens be the one who plays wing?

Or better, could we even try Mitts and (pick your highly promising young player)?? That might not be horrible!! The kids are good!

You‘re not disrespecting me becasue it’s Granato’s idea not mine. I’m just laying out his rationale for it and it makes sense. In the same interview he talked about never intending for that line to be together forever when it was created.

I doubt whoever is named between Tage/Cozens would matter that much since it would likely take on a hybrid approach.

 

[joshjull]

From a production standpoint and the current season success metrics, totally true.

But I feel strongly that regardless of how successful this season is, this year should still be viewed as a development year from the perspective of how young all the players still are and how much learning they have yet to do. I think some of the decisions should be driven by a long-term vision of the roster and not just a "let's try something new today" indifference.

Your point about Tuch being underrated as a sabre is so true. Many early roster predictions for Team USAs world cup currently don't have him on itl, which is just crazy to me.

The development season argument you’re trying to make is completely illogical.

We all know that development years are when teams will try different things and experiment with players in different situations. Its literally what we’ve done for the last two seasons. Its the only reason Tage got a chance to emerge as a center in the first place.

But you don’t want Tage or Cozens moving from center. So now this normal experimentation during a development year is not something teams do.

 

[joshjull]

This was actually in late February when the team went 2-6

I don't think Thompson was fighting any serious injuries then.

While Tuch was out, there were several games where even Razor was commented on how frustrated Thompson was and how the opposition wasn't giving him any space.

I worry that if shadowing him becomes the "book" on how to shut down his line, the Sabres will be easier to play against. With Tuch on the ice, that is a big handicap for the opposition. If their center is shadowing Tage, their defensive structure has huge holes and Tuch's size and speed will eat them alive.

-Tage got injured at the end of January (upper body). It started his beat up 2nd half
-Tuch injured 2/24 and used 8gms. He returned 3/13.
-Tage had 8pts (2 on PP) in those 8gms.

In the 8gms Tuch missed, Tage produced at roughly the same pace (.75 ppg) he had all year at ES (.76). His PP production is what actually dropped off a bit. He was playing hurt but I don’t know to what extent.

 

[Irie]

The development season argument you’re trying to make is completely illogical.

We all know that development years are when teams will try different things and experiment with players in different situations. Its literally what we’ve done for the last two seasons. Its the only reason Tage got a chance to emerge as a center in the first place.

But you don’t want Tage or Cozens moving from center. So now this normal experimentation during a development year is not something teams do.

It is not illogical at all.

Your attempt to limit the definition of "development year" to "experimenting" is silly. "Line juggling" is not a major tool of a development coach.

Development year by definition is a season where the team is not doing everything it can to win in the present, but is instead focusing on building a foundation for stronger future seasons at the cost of possible success in the current one.

Experimentation can be part of a development year, but it is not necessarily required. Playing young players over vets or giving roster spots to prospects vs going out and getting established players for those roles is by definition development, but not necessarily "experimentation". Playing young guys in the same position is not really experimenting, it is developing them by giving them the reps.

I honestly don't care where Thompson plays, but it is my strong belief that he is playing center, because I've listened to the words of the staff and management. You typically don't sign guys to 50 million dollar deals and then demote them .

Cozens is the team's best two-way center prospects so yes, I believe it would be counterproductive to move him to the wing at this stage of his development, and given the fact he was just paid to be a top six center, moving him out of that position is "illogical".

 

[joshjull]

We were top 5 in the league in scoring and at the bottom in goals by defenders. We had 150+ goals from wingers, not including Mitts. I think our forward depth is fine and promising to improve year by year.

I get that Mitts was good between Skinner and Tuch when Thompson was injured for a few games. If he gets injured again, that should be the solution.

If we're trying to create a good second line, why not just play Mitts there with Cozens?

Mitts on Cozens wing is definitely an option. Granato may try a few different things before settling on what he wants.

 

[Irie]

-Tage got injured at the end of January (upper body). It started his beat up 2nd half
-Tuch injured 2/24 and used 8gms. He returned 3/13.
-Tage had 8pts (2 on PP) in those 8gms.

In the 8gms Tuch missed, Tage produced at roughly the same pace (.75 ppg) he had all year at ES (.76). His PP production is what actually dropped off a bit. He was playing hurt but I don’t know to what extent.

During that stretch, (if you actually watched the games), the team lost 6 of the 8 games and Thompson's line was completely invisible 90% of the time in the games the opponents shadowed him.

He put up some points with some outstanding efforts (which is why i question the "he was injured" narrative) on busted plays, but in several of those games his line was more of a liability than an asset and not at all controlling play. They finished the stretch a -4 and the frustration in several of those games was so visible he was slamming his stick into the boards and the broadcasters were commenting on how he had been neutralized.

You can read the stats and draw your a different conclusion. I mean, he had multiple points in a 10-4 loss, and the only game he was a positive +/- was the laugher over the caps where the team was up 6-2 midway through the game (first game without Tuch and Washington was not shadowing him), but his line was grossly outplayed in several of those outings, and it all correlated to the games the opposition had someone glued to him at even strength.

 

[Djp]

The similarity in ice time between the lines was due to manipulation by Granato when he'd bench Peterka and Quinn to close out games.

I'm still advocating for
Greenway - Tage - Cozens
Skinner - Mitts - Tuch
Peterka - Krebs - Olofsson
Girgs- Savoie - Okposo

I’d flip the RW and put Tuch or Cozens with Krebs and put Olofsso with Mitts.

 

[joshjull]

It is not illogical at all.

Your attempt to limit the definition of "development year" to "experimenting" is silly. "Line juggling" is not a major tool of a development coach.

Development year by definition is a season where the team is not doing everything it can to win in the present, but is instead focusing on building a foundation for stronger future seasons at the cost of possible success in the current one.

Experimentation can be part of a development year, but it is not necessarily required. Playing young players over vets or giving roster spots to prospects vs going out and getting established players for those roles is by definition development, but not necessarily "experimentation". Playing young guys in the same position is not really experimenting, it is developing them by giving them the reps.

I didn’t say the first bolded but I was trying to say the 2nd bolded.

The funny thing is the 2nd bolded refutes your argument that experiments like Mitts centering the top line don’t happen during development years. You clearly understand they do.

You can hate the idea, you can think its going to fail but you can’t pretend it’s something that doesn’t happen or is unusual in some way.

Now bring the next round of spin! I kid. I kid.

I honestly don't care where Thompson plays, but it is my strong belief that he is playing center, because I've listened to the words of the staff and management. You typically don't sign guys to 50 million dollar deals and then demote them .

Listen closer to what they say because this idea isn’t some fever dream I had. Its from Granato, who quite clearly said he‘s thinking of breaking up Tage/Tuch and going with the top 6 we ended last season with. He also said, when he created the line, that he didn’t intend for them to be together forever.

Cozens is the team's best two-way center prospects so yes, I believe it would be counterproductive to move him to the wing at this stage of his development, and given the fact he was just paid to be a top six center, moving him out of that position is "illogical".

I agree.

 

[Irie]

Not to be discounted, the idea is built on the notion of enhancing depth and not just trying something new. Surprisingly, I'm looking for some stability this upcoming year. I want to know if some guys have another gear and if some guys can maintain a pace. I guess one can describe that as a development year as well lol.

Totally fair, and I think there is a ton of merit to find out what the team has in Mitts, and honestly, after the worlds this year, Krebs as well.

I think after watching a couple of those games, Krebs deserves a top-6 shot in this league, but you can't have 4 top 6 centers in this league, at least not if they are being paid to be top 6 centers, so the cap constraints are playing a role here.

Rotating RFAs into high production roles when you have players signed long-term who are adequately producing in those roles is the surefire way to fast-track the team to have to trade players out to fit everyone under the cap.

Extend players and lock them up with some term before you go playing them over guys that are producing and signed longterm - it is a very controversial topic here and a few posters hate the concept, but ignoring the ramifications is shooting yourself in the foot going forward.

 

[Weltschmerz]

Totally fair, and I think there is a ton of merit to find out what the team has in Mitts, and honestly, after the worlds this year, Krebs as well.

I think after watching a couple of those games, Krebs deserves a top-6 shot in this league, but you can't have 4 top 6 centers in this league, at least not if they are being paid to be top 6 centers, so the cap constraints are playing a role here.

Rotating RFAs into high production roles when you have players signed long-term who are adequately producing in those roles is the surefire way to fast-track the team to have to trade players out to fit everyone under the cap.

Extend players and lock them up with some term before you go playing them over guys that are producing and signed longterm - it is a very controversial topic here and a few posters hate the concept, but ignoring the ramifications is shooting yourself in the foot going forward.

Imagine a third line of Benson-Krebs-Rosen, that would be like Max-Roy-Vanek once upon a time.

 

[Irie]

I didn’t say the first bolded but I was trying to say the 2nd bolded.

The funny thing is the 2nd bolded refutes your argument that experiments like Mitts centering the top line don’t happen during development years. You clearly understand they do.

You were implying that development = experiment.

You can have development years where all your lines stay exactly the same, and they are development years because you are playing young players over vets. Development and Experiment are not the same and they are not mutually exclusive, so you can have it different ways and still call something a "development year", even if there were zero experimenting.

If you read my original comment:

(this season) should still be viewed as a development year from the perspective of how young all the players still are and how much learning they have yet to do."

You are taking the comment totally out of context and focusing on my use of the term "development year" and portraying the comment as something it was clearly not at all. To what ends I am not certain.

You can hate the idea, you can think its going to fail but you can’t pretend it’s something that doesn’t happen or is unusual in some way.

I don't hate the idea and I do not think it is going to fail. This is you once again making assumptions about my positions.

I am trying to be realistic about the long term cap going forward, and this entire discussion all comes back to my one offhand comment I made months ago that upset you and some others when I said "if the plan is to play Mitts between Skinner and Tuch all season, they really need to extend him first" (to avoid being taken to the woodshed in arbitration next offseason).

My position on the record is that if you have guys producing in top 6 roles that are locked up long term to big contracts, it is unwise to demote them in favor of playing RFAs with arbitration rights in those positions unless you are in a genuine cup contention mode and doing so gives you the best chance to win. The RFAs can fill those roles *if* the longterm signed guys get hurt or if they stop producing, but just swapping when the signed guys are producing and ignoring contract status and cap implications is unadvised.

Listen closer to what they say because this idea isn’t some fever dream I had. Its from Granato, who quite clearly said he‘s thinking of breaking up Tage/Tuch and going with the top 6 we ended last season with. He also said, when he created the line, that he didn’t intend for them to be together forever.

I think you need to listen to all of the comments from the coaching staff surrounding the difference that moving Thompson from wing to center made and how they realized it was the catalyst that allowed him to become a difference maker. THAT is the reason I do not believe Thompson is moved to the wing.

You have pushed this move in this thread last month, and I personally do not think that is in the cards, but if they tried it and it worked, I would be fine with it. Thompson's defensive awareness is lacking at the center position, so if there were a way that Granato cold keep him producing but limiting his defensive responsibilities, I would be on board. It just goes against the narrative the coaching staff preached all of 2021-22.

 

[Irie]

Imagine a third line of Benson-Krebs-Rosen, that would be like Max-Roy-Vanek once upon a time.

This team has so much potential fire-power going forward that I think they could easily ice 4 scoring lines, but unfortunately, that model has never really worked in this league. Teams that are built that way are often ripe for first-round playoff upsets.

 

[Sabresfansince1980]

This team has so much potential fire-power going forward that I think they could easily ice 4 scoring lines, but unfortunately, that model has never really worked in this league. Teams that are built that way are often ripe for first-round playoff upsets.

But...what team has ever had that level of scoring depth since the '80s Oilers/salary cap?

As a thought experiment, we could envision a line-up in just a few years (while these young FWs are still on ELCs) of something very close to this -

Skinner - Thompson - Tuch
Quinn - Cozens - Peterka
Kulich - Mittelstadt - Rosen
Benson - Krebs - Savoie
Kozak, Wahlberg

Let's just suppose they all hit as legit NHLers, not necessarily stars but quality 20 goal scorers +/-, that are average or maybe less defensively. That's a little over 300 goals for just the FWs. Can a team playing like Vegas and FL did negate four scoring lines or physically dominate enough to win? IDK...probably? We haven't seen a team with that level of offense, but I imagine a group like that is just going to get injured out of ice time in the 1st rd and we'd never really see a true contest play out.

 

[joshjull]

During that stretch, (if you actually watched the games), the team lost 6 of the 8 games and Thompson's line was completely invisible 90% of the time in the games the opponents shadowed him.

He put up some points with some outstanding efforts (which is why i question the "he was injured" narrative) on busted plays, but in several of those games his line was more of a liability than an asset and not at all controlling play. They finished the stretch a -4 and the frustration in several of those games was so visible he was slamming his stick into the boards and the broadcasters were commenting on how he had been neutralized.

You can read the stats and draw your a different conclusion. I mean, he had multiple points in a 10-4 loss, and the only game he was a positive +/- was the laugher over the caps where the team was up 6-2 midway through the game (first game without Tuch and Washington was not shadowing him), but his line was grossly outplayed in several of those outings, and it all correlated to the games the opposition had someone glued to him at even strength.

You got me.

Tuch returns to the lineup 3/13. In the next 7gms before Tage leaves the lineup due to injury he puts up 3 pts in 7gms and is a -3….. Wait.. What? Thats not possible. Well you know what that means………

…Absolutely nothing because it’s a ridiculously small sample size. Just like the 8gms you’re using to try to make all sorts of broad claims about Tage‘s ability to drive a line.

It’s also pretty sad that you’re still trying to argue there is some “narrative“ about him being injured. It cost him an All star appearance and is the likely cause of his game continuing to tail off even with Tuch back.

 

[Irie]

You got me.

Tuch returns to the lineup 3/13. In the next 7gms before Tage leaves the lineup due to injury he puts up 3 pts in 7gms and is a -3….. Wait.. What? Thats not possible. Well you know what that means………

…Absolutely nothing because it’s a ridiculously small sample size. Just like the 8gms you’re using to try to make all sorts of broad claims about Tage‘s ability to drive a line.

If we were only trying to make sense of data without actual observation, then your points would be important, but we are talking about watching the games and seeing Thompson's line getting their teeth kicked in and dominated the majority of shifts in games where oppositions glued defensive players to him.

That is what I saw. That is why I am worried, and it is my opinion that if you take Thompson off of the top line, his point totals are going to drop to below PPG.

It is being proposed as a solution to increase scoring depth when the team was 3rd in the league in goals, and it is ignoring the fact that doing so will likely lead to the team getting kicked in the nuts in ten months by an arbitrator if you play an RFA in his spot.

It’s also pretty sad that you’re still trying to argue there is some “narrative“ about him being injured. It cost him an All star appearance and is the likely cause of his game continuing to tail off even with Tuch back.

When did I try to argue a narrative about Thompson being injured before? I believe today is literally the first time I have ever commented on it in these forums.

This is my Perspective - Thompson gets hurt Feb 1st and leaves the game in the 2nd period, the game before the AllStar game. He does not play in the AllStar game so that he can rest and heal up.

We are then talking about 26 days later and he had been back and playing and piling up points in the meantime. He did not seem to really be badly injured until he collided with Meier in that Devils game in March. I obviously could be wrong about how injured he was, but he was not limited in late February the way he was in April from my perspective of watching the games.

And my statement: "I don't believe he was that injured then" is just my opinion. I am not pushing some narrative and I have never even referenced the idea before. You are making mountains out of molehills here to try to create some "gotcha" moment.

Just give your take on topics instead of trying to hyper-analyze every word others post and assuming positions that are not stated - If you think Thompson was injured, great, post that. I would be more than happy to hear your position on why you think he was at the time, and if you have some solid info, you'd likely be able to convince me that I was missing something and change my mind.

But assuming some of my words mean something that is not stated or taking things out of context to debate a different topic which was never even implied is just a waste of everyone's time. Everyone here is dumber for having to read this back and forth between us.

 

[Old Navy Goat]

Personally I think this is Krebs make or break year. He's a better version of a Jost tweener, but not as good as Mitts. His problem is that the kids percolating are more dynamic so he needs to take that 3C and run with it while Quinn is out, otherwise I could see him being moved and replaced by Kozak next year

 

[joshjull]

You were implying that development = experiment.

You can have development years where all your lines stay exactly the same, and they are development years because you are playing young players over vets. Development and Experiment are not the same and they are not mutually exclusive, so you can have it different ways and still call something a "development year", even if there were zero experimenting.

Its amazing to watch you keep pointlessly spinning this.

If you read my original comment:

(this season) should still be viewed as a development year from the perspective of how young all the players still are and how much learning they have yet to do."

You are taking the comment totally out of context and focusing on my use of the term "development year" and portraying the comment as something it was clearly not at all. To what ends I am not certain.

And right after the bolded you said …………..I think some of the decisions should be driven by a long-term vision of the roster and not just a "let's try something new today" indifference.

An attempt to put Mitts on the top line would be driven by a long term vision. You clearly disagree and dismiss it by saying it’s “just a "let's try something new today" indifference.

But it’s exactly why they would do it.

I don't hate the idea and I do not think it is going to fail. This is you once again making assumptions about my positions.

You clearly don‘t like the idea. I don’t know who you’re trying to convince that you don’t. No one makes the amount of post against and idea and attacks from multiple angles unless they dislike it. It’s baffling that you won’t own it.

I am trying to be realistic about the long term cap going forward, and this entire discussion all comes back to my one offhand comment I made months ago that upset you and some others when I said "if the plan is to play Mitts between Skinner and Tuch all season, they really need to extend him first" (to avoid being taken to the woodshed in arbitration next offseason).

I’m pretty confident there is zero chance I was upset at the idea of extending Mitts. I’m also pretty confident there is likely more you mentioned at that time you’re leaving out that was the issue.

My position on the record is that if you have guys producing in top 6 roles that are locked up long term to big contracts, it is unwise to demote them in favor of playing RFAs with arbitration rights in those positions unless you are in a genuine cup contention mode and doing so gives you the best chance to win. The RFAs can fill those roles *if* the longterm signed guys get hurt or if they stop producing, but just swapping when the signed guys are producing and ignoring contract status and cap implications is unadvised.

They wouldn’t be demoted. They would still be in the top 6 producing. You‘re clearly stating you don’t think it should be tried unless were trying to compete for a cup. The obvious corollary to that is it’s not done during a development year. Which confirms what I said you were arguing earlier.

The advantage of having Tage/Cozens locked into long term value deals is that you can try things like Mitts on the top line. Cause you can swing the potential cost.

I think you need to listen to all of the comments from the coaching staff surrounding the difference that moving Thompson from wing to center made and how they realized it was the catalyst that allowed him to become a difference maker. THAT is the reason I do not believe Thompson is moved to the wing.

I‘ve heard everything they said then and more recently. You may very well be right that Tage stays at center. But the Tage of today is a very different player than the one they were trying t build up back then. Things can evolve.

I‘m just hoping IF they try this switch, Cozens stays at center. He and Mitts are better defensively than Tage at the position.

You have pushed this move in this thread last month, and I personally do not think that is in the cards, but if they tried it and it worked, I would be fine with it. Thompson's defensive awareness is lacking at the center position, so if there were a way that Granato cold keep him producing but limiting his defensive responsibilities, I would be on board. It just goes against the narrative the coaching staff preached all of 2021-22.

Nope. This topic came up back then because of a Granato talking about it in an interview. I joined the conversation in here right after it started.

I’ve argued that I understand the logic behind it and agree with it. I’ve also taken issue with arguments you’ve made against it. But I haven’t argued it should happen and I’m certainly not ”pushing it” as something we have to do. Mitts can start in a few places; between Skinner/Tuch, on either of Cozens’ wings, or even 3rd line center(I like that option the least)

 

[Matt Ress]

Personally I think this is Krebs make or break year. He's a better version of a Jost tweener, but not as good as Mitts. His problem is that the kids percolating are more dynamic so he needs to take that 3C and run with it while Quinn is out, otherwise I could see him being moved and replaced by Kozak next year

Man I love Kozak. And I'm not as high on Krebs as some here so I completely agree with this post.

 

[Matt Ress]

Totally fair, and I think there is a ton of merit to find out what the team has in Mitts, and honestly, after the worlds this year, Krebs as well.

I think after watching a couple of those games, Krebs deserves a top-6 shot in this league, but you can't have 4 top 6 centers in this league, at least not if they are being paid to be top 6 centers, so the cap constraints are playing a role here.

Rotating RFAs into high production roles when you have players signed long-term who are adequately producing in those roles is the surefire way to fast-track the team to have to trade players out to fit everyone under the cap.

Extend players and lock them up with some term before you go playing them over guys that are producing and signed longterm - it is a very controversial topic here and a few posters hate the concept, but ignoring the ramifications is shooting yourself in the foot going forward.

I get that and I know you have a lot going on here but go ahead and sign Mitts to 4x7 if he can put up 80 points on the top line because the only way that happens is if Thompson and Cozens are burning down huts. Otherwise Mitts isn't sticking to that role. It's like hoping players aren't successful because then we'll have to pay them. That doesn't make sense right? We'll have several ELCs easing the cap soon and you can always trade a good young player for a boat load if that's the issue.

Greenway looks like a fetid oozing corpuscle in that lineup.

Trying to figure out if this is NSFW

 

[Irie]

Its amazing to watch you keep pointlessly spinning this.

And right after the bolded you said …………..I think some of the decisions should be driven by a long-term vision of the roster and not just a "let's try something new today" indifference.

An attempt to put Mitts on the top line would be driven by a long term vision. You clearly disagree and dismiss it by saying it’s “just a "let's try something new today" indifference.

But it’s exactly why they would do it.


You clearly don‘t like the idea. I don’t know who you’re trying to convince that you don’t. No one makes the amount of post against and idea and attacks from multiple angles unless they dislike it. It’s baffling that you won’t own it.


I’m pretty confident there is zero chance I was upset at the idea of extending Mitts. I’m also pretty confident there is likely more you mentioned at that time you’re leaving out that was the issue.

They wouldn’t be demoted. They would still be in the top 6 producing. You‘re clearly stating you don’t think it should be tried unless were trying to compete for a cup. The obvious corollary to that is it’s not done during a development year. Which confirms what I said you were arguing earlier.

The advantage of having Tage/Cozens locked into long term value deals is that you can try things like Mitts on the top line. Cause you can swing the potential cost.


I‘ve heard everything they said then and more recently. You may very well be right that Tage stays at center. But the Tage of today is a very different player than the one they were trying t build up back then. Things can evolve.

I‘m just hoping IF they try this switch, Cozens stays at center. He and Mitts are better defensively than Tage at the position.

Nope. This topic came up back then because of a Granato talking about it in an interview. I joined the conversation in here right after it started.

I’ve argued that I understand the logic behind it and agree with it. I’ve also taken issue with arguments you’ve made against it. But I haven’t argued it should happen and I’m certainly not ”pushing it” as something we have to do. Mitts can start in a few places; between Skinner/Tuch, on either of Cozens’ wings, or even 3rd line center(I like that option the least)

That is one large wall of major projecting.

I like Mitts. I defended him more than anyone on this board this past year in the GDT and GBU threads, and I have defended him more on the main boards than any poster that I am aware of. (There are some bat-shit crazy debates there where posters were calling him a fringe NHLer).

What I don't want to see is Cozens on the wing, and I'd prefer he stay in the top six - and I am passionate about that. I don't think granato plays Thompson on the wing because of reasons already mentioned, so i do not like the idea of moving Mitts to 1C at the cost of Cozens not getting top 6 center reps.

I also believe it would be wise to extend Mitts before playing him at 1C *if* the team has a healthy Cozens and Thompson available. I have said this all 5 times now as to my reasoning why I felt Mitts to 1C is a bad idea.

It has zero reason to do with me not liking Mitts.

The other stuff in there is mostly nonsense. You are taking things out of context and saying I meant X when I did not mean any such thing. These discussions are informal and I use the phrase "I think" quite often to reinforce that I feel a certain way about an issue, but having someone analyze your every word to try to present your post as something completely different is bordering on obsession.