JohnC
-
Posts
6,029 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Events
Posts posted by JohnC
-
-
3 hours ago, LGR4GM said:
I disagree on your assessment of the top of player we will get at 8. Under Botterill, sure because he couldn't draft for *****.
This is the same logic used in 2015. I saw it again last year (now everyone loves Cozens). I wouldn't trade this pick for Monahan, I might for Cirelli because he is a better fit. Since those trades are unlikely, make the pick.
I not using the logic of the past to make decisions for the present. I'm looking at the current situation and making a decision where it is expected that the young player that I already know can play at a first or second line NHL level is being exchanged for a prospect who may or may not turn out to be a first or second line NHL player two to three years down the road. Because we already have Cozens is a reason to be willing to trade this year's first round pick, and is not a reason not to. As I stated before we will be playing a number of youngsters this upcoming season so there shouldn't be much of a fear of mortgaging the future. If you want to maximize the return on Jack and Dahlin you need to upgrade the roster sooner rather than later. Running gets you to your destination quicker than slow walking. The future is now.
-
1
-
-
2 hours ago, Cascade Youth said:
I’m sorry but “proactive” and “paradigm,” aren’t these just buzzwords that dumb people use to sound important?
I’m fired, aren’t I.
Nope. Just keep slinging those buzzwords until you wear down the opposition. 🤡
-
10 minutes ago, dudacek said:
Maybe someday we will see these hands in the show.
There are rarely guarantees on prospects except for the elite ones. It is abundantly evident that Casey is a player that was grossly mishandled by rushing him into league before he was physically and maturely ready. He should have played another year in college and then kept in the AHL until he earned the right to be moved up to the NHL. What his critics sometimes forget (including me) is that he is still very young. He is 21 and will be 22 in November.
He's a player is that I just don't know if he will ever make the jump to the big league. If he comes into camp exceptionally fit with a determination to earn a spot on the roster that would be a major bonus for the organization. He's getting close to the point in this organization where he has to "show you" he belongs and if he can't then a fresh start would be the best thing for the player and organization.
-
2 minutes ago, Curt said:
This made me laugh because it’s very professionally, sharply written with lots of professional businessy phrases. Then you ended it with more smartly. Lol
Sometimes when you speak "jargon" talk you can fake your way around the room. At least for the short term until you are discovered. 🤡
-
1
-
-
8 minutes ago, LGR4GM said:
Thoroughly disagree as I have stated and will continue to state.
I understand your position and it is certainly a reasonable position to take. I would also add that in most years I would have the same view of retaining a highly valued first round pick. But not this year. If in this year the Sabres were drafting in the top 3 I would be more receptive to your stance. But we are not. We are drafting in the 8 spot where the probable pick won't be ready for the NHL until two or three years down the road. On top of that odds are that the pick at the spot this year won't be a first line player but more likely a second line player.
If the Sabres had a trade offer for a player such as Cirelli or Monahan for our pick (plus other considerations) I would leap at that offer. If I can get a first or even a second line player who is around 24-25 yrs old and can contribute right away then that would be too enticing an offer to decline. And it also has to be factored in that the Sabres will be playing a number of younger and cheaper players this year in order to stay within the established budget. So I don't see us dealing a first round pick this year as mortgaging the future in any appreciable way. The future is now!
-
1 hour ago, Gabrielor said:
I actively agreed with this in July, and still do, but I don't see them trading this pick on business lines. If the NHL is in as much trouble as they say, we're probably picking.
I understand your position but disagree with it. There is no doubt that the oppressive economic conditions will affect the hockey operations. (As it does for almost every team.) But that doesn't mean that you can't be creative and enterprising when making deals. There are ways to work within these turbulent waters that are already standard practices in the cap era. If you trade a high pick for a good player with a fairly sizeable contract then you still can absorb that contract by shedding a player/contract of a player on the team. You may not get a perfect balance between the player coming in versus the player going out but you can get a deal done that improves and better balances the roster. (The Stall trade for Johansson is an example of that.) The best response when faced with a more austere way of conducting business is to be more creative and nimble. Being forced to change from how you had conducted business that brought you disappointing results is not necessarily a bad thing because it can also present you opportunities to do things more smartly.
-
1
-
-
1 hour ago, Gabrielor said:
Couple weeks to go. Still want one of these 8, with Rossi being the best, realistic case.
Alexis Lafrenière LW L Quinton Byfield C L Marco Rossi C L Lucas Raymond RW R Anton Lundell C L Jake Sanderson D L Tim Stützle LW L Jamie Drysdale D R In the pro sports I'm usually a believer in building around the draft picks. This year, if the Sabres can trade the pick in a deal that will get you a mid-20 aged second line player I would make the trade. This upcoming roster is going to have a collection of young players on the roster. We can afford to use this first round pick in a deal without hurting our future. The future is now.
-
5
-
-
2 hours ago, bob_sauve28 said:
Will this move get Skinner back to 30 goals?
If you want Skinner to score more than 30 goals then put him on the Jack line. The Reinhart/Jack/Skinner line is one of the better first lines in the league. If the first line is going to get more minutes than the lower lines then put together a line that will produce the most.
I like Krueger as a coach. I didn't like the way he handled Skinner last year. As a defensive player Skinner has a tendency to float. In utilizing Skinner he needs to accentuate his positive attributes as a sniper and not be so caught up with his defensive liabilities. When the calculation is made his assets trump his deficiencies.
-
2
-
-
Just now, Taro T said:
That wasn't intentional. Friggin' autocorrect makes some very interesting decisions. Fixed the post. Thanks.
I feel less befuddled now. 🤡
-
1
-
-
33 minutes ago, Taro T said:
Didn't not predict HoF at the time of the trade to Buffalo. Absolutely predicted AS status back then. Couldn't believe we got him effectively for Ruuttu & a draft pick.
Please do not use double negatives to make a point. It drives me crazy and makes me more confused than I already am. 🤡
-
1 hour ago, steveoath said:
Here's hoping he can swing Hutton for a cheaper, better alternative!
The better alternative probably won't be cheaper. With the next season being very compressed the backup will be playing more games than normal. So if an upgrade is available there is more of a need to make a change.
-
52 minutes ago, Brawndo said:
Lance Lysowski mentioned to keep an eye on Columbus and Their Two Goalies
Elliotte Friedman was on WGR's the Instigators show and stated that the Sabres are actively involved in the market seeking a goalie. He pointed out that there are reasonably priced goaltenders flooding the market providing options to choose from.
-
50 minutes ago, Taro T said:
Johansson was/is a good hockey player, but he's been injury prone recently, and as you mentioned his play dropped off greatly in the middle of the season after the injury.
This is a good trade. It gives the Sabres a 2C while opening up a hole on the 3rd line. And because none of the recognized tradable pieces went out in this deal & the cap hit went down, they still have the ability to fill holes in the lineup (possibly even bringing in another younger 2C to really have C depth which we haven't had since Black Sunday).
As you noted making this deal without giving up assets that could be used on other transactions makes this deal even more applealing. As many others have already stated this deal not only addresses (for the short term) a critical need at the 2C spot but it gives us more financial flexibility to use on our less than complimentary assets to better balance out the roster. This team doesn't need a major overhaul as much as it needs a reshaping. And without question the GM's first transaction is a good first step in that endeavor.
-
2
-
-
1 hour ago, Curt said:
This drives me completely crazy. Do words have no meaning!? I reject this purposeful misuse of words.
If you just used the words that you really mean, you wouldn’t need to write this disclaimer in your post.
Most people understood what the poster meant. Over the years the Bills have had a number of starting qbs. None of them came close to being a franchise qb. The same logic that applies to the NFL starting qbs applies to #1 pitcher in baseball. You can have a good pitching staff without having an authentic #1 pitcher.
In hockey, as in most pro sports, the salary structure directly relates to the caliber of player at the position than it does to the position. A true ace on one team is going to get a different pay scale than another #1 starting pitcher.
The poster was using the scouting evaluation and categorization framework in which scouts rank players and their potential. That's the point the poster was trying to get across.
-
12 hours ago, Let's Go B-Lo said:
I know it's not my money, but most of the league is going to be looking to shed salary this year. This isn't the year to go cheap on us. This is the year to plunk your wallet on the table and get some talent at a discount. Use the current situation to hold down your rfa deals, maybe pick up a top shelf ufa on a one year deal who didn't get the money they expected in the market. Take a quality salary dump or two with assets tacked on to make it worth your while. That kind of stuff. This isn't the year to quibble about 5 million dollars.
If you can make a good deal or two or three you better damned well do it and I don't want to hear a word about an internal cap.
The internal cap is a reality for the Sabres as well as it is a reality for most teams. Many teams have had this fiscal restraint before the Covid era and will continue to have this fiscal restraint after the Covid era. You don't think that teams such as Carolina or Jersey have already been subjected to this fiscal discipline for years? The cap that Arizona has been subjected to since its entrance into the league has been markedly more onerous than what most teams have been subjected to. When Golisano bought the team out of bankruptcy the first thing he did is clean up the books and establish a hard budget that the hockey people had to adhere to.
What I'm saying here is that although the hockey financial environment has become more restrictive for almost all teams that doesn't mean that a smart and well run organization can't make smart deals and upgrade the talent base. This recent Staal deal is an example of that. The GM traded a more costly player who was who was playing out of position for a player who is less costly and playing his true position that at least for the short term fills a position of great need. This is a good example of smart financial analytics and performance analytics. What we need is more of that this offseason.
-
1
-
-
10 minutes ago, Eleven said:
How does he enter into this? I thought he was laid off or something. And is there actually a press conference about this trade?
He got caught up in WGR's downsizing. Shortly thereafter he found a job with WGRZ as a hockey contributor.
-
8 minutes ago, WildCard said:
Haven't made the playoffs in a decade lol show me more. Good move, sure. It's not making us a playoff team though.
You are right that this move alone doesn't make us a playoff team. But it does make us a better team and addresses the center spot on the second line for the present. What it also does is give us a little more cap room (under the imposed cap) to address some other positions. This isn't a major roster shaking deal but it is a solid deal. And it adds the toughness of a very competitive player to a team noted more for its soft style of play. Even if the team adds another 2C who is younger to the roster there is still a role for Staal to play. This transaction isn't the type of move that one gets excited over but it should give you some satisfaction. It's not a giant leap forward but it is a step forward.
-
1
-
-
1 hour ago, Taro T said:
The bolded is definitely the case. But, there is a LOT of latitude in that loaded phrase "do whatever the owners wanted." And we have to hope that it means he'll be a post-budget cut Muckler who was forced to get rid of all his pets (pretty much purged all the Edmonton East over the hill gang & a bunch of others that still had mileage on the tread) but got useful players for pretty much the entire lot and kept the most valuable pieces of the core to put those other useful pieces around. (Not his fault LaFontaine continued to get his bell rung.)
Adams clearly is/ will be working within constraints his 2 predecessors didn't have to work under. But that isn't necessarily a bad thing. It simply makes an already difficult job harder. That the entire league will face constraints this year and almost definitely the following year as well mitigates that to a degree.
The smart money says he won't be successful, but if he can just get 2-4 moves right he will be. He doesn't have to start from scratch like Murray was forced to and Botterill chose to. Get the 2C right & get the GT fixed and the team is in the mix. Maintain the checking C slot (either via Larsson or replacement) & ideally add either 1 more top 6 F or top 4 LHD and they become a dark horse.
The kids (not all, but a majority of: Cozens, Thompson, Kahun, Mittelstadt, Olofsson (not a kid, but still relatively inexperienced), Asplund & Jokiharju, Borgen, the other young D whose name escapes at present) need to step up to make this work; but that was the case regardless of who holds the title of GM.
Excellent post and analysis.
There are a couple of your most cogent points that resonated with me. As you point out the conditions/restraints that will apply to the Sabres are the same conditions/restraints that will apply to most teams. And the second point that even under the tougher conditions what is essential is to get a few critical moves right. The necessity to get a few critical moves right is obvious and it is also doable. The organization has some surplus assets on the blue line and a high draft pick that can be parlayed to address some critical needs on the second line, most notably a credible 2C and maybe another winger.
I'm not sure what you mean by getting the goaltending fixed because it appears that the organization is invested in Ullmark as their #1 tender and Hutton as the backup. That may be a gamble but that's where we are at. It may turn out that the most important player determining success or failure next season is the play of Ullmark.
As I have said before whether the organization is lean or fat ultimately success is still going to be determined by the quality of the hockey decisions. And at least for the short term a leaner organization could be more nimble and creative when making those tough decisions.
-
1
-
-
1 hour ago, Thorny said:
So we agree he'd be here still if he'd agreed to the cuts.
Absolutely! I've said that all along. It was clearly stated by the Pegulas who said that after a number of discussions they couldn't get him to agree to the downsizing. So he was fired. But even if he agreed to the conditions that doesn't mean that the owners were enamored with his performance. What they wouldn't have done, even if he remained, is commit to give him an extension until after his contract ran out. What the owners didn't want to do, but were forced to do, was fire him and end up eating the last year of his contract.
-
1 minute ago, Thorny said:
We've heard a lot to the contrary
I don't know what you heard but the fact is that he was not given an extension which is typical for coaches in their last contract year. His last year was a do or die year. If he would have agreed to the Pegula restructuring and had a good offseason that led to a successful season he would have earned another contract. Under no circumstances was he going to be given an extension until his last contract year was over with.
-
1
-
-
3 minutes ago, Thorny said:
So if they would have kept Botterill, they must not have weighted those performance issues close to as highly as they should have been, right?
It comes to the same thing. The results he achieved in 3 full seasons were not seen a a fireable offence. How bad did they have to be, I ask, for them to be the primary motive?
Botterill was on the last year of his contract with no chance of him receiving an extension until after the season. That tells you that beyond the money issue there was no allegiance to him or expression of confidence in him. The owners were simply willing to let him finish the contract and then make a determination about extending his contract after the season. So just because they were willing to ride out the contract that didn't reflect a satisfaction in his stewardship.
-
1
-
-
4 minutes ago, dudacek said:
Perhaps the most remarkable thing about The Botterill era was how infrequently things did bounce our way.
Dahlin lottery, first year Skinner, Olofsson, Jokiharju... can you think of other off-season hopes that were fully realized?
You should have added the Kahun deal to your list.
-
9 minutes ago, dudacek said:
Three months in, we have no indication of what Adams intends to do with this roster other than vague indications of embedding analytics into the evaluation process, valuing players who are “hard to play against”, and paying more attention to team chemistry, as well as more concrete Indications of cutting dead weight from the hockey Department and empowering members of the holdovers.
I guess Tage was in town for a golf tourney and is looking pretty buff.
At least Craig Rivet was excited.
Ever since Thompson became a member of the organization Craig has been infatuated with him. He's stated right from the start that it was going to take time for him to grow into his body. And he has felt that when that physical benchmark arrived he could be a second line forward. I sure hope that he is right. It's a shame that he got hurt last year. He certainly could have used that experience to help him develop his game.
-
12 hours ago, dudacek said:
I've been saying it all along, I think people are being myopic on this one. It's way bigger than Buffalo. We are underestimating how hard virtually all teams are going to be hit, especially the ones that aren't huge brands. If there's no revenue, how are teams going to fund a $70 million payroll, let alone $81 million?
Pierre McGuire on TSN1200.
“I’m going to caution everybody including Mark Borowiecki’s agent, these are way different times in the National Hockey League, and you’re just starting to see just a little ripple in the water. This is going to be a very different time financially for the league, and for a lot of member clubs in the league. I’m just telling you. The stories haven’t broken yet, but this is going to be a way different time for free agents, be a way different time for established players. You’re going to see some major cost-cutting around the National Hockey League, major, major cost-cutting. There are people writing stories now about this team laying off these people. You’re going to see a lot more. It’s going to trickle down to player’s salaries. This is a very different time in this league. It’s not getting enough exposure right now. I completely understand because of the playoffs. No one really wants to talk about it.
Other industries compensated through mass layoffs, which are impossible in the NHL on the ice. What is possible is declining qualifying offers, buyouts, and refusing to engage in anything other than take-it-or-leave offers to free agents.
How much can each individual owner afford to piss away?
Most people agree with the reality that all teams except a few franchises will have major challenges adjusting to the the stringent economics of the next couple of years. A minority of teams such as Toronto and NY Rangers will have little difficulty in absorbing the revenue loss for the short term because of their more prosperous TV and radio revenue streams.
What is most aggravating for a team like the Sabres is that under their prior GM the strategy was to put itself in a good position to bring in talent because other teams were not in a favorable cap position to retain a segment of their roster. That's where we were until the Covid issue came into play. Now the concern relates more to financial survivability than on ice optimization.
I still believe that if our front office acts with creativity it can upgrade this team by moving some players and contracts out to bring in some players and contracts in to better balance this roster. What is frustrating is that the opportunities that we thought we were going to have entering the offseason will still be there only to a lot lesser extent. The moral of the story is to be more concerned about winning in the present than putting to much emphasis on building for the unpredictable future.
-
1
-
So #8
in The Aud Club
Posted
Cliches are meant to distort the literal truth. It is my humble birthright to be allowed the privilege of being literally inaccurate and imprecise. 🤡