JohnC
-
Posts
8,527 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Events
Posts posted by JohnC
-
-
12 minutes ago, LGR4GM said:
Does 180 million pay all the bills for a team that only spends half that on the cap? I'd hope so.
Are the Sabres in the red or black when the revenues/costs are tabulated?
Just my opinion, but if the owner had a competitive team that made the playoffs, the generated revenue would be around 50% more. Save a penny and lose a dollar.
-
2
-
-
28 minutes ago, Jorcus said:
Believe it or not Quinn was actually a bit more active than the last time he played. That is not saying much, he is just a high ice drifter waiting for someone to give him the puck. At one point last night, I'm not sure who it was but they were streaking down the wing Quinn was at center ice doing his tap tap tap on the ice for a pass and the skater just kept going into the zone because he had a clear path. I have seen this before where Quinn raps his stick on the ice and players ignore him. The only thing we would miss if he goes is that he is really good in shootouts.
I think we all expect growth in players when they come back from off season. What bothers me is that sometimes players are who they are and if they don't improve you just have to unload them for something different. For the most part our returning players are exactly the same as they were when they skated off the ice last year.
The way preseason is structured with incomplete rosters it is a challenge to make judgments on players. I'm going to be cautious in making player judgments before the season even starts. My preliminary disappointment is that I expected him after being plagued with injuries the past couple of seasons to show more spark even in the preseason. The real season starts soon so we should have a better grasp of what the real state of affairs is for this team. The unanswered question is whether the Sabres have reached the upswing stage yet. I simply don't know? That in itself is troubling.
-
The game was the first time I was able to watch the Sabres. You can’t take too much from a preseason game . However, what bothered me about it was a general flatness. I have been an advocate for Quinn for a while. What I found disturbing about his game last night was the lack of spark in his play. He’s one player that needs to play with desperation. He just seemed to be so pedestrian on the ice.
I’m also bothered by UPL’s lack of durability. I’m aware that in the preseason you have to be cautious with players who are nicked up. But his ability to be available is ridiculously low.
Assuming that Norris stays healthy, the trade for him was a good deal.
-
I don’t know how long Samuelsson will be out. This could turn out be a good opportunity for Ryan Johnson to show that he belongs with the big club.
I don’t know how Mrtka is going to be handled. One can make a good case for a variety of options. This will be an interesting situation to follow.
-
2
-
-
Just now, PromoTheRobot said:
So if the Sabres finally do turn the corner, no credit will be given to anyone involved? What about the Bills? Are they just a happy accident?
You know, anyone outside of our bubble would look at an owner with two champion caliber franchises and think they were pretty good.
If you are saying that Pegula has operated the Bills in the same way he has operated the Sabres, you are off the mark. The models to be followed are the Bills and Bandits. You hire the right staff and allow them to do their jobs.
The Bills and Sabres are two different entities with two different operations. Their individual record is a testament to the quality to each of their operations. One is a success and the other is not. At least for me, the reasons for the disparity in outcomes are not too difficult to discern.
-
26 minutes ago, PromoTheRobot said:
We are just going around the same block over and over. Let's see how the season plays out.
I'm not demoralized about our team's prospects for the season. I believe that if the Sabres get solid goaltending, we should be vying for a playoff spot up to the end of the season. But even if that is the case, there is no way that I'm going to credit this Pegula operated franchise as being a well-run operation. If you are a Sabre fan, the standard for success is a lot lower than for most franchises. And that is a shame. When you dumb down the expectations from a diminished fan base, it is not something to be proud of.
-
19 minutes ago, PromoTheRobot said:
That's because Jack is just one piece of the Vegas machine. He's not the center of their universe like he was in Buffalo.
I believe things would have gone far differently if McDavid were a Sabre, but then having Tim Murray as your GM is still a handicap.
It's true the Sabres are not considered a well run franchise. But one thing I've learned about the media, especially the national sports media, is it's lazy. Once an opinion forms, it sticks. No one bothers to update it, especially when everyone just repeats each other. So things could change but you'd never know because of the prevailing opinion. And much has changed with the Sabres this year alone.
It's better to follow local beat writers. And even then, few are any good. Bill Hoppe is probably the best since the late Jim Kelley. Sneaky Joe DiBiasi is one of the worst.
You don’t need to follow the national or local media to form an opinion on the owner and the organization he assembled. When all is said and done the team’s record speaks for itself. You can’t hide from it because its existence is a non-erasable fact and not an opinion.
-
11 hours ago, dudacek said:
I think a large portion of the hockey media spent exactly this amount of time on the Sabres.
1. Pretty bad last year.
2. Long history of being bad.
3. Didn't do much except trade one of their most exciting young players for two guys I don't know much about.
4 Next team please.
Doesn't mean they're wrong: many of us have come to a similar conclusion knowing the entire roster inside and out.
But they didn't do the work.
It shouldn’t be s surprise that a long-term middling team that doesn’t do anything compelling in the offseason to change that perception doesn’t attract much scrutiny entering the season. Why bother? What the Pittsburgh Pirates are to baseball the Sabres are to the hockey world i.e. an afterthought. It’s a shame and self-inflicted.
-
40 minutes ago, dudacek said:
Yep, there’s been a notable difference between what the models are saying and what the traditional hockey media is saying.
I think that may be exactly at the heart of what I’m talking about.
For example above podcast posed the question: Dahlin/Thompson, Seider/Raymond or Sanderson/Tkachuk?
Nobody even considered the Sabres, despite the fact that by the Athletic’s own rankings Dahlin is a full tier above the rest.
Instead they talked about Sanderson breaking through. Even Dahlin is an afterthought. People acknowledge he's good, as in almost certainly top 10 good. They don't realize that he's good as in surefire top 5 good, despite what all the counting and analytic measurables say.
I still read people talking about how he needs to improve defensively, or hear broadcasters say things like "out-of-character for Dahlin" when he crosschecks somebody or sticks a glove in their face. They don't pay enough attention to know who and what he actually is because the Sabres aren't interesting enough to force them to pay attention.
The Sabres stink is a real thing.
After reading your post (same sentiment expressed by many), what I find most aggravating is the lack of urgency to make additional moves to improve. It's not to say that the deal to bring in Kesserling and Doan wasn't a good deal that improves the roster. It's just that there weren't other consequential deals. It seems to me that if KA could have added another second line player (not necessarily a star caliber player), the response/perception would have been much more positive about the roster and season prospects. I needed to see more urgency in action rather than this casual pace to upgrade the roster.
-
2 hours ago, 7+6=13 said:
I think we're a better overall team now and you do too.
I think we had them and weren't a playoff team. We used their talent, in part to aquire different talent, but I wouldn't want to go back to that time.
I certainly do not believe that the Sabres are a better team now than if they would have remained.
-
26 minutes ago, PromoTheRobot said:
No, unless new locker room leadership emerged first. Eichel, for all his skill, was a terrible leader and contributed to the mess this team became. The Sabres fate was sealed when they drafted him because he was "the guy" and the Sabres had to do everything to make Jack happy.
If you want to play "what if?" imagine if we got McDavid.
All three players that I mentioned that left have thrived in their new locations. And with respect to Jack, I have not heard of a scintilla of problems with him in Vegas.
There are no "what if" games being played here. The Sabre organization under Pegula are recognized as a poorly managed franchise by everyone in the business.
-
1 minute ago, tom webster said:
Yes, but your previous post implied that all three players thought the organization was a train wreck before they left and the fact is, only one ended up at that conclusion before he asked out. Sam and Linus apparently thought highly enough of the situation that they were really, really close to signing here before ultimately walking. Sam was actually even apologetic on his way out.
My general point is that if the hockey operation was competently managed, they all would still be here. The hockey operation mishandled the Reinhart and Ullmark contract negotiations. They both would have stayed. (I believe that we both agree on that point.) However, both players ended up getting out after not getting the extension done when it could have been done.
There’s no question that due to overall mismanagement we lost three good players when it could have been avoidable. That’s how I see this issue of losing players that we already had.
-
1
-
-
16 minutes ago, 7+6=13 said:
My guess is, we'd be where we were when we had them.
It’s not about one player and position. We had Eichel, Reinhart and Ullmark on the roster. Because of a lot of factors they all wanted out and got out. You don ‘t think our situation would be different if they stayed? The critical issue goes beyond particular players as it does to the overall hockey operation.
-
1
-
-
17 minutes ago, mjd1001 said:
That is my issue. I don't know why, I don't have any statistical evidence directly related to HIM that points in that direction....its just that I feel you are going to see a slight drop off in his performance this year or next, and it will accelerate in years 2 and 3 and beyond of any extension.
There is another issue related to this discussion of playing in the prime performance years that you are not addressing. That is players such as Tage and Dahlin are in their prime years now. And their elevated performances are being wasted with too much focusing on the future rather than the present. And don’t kid yourself not thinking that players such as Tage and Dahlin are fed up watching the playoffs from their couches instead of being on the ice.
-
2 minutes ago, 7+6=13 said:
My guess is, we'd be where we were when we had them.
Your guess is not my guess. I don’t think it is unfair to believe that with this current roster along with Ullmark caliber roster the Sabres should be a playoff team this season.
-
30 minutes ago, mjd1001 said:
I'm not sure why but in the past 2 to 3 days... With no new information... I've totally changed my thinking on how I would want theSabres to handle this.
My thinking is lock him up to a long-term deal only if it's a very team-friendly deal. I don't mean lowball him in an embarrassing way, but don't overpay and make sure you're not at the top of the market.
You have him this year. My thinking is if he's reluctant to sign the deal you put in front of them then play out the year.
If you are having a bad year and it looks like you're going to miss the playoffs, and he's having a good year, then, if he's willing to move, move him to another team. The assets you might be able to get back could be just as good as a 30 plus-year-old aging Alex Tuch.
If his play starts visibly declining this year because he is starting to show signs of being a 30-year-old winger, then you dodged a bullet by not giving him $80 million.
Finally, if the team plays well and makes the playoffs, and he's a big part of it, then in the off-season you negotiate with him just like everyone else would. By making the playoffs and being his hometown team, at least you're not at a disadvantage against other teams, and I don't think another team will offer him a long-term deal for much more than what you would have to do, again,to get a 30-year-old aging winger.
Maybe he'd be resentful against the team for not giving him what he wanted. I doubt that, but if he was and he signed someplace else anyway, then use that $10 million a year to allocated someplace else, again... Not on a 30 to 38-year-old winger.
I don't know why but for the past year....up until 2 or 3 days ago....my thinking was sign him at any cost. Now I'm just as willing to let the season play out and see how things go.
Although your response is well reasoned I still to a great degree disagree with your general point. It should be noted that the return for him in a deal would be minimal due to his current contract status. And it should be noted that it's very probable that a Tuch departure would hurt the team. There is a context/history here that hangs over this middling franchise i.e. a generation of not qualifying for the playoffs when nearly half the teams in the league qualify for it. It's about the now and demonstrating a sense of urgency to a rapidly diminishing fanbase. I'm not overly concerned about the back end of Tuch's next contract. Tuch is in his prime now. If he can stay within that high performance level for the first half of his extended deal, I would call it a good deal for this forlorn franchise.
-
25 minutes ago, tom webster said:
Ullmark and Reinhart were both ready to sign here which would lead to the conclusion that, if you are right, they really didn’t care as long as they got paid.
There was no question that both players were ready and willing to sign here. So, what then what happened? The organization hesitated giving them the type of contract extension they would have signed at the earlier time. The organization made a decision not to do so. So both players waited it out and then ended up in better places for themselves. As I stated in a prior post, if this organization would have been more competently run, Eichel, Reinhart and Ullmark would still be here.
-
1
-
-
32 minutes ago, PromoTheRobot said:
Eichel: uber-talented, but not a leader. Jack is succeeding in Vegas because they have locker room leaders.
Most people would agree with you that he wasn't much of a leader. And that shouldn't be a surprise because he was too young and inexperienced to have the captaincy and leadership responsibilities thrust on him. That miscalculation was an organizational mistake. What Jack understood, as did Reinhart and Ullmark, is that this franchise as it was structured had little chance to succeed. He was proven to be right, as were Reinhart and Ullmark. It shouldn't be a surprise that their respective careers in three different locations thrived once they got away from this Pegula run franchise.
-
4 minutes ago, mjd1001 said:
I agree with your point... It's hard not to.
The reason why Tuch is different... Is you are potentially signing him to a long-term deal that starts after he's 30 years old. All those other guys were in there early or mid-twenties.
The Tuch contract situation is not an unusual situation. All teams confront the issue of giving a long-term contract to a high yield player in his prime recognizing that the player will be less productive on the backside of the contract. There's nothing novel about that situation that happens in all pro sports. What a well-run franchise does in advance is having a plan to replace the player if it comes down to that. That's not where this stolid organization is currently at. A season-long contract issue for a core player is not going to help this struggling franchise move forward. It will be a distraction for a team that needs its full attention to compete for a playoff spot.
In contract negotiations, sometimes the organization has more leverage than the player; and sometimes the player has more leverage. In my view, the player has more leverage in this case. If that's the case, then the organization has to accept that reality and be more willing to accommodate in the negotiation.
The Sabres have been out of the playoffs for a generation. That's a disgrace and a tribute to its systemic ineptitude. This deal needs to get done sooner rather than later. My position is not to get too fixated about the value of the backside of the contract and be more focused on the present. A Sabre team minus Tuch is a demonstrably lesser team. When you have earned your way to be recognized as a clown organization your focus of attention should be on the now.
-
1
-
-
10 hours ago, Taro T said:
Reinhart. Ullmark. Give them both LT deals instead of 1 year deals and the whole trajectory of this team changes significantly.
If the Sabres could now get Ullmark quality netminding for a season, the Sabres would most likely be a playoff team this year. We are now in a precarious situation with our goalie situation because of the lack of foresight by this myopic organization.
Just think where this franchise would be if we retained Eichel, Reinhart and Ullmark compared to where we have been and are now? What’s obvious to all is that an unstable franchise is not an appealing place to play for or attract other players.
-
1
-
-
55 minutes ago, PromoTheRobot said:
Name the last Sabres player that walked over a failed extension when wanting to be here? I'll wait.
Reinhardt would have stayed if given an extension when his contract situation allowed for it.
-
1
-
-
22 minutes ago, PromoTheRobot said:
Because we are negotiating with Tuch???
I'm not following you at all. Is this a thread about Tuch's extension or rehashing the drought?
I thought this was a Tuch thread. My bad.
You were responding to the question of what situation was the franchise in, also relating to the Tuch issue. You may be in a fantasy land but most of us are reacting to the harsh reality of the state of affairs of this franchise.
-
5 minutes ago, PromoTheRobot said:
What situation are we in, exactly?
A generation of not making the playoffs when nearly half the teams qualify.
-
1
-
-
5 minutes ago, Archie Lee said:
I think that we are generally talking about what Samuelsson was projected to be when he was a prospect. In Rochester, Seth Appert described Samuelsson as “miserable to play against”. There was no mistaking what Appert was inferring: Samuelsson was big, tough, and mean and he made opposing forwards pay a price for going to the hard places on the ice. Whether something changed in Samuelsson or Appert and others were just wrong in their evaluation, I don’t know. As an NHL player, he has shown only glimpses of being a player who is miserable to play against.
Clearly, the projection didn’t materialize. The type of player he was in the AHL didn’t end up being transferable to the higher league. Starring in the AHL doesn’t always mean that the lower league star will be a higher league star. That’s a regular occurrence.
Sabres' value and revenue
in The Aud Club
Posted
The most impactful thing that the franchise/owner can do to increase revenue is to have a consistently competitive team. And I’m sure you aware that being in the playoffs increases revenue and profit margin.
What’s sad to see are the empty seats in the arena at the home games. What’s even more discouraging is that it is not unusual to see a sold seat end up being a vacant seat. That’s a loss of in-house revenue.
As you noted, there is no question that because of the astounding amount of tv money shared by all teams in football that hockey will never have the ability to generate such an amount of money. But it’s indisputable that this lagging franchise has lost a lot of potential revenue due to its own systemic ineptitude.