erickompositör72

As long as your acknowledging that. Further, we really don't know what was on the table for any of the deals, nor how far any GM he dealt with could have been pushed, even with the best negotiator. JBott's record with trades strikes me as pretty balanced, which leads me to believe he has a vision he's building, rather than trying to "win" every trade (that's near impossible to do). Re:the bolded- not sure who you're referring to, or how luck would be involved...?

I say go for it. How many chances do you get to see a kid with this much potential grow and develop? I think we'll know what we've got during/after this season. If he's a bust, you can check back out when the writing's on the wall.

Can you articulate a little more clearly how this played into dealing ROR? JBotts has spent quite a bit of time in successful NHL front offices, so I don't think experience would be at issue. Like I said, there is no way to prove or disprove that dealing ROR was not the best thing for the leadership dynamic in the locker room. Are there any other clues from the ROR deal that you can point to that would lead you to believe he is incompetent or inexperienced? Or is it just purely your hunch? (which of course, you're entitled to, but you can't state it as fact) If this is a key pillar to your criticism of JBott, I would say you're building your stance on something that cannot be known.

If I remember correctly, some analysts were even pointing to Lehner as a trade target for certain teams needing goaltending (they probably attributed Lehner's weak play to the team in front of him). While I don't think any scout with goaltending sensibilities would have endorsed such a trade, the risk factor is far less when making a waiver claim vs trading assets.

It's a Jack specialty. As I see it, though, Mitts and Dahlin may have those in them, once they get used to the NHL. I think both of them have the creativity, vision, and skills. Many of their passes (more Mitts than Dahlin) don't connect because they're not used to NHL players, who are able to intercept them much better than where they played before.

Where does Gandalf fit into all of this?

I voted no, and at that point, 68% said no. I think that's a good representation- I'd put our chances at making them around 32% Meaning, I will be far less surprised if we make the playoffs than I was when we landed the #1 draft pick.

I've posted this before, but the person I know on the inside (not affiliated with Sabres) told me that every front office knows that "O'Reilly's life off-the-ice is a mess, but on the ice, he brings in every night" In a veteran locker room, there are people that can keep a character like that in check. On a young, impressionable team, like ours, it can be detrimental, especially when grooming a young leader (Eichel). Especially when the aforementioned "flawed character" individual fancies himself a leader on the team. I'm sure JBott knew it was going to sting, short-term, to lose ROR. But he's not obsessed with short-term. As plenty have stated, the team is in-step with where we were hoping they'd be at this point, so we are actually not suffering as much as some make it out to be without him. It was a calculated move, and it took balls to make it, and it highlights mgmt's philosophy on building a team (vis a vis talent, as well as "character") The only other counter-argument to the above is "JBotts is dumb for making the move," which, IMO, lacks some nuance. Or, to be fair, if the above is all accurate, you can absolutely believe that JBott's reasoning is flawed, but you simply cannot prove it.

Maybe not necessarily "ill-will," but probably not any "home-town-discount"

That's might point, though. I wish Reinhart was kicking himself!

I think if you have a 2nd line of Huberdeau - ____ - Reinhart, 2C suddenly is not as critical as we feel now. Just depends on JBott's & Housley's philosophy, and if they would want to build a line like that.

I was in the same boat as you. I'm fear that when it comes time to negotiate his long-term deal, when he has a body of work to point to, Samson is going to remember how JBott didn't give him the deal he wanted when he signed the bridge deal.

I have no inside insight into this, but I would be inclined to disagree. Great coaches in any sport are usually praised for their attention to detail. This is usually conveyed in how they practice, and by the coach harping on the little things. It's what people talk about with Belichick. When I see our guys fanning on passes in the d-zone (Scandella, looking at you), not making the simple play to clear the zone, missing assignments... or taking ill-advised shots on net, making ill-advised pinches, etc... I think about players who are not attentive to the small details. I don't think it's necessarily a matter of disciplining under-performing players by reducing their ice time- it's about how they practice.

I don't think there's any way to guarantee that, or write it into the trade language, is there? Unless the extension is signed before the trade happens? You could make draft picks conditional, but that's a risk for both teams, because a player and an agent can always change their mind when the extension is actually offered post-trade, right?

you don't land a Skinner-like trade very often. JBott is playing this like a pro poker player. He's not going all-in when there's an outside chance of hitting a good hand- he waits until he knows he has "the nuts," as they say. I think his approach has the makings of building a great, consistent team.

Eichel did look like he got caught puck-watching, and Dahlin's youth/inexperience showed. However, for the next few years, Dahlin and Eichel are going to be getting better and better (with Dahlin having a trajectory of being scary good) In a year or two, we win this game most of the time. I think we all forget that overall, the team is on par with expectations for this season.

Samson on line 3 could create match-up problems for other teams... oh wait, Housley doesn't consider line match-ups...

He did actually say that? So it's not just an SS forum fantasy? Now's the time...

My feeling is that zone entries have not been much of a problem (at least for PP1)- am I incorrect in stating that? I don't think our PP problems have anything to do with the drop pass. They are mostly because- as @WildCard alluded to- we never change up the look when we have possession. We're too static. Every NHL team has the book on our power play. They know which passing lanes to cover and which one-timers to watch out for.

Scandella may have some value to the right GM- someone who thinks he just needs a "change of scenery" (which very well might be the case, in reality)

Thanks for responding. Sorry, my question was purely intended as satire ?

I can tell you that harassment is not a white male issue, having a very diverse network of friends and family all over the world. It manifests itself often among privileged white individuals in this country, because of what's been stated before. I don't think that white male privilege is really relevant to this discussion. There are not more instances of harassment in white countries than in non-white countries. Making people aware of their privilege is a noble crusade, but I don't think it has much to do with the issue at hand.

but what if they're conditional?

People talk about not getting a 2C as it seems to be a no-confidence vote in Mittelstadt. I know this is highly hypothetical, but what about a 2C who has already "peaked," who has a few years on a contract, who would transition nicely to 3C as his abilities slightly decline with age, allowing Casey to step into the 2C role? No, I don't have any in mind to fit this bill- just spit-balling

First, I'm only here because SwampD mentioned Mahler 4. Bravo Re: Eichel's shot- hasn't he scored several goals with such a shot? Calling it lucky sounds pretty glass-half-empty, to me. I'd rather characterize it as a shot he knows he can pull off every now-and-then, and has the skill to put himself in a position to allow him to pull it off every now-and-then. When it happens, I'd rather call it "magic" than "luck." Mahler 4 is magic, too ?