JohnC
-
Posts
5,960 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Events
Posts posted by JohnC
-
-
7 minutes ago, LGR4GM said:
Also see Johnson, Ryan 2019
I don't understand your response. Could you elaborate? This selection was a reasonable pick. That is not to say that the trade package made much sense.
I have always felt that the ROR trade deal was influenced by the owner who wasn't willing to pay the bonus to the disgruntled player than it was by the GM. If the organization would have paid the bonus and then scanned the market the return for him would have been significantly greater.
-
1
-
-
1 hour ago, LGR4GM said:
Wait, is this a thread about getting Brock ***** Boeser... a guy we should have drafted instead of trading for Lehner?
Nope, not doing this.
Giving up that first round pick for a goalie that his former team wanted to move cost us a future second line player that the Sabres are now desperately searching for. Would a first round pick been worthy of the Islander's Lehner caliber of play after he addressed his mental health issues? I still say no. In addition, the ROR deal turned out to be a boondoggle that set this franchise back. If you combine just these two deals and consider the repercussions that resulted from those ill-conceived transactions you can see why smart organizations find a way to win and foolish organizations find a way to lose. The moral of the story is being patient and judicious is always better than being impatient and injudicious. If a fair-valued deal isn't there then don't force the issue. Just wait until a more favorable/balanced deal can be made. Common sense 101!
-
1
-
-
19 minutes ago, GASabresIUFAN said:
What is his value? He is a mediocre 5 on 5 so far and much more of a weapon on the PP. He is also an RFA in the time of COVID. If he get 4 mill or more Adams should be fired before the ink dries unless it’s a 6 year deal. My guess is he bets on himself and signs a 2 yr 7 mill deal to bridge Covid and pad his stats.
I'm not arguing to overpay him or anyone else. What you are not considering is that he was hurt last year, and when he finally returned to action he wasn't fully healthy. I don't know what his contract average will be but if it is a short term deal hovering around what you suggest ($3.5 to what I think he will get $3.75-4.00) then I would consider that a fair compensation.
The Sabres had a number of structural deficiencies. One of the most damaging and obvious deficiencies is that this team didn't have enough scorers. And without question he is one of our best scorers. In the end Olofsson is going to be signed and get paid what his worth is. As you noted it probably will be more of a bridge deal than a long-term deal.
-
12 hours ago, GASabresIUFAN said:
Montour or Risto would need to be traded. Mojo comes off the books after next season and you are over paying Olofsson. He isn't getting 4.5 after one 20 goal season at 24 years old. Also no way you make this deal before you acquire a real 2C. Once that occurs, you aren't making this deal anyway because then you really wont have any cap. Eriksson also has a NTC.
I am interested in Virtanen.
I agree with you that either Montour or Risto will be traded. As you indicate it will be for cap reasons and in order to balance out the roster to boost the second line, for either the 2C or one of the wing positions on that line.
You can get gritty players on reasonable contracts from the market. What is difficult to acquire are players who can score goals. Olofsson is a sniper, as is Skinner, playing on a team that lacks goal scorers. One of the obvious problems for this impotent team is that there are not enough contributing lines beyond the potent Jack line. When you have a player such as Olofsson who may be the first or second best shooter on the team after Jack you pay the market price. Olofsson is not going to be cheap but he is going to get paid according to his value.
-
On 7/9/2020 at 9:30 AM, LGR4GM said:
- Lafrienerre
- Byfield
- Stutzle
- Rossi
- Jarvis
- Raymond
- Perfetti
This is my new top 7. I want to like Raymond and Holtz but I just don't quite get there. I still they could be really good. One thing I noticed is that if I watch them versus peers I come away more favorable. That is clearly a bias on my part and something to keep in mind. Raymond at the U20 this past season was fun to watch.
I appreciate your draft evaluations. Your knowledge of this draft class is impressive. It's apparent that the forwards dominate the top half of this draft class. Acknowledging that fact where would Calgary's Sam Bennett rank in this class?
-
37 minutes ago, thewookie1 said:
The one problem I saw was that he supposedly nixxed a trade this past deadline to go to a contender because he wanted to stay in MIN. Now maybe Adams can convince to his former teammate to do him a solid and come to Buffalo and try and herd the cats the Sabres have become. The other problem I foresee is that he hasn't been a center in a couple years now.
I didn't read your response when I posted after you. In short I agree with what you posted other than Adams being able to convince him to come to Buffalo. Sorry of the redundancy in my post. There will be other reasonable options to consider this offseason.
-
1 hour ago, dudacek said:
I’ve decided the ideal realistic fix for our short-term 2C issue is Eric Staal.
Stanley Cup ring, one year left on a $3.2 million cap hit and he’s still putting up 50-60 points. He’s got a limited NTC, but he’s also got a great relationship with Adams. Wild need to start collecting assets for their aging core. And you shouldn’t have to break the bank to acquire him.
There was a tentative deal made for Stall to be traded to Boston for their playoff run. Staal nixed the deal. I doubt that he will accept coming to Buffalo let alone anywhere else. There will be reasonable options in the market for a short term 2C for next season. When the playoffs are concluded there will be a number of mid tier options to consider.
-
1
-
-
5 hours ago, dudacek said:
I’m not sure I trade 8 for Boeser straight across. I’d trade Jokiharju and sweetener in a heartbeat.
He’s no Thomas Vanek. He’s better than Olofsson, but he is a similar player with a similar game and similar strengths and weaknesses.
He’d sure light things up with Jack though.
Your trade proposal is impermissible. I will not allow Jokharju or Cozens to be dealt in any deal. So please perish the thought. I would consider Risto or Montour and a #1 pick for Boeser but my untouchables are untouchable. In my scenario I would expect a draft pick back, maybe a second round.?
-
2 minutes ago, Curt said:
I couldn’t agree more!
Seriously though, I agree with everything you said. Overall, I personally am not optimistic. If I was Buffalo, I would seriously consider trading him.
As on display I do have my stupido verbal gaffe moments. Since I am prone to these type of mistakes I readily accept and embrace my moments of confusion. ?
My worry with trading him so soon is that he would eventually mature and get the focus required to play in this tough bruising league and benefit another team. The one young player on the roster who based on his play at the end of the season I am intrigued with is Kahun. Another player that I am enamored with in the organization that I hope can surprise is Arttu Ruolsalainen. This self-sabotaging franchise needs some unexpected good luck from some of its young players.
-
41 minutes ago, Curt said:
I disagree. It’s possible that Mittelstadt ends up being a useful player, but the situation is not as simple as give him some talent, let him work, he is fine. Mittelstadt has been a bad NHL player, like....very bad, and it’s not that his line mates are dragging him down. He is dragging them down! He needs to make real improvements to get to a place where he is a good NHL player.
Mittelstadt should not have been in the NFL unless it was for a short stint as an introduction to NHL play. After his one year in college he should have been in Rochester getting a lot of playing and grinding it out with the other prospects. When he played for the Sabres it was apparent that he wasn't physically and emotionally ready to play against men. There were brief episodes of play where he displayed some nifty offensive skills. But usually he was an invisible and no impact player. That's not a good sign for a first round pick.
I don't know if he will ever develop into the player the organization hoped for when he was drafted. With the extended offseason he needs to come into the late camp physically ready with a determination required for a player in a do or die situation. If he can finally make the leap it would be such a big bonus for the team.
-
On 6/24/2020 at 6:36 PM, dudacek said:
Further to the 2017 draft, there are some great stories floating around out my way over the intense debate the Canucks has at pick 5 between Cody Glass and Elias Petterson.
Scuttlebutt is that 2nd year chief scout Judd Brackett (sp?) wanted EP, but Benning really liked Glass. This came the year after Benning steered the staff into taking Juolevi. After some very intense debate, Benning let the scouts get their way and drafted EP.
Aside from illustrating how one decision can have such a big impact, this is also somewhat relevant to the Sabres.
Last year, Benning allegedly overruled the scouting department to take Hoglander and Brackett lost it, and was effectively pushed to the sideline. He still ran the department this year, but is not getting his contract renewed. He’s a free agent June 30 and is being talked about as a potential chief scout for the Sabres.
Its not clear if his concerns about autonomy would make him a better, or a worse fit in the Sabres flat management structure.
Prior to becoming chief scout, Brackett was the area scout credited with pushing the selections of Brock Boeser and Adam Gaudette.
Judd Brackett was just signed by Minnesota to take over their scouting department. When you are widely respected in your field of endeavor you don't last long on the market.
https://www.thetelegram.com/sports/hockey/report-judd-brackett-hired-by-minnesota-wild-471550/
-
9 hours ago, Thorny said:
I think people understand *why* the decisions are being made, there is just some question as to whether that being prioritized by the Pegulas is going to lead to success.
You ask the key question. Can a thinned out staff make enough smart hockey decisions or even better decisions than a more fully staffed organization? Is a smaller staff with less bureaucracy and more interaction be more creative and flexible than an organization with a lot of divisions? If you hire the right people and everyone is in sync from top to bottom there should be good results. If you consider what is happening with the changes in how the organization is going to be run the most influential person in the organization appears to be Krueger. He has made a career on the lecture circuit talking about recreating organizations to maximize output.
I don't know how things are going to turn out with the Pegula mandated changes. What all of us will be watching are the player decisions that will be made this offseason. If the brain trust can make some smart decisions with the players they bring in and better balance this roster then I will be encouraged. If not, it will be very discouraging.
-
1 hour ago, Thorny said:
I agree in theory, but I’m not sure the bolded is something the Pegulas actually do. They certainly didn’t with Adams.
Second bolded is a key point, too. With their apparent distrust of outside influence, I’m not convinced there will be an upper level hire at all. In fact I’m confused as to why so many think there will be. Haven’t the Pegulas more less stated they don’t have the desire to bring in another big voice? They prefer the direct contact with the GM.
Maybe they’ll bring in an advisor. Someone like Dudley probably require more table space than they were willing to give, my guess is regardless of whether there were any key philosophical differences.
What a lot of people aren't considering is that the impetus for this organizational restructure was primarily a business decision and not a hockey decision. The owners were going to keep Botterill and allow him finish the last year on his contract. They even made a public announcement about that. However, the affects of the pandemic devastated every business endeavor the owners were involved with. In this bleak economic environment the Pegulas were requiring/ordering Botterill to dramatically thin out the staff. It was understandable why he wasn't keen on firing the staff that he hired to the gutting extent that the Pegulas wanted. While the PR storyline that the Pegulas gave revolved around the issue of communication the reality is that they couldn't persuade him to do what they wanted him to do. So he was fired.
Adams was an internal hire. It's obvious why there was no outside searching for a new GM. What outside candidate would have found the Sabre GM appealing knowing that the organization was undergoing a severe austerity program. While a lot of us are scrutinizing the ownership moves through the prism of hockey they were/are acting through the prism of financial considerations. When you are in a difficult business situation it shouldn't be surprising that tough business decisions will be made. That's the reality of what is going on here.
-
15 minutes ago, Thorny said:
This is all valid and reasonable, but also clearly, firmly on the "giving Terry and Kim the benefit of the doubt" side. Which is fine - but I'm not surprised to see so many wary of their hiring prowess.
Are you surprised by that?
I certainly understand the skepticism toward the Pegulas hiring talents. Their history of churning over the staff doesn't promote confidence in their ability to make good hires. But if they deserve criticism for the past hires what doesn't make sense is to criticize them for not quickly making a hire before scanning the full range of candidates that might be available to them not only now but in the near future.
Right now we don't know what the position will entail that will make a candidate such as Dudley suitable or not. And what we don't know is who the new GM wants to hire and what responsibilities will be assigned to the new hire.
As far as I am concerned not quickly making a decision on an important hire (if there is to be one) is a sign of prudence. And that is not something to complain about.
-
2 minutes ago, Taro T said:
1st off, he's stubborn & driven; pretty sure Adam's that way too, so they'd definitely clash some, but overall would expect those disagreements to turn productive.
2nd, he has that innate ability to judge talent; not sure how much of that would rub off, but based on the Buffalo junior/youth Sabres program results since Adams' been there, he might just have some of that himself & talking regularly with Dudley wouldn't hurt it any.
3rd, he's coming from an organization that does scouting & analytics right and is presumably the model the Sabres are hoping to follow & improve upon. And the GM of that organization is a moron. But since he's had Duds & the analytics guy with him he's been far more of a savant than the idiot he is.
4th, he's been a part of low budget organizations that have been successful beyond what their budget should allow pretty much his entire time working in FO's around the league. This is a good thing & he knows a bit about how to be successful in a constrained environment.
5th, he's been in the league since the 70's & has held a wide variety of different jobs, so he understands how all the parts fit together. Adams has a similar array of backgrounds, but has never been an NHL HC & afaik has never done player evaluation above a junior level. Duds background can help bridge gaps there.
5B, because he's been in the league so long, he knows EVERYONE. He knows which guys you have to work the soft sell and which ones you can pretend you're George Armstrong negotiating with Jason Botterill. Simply bringing in that knowledge has a great value. Adams knows many in the business. Duds knows everybody in the business.
6th, Duds still bleeds Sabres blue (royal or navy, don't matter). Having that kind of a background & wanting the Sabres to succeed is also invaluable coming from someone with his background.
There's probably a couple of other reasons, like this likely being his last hurrah before heading into the sunset, but that should suffice.
Due to the corona situation this is going to be an extended offseason that will allow the organization a lot of time to scan the market for new staff. Why would it be wise to quickly hire someone for an important position when there are other candidates that this organization might have an interest in. Dudley is an experienced hockey staffer who has a variety of experiences in the business. That doesn't mean that there aren't other high qualified candidates for whatever positions the organization wants to fill.
It was reported that Dudley had an interest in working for the Sabres. Assuming that is true what we don't know is what roles would he be willing to accept if offered a position. I'm not diminishing Dudley's hockey knowledge but that doesn't mean that he would be a good fit under this new organizational structure. And if he is so indispensable why is he not being retained by the Canes?
-
5 minutes ago, Taro T said:
To a degree, but the Sabres hired the Yzerman that didn't spend years looking over Holland's shoulder figuring out how it gets done. They hired the 1 essentially 1 year removed from retiring. Would Stevie Y have been the FO guy he became without that tutelage?
We're about to find out. But we shouldn't have to.
Why do you believe that Dudley would be a good tutor? If you want to argue that he would be a good GM or assistant GM then that is a separate issue than he being a good subordinate or mentor. Dudley is known to be strong-will. Those traits are contrary to the direction this organization wants to go to. So why would you hire someone to a high level position whose management/personal style is incompatible to what you want to establish with the recent changes in management?
I would love to have Dudley be involved in the scouting department. It doesn't seem that the organization was interested in bringing him on. I'm not diminishing Dudley's knowledge as a hockey executive. But if an organization is attempting to remake itself and it doesn't believe that a candidate for employment doesn't fit its culture then it is understandable why he wasn't hired.
-
8 hours ago, Thorny said:
It's not fear. It's not fretting.
I'm open to the idea that he'll be an NHLer next season. In fact, that's what I think will happen. I'm even open to the idea, however unlikely, that he'll earn the 2C role next season, too. My argument is that if he earns it, he should be beating out someone that could have adequately played the position sans that unlikely development.
If there isn't, he's being force-fed. And if he succeeds, they'll have been lucky, not smart. Maybe you river the 2C and it all works out but betting on a rookie being ready for the second most important position in a forward group right out the gate is not a sound wager.
I know you aren't arguing against this but wanted to clarify for @JohnC
I appreciate your clarifying comments on this issue. But at least for me the argument about Cozen's role has never been about bestowing anything on him because he was considered a highly rated prospect. The issue is what role will he earn. As I stated before the mistake with how Mitts was handled was that he didn't earn his role and playing time. He was thrusted into a role that he was not prepared for because there was a gaping hole in the lineup created by the ROR debacle. (side note: I'm more inclined to blame the owner rather the GM for that catastrophic trade.)
In general our positions on Cozens are similar. Where I slightly disagree with you and others is that I'm not so worried about Cozens being damaged or his development derailed if struggles early on if that should happen. The difference between Cozens and Mitts when he entered the league is that I believe last year's rookie is more physically and emotionally developed. Or another way of framing it is this guy is not fragile----he is tougher than a lot of people think. He is going to be a gem.
-
35 minutes ago, dudacek said:
The fear comes from recent past experience, and is baseless — all players are different.
But the underlying, but more important point should not be overlooked: it's less about the dangers to Cozens, and more about the dangers of counting on a player who has yet to play an NHL game to our chances of making the playoffs this season.
I still don't buy the reasoning for such trepidation about the expectations for Cozens. Whatever it is prior to the season (high or low) doesn't preclude the front office from addressing the team's manifest needs in the offseason. The Sabres are not Tampa where it is a loaded team that needs to shed players due to cap stress. The Sabres are a team that needs to add talent to a roster that needs bolstering. If Cozens surprises the organization and plays at a level higher than expected then that is an uplifting bonus. If he struggles in adjusting to the league and his role is diminished then so be it. Then (hopefully) the added talent can pick up the slack and help to fortify the roster. Again, I stress that whatever plans the organization has to upgrade the roster this offseason should not be predicated on their expectations about this exciting prospect. The Mitts situation was clearly a poorly handled situation. Allowing that miscalculation to influence how Cozens is handled compounds the original mistake. That would be the wrong lesson to be learned.
-
1 hour ago, Thorny said:
If it’s not even a matter of earning it, and Cozens is force fed into the 2C role, I’d rather leave him in juniors for the year.
Bring him along with reasonable expectations or don’t bring him up. We can’t afford to screw him up.
There is no reason why he should be sent to the juniors next year. His play is way above that level so there is nothing for him to learn playing there. If Cozens is placed on the second line as a center or winger and it doesn't work out then put him on a lower line. I just don't understand the fear of playing him there if he shows that he is capable of handling that responsibility in training camp and in the preseason. If he can adequately play on the second line that is fine; if he can't adequately do so then adjust his role where he is more comfortable. The notion that his development will be irreparably damaged if he is given a substantive role in the NHL in his second year makes no sense to me.
There is no question that Mitts was rushed. He not only wasn't ready to immediately play at the NHL level he didn't earn the promotion to the big league. Cozens right now is probably more physically developed and mature as a player that Mitts is right now. If that isn't the case then for sure he is certainly more physically developed and more mature as a player than when Mitts first entered the league.
Cozens is not as fragile as a player and person as many people think. He will demonstrate what he can handle and what he can't handle. I don't understand this constant fretting about him.
-
2 minutes ago, LGR4GM said:
I would like to disagree. The Sabres were notorious for pushing CHL players down their boards because of development time. It was a major factor and we also know that they didn't use analytics in drafting (I say know because see Ryan Johnson and Kaliyev or Robertson). With just those two changes I think that will greatly impact how they put the final flourishes on the draft board.
We'll have to wait and see how different the board will be under the new regime. I still believe that for the most part the top dozen players will be nearly be same with some variation due to a team's need. For obvious reasons we really can't know how Botterill would handle this draft because he is no longer with the organization.
-
3 minutes ago, dudacek said:
It might be wishful thinking on my part, but their arguments do make a lot of sense. Sanderson and Raymond going in the top seven are the keys for us.
If Botterill was still the GM, Id bet the house on Raymond being our pick because he’s who we would want and who would be there. But we have no idea what our “new way of scouting” will produce.
If you review a number of the hockey sites the players coming off the board are pretty close to matching the same players indicated in LGR's link. As you noted the best scenario for us is that the two top ranked defensemen come off the board before our pick so some forwards get pushed down. Unless the Sabres trade the pick or trade down the Sabres should come away with a good prospect who could be ready in two years or so.
You bring up an interesting issue as to whether the "new way of scouting" with the Adam regime would have an appreciably different ranking board than the Botterill board would have. I'm not sure that for the top rated prospects it would be much different.
-
1 hour ago, LGR4GM said:
We have that in my office where I am disrespectful and get a talking to if I disagree with older office members... so now I do it more because I am sick and tired of "well that's how we've done it in the past".
I'm not directing my comments to how you respond in your office because I am not in position to fully know what the work environment is. What I can say in a general sense is that sometimes the reason why people at work aren't fully heard is due to the presentation. If one comes off as too dismissive of the other individual's opinions because of the other person's age or time at the company then it shouldn't be surprising that the counter response would be defensive and negative. Sometimes even body language can be a block to communicating one's view before a word is even spoken. As you noted it goes both ways. What's become a lost art is the ability to listen. And that is an art that is an essential ingredient in making good company decisions.
-
2
-
1
-
-
1 minute ago, Tondas said:
Great points as well. I may be guilty of exactly what you said, "That is a recipe for an office disaster because it is too tempting for the oldster to dominate the youngster and create an atmosphere of conflict and resentment."
P.S. I'm glad I'm retired!!, and maybe I should be. ?
Whether you are retired or not accumulated wisdom should not go wasted. Some people are wise beyond their years; while others are wise because of their years. ?
-
2
-
-
2 hours ago, Tondas said:
@JohnC. You work or worked in an executive position, right? It shows.
When I was an executive, my tightrope was walking the fine line between consensus building and "doing it my way." My rationale was, "You hired me based on my past 25 years of successful management experience." I always listened and tried to build consensus, but when it came down to making the decision, it was my call. That's why you hired me. With Adams, he doesn't have 25 years of front office management experience to base his decisions on.
Dudley has 40 years of front office, hockey operations experience. This is on-the-job training for Adams. So, Dudley is intense and wants to do it his way. FINE. That's who you hire if your ego is in check. Did Terry hire an intern to run his gas fracking business? I don't think so. But he does now to run his hockey team.
Who would you hire to run your multi-million dollar hockey business? Dudley or Adams?
You make excellent points but I have a different perspective on a Dudley hire and usage. Without a doubt he has had a long and distinguished career in the hockey business. Just as there are different stages in life there are also different stages in the work world. One way of looking at it as a vocational lifespan. It is appropriate and smart to assess and then adjust what your role is in a business that you have been involved in one way or the other for nearly three quarters of a century.
You are right that Dudley has an immensely greater amount of experience than Adams for the GM position. But that doesn't necessarily mean that at this stage of his hockey life he should be the GM of the Sabres and would be better than Adams at this particular time. Sometimes new blood, energy and perspective can invigorate a stale operation.
The role that I envision Dudley doing that best serves the organization is utilizing his expertise in scouting both in the pro and amateur ranks. I think it would be a mistake to place Dudley as a sidekick subordinate GM whose influence might benefit the inexperienced new GM. That is a recipe for an office disaster because it is too tempting for the oldster to dominate the youngster and create an atmosphere of conflict and resentment.
This is a critical offseason for this meandering franchise. My optimistic view is if the organization makes a few judicious personnel decisions it can uplift not only the team but also the exasperated fan base. If it doesn't make the right decisions this franchise will continue to be irrelevant and increase the level of indifference by its fading fan base.
-
4
-
2020-21 Trade Rumors and Speculation
in The Aud Club
Posted
AP's John Wawrow has not conclusively stated but has indicated that there were strong suggestions that the owner was not willing to pay the bonus and wanted the player moved out before the bonus payment.