JohnC
-
Posts
6,007 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Events
Posts posted by JohnC
-
-
6 minutes ago, LGR4GM said:
I am going to pause you right here at the bold.
Olofsson is 25
Kahun is 25
Ullmark is 27
Tage will be 23 before the season resumes.
The Sabres are not giving a lot of "young players" playing time. They are giving a lot of players in the middle playing time. There's lots of 24-28 year olds in the NHL. The LA pieces I mentioned are all under the age of 22. It should tell us all something if the only forward we can name under 23 that we really think has a legit top 6 shot is Cozens. We can still consider Mitts I suppose but he really has to show something this season.
The Sabre players that you listed with their ages indicates that they are at a young enough age to play for an extended period of time. They may be older than the players on LA but that doesn't alter the fact that the Buffalo players will be playing as established player for the foreseeable future.
-
29 minutes ago, LGR4GM said:
Let's talk about LA.
They have Kupari, Fagemo, Turcotte, Kaliyev, Thomas, Vilardi. That's 6 guys all younger than Tage and Mitts who are all on par or better than Tage and Mitts. Cozens fits in there well but again, this is what it should look like. Instead we are talking about 23 year olds and hoping they finally figure it out.
Further the Kings will add either Stutzle or Byfield to that list PLUS they have 3 2nd round picks in this draft.
They are building depth and we simply have not in the last 5 years. We have just snailed along leaving a disgusting slime trail of failure in our wake.
Your comparison shows how well LA is transitioning its team with their young players. However, in the comparison you didn't fully show that the Sabres have also been working in youg players such as Dahlin, Joki, Olofsson, (maybe) Kahun, Ullmark and possibly Tage (as you noted) and Cozens (as you noted). My point is that when you consider that the Sabres are giving a lot of young players substantial playing time then the imbalance isn't so stark.
-
6 hours ago, PerreaultForever said:
The Funny thing about that talent pool is Boston hasn't actually drafted all that well. Those 3 first round picks they had a few years ago only DeBrusk came out of that. They've also picked far later than us and have traded picks and prospects for playoff runs and yet, somehow they still have more talent coming up than us, why? perhaps they don't throw raw undeveloped talent into second line center roles and they pair rookie defensemen with solid veterans and keep that pairing to let the kid develop properly. Point is, I don't think they've drafted more talent than us, they just develop it better in that culture.
Dallas looks good right now. wth?
Your comments about Boston's ability to develop and nurture talent is a reflection of the stability and identity of the team. Compare that to the churning of coaches and GMs in the Sabre world. The standard pattern of behavior of a new GM is to undo what has been done before his ascension and then dispatching the staff throughout the system to start all over again. Players that were invested in are then disinvested in. The hallmark of successful teams such as Tampa and Boston are stability and a belief in their system. Do you remember who won the race between the turtle and the hare? Knowing where you are going and steadily moving in the right direction may not be glitzy but it is predictably the more successful approach.
-
3
-
-
4 minutes ago, dudacek said:
Casey has shown more than Alex Nylander did and Alex was traded for Henri Jokiharju, a 1st-round pick who put up 70-points in his D+1 junior season and spent half his D2 season in the NHL. Joki wasn't some "out-of-nowhere" player. His value was well-known to prospect watchers.
A lot of scouts loved Casey's game two and three years ago. He played 93 NHL games and put up 37 points before he turned 21.
I suspect he has more value than you might think.
He will have even more value for us or as a tradeable asset if he shows an appreciable amount improvement while with us. I'm not giving up on him or counting on him as a Buffalo contributor. This is a case where he has to show what he is capable of. In order to start that process he needs to come to camp next year (assuming he is not traded) in impeccable shape and in camp exhibit more aggressiveness to both sides of his game. As I said in a prior post probably the best course for him is to start the season in Rochester and get a lot of playing time. In my estimation that would help his development or show that he needs to be somewhere else for a fresh start.
-
54 minutes ago, PerreaultForever said:
Exactly. That's what I was talking about in the Reinhart thread and regarding the ROR thing. Bruins create the culture, build around it, and find players that fit that culture. If you don't buy in you don't play and you get shipped out of town regardless of your talent level. If you do buy in you are embraced, defended, bonded with. It's all TEAM first and that is not Sabres culture and is imo a big part of our problem.
For the most part our views coincide. One critical difference between the teams is that because the Sabre's talent pool is so much thinner than Boston's they can make personnel mistakes yet be better able to absorb those mistakes and move on. The ROR trade demonstrates the point how a Buffalo mistake can be so debilitating because of a limited roster . We are still trying to find a resolution to that damaging transaction. Another attribute of Boston is that they have a team identity that embodies rugged two way play. And they are good at finding players that fit in with their identity. (Which you have noted.) If a player is not capable or unwilling to play that punishing style then that player is moved.
-
5 minutes ago, Broken Ankles said:
This situation is like a falling stock. Of course you can hold on and wait to see if it will rebound, but it also could hit zero. In which case, selling now might be the right move. I appreciate @Taro T's cogent analysis. It sounds more promising than not. I have no idea what the value is outside the organization but I guess that's was KA needs to decide. If another GM is willing to give you something you perceive as valuable now, does that benefit outweigh the risk of holding on for another year or two. We also need to consider the expansion draft. What if Casey has a good year in Roch, but Tage stays with the big club all year? Casey's on the outside looking in as far as protection, and you get to watch him develop with another club.
Right now Casey has little value in the market. What is seen within the market is also seen outside the market. If he goes back to the AHL and upgrades his play and shows some promise then his value increases, maybe not significantly but marginally more. There is some chance, probably unlikely, that he comes into camp physically prepared and with more drive and demonstrates that he can compete and contribute on a NHL roster.
With respect to your comment about Casey having a good year in Rochester and then losing him is not an issue that bothers me. If he plays well enough in Rochester he will get an opportunity with the big club. If he plays well in Rochester and we lose him in expansion then I will wish him well and be happy for him.
-
2 hours ago, MakeSabresGrr8Again said:
I'm one of the few that like Simmons (now and the past). I believe he said he was playing through injuries this year. I think I read he is feeling good and wasn't opposed to returning. Don't see it though.
It's not unusual that players who have a rugged style of play have it take a physical toll on them. When they start the downslide it becomes evident. There is little chance that they can adequately regain what they lost. He's a player I would have loved to have on the roster a few years ago. Now I don't think he is worth keeping. This warhorse is battered and bruised. We need a fresher body to do what he has done in his career.
-
1
-
-
1 hour ago, Taro T said:
You say he doesn't backcheck, implying he's lazy, but he actually tries. He simply isn't good at it yet as he is not good without the puck. (It's an issue Eichel had his 1st 2 seasons and though he still occasionally gets lost in his own end - especially against a strong cycle while Ristolainen is on the ice with him, he has improved tremendously at that and the expectation is Mittelstadt will get better at that as well.) We used to joke that he looked like a golden lab puppy when he didn't have the puck because he was clearly lost at times & just trying to find where the "ball" had been tossed, especially when his line got caught against the other team's top line.
As for trying to outskate everyone, that IMHO is not his issue with the puck. The issue is he needs to be better at not carrying the puck into a phone booth thinking he can out stickhandle multiple players. It worked in HS; it worked at the WJC; it worked to a certain degree in the NCAA (had he had linemates with any skill at all, it would've worked better, again IMHO); it will only rarely work at the NHL level. He needs to learn how to play an effective game at this level.
Watched a lot of Amerks games on TV after the single team package price dropped in early January (?). He's been getting better at some of these things, but is still a work in progress.
My takeaway from your post is that the best way to handle him is to start him off in the AHL and give him the time and space to develop his game. That grooming process should have happened sooner. As of right now I don't think he has much value on the market. So most likely the best way to increase his value whether he ultimately remains with the organization or not is to allow him more time to grow as a player. If he eventually develops into the player that is commensurate with his draft status it would be a terrific bonus for this franchise.
-
1
-
-
1 hour ago, LGR4GM said:
I will say that there would have to be some crazy drafting in picks 1-7 for Sanderson to end up as the best player available at 8.
Last year the Red Wings took D Moritz Seider with the 6th pick surprising a lot of people. Each team has their own evaluations of players. So it wouldn't be surprising that Sanderson who is the top rated defenseman on many teams' board would go higher than some people think.
-
8 hours ago, PerreaultForever said:
hatred or jealousy?
Tampa seemed flat. Bruins were the Bruins.
Canucks looked like they were satisfied with a one series win and ready to go home.
You have to admire the Bruins and their team ethos. They have talent on all their lines but what distinguishes them is their relentless style of play. Whether they are up or down their grinding style of play never leaves them. You have to give them credit for their collective team work ethic.
-
1
-
-
14 hours ago, dudacek said:
How much input do you think new Rochester head coach Seth Appert on the Sabres Draft board?
”I could easily make an argument for myself that this was the favourite group of men that I’ve ever coached...and Jake (Sanderson) led that. Jake is, in my mind, the best defenceman in the world in this draft. He’s a special leader and his work ethic and his character is off the charts.”
Who would be upset if we take Sanderson?
The issue isn't whether Sanderson would be a good NHL player as it would be can you get an equally good or better player at the forward spot that can better balance out your team. If you believe that one of the forwards on the board who is ranked in the same vicinity as Sanderson can be a top two line player then the selection should lean toward the forward.
As others have stated we have some good d-men prospects in the pipeline such as Borgen and Johnson in addition to a surplus of blue liners on the roster. What this franchise lacks is second line forward prospects. If the Sabres had a more robust and balanced roster then the smartest and most conventional approach is to draft the best player and allow that player to develop at his own rate.
My preference is if the Sabres can get a mid-twenty year old second line forward, preferably center, in exchange for our first pick or in a package I would seize the opportunity.
-
1
-
-
1 hour ago, BagBoy said:
JohnC,
I think you should ask a few women about how innocuous they felt Milbury's comment is.
What if he had made a snide comment about the Sabres? Leafs fans would have loved it, but you and I would be irate. The issue here is not how you feel about the backlash, it's about how the victimized (women) were made to feel.
I'm sure that there are women who feel insulted by his comments. And I'm sure there are women who don't feel insulted by his comments. However, for those who do feel victimized by his inane comments they need to toughen up and deal with the real world.
With regards to a Leaf fan making a snide remark about the Sabres my response is who freaking cares how anyone else characterizes this less than successful team. If one can't handle ridiculing words then the person who is bothered is pathetically weak and lame.
-
4 hours ago, Weave said:
@JohnCYou disagree that a company should remove a voice that that is likely to cause it’s business harm? Cuz that is my point. It seems obvious on its face that any company would and should protect its name and brand, which is what happened here.
This inane comment was not going to result in damage to the company. Why would it? There was nothing wrong with his statement. It was an innocuous comment that got blown out of proportion because it resulted in some people being offended. This willingness and receptivity to being offended is one of the issues that I am complaining about. People need to toughen up and get over themselves. Some people get offended when you call them Miss instead of Ms. I can understand why some people didn't appreciate the comment. But making it rise to a job disqualifying level is not only an absurdity--- it was unfair. When his response was brought to his attention he apologized for it. What ever happened to the concept of proportionality. There are a lot of issues to get exercised over. This isn't one of them.
-
5 minutes ago, Weave said:
So, if your performance is no longer considered to be up to standards You expect your employer to wait for a renewal period to move you along? That is simply not reasonable or realistic.
Yes, he’s been on the air for years as a known quantity. Standards change. He hasn’t. His own lack of foresight is the problem, really. Situational awareness is part of living and working in any corporate environment. Evolve or die. We all deal with it. He just did too.
And really, the argument that free flow of ideas is being stifled is ridiculous. 1. What free idea was he expressing? That men can’t focus in the presence women? Such valuable insight that should be protected. And 2. Noone is stopping him from spreading his opinion publicly. They are stopping him from tying his opinion to NBC. And that really is the beginning and end to it. He’s always free to find or create an outlet for his viewpoints. The internet is full of venues for his commentary.
Congratulations on your ability to ignore boorish behavior and rationalize its presence. I’m not convinced it is a superior trait here.
There are colleges that won't allow professors with different political philosophies into their economic and legal programs for fear of the backlash. There are colleges that won't allow speakers to give lectures because their countervailing views challenge the prevailing view. At one point Jerry Seinfeld said he would no longer perform at colleges because he was tired of the oppressive political correct mentality. (I'm not sure if he has changed his stance on performing at colleges?) So the notion that
Mike Milbury made an outdated comment about the bubble. There was little that was wrong with it other than it was a little cringe worthy. Milbury was not fired for boorish behavior. He was fired for a comment that was out of tune with more modern views. There is a difference between bad behavior and his comments. He clearly didn't mean anything untoward.
I understand what your position is but I disagree with it.
-
12 hours ago, Weave said:
Your blind spot isn't regarding any cancel culture. It is in regards to an out of date acceptance of borderline misogynistic commentary. You aren't seeing it for what it is, hence he defense of it.
And as so well put in the article posted earlier, it isn't about cancel culture anyway, it is about setting a standard for behavior in broadcasting. Milbury no longer performs at that standard.
If Milbury no longer performed at an acceptable standard then his contract should not be renewed. I have no problem with that. He has been on the air for years and he is a known quantity by the company he works for. His job is not to call the game as it is to offer commentary. His job isn't to be bland but to provoke. The comment he made about women not being in the bubble was in my opinion stupid but not malicious. It was an outdated view but far from being misogynistic. As I said in prior posts the more pernicious problem is creating an environment that stifles the free flow of views out of fear of be out of step of the prevailing way of thinking. People who are in the "talking business" are not always judicious in what they say. I'm not bothered by it as much as others. I have the ability to counter the view or ignore the view and tune out.
-
2
-
1
-
-
6 hours ago, PerreaultForever said:
First off, I did say it was my own personal view so I thought that would make it clear I can't "prove" it as LGR4GM likes to demand when he disagrees with an opinion. So fair enough, it's just an opinion, like many others. I truly think in sports and the media one has to be wary of what is spoken publicly and one cannot assume it is factual either. What exactly did sick of losing mean and how did he get there? It's a good way to force a trade for sure and Jack has laid the groundwork for that as well should he decide he finally wants out. It's also likely that JBot can't totally be faulted on the trade because 1) he had no choice if in fact ROR demanded out privately which we'll never know and 2) it's likely the Pegulas demanded he not pay out the bonus so he took what he could get by the deadline he had and hoped for the best.
ROR likes being the star and he responds to that role well. I'm not all the sure he likes being the other guy, the #2 center and so forth.
When it comes to this idea of our star and centering the team around him this is perhaps where I see things very differently. You can do that, but many times where organizations do that they are not as successful as organizations who don't. Team first and no one above is a better winning approach. A team like Boston never puts the individual first and they have perennial success. They had Kessel, they had Seguin, they had Hamilton, but when they didn't fully buy in, boom they were gone. Did they win all those trades? No, but they kept winning, and the culture and the team got stronger.
So back to the C, ROR hard worker, 2 way player, leader by example, embodiment of what you want a captain to be. You make him captain, you take all the pressure of that off Jack and let him be the kid he was at the time, let him focus on scoring and emulating that leadership idea. I probably do not articulate this idea properly, but if you even get a hint of what I'm trying to say you might have some pause for thought. We are often a team of individuals not a unit working together and we frequently have some of the individuals letting others do all the hard work and to me, it's all a reflection of the culture and approach the team has used.
I appreciate your well thought out and expressed response. I'll only respond to a couple of the main points. With respect to who to blame for the damaging trade I don't solely blame the GM. It's my belief (opinion) that the owner required the GM to deal him before the the bonus was due. That's the core of my complaint about the deal that has had such a lingering bad effect. There is nothing unusual about players being disgruntled. That's an inevitable part of the landscape in a business composed of talented people with strong personalities. I'm aware that I am judging this transaction in hindsight, and that is easy to do. But there is no way that even with foresight that this was going to be a good deal for us. The return for one of the best two way players in the league was in my estimation grossly inadequate. We all recognize how difficult it is to come up with a credible 2C trade scenario and what it would take to accomplish it. Why did this happen? The reason why it happened as it did because it was a rushed deal. Reacting to the impending bonus due didn't allow for a fuller exploration of the market. As I said before the best way to have handled this disgruntled player was to have a cooling off period and then a forthright discussion between the conflicting parties. I'm placing the onus more on the organization than the unhappy player.
With respect to your point how ROR should have been handled with captaincy and in general my response is very indelicate. I'm not worried about his sensitivities and whether he should be the top dog or supporting dog. My muscular response to him is: shut up and play! If you are feeling sad and blue about your status and the team you are my response is: tough shiit! The forcing of the issue should have been on a timetable that allowed the organization to get the best return on their asset if an irreversible decision was made to move him.
You cite Boston as an example to follow. I totally agree. What Boston has demonstrated is that when you have a well rounded roster you have more options. If a transaction turns out bad you can easily absorb that mistake. What Buffalo has demonstrated is that when you have a thin and imbalanced roster your options are limited. When a transaction such as the ROR deal goes bad your limited roster has less ability to absorb that mistake. The moral of the story: talent prevails.
-
1
-
-
3 minutes ago, BagBoy said:
There is indeed a growing mindset about being careful about the words and sentiments used to express ourselves and our views. This is not a bad thing. This is THE thing. This is our current reality. We are finally meaningfully and collectively rising up against racism, police violence, and multiple forms of intolerance and injustice. It is no longer cool to say something is "gay" that you find distasteful like it was in 2005. It is no longer cool to use the N word. It is no longer cool to use the F word for gay males. Confederate flags and memorials are finally being seen for their traitorous and anti-American nature. And misogyny is no longer cool. This leads me directly to your 2nd bolded sentence. These previously accepted violations did exactly what you are bemoaning. They created a climate of fear for the victimized. The fact that you are resisting the progress that is happening now does not make you a victim. It makes you an idealogue.
You are without question missing my point. Milbury didn't make a comment that reached the disqualifying level that Brennaman said about gays while calling a baseball game. He should have been immediately relieved of his duties. There was nothing misogynistic about Milbury's comment. It certainly was an outdated view but no malice or crudeness was intended. Your comment about the confederate flag makes my point. I agree with you on your position but I disagree with you that just because someone has a different view and perspective on it that they shouldn't be allowed to express it.
Your comment about me being an ideologue says more about you than it does about me. Based on your comment I'm clearly less ideological than you are because I'm willing to be receptive to other view points where you are less receptive to them. That is a classic attribute of an ideologue.
-
1
-
-
1 minute ago, LGR4GM said:
Ok, I stated what I thought and I disagree.
You are making a comment that underscores my point. I have no issue with anyone disagreeing with a comment or even finding it to be distasteful. What I find tiresome is the notion that if someone says something that one disagrees with or is uncomfortable with then the reaction should be that the microphone should be taken away from that person. To me that is an overreaction. The comment that Milbury made was not a very bright or classy comment. It wasn't a crude comment but it could be taken as a boorish comment. In my opinion it didn't reach the level of disqualifying him from his job.
As I have stated in other posts the bigger danger than listening to verbal gaffes is that an oppressive climate of judgment is being created that stifles speech and thought. I'm not a Milbury in the booth fan. But I don't think he said anything that was so outrageous that should have gotten him cashiered from his job.
-
47 minutes ago, Curt said:
Maybe they did cool off then meet, but O’Reilly just wanted out. We just don’t know what went down behind closed doors.
There is nothing unusual about a player not being happy with his situation and wanting out. If that was the case then it was incumbent on the organization to get equal value back in a trade. This deal was rushed because a bonus was coming due. If they couldn't get a fair-value deal then the team should have just kept him until a good enough deal materialized. If the player remained unhappy because he felt stuck the organization should have told him to his face: Tough shiit!
-
1
-
-
17 minutes ago, dudacek said:
Is your hypothesis that trading O’Reilly was not being discussed prior to his comments?
How do you account for the considerable trade rumours Swirling around O’Reilly throughout the season, well before his locker room clean out comments?
There was considerable chatter that Botterill wanted to move one or more core pieces as his first team imploded around him.
The problem I had with the ROR saga is not that he got traded so much as the return. By a number of accounts this transaction was rushed because of the impending bonus time line. My sense is that the owner wanted him gone before the bonus came due. In my estimation if the organization was determined to trade him the smarter approach would have been to pay the bonus and then take the additional time to scan the market. There was a story that Carolina was willing to deal for him but weren't willing to do so if they had to pay the bonus. My criticism as much if not more so relates to the execution of the transaction than the particular transaction.
Paul Hamilton when with WGR stated after the deal that it was evident to him that ROR was behaving in ways that indicated that he didn't want to be with the club. He noted that the player who was known to be the last off the ice for practice was not exhibiting that same practice work ethic. So targeting him to be dealt in order to shake up the room is not a surprise. The criticism I am directing to the organization relates to when it was done, how it was done and the return.
-
2
-
-
5 hours ago, LGR4GM said:
Okay, but I reject your hypothesis because it places far too much blame on ROR for what was clearly a Management ***** up.
Again, you are misinterpreting/misrepresenting what I said. Your hypothesis is not my hypothesis. The organization that includes the owner and GM overreacted by dealing him for pennies on the dollar. The reactionary response by the organization set back this team then, and to this day has had negative repercussions that has not been overcome. The more appropriate and judicious response should have called for a cooling off period and then a meeting with the frustrated player.
-
4 hours ago, Weave said:
If I remember correctly, this was your stance with the Roenick comments too. I think you have a blind spot.
Having said that, this certainly wasn't one of Milbury's worst comments on the air. Is it deserving of backlash? Probably. Is it worthy of outrage? Probably not. It's one of his typical, juvenile, borderline comments he's made a career out of.
You are mistaken that I have a blind spot on this cancel culture mentality. I'm very aware of what my position is and why I hold to it.
You are correct that my stance over Roenick is very similar. Both Milbury and Roenick are commentators who are hired not to be bland but to have an edge to them. Do they periodically go over the line? Undoubtedly yes. Milbury sometimes says foolish things. So what! When you are on the air for many hundred if not thousands of hours it is not surprising that foolish things are said.
The bigger issue for me is that there is a growing mind-set that if someone says something controversial or stupid the morality mob is ready with the rope to lynch the offending party. Creating a climate of fear to express one's thoughts is a bigger problem than saying dumb things. Again, that is not a blind spot---it is something I am very conscious of.
-
4
-
1
-
-
2 minutes ago, LGR4GM said:
All the immediate future, serious team, bad situation stuff and that he specifically felt that way.
Let's move on. It's pointless to continue on with this issue.
-
6 minutes ago, LGR4GM said:
I will require proof of this.
ROR said what he said and Pegula overreacted and traded him hurting this team further.
What are you disagreeing with?
Stanley Cup Playoffs 2020 Thread
in The Aud Club
Posted
Since the Pegulas have taken over how many coaches and GMs has the organization gone through? This constant churning of staff and systems is not conducive to a stable and winning franchise. There are teams that have been involved in a rebuilding program for a shorter duration and have successfully made the arduous transition to being a serious team. Different staffs have different reconstruction philosophies that don't shorten the time in a rebuild as much as they prolong it. Based on its prolonged lackluster record Buffalo is a good example of how not to run an operation.
I like the Pegulas and are glad that they became the owners. Without question they are well intentioned. However, they have been very misguided in their attempt to manage the franchise. I'm hoping that they will have learned from their mistakes.