jame
-
Posts
651 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Events
Posts posted by jame
-
-
Just now, Thorny said:
I'm not sure there's a player in this league MORE valuable, to his team, than Eichel is to the Sabres. Short of McDavid in Edmonton and potentially Gaudreau in Calgary.
So you overrate eichel as much as the other guy underrates him.
-
Just now, Thorny said:
This is exactly what I'm talking about. As if he somehow falls in the middle of that spectrum...Jack IS a Hart candidate, right now, by the true definition of the award.
Jack is 20th in the NHL in points per game. There's only 2 players as young or younger than him on that list. Two 1st overall picks, McDavid and Matthews.
When it comes to Jack's production, you are just wrong. The only way you are right, is if your expectations are wildly wrong.
How many Hart candidates do you think there are?
-
-
5 minutes ago, Thorny said:
I ripped Jack apart a few games ago when Jack was playing like a lazy bum. I posted in here about how he had probably his worst game of the season.
Your takes on Jack are just bad, guy. Unrelentingly negative, relative to anyone else on the team. If someone only had this board to go off of, they'd be convinced you and Jame considered Jack our worst player.
Huh?
I fully believe star player captains should be held to the highest standard on a shift to shift basis... that’s entirely different than defining our worst players
-
1
-
-
8 minutes ago, LGR4GM said:
What else was involved? This seems like a lot of speculation. Discussing a trade could mean anything. Seems thin to me especially since the Hamilton trade happened first.
Who cares?
Two young core pieces were available and they were interested in the player you were shopping. Do your job.
-
Just now, dudacek said:
I remain on the fence about the ROR trade, but Jame seems to take three premises as gospel:
1) ROR is a core piece (I tend to agree)
2) ROR's supposed issues either didn't exist or were easily fixable (I tend to disagree)
3) ROR could have generated a greater return (I want to agree based on my personal player evaluation, but disagree based on the return)
But if you accept 1, 2 and 3 as fact, then Jame's conclusion that Bott's is an idiot is entirely defensible.
1. Yes
2. Yes, not as big of an issue as Buffalo media has retroactively magnified, and thus easily fixed with winning.
3. Your position assumes a competency Botts hasn’t earned.
3 minutes ago, LGR4GM said:But that's not what you said. You're implying a ror for lindholm and hanifin was on the table and botterill said no. What proof do you have of that?
I said caroli a was willing to trade Hanifin and Lindholm. Fact.
I said Carolina was interested in trade talks on ROR. Reported.
A good GM makes good trades
-
7 minutes ago, LGR4GM said:
What's your source for a ROR lindholm hanifin trade? I've never heard or seen this.
It was pretty well reported that carolina was in on ROR trade talks...
-
5 minutes ago, Thorny said:
The Sabres are going to finish 3-3-1 on their crucial homestand.
I think they've leveled out a bit from their recent slide, which is good to see. But a .500 points % team is, I think, about what these guys are. With the anomaly of the streak, we finish around 90 points.
To me an 82 point team is about representative of who they are.
We are back to where we were after the 15/16 season. (81 points)
So depressing... we could’ve been in such a better position.
-
42 minutes ago, dudacek said:
I don't think the debate here is what Botterill got for O'Reilly. He shopped him for months to teams like Carolina, Calgary, Montreal and St. Louis among others and took the best offer that was available to him: the market established value.
I think it really come down to this: O'Reilly was signed by Murray to be a core piece of the team moving forward; Botterill did not believe in him as a core piece and moved on.
It's a trade that consciously created a vacuum on and off the ice with the intent of making the team better over the long term. I think Botterill decided he was adding by subtracting. He should be judged on how that vacuum is filled.
And that is a hand that has yet to be fully played out.
Carolina was willing to trade Lindholm and Hanifin, wanted ROR... that’s how bad Botterill is.
ps by setting an artificial deadline, the market was never fully established
-
1 hour ago, dudacek said:
Of course I do. Like most people on here, I follow hockey pretty closely. Term can be an asset or a detriment depending on a team's cap situation and the way a team or player is trending. Your arguments speak for themselves. There is no need to be patronizing.
Equivalency is reasonable writing shorthand for guys Kapanen and Thompson and Grigorenko being recent first round picks. Quibbling over that is like insisting on using TJ Oshie or Dennis Persson exclusively to debate the value of 24th overall picks.
You clearly place a very high value on O'Reilly. But you wouldn't have to go very far to find people who would rather have Panarin, or Hamilton, or Skinner, or virtually anyone on that list over him. It's a reasonable group of his peers.
Every one of these trades has extenuating circumstances that can be tied to them. But if you compare assets in versus assets out, the O'Reilly trade is very much in line with the others.
Panarin was traded because he had to be, there was a real limitation placed on his trade value... and even still he returned a legitimate top 6 forward. Using that trade to justify the return on ROR is bizarre
Skinner? Really? A pending UFA with a full NMC? Putting that trade on the same planet as the ROR shows there is a huge disconnect on trade value.
These trades don’t belong anywhere in a ROR trade conversation... it’s apples and oranges
Hamilton is a decent attempt... if you think hamilton is good (hint, he’s a #4 defensemen)
-
Gotta be better jack
-
18 hours ago, GASabresIUFAN said:
@jame and @dudacek
Here is the problem. While Scandella is likely worth a 2nd rd pick, as Jame said Jbot is looking at a hockey trade. However he has said he is looking for more then a hockey trade. He is looking for a piece he can keep long-term. That is going to take much more then Scandella. Seriously who is trading a 2nd line C or a 2nd pairing RHD with control to get Scandella this deadline? The answer is no one. Could Jbot package a 2nd rd pick and other assets to get what he wants sure, but that type of deal is much much more likely to be executed over the summer not at the trade deadline.
I'm not going to say it's not possible, but I wouldn't bet on it.
Scandella for a 2nd is not a “hockey trade”
a hockey trade, as colloquially referred, is a 1 for 1, or 2 for 2, or just a deal involving players of similar skill/age/term... not s trade of picks for rentals or futures for term.
i didn’t ask for a 2nd line center... more of a mid range 3rd line center so similar age and term. AKA a hockey trade.
-
17 minutes ago, dudacek said:
Vast hyperbole.
Setting aside the intangible dressing room suppositions, look at some recent trades involving 1st line players:
- Botterill got the equivalent of two firsts and second for ROR.
- Waddell got the equivalent of a 2nd and two 3rds for Skinner
- Dorion got a second for Hoffman
- Bowman got Saad for Panarin
- Gorton got the rough equivalent of two 1sts and a 2nd for McDonough and Miller
- Hextall got two firsts for Brayden Schenn
- Sweeney for a first and two seconds for Dougie Hamilton
- Armstrong got Brouwer and a third for TJ Oshie
- Shanahan got the equivalent of two 1sts for Kessel
- Sakic got the equivalent of two firsts and a second for O'Reilly
If it's one of the worst trades in 25 years, it's got a lot of company.
Beyond the use of “equivalency”... you also do not recognize the value of term.
# of 1st line centers in your list... one ROR.
-
25 minutes ago, erickompositör72 said:
You're really going to put the quality of our 17-18 roster (or lack thereof) squarely on JBott?
I feel like you make some very astute, well-articulated points, and then you go off the deep-end.
Pouliot, Tennyson, Griffith, Antipin, Josefson, Nolan, C.Johnson... are all players he signed and had on the opening day roster... that’s essentially 1/3 of the roster... and NONE of them are in the NHL today.
-
We traded ROR for dogshit, and the trade has nothing to do with the improvements we've seen this year. We know this because we went through the sad face lockeroom routine a few weeks ago, and Okposo came right out and said nothing has changed inside the room.
What we do know that changed
1. More speed and skill added. Skinner, Sheary, Mittelstadt, Erod are all significant upgrades to the players they replaced.
2. Better, Deeper, Stronger Defense. Adding Dahlin and Pilut. While getting full season/performance from Bogo and Mcabe.
3. Stabilized goaltending. Bringing Hutton in, and Ullmark up.
4. Star Player growth. Eichel and Reinhart are producing more in their 4th year... no big shocker there.
We lost the ROR trade... in a massive way. The team has improved by building a defense, solidifying in goal.
Last year's team had enormous holes due to roster negligence by Botts, and due to a horrible run of injuries. This year's roster has been as healthy as can be, and has one massive self inflicted roster hole.
2 minutes ago, ... said:Missing the one variable (in this case McDavid) you can never prove either way. The mechanics of logic get in the way.
It required an extreme example when the normal one (staring everyone right in the face) isn't obvious.
-
1
-
-
15 minutes ago, PerreaultForever said:
and yet, we are a better team without him than we were with him. How do you not get that???????
How are you unable to separate the two things?
If Edmonton trades McDavid for a pencil sharpener... but then adds Crosby, Ovechkin, Lidstrom and Gordie Howe in separate moves... and suddenly gets better.... it doesn't mean that trading McDavid for a pencil sharpener was a good trade that made the team better.
-
1
-
-
3 minutes ago, dudacek said:
@nfreeman refused to buy into Reinhart's 2nd half last year because the games didn't matter.
Has his play during 50 games that have mattered this year changed anything? Will another 30 of similar play make a difference?
What has to happen to make Sam worthy of a long-term investment. Sabrespace readers want to know.
That's looking for a reason to continue believing something....
-
4 hours ago, LGR4GM said:
We can sign Sam this summer if we really believe in him. If he is really worth a long contract we get him for an additional 2 years now because of that bridge. The underlying numbers say Reinhart is worth a raise.
That would be an interesting approach. What type of contract would you be willing to offer that would entice Reinhart to sign now, instead of putting another season on the table and having the negotiating leverage of arbitration 2020? If he put up a 2nd 60-70 point season, he'd be able to go to arbitration and ask for 7 million EASY. A couple years ago, you had 45-55 point guys settling pre-arbitration to 4-5 year deals in the 5.5 range...
Zibanjed - 5 yrs / 5.3 per
Tatar - 4 yrs / 5.5 per
Palat - 5 yrs 5.3 per
These guys are getting in the 7% range.... factor that % on an 85 million cap and your talking 6 million per... factor in the difference between a 45-55 player and a 60-70 player.... and basically, yea the bridge contract was a colossal error.
-
14 minutes ago, Eleven said:
So when I typed my original question at 6am or whatever, I was thinking of a few posts saying that the Sabres' streak should not "really" be considered as part of the overall record.
Their streak should be understood in it's context.
St Louis was a team that was failing due to a single issue (bad goaltending), they fixed their issue... now they are winning. It's not that complicated.
The Sabres streak and subsequent failing has nothing in common with St Louis (problem/problem solved).
Trying to make the Buffalo streak relevant again, by comparing it to St Louis doesn't make a whole lot of sense.
-
18 minutes ago, erickompositör72 said:
To be fair, they are(/were) actual roster players, as opposed to money out the window.
Do you really think there's a difference (in their cases)?
-
5 minutes ago, erickompositör72 said:
Who knows? Maybe Pegula decided to draw the line with the Sabres being a money-pit. 6million (or whatever it was) is really a lot of money, and Pegula has thrown away so much already. People with a lot of money have money because they care about money. This is all pure speculation... and maybe, to endear himself to the owner, JBott said "hey, I can make this work without throwing millions out the door"
Obviously, this is a dynamic we'll never be privy to, unless JBott is unceremoniously fired and gets twitter.
What does it say about Botts if he thought 7.5 million for Sobotka and Berglund wasn't throwing money out the door?
-
1
-
-
9 minutes ago, erickompositör72 said:
More circumstantial stuff: the dealing of ROR at the time he was dealt furthers my suspicion that there was also pressure to deal him from ownership.
Wouldn't dealing him before a bonus was paid be more of an ownership decision than a management decision? (i.e., a manager with a blank check from ownership would probably paid the bonus and then deal, right?)
I agree. And I believe it's within Botts job responsibilities to not only explain to Pegula what an artificial deadline will do (depreciate the trade return), but change his mind and allow Botts to trade (if Pegula has given a must trade direction) when the best possible offer is available.
Pegula doesn't care about money... and besides Botts took back almost 7.5 million in garbage, so it wasn't about the money. IF Pegula gave a trade directive on ROR, it was Botts responsibility to ensure maximum return (i.e. the Colorado/Duchene playbook).
The ROR trade is one of the worst trades any GM not named Chiarelli or Milbury has made in the last 25 years. He botched it on every level.
-
3 minutes ago, LGR4GM said:
Did you get mad at me for doing this? Assuming what the other person will do and applying arguments they haven't made yet?
It’s a demonstrated behavior. But fair point. I’ll edit.
-
1 hour ago, nfreeman said:
Well, the lack of examples of a team actually paying a fat bonus and then trading the player makes it much less unknown.
And communicating like a normal human being who isn't a DB isn't "showing restraint." It's just what normal people do.
Toronto has paid Phil Kessel 4.8 million dollar to not only not play for them, but to play for an eastern conference rival over the last 4 seasons, and they will pay another 3.6 over the following 3 seasons. They spent 8.4 million to make a trade work for them.
Numerous other teams have taken on cap dump level contracts when paid in assets to do so.
Beyond the semantic difference of paying a Bonus, taking a cap dump, and retaining salary, the reality is that it is the same thing (paying for asset value).
But you somehow have more knowledge on what “most if not all” NHL owners would do...
-
1
-
GDT: NY Rangers @ Buffalo Sabres, 2/15/2019 @ 7:00 PM ET
in The Aud Club
Posted
You know we have data on the Sabres performance with Eichel out on long term injuries right?
and it’s not about how much a team suffers without a player, it’s about how much said player lifts them.