plenzmd1 Posted June 5, 2017 Share Posted June 5, 2017 McKenzie says Lehner could be in play along with Kane. Interesting. Wonder if Ole Cal is saying he goes, I will sign. He stays at north of $4m, I hit FA. https://twitter.com/davedavishockey/status/871745802825347074 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
26CornerBlitz Posted June 5, 2017 Author Share Posted June 5, 2017 @YahooSportsNHL NHL Competition Committee wants no more timeouts after icing, plus a small change to power-play rules. https://yhoo.it/2rY5dPb Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bbb Posted June 6, 2017 Share Posted June 6, 2017 I think you should be able to burn your one time out on an icing call. What the hell. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
plenzmd1 Posted June 6, 2017 Share Posted June 6, 2017 I think you should be able to burn your one time out on an icing call. What the hell. I am fine either way...rearranging the deck chairs. Want more goals, just enforce the rules on the books. Good lord, the cross-check to the head of Malkin last night, after the whistle, directly in front of the ref, not called..no way they calling a little ole interference anymore. BTW, i love Jeremy Whites suggestion that instead of losing your timeout on a failed off offside challenge, you are accessed a 5 minute PP. I would be okay even if it is like a conventional powerplay, and you can only score 1...but good God something has to happen with that call. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
shrader Posted June 6, 2017 Share Posted June 6, 2017 I think you should be able to burn your one time out on an icing call. What the hell. It's not like they have 3 of them. It can't add too much time to the game. If they really want to mess around to increase scoring, I'd expand that no change after an icing rule. Don't allow a change after any rules violation. You put the puck out of play? No change. Offside? No change. The huge one would be after a penalty. Imagine the scenario where a defenseman takes a penalty and you are stuck with 3 forwards and 1 defenseman on the ice for a defensive zone faceoff. That right there would spike scoring a bit. The only times you get to change are on the fly, after the goalie covers the puck, or when the other team makes one of those rule violations. My only concern with all of this is it could lead to some faking of injuries. You'd have to allow a change for injury. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
26CornerBlitz Posted June 6, 2017 Author Share Posted June 6, 2017 @Sportsnet The Canucks are willing to move Chris Tanev for the right price. @lukefoxjukebox looks at 5 potential destinations: http://sprtsnt.ca/2r1TUAQ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bbb Posted June 7, 2017 Share Posted June 7, 2017 I am fine either way...rearranging the deck chairs. That's exactly it Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JohnC Posted June 7, 2017 Share Posted June 7, 2017 I've changed my hardcore stance on not trading Evander Kane. If the Sabres can get a top two pairing caliber defenseman and overall get a fair return on him then the team needs to do it. It's important that this team enter the season with a competent defensive unit. The Russian should be a good addition and Guhle probably will make the roster. Because of the expansion draft the Sabres should be able to make a deal for another solid player. Casey Nelson is a solid puck moving defenseman who should be more ready compared to when he played a couple of years ago. Bogo will be tough to deal because of his salary. But with an infusion of additional players resulting in him moving down the ranks as a third pairing type player then he would be a better fit. The Sabres will not enter the season with a top unit but it is attainable for them to have a competent unit that will not be a major liability like last year's unit. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ricojes Posted June 7, 2017 Share Posted June 7, 2017 (edited) I agree JohnC, Buffalo has to get better on D. You can definitely see the impact that defensemen that can move the puck have in the NHL playoffs. Nashville is just fantastic when it comes to clearing the zone and moving the puck. And who knows, maybe their defensive coach may be coaching in Buffalo soon... Edited June 7, 2017 by ricojes Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
plenzmd1 Posted June 7, 2017 Share Posted June 7, 2017 I've changed my hardcore stance on not trading Evander Kane. If the Sabres can get a top two pairing caliber defenseman and overall get a fair return on him then the team needs to do it. It's important that this team enter the season with a competent defensive unit. The Russian should be a good addition and Guhle probably will make the roster. Because of the expansion draft the Sabres should be able to make a deal for another solid player. Casey Nelson is a solid puck moving defenseman who should be more ready compared to when he played a couple of years ago. Bogo will be tough to deal because of his salary. But with an infusion of additional players resulting in him moving down the ranks as a third pairing type player then he would be a better fit. The Sabres will not enter the season with a top unit but it is attainable for them to have a competent unit that will not be a major liability like last year's unit. I have been noodling over this lately, namely the expansion draft leading to more players being available. I think i am looking at it the wrong way, as i dont see that being the case. Let's take Anaheim. Everyone says they have to go the 7-3 route as they will lose to valuable a forward like Silfverberg if they go 4-4. So they need to trade one of the D men so they don't lose them for nothing in return. I get all that. But then they have to trade for an asset that does not need to be protected, like a Reinhart or Nylander. And still, they will have to expose one of their talented D to the expansion draft. So they lose one of the D anyway, and that's all they can lose..and maybe have a guy they do not find as valuable as the guy they picked up. My head is running in circles here trying to figure this out...someone smarter than me help me out? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JohnC Posted June 8, 2017 Share Posted June 8, 2017 I have been noodling over this lately, namely the expansion draft leading to more players being available. I think i am looking at it the wrong way, as i dont see that being the case. Let's take Anaheim. Everyone says they have to go the 7-3 route as they will lose to valuable a forward like Silfverberg if they go 4-4. So they need to trade one of the D men so they don't lose them for nothing in return. I get all that. But then they have to trade for an asset that does not need to be protected, like a Reinhart or Nylander. And still, they will have to expose one of their talented D to the expansion draft. So they lose one of the D anyway, and that's all they can lose..and maybe have a guy they do not find as valuable as the guy they picked up. My head is running in circles here trying to figure this out...someone smarter than me help me out? I took a hard stance with Kane and then relented. But I'm taking a harder stance with dealing Reinhart or Nylander. Under no circumstance do I want either one of them traded. Kane's market value is less than his talent because his contract expires in another year. So unless there is a deal in place for him to get an extension with a new team his value is diminished. But that doesn't mean that the Sabres can't get a good second to third pairing caliber of defenseman. The Sabres are going to get a good puck moving Russian player. And Guhle should make the roster next year. Casey Nelson should be more prepared to be a third or fourth pairing d-man, his style of play is a puck moving playier. If the Sabres can get in a pre-expansion deal a solid defenseman then the back line should be bolstered. The Sabres are not going to have an elite unit. That's a pipe-dream. But if our unit is bolstered to the point that it is a competent unit then that in itself would be a quantum leap forward. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
plenzmd1 Posted June 8, 2017 Share Posted June 8, 2017 (edited) Because of the expansion draft the Sabres should be able to make a deal for another solid player. John, not so worried about the exact player....but was asking about this statement. Deals made due to worries about losing a player to the expansion draft by definition would have to involve an asset going back that does not have to be protected correct? So forget Kane as part of that equation...and if yo want a top 4 guy has to involve Reinhart or Nylander, and I think a little sweetener on top. so then you say...well they cant trade picks. How many and what picks would it take to get Vatanen? Lets say its two ones just for the sake of argument. Anaheim still is going to have to expose one of the 2 guys left they don't want to lose. Let's say they make a trade with Vegas and Vegas agrees not to take...still have 1 exposed. So does it not come down to would they make that same trade in a non-expansion year? Guess i am just trying to understand why everyone keeps saying there is gong to be an unprecented level of movement due to the expansion draft, and i just do not see it. Edited June 8, 2017 by plenzmd1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
snafu Posted June 8, 2017 Share Posted June 8, 2017 John, not so worried about the exact player....but was asking about this statement. Deals made due to worries about losing a player to the expansion draft by definition would have to involve an asset going back that does not have to be protected correct? So forget Kane as part of that equation...and if yo want a top 4 guy has to involve Reinhart or Nylander, and I think a little sweetener on top. so then you say...well they cant trade picks. How many and what picks would it take to get Vatanen? Lets say its two ones just for the sake of argument. Anaheim still is going to have to expose one of the 2 guys left they don't want to lose. Let's say they make a trade with Vegas and Vegas agrees not to take...still have 1 exposed. So does it not come down to would they make that same trade in a non-expansion year? Guess i am just trying to understand why everyone keeps saying there is gong to be an unprecented level of movement due to the expansion draft, and i just do not see it. I figure that a lot of the trades that teams want to make can't/won't be made until after the expansion draft for the reasons you are bringing up. This is a weird offseason. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
thebandit27 Posted June 8, 2017 Share Posted June 8, 2017 I agree JohnC, Buffalo has to get better on D. You can definitely see the impact that defensemen that can move the puck have in the NHL playoffs. Nashville is just fantastic when it comes to clearing the zone and moving the puck. And who knows, maybe their defensive coach may be coaching in Buffalo soon... I think they almost have to make a run at Shattenkirk in FA. Just think how different the top-5 D could look next season if it includes Risto, Shatty, McCabe, Antipin, and Guhle. As I've said though, Shattenkirk will be the prize of all FA prizes, so I'd probably be prepared to settle for Karl Alzner as a consolation. More of a 2nd/3rd pair guy, but solid. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
plenzmd1 Posted June 8, 2017 Share Posted June 8, 2017 I think they almost have to make a run at Shattenkirk in FA. Just think how different the top-5 D could look next season if it includes Risto, Shatty, McCabe, Antipin, and Guhle. As I've said though, Shattenkirk will be the prize of all FA prizes, so I'd probably be prepared to settle for Karl Alzner as a consolation. More of a 2nd/3rd pair guy, but solid. Please God no...on both Shattenkirk and Alzner. I have never understood the love for Shattenkirk. Now, that is based more on seeing him in playoffs more than the regular season, and assuming he gets 6yr x $7m...not interested. Alzner I like a bit more, but again depends on the term and money. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
shrader Posted June 8, 2017 Share Posted June 8, 2017 Anaheim still is going to have to expose one of the 2 guys left they don't want to lose. Let's say they make a trade with Vegas and Vegas agrees not to take...still have 1 exposed. So does it not come down to would they make that same trade in a non-expansion year? The trade would be more specific than that. Anaheim would require Vegas to take a specific player in the trade. I'll throw together a completely BS example using Sabre players since I'm most familiar with them. Imagine you have Larsson and Girgensons available and don't want to lose either. You do not give them Guhle in exchange for not selecting Larsson. You give them Guhle in exchange for them selecting Marcus Foligno. Again, don't read into any of those names, I completely pulled them out of my ass. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
thebandit27 Posted June 8, 2017 Share Posted June 8, 2017 Please God no...on both Shattenkirk and Alzner. I have never understood the love for Shattenkirk. Now, that is based more on seeing him in playoffs more than the regular season, and assuming he gets 6yr x $7m...not interested. Alzner I like a bit more, but again depends on the term and money. 40+ point player with 40+ PIM for 4 consecutive seasons; easy to see why he's coveted. He's also become a plus player since being traded to Washington. Moreover, he's a guy that can both knock an offensive player off the puck and move the puck up ice in transition. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
4merper4mer Posted June 8, 2017 Share Posted June 8, 2017 What is the record for longest team without a head coach? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JohnC Posted June 8, 2017 Share Posted June 8, 2017 40+ point player with 40+ PIM for 4 consecutive seasons; easy to see why he's coveted. He's also become a plus player since being traded to Washington. Moreover, he's a guy that can both knock an offensive player off the puck and move the puck up ice in transition. I don't think the Sabres have any interest in Shattenkirk because of the money and length of contract. It would tighten our cap situation and limit our options in the not too distant future. I'm not arguing that he isn't a top tier player because he is. But smartly piecing together the cap puzzle is as important as acquiring talent. I do believe that the Sabres can come up with a good player for Kane. The return for him won't be of equal value because his contract will run out in a year but by adding a good player or two it bolsters the unit.. If you add in the Russian who is either a second or third pairing type player and you also factor in Guhle then the unit is being reconfigured in a good way. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
thebandit27 Posted June 8, 2017 Share Posted June 8, 2017 I don't think the Sabres have any interest in Shattenkirk because of the money and length of contract. It would tighten our cap situation and limit our options in the not too distant future. I'm not arguing that he isn't a top tier player because he is. But smartly piecing together the cap puzzle is as important as acquiring talent. I do believe that the Sabres can come up with a good player for Kane. The return for him won't be of equal value because his contract will run out in a year but by adding a good player or two it bolsters the unit.. If you add in the Russian who is either a second or third pairing type player and you also factor in Guhle then the unit is being reconfigured in a good way. Cap issues become less relevant if you can clear Bogosian, Gorges, Moulson, and Ennis. That said, the need for a veteran D-man is more than palpable. I'm not opposed to getting it done by moving Kane, but I would want to feel good about a guy like Fasching or Bailey being able to step into a physical role in the top-6. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts