JohnC
-
Posts
6,051 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Events
Posts posted by JohnC
-
-
7 minutes ago, dudacek said:
I’m not arguing is support of Taylor’s firing, I’m on the record as liking him.
But there is a side here no one is talking about.
Taylor was given a Cadillac of AHL rosters, with a huge budget, stuffed full of high-price proven AHL vets, and buckets of depth. Guys like Redmond, Blackwell, Porter, Griffith, Criscuolo, Fedun, Tennyson, O’Regan, Nelson, Simpson, Leier, Wilson, Hammond, Dea, Lazar, Gilmour... I don’t have AHL salary numbers, but they were run like a Pre-cap Rangers.
His teams did well in the regular season, but never won a division title or even a playoff game.
He also was charged with developing prospects like Fasching, Baptiste, Bailey, Ullmark, Nylander, Guhle, Malone, Borgen, Olofsson,CJ Smith, Asplund, Elie, Ogilvie, Pilut, Bryson, Fitzgerald, Hickey...
We didn’t see a ton of player development under his watch either.
Not blaming, or saying he deserved to be fired. Am saying his “success” is only relative to the depleted expectations of our fanbase.
With respect to the prospects that you listed which players did the former staff mishandle and crimp their potential? Sometimes players are who they reveal themselves to be. In my view non of the players that you listed played below their talent level. And non of the players who were on your list and were traded ended up making a dramatic leap forward after changing organizations.
-
1 hour ago, LGR4GM said:
He has tons of experience, is it just because he wasn't an AHL coach or assistant before? I don't understand this line of thinking, you make it sound like they hired some nobody off the street who's never coached at a high level before.
What I don't understand is why the Taylor staff was fired in the first place? The younger players got the requisite playing time that facilitated their development. And they were playing with selected veteran players who knew that one of their primary roles was to develop the younger players on the roster. At the AHL level there is a delicate balance between developing players and competing. These tasks are not mutually exclusive as they are inextricably linked. Without question the Taylor coaching staff was adept at maintaining that delicate and critical balance.
I don't believe that the complete change in the AHL will make a significant difference. And I don't believe that it was necessary. Firing in toto a highly functioning staff of the previous administration and replacing them with people you are acquainted with is a classic definition of cronyism. And that makes me wary.
-
3
-
-
2 hours ago, dudacek said:
You weren’t around here for the start of Lehner’s Buffalo career when he regularly got pummelled after every 3-2 Sabre loss where they were outshot 37-24.
Robin struggled as his demons caught up to him in his last year in Buffalo but he otherwise played quite well for a bad team, and had the numbers to back it up.
People couldn’t get past how terrible he was in shootouts and how we traded a first-rounder to get him.
Lehner used to get frustrated after losses. At first in post game interviews he would discretely criticize the play in front of him and then more explicitly. He was right! The players in front of him were not playing with discipline/intelligence or fulfilling their responsibilities. To be blunt Risto was a dumb player who would constantly be sucked into chasing the puck behind the net and leaving the front of the net uncovered. The reality is that the team wasn't talented enough and the blue line unit was inadequate.
I was a persistent and harsh critic of Murray giving up a first round pick for him because I thought that it was a too high a cost for a player whose team wanted to move him because it had plenty of depth at that position. With hindsight I have a tad softened my position recognizing that his current level of play would have made a difference in making the playoffs this season. (My opinion.)
Unless there is an addition at the goaltending position (And I don't think there will be.) the player who will make the biggest difference between success and continued mediocrity will be Ullmark. (Again, my opinion.)
-
1
-
-
16 hours ago, dudacek said:
I want to hear from Team I Hate Robin Lehner.
The Robin Lehner scenario in Buffalo was a sad and complicated human situation. The Sabre organization was very supportive and did the right thing in getting him help to address his mental health problems. Even after he was not associated with the team the former GM kept in touch. Not trying to be dramatic but it isn't an exaggeration to believe that the organization may have saved his life by helping him get the medical attention that he needed.
From a hockey standpoint the Lehner saga demonstrates how much this organization is snake bitten. If we would have gotten the level of goaltending that Lehner played at with the Islanders, Blackhawks and Golden Knights this season the Sabres probably would be participating in the playoffs this year.
-
2
-
-
12 hours ago, matter2003 said:
Sabres were in Montreal when the season got cancelled. If that game would have been played and the season cancelled the next day, it would have been to determine who made the playoffs...
Kind of crazy when you think about it.
Near the end of the abbreviated regular season the Sabres were on the fringe fighting for a playoff spot. During that crucial period of time they had a critical four game western trip. They earned zero points. Please, no more excuses or "what if" imaginary scenarios. They earned exactly what they got i.e. left out.
-
1
-
-
15 minutes ago, LGR4GM said:
You can't just rank by the raw total primary points a game, the WHL is a lower scoring league compared to ohl and q. Also a lot of guys in their D1 years go back to juniors to round out their games and I think Cozens did.
If he was in this draft, he'd probably go around 4 or 5. He's got speed, size, plays center so that all would factor. I don't like comparing like that though. This draft has about 3-4 really good players at the top, maybe 5. Cozens draft was similar although I think it was deeper with talent well into round 2. It's hard to determine who might go where.
My real point in mentioning Cozens was to illustrate why Seth Jarvis being around 11th in composite rankings is off. Other than having a bad tournament last summer he's been really good. His second half this year he exploded and really came into his own. He's still my dark horse for 8 or as a surprise pick before that.
How would you compare Cozens's style of play and talent level with Chicago's Jonathan Toews? Both have size and a driving type of game. I have said it before much to Thorny's chagrin but I do believe that Cozens had the maturity and physical makeup to play 2C in his rookie year. That doesn't mean that should do it on a full time basis but if done on a periodic basis I believe he wouldn't be overwhelmed.
-
49 minutes ago, sabremike said:
The problem with Casey: The embarrassingly incompetent GM and Coaches decided to keep the poor kid on the NHL roster when it should've been painfully obvious he didn't belong in the NHL. Instead of sending him to Rochester to work on his game so that he could get to the level expected they basically exposed what was wrong with him by keeping him up for a year and a half. Now there's a great chance they have already wrecked his career before it even began through stupidity. Basically the organizational incompetence destroyed his value.
Most people agree that Mitts was rushed to the big club when he wasn't ready. However, he was belatedly sent to Rochester where he struggled in the beginning and then seemed to become more comfortable as a player and understand his role. Where I disagree with you is that although he was clearly rushed and not handled smartly from a development standpoint I don't accept that he is so damaged that he will never attain what his talents should/could have taken him as a player. The Casey story is not over with. He still has time to demonstrate or not demonstrate that he can be a functioning NHL player. Right now the onus is on him and no one else to prepare as best he can to be ready to handle the rigors of this demanding league.
-
1 minute ago, LGR4GM said:
He could go year to year but would be stupid to do it. One injury and his value plummets.
He would be an RFA for 4 years regardless of what contract he signs. He can sign a 4 year, 2 yearx2 whatever but the team holds his rights for another 4 seasons. He is also from the Toronto area so this is as close to home as he can really get. He would be smart to sign a 3 year bridge and then a new 5-6 year deal.
After reading your explanation I would definitely give up a first round pick to Tampa for him. But most likely Tampa would want more as a prior link suggests.
-
3 hours ago, LGR4GM said:
And again I don't understand why. You have 4 years to convince he wants to stay here which is the closest he will ever get to playing near his home town. That is if you sign him to a 4 year deal or two 2 year deals. You control him for at least 4 years. Make the trade and worry about the rest later.
I'm confused on the RFA contract issue. If Cirelli gets traded to a team that he is not enamored with does he have to sign a contract or just go year to year until he qualifies as an UFA if that is his desire?
Whatever the contract ramifications are I still believe that Tampa will work out a deal to retain him. (My opinion.) And if he is dealt the asking price for him is probably going to be more than a pick.
-
2 minutes ago, LGR4GM said:
You would have him for at least 4 more years and that's if he somehow forces you to allow him to hit UFA exactly when he can. I just don't see that happening so a contract isn't a priority until he is acquired.
Before a trade I would want to talk to him and his agent about his wanting to come to Buffalo and what would be the parameters of a potential deal. If it is apparent that he isn't enamored with signing with Buffalo I would not agree to a deal. If I knew that he was amenable to a deal I would certainly trade our first pick for him.
-
1 minute ago, LGR4GM said:
He's an RFA I don't need to do anything until after I trade for him.
I'm not giving up valuable assets for a player that I'm not sure I will have for the long-term. I don't want to deplete precious resources on anyone that I hope will stay longer. It's as simple as that. Next option please.
-
5 minutes ago, LGR4GM said:
I would trade 8th overall for Cirelli.
That's what happens when you draft the Johnson's instead of the Robertson's
Unless I can get a long term deal secured with Cirelli I wouldn't deal for him. If I could I would be ecstatic.
-
1 minute ago, Curt said:
So you would trade #8 overall for a 24-27 year old, 50-55 point winger under contract for 2-3 more seasons, then UFA, at $5-6M?
Its just hypothetical, although I know I was rather specific.
Yes. If I can get that winger who will be a component in building a genuine second line I would do so. Not only do you reconstruct the second line with that addition but you push down players to play on an upgraded third line. One of the major deficiencies on this team is a lack of secondary scoring to balance out the first line.
I have always been a person who valued high draft picks to build a franchise in all the major sports. However, because of the recent history of systemic failure this franchise needs an immediate jolt to alter this negative dynamic. Also, the exasperated and fading fanbase deserve it now, not later. And make no mistake about it the Jack exasperation meter is real. The get me out of here declaration is a looming threat. And I don't blame him! If this new regime doesn't have a sense of urgency after all that has gone on before their installation then they are out of touch before they even started.
-
9 hours ago, LGR4GM said:
Rossi is probably ready now.
I'd agree, could be 2021 but no later. He's really good.
If you could get a genuine second line talent who is in his mid-twenties with that pick you got to deal it. The future is now. The audience is suffocating and becoming moribund. It desperately needs oxygen right away. Another year out of the playoffs and we are going to have a Jack problem. And I wouldn't blame him.
-
1
-
-
57 minutes ago, LGR4GM said:
Funny you should ask because there is a podcast that Rakish recorded on this subject.
Who the heck is Rakish? Is he an Indian guru that you follow when you are in a deep state of meditation? ?
-
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.
Stanley Cup Playoffs 2020 Thread
in The Aud Club
Posted
Money was an issue but the bigger issue was the length of the contract. Trotz wanted a five year extension while the organization believed that the lifespan of a coach for a team was shorter. The organization wasn't willing to budge on the length of the contract issue. So he quit and was immediately signed by the Islanders. What can't be denied is that the Lou Lamoriella and Trotz have done a terrific job for the Islanders.