sabresparaavida
-
Posts
1,496 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Events
Posts posted by sabresparaavida
-
-
1 hour ago, JohnC said:
Determining value is an important element in making personnel decisions. Vinnie H has more value (bang for the buck) than Mikheyev has to offer. When the question is asked about what is his worth--- it is the relationship between the production and cost. Considering what he can be signed for Hinostroza would be more valued than the Toronto player.
I’d agree with this for contracts of 3+ years. However for a 1-2 year deal, with the situation the Sabres are in currently, I’d argue that’s not the case. We have more cap space than we will use, practically guranteed. For this year, and possibly next year, the amount of $ spent on a player is not nearly as important as the production. When we get closer to the cap, that is when bang for buck becomes more important. Right now though, since we have the most cap space in the league, and since we likely won’t reach the cap, what matters more is having the best players in the roster.
-
2 hours ago, GASabresIUFAN said:
How much are you paying and where is he playing? Honest questions. What is your vision for him, who does he beat out for a job?
Adding speed and goal scoring is always a positive. However, I’m having trouble fitting someone like him or a re-signed Vinnie into our top 12 when Quinn and JJP make the team. Right now our top 8 wingers are Skinner, Tuch, VO, KO, Krebs, Asplund, Quinn and JJP. Vinnie (if signed) and R2 and 9 & 10. Where does a UFA fit in? If this was last off-season, before the acquisitions of Krebs and Tuch, I’d be all over this idea like I was signing Vinnie. Admittedly we need a strong 13th forward given our injury history. If Vinnie walks, he’d be the perfect replacement, but would he come here as the 13th forward?
We had 14 forwards play 40+ games this year. One of those players, or multiple, will likely miss large stretches of the season. I’d rather we have Someone who belongs in a middle 6 to play in that case, than Bjork.
-
1
-
-
49 minutes ago, Sabres Fan in NS said:
I don't see one on there that I think KA will target.
Maybe a goalie, but man, I don't know.
I don’t expect KA to target any non-goalies on that list, but I would definitely like to add one of Copp, Marchment, Burkakovsky, or Neiderreiter to give us someone who can play anywhere in the middle 6. I don’t expect us to be injury free this year (or any year), and would like 14 guys I’m comfortable with playing 40+ games. Right now we have 12. I think one of those adds could be a 4C (better Eakin), but would like one guy who can play up in the lineup, especially if JJP or Quinn prove to need more seasoning in the AHL.
-
2
-
-
26 minutes ago, Flashsabre said:
Anyone know if they interviewed Savoie or Geekie? Were Nemec And Jiricek there and if so did they interview them as well?
Could be wrong, but I believe Jiriceck and Geekie were not there.
-
21 minutes ago, Wyldnwoody44 said:
Yes, game 4 😂😂
😛
He shouldn't have been allowed back in the league in the first place, but that's neither here nor there this point.
Do the avs sweep?
I think the Oilers take this one, but Avs win in 5.
-
12 hours ago, PerreaultForever said:
Why? How did Granato make Tuch better? If it's silly to not credit Granato it's also silly to credit Granato. There's absolutely no proof. It's speculative either way.
You going to tell me Tuch didn't play one of his best games the day Eichel came to town? Was that for Granato? Think about it.
Granato put him on a line with Skinner and Tage, and all 3 played better than they have in years, or had career years. Some of that comes to the line choices and coaching style of Granato. How much? We don’t know for sure, but it is utterly ridiculous to say that he was not a factor.
-
On 6/3/2022 at 3:28 PM, PerreaultForever said:
veterans playing better that's really just Skinner and Okposo right? He definitely is better at adapting and letting players play their game. Kreuger broke Skinner by insisting on stuffing a square peg into a round hole but Skinner's still a big defensive liability and makes a lot of dumb and sometimes selfish plays. It's who he is and likely always will be. I'm not sure where the accountability will come in. It may be there. Again, we shall see. When they all talk like Cozens in interviews and when a guy who scores a hat trick in a losing game says he wasn't good enough, then I will know they are there. I hope Granato brings that and we finally have a winning season.
Pulling back that original post. You said veterans who were playing better were just Okposo and Skinner. I then said Tuch also is playing better and now you’re basically just saying he doesn’t count?
-
On 6/4/2022 at 9:16 AM, Curt said:
Geekie is alright. Skill level is not comparable for me though.
On his own team, Geekie was 5th in points and 6th in goals. 70 points in 62 games.
In his draft season, Draisaitl was 1st on his team in scoring by a margin of 32 points. 105 points in 64 games.
Okay, but this is why we’re having a discussion with him between picks 9 and 16, but not 2-4. Obviously Draisaital was still better than Geekie, but I’m saying if he fixes his skating, we could end up with a very good 2C out of him, with big size and skill. Not saying he’ll develop into a top 5 in the NHL player. Apologies if that’s what you got from my first post.
-
8 hours ago, Stads said:
You are correct for 15-16, 16-17, and 17-18. Girgs was 4th in 14-15
Yeah, not suprised I was wrong on Girgs. Vanek for 11-12?
-
23 hours ago, Stads said:
That is all correct. Very nicely done. So we are good back until 2018-2019. I will make it easier and give the leading scorer for each year:
17-18 Eichel
16-17 Eichel
15-16 O'Reilly
14-15 Ennis
13-14 Hodgson
12-13 Vanek
11-12 Pominville
10-11 Vanek
Gonna go with ROR in 17-18 and 16-17, Eichel in 15-16, Girgs in 14-15.
feel like it could have been Kane in one of those years though. -
8 hours ago, dudacek said:
Geekie is probably a guy I’m guilty of overlooking.
Big guy, great hands, very confident, the Krebs/Patrick connection; this is a guy who could be a top 6 centre, and top 6 centres who are pushing 6’4” are gold. He’s got some pretty highlight tape.
Rightly or wrongly, I don’t get that “driven” vibe from him that characterizes the Quinn/Krebs/Peterka/Cozens thing we’ve been gravitating to. I get the sense he’s used to being the best without having to give it his all.
Couple that with pedestrian speed and he doesn’t scream Adams to me.
But a few months back we talked a lot about the real need to be adding talent up the middle. There won’t be a better chance to do that at 16 than Geekie. There may not be a better chance at 9.
Personally he scares me. That said, when it comes to character I’m willing to give this front office the benefit of the doubt.
Too often guys like this turn into Dylan Strome. Sometimes though, they turn into Jeff Carter.
He has all the physical tools, except he needs to work on his skating a good amount. People said the same thing about Draisaital though, and he turned out to be a top 10 player In the league. I’m not sure I want him at 9, but what would be very happy with him at 16. Doubt he makes it there though.
-
17 hours ago, Taro T said:
When he was on waivers a year ago wanted the Sabres to put a claim in on him. But was glad soon after that they didn't because he was horrible in Joisey.
Find it hard to be believe there wasn't a better plan C option out there when Adams did sign him. Would've been much better off if they had a goalie to make Tokarski the 3rd best option rather than the 2nd best.
I truly think KA was either thinking or hoping UPL would win the backup job out of camp, and Tokarski/Dell were his Hope/plan for Rochester.
-
1
-
-
6 hours ago, PerreaultForever said:
But to the point of discussion, I'm not crediting Granato with Tuch's play, I'm going to credit that to him playing for his hometown blue and gold and wanting to rise to that challenge and responsibility. I don't think it took much coaching to get him to give his all. (and that's why I want him as captain next year as well).
I'm not even going to credit Granato with the one big genius move of the year, Thompson at center. Maybe it's Don's genius, but I think it more likely he lucked out after just making the move out of a try anything approach due to a lack of centers at the start of the year. I will be happy to be wrong, and if he's out there, psst, try the reverse idea, Cozens at wing.
Not a narrative, just a fact. See posts above. Look at his stats.
Even if it was from a try-anything approach, no other coaches in the NHL decided to try Tage at center, so I think he does get some credit.
Tuch is also a heart player, I don’t think he didn’t give it his all in Vegas, and that was on a better team, yet he had his best year yet this year. To not credit Granato at all is silly.
when you say the only vets that did better under Granato are Okposo and Skinner, then are given more and reject them because they don’t fit with your theory, it doesn’t exactly look good.
While Oloffson also being better isn’t backed up as much by stats, I think he played better under Granato as well (when not playing injured). If you were take out the 30 game stretch where he couldn’t shoot and therefore couldn’t score, he had 20 goals in 32 games.
-
4
-
-
51 minutes ago, PerreaultForever said:
veterans playing better that's really just Skinner and Okposo right? He definitely is better at adapting and letting players play their game. Kreuger broke Skinner by insisting on stuffing a square peg into a round hole but Skinner's still a big defensive liability and makes a lot of dumb and sometimes selfish plays. It's who he is and likely always will be. I'm not sure where the accountability will come in. It may be there. Again, we shall see. When they all talk like Cozens in interviews and when a guy who scores a hat trick in a losing game says he wasn't good enough, then I will know they are there. I hope Granato brings that and we finally have a winning season.
Throw Tuch on that list as well, he had the highest PPG of his career. Girgs also had a higher points per game than he has had since the 2014-2015 season where he was playing 1st line. The only other forwards I would consider true vets in last years lineup were Hinostroza and Eakin, the former had a comparable year to his best ppg, and the other is well, Eakin.
-
1
-
-
33 minutes ago, JohnC said:
This is just my opinion but I don't see the GM bringing in anything significant to add to the forward group. As like everyone else I want to see the goalie position upgraded and one or two additions to the blueline. I agree with you that depth is needed to handle the inevitable injuries from a long and grinding season. It's my sense however that the GM is determined to build from within the system.
Yeah, I was posting what I want to see, not what I think will necessarily happen. I think what likely happens is KA brings in a 4 C and re-signs Hinostroza or someone similar. While this isn’t far off from what I said, I think Hinostroza is firmly a 3rd liner, and I would want someone with a bit more upside, that can capably play 2nd line minutes in case of injury/kids struggling.
-
1
-
-
37 minutes ago, Taro T said:
Am very much in the Mittelstadt can breakout camp.
But, really expect it'll be foolish in the overall scheme if Adams doesn't bring in any vets that don't pencil into the top 12 & ideally there'll be a couple that pencil into the top 9. They will have injuries and if the guys stepping in and backfilling are all AHLers or AAAA players, they'll be putting a lot more stress on the D & GTing than they need to.
And if a guy like Peterka forces the vet that should be able to play to the press box, that's a good thing. His forcing a guy like Bjork there doesn't really move the needle.
Bjork-level players need to be in Ra-cha-cha and not penciled into the 13th F slot. (Btw, it looks like he's got <260 pro games under his belt. He'll look great in R,W, & B.)
Girgensons will miss a lot of time. He just does. If Hinostroza is one of the good UFAs they bring in, wouldn't be surprised to see him miss some time. Other young guys will miss time too; just the way it is. Really want to see them have 14 guys that on day 1 should be in the NHL, (and if they have more than 14, it's a good problem to have) so the inevitable camp injury still leaves them w/ 13 NHLers on opening night plus guys like R2 Rou2 chomping to get back into the mix.
I agree with this big time.
I definitely am in the Mitts breakout season camp, I think he will have in the neighborhood of 55 points next season.
We had 14 forwards play 40 or more games this year, I want to have at least 14 forwards that I am comfortable with playing 40+ games for next year.
Right now, we have Skinner, Tage, Tuch, Oloffson (assuming he re-signs), Mitts, Krebs, Cozens, Asplund, Girgs, Okposo firmly on that list, with JJP and Quinn also there (though there still is a chance they need more seasoning in the AHL). I would like to see a 4th line center brought in with solid face off numbers (I.e. a better Eakin), as well as a good middle 6er. If we get both of those, I will be more confident about our forward group, as we are one injury away from playing Bjork as it stands currently.-
1
-
-
21 minutes ago, PerreaultForever said:
The problem I have with this is what do you do with these veterans and their "bad contracts". Lead the young guys sounds good but if these are guys teams want to dump they obviously don't have a lot of value in those team's eyes. After having cleaned out and fixed this locker room do we want it filled with mercenary stiffs who don't give a damn while they cash their cheques? You'd have to be really careful with who you brought in. Risky.
maybe just overpay a goalie and 1 or 2 key free agents is a better plan.
Yeah, this is the tough part. The more I think about it, the best fit for this might be Monahan, though he does have a M-NTC. He is costing the flames 6 mil in cap. The Flames have 26 million in cap, but Tkachuk, Gadreau, and Mangiapane all need new deals which would eat up about 25 million if they were to re-sign all three, and then they would still need to fill 8 roster spots.
-
12 minutes ago, bob_sauve28 said:
Anybody specific in mind?
I would see if Toronto would send a first with Mrazek for our 2nd, then I’d just stash him in the AHL to backup UPL.
-
8 hours ago, Crusader1969 said:
Just my guess but I think he gets taken way earlier than anyone anticipates. He could even l be this years Seider /Edvinsson and get taken in the top 10
As long as it’s not the Sabres, I’d be very happy if he’s taken in the top 10.
-
1
-
-
22 minutes ago, SwampD said:
He was a puppy when he was here, and still made some really smart plays. He absolutely did not know how to play the body, though, but I’d love to see what he looks like now with some more man size and a few more years of having learned how to play the physical game (if he has).
He left the Sabres at 24, and likely didn’t get much bigger.
-
33 minutes ago, Curt said:
Interesting, I haven’t really seen him described as extremely aggressive in the neutral or offensive zone. You have any reports that you can share with me?
I don’t know if he should be described as a stay at home defenseman, but from everything I’ve seen I would definitely say that he is described as defense first. He has some offensive tools but they are raw.
Maybe he could end up like a Samuelsson where we would say that he is a shutdown guy, but you see him get down below the goal line in the offensive zone a couple times a game.
I looked at some more scouting reports and found the one I had read was an outlier, though other scouting reports did mention some not great offensive awareness, which would line up with making some mistakes in the neutral zone. Most said he was good in his own end, and good physically, but one did mention he needed to improve his physical awareness though.
-
The success rate for goalies (data from drafts between 2000-2009, success defined as playing 100 games which might be a little high for goalies) is only 21.1%
if you draft 3 goalies, there’s about a 50% chance none of them will be a successful goalie. With how long goalies take to develop, I’d rather we keep drafting one about every year, so that there’s a high likelihood of having a future NHL goalie in the system.
-
1
-
1
-
-
4 hours ago, DarthEbriate said:
Contract spots and playing time. I don't want to end up with 2 goalies still on 3-year ELC deals down in Cincinnati without trade value because I felt good about them the previous years and now they've been supplanted by a new pick/someone coming up from NCAA/Europe to Rochester. Every other year keeps a full pipeline as long as I find one NHL-caliber goalie that I re-sign his RFA years.
Now -- all this to say, the Sabres have nothing in the pipeline beyond UPL right now (Levi and Portillo aren't even on ELCs yet). If there's ever a stretch to draft 2 goalies in the same draft or to do a back-to-back this year and next with the surplus of picks... now's the time.
I don’t have a problem with competition at the goalie spot. An older prospect is getting beaten out by a younger one? Good, we will have a better system overall. Most of these goalies cook for 2-3 years in juniors/Europe/NCAA before signing anyway, so if we had 2 young goalies in the AHL right now, and drafted one this year, by the time he’s ready for the AHL we should have an idea if the others have a shot at the NHL or not.
-
1
-
-
16 minutes ago, Taro T said:
12 skaters need 260 or fewer regular season professional games prior to the start of the current season and a 13th needs 320 or fewer regular season professional games in leagues that are considered AHL comparable or higher.
And teams can have more than 5 veteran skaters, they just can't dress more than that in any particular game.
It's not really a huge hurdle to overcome.
Thanks, couldn’t remember the exact number and was too lazy to look it up.
-
1
-
2022 Offseason Game Plan
in The Aud Club
Posted
I wasn’t trying to say anything about a specific player’s intent to sign at a specific term. My intent was to discuss how I would value players, and how in this season and (to a lesser degree)next season, the production from the player is significantly more important than bang for buck.