JohnC
-
Posts
7,911 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Events
Posts posted by JohnC
-
-
2 minutes ago, SHAAAUGHT!!! said:
This doesn't sound like the question of an "outdated" coach. It sounds like an interviewer asking an interviewee a question designed to see how he will handle a stressful situation - and it sounds like it may have worked since he saw something during that interview that convinced him not to sign Lehner.
Robin Lehner is an NHL goalie. That is a position that comes with an incredible amount of ridicule in the press, interwebs, and sometimes in the locker room. If I'm about to invest a few million dollars on a person I'm going to test him during the interview process to see how he handles the inevitable negative BS he will be exposed to.
I disagree. It sure sounds to me that this coach was part of the "old school" world that is rapidly declining in size in this new world reality. Assuming this story is true this is a coach that needed to be shipped out and make way for someone who else who has better interpersonal and human skills. You can still be tough without having to act stupid.
-
9 hours ago, K-9 said:
While I agree that some of these Neanderthals need to go away, the only person that can “cause” Lehner to relapse is Lehner himself.
I agree with you that these dinosaur coaches are a bore and are outdated. Added to that layer of antiquation is that in this era of players these coaches are ineffective, and their shelf-life is much shorter than before. But as in any field of endeavor they still exist and have to be contended with. That's life in the real world. I'm not totally dismissing Lehner's point about the improper issuance of drugs. It just seems that Lehner is indiscriminately popping off when the subject matter that he is addressing should be dealt with more focus and detail.
-
7 hours ago, Kr632 said:
I've watched sabre fans verbally and physically attack disabled fans at the arena(me being one of them).
My family gave up their seasons after fans threw stuff at them and verbally attacked them for cheering when the sabres scored during the tank year.
a group home had to leave in second period because a bunch of people near the handicapped section kept making fun of them.
The fans yell terrible things at the players. The players at the time called the fans out too.
***** you and anyone else that defends that type of behavior.
I never mentioned you but you got real defensive. Seems like you're one of the POS that attack people with mental illness and disabilities
I don't personally know @LGR4GM. I, like him, have participated on this forum for years. There were even a few times where the both of us mixed it up over some posts. What I can confidently say is that your scathing characterization of him and what you think he said are way out of line to the level of character assassination . He has never defended ignorant behavior, especially toward people who are handicapped physically or mentally.
He, like everyone else, can be opinionated. There is nothing wrong with that. The judgment/conclusion you made about his comments on this topic don't come close to accurately reflect what he actually stated. You owe him an apology.
I'm not trying to be a scold. It just seems to me that your comment directed toward him is grossly wrong and unfair.
-
1 minute ago, inkman said:
I didn’t say I subscribed to the theory. It’s just what people think.
There are always a variety of opinions. Some people think thoughtfully; and others think unthoughtfully. It's like trying to sell your house after you viciously vandalize it order to make in more marketable. This so called "crazy theory" makes absolutely no sense.
-
1
-
-
4 minutes ago, inkman said:
Less fixed costs
And fewer paying customers. An empty building is not a selling point. Tarnishing your asset is not a great selling point.
-
1 minute ago, Eddiegoofball said:
The good news was UPL looked great, the bad news was that he had to be.
Detroit dominated play. Our strategy appears to chase them.
-
1
-
-
UPL looks good. Very composed.
-
1
-
-
52 minutes ago, Taro T said:
Anyone know the lineup tonight? Not on the Sabres website yet (shocking <_<).
Didn't know if any of the twitterverse had it yet.
Sabres website will have the Detroit feed tonight, similar to the C-Bus broadcast.
Within this link from Sabres.com is the roster listing for the Gold and Blue units. The blue unit played in the Columbus game so the Gold unit should be playing in the Detroit game. That is not to say that there won't be some intermingling of the units for this game.
-
4 minutes ago, dudacek said:
I don’t think I’m doing any such thing.
First I want to let you know that I am not pigeon holing you into any "anti" category. With respect to this year's goaltending situation I agree that our goaltending staffing is precarious. That doesn't mean that it is automatically disastrous. With the exception of UPL the netminders we have are short-term. This is a rebuilding team. I just don't think that the GM was willing to seek the market (if available) for a high cost or even mid-level cost for a goalie when he believes that UPL is ready or near ready to be on this roster.
I believe that KA thought he would be able to bring back Ullmark. Through no fault of his own (my opinion) it didn't work out. So you move on and make the best of the situation you are in. And just because the situation is what it is now doesn't mean that a trade can't be made to shore up the backstop position.
-
1 minute ago, Taro T said:
And again, the reports all are that the Sabres offer was a 2 year deal for basically the same money. The reports all say the Sabres thought they had a deal but that Ullmark wanted to see if somebody would beat it. The B's did beat it. Ullmark seems to be a stand up guy; if he & the Sabres had originally agreed to the B deal he eventually signed for & then wanted to see if somebody would beat it, can't see him taking the deal from the B's instead & telling the Sabres to beat what they'd agreed to.
And, though Adams was acting in the Sabres best interests as he saw them, his only offering a 2 year deal (presuming that report is correct) wasn't actually in the Sabres best interest.
Ullmark was a free agent. He and his agent were going to explore what the market was for him. That was the right thing for the player to do. I have read accounts that the agent wanted Buffalo to offer a longer term and more $$$ per year than what Boston offered. Is that account accurate? I believe so because Ullmark wasn't willing to sign a deal until he became a free agent and had an opportunity to see what other offers were available. In my view there are no bad guys here. The GM was not going to sign the player beyond what he valued him at; and the player went to a better hockey situation than he had in Buffalo. That's how the market works for a free agent.
-
1 hour ago, Digger said:
This is hockey so I'm allowed to be superstitious. I say he gets traded the day after this thread is closed down.
This is an interminable thread. Does that mean that he doesn't get traded?
-
3 minutes ago, Taro T said:
The deal Ullmark signed with the B's wasn't excessive and really wouldn't have blocked any of the 3 kids they're hanging their hat on. Especially seeing how low the Sabres salary is today & into the foreseeable future, he should've come with an offer like that from the get go.
Would've forced the B's to overpay if they really wanted him and it would've allowed the kids to play the game the way the coach wants them to play.
Have 2 issues w/ Adams handling of this. He could only get a 1 year deal worked out last year & he misread the goalie market again this year.
It is a major flaw that he will hopefully figure out soon.
I agree with you that the deal that Ullmark signed with Boston wasn't excessive. From what I have read about the offer the agent took the Boston offer to Buffalo and demanded more term-wise and annual salary-wise. KA said no because he felt that it went beyond the value he pegged Ullmark at. I have no criticism for the player wanting more because from a hockey standpoint Boston was a better situation for him. That's life in the free agent market: The player and organization acting in their own best interests.
-
7 minutes ago, dudacek said:
Sorry man, but GMing is like actual hockey. You can explain away any and every instance, but ultimately you have to win more than you lose.
I don't understand your point or perspective. You are attributing the franchise's history of failure to a person who had absolutely nothing to do with its prior failures. What he's trying to do now is set a course and follow-through on it. With respect to the Ullmark situation the player was a free agent who made a decision that was in his best interest. And correspondingly the GM placed a value on the player and was not willing to going beyond what he believed his contract value was. Player movement is an intrinsic part of the hockey system. Sometimes the balance of control resides with the organization and sometimes the balance of control resides with the player. That's the system you work within.
-
48 minutes ago, Doohickie said:
If the offer was on the table prior to the trade deadline and not accepted, he should have been moved at the deadline. It really is that simple. That's a tough lesson that KA hopefully learned from.
At the time, yes. Rewind to the trade deadline though.... KA should have gotten what he could for Linus.
KA made a decision with the information he had on hand. There was no guarantee that he would be able to sign the UFA player but he felt that there was a reasonable chance that a deal could get done in the offseason. In real life you don't have the ability to make hindsight judgments. The reality is that if he traded Ullmark at the deadline he wouldn't have gotten much for him because he was going to become a free agent in the offseason. So as a rental player his value would have been very limited. I have no problem how KA handled this situation.
-
5 minutes ago, K-9 said:
And yet when players exercise their right to go elsewhere for more money, some will insist on blaming Adams, anyway.
If it were strictly a matter of a few more bucks for Linus, then I have to question how committed he was to ever staying in the first place. I imagine his mindset was like others of his time here and he really wanted to leave, anyway.
I always liked Linus, Risto, and Reinhart and I thank them for their time here, but they wanted fresh starts and nobody can blame them for that given the lack of success while they were here. But like it or not, they were part of that lack of success and imo it was time to move on, regardless.
My understanding is that Ullmark would have re-signed with Buffalo but to do so required a longer term and more money per year than what Boston offered. Adams declined the deal because he felt that it went beyond what he valued him at. That was the right decision. As you and others point out Ullmark made the right decision for himself and so did the organization.
-
3
-
-
19 minutes ago, LGR4GM said:
He absolute has the authority but why would he assume the risk. If he does that, the team is liable for a procedure that the doctors said no on.
I agree he has the authority. The point I was making, and maybe clumsily stated, is whether he has the authority or not it would be unwise to go against the medical judgment/s of experts in the field.
-
1
-
-
3 minutes ago, K-9 said:
Well, that makes total sense since very, very little of this situation is KA’s to handle in the first place. As I’ve repeated numerous times, he doesn’t have the authority to overrule the medical course recommended by team doctors.
Maybe Jack could consult with Kris Letang about the ACDF surgery to allay his concerns a bit. Letang seems to have recovered quite nicely after his surgery.
Even if he has the authority to overrule the recommendations by the team doctors and outside consultants it wouldn't be a wise thing to do. It's not very difficult to understand why Jack prefers his favored procedure. But that doesn't mean that it would be the right medical approach. The irony is that as the months pass by he would have been back on the ice sooner if a procedure would have been done months ago. As time goes by and as this saga continues he is putting in jeopardy the ability to be ready for the start of the next season.
-
1 hour ago, dudacek said:
He's got literally nothing for Jack now, as opposed to your version of nothing.
His plan seems to be "if I wait long enough some GM will pay a 'healthy Eichel' price for a 'broken' Eichel."
Or "If I wait long enough, this man will agree to a major surgery he clearly doesn't want."
You are portraying the GM's stance on this situation as being whimsical. It's not. He is basing his position on the most appropriate surgery on the best medical advice he could find. Jack's preferred surgical procedure is an outlier procedure and not recommended by the majority of medical people in the field. The GM is not out to get Jack or use him as a foil to demonstrate to the hockey world that he is a tough GM who is not going to be taken advantage of by those in the business. If that was his motivation for dealing with this complex issue it would be self-defeating.
Jack has options if he wants to exercise them. But he is not willing to do so at his financial risk. If Jack feels so strongly about this particular procedure then he should simply get it and assume the financial risk if it doesn't work out as well as expected.
I have no animosity toward Jack. This injury has sidelined him most of last year, and there is a good chance that not only could he be sidelined for all of this year but also there is a chance that his career can be in serious jeopardy. However, even understanding why Jack feels as he does the one person I'm not going to criticize is the person leading the hockey operation who is following the best medical advice he for this type of injury. I will say it again: I have no problem with the way KA has handled this situation.
-
2
-
1
-
-
If someone else posted this link I apologize for the redundancy. Within this post game Sabre.com link is a 14 min clip of Granato commenting on the training camp game and his comments about some of the players. He's a pleasure to listen to because he is usually very clear and succinct when answering questions.
-
4 hours ago, Weave said:
JAG
I don't see him as a top two line player but I see him being a good third or even fourth line player who can contribute. Don't knock the importance of those lower line players. For the past number of years our lower lines have contributed little offensively. Getting something from those lower lines helps out.
-
4 hours ago, dudacek said:
I think Samuelsson is another player the organization is more high on than the fans are. (Although I am happy to see fan support growing).
I think the brass entered camp hoping he was going to make the big team and was prepared to give him every opportunity to do so.
I agree that his injury complicates things and may mean he starts in Rochester.
He will be a full-time Sabre this year though, sooner, rather than later.
When you look at our prospects on the blueline and the young players already with the big club it's becoming evident that in a couple to a few years this organization will have assembled a quality unit. Dallin/Joki/Sameulsson/Power/Johnson/Bryson??/Laaksonen/Pilut??/ are young players that still have plenty of upside. Brick by brick the ramshackle house is being rebuilt.
-
5 minutes ago, K-9 said:
After reading the many ideologically charged posts in this thread, I’m trying to figure out why my totally innocuous post defending Doug’s freedom of choice was deleted yesterday. I see the moderation around here is still arbitrarily administered.
Don't try to figure out why the moderator deleted your post. I was sanctioned on a factual post I made on the Covid issue. The moderator went bazooka on me. His intemperate response to me was outrageously out of proportion to my post. He acted as if I impugned his mother. At first I was upset being penalized and then I cooled off and realized that part of life is dealing with erratic behavior. Don't let it bother you: It's like water rolling off a duck's back.
-
1
-
-
2 hours ago, Doohickie said:
I don't know it, but I have a feeling that Adams somehow influenced Krueger/JBot to hire Granato. I'd love to know more about how Granato ended up on Krueger's staff. Adams was director of the Academy of Hockey at Harbor Center when Krueger was hired; maybe he advocated for a development-oriented coach on Krueger's staff.
@Brawndo is the answer man. When he speaks people should listen.
-
2
-
-
1 hour ago, inkman said:
The keys were handed off to UPL when Linus left. He’s the goal tender this year.
He will be given an opportunity to be our primary net minder. If he struggles he will be sent down. If you are hoping for a surprise don't count out Dell.
Is our goal tending as bad as some of our pessimists (most notably @GASabresIUFAN) who are in a state despair over the current staffing? I'm wary but not ready to jump off the cliff yet. Too many people are making assumptions. I simply don't know.
-
1
-
Dreger: Eichel situation may be shifting, multiple teams involved
in The Aud Club
Posted
I don't believe that any deal he makes for Eichel is about salvaging this season. For him the return needs to include a first or second line center prospect who should be ready for NHL play in a year or so.
I don't want to aggravate the impatient masses here but the best strategy may be for the GM to wait until Jack gets whatever surgery and then is able demonstrate that he is back to form. That might take another year.