Sabres Lines September 23

[Radar]

5 minutes ago, TrueBlueGED said:

We don't know what we don't know, ya know? I can't say he should have done X or Y, but he didn't take over the worst team in the league. The team had coaching, blue line, and forward depth issues, to be sure. But it wasn't like he took over the tank team--they just had seasons of 81 and 78 points. He proceeded to turn over the majority of the roster, and iced two teams worse than the team he took over (62 and 76 points, with worse goal differentials both years), while needing to fire his coach. 

I don't know there's a general "this is how long it takes to build a playoff team" number that exists as it's all so context-dependent. But I'm very confident the team wasn't in such bad shape that they had to take two steps backward before a single step forward. 

We may not agree on all aspects but I do feel your pain.

[Drunkard]

12 minutes ago, TrueBlueGED said:

We don't know what we don't know, ya know? I can't say he should have done X or Y, but he didn't take over the worst team in the league. The team had coaching, blue line, and forward depth issues, to be sure. But it wasn't like he took over the tank team--they just had seasons of 81 and 78 points. He proceeded to turn over the majority of the roster, and iced two teams worse than the team he took over (62 and 76 points, with worse goal differentials both years), while needing to fire his coach. 

I don't know there's a general "this is how long it takes to build a playoff team" number that exists as it's all so context-dependent. But I'm very confident the team wasn't in such bad shape that they had to take two steps backward before a single step forward. 

He traded 2 top 6 forwards (Kane and O'Reilly) while only getting one back in Skinner who's contract will be an anchor by the time the Sabres are ready to make the playoffs with his 10 year job security plan. He did manage to pick up a boat load of bottom 6 forwards though (Berglund, Sobotka, Vesey, Sheary, Lazar, and likely Johansson) so I guess he has that going for him. About the only thing he seems to be any good at is bargain bin shopping for defenseman and lucking into a lottery win for Dahlin.

[Sabres Fan in NS]

1 hour ago, Radar said:

Fair enough but what could he have done that he hasn't. I guess the real question is how long reasonably speaking does it take to take a last place team to a playoff competitor?  Maybe our long standing frustration has made us unrealistic in our expectations. Hey, I'm not getting any younger so I want it turned around as quickly as anyone but what's realistic timing for a new management team to get it turned?

Not only was he charged with turning the Sabres around, but to get to his turning around starting point he was mandated to undo much of what Murray had done.  That took almost 2 offseasons.  So, to answer your question, IMO, he should have 5 offseasons.  We are finishing up #3, so 2 more and the Sabres should be good.  Maybe not scary good, but in the playoff each year and on the way to scary good.  The next offseason will be a big one with several contracts coming off the books.  If he signs more than 1, or 2, of those guys then he should be fired on the spot, if not sooner.  Am I doing that right @Ho-Chi-Sock?

[LGR4GM]

18 hours ago, Drunkard said:

He traded 2 top 6 forwards (Kane and O'Reilly) while only getting one back in Skinner who's contract will be an anchor by the time the Sabres are ready to make the playoffs with his 10 year job security plan. He did manage to pick up a boat load of bottom 6 forwards though (Berglund, Sobotka, Vesey, Sheary, Lazar, and likely Johansson) so I guess he has that going for him. About the only thing he seems to be any good at is bargain bin shopping for defenseman and lucking into a lottery win for Dahlin.

Oh so Kane's contract wouldn't have been an anchor? 

 

Montour and Miller are good so... and Jokiharju is a good prospect. 

Edited September 26, 2019 by LGR4GM

[Weave]

Is it my imagination or is Hutton getting more time in net in the part of preseason that was fleshing out the regular season roster?

I get the sense that Ullmark isn’t looked at as the starter right now.

[darksabre]

Just now, Weave said:

Is it my imagination or is Hutton getting more time in net in the part of preseason that was fleshing out the regular season roster?

I get the sense that Ullmark isn’t looked at as the starter right now.

It's the correct ordering given Ullmark's lack of development last year. 

[LGR4GM]

2 minutes ago, Weave said:

Is it my imagination or is Hutton getting more time in net in the part of preseason that was fleshing out the regular season roster?

I get the sense that Ullmark isn’t looked at as the starter right now.

True but I have a growing theory in my mind. 

 

I keep seeing some things in the lineup and in where guys get played and I wonder if Krueger is forcing guys into certain spots to see how they will react. That would actually mean he is smart to evaluate his team in the preseason but maybe I am just hoping we don't have yet another coach that thinks Sobotka is worth ice time. 

[Drunkard]

11 minutes ago, LGR4GM said:

Oh so Kane's contract wouldn't have been an anchor? 

It probably would have but 7 per year is still less than 9. Plus if we had held onto O'Reilly and Kane we probably wouldn't be in the midst of another rebuild/retool/roster surgery or whatever buzz term everyone prefers where we waste the good years Kane (now Skinner) has left without adequate depth in the top 6. I hope Mittelstadt is the answer, but if he's not and Johansson proves to be better on the wing, then we're stuck waiting for Cozens to fill the role and by the time he's ready for prime time, Skinner's contract will be more of a hindrance than an asset, especially since he has a full NMC that neither O'Reilly or Kane had written into their contracts.

Edited September 26, 2019 by Drunkard

[LGR4GM]

2 minutes ago, Drunkard said:

It probably would have but 7 per year is still less than 9. Plus if we had held onto O'Reilly and Kane though we probably wouldn't be in the midst of another rebuild/retool/roster surgery or whatever buzz term everyone prefers where we waste the good years Kane (now Skinner) has left without adequate depth in the top 6. I hope Mittelstadt is the answer, but if he's not and Johansson proves to be better on the wing, then we're stuck waiting for Cozens to fill the role and by the time he's ready for prime time, Skinner contract will be more of a hindrance than an asset.

Kane is 2 years older than Skinner. I will take Skinner. Also we traded 17 games of Kane for a draft pick that helped us acquire Montour. I will gladly trade 17 games of Kane for a few years of Montour. 

[Drunkard]

6 minutes ago, LGR4GM said:

Kane is 2 years older than Skinner. I will take Skinner. Also we traded 17 games of Kane for a draft pick that helped us acquire Montour. I will gladly trade 17 games of Kane for a few years of Montour. 

And I'd take O'Reilly with his contract over Skinner with his contract any day. This team will go absolutely no where until Botterill fixes the giant hole he created.

[LGR4GM]

51 minutes ago, Drunkard said:

And I'd take O'Reilly with his contract over Skinner with his contract any day. This team will go absolutely no where until Botterill fixes the giant hole he created.

cool. what a revelation. 

[Drunkard]

5 minutes ago, LGR4GM said:

cool. what a revelation. 

Same with your re-hashing of the whole 17 games of Kane trope but I didn't feel the need to re-boot that conversation. So be it, though.

Your description artificially makes the Kane trade seems better than it was because:

He could/should have traded Kane much earlier if he had already decided (or been told by Pegula for behavioral reasons) that Buffalo was going to move on from him. 82 games of Kane could/should have netted more than 17 games.

He was lucky to get the first for Kane that he used for Montour, because it was completely conditional on San Jose re-signing him and by his own admission the Sharks were the only team who had a serious offer on the table for him. I'd bet Botterill clinging to his volume fetish of 4 pieces including a first round pick all year for a one season (or just 17 games) rental had a direct correlation to the fact that there were no other serious offers. Nobody wants to give up that many pieces for a rental in general, even when those pieces are garbage filler like Danny O'Regan.

So you can use the trade as another reason to defend Botterill if you want to, but to me, it's not the feather in his cap, you make it out to be. And that's fine. People see things differently.

[Drunkard]

So far, Botterill's "best" moves seem to be completely predicated on luck.

1) Winning the lottery after a last place finish

2) Getting lucky that Skinner was only willing to be traded to Toronto or Buffalo with Toronto not having the cap space after signing Tavares.

3) San Jose re-signing Kane turning that conditional second into a first.

 

[LGR4GM]

3 minutes ago, Drunkard said:

So far, Botterill's "best" moves seem to be completely predicated on luck.

1) Winning the lottery after a last place finish

2) Getting lucky that Skinner was only willing to be traded to Toronto or Buffalo with Toronto not having the cap space after signing Tavares.

3) San Jose re-signing Kane turning that conditional second into a first.

 

lol okay

 

for the record, I think Botterill has been mediocre as GM and a prime reason is the complete trash that was the ROR trade. 

[darksabre]

22 minutes ago, Drunkard said:

So far, Botterill's "best" moves seem to be completely predicated on luck.

1) Winning the lottery after a last place finish

2) Getting lucky that Skinner was only willing to be traded to Toronto or Buffalo with Toronto not having the cap space after signing Tavares.

3) San Jose re-signing Kane turning that conditional second into a first.

 

On the bubble: trading O'Reilly to plug guys like Johansson in behind Eichel on the depth chart.

If this Johansson thing works the O'Reilly trade suddenly becomes a great move. 

[LGR4GM]

2 minutes ago, darksabre said:

On the bubble: trading O'Reilly to plug guys like Johansson in behind Eichel on the depth chart.

If this Johansson thing works the O'Reilly trade suddenly becomes a great move. 

No. No it does not. 

[darksabre]

1 minute ago, LGR4GM said:

No. No it does not. 

It's okay to be wrong sometimes. 

[LGR4GM]

3 minutes ago, darksabre said:

It's okay to be wrong sometimes. 

This isn't that time. Also I am one of a few people on this board who admits when they are wrong. That all said, the only thing that makes a ROR trade "great" is if Tage Thompson becomes a 60+pt NHL winger that other teams have to be aware of. Having an okay 2c doesn't suddenly make this trash trade good. 

[darksabre]

Just now, LGR4GM said:

This isn't that time. Also I am one of a few people on this board who admits when they are wrong. That all said, the only thing that makes a ROR trade "great" is if Tage Thompson becomes a 60+pt NHL winger that other teams have to be aware of. Having an okay 2c doesn't suddenly make this trash trade good. 

Let me provide a post from two years in the future. Feel free to save it for posterity:

"The O'Reilly trade on its own really sucked but the net result was positive." 

[LGR4GM]

17 minutes ago, darksabre said:

Let me provide a post from two years in the future. Feel free to save it for posterity:

"The O'Reilly trade on its own really sucked but the net result was positive." 

It's not. We traded ROR for 2 piles of poop. Thompson, and what turned into Johnson. So unless Thompson hits it is useless because Johnson is another 2-4 years away from NHL playing time. 

[darksabre]

1 minute ago, LGR4GM said:

It's not. We traded ROR for 2 piles of poop. Thompson, and what turned into Johnson. So unless Thompson hits it is useless because Johnson is another 2-4 years away from NHL playing time. 

We traded O'Reilly for cap. I'm convinced of it now more than ever. 

[LGR4GM]

5 minutes ago, darksabre said:

We traded O'Reilly for cap. I'm convinced of it now more than ever. 

We added back his exact cap in the form of 2 piles of uselessness and thankfully one of them retired. 

[darksabre]

1 minute ago, LGR4GM said:

We added back his exact cap in the form of 2 piles of uselessness and thankfully one of them retired. 

And the other will be off the roster soon as well.

Y'all gotta think big picture sometimes.

[Taro T]

5 minutes ago, darksabre said:

We traded O'Reilly for cap. I'm convinced of it now more than ever. 

If Berglund is still here, there was minimal to no cap savings in that deal.

And unless Botterill knew that Berglund would walk away midyear and then waste most of a year's newly found cap space, working the deal to free up cap doesn't seem accurate.

[dudacek]

9 minutes ago, LGR4GM said:

It's not. We traded ROR for 2 piles of poop. Thompson, and what turned into Johnson. So unless Thompson hits it is useless because Johnson is another 2-4 years away from NHL playing time. 

Don’t forget Colin Miller.