Thorny

The strike zone in my Jays game today 😭😭😭

There absolutely was a path to success afterwords. The degree of difficulty was just made extreme through the scorched earth process, and viewing the decision to tank at all, as symptom, illustrates the idea that the minds that came up with that horrible strategy were unlikely to be very adept at using those same minds to rebuild it afterwords

Well you’re a better fan than me

Mike Babdick

I feel literally zero guilt where the team is concerned for routing for losses during the tank. They sold the strategy, they sold the product, they are the professionals getting paid to make the decisions. They literally said the plan was suffering, that the plan was losing. Fans who bought in then are acting with no different ultimate intent than those buying in now: we wanted the team to be right. But, truth laid bare....I regret rooting for losses. I regret the affect it had on my mindset. I feel it was harmful and disrespectful to my own psyche as a fan of the team I love. It wasn’t a betrayal of the team, it was a self betrayal and I take personal ownership for buying into a course of action that was a mistake. I feel bad for the fans. In many ways, it led to a path that still presents strains to my fandom, still tests its durability. Never again can that happen

I’m just not sure a Saros is available. If we don’t go out and get Hellebuyck, we probably sign a FA to a 2 year deal or swap a lower pick out the door. In my calculation I’d prefer the 1st for one year of Helle and simply signing a G the following year or paying that outlier pick at that point. Getting Helle doesn’t leave us up sh*tt’s creek (good show) for next season: we can simply go bargain bin hunting for a back up at THAT point rather than now It’s probably not Helle or Saros, it’s probably Helle or another kick at a Comrie-ish can As soon as we start listing real names we’ll see that the risk in those guys even being good is greater than the risk of giving up a pick. Having mediocre goaltending next season is a risk much more alive and well than whatever the risks of losing one more pick in a very deep pool are

If you’ve seen the movie K-Pax, you’d know the universe and everything in it is going to constantly re-run itself for eternity: so the discussion will stop...for a time.

Fair enough. Good discussion.

I’m actually asking why 1 full season term is bad but 2 seasons is goldilocks. Why? Why does 2 years fit just right when 1 is *completely unacceptable*. Because that’s what you are saying, 1 is a non-starter, but 2 (when, btw, you enter into the “rental” scenario when you get to the final year of that deal) is completely acceptable. What is the actual explanation for why the second year makes the time frame acceptable when a one year time frame is insufficient?

That’s all arbitrary. Those aren’t actually official definitions, though. So any one year contract signed is a “rental” contract? as far as I’m concerned “rental” has always referred to players acquired at the deadline

So basically you think Hellebuyck probably buys the Sabres a playoff series victory we won’t otherwise have without him, so rather than pay a first to acquire that you’d sooner pay, I dunno, a 2nd, get some other stop gap, and lose round 1. Would you consider this accurate?

If we trade for a G with 2 seasons left, why isn’t that considered a rental? Actually asking. That’s not the window we intend to win the Cup in, apparently, is it? Why is 2 years ok but 1 isn’t? 1 year rental is a thing, 2 year rentals are not a thing? Like what they heck is even a “rental” lol. Did we just rent out 05-06 as legit cup contenders, it only being 1 year nullifies the experience? It’s better to add a significantly inferior goalie to the equation for 2 years, rather than a Vezina goalie for 1? Who are we acquiring that’s good enough that 2 seasons of runway for that goalie gives us a better shot than 1 year with a Vezina guy? these are all legitimate questions I’m asking

I mean that Hellebuyck standing on his head was the reason they gave up less goals the play of Hellebuyck in winnipeg is WELL documented beyond one solitary Rick Bowness season

Winnipeg’s forwards aren’t good defensively

Where do you see the Sabres finishing WITHOUT Hellebuyck next season? And don’t give me some vague answer. You are pretty hard line in saying Hellebuyck getting us beyond round 2 is a “small” (unlikely) target Do you have the likely ending spot as first-round exits?

Framing my position as looking for merely immediate success is inaccurate, and adds more to the ever increasing pile of comments along the lines of “you aren’t patient enough.” The entire reason I’m good with the deal is because it does NOT harm the LT success. I just think, that long term success has to actually START. I’m not going to plan for a decade long window, that would be absolutely foolish. Those runs are exceptionally uncommon. “No thanks to playoffs, I’ll take a decade and 4 cups” isn’t a convincing stance. Our window will probably be several years. Yes, I do think our window is now open rather than existing in some vague, unreadable Future we are still trying to protect without diving into

If we are poised for a run at the deadline, would you be open to dealing a 2nd? If so, why? Because we’d be on the verge of a successful, worthwhile run? A 2nd for, as we’ve seen at deadlines past, amounts to a role player. If you indeed would, you wouldn’t bump that up from a 2nd to a 1st, when we’d be getting a SIGNIFICANTLY better player for a significantly longer period of time, when such player would go a long way towards actively, actually *creating* the scenario where we are on the verge of a successful run?

I’m not a gambler. The trade just makes sense because of how stacked the prospect pool is and I understand our window is now. You said yourself you acquire these players if the intent is a Cup run. In my estimation our point of disagreement hinges on the fact you don’t think we are a team that could/should be one of those teams that pays an asset to achieve success over a singular frame. I disagree with that assessment. We are in fact in a position to go on a run.

“If they get hurt” isn’t a good reason to not make a trade. Could happen to any asset. What if we are counting on Levi as a starter, and he gets hurt? Isn’t time an asset? You don’t care that THAT asset gets “burned into nothingness”? Having a good season, after adding Hellebuyck, isn’t a “small target” at all. It’s very reasonably achieved. Reasonable enough in calculation that the risk in losing a pick is worth it, considering our stacked prospect pool, which, literally, actively lowers the value of what we stand to lose: it’s like you want to only make transactions with zero risk. NHL GM mode. Dude, the Sabres’ *default* around the league is “fools” until we do anything of merit. No one cares we finished in 20th whatever place. No one. We absolutely shouldn’t be afraid of the deal because of how it would affect our image. If it blows up, we look the same in perception as we always have. We actually stand to GAIN a lot in perception by adding the guy and having a successful season - - - The fact you are living and dying by needing to see Eichel lose these playoffs, even to the extent of hoping someone goes out and injures him makes sense in this context and this discussion rather helps illuminate that. So afraid it’ll make the poor Sabres “look bad.” Who freaking cares. Control what we can control and go out and win games next year. And yes, adding Hellebuyck WOULD be to make a Cup run. This is the reality of our window as it stands. It’s go time. It’s not selling the farm. It’s not close. It’s using a small portion of draft capital as currency because we can, and our top line is in its prime and we scored along with the best teams in the league last year and have a Norris level D man. We can try to go on a run now. It’s not THAT scary to have expectations, I promise. don’t be afraid. I’ll hold your hand. Acquiring Hellebuyck means we need to be good. Yes. It’s our GM’s 4th year. It’s ooooooook.

I’m speaking *as a fan* though, I’m not sure your assessment of whether it was worth it holds much water if you are, admittedly, speaking as an outsider. The point I was making is we had Kawhi for the full season, like Hellebuyck would be. The level of enjoyment that season presented to fans, or at least this fan, *well* surpassed any season in memory long before the final. Where the Kawhi comp differs is he was *far and away* their best player. Without him they weren’t the same. I don’t think we are bringing in Hellebuyck to center the the team around him. Not like the Raptors structured their entire system around Kawhi. A goalie is significantly more plug and play, and our mvp, Dahlin, will remain long after Hellebuyck is gone. We wouldn’t be on an island after losing our best player, finding ourselves without one. We’d just be without a draft pick. In truth the deals aren’t comparable from a team building sense, there’s significantly less risk on the hockey side of the equation. The Raptors relatively struggled w/o Kawhi specifically because they had to deal their best player to get him. That’s not even close to the scenario, here. My aim in using the comparison was merely in expressing the value of a single season Further, whereas the Raptors added Kawhi to get over their playoff failure hump, we’d be adding Hellebuyck to help get over a much more inferior stretch of play: whereas a 3rd round loss for the Raptors wouldn’t have been as relatively satisfying, a 3rd round loss for the Sabres certainly would be. Not only is the bar to achieve success lower, but the Raptors had to trade their best player in DeRozen to get him: we are merely dealing a draft pick. It’s a no brainer. If the Raps had KEPT DeRozen, added Kawhi, then lost Kawhi, yes, I’d imagine their remaining players (DeRozen included) would have benefited from the run. The guys they kept, did. But there was a hole after losing Kawhi (and it was *STILL* worth it) that made the LT benefits more difficult to discern. We wouldn’t be creating a potential hole to add Hellebuyck.

Saying you can’t “win” a rental without winning the cup doesn’t jive from a fan’s perspective, nor a business perspective. Speaking as a fan, there was immeasurable benefit in winning merely 2 rounds in 2006. From a business perspective, the owners lining their pockets with the revenue from a few rounds of home playoff games is a *substantial* benefit. Not to mention the potential team building, experience based benefit of a long playoff run. It’s harder to quantify this aspect but for a GM who so prioritizes culture, one would be hard-pressed to deny it. We wouldn’t really be “renting” Hellebuyck, it’s a full year term. We’d simply be rostering him. Speaking as a Raptors fan, I can certainly tell you the Kawhi deal was WELL worth it LONG before we got that title

Getting Levi the GP he needs next season should absolutely not be a concern. Not in a league where Swayman played nearly 40 games on a team with the vezina front runner. For a guy (Levi) who’s total NHL starts to date you can count on a hand or 2. Who’s never played more than 37 in *any league*. its a total nothingburger. We need 2 guys.

This leads to people saying things like the Sabres “won” the ROR trade. Ok? The Blues won the cup, because of the trade. That supersedes any Vacuum calculation. From their point of view. Did the Sabres also win the trade, from their perspective? Imo my answer to even that is no because from our perspective the trade played a big part in tanking the roster Botterill was trying to create. Bad timing, just like Murray. Just for different reasons. The Eichel trade fits the bill as a win win i think you’ll find the common denominator in successful swaps is much less tied to strategy than it is to the mind implementing it: what is it that @dudaceksays about Botterill (unless I’m mistaken): his errors were not strategy based but rather execution. Adams execution has been undeniable imo

At some point the calculation changes from “winning trades” in and of themselves to trades being a means to an end. Teams more interested in supplementing their system than winning games use the language of “winning trades”. Teams interested in winning are more interested in trades that facilitate said winning. This is classic “lose the battle win the war” stuff.