Dr. Who
-
Posts
601 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Events
Posts posted by Dr. Who
-
-
5 minutes ago, 7+6=13 said:
So then you disagree with PF that the comparison is losing JJ for Kesselring.
Sometimes it is semantics. I think Kesselring was the main piece in the trade, but I don't think Doan was a throw in, and positionally, Peterka is a RW subtraction and Doan is an addition, though obviously not of equal value.
And this is going outside this specific question, but while I agree that the overall performance of the team is ultimately what matters, that is almost axiomatic, I still think there is value in analyzing the parts. In terms of the latter, I think positional comparison the more straight forward. If others find other ways of analysis more helpful or interesting, naturally, that is an individual prerogative.
-
34 minutes ago, 7+6=13 said:
We already experienced not having Cozens and the metrics that I saw show we got better. His removal has already been at min partially consumed. We wouldn't have to attach Norris to his play from last year. It's much more logical and clean to compare Norris being added, to the loss of Peterka. It's the clearer one for one.
Well, Cozens and Norris are both centers. If one looks at positional symmetry, Josh Doan is the replacement for Peterka, though he isn't a top six.
-
7 minutes ago, 7+6=13 said:
You've been arguing against the very thing you just posted. Last years roster didn't include Norris, so let's factor that in with the loss of Pererka's production, etc.
I knew you would agree in the end.
I think the Cozens Norris comparison is a more logical and cleaner one. Regardless, the holdover with subpar coaching is the constant that is hard to explain in terms that do not reflect badly on ownership. Ostensibly, an upgrade on the blue line at the cost of gambling you can replace Peterka's offense with the growth of young players is less favorable if the fella coaching the D is terrible at his job.
-
48 minutes ago, thewookie1 said:
Not interested in playing the OS game; we need our 26 1st for any semblance of safety if things go belly up again.
I don’t feel McTavish will give a boost this season to assure us a playoff berth or that he might ever reach his contract level.
I wouldn't offer sheet him, but there is at least the rumor that he is available in trade. I'd spend some futures currency to get him.
Agree you need to hold onto the 26 1st, because there's a very real chance that is a reasonable lottery ticket for McKenna.
-
3 hours ago, Mr. MVP said:
Surprised Luke Hughes isn’t signed yet. Would it likely take four 1sts to offer sheet him?
And I’m starting to think offer sheeting Mason McTavish might be worth it. It won’t be the highest tier. Reading that the Ducks want to bridge him so maybe he’ll be more inclined to accept a long term deal and shoot, maybe the Ducks won’t like the long term deal and refuse to match it. I just think McTavish is just what we need for this year and the next 10. He’s a future star.Unfortunately, you know we lack the creativity, intelligence, or will to make such a move.
-
1 hour ago, Pimlach said:
The idea of the gif was to say his value is not much, not trade him for money.
Metaphor requires a certain distance from literalism. Ah, well. I think your intent was clear enough.
-
1
-
-
18 minutes ago, Brawndo said:
Here the AI generated transcript
Well, It was obviously before the 2 year deal for Byram, but anticipated he'd be walked right up to FA. There's not much encouraging there. Great if the league puts some pressure on Pegula, because the unhappiness of the fans doesn't seem to move the needle for him.
-
2
-
-
2 hours ago, PromoTheRobot said:
First let me ask how bad do you want him! And if you add him, where does he play and who does he knock off the roster?
Ideally you offer that Sabre plus a pick or a non-A level prospect. Does Chinakhov replace Krebs? Offer Krebs. But you are not getting anything for a low prospect and a 2nd.
If Chinakhov is basically a slightly lesser Quinn, the price that would make acquiring him worth it had better be no greater than a combination that comes out to a slightly lesser Quinn. Personally, if they're going to make a genuine swing for a player, I'd like to make a play for Mason McTavish. Most don't trust KA to make a smart big move (and I can't recall him ever implementing a significant trade that wasn't predicated on a good player demanding out). You can point to small prudential moves along the edges that have yet to result in a substantial difference in team success. That's the frustration, but it doesn't mean a lot of folks here just want the Sabres to take any old swing just to do something.
-
1
-
-
On 7/14/2025 at 11:54 AM, inkman said:
I think Doan is going to play higher in the lineup than most of us predict. For better or worse, what he brings the Sabres have an absolute dearth of. Tenacious forechecker, solid D, net front presence.
Tuch and Benson are the only guys on the roster that resemble it even a little. Put Doan in the top 6, watch the wins unfold right before our eyes. Or something like that.
I pray this optimistic forecast is true. Doan will have to come close to it in order for the trade to be potentially balanced. It is correct that he brings a skill set that is sadly lacking.
-
1
-
-
9 minutes ago, Thorny said:
A minor F add might get the F group back to even if you squint at Doan
Then at least we have the Kesselring improvement.
not enough but something
Exceedingly modest improvement, but it amounts to an ambitious leap for the dim crowd running the franchise.
-
3
-
-
43 minutes ago, dudacek said:
Not seeing that myself, other than Montreal.
Other than that, this was the summer of shuffling deck chairs.
Yep, but ours are on the Titanic.
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
-
Just now, dudacek said:
Prescient. Let's see if there is any kind of significant add to the top 6.
-
1
-
-
1 minute ago, inkman said:
Understood. I guess I’d need to know what all the options were to understand if Adams has any idea what he’s doing.
This is a rhetorical question, right?
-
6
-
-
13 minutes ago, tom webster said:
I believe they are better because;
1) they will be better defensively
2) UPL will have a shorter leash, and
3) They have plenty of offense, especially if they figure the power play out. They were one of the better 5 on 5 teams, albeit with a high shooting percentage. I think Quinn, Benson, Doan, Kulich, McLeod and Danforth will outscore last years numbers of JJP, Quinn, Benson, Kulich, McLeod and Lafferty
All that said, I still want Bryan signed and another top 6 forward (Rust?) brought in.
Given the lack of change in the assistant coaches, how confident can one be that the anemic power play will at least achieve mediocrity? Shorter leash for UPL is good. Let's hope Lyon or Levi is a valid alternative.
I do think they are marginally better. Resign Byram, bring in Roslovic, or trade for a better top 6. I'd like to spend futures on the latter, but I am skeptical about that happening.
-
22 minutes ago, dudacek said:
That makes sense if your primary goal is to move the player, or lock him up long-term.
Kevyn Adams is hanging on to his job by his fingernails and hasn't found a Byram trade that he thinks makes the team better in 2 months of trying.
There's incentive for him to lock Byram in to arbitration, back fill behind him with whatever cap is left over and try make the playoffs, especially if Byram has made it clear he's not signing a long-term deal with Buffalo.
If he's wrong, the poison pill will be something for the next GM to deal with.
Not filing for arbitration tells me Kev still thinks he can make a trade, or sign Byram to term.
Kev thinking makes me nervous. Your inference is likely correct, though.
-
9 minutes ago, dudacek said:
I wonder if Lindy is going to role the clock back to 1999 and deploy:
- Byram Dahlin like he did Zhitnik Smehlik
- Samuelsson Kesselring like Warrener McKee
- Power Timmins like Woolley Shannon
Keep in mind they behave as if they like Timmins and Samuelsson more than we do.
Adams mentioned putting Byram with Dahlin and “you can have a different pair of bigger shutdown guys”.
Adams also talked earlier about wanting a guy for Power who was “safe with a lot of clean puck touches”. To me that sounds a lot more like Timmons than it does Kesselring.
Probably guilty of overthinking things, but it’s something that crossed my mind.
Too bad there's no roll back to Hasek in the cards.
-
2
-
54 minutes ago, Thorny said:
All they’ve done is increase the likelihood they’ll need him to play a larger role
So smart. We are such bright fellas. Why is the board so negative?
-
2
-
-
10 minutes ago, mjd1001 said:
Its not black and white with everyone.
I'm interjecting a 3rd opinion, I'm not saying I totally agree or disagree with either of you, but for some of us, we don't like the last 14 years but that doesn't mean we hate everything about the team either.
The NHL and the Sabres are entertainment for some of us. Each year, every change to the roster is new hope. Every bad coach or every bad GM CAN make a good decision. So no, we don't like the results, and may not think everyone in place is the best person for the job...but we do like to think of what each change can, and will bring, and not be negative about them all the time.
I like to think of things 2 ways:
1.) The Sabres not winning the Cup doesn't mean everything is a total failure. I can watch each game each night and if they win, take that as one single night's positive entertainment.
2.) for some of us this time of year is just as fan as the actual season. The 'team building' the 'roster building' is as fun (or maybe even better than) the actual games. I likened this previously to someone who follows auto racing: Some people just want to watch the race. Others would much rather watch a documentary on the engineers designing the car in the off-season, they would rather see what changes are made to the car before the race, see the adjustments, follow the engineering aspects of designing the car. It can be the same with the results of the game and actually watching the games for some of us.
Some of us want the results to be positive, but the 'hope' something can change ALONG WITH observing the results of the moves that are made are the primary entertainment for us.
1) No one is really expecting the Cup. Failure is missing the playoffs for 15 years in a row.
2) Folks want this to be an entertaining part of the year. When your regular season is habitually disappointing, it is common for the off-season to be a time of hope. Problem is when the off-season moves are predictably underwhelming, and the accountability for those making decisions appears close to non-existent.
I'd say the general consensus is the team on balance may be slightly better or the same as last year, barring further changes, which would mostly be provided by trade. Everyone is hoping, but the majority has lost patience. I am with the majority here. I'd feel better about things if the goalie situation was stronger. If someone steps up, that would palpably increase the chances of breaking the historic record of playoff absence.
-
1
-
2
-
-
2 minutes ago, JohnC said:
Bryan is looking out for his own interests. There is nothing wrong about that. On the other hand he is currently contractually bound to the Sabres who have to act within their best interests. It’s simply part of the business.
Two minutes in the penalty box. I break the name down into two small bits: By Ram, Byram.
If they keep him or trade him for a comparable D with maybe a different skill set, fine. They still need to add a top 6 to the offense. If they trade for offensive help, they need to trade futures for a top 4 D.
Either way, I think they need to add somewhere to more plausibly field a team that could break the endless playoff drought.
-
1
-
1
-
-
26 minutes ago, PromoTheRobot said:
They need to have cap in case they trade Byram for any player, even ones with large contracts. And the threat of a offer sheet is still there.
Yes, I understand. I was just saying in the context of whether or not the Sabres are "paralyzed," i.e., unable to pursue a big ticket free agent, all those fellas are signed with someone, so there is no urgency of that sort.
-
14 minutes ago, PromoTheRobot said:
Please explain how the Sabres are paralyzed? Is there a deadline to move Byram? Does the season start next week? Is your Hot Pocket taking too long? Chill.
Probably they were not paralyzed in the sense that the big ticket FAs likely were not interested. But if you are keeping money in reserve dependent on whether you are going to match an offer sheet or sign Byram to a contract, presumably one isn't using that cap space to go after an Ehlers, for instance. Regardless, at this point, they can wait it out if they want.
-
15 minutes ago, PromoTheRobot said:
If you're going to call our GM dumb, don't make your own dumb suggestions
I don't see a suggestion there. It's an observation. We don't spend to cap, do you disagree? Didn't KA say that they were proactively dumping salary so that offer sheets for Byram could be matched?
-
2
-
1
-
1
-
-
13 minutes ago, Thorny said:
I’d be good with this provided we then package futures for a d-man with the ability to play top 4 - even if it’s sans Byram upside. At least that way we are still seeing one outright upgrade on roster. (Peterka essentially swapped for Holloway, but Byram out the door and 2 new D-men brought in, Kesselring and the one we traded the futures for.)
I say “good with it” but realistically was thinking we needed at least one unquestioned upgrade and both F and D. But, at least we’d have something. Imo the rub is that we need to make at least one futures trade: be it for the D man after trading Byram for Holloway in this scenario, or somehow for a F if we keep Byram.
Benson - Kulich - Thompson
Holloway - Norris - Tuch
Zucker - McLeod - Quinn
Greenway - Krebs - Doan
..is back to reasonable, providedDahlin - Futures trade
Power - Kesselring
Samuelsson - Timmins
Kesselring would be an outright upgrade on our second pair and I’d look at this roster and say it’s improved on paper from last year by a bit. Not close to enough, but not as flabbergasting
Rational, and offers a bit of hope; seems like it would take a near miracle for even this to happen.
-
1 minute ago, St. Pete Gogolak said:
Would they do it for Power?
KA isn't trading Power, so it's immaterial.
Trade : Conor Timmins and Isaac Belliveau from the Pittsburgh Penguins in exchange for Connor Clifton and the 39th overall pick in the 2025 NHL Draft.
in The Aud Club
Posted · Edited by Dr. Who
I suppose, but particular judgments will be proven more or less correct or not by how the future plays out. So far, the bleak side is on a fourteen year winning streak. Let's hope the ridiculous odds for even a badly run team missing the playoffs that length of time finally tilt in favor of the long-suffering fans. (Unless, of course, one secretly blames the fans, and believe they deserve it. There are the odd sadists out there who think like that.)