TrueBlueGED

I can't say I'd be enthusiastic, but if you get get 50% retention, then Turris at $3M makes a lot more sense.

I just find it hard to believe that after last year's disastrous forward performance that anyone could add Johansson and Vesey and call it a day. Turris is as likely as anyone to be that third addition due to (likely) cheap availability.

I continue to dislike you.

Must be a Nashville thing. They signed Jarnkrok a few years back to a 6-year deal for low money.

Well sure, but it takes two. There isn't any indication Marner wants to leave.

Twitter thread on how the move helps the Leafs' cap situation with re-signing Marner.

No, he didn't. What the trade turned into with assets isn't the same thing as what it was. This line of reasoning also implicitly assumes we wouldn't have gotten Miller without trading ROR. It's probably a stretch to think we couldn't have gotten it done any other way. There's also the not so minor detail of time and flushing away a season in part due to one of the worst center situations in the league.

I think I'd take the over with about 10% confidence.

I expect 26 year old Eichel to be clearly better than 26 year old Scheifele, but I think it's a tough argument to say there's much separation between them right now. And Scheifele is making almost $4M less for the next 5 years.

Would you take an equivalent to that package for Eichel?

Me too, since any deal with Winnipeg isn't solving our center problem. On the other hand, I'd be surprised if we were to get a better hockey player elsewhere than Ehlers (if that would be the deal). S

Neither do I. Market dictated a crap return. I'm just saying, if I were a fan of another team looking to do business with him, I'd probably use it as a reason to expect to get an asset for cheap.

We could just leave it in the realm of things we know, ya know? Like, he's a tremendous hockey player so trading him for the return we got was stupid. There doesn't have to be a good reason otherwise to defend Botterill...he would hardly be the first GM to simply make a poor evaluation and get worked in a subsequent trade.

Well, Botterill's good trades involve bringing talent in, not shipping it out. If I were a fan of another team, I'd look at both the ROR and Kane trades and probably think he's ripe for the taking.

Well, have the official stats allowed expanded since the NHL's partnership with SAP?

Are you sure it's due to the previous administration and not the current one?

There was a qualitative response. The only forward Botterill has brought in to this point who has been unquestionably good is Skinner. If his solution to his own mess is Marcus Johansson and Jimmy Vesey, then he has failed. Full stop. And yet, that broken team was better than, or at least as good as, Botterill's second season. What does that say about the current state of the team?

The fact that progress is defined as matching Tim Murray's first post-tank season is maddening. That's not progress. I also disagree that changing GMs results in another 4-year rebuild. I guess it could, but there's no reason for that to be the expectation.

Right. This whole "he has the team built the right way for the long term" is such nonsense. Just because "development" is every other word out of his mouth doesn't actually mean he knows what he's doing. It's year 3. He took over a flawed team and made it worst. It's time for some results.

If we miss the playoffs by a whisker, I'm fine keeping him. That would represent real progress. But if we're not even close again, then cya. Over half the teams in the NHL make the playoffs. We have a legit #1 center and fell backwards into a franchise defenseman. There is simply no reason that we should have to keep waiting years to be a playoff team.

That's the thing, though: the Sabres weren't broken. One could argue Botterill broke them, if going by team record in his first season.

100% yes. There were issues with the roster when he took over, sure, but not so bad that 3 years isn't enough to even sniff the playoffs.

The regression models incorporate this stuff, but the plain corsi etc. don't. That said, I feel the need to emphasize, the impact of quality of competition on shot metrics is grossly overstated by most. There is some effect, but hockey is fluid and everyone plays everyone, so the difference in how often Risto versus Bogo line up against the top lines isn't that large. This same work generally shows that quality of teammates is significant on individual performance, quite a bit more so than quality of competition. So yea, the Dmen who skate with Risto face tougher matchups, but if Risto was the guy many seem to think he is, that should matter more than who the other team puts on the ice.

Did you ever think it was going to happen? Hope sure, but not for a single second did I think Botterill was going to bring someone in. He gave Hutton 3 years and an asset to protect Ullmark. No way was he bailing on that plan after one season. He's banking on a new goalie coach fixing it.

My reaction would simply be Botterill has failed until the record at game 82 says he hasn't. Where do you think his own unemployment is marked out?