erickompositör72

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 ?

How do you advocate Housley and Botterill make this happen? Tell the players to lose? Find the worst line combinations possible?

Echoing some sentiments: Replacing Housley at this point would only make sense if the plan was ultimately to get lesser talent to perform over their heads (90s Nolan, for example). That doesn't seem to be JBott's plan. As people have pointed out, there is evidence that Housley's system could be dynamite if we aquire/develop the right players. Our GM may be placing his bet on Phil delivering after he gets all the pieces in place.

Didn't the COL GM botch the Duchene situation, as well? Perhaps not a good barometer... Here is what I heard from an insider about ROR: every front office knows that his off-the-ice life is a mess, but that when he's on the ice, he brings it. My conclusion from that: this may have been a JBott/Pegula joint decision about personnel character, etc. (and we know Terry is big on this). Especially considering the fact we have many young, impressionable players with very high expectations. It may have been a signal to the locker room about what they expect from leaders, beyond on-ice performance. Put ROR on a team with other veteran leader types in the locker room, it's not an issue anymore (as others have pointed out). The decision was made, and now our front office has to live with it. We'll probably never know if it was the right decision or not; it may be impossible to tell.

Could also give Rochester a competitive player and allow WowBott to call up some other Roch players to the big club for evaluation?

The remainder of this season may end up being like so many of our wins - dramatic and not for the faint of heart. At least that's the best we can probably hope for.

Neuvy was pulling a Hasek. How fitting, they are country-mates!