JohnC
-
Posts
5,958 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Events
Posts posted by JohnC
-
-
5 minutes ago, That Aud Smell said:
Who ... who was that masked man?
On the advice of my attorney I will not to admit to anything incriminating. I refuse to be unmasked. ? ?
-
5 hours ago, PerreaultForever said:
Not going to deny Skinner is a sniper and a goal scorer but he's also a terrible passer. There are numerous instances but the glaring one I remember most this year was near the end of the season when Simmonds was on the same line and Skinner had the puck off to the side, the D went with him as did the goalie and Simmonds stood at an open net, easy pass I could still have made at my age and Skinner just tries to slip it between the pads, easy stop. To me, he's a selfish player and needs to be a team player to be a true star. And when a coach lets players dictate how players play the coach isn't a coach and the system will fall apart.
It's a legitimate good line but lacks physicality and 2 way ability to be truly top rate imo. Regardless of that, the problem is no depth. Skinner's stats would go up, but I doubt our win total would until we built a legit 2nd line and right now if you load the top the second is Johanson Kahun and ? and that's not a good NHL 2nd line by any definition. You play Boston and Krejci's line will rip it to shreds as would O'Reilly in St. Louis and any number of other current 2nd lines.
I don't think Kreuger's initial idea was a bad one and Olofsson got points that Skinner would have had so tomato tomahto I don't care who scores if we win games. Skinner and Johanson with Vlad seemed to work okay until the injuries hit but a legit 2C on that line makes it a lot better but without that 2C it's a glaring problem as so many have already said in various threads. I just simply don't know where/how we get that guy.
I respect your well thought views on Skinner but respectfully and strenuously disagree with it. Without question Skinner is not a two way player and is not an adept passer. That's not the player he is or ever was. He is however one of the best snipers in the league. It's that elite characteristic that makes him valuable. What you are doing is defining him through the prism of his weaknesses instead of doing so from his strengths. Elite shooting and goal scoring ability are prized attributes in this league. Added to the fact that when you have a sniper on a team noted for its scoring impotency then he should be valued even more.
The Sabres' roster is made up of a lot of perimeter players. Other than Reinhart what other players hover around the net where the brutal physical action happens and where most of the goals are scored in the league? Skinner is one of the few players who scores with his quick draw shot most of his goals within a perimeter 12'. That instinctive ability to find the hole in that congestion around the net is a talent that is nearly non-existent on this team.
My recommendation is focus more on what a player can do and don't be blinded to his unique assets because of what he doesn't do well.
-
1
-
-
Just now, MakeSabresGrr8Again said:
I think we've proven that having only one scoring line doesn't get us anywhere. I think your idea will work when we upgrade the 2nd line. Only then can you let Skinner be Skinner on which ever line he fits best.
The imperative for this offseason is that there has to be offensive additions to create a decent second line. When there is a shortage of second line caliber of players no matter how you juggle the first two lines it is insufficient. Skinner playing with Jack maximizes his best attribute of being a sniper. Skinner playing on a second line without Jack not only makes him a lesser player on that line but it also diminishes the Jack line without him. As I stated in a prior post my preference is to have a first line made up of Skinner-Jack-Reinhart. As a first line it would rank as one of the better lines in the league.
7 minutes ago, MakeSabresGrr8Again said:I think we've proven that having only one scoring line doesn't get us anywhere. I think your idea will work when we upgrade the 2nd line. Only then can you let Skinner be Skinner on which ever line he fits best.
We are not disagreeing.
-
1
-
-
On 6/26/2020 at 7:36 PM, PerreaultForever said:
Not disagreeing that he "goes hard" but when one guy doesn't follow the system or go the way the other guys go it isn't going to work. We have for years floundered with juggled lines that fail to work as groups but rather play as individuals. Kreuger tried to instill more of a team system with well defined roles, but if a guy doesn't buy into that it doesn't matter how hard he goes, it won't work. Skinner hasn't shown me he can be a team player or do what he's asked to do so I guess as a coach you drop him down the lineup as Kreuger did or you give up and let him be himself, but if you do that, does it destroy your ability to coach the rest of the roster? Not sure if that works either.
My acts like a spoiled child comment was more in relation to the selfish retaliation penalties he has a tendency to take all too frequently. That is a very costly in big games (if we ever get to play any).
You make some good points regarding the relationship between Skinner and his coach. Where I disagree with your stance is that Skinner has strengths and weaknesses as a player where his strength as a shooting sniper dominates his weaknesses as a two way player. Put simply his shooting talents more than compensate for his defensive play/lapses. Krueger is a coach who demands/emphasizes that all his players play a two way game. Skinner simply doesn't fit the coach's ideal mold as a player. In this case I wish he would be more tolerant of the player and loosen the tight leash he has on him.
The line I would prefer to see Skinner on is on a Jack line that included Reinhart. Not only is it a legitimate first line it is also an upper tier line in the league. My hope is that the coach let's Skinner be Skinner.
-
1 hour ago, Marvin, Sabres Fan said:
Obviously. But without it, Henrique would be my expected average return. #8 might get you someone on the level of Dylan Strome. JMO.
I would consider Strome with my #8 pick. Strome would not only fill the 2C role he is young enough where there is still an upside to his game. In this type of deal the team still has the option to make another deal or two to reshuffle the roster. I also wouldn't be against dealing for a player like Henrique if he could be acquired for a very minimal price.
-
51 minutes ago, Marvin, Sabres Fan said:
For that smorgasbord, the best I think you can get is an established low-tier 2C, such as Adam Henrique. Probably 2021 1st unprotected, Johnson, and Mittlestadt would be close to my minimum acceptable return if I am Anaheim. To shoot higher, #8 is an absolute necessity.
I'm not giving up our #8 pick in a trade for a low-tier veteran 30 yr. old 2C. I would even be uncomfortable giving up Mittelstadt for this solid veteran center.
-
5
-
-
1 hour ago, dudacek said:
OK, but again, if someone hits Cirelli (or Sergachev) with an offer sheet, what are they going to do?
Even if they convince a Johnson or Palat to waive their NTC, that still might not be enough to get under the cap. And if they somehow do, they will be significantly weakened in the process.
To my mind, this is an enormous opportunity to either make yourself better or the best team in the division worse, and if teams with cap space like Montreal and Detroit aren’t taking advantage of it, they aren’t trying to be competitive.
At least year's draft Yzerman was interviewed and was asked what was his strategy to bring back the downtrodden Red Wings back to prominence. He succinctly said: draft and develop. He then walked away. Detroit is in a major rebuilding project where it might not make sense at their stage of rebuilding to add high cost premium players. It would make more sense in another year or team when the team is more fully developed. That isn't necessarily the case for Montreal.
-
1 hour ago, dudacek said:
Focus beyond the Sabres. I am asking what Tampa would have to do if Cirelli or Sergachev signs a big-dollars with anyone.
most of us on here think he’s worth $7 million per. If he decides that’s what wants, Tampa will not be able to keep him and Sergachev, unless they can convince Killorn and Palat and Johnson to accept trades.
I have clearly stated that one way or the other Tampa will lose players because of the cap math. Which ones I can't say? And as you have acknowledged Tampa is one of the better managed organizations so it won't be surprising that they will end up making the best of a very fiscally challenging situation. Having a plethora of talent can in of itself be challenging but it certainly is better than having a dearth of talent.
-
3 minutes ago, French Collection said:
Taking Johnson off their hands may cost next to nothing. They clear cap space for Cirelli.
As you point out with the Johnson example there are teams that are cap stressed and need to move good players because of it. We are in a good cap situation and should be able to come up with a second line player or maybe two for a significantly less price. If it isn't for a 2C then getting a second line winger or so is still a good roster move for us.
-
1 minute ago, dudacek said:
OK, but again, if someone hits Cirelli (or Sergachev) with an offer sheet, what are they going to do?
Even if they convince a Johnson or Palat to waive their NTC, that still might not be enough to get under the cap.
I'm not fully versed on the ramifications of an offer sheet. My assumption is that Cirelli would prefer to stay with Tampa over accepting an offer sheet from Buffalo. Cirelli knows what his market value is. If Tampa can close to matching that price why would he prefer Buffalo or any other locations? Tampa is without a doubt a good situation for him. The Lightning can offer him less and from a money standpoint yet it still could be a comparable/close $$$ contract because of the favorable tax situation in Florida. As previously noted he would be able to continue playing for a long term cup contending team.
There is a major incentive for Tampa to work out a contract deal with Cirelli. Why wouldn't they go all out for a superior young talent? I just think too many people are fixating on a player that won't be attainable for us.
-
20 minutes ago, dudacek said:
History says Tampa should get something done, but man are they in trouble.
They have 10 forwards and 3 defencemen under contract.
They have to sign 5-7 players to fill out their roster. They have 5.4 million in cap space.
Let’s say they promote three prospects or sign minimum wage vets to take care of half those slots.
Then you are left with $3 million to re-sign or replace half your starting defence (Sergachev, Cernak, Shattenkirk) as well as Cirelli
Every significant contract on their roster comes with a complete no-trade clause except Point and Killorn, who has a modified NTC. Let’s say they find a partner and move Killorn out for a pick.
That leaves $7.5 to sign or replace Killorn, Shattenkirk, Sergachev, Cernak and Cirelli.
If someone hit Cirelli with an $7 million offer sheet, what are they going to do?
Tampa has a loaded system. They have prospects ready to step in on the cheap. Will they end up moving some talent that under a less cap situation they would prefer to keep? Absolutely. But that's the cap puzzle that abundantly talented teams contend with. I just think that because Cirelli is not only a premier talent but he is also a young talent and will be a mainstay player for a long time that the organization will make him a priority to keep.
Tampa will lose some talent in order to keep their preferred talent. There is no way to work around that reality. But as you indicated the Lightening are a smart and forward acting organization that will make the right tough choices.
The challenge for our front office is not to get fixated on a positional need to the point that it gives up too much for the benefit of the now at the expense of the near future. I am open to all options. But I'm not afraid to stay the course and counting on internal improvement assuming that are still less high-profile deals made to better balance this roster.
-
24 minutes ago, GASabresIUFAN said:
I agree that TB will do everything possible to keep him and Sergachev and I believe they’ll get it done. However they are going to have to trade at least two guys on NTCs to get it done. That is not going to be easy. They are going to have to find teams willing to take on the contracts and hope those players are willing to move from low tax and nice weather Florida while playing for a Cup contender to another team. Hard sell.
Also if we acquire Cirelli he has almost zero leverage as an RFA except holding out.
I would love to see the Sabres acquire Johnson from TB if he can be convinced to come here. Unlikely, but more likely then TB trading us a 22 year old star.
I'm not adverse to considering Mitts or even Cozens as a 2C if another goal scoring second line winger can be brought in to boost the line. The price would certainly be less than in a deal for a second line center, and there would be more players to choose from the market. I'm aware that most commentators here don't want to take that course because they are afraid that Mitts and Cozens are not ready and could possibly regress in their development. I'm not as afraid on that issue. A line with either Cozens or Mitts along with Olofsson, Cozens if not the center and a goal scoring sniper brought in from a deal is an approach that I am open to. There are a number of options to consider that although not necessarily the best options are still good options that will upgrade the roster
-
22 hours ago, GASabresIUFAN said:
While I think the pick will be Holtz based on the rankings, Sanderson may be the guy if available. The newly hired Crowe knows him well from his time at the USNTDP and this would be a very safe pick for our inexperienced GM and his inexperienced staff.
If TB offers us Cirelli for Risto and this pick do you make the deal?
I would make the Cirelli deal as you pose it on the condition that the player who will be an URFA next year signs a contract with us. If not, then it makes no sense. If a deal for a 2C can't be made then keep Risto (a Krueger favorite) and utilize your draft pick on a quality prospect. I have no problem including our first round pick in a deal for a 2C. But if the player coming back isn't locked into a longer term contract then you are putting yourself in a vulnerable situation in a year or two. That's not how a smart organization would operate.
A lot of attention has been given to Cirelli. But it is more likely that Tampa works out a deal for this high quality young player who will be an instrumental player for them for a long time. Cirelli can take a little less from Tampa and still have a top tier contract because Florida has no state income tax. Also, Cirelli is in a terrific situation with Tampa in that he is on a perennial cup contending team. When all is said and done odds are that he will take the Stamkos route when he was a FA in willing to make a minor contract adjustment to stay in a good situation with the team he is already on.
-
6 minutes ago, Pimlach said:
Agree that Cirelli would have to agree to an extension. I would not trade Risto, Mitts, and the #8 pick in round 1 for Cirelli and Tampa’s #1. Our pick at 8 is going to be a good player and I serious doubt Cirelli would commit to an extension in Hockey Hell.
Prefer to move Montour and keep Risto.
Mitts may have good upside once he gets a man body, he still is not strong enough. Is he willing to do the work?
Hutton is done. Bringing in a goalie on par with Uhlmark is necessary.
If in a proposed Cirelli deal he doesn't agree to a contract then there is no deal. That's an obvious call.
As far as preferring to move Montour and keep Risto the next question is what is his market value? I don't believe it is much. As I and others have said if you want a genuine caliber 2C it is going to come with a steep price. Montour is not going to be much of a factor in getting a second line player whereas Risto is.
I disagree with you that Hutton is done. He is a backup goalie whose starts should be limited. Were his eye issues a factor to his erratic play? I'm not sure. The bigger factor that relates to this team's success beyond other personnel moves is the play of Ullmark. If he can consistently play at a solid (not top tier) level that will be the biggest factor in this team being better. As I stated in a prior post if this team gets consistent solid goaltending and it can clean up its PK problems this is an improved team. That is not to say that other moves don't need to be made that better balances out the roster.
It's my strong belief that if this front office makes a few judicious moves with the bulk of this roster still in tact this team can move up the ranks. In the NHL with its designed parity resulting from the cap system the difference between being a playoff team and being middling team is miniscule.
-
1
-
-
21 minutes ago, GASabresIUFAN said:
While I think the pick will be Holtz based on the rankings, Sanderson may be the guy if available. The newly hired Crowe knows him well from his time at the USNTDP and this would be a very safe pick for our inexperienced GM and his inexperienced staff.
If TB offers us Cirelli for Risto and this pick do you make the deal?
Before trading for Cirelli who is going to be a RFA next season you would have to know whether he would sign a contract with us. It would make no sense to sign this exceptional player by giving up valuable assets only to see him leave in a couple of years. Assuming that he would sign I would be willing to give up Risto, Mitts and our first pick. If our GM could get Tampa's lower first round pick in the deal that would be terrific, however if not I would still make the deal.
Most everyone agrees that adding a 2C is an imperative. But if the organization can't swing a deal to fill this void there should still be an awareness that what would make even more of a difference than upgrading the 2C is getting better play from our current goaltenders and better PK play. With improvement in those two areas this team will be given a major boost.
-
10 hours ago, irregularly irregular said:
JBots on line 2 for you Mr. C. He has some questions for you.
That must have been the long distance call from Pittsburgh that I missed! ?
-
1 hour ago, Cal Naughton Jr said:
This is what I’m hoping for as well. But does Adams have the balls to do it? Botterill sure didn’t...
The issue isn't having elephant sized cajones or having shriveled up miniscule cajones. It's about trading assets to get other asset/s in order to better balance the roster. It was reported that last year that Botterill tried to trade Risto. He couldn't get what he considered a fair value return. So he didn't make a deal. That was the right thing to do especially after being fleeced in the ROR boondoggle. If a fair-value return can be made then it should be made. If it can't then stay the course and upgrade the roster in other areas. Yes be bold but also be smart.
-
1 minute ago, French Collection said:
Well, if the package involves a 2C and we get a later first rounder I would be tempted.
Jarvis or Lapierre are good C prospects that could be in the 12-18 range.
If you are going to acquire a 2C in a deal, even in a packaged deal, I doubt that the trading team will include their lower first round pick. A young but established 2C is a valuable commodity. If you want to secure one you have to pay a steep price.
-
4
-
-
My prediction is that this pick gets dealt in a package deal that will bring in a genuine 2C or even second line winger who can score goals. The imperative to make this a competitive/playoff team next season is to forestall Jack from getting so frustrated that he publicly declares that he wants out. The fanbase understandably is restless. They deserve some bold moves to inject some hope to an exasperated and fatigued fanbase.
-
4
-
-
6 minutes ago, Taro T said:
Had Mittelstadt been the 3C and Housley actually used that line like the 4th line it should've been, Mittelstadt would've been fine. Not disputing that he could've learned in the AHL, he improved down there from when he was 1dt sent down. But he wouldn't have been set back w/ proper NHL usage IMHO.
Unless Cozens simply flat out EARNS the 2C don't want him anywhere near that role. But actually, especially after watching him at the WJC, would not mind seeing him on Eichel's RW at least as a tryout. (He can move back to C in a season or 2 if that combo works for now.) You'd have 2/3s of the old Legion of Doom line there and a sniper to work the other side in either Skinner or Olofsson. Realizing that's not a popular opinion here, but pretty sure it'd work.
Your reasoning on Mitts makes a lot of sense but I slightly disagree with it. What Mitts needed, and so did Tage, is a lot of playing time and an opportunity to play a number of different roles such as the PP and PK etc. Mitts was a HS star who was supremely better than the players he played with. There was a sense of entitlement that he had when he was given playing time instead of earning playing time. It certainly didn't serve him and help with his development.
I still believe that Mitts can be a good NHL player. He certainly has skills. What he needed was the time to emotionally and physically mature. In my opinion playing full time in Rochester when he became a pro would have served him well to the point that he would now be a more established player in the NHL and with a higher trajectory as a player. Ultimately, the short circuiting of the process didn't do him and the organization any favors.
With respect to Cozens I consider him to be more emotionally and physically mature than Mitts when he entered the league. I'm not advocating Cozens to start off as a 2C but if he shows he can handle the role then I would have no problem with him assuming the role. My sense is that Cozens is more mature and resilient than Mitts was so if it didn't work out right away it wouldn't set him back.
-
On 6/24/2020 at 1:36 PM, LGR4GM said:
somewhere between 9 and 11 depending on how you view the 2 defenders.
I've heard from 3 or 4 draft analysts on the radio that if you stay in the top ten range (as you noted) you will come away with a very good prospect. And they all seem to agree that if you are drafting within the top three location you will come out with an exceptional prospect.
-
1
-
-
9 hours ago, MakeSabresGrr8Again said:
Everything the same...swap Miller with Mojo. I don't see us being a playoff team.
Question? Do you think that as a 1-2yr stopgap we could get Staal from Minny and would it do any good? He played with both Adams and Skinner, maybe they could convince him? He's signed for 1more year at $3.25MM and we have some D available (they have 4D over 30yrs old).
It's interesting that you brought up the Staal option because it was discussed on WGR's the Instigator Show. When that scenario was brought up Marty Biron stated that Staal had no interest in leaving Minnesota. Biron mentioned that the Bruins wanted to acquire him this year for a Cup run. Biron noted that Staal would not agree to the move. So although the option of getting a stopgap veteran 2C is a good idea it doesn't apply to an unwilling player like Staal.
-
9 hours ago, Taro T said:
And he absolutely wasn't ready for 2C & should never have been put in the role either season. He should've been centering the 3rd scoring line getting sheltered minutes against weaker opponents. Housley threw him to the wolves far too often.
And this is coming from a supporter of Mittelstadt who hated him getting forced into the 2C role as soon as it started happening.
You and I are in accord. But I'll even go farther than you on the Mittelstadt mishandling. He should instead have been sent to Rochester when he first entered the pro ranks and fully immersed in the AHL until he demonstrated that he was ready. Mitts has skills but physically and emotionally he was not ready. I hope that this mishandling due to force feeding the development process doesn't result in another Gregerenko (sic) situation, i.e. playing a touted prospect when not ready. My same reasoning applies to Tage Thompson. He should have sooner been sent to Rochester to get more playing time and more time to physically develop. It takes tall and lean young players time to physically mature before they are ready to play with the thicker men in the NHL.
It might seem that I am contradicting myself but I'm not in saying if there is a young player ready to make the NHL leap it is Cozens. He probably isn't ready to be a 2C right now but from a physical and maturity standpoint he is ready to play in the big league right now. It's a moot point because due to the AHL rules he is too young to play in the league and too good to benefit playing in the juniors. He is our 2C in waiting, and that wait won't be too long.
-
6 minutes ago, dudacek said:
Sure, there are reasons why individual deals don’t get done, but like @Thornysays (except when he’s talking about Jeff Skinner ?) in the end it comes down to performance.
It was Botterill’s job to get a 2C, and for two years in a row, he didn’t get it done.Botterill thought that Mitts was ready for the 2C role. He grossly miscalculated and it was a factor in him losing his job. The past is the past and this offseason is a new offseason with opportunities to pursue. Can Adams and the new regime successfully address some of the major needs that have lingered for too long? I hope so.
Attached is a 4 minute link from NHL.com with Marty Biron interviewing Cozens and showing some of his highlights. I don't know if Cozens will play any of the center positions this year but I do expect him to contribute.
Paul Hamilton Released by WGR550
in The Aud Club
Posted
The DJT stories originated with DJT. It was a PR ploy. He had no cash on hand and had no ability to raise money. The NFL wants/requires new owners to mostly purchase their acquired franchise with cash. That's exactly how the Pegulas bought the Bills. Trump through the courts is ferociously fighting to keep his books closed to the public. He never would have allowed the NFL to scrutinize his shady books, a requirement before authorizing it to be sold. His interest in buying the Bills was a myth originated by himself. From a financial standpoint just like in the Wizard of Oz there was nothing real ($$$$) behind the curtain of deception.