Tim Murray’s revenge

[North Buffalo]

3 hours ago, MakeSabresGrr8Again said:

Of the D we gave away I'd rather have McNabb back.

Fair enough, forgot about McNabb..

[North Buffalo]

1 hour ago, Sabre fan said:

Well said...I have said all along that JBotto is on a mission to get rid of any of Murray's players thus dumping 2 stars for basically nothing. The other guys being talked about (Compher, Zadorov, etc) are fringe 3 or 4 the liners and we already have lots of those guys. But giving away OReilly and kane for nothing are the moves that for me are inexcusable. We have that Tage guy playing only becuase they have tio have something to show for the OReilly trade and the same for Reagon or whatever his name is. Both these guys are just filler for Rochester. Murray stole OReilly and traded value-for-value in the Kane trade and people are still bashing him yet JBotto gets no grief for two of the worse trades I have ever seen only becuse they were Murray's guys and JBotto is determined to get rid of all his guys (Bailey, Baptiste, etc). Nylander should get a chance over this Tage guy but he (Nylander) will be  next to go...

Agree JBOTs could have gotten more for OReilly, but seriously f OReilly and his alchy depressive behavior... poor me pour me another... 

[JJFIVEOH]

On 2/27/2019 at 6:29 PM, Jacque Richard said:

Current Sabres are full of excuses. If I hear again their not ready to play I’m gonna Ralph.

Yup, they've used that excuse for several years now. If they're not ready to play it's either a bad combination of a roster, or a bad head coach that can't get them motivated. 

I'll go with the latter. 

Under Nolan, they busted their ass every single game. They just didn't win because they had no talent. They need a coach that inspires dedication. Housley is an assistant coach, he's not a head coach. 

Edited March 1, 2019 by JJFIVEOH

[Weave]

I dont temember a second iteration of the hardest working team in hockey under Nolan 2.0.  It sounds very concept of Ted Nolan to me.

[jad1]

10 hours ago, PerreaultForever said:

So just look at the prospects traded away. True, they are not superstars, so evaluation was an issue but add them up. 

What's a big issue with this roster? Lack of depth and poor second and third lines. So put Armia, Lemieux and Compher back on the roster and take Thompson and Sobotka away. Pretty safe to say we'd be a better team right there.

Now on D, remove Bogo but add in Myers, Zadorov and Pysyk. Those guys all took a bad rap the same way Risto often does. They are not 1-2 D men but they are 3-4 D men. Our D would have been a lot better had they all been kept.

Now if we are great and draft Point, Aho, Boeser we're a powerhouse but let's say for argument we miss a lot of them. All we get is maybe Konecny and Carlo, maybe one more, we're still way way better than we are now. 

I doubt many teams can put a list of errors together as big as this one. 

The problem isn't the bottom 6 forwards, it's the top 6.  And none of the players or prospects Murray traded away for O'Reilly or Kane are top six players.

Murray's plan was to fix the top 6 as quickly as possible.  He drafted or acquired Reinhart, Eichel, O'Reilly, Kane, Okposo, and Moulson.  That was supposed to be his top 6.  Moulson and Okposo didn't work out,  but they were free agents, so it didn't cost the team assets.

The defense rebuild under Murray was a mess.  Bogosian's injuries didn't hel, and neither did Kulikov's, but the real issue was the defensive system implemented by Blysma.

McNabb and Zadorov were traded, but probably wouldn't have fit into Blysma's puck moving system.  Meyers would have been a good fit, and maybe Pysk.  Again, not having Bogosian also hurt.

After two years, Murray had built his top two lines.  He was undone by the steep fall-off of Moulson and Okposo, and maybe by the inexperience of Sam and Jack.

Defensively, he wasn't on the same page as Blysma, and probably traded a couple of guys (Myers and Pysk) who would have been a good fit in the system.

And he was also hurt by his and his coach's inability to set the right atmosphere in the locker room.

But I don't really think depth was an issue with Murray. He traded future assets with low reward possibility for established veterens to build his top two lines.

In fact, s a fan, I'm more on-board with Murray's plan (although not his execution), than Botterill's, whose priority is to acquire future assets.  

 

 

 

[dudacek]

Looks to me like Botterill's plan is to be responsible under the cap while he:

1) moves out "core" players he doesn't believe in (Kane, O'Reilly, Lehner) while moving in "core" players he does (Skinner, Montour)

2) adds cheaply acquired veterans (Scandella, Sheary, Pouliot, Berglund, Sobotka, Hutton) to hold the fort

3) acquires and develops supplemental young talent (Dahlin, Thompson, Mittelstadt, Pilut, Nylander, Asplund, Olofsson, Ullmark, Luukkonnen, Samuelsson, Pekar, Davidsson, Laaksonen, Borgen, O'Regan, Smith, Oglevie, Dougherty, Hickey) around his core

 

It's a good plan if you

1) Make the right choices on who you keep and move out

2) Actually develop your young talent.

 

The developing the young talent thing is hard to believe in because we've seen so little of it in the past decade.

Most Sabre prospects lately either tease and fail (Grigorenko, Bailey, Baptiste, Fasching), or hit their peak early and never improve (Girgensons, Larsson, Pysyk, Foligno, Myers).

Guys like Reinhart who blossom as they gain experience have been rare in Buffalo, and guys that come out of the depths of the draft to do that like Ryan Miller and Brian Campbell did haven't been seen in these parts for years for years.

 

EDIT: before i get slammed for saying Sobotka and Berglund were cheap, it's pretty clear that they were add-ins to make the ROR deal work, Thompson and the picks were the main return there.

Edited March 1, 2019 by dudacek

[MakeSabresGrr8Again]

6 hours ago, JJFIVEOH said:

Yup, they've used that excuse for several years now. If they're not ready to play it's either a bad combination of a roster, or a bad head coach that can't get them motivated. 

I'll go with the latter. 

Under Nolan, they busted their ass every single game. They just didn't win because they had no talent. They need a coach that inspires dedication. Housley is an assistant coach, he's not a head coach. 

Larsson, Girgs, and Risto are really the only ones from Nolan era left on the team (Bogo, McCabe,Reino had limited duty under Teddy). You can tell too, these are the guys we don't complain about as far as work ethic (skill maybe).

Like someone else said.....Housley shouldn't have to do it on a game by game basis. Look at Phil's background working with youth and you can't deny he "should" be the right coach (or ask P.K. Subban). Team USA didn't win the Gold with him as an assistant, they won it with him as HC.

[shrader]

1 hour ago, dudacek said:

Looks to me like Botterill's plan is to be responsible under the cap while he:

1) moves out "core" players he doesn't believe in (Kane, O'Reilly, Lehner) while moving in "core" players he does (Skinner, Montour)

2) adds cheaply acquired veterans (Scandella, Sheary, Pouliot, Berglund, Sobotka, Hutton) to hold the fort

3) acquires and develops supplemental young talent (Dahlin, Thompson, Mittelstadt, Pilut, Nylander, Asplund, Olofsson, Ullmark, Luukkonnen, Samuelsson, Pekar, Davidsson, Laaksonen, Borgen, O'Regan, Smith, Oglevie, Dougherty, Hickey) around his core

Isn't the essentially the plan of every single team if you swap out the names?  So you pretty much nailed it when saying that the team building process only works if:

1 hour ago, dudacek said:

It's a good plan if you

1) Make the right choices on who you keep and move out

2) Actually develop your young talent.

So that takes it right back to what I originally said was my whole issue with the "what if" scenario.  These things only work if the talent evaluation is accurate.  Now you've also added in the idea that the talent development also has to work out and I'm completely on board with that.

We don't yet know whether or not Boterill's "plan" is working, but it does seem pretty clear with Murray that it was lacking in both of these aspects.  I'm not quite sure if we can pin the lack of development on him given the short tenure, but we at least say that his guys have not developed properly so far.

[MakeSabresGrr8Again]

1 hour ago, shrader said:

Isn't the essentially the plan of every single team if you swap out the names?  So you pretty much nailed it when saying that the team building process only works if:

So that takes it right back to what I originally said was my whole issue with the "what if" scenario.  These things only work if the talent evaluation is accurate.  Now you've also added in the idea that the talent development also has to work out and I'm completely on board with that.

We don't yet know whether or not Boterill's "plan" is working, but it does seem pretty clear with Murray that it was lacking in both of these aspects.  I'm not quite sure if we can pin the lack of development on him given the short tenure, but we at least say that his guys have not developed properly so far.

We may not know for sure yet ,but it seems that most people on here agree that a 2C and a little "edge" will likely vault us to a playoff spot. In other words, not a lot of change is needed and some of that can be attribute to Botts and his plan because some of that might come from Roch. The organizational depth is where Botts has done most of the change so far and we will likely see the benefits of it soon.

[jad1]

3 hours ago, dudacek said:

Looks to me like Botterill's plan is to be responsible under the cap while he:

1) moves out "core" players he doesn't believe in (Kane, O'Reilly, Lehner) while moving in "core" players he does (Skinner, Montour)

2) adds cheaply acquired veterans (Scandella, Sheary, Pouliot, Berglund, Sobotka, Hutton) to hold the fort

3) acquires and develops supplemental young talent (Dahlin, Thompson, Mittelstadt, Pilut, Nylander, Asplund, Olofsson, Ullmark, Luukkonnen, Samuelsson, Pekar, Davidsson, Laaksonen, Borgen, O'Regan, Smith, Oglevie, Dougherty, Hickey) around his core

 

It's a good plan if you

1) Make the right choices on who you keep and move out

2) Actually develop your young talent.

 

The developing the young talent thing is hard to believe in because we've seen so little of it in the past decade.

Most Sabre prospects lately either tease and fail (Grigorenko, Bailey, Baptiste, Fasching), or hit their peak early and never improve (Girgensons, Larsson, Pysyk, Foligno, Myers).

Guys like Reinhart who blossom as they gain experience have been rare in Buffalo, and guys that come out of the depths of the draft to do that like Ryan Miller and Brian Campbell did haven't been seen in these parts for years for years.

 

EDIT: before i get slammed for saying Sobotka and Berglund were cheap, it's pretty clear that they were add-ins to make the ROR deal work, Thompson and the picks were the main return there.

You bring up a lot of good points, and I think you nail Botterill's plan (although I believe his plan is flawed), but I want to take a look at the idea that the Sabres haven't been developing talent, because I think the team has been bad for so long, that we're missing the fact that the team has accrued talent over the last six or seven years.

Here are the first round picks of the Sabres from the time of the beginning of the tank who are still in the organization:

2012: Girgensons

2013: Ristolainen

2014: Reinhart

2015: Eichel

2016: Nylander

2017: Mittelstadt

2018: Dahlin

They've added first rounders Bogosian and Skinner to the team via trades, so half the skaters on the team are first rounders.  They are missing a group of developing 2nd rounders, but those picks were traded for better players in O'Reilly and Kane. 

So the Sabres are currently built by a group of first round draft picks and trades.  That's pretty normal in the NHL. 

Back to the original idea of the thread that Murray screwed the team over because he made bad trades and left the team with no depth.  I believe that this take is false.

If Botterill kept Kane and O'Reilly, the team's top six would have been Eichel, Reinhart, Skinner, O'Reilly Kane, and Sheary.  It's hard to say that the team lacks depth if that was the Sabres lineup.

Murray had his issues, and probably should have been fired.  However, he left a pretty good core of players for Botterill.  Problem is that, for some reason, Botterill didn't 'believe' in Murray's players and traded them for future assets, which created holes in the roster and the depth issues that the team is struggling with.

 

 

Edited March 1, 2019 by jad1

[JJFIVEOH]

3 hours ago, MakeSabresGrr8Again said:

Larsson, Girgs, and Risto are really the only ones from Nolan era left on the team (Bogo, McCabe,Reino had limited duty under Teddy). You can tell too, these are the guys we don't complain about as far as work ethic (skill maybe).

Like someone else said.....Housley shouldn't have to do it on a game by game basis. Look at Phil's background working with youth and you can't deny he "should" be the right coach (or ask P.K. Subban). Team USA didn't win the Gold with him as an assistant, they won it with him as HC.

I see your point, but I also think they won the gold because of the talent. It was only a couple of weeks. There wasn't enough time for a team to gel and become one, it was a balls to the wall type of championship. Put in the rigors of an 82 game season, a head coach becomes more of a factor. Rolston, Bylsma, Housley......... The Sabres keep going to teachers and not motivators to lead a team. And it's just not working. 

I don't want to bring up the "I told you so" but people thought I was nuts when I said the Sabres should have picked up Spuddy Gallant when the Panthers left him on the curb. He picks his assistants to make his team better, he maintains the role as motivator. 

[MakeSabresGrr8Again]

5 minutes ago, JJFIVEOH said:

I see your point, but I also think they won the gold because of the talent. It was only a couple of weeks. There wasn't enough time for a team to gel and become one, it was a balls to the wall type of championship. Put in the rigors of an 82 game season, a head coach becomes more of a factor. Rolston, Bylsma, Housley......... The Sabres keep going to teachers and not motivators to lead a team. And it's just not working. 

I don't want to bring up the "I told you so" but people thought I was nuts when I said the Sabres should have picked up Spuddy Gallant when the Panthers left him on the curb. He picks his assistants to make his team better, he maintains the role as motivator. 

JMO.....even if he had the talent to work with, having only a short period of time to install a system and get that talent that hasn't played together, ready for international tourney, seemingly would be harder than working with professionals over an 82 games season. The Pros should need little motivation other than their paychecks and "love of the game" and fulfilling their childhood dreams.

[JJFIVEOH]

3 minutes ago, MakeSabresGrr8Again said:

JMO.....even if he had the talent to work with, having only a short period of time to install a system and get that talent that hasn't played together, ready for international tourney, seemingly would be harder than working with professionals over an 82 games season. The Pros should need little motivation other than their paychecks and "love of the game" and fulfilling their childhood dreams.

The way I see it is, if you're playing in a tournament that's only a couple weeks long, you're playing on adrenaline and knowing you aren't going to have to form a partnership with your teammates.  When you play 82 games and 2/3 of the year (more if you make the playoffs) you share hotel rooms, you travel on a bus and plane cramped up with everybody, etc...... You're forced to get along with people you might not otherwise get along with. If you play in the ECHL or the AHL, you might need a teacher to get you to the next level. But, if you're made it to the NHL. you have the talent to know what you're doing. At that point, you don't need a teacher, you need somebody who can keep everybody together as a group. Pegula hired Rolston for the purposes of being a teacher. Same goes for Bylsma and Housley. And it just doesn't work. Who are the best coaches in the league? Gallant, Torts, Maurice, Q-Ville, Trotz............... they aren't teachers, they're cheerleaders. If you take an old team, they don't need a cheerleader. But young teams do, and the Sabres are a young team. 

 

Now I took what you said into consideration. Housley does deserve credit for bringing together a group of players who really didn't know each other. That can't be easy. I give him that much, and I give you that much for pointing that out. It's a lot easier to find some kind of cohesion over 82 games, but to do it over a couple of weeks, that is impressive. 

[MakeSabresGrr8Again]

8 minutes ago, JJFIVEOH said:

The way I see it is, if you're playing in a tournament that's only a couple weeks long, you're playing on adrenaline and knowing you aren't going to have to form a partnership with your teammates.  When you play 82 games and 2/3 of the year (more if you make the playoffs) you share hotel rooms, you travel on a bus and plane cramped up with everybody, etc...... You're forced to get along with people you might not otherwise get along with. If you play in the ECHL or the AHL, you might need a teacher to get you to the next level. But, if you're made it to the NHL. you have the talent to know what you're doing. At that point, you don't need a teacher, you need somebody who can keep everybody together as a group. Pegula hired Rolston for the purposes of being a teacher. Same goes for Bylsma and Housley. And it just doesn't work. Who are the best coaches in the league? Gallant, Torts, Maurice, Q-Ville, Trotz............... they aren't teachers, they're cheerleaders. If you take an old team, they don't need a cheerleader. But young teams do, and the Sabres are a young team. 

 

Now I took what you said into consideration. Housley does deserve credit for bringing together a group of players who really didn't know each other. That can't be easy. I give him that much, and I give you that much for pointing that out. It's a lot easier to find some kind of cohesion over 82 games, but to do it over a couple of weeks, that is impressive. 

You  also mentioned the talent he had to work with.....did you look at Team Canada roster? pretty impressive.

You also have some good points. I disagree with a young team not needing a teacher and feel that's exactly what a young team needs. However, that could be on the assistants and not the HC. I'm sure that all would depend on the individuals involved and how they respond to each aspect. 

[JJFIVEOH]

5 minutes ago, MakeSabresGrr8Again said:

You  also mentioned the talent he had to work with.....did you look at Team Canada roster? pretty impressive.

You also have some good points. I disagree with a young team not needing a teacher and feel that's exactly what a young team needs. However, that could be on the assistants and not the HC. I'm sure that all would depend on the individuals involved and how they respond to each aspect. 

You bring up a good point. Some link age with maturity and a need for a certain type of coach. But everybody is different. You might get a really mature young team who doesn't need a teacher, you might get an immature older team who needs a teacher. You need to sit back and evaluate what you have and hire accordingly. 

In my opinion, if you go back 5-10 years ago, each team had two assistants. So the head coach being a teacher was more of an issue. Nowadays, you've got 2 or 3 behind the bench along with 2 or 3 upstairs watching the game. So I think a head coach being a cheerleader is more important than it once was. 

Some people might trash me for this because I'm a big Nolan fan. But the Nolan teams played with more heart than any Sabers team ever since. Of course they were a dead last team, but that was because they had zero talent. But it was fun watching those games because they never gave up no matter how far out of the playoffs they were. Nolan was never a strategist, but he found a way to get the most out of the guys he had. It's no different than his first stint with Buffalo. Making the Cup finals as arguably one of the least talented teams to ever get that far. 

[SwampD]

1 minute ago, JJFIVEOH said:

You bring up a good point. Some link age with maturity and a need for a certain type of coach. But everybody is different. You might get a really mature young team who doesn't need a teacher, you might get an immature older team who needs a teacher. You need to sit back and evaluate what you have and hire accordingly. 

In my opinion, if you go back 5-10 years ago, each team had two assistants. So the head coach being a teacher was more of an issue. Nowadays, you've got 2 or 3 behind the bench along with 2 or 3 upstairs watching the game. So I think a head coach being a cheerleader is more important than it once was. 

Some people might trash me for this because I'm a big Nolan fan. But the Nolan teams played with more heart than any Sabers team ever since. Of course they were a dead last team, but that was because they had zero talent. But it was fun watching those games because they never gave up no matter how far out of the playoffs they were. Nolan was never a strategist, but he found a way to get the most out of the guys he had. It's no different than his first stint with Buffalo. Making the Cup finals as arguably one of the least talented teams to ever get that far. 

Guys with less talent usually do play with more heart (or at least appear to) because they are not very good, and hustle is all they got.

[JJFIVEOH]

2 minutes ago, SwampD said:

Guys with less talent usually do play with more heart (or at least appear to) because they are not very good, and hustle is all they got.

I agree with you to an extent. But at some point you have to give the head coach some credit. 

It will never happen, but wouldn't you be curious to see how this team would do under somebody like Nolan?

Edited March 2, 2019 by JJFIVEOH

[MakeSabresGrr8Again]

2 minutes ago, JJFIVEOH said:

You bring up a good point. Some link age with maturity and a need for a certain type of coach. But everybody is different. You might get a really mature young team who doesn't need a teacher, you might get an immature older team who needs a teacher. You need to sit back and evaluate what you have and hire accordingly. 

In my opinion, if you go back 5-10 years ago, each team had two assistants. So the head coach being a teacher was more of an issue. Nowadays, you've got 2 or 3 behind the bench along with 2 or 3 upstairs watching the game. So I think a head coach being a cheerleader is more important than it once was. 

Some people might trash me for this because I'm a big Nolan fan. But the Nolan teams played with more heart than any Sabers team ever since. Of course they were a dead last team, but that was because they had zero talent. But it was fun watching those games because they never gave up no matter how far out of the playoffs they were. Nolan was never a strategist, but he found a way to get the most out of the guys he had. It's no different than his first stint with Buffalo. Making the Cup finals as arguably one of the least talented teams to ever get that far. 

You can "teach" in many ways and I think Nolan was great at it. He taught through wisdom and life experiences instead of X's and O's.

[JJFIVEOH]

2 minutes ago, MakeSabresGrr8Again said:

You can "teach" in many ways and I think Nolan was great at it. He taught through wisdom and life experiences instead of X's and O's.

That's an excellent point. 

[SwampD]

6 minutes ago, JJFIVEOH said:

I agree with you to an extent. But at some point you have to give the head coach some credit. 

It will never happen, but wouldn't you be curious to see how this team would do under somebody like Nolan?

Somebody like him, but not him.?

Phil’s a drip.

[JJFIVEOH]

1 minute ago, SwampD said:

Somebody like him, but not him.?

Phil’s a drip.

You're right. I'd like to see a player's coach behind the bench and not a "teacher". To be more specific, as MSGA mentioned, I'm referring to an actual teacher, and not one who teaches life experiences. I'd like to see a "teacher" who teaches life experiences and not X's and O's kind of guy. 

As I mentioned, the best coaches in the league are cheerleaders, motivators. Even guys like Babcock who we might picture as a X's and O's teacher, he really isn't (from what I've read). He prepares these kids to deal with the stress and drama of being a professional athlete. Didn't he tell Matthews not to take any interviews in his rookie year just because he didn't want it to become a distraction until he matured?

I just want a coach who will stand up for his team when they are wronged. Not a Torts type, or Claudia Julien type, or Sullivan type who bitch about every single play. Save the outrage for when it's needed most, it makes that much more of an emphasis. Housley doesn't do it at all. It's no secret how much I like Spuddy Gallant. But he sticks up for his team, but he doesn't over-do it. When he gets outraged, it's usually for a good reason. But he won't hesitate to push the boundaries of telling the officials what he thinks and getting kicked out of a game. 

[PerreaultForever]

Perspective is a funny thing. When I watched the pregame tonight on Sportsnet (not vested in us and thus more objective) they said Housley's done a good job. Botterill's done a good job. Eichel's proving them wrong and he was worth the contract he got and is finally becoming a true superstar and it's been a positive season where they fully expect us to compete and knock somebody from the playoffs next year.

Go figure.

[Cascade Youth]

Tim Murray’s problem was Doug Whaley’s problem which was understanding scouting but not understanding the concept of team-building.

Put another way, Tim Murray evaluated individual players in a vacuum.

Tim Murray’s revenge is this thread.

[GASabresIUFAN]

15 hours ago, jad1 said:

You bring up a lot of good points, and I think you nail Botterill's plan (although I believe his plan is flawed), but I want to take a look at the idea that the Sabres haven't been developing talent, because I think the team has been bad for so long, that we're missing the fact that the team has accrued talent over the last six or seven years.

Here are the first round picks of the Sabres from the time of the beginning of the tank who are still in the organization:

2012: Girgensons

2013: Ristolainen

2014: Reinhart

2015: Eichel

2016: Nylander

2017: Mittelstadt

2018: Dahlin

They've added first rounders Bogosian and Skinner to the team via trades, so half the skaters on the team are first rounders.  They are missing a group of developing 2nd rounders, but those picks were traded for better players in O'Reilly and Kane. 

So the Sabres are currently built by a group of first round draft picks and trades.  That's pretty normal in the NHL. 

Back to the original idea of the thread that Murray screwed the team over because he made bad trades and left the team with no depth.  I believe that this take is false.

If Botterill kept Kane and O'Reilly, the team's top six would have been Eichel, Reinhart, Skinner, O'Reilly Kane, and Sheary.  It's hard to say that the team lacks depth if that was the Sabres lineup.

Murray had his issues, and probably should have been fired.  However, he left a pretty good core of players for Botterill.  Problem is that, for some reason, Botterill didn't 'believe' in Murray's players and traded them for future assets, which created holes in the roster and the depth issues that the team is struggling with.

 

 

Depth means more then just having a good core.  Depth means having players through out the organization who can step up when needed as well as rolling at least 3 good lines in the NHL.  Ultimately Depth means drafting and developing your own players to maintain your team as you become good to keep you under the Cap as the core gets paid. 

Take a look at TB’s roster for example. How many guys on their team have been drafted and developed by them? Now look how many were drafted after the 1st rd.    Look at Toronto.  

TM’s plan put was in cap hell in just a couple of years with a team that scored 201 goals achieved 78 pts for a real $ cost of 80 mill.  He left the Amerks in shambles and left us with almost no D and center prospects.  This is why Jbot had to sign Pilut and trade for Baloo and Scandella.  This guy was so bad he traded an NHL D (McNabb) and 2 2nd rd picks (one of which is Cernak for TB) to get a 4th rd pick Fasching and a 4th line forward in Deslauriers.  

PS just because someone was once a 1st rd pick does make them a good NHL hockey player.  Who would you rather have in our top 6, undrafted Erod or 1st rd pick Girgensons? We just sent for 1st rd pick Baloo packing because he got passed on the depth chart by undrafted Pilut.

2 hours ago, Cascade Youth said:

Tim Murray’s problem was Doug Whaley’s problem which was understanding scouting but not understanding the concept of team-building.

Put another way, Tim Murray evaluated individual players in a vacuum.

Tim Murray’s revenge is this thread.

Lol.

[dudacek]

9 hours ago, PerreaultForever said:

Perspective is a funny thing. When I watched the pregame tonight on Sportsnet (not vested in us and thus more objective) they said Housley's done a good job. Botterill's done a good job. Eichel's proving them wrong and he was worth the contract he got and is finally becoming a true superstar and it's been a positive season where they fully expect us to compete and knock somebody from the playoffs next year.

Go figure.

Living in hockey territory far from Buffalo, this is exactly the outside perspective. I’ve listened to a couple clips recently where there the talking heads have politely rolled their eyes at the recent angst in the market.

The general perspective is the team was bad and it is clearly better. It’s not good yet, but it is young enough and well-managed enough that they expect that it will be.