TrueBlueGED

At any time. I'm just not sure Fowler is the guy I'd do it for, especially since the deal was probably more than just the Nylander pick.

Eeeehhhhhh. O'Reilly-Okposo Eichel-Nylander Reinhart-Hischier That's a heck of a forward spine to run with. Sure the blue line would still be a mess, but potential for fun: very very high!

From where in what I said did you infer he should be racking up points? I was describing Vlasic-lite. Plus what Flagg said. Points for defensemen are such a flawed measure of offensive contribution.

I have two thoughts on Murray at the moment. One is that what he brought in, well, there his guys, so he's naturally going to be more patient with them as he believes in what he assembled. The other thing floating through my head is that maybe he now feels trying to push the rebuild ahead was the wrong move, so he's moved more to letting things happen naturally (would also lend credence to why he wasn't willing to part with the Nylander pick for Fowler). I tend to think it's more the former than the latter, but who knows.

Tanev is what everyone hopes Guhle develops into. He's great defensively and can transition the puck. Good outlet, good skater. He's basically my ideal non-stud top-4 Dman.

Has anyone listened to the interview? Some have the impression he was talking about the QB position, not the team writ large. Semi-related, the more I read, the more I like this QB class. I'd be happy with any of Kizer, Mahomes, or Watson. Trubisky is my least favorite at this point.

You've jumped the shark with this one. Murray traded Pysyk because he didn't like Pysyk's game. Nor did Bylsma. I can't believe the hate Franson still gets. He was signed to a cheap, low risk deal to be a stop gap while looking for something better, while giving us the option of dealing him for a pick. This is the type of signing Murray should have done more of, rather than large deals with long term cap implications (Moulson, Gorges). And Franson has been perfectly fine on the 3rd pair.

At the moment? No. But I think they're as good as Kane was at 20 and Toews at 21, respectively.

Upon closing my gym locker, I realized it was locker #47. I proceeded to move my clothes to another locker. The Bogo Bunker isn't just a Sabrespace inside joke, it's a way of life.

The Bogo injuries were absolutely foreseeable as they've been a staple of his career. Kulikov, not so much, as he's been mostly healthy since entering the league.

I said it before Bylsma was hired and got heat for it, but I'll say it again: if he's fired, Claude Julien.

In the same way we lucked into O'Reilly: incompetent regime misvalues and misplaces blame, trades for pucks. Anywho, I don't think there's an economics problem. Each winning team has X core forwards they invest into, and I don't think it matters if that X includes 2 centers and a winger, or 3 centers--the total price for those foundational pieces is going to be about the same.

In my perfect world, yes. In Bylsma's, no :nana: But who are they going to be replaced by that are significant upgrades? All of the best teams have a couple of "JAGs" playing on their top three lines. Do you view Zemgus and Foligno as strictly fourth line players? Nick Bonino is centering Phil Kessel, and he has a whopping 4 more points than Foligno does. I disagree. I think all three are good enough to drive their own line, and that's ideally how it would be set up. I want the Pittsburgh setup: Crosby, Malkin, Kessel (granted, not a center) all getting their own line to captain. Hell, this is what Toronto is doing too. I continue to think "top-6" is an antiquated notion that inhibits debate because it makes people treat the "3rd line" as a red-headed step child.

Who is getting replaced and pushed down the lineup? O'Reilly, Eichel, Reinhart, Okposo, Kane are locked in. Who is moving any of them down other than Nylander? Maybe Kane isn't around long term, but for the most part, I think the top forwards we're going to run with are already here.

Yea, I think there's a reasonable chance his flaws would be exposed in a different style of play. Are they, though? Or do we just think they are because we see every one, and care about every one because it affects our team...whereas with other teams we neither see nor care about every weak goal.

Oh, he's fugly to watch, that's for sure. And it may be that playing low event hockey protects some of his flaws. But if he keeps putting up league average numbers...don't we eventually have to let the numbers have their day? I remember watching Corey Crawford his first couple years as a starter, and every time I'd walk away thinking he was totally out of control, flopping all over the place, and would have to be replaced. Flunked my eye test entirely. Turns out not only didn't he have to be replaced, but he's actually good.

Lehner is tied for 15th in the league in save percentage. He's a starter. An average one, who is not worth a 1st round pick in a strong draft, but a starter nonetheless. One can be a starter without being a franchise goaltender.

I think it's an interesting question, but also one that's really hard to answer (which is probably why it's interesting). Would we even be asking the question if the acceleration of the rebuild had been more effective? For instance, if Kane was scoring 30 while finishing Eichel's feeds and Bogo was locking down a quality 2nd pair, and Lehner was establishing himself as a top-5 goaltender...are we sitting here wondering if trying to push it along was the wrong choice? I don't think the strategy to get better faster was inherently the wrong one, but rather, Murray simply had the wrong targets when executing the strategy.

This is insane to me. You can't judge the coach because our 4th line is littered with AHLers? That's like saying you can't judge the quality if a meal because it was seasoned with table salt rather than sea salt. Did anyone need to see Ted Nolan with a better roster to know he wasn't a good coach?

I don't disagree with your assessment of Matthews. I just think saying he could be two tiers above Eichel means Eichel is more RNH than Seguin. There are only so many tiers, ya know!

1) I've said it before in (I think) the Bylsma thread, but it's not that dump and chase can't work, it's that Bylsma's version can't work. How an NHL coach can think that combining dump and chase with a conservative forecheck is a good idea is utterly beyond my comprehension. 2) I think you're too down on Jack here. On pace for 37 goals is not two tiers below Matthews, IMO. Especially handicapping for coaching. I think it's clear Matthews is better, I'm just not comfortable saying how wide of a gap there is without seeing Jack play for someone else.

I'm not depressed at all with the Sabres. Frustrated? For sure. But depressed? Nah. One thing about the NHL is a team's fortunes can turn around quick as long as there's a quality foundation in place, and I think there is. Just need better supplemental moves. Look no further than the turnaround in Minnesota. That team looked utterly lost in the wilderness with no upward trajectory, then boom, bring in Boudreau and they're tops in the conference. The Bills? Meh. After 17 years, it honestly just doesn't faze me anymore. What's one more year? Certainly not cause for depression. I also don't think they're that far away from being pretty good. It's the NFL, you're never that far away.

Prove it.

I just don't think it's that simple. We were possibly the worst non-expansion team of all time for two years running...intentionally. We literally broke graphs and forced people to re-scale the axes. Given that low starting point, may it have been the wrong move to try and accelerate the rebuild through trades, to say nothing of the specifics of the trades? Sure, absolutely. Hell, without the O'Reilly trade, maybe we even finish bad enough last year to end up with Matthews or Laine. But I think two years of trying to improve the team from one of the worst ever is jumping the gun when he has done some good things. Setting aside the grand slam O'Reilly trade, the last two drafts look very good. He got solid returns in the sell-off for Miller and Ott. Okposo is a 1st line winger at a perfectly reasonable cap hit. McCabe is on a sweetheart deal. Gionta has played well since he was slotted into the proper role midway through last season. Fedun and Falk, contrary to everyone's expectations, have shown to be quality depth. We know the bad, of course. Setting aside the Kane trade which has wildly varying opinions (you despise it, I think it was subpar, others like it, sooooooo who knows?), the Lehner trade was bad value, as was the Fasching/Deslauriers trade (which may turn into a total bust depending on how Fasching pans out). He failed to properly add depth to the forward ranks after swinging and missing on Vesey. His first draft was poor. Gorges is...turrible. The Moulson contract. The shine wore off for me this offseason (lots of lost opportunities there, methinks), but I think there's enough in the good column to give him time with another coach. Of course, if he hitches his wagon to Bylsma going into next season and fails to upgrade the blue line, then I'm out. On that note, if he makes a run and throws big money at Alzner I may lose my mind. Ultimately I think that two years to build up from a historically bad team is too soon to pull the trigger unless the GM has been a catastrophic failure...which is where I think our core disagreement resides. I get the sense you think 90% of what he's done has been terrible, whereas I think his hit/miss rate around 50% is probably pretty common if we were to do a deep dive analysis of GMs around the league. Edit: I honestly believe Bylsma is so bad, some of what looks bad might not be. So part of my reluctance to toss Murray into the volcano is I don't think his roster can be fully evaluated without seeing a different coach.

I'll be so sad if the Bruins get Landeskog.