PerreaultForever

Oh I know all too well. I wasn't happy when we did it. Between JBot and Murray we squandered so many picks it's ridiculous. Hence where we are. I subscribe to that old Sam Pollock philosophy of acquiring as many firsts as you can always thinking forward and never trading firsts away. The way he built a dynasty pillaging those California Golden Seals was legend.

Never liked his game, glad he's gone but a 3rd isn't much. Oh well, better than nothing.

lol, ain't that the truth. My kids were born in the '90s. I've heard of him but he doesn't mean anything to me. Just one of many.

Not horrible. That wasn't Washington's A game though. They were coasting a little after their Boston game I think. Tokarski showed us why he's spent most of his career outside the NHL. Still, it's more fun to watch now then it was earlier in the year.

Expiring contract so this is much ado about nothing. Just a body to fill a hole. probably means a likely trade is for pick(s) and not players.

Ya, I'd be fine with that too, but we're not getting that much and the longer we wait the less we will get.

He is an elite player. But he's also a lazy player. When he wants to he can be really good. He just doesn't seem to care all too often.

I actually think that was a pretty equal game by two teams that are both far from being good. We beat them now they beat us. This stuff is more fun to watch than earlier but we still have most of the same problems and make the same mistakes. One thing to think about though regarding Ralph and his system. Everybody's noticing how Dahlin looks better now but are they also noticing how Risto is back to being awful?

idk, Rolston was pretty bad. I blame Steve Smith for the D problems. I suppose ultimately the head coach takes the blame but weren't we all praising him last year for fixing Risto? I think it likely Kreuger was a fraud. Like a motivational speaker a talker but not a doer. He convinced everyone with his words but really didn't have the coaching skills to deal with the players he had. Ultimately he was a bad fit for these players and they didn't or couldn't adapt to his style. If you don't change them you have to change him simple as that. I'm not convinced yet it's all fixed. the O numbers are up for guys like Dahlin but the D side is still in question. We still need to see how this plays out against the good teams. and Skinner still needs to start scoring. What's his excuse?

Bad yes, in many ways, but some promising signs and trends. It doesn't matter what we think though it's the perception up top. If TP thinks it's improved we will be staying the course.

This is true, but it was also a different era. I thought Palmeri would go to the Bruins. Guess not.

One thing I was thinking though is assuming there is a good deal on the table, we might be better off to make it. If he doesn't play this year (or doesn't play much) and the team is improved as we see signs of and they go with Granato as coach and this is the course, the expectation is add Eichel back in and we will be so much better than this even. And if it is, fine, but if it's not. If the wheels start to fall off again we're right back where we were and we will get less for him as he demands out. Results will have to be immediate. On the other hand if we trade him and build on what's on the ice now plus the new assets you might retain a greater sense of building hope. idk. Depends on the offer imo.

He is a clone of his dad though isn't he? Same rat bastard get you from behind or when you're down kind of guy. I guess if he'd stayed a Sabre I'd be okay with him as you do when you're a fan but as a player on another team I can't stand the guy.

I would suspect our best deal would be a conditional one. You know, like we get a second and some prospect but it ups to a first if they go several rounds in the playoffs or he gets X number of points or some such thing. With his play this year I'm not sure anybody's going to gamble on him for a first. and we have to retain salary of course.

Kind of hoping the recent goals have upped Montour's value and we will move him as well.

They use their speed effectively, but so far they haven't had to go up against a big physical line. Jury's not out yet on that or how they will deal with the defensive side of the game in a close checking affair.

I'm not sure it's all that complicated. He's opened it up and they are playing loose. Going to be interesting to see what they do up against the tough checking teams. Washington and Boston games will tell us more. I have to think this team quit on Ralph. They didn't like the style he wanted and/or couldn't play it but whatever the case, the effort level is much higher now. There is emotion and we seem to have lost that dead in the eyes quit we had before. Some of that is because we're playing the kids and letting them play but again, they are just playing loose and energetic. What's left of the core (at the moment) still not looking great though. Skinner is still a bust, and while Reinhart hasn't been bad or anything, he's mot the guy leading this either.

Imagine that, we scored an empty net goal instead of having one scored on us! Not sure, but that might be a first for this season. Our Thompson was a little better than their Thompson. Our goalie was better than theirs, and we actually out hit them............. We did not miss Hall at all. In fact we might have been better.

I just want him gone so bad!!!!!!! It's smart to sit him even if it's all week. He brings so little to us anyway.

That's why I put a ? for him. I'm not sure what he will get offered to him after the injury. There might be little interest outside Buffalo.

Demko got 5 years $5 million per. Ullmark should come in a little below that I would think.

No argument, but so does Bryson as was mentioned above. That could be good, but it's more likely Dahlin-Risto and that also leaves McCabe as a ? David Savard would be a good choice assuming we trade Risto.

Dahlin Borgen might work, but I like the idea of a Bryson - Borgen pairing for next season so I'd experiment with it now.

look it up. He's well below 50%. Tell me that when they ice the puck and he has to go up against Bergeron with the game on the line.

Isn't the problem really switching systems/philosophies without switching the players to go with that? You say for example pair Skinner with an offensive minded coach. That's probably going to be good for Skinner I agree. Housley did that. But did we win? No. The minute you start to cater to players you have to cater to all the players and it never works out well. Look at Pittsburgh this year under Sullivan. They have a number of great offensive players but they weren't getting to the next level. This year he has them tougher, more defensive, more structured and they are winning tough games. Point being, it's always about having a philosophy, having the players buy in fully, and sticking with that system. We tried open run and gun with Housley and it failed so we went balanced D (allegedly) with Kreuger but the players never adjusted to it, or didn't like it and just wouldn't do it, but they clearly never bought in and the leadership never got them to buy in and we switch back and forth and flounder. Team needs a clear vision. This is how we play this is who we are (or in our case will be). That has to be stated, set and affirmed in every aspect and at every level. Then it has to be committed to. Solid management structure. Long term plan that you stick to and a core that buys into that vision. Those who don't have to be gone asap. I mean really, who are we? What are we? idk. Until we know that, we can't make the rest of the pieces fit.