dudacek
-
Posts
29,153 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Events
Posts posted by dudacek
-
-
1 minute ago, That Aud Smell said:
⬆️
I’m watching Vancouver rn.
What about them? They stunk last year. (But was that an aberration?)
Last year they stunk like the Sabres did this year. They were an 83 point team that had missed 3 years in a row and 7 of their previous 8.
But the previous year they had just missed, with 92 points (again, very much as the Sabres did)
-
1
-
-
3 hours ago, Thorny said:
Taking 5 years to make the playoffs is already wrong. He can’t “turn out correct.”
the red wings aren’t relevant to that
- - -
The only reason people mention the red wings is to feel better about the sabres: our competition is with the league not one team. There is nothing gleaned by comparing the sabres “patient approach” and the wings “more aggressive” approach: both have sucked. Neither represents a verdict on the type of chosen strategy: the league has hundreds of teams providing hundreds of examples over a hundred years of GMs moulding their teams into playoff contenders over a year or two or 3, or teams successful implementing a more patient approach. We don’t need to look at these two failed approaches.
Either strategy can work. Either strategy can fail based on the aptitude of the person implementing it. Both GMs have been bad. Trying to achieve a victory over Detroit is purely cope
For me it's less about coping with the Sabres and more about coping with @PerreaultForever, but we all gotta find our ways to get by 😜
*****
Two things have become really clear lately to me about your position on this rebuild:
- You think the Sabres of 2021 were in much better shape than I do
- And/or you think it's much easier to turn a really bad team into a playoff team than I do.
To the 2nd point, I took a look at other teams, going back 10 years to the lockout. Including teams that have done it more than once, there have been 14 sub-.400 non-expansion teams beyond the Sabres.
- the 2015 Oilers were in their 8th consecutive year out of the playoffs. They drafted McDavid, finally made it 3 years later and missed the next 2
- the 2015 Coyotes were in their 3rd consecutive year out of the playoffs. They missed 4 more years before finally making it, and have missed 4 years since.
- the 2017 Avalanche were on their 3rd consecutive year out of the playoffs and had missed 6 of their last 7. They made the playoffs the next season and have yet to miss since.
- the 2019 Senators were on their 2nd year out of playoffs and missed each of the 5 years since.
- the 2020 Wings were on their 4th year of missing the playoffs and have missed each of the 4 years since
- the 2021 Ducks were on their 3rd year out of the playoffs and have missed all 3 years since
- The 2022 Devils were on their 4th year out of the playoffs and had missed 9 of 10. they made the playoffs the next season, then missed last year.
- the 2022 Flyers were on their 2nd year out of the playoffs and have missed the 2 years since.
- the 2022 Canadiens went to finals in bubble the year prior and have missed the 2 years since
- the 2023 Sharks were on their 4th year out of the playoffs and missed again this year
- the 2023 Jackets were on their 3rd year out of the playoffs and missed again this year
- the 2023 Hawks were on their 3rd year out of the playoffs and missed again this year
I'm just not seeing many examples of GMs turning sad sack teams like the Sabres into playoff contenders in 2 or 3 years. The 2020/21 Sabres were a .330 hockey team.
Which comes back to my first point up top: your argument makes a lot more sense to me if you think the 2021 Sabres were like the 2016 Hurricanes or the 2022 Canucks.
I just don't think that's the case.
-
3
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
2 hours ago, Jorcus said:
I think you have to factor Peterka and Quinn contract upgrades in all of this.
1 hour ago, tom webster said:As I’ve said ad nauseum, the cap will be sky rocketing and the Sabres have plenty of space for Quinn and JJP.
Quinn and Peterka are two years into their ELC's.
You can pay them a lot next summer if you want.
But you also can literally wait 5 more years before you have to give them big contracts.
If they deserve the big money earlier, then that's a good problem to have.
You move somebody to clear up space. That's what the good teams do.
-
1
-
1
-
-
Here’s someone who fits my “this year’s 2021 Reinhart” model.
Marty Necas is a 25-year-old 5-year veteran RFA who wants more than Carolina is willing to pay him.
Friedman says he’s expected to hit the market. Wants term and the Canes won’t do it.
6’2” skilled, and fast. Former 12-overall pick in 2017 who broke out with 71 points 2 years ago after 3 years of 40ish. Dropped to 53 last year.
Not particularly physical or a shutdown guy, but his puck possession numbers are strong.
Plays RW but is naturally a centre and reportedly wants to play centre.
This is the the type of guy you could get for the Reinhart price of roughly 2 picks in the second half of the 1st, or equivalent prospects.
He shouldn’t cost more than Cozens on term and you’ve got him for at least 2 years for 5 or 6 if not.
He’s basically your Mitts replacement to a “T”.
Which is ironic because reports say he was going to be the Sabres pick at 8 in his draft year before newcomer Botterill overruled the holdover staff and took Casey.
-
4
-
-
35 minutes ago, French Collection said:
More of a hard stick to the groin than a slash. Showing some Pronger tendencies right there.
Bo’s got more of mean streak than this board recognizes.
In a perfect world he ends up Duncan Keith. Same size, similar approach.
-
4
-
1
-
1
-
-
5 minutes ago, Archie Lee said:
This is a bit of a Royal Flush, isn't it? I mean, sure, we could this. We will likely try to. But most of the teams in the league will be competing to find their Lafferty, Blueger and Joshua. All 3 are free agents this off-season. If you want players like that in reality and not theoretically, it's going to cost a lot more than $3.8 million.
Sure, but let’s not dismiss it as a pipe dream either.
This is how good teams have stayed competitive and mediocre teams have made the jump.
You’re not going to sign Lindholm and Joshua for anywhere near that money, but you can find the next Lindholm and Joshua.
If you want to contend, you have to.
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
-
isn’t it really just about spending your money wisely?
I think it @GASabresIUFAN who has talked on here about Adams choices at the bottom of his roster.
While Vancouver was paying $4M to Lafferty, Blueger and Joshua, the Sabres were paying $7.2M to Okposo, Girgensons and Jost.
That’s not just about having a better bottom 6, the difference might be what allows you to acquire an Elias Lindholm.
It”s not something the Sabres have really had to worry about as they stocked their roster with players on their first and 2nd contracts.
But it’s something they need to worry about now.
-
1
-
3
-
-
50 minutes ago, Archie Lee said:
The above is all true. To take it a step further, let's assume Krebs is moved back to 4C. Let's also assume that Skinner and Greenway are the 3rd line wingers. And let's assume Levi is the 2nd goalie as is likely to be the case. This leaves us around $9 million to bring in a 3rd line C and two 4th line wingers. Upgrades don't need to cost more than what we paid Okposo, Girgs and Jost, but we probably have to spend at least the same, $7 million, to get better players. If this happens, we will have increased our spending to within $2 million of the cap (give or take), without upgrading or changing the make-up of our top-6 and D. It also assumes we are actually prepared to spend that much.
I do think that the above scenario can render us a better team than a year ago. With development of existing players and bounce back years and better coaching, it could yield a playoff team. Unless we are moving a veteran out though (Joker, Greenway, Samuelsson, Skinner), there is little to no room for a bigger splash. Lots of fans want us to move #11 and/or one or two top prospects for veteran upgrades. Such a trade or trades would mean, I think and hope, bringing in a player with a larger contract. I'm not making excuses for management. Just pointing out that all of the hope for big acquisitions (not you, but from this thread: Pavelski, Necas, Pesce, E. Lindholm, Stephenson, Stamkos, Marchessault and Zadorov) is likely misplaced for multiple reasons, one of which is there actually isn't a lot of cap space available.
They absolutely could get a bigger-name guy for $6-8 million and 2 plugs for the 4th line and call it a day.
Let’s focus on the Canucks here since they are a team whose jump we are trying to emulate.
I think the Sabres would be more than happy with a summertime haul that yields the likes of Elias Lindholm, Dakota Joshua, Sam Lafferty and Teddy Blueger.
Vancouver is paying those 4 guys $4.8M, $800K, $1.9M, and $1.1M - $8.8M total.
Lafferty was acquired for a 5th-rounder, Blueger signed July 1 to a 1-year UFA deal, Joshua was basically a Brett Murray they signed for depth.
And Lindholm was acquired for the type of deal many of us want Adams to make: a bushel of picks and prospects - roughly equivalent to Ryan Johnson, next year’s 1st and scraps - and Kuzmenko, a fat contract sitting in the press box.
-
1 hour ago, B-U-F-F-A-L-O said:
I think we’ve already decided to do nothing this summer. It is going to be another year to develop prospects in Buffalo….
Kulich and Rosen are already locks on the 2024-25 roster.
This is not what we need.We need bigger, stronger, grittier players that win in the corners and go to the net without exception. We need forecheckers and backcheckers that win on the dot. We need players that make other players not want to play us.
Yes, of course you need talent too but talent without toughness does not win in the NHL…
Why do you think this?
-
The Sabres have the 9th most space with $23M
They have 13 NHL players signed and 10 players to re-sign or replace with that space:
Luukkonen, Jokiharju, Krebs, Bryson, Clague, Olofsson, Girgensons, Jost, Comrie, Robinson.
For sake of argument, I’m going to dedicate $10M to re-signing the first 3 and let the rest go.
Also for sake of argument, I’m going to budget $3M on the 3 guys starting in the press box.
That leaves $10M to spend on 3 top 12 forwards and a backup goalie.
That’s plenty of space for upgrades to Okposo Girgensons Olofsson and Comrie, particularly when you have a Comrie upgrade already available at $900K in Levi.
-
2
-
1
-
-
But that only took a week! It’s barely enough time to reach double digits in people talked to!
It’s almost like Treliving knew who he wanted to hire before he fired Keefe and he didn’t even do a thorough search.
😜
-
4
-
-
2 hours ago, PerreaultForever said:
well idk. I'd actually like to see multiple deals to change this roster.
My mindset is in terms of restructuring the roster and getting players that play differently from what we have. Our roster imo is too slanted in one direction and it doesn't have the various parts that a winning NHL roster requires. We need to move pieces where we have surpluses and get pieces where we have deficiencies. The value and the winning the trade doesn't concern me much.
I'd like to hear actual trade ideas from people. Who do they want or think we could get and what would they give? It's easy to say "I want Skinner gone" (as I've said myself) but it's harder to make it happen. It's easy to say "we need" or "I want" but how and for who? What is everyone willing to actually do in concrete terms rather than vague wishes.
A good off-season for me would be acquiring a veteran middle-six centre who can win faceoffs and two good grinding bottom 6 wingers.
A better one would include a goalie on a short-term deal that will force Levi to beat him out, and flipping Joki for similar-level RHD with more stay-at-home, physical game.
History says cap space along with a package including at least 2 of #11, Rosen, Kulich, Östlund, Savoie, Johnson and/or lesser picks or prospects will probably get you the big fish. Haven't really looked around at who might be a target. I've seen Bennett, Tavares and Couturier tossed out as names. Price depends on return.
A 2nd/3rd and/or equivalent prospect should get you the grinders if unrestricted free agency can't. Think what we paid for Greenway and Clifton. Again, haven't looked at targets, but guys like Joshua and Martinook fit the profile.
-
1
-
-
1 hour ago, PerreaultForever said:
I think Benson's "jump" will be in year 3 or 4. Likely when he's around 21.
I will not be surprised if he takes a backwards step next year and it won't worry me as I see a bright future. He might not. We shall see how he adjusts to what Ruff brings, but I am expecting a more structured style of play and young guys usually have some issues with that initially.
Looks like others have already responded, but I would be shocked if Benson struggles with structure because his game is so naturally structured.
I wouldn’t be surprised if he slides a bit either, but I think his “slide” will be more along the nature of Power’s: kinda stagnant overall, but with higher expectations amplifying the warts during the downs, both for observers and for himself.
-
2
-
2
-
1
-
-
10 hours ago, PerreaultForever said:
I didn't suggest a one for one. I said they might be the centerpieces of a larger trade involving picks/prospects players but in the end they'd get a D (which they need desperately) plus etc. and we'd get a 3C plus etc. The GMs can work out the equivalencies on how to make it "equal" or pleasing to each other.
At the risk of being told I don't want win, any trade where the 2 biggest pieces involved are Samuelsson and Laughton is a trade I don't want to make.
-
What Benson produced was unremarkable for a middle-six NHL forward, somewhat remarkable for an 18-year-old, and almost unheard of for an 18-year-old picked outside the top 10.
Really curious to see if he can make a Peterka-style jump, because his production was similar to Peterka's rookie year and his overall game more reliable than Peterka's rookie year.
-
1
-
1
-
-
30 minutes ago, PASabreFan said:
Going to the net is a tired old crock of BS. It's not how the Sabres will score more goals. More talent, better coaching.
Right on!
(As long as those more talented guys are coached to get to the net)
-
1
-
3
-
-
1 hour ago, Gatorman0519 said:
Vancouver’s commitment to team defense and special teams won game 5. Quite impressive.
Thought that was their best game of the playoffs.
They just allowed nothing, which is not unusual, but it was the first time they looked dangerous in offence.
It’s remarkable how much - in just a year - Tocchet has transformed the way they play.
-
1
-
-
It’s an interesting class, but it’s hard to get excited about it.
Not when your team has not shown much interest in, or got much interest from, the big names.
Not when our big splashes have been Hall, Okposo, Ehrhoff and Leino.
-
1
-
1
-
-
26 minutes ago, PerreaultForever said:
On a garbage team with bad linemates and expectations of being a 2C. I'm not sold on Laughton being all that and everything but if you want to add people you need to think of who might actually be a guy we could get as well as just wanting guys. There are better guys but with higher price tags and harder to get.
Do you think Samuelsson is a low price tag?
A 24-year-old 6’4” 230-pound defensively strong defenceman on a team that has no one else like that?
-
53 minutes ago, Taro T said:
No. Again, that 55% that O'Reilly has (if that is in fact his win %age; for sake of argument, will agree it is) is the aggregate of how he does on ALL face offs. He doesn't give a rat's bippy whether he wins the game's opening faceoff or some random faceoff outside a blue line. He is going to lose more of those than he's going to lose when he actually gives a care. Can we at least agree that the poor faceo off guy going up against O'Reilly is going to try hard EVERY faceoff, so that he doesn't look stupid losing even more often than O'Reilly is going to try on one that doesn't matter?
Let's say there are 20 faceoffs total that O'Reilly takes. (So we can easily get to that 55% - 11 out of 20) He doesn't care about the 8 in the neutral zone and only wins 3 of those but loses the other 5. (Though he doesn't care, he still comes close to winning 50% even though probably only 1 of those wins is clean.) Well, of those other 12 faceoffs that ARE important, he's won 8 of them and only lost 4. So, the next time he takes a key FO, we expect him to win 2 of of 3 of them rather than only 11 out of 20.
Also, of those 8 he wins, he's probably going to win more of them cleanly than he'd win cleanly on ones he doesn't care about.
Not sure how to explain the concept any clearer without writing a dissertation. (And YES, ALL of these #'s are hypothetical. But would wager that he's better on ones that matter than ones that don't.)
What you're saying is we really need to look at how centres do in high-danger faceoffs
-
1
-
2
-
-
1 hour ago, PerreaultForever said:
On Ruff, I certainly hope so. I imagine Lindy also has a big ego (that's not an insult, it's just saying he believes in himself) and he firmly believes he can be the guy to save Buffalo and thus become a legend and hero forever in the community. If Lindy succeeds this time I suspect he will have a place in this organization until he dies even if it's just honorary.
As for Detroit, I'd be surprised if Yzerman stands pat with what he has so it'll be hard to compare everything. He will be making moves which may be good or bad who knows. Remains to be seen if Adams will make big moves or stand (relatively) pat.
I personally do not think the current roster (plus prospects) gets us in the playoffs even with Ruff as coach. So for me, the ball is in Adams court. July will be here sooner than we think.
Right, but Detroit has done exactly what you wanted the Sabres to do: acquire veterans to teach and "block" and "win now" and "play the right way", and pick bigger 2-way guys instead smaller, skilled types.
The Wallinders and Kaspers and Velenos and Cossas and Edvissons and Berggrens have been playing in the minors or down the lineup while the Perrons and the Kanes and Sprongs and Petrys played in Detroit.
Over the past 2 years, each team has missed the playoffs by a single win, and the Sabres have outproduced the Wings by a measly 4 points.
Basically, there has been no meaningful short-term difference from either philosophy, so the difference will be measured in the long-term.
Will Detroit regret some of the long-term veteran contracts they've signed?
Will the Sabres regret the contracts they've given some unproven kids?
Will the prospects develop better being shielded and slow cooked, or force-fed NHL minutes?
I mean you're right, future moves might muddy the waters, but having the mirror image plan unfold at the same time in the same division will be fascinating.
-
2
-
1
-
1
-
-
Marchand's is absolutely the right response to what happened and the guy is a heckuva hockey player.
He's also a prick and I have not lost touch with my basic Sabre fandom so much as to not enjoy it any time he suffers.
-
6
-
1
-
-
1 hour ago, PerreaultForever said:
I agree in general but there's a few points I differ on.
First, yes, Yzerman went a different way (and was mocked on this board as having lost it if you remember) but Detroit did improve and they went from behind us to ahead of us and almost made the playoffs. The young guys there are learning from the veterans Yzerman brought in. We shall see if it lasts or has a lasting impact.
I disagree on the Kane thing though. We focus in on the "from Buffalo" thing but Detroit was closer to his Chicago area home and the logic to his decision might be simpler than we think. Detroit may have also offered him more money. It could be that simple and have nothing to do with the Buffalo perceptions.
But we absolutely do need veterans and leaders, pros, and Adams definitely has to give Ruff the tools he needs.
I am expecting a team that looks quite different next year. If it starts the season with the same basic lines and pairings and few if any additions I will start to think Ruff is just going through the motions to pad his retirement and all hope might be lost.
The fact that Ruff signed for 2 years to work in Buffalo when he could have collected millions from NJ to do nothing is evidence the bold is not the case.
It will be interesting to watch over the next 5 years if the Wings were short-term gain for long-term pain, or we were.
The starting points were similar. The Copp, Chairot and Compher contracts were exactly the things Adams refused to do.
-
2
-
1
-
2
-
-
1 hour ago, steveoath said:
Additives?
A lot of Euro brews tend to stick to Purity Laws
We think so.
it was basically the same with all wheat products over your way: pasta, bread etc.
Makes her sick over here, but she was in her glory over there; spent 10 weeks last summer
Lucky she was walking so much, otherwise she probably would have needed a new wardrobe. 😁
-
1
-
1
-
KO knew very early we didn’t have it - something was missing
in The Aud Club
Posted · Edited by dudacek
Yes, I get that you think the Sabres didn't need to reset in in March of 2021 because:
I get that you think that team had enough pieces that it could have become a playoff team relatively quickly with the right tweaks. And that you think Adams has pushed that possibility back when he did not have to.
The point I was trying to make was simply that it is not typical for a really bad team to turn into playoff regular in 2 or 3 years. I didn't even mention Adams, let alone the hyperbole-filled bold. That's all you.
If you want to discuss whether the reset itself was prudent, sure. When I check my 'real world context' from March of 2021 I see:
These are issues I can't ignore. Even if I do accept handwaving the 2021 disaster as just the product of an unhealthy Jack and the bubble, I don't think an 81-point team can withstand all that, let alone a 54-point team. And I don't handwave 2021. Every team was in a bubble. Every team has injuries — you've said it yourself several times. And whether you accept it as representative or not, the Sabres literally did morph into a .330 team.
My take in that moment is that I don't see this mix becoming a playoff team relatively quickly with the right tweaks
Regardless of how we got there, or what we've done since — I guess I need to stress this is not about Adams' overall performance as a GM — I think a reset at that time was absolutely the right move. I respect your take, I just see it differently.