JohnC
-
Posts
5,960 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Events
Posts posted by JohnC
-
-
5 hours ago, LGR4GM said:
Lando can wear a cape.
You and few others here are exceptional in the analysis of draft prospects. It's a treat reading your views on this draft class. I salute you and the others in your knowledge of the prospects. ? It seems that right now Lafreniere and Byfield are ranked in the top two with Stutzle and Perfetti also considered in the upper echelon by some. If you were asked what couple of players in the second half of the top ten (5-10) could turn out to be very good players who would they be?
-
2 hours ago, dudacek said:
And anyone who thinks the hiring of Adams wasnt related to trust considerations is also naive.
There has been an attempt to portray Adams as something of a hockey neophyte, which is ridiculous, he has been in the business of hockey his entire life. He understands players and player development, he understands coaches and agents, he is NHL-connected. He also understands both Buffalo and the Sabres, which are two elements other candidates have not had, elements which have been underplayed.
But the primary reason he was hired is because he understands the Pegulas and has shown them not just cooperation, but competence in executing their tasks. Twice they’ve hired men the NHL told them were competent and were wrong. And I think there have been several times in recent months where they’ve said “why can’t Jason be more like Kevyn?”
I don’t think the Sabres hired Adams primarily because he was cheap and easy, I think they hired him primarily because he understood shared their philosophy (Indeed, it seems like he may have helped shape it) and had long history of being able to execute their desires.
For better or (mostly) worse, being able to manage the Pegulas seems like an essential quality to being the Sabres GM. I hope he brings other items to the table.
I have never said that Adams was hired primarily because he was cheap and easy. You have misconstrued my commentary on this subject.
-
2 hours ago, Curt said:
Agreed. I just don’t agree with the idea that anyone can be so sure that Adams is a disaster in the making before he has even really done anything. And in this case that his experience/qualifications are no greater than any poster here, which is a ridiculous statement.
I don't think you are referring to my comments because I have not said he will be a disaster as the head of the hockey operation. But what I have clearly stated is that the heavy financial structure of the operation was a major reason why there was a GM change. And I have also stated that if the former GM would have been agreeable to the changes mandated by the owners he would have been retained. (Many people disagree with that view.)
-
25 minutes ago, LabattBlue said:
You know that is not what I meant.
I said it before and I will say it again I'm holding my judgment until I see what the hockey decisions are in this critical offseason. Other than that I don't know what else to say.
-
12 minutes ago, LabattBlue said:
If you were a betting man, what odds would you give that Adam and his reduced hockey ops staff succeed? 25%, 50%? I don't think going with the no experience option for your #1 hockey ops guy, is going to sit well with the STH who have payed for crap over the last 10 years. If they think they have a financial problem now, wait until they start seeing crowds under 10,000. Prepare for a mass exodus of STH when fans are allowed back in.
The games are going to have a lot less than 10,000 people, if any people, at the games because the covid issue will still be a significant factor hovering over the sport, country and world.
Although I do have qualms I'm not going to work myself into a frenzy about the structure of the organization and who is running the operation. What I will be watching are the decisions being made in this offseason. Then I will make my judgment.
-
1
-
-
1 minute ago, LabattBlue said:
There were plenty of financial steps that could have been taken without hiring the most important person on the hockey ops side of the business, instead of hiring a GM based on being a good boy who Kim and Terry like. Basically the success of the hockey team is now playing second fiddle to finances. Recipe for disaster.
If you have read my numerous responses on this topic I have openly acknowledged that financial considerations were the driving force behind this dramatic organization change. It certainly is a risky proposition, and as you state a recipe for disaster. But it doesn't have to be. As I have stated success will be dependent on the quality of the hockey decisions made by this thinned out staff. In the end that is what is most meaningful.
-
1
-
-
17 minutes ago, LGR4GM said:
I can't judge a gm who hasn't made any player moves yet. He has 1 signing (Murray) and that's it. I think he got the job for the incorrect reasons but deserves a shot to show if he can do it.
As you point out regardless of the stunted hiring process and the thinning out of the staffing when all is said and done the ultimate judgment is going to revolve around the hockey decisions that will be made in this critical offseason.
-
5 minutes ago, LabattBlue said:
Wait a minute. The Pegula's during their dismal decade of Sabres ownership, hired two guys as the GM who had no experience in the role of NHL GM, fired both of them, and then doubled down by hiring a guy who not only had no experience as an NHL GM, he has no experience working in an NHL front office on the hockey ops side of the business...and you can't find any criticism with that?
Under this particular crushing financial scenario I understand what they did and why they did it. My comments do not deal with their decisions prior to this situation. Adams was hired to execute the harsh financial measures that the Pegula wanted done. I still believe that even under this austere setup good hockey decisions can still be made.
-
12 hours ago, Curt said:
This is unfair. He was a long time NHL player, has a few years of coaching experience at the NHL level, and several years of experience as an NHL executive.
Usually when there is an opening for the top hockey job in a franchise the obvious issue is who would be the best candidate to assume the job. The standard response to fill that opening is to advertise for replacement candidates and then make a judgment as to who would be the best replacement. That didn't happen with the Sabres. Essentially there was an in-house installation shortly after the firing of the GM followed by an immediate (the next day) chopping of staff.
Kim Pegula publicly stated after the declaration that Botterill was going to be retained that the owners had multiple discussions with him. The owners could not get him to agree to go along with their new business plan. He was subsequently fired, and Adams, who was involved on the business side of the encompassing hockey business that included youth hockey, was hired with no outsiders considered. What's obvious is that what transpired was mostly driven by business/financial considerations.
As I have stated in prior posts I'm not criticizing the Pegulas for the dramatic change in direction on how the franchise was going to be managed. This franchise with middling success was hemorrhaging money, and unless a major change in operation was made it was going to continue in this oppressive virus economic environment.
I have no criticism for how the Pegulas acted. There certainly was an understandable rational behind it. But anyone who doesn't believe that the main consideration in this abrupt scenario wasn't related to financial considerations is being naive. I also believe that under this now more austere organization good hockey decisions still can be made to make this franchise better.
-
-
1 hour ago, dudacek said:
Bingo. This has been my point all along. There are scenarios where the smart move would be trading Cirelli.
It really comes down to the market -financial and trade - for its three young RFAs versus the options they have with their NTCs.
Is it smarter to deal a veteran for peanuts, or at a loss, or Sergachev/Cirelli for a substantial return?
I don't think we are really disagreeing. There are a lot of factors that have to be considered regarding contracts, roster and what the returns can be for the departed players. As you have pointed out these are complicated multifaced decisions. Being in a position to make these decisions because of an abundance of talent is certainly better than seeking ways to add talent to a deficit riddled team. We both agree that Tampa is a smart and forward thinking franchise. They will come out of this challenging offseason making calculated decisions that puts them in the best situation that they can be in.
-
1
-
-
11 hours ago, TheCerebral1 said:
They have somewhat stable goal tending, quality leadership (Weber), and the right mix of veteran to youth.
Bingo! Your comment about the importance of goaltending is the central issue. There are plenty of discussions on this site regarding what new players will be brought in to improve our status. Assuming that another goaltender isn't brought in the most important player on our roster that will determine success or failure next season is Ullmark.
-
12 hours ago, dudacek said:
Reasonable take.
I would suggest that Mittelstadt and Montour are better value than Thompson and a late 1st, and that O'Reilly is of higher value than Monahan. Now that clearly wasn't a smart trade, but my point is sometimes teams decide to move on and take the best offer available.
In my view, Tampa has run out of cards. They might not lose Cirelli, but keeping him is going to cost them some other good players for very little return.
I totally agree with you that if Tampa is able to work out a deal to keep Cirelli it will cost them other good players. Cap arithmetic is cold blooded arithmetic that can't be finagled. And as you have frequently noted because of the no trade clauses Tampa is still going to have challenges moving players in order to keep their priority player/s. As I have previously stated Tampa is a well run organization that has a lot of talented and cheaper young players in the pipeline that can fill in for the departed players. I'm confident that whatever decisions Tampa makes they will be smart decisions. You don't have long-term success by being serendipitous.
-
7 minutes ago, dudacek said:
Reasonable take.
I would suggest that Mittelstadt and Montour are better value than Thompson and a late 1st, and that O'Reilly is of higher value than Monahan. Now that clearly wasn't a smart trade, but my point is sometimes teams decide to move on and take the best offer available.
In my view, Tampa has run out of cards. They might not lose Cirelli, but keeping him is going to cost them some other good players for very little return.
The ROR deal was a boondoggle for us. I'm sure there were some behind the curtain issues going on that influenced this deal but it has had a lingering damaging affect on this team. A good topic of discussion is: if we had kept him (ROR) how would it impact our current roster? And by securing that 2C position with him how much more flexibility would this organization have in seeking to address other needs in the offseason?
With respect to Tampa and Cirelli my belief still is that the two sides will find a way to come to a deal. We shall see. If he does get dealt I don't see him coming to Buffalo. (My opinion.)
-
3 hours ago, dudacek said:
There are always reasons for player movement that have nothing to do with what we see on our TV screens.
One possible reason for Calgary to move is their purported mutual interest in Taylor Hall.
As for Tampa, maybe their NTCs won’t waive, and Cirelli won’t sign for a discount. Why would it be in either of those party’s interests to do so?
The deal that was proposed for Monahan by the poster doesn't come close to matching his value to Calgary. (My opinion also stated by others.) Monahan is a relatively young player who is locked up for a few more years and has a 6m plus contract that is reasonable relative to his production. Unless there is a higher yield return that would include multiple players I don't see a trade for him materializing.
I agree with you that Cirelli won't sign for a discount unless he is willing to sign a bridge deal. But for us to make an offer for Cirelli the Sabres would need to be assured that Cirelli would be willing to agree to a long term deal before a deal would be made by us. I'm not sure that Cirelli would be agreeable to that. I'm aware that Tampa is in a tough position because of the cap but this organization is one of the best run organizations in the league. Odds are that they will find a way. (My opinion.)The Bolts were able to keep Stamkos when he was on the market and I see the Cirelli scenario playing out the same.
-
1
-
-
3 hours ago, sabresparaavida said:
I made a capfriendly team for fun, curious what you guys would think of the team/prices of players/the trade I made. Quite obviously, it is not the trade I was mentioning earlier.
Excellent cap projection. It's apparent that a lot of thought went into it. However, I don't see Monahan being dealt. Why would Calgary move on from him and then have to try to replace him? I have the same view on Cirelli and Tampa. They'll get something worked out because it is in each side's interest to do so.
-
2 minutes ago, LGR4GM said:
If you watch Dahlin is physical in his own end when retrieving pucks. I think there is a fiestiness to him. That said, I fully agree you can't teach aggression and Tage isn't going to suddenly start being a physical force... Cozens on the other hand will try and run you over.
I think missing a 24 team playoff format and going home as a "loser" is good for the Dahlin's of the world. It drives them when they fail.
What is sometimes lost after watching Dahlin make some dazzling plays is his fierceness. (As you point out.) When he is roughed up he doesn't shrink from the combat. He engages with the source of the obstruction. He has the same ferocious competitiveness that Jack has but it isn't as apparent on ice because he is such a smooth and stylish player.
Both Jack and Dahlin are not only our two best players but also our most competitive players although with different personalities. They both find losing unacceptable and painful. My fear is that if this less than tolerable success rate continues it will affect how both of these elite players view the franchise. This offseason it is imperative that the front office be bold and creative to upgrade the roster and make this a more contending team. Especially with Jack you can see the frustration building. The future is now!
I don't see Tage as ever being a physical force. That's not his game and makeup. Although he can be with more physical development more physical on the ice his game is more finesse revolving around his skating and shooting. I also see this as a critical offseason for Mitts. He needs to work on his body!
-
1
-
-
39 minutes ago, LGR4GM said:
The best thing that may have ever happened was Dahlin was excluded from the playoffs and given 7 months off to workout and prepare for next year.
Not long ago Dahlin was on a video talking about his workout regime and what he was doing to prepare for next season. Even in this short period after the season was cut short it was noticeable that he had gotten bigger. I tried to find it but couldn't retrieve it. But without question he will be a bigger and stronger version of himself.
-
19 hours ago, dudacek said:
I think the remake of the hockey department was clearly the straw.
I also wonder if there were philosophical differences on how to use the cap space Botterill had accumulated this summer.
Your first sentence is exactly what I have been propounding on the Botterill issue. My contention is that he would have been retained if he would have been willing to implement the organizational restructure that the owners sought. Kim stated after his release that they had numerous discussions with him after the season that came to no avail. Which clearly indicates that he wasn't on board. So he was fired.
I'm not criticizing the owners because they were presiding over a franchise that was hemorrhaging money (one report was $37 m) with the results not coming close to being satisfactory. Terry P pointed out that under the revamp the scouting department would have less staff, less travel and more video. A change in the operation reflecting the imperative in cutting costs. That's not necessarily a bad thing because when faced with a fiscal calamity you are often forced to be more creative in how you operate.
Kevin Adams was an in-house staffer who wasn't part of the hockey operation. He was spearheading the business side of the hockey enterprise that included youth hockey. You don't find it odd that there was no GM search process to find a replacement for the fired GM? The point that I'm driving at is that the imperative to change how the operation was run related to financial considerations.
Make no mistake about what I'm saying here. I'm not criticizing the owners in dramatically changing how their hockey business was going to be run. And I do believe that this more austere (smaller) organization has a better ability to be more nimble and cohesive. When all is said and done the success of the franchise relates to the staff making better decisions. You can be a smaller outfit with less operating costs and still be a successful operation.
-
2
-
-
9 minutes ago, sabresparaavida said:
A handful of random things I picked up from talking with my source:
Kevyn Adams is very analytically based, looks at the numbers more than Tim Murray's eye test.
There is a reasonable chance of Girgs and/or Larsson being back
KA is more focused on building a team that works together we'll than Jbotts was. Jbotts was focused more on bringing in the best pieces he could, instead of trying to fit pieces together. (Sited having a surplus of D, but no D chemistry)
KA comes across as smarter than Jbotts
There is a decent chance we see Skinner with Jack this year. Not 100% going to happen, but there is a good chance it will.
Skinner on a Jack line is a 35 goal scorer. I really like Reinhart/Jack/Skinner playing on the first line. It is a 1A line that ranks in the top tier in the league. If you want to maximize the return on investment with Skinner he should be playing with Jack.
You make a very keen observation about Botts who seemed more bent on accumulating talent than fitting in pieces. As you point out the excess in defensemen are assets that can be used to deal in order to better balance out the roster. Stating the obvious getting that 2C is an absolute necessity.
-
Just now, Gabrielor said:
Given your position, and since you don't seem to mind discussing it:
His plan had too many failings of this own doing. We're a team that lacks NHL talent, lacks prospect pool talent, lacks picks, and is up against the cap, so much that overage costs will incur. Those 4 conditions shouldn't be possible simaltaneously.
He championed youth and building from the draft (great idea), but failed to put proper NHLers ahead of those developing (which is why Mittelstadt is tanking), and burned all kinds of picks on temporary players making little/no impact. Meanwhile, you can argue that Rochester's recent success was largely on the backs of guys who are career AHLers, and wouldn't end up effecting the Sabres. He also let Phil Housley coach more than one year after gaming a near 80 point team tank to last place. (and I won't belabor O'Reilly here, but we'll see it on all-time worst lists forever now)
Don't read this as any kind of attack. I'm merely curious in how someone could view Jason Botterill as anything other than the primary reason we're a NHL laughingstock.
First, I don't consider your response as an attack and don't take it as such.
On the issue of player development I do agree that Mitts and Tage were rushed. That was a mistake. That is not to say that both of them have been irredeemably been damaged. Tage should be a contributor this season. With Mitts I'm not sure.
Where I disagree with most posters here is that I believe that Botts had a more long term plan than most people here were willing to tolerate. I'm not arguing that he has been a resounding success because it is obvious that it is not the case. What I do believe is this franchise from a talent standpoint is not as barren as most people portray it to be. It's my opinion that if this staff can make a few consequential personnel decisions this offseason this roster will be be meaningfully upgraded. And I do believe that it was the fired GM who put this franchise in a good position to be able to make those decisions. Will this regime take advantage of the situation this offseason? I certainly hope so.
-
6 minutes ago, dudacek said:
Why? That seems counterintuitive after Adams flushed 2/3rds of Botterill's evaluators.
The methodology changed in how the operation is going to be run. The Pegulas came to the conclusion that the operation could be run more cheaply by using technology. That doesn't necessarily mean that the evaluations were going to be different.
-
9 minutes ago, PromoTheRobot said:
If I had to throw one franchise overboard it would be the Sabres. The Bills are #1 and I'm glad Pegs bought 'em.
From a financial standpoint the Pegulas will not get rich owning the Sabres. The economics of hockey are not close to the gilded economics of the NFL. But that is not to say that the Sabres are a lost cause from a fanbase standpoint. If the Sabres can get their house in order and remake this stuttering team into a seriously cup contending team this fanbase will be on fire. The past and the present don't necessarily have to reflect the future. With some smart personnel decisions this offseason this team can be put back on track with the arena filled with aroused fans. Success breeds success.
-
1 minute ago, dudacek said:
One of the more intriguing plotlines with Adams is what he really thinks of some of Botterill's guys — like Casey, Tage, Montour, Miller, Skinner (although we're stuck there), Hutton, Cozens, Johnson, Samuelsson, Luukkonnen...
My belief is that Adams/Krueger's evaluations on Botterill's guys are not radically different. The issue for the new regime and the old regime if it were still in place entering this offseason is how best to better balance the roster? Each respective regime can value a player in the system similarly and still be willing to trade them in order to have a more complete roster. The biggest issue this offseason is whether this new regime will be more aggressive and creative in managing their assets in prospective deals. My sense of Botterill is that he is more of a cautious and incremental type of person while maybe this organization is at this time in need of a bolder approach in reworking the roster.
2020 Draft Rankings Not Soon Enough...
in The Aud Club
Posted
Who the heck is Rakish? Is he an Indian guru that you follow when you are in a deep state of meditation? ?