Keeping Hall Long-term?

[Taro T]

32 minutes ago, LGR4GM said:

But what else is he bringing? His passing is just okay. His defensive game is fine but nothing great. He isn't a force down low in the offensive zone. Outside of goal scoring what is he bringing to that line at 5v5?

He's going to be going to the soft spots so Eichel & Hall can use him as a complement to what they're doing.  His defensive game is better than Skinner's and is good enough.  His passing is also good enough that Eichel & Hall can finish what he gets them.

Okposo can't skate nearly well enough to not be an anchor on that line.  Congrats, you've come up w/ one of the few top lines that might actually reduce the effectiveness of Eichel & Hall.

The team overall will score more with Olofsson on the top line & Reinhart on the 2nd than it will with Reinhart there and Vic on the 2nd or 3rd line. 

And how do you figure with his shot that he'd get 10ES goals tops with Jack & Taylor?  With that kind of support he's only bagging 1 more ES goal than he did this year?  Perhaps if he's injured.

[LGR4GM]

2 minutes ago, Taro T said:

He's going to be going to the soft spots so Eichel & Hall can use him as a complement to what they're doing.  His defensive game is better than Skinner's and is good enough.  His passing is also good enough that Eichel & Hall can finish what he gets them.

Okposo can't skate nearly well enough to not be an anchor on that line.  Congrats, you've come up w/ one of the few top lines that might actually reduce the effectiveness of Eichel & Hall.

The team overall will score more with Olofsson on the top line & Reinhart on the 2nd than it will with Reinhart there and Vic on the 2nd or 3rd line. 

And how do you figure with his shot that he'd get 10ES goals tops with Jack & Taylor?  With that kind of support he's only bagging 1 more ES goal than he did this year?  Perhaps if he's injured.

Congrats you said something that I 100% do not believe is even remotely accurate. 

How many games did he play last year? How many games will be in the 56 game season this year. So yes... 1 more ES goal seems about right unless he suddenly gets way better 5v5. 

Edited December 4, 2020 by LGR4GM

[LGR4GM]

Actually scratch that, it isn't Olofsson will be better is that Hall will drag him up. Hall has to drag Reinhart up a far smaller slope 5v5. hence my opposition. 

[Taro T]

2 minutes ago, LGR4GM said:

Congrats you said something that I 100% do not believe is even remotely accurate. 

How many games did he play last year? How many games will be in the 56 game season this year. So yes... 1 more ES goal seems about right unless he suddenly gets way better 5v5. 

He played 54 games.  So, being acclimated to the NHL AND playing w/ one of the 5 best C/W combo is going to see him get 1 more goal ES in ~ the same # of games.

And if he gets 20 PP goals in 50 or so games, he certainly can function on a 1st line at ES.

[LGR4GM]

2 minutes ago, Taro T said:

He played 54 games.  So, being acclimated to the NHL AND playing w/ one of the 5 best C/W combo is going to see him get 1 more goal ES in ~ the same # of games.

And if he gets 20 PP goals in 50 or so games, he certainly can function on a 1st line at ES.

You are conflating ideas. PP is not the same as 5v5 and we all know that. 

Actually he got 6 5v5 goals last year so in my original idea I am giving him 4 more so that seems pretty fair. Again, you are asking Hall and Eichel to drag Olofsson up to their level and again Reinhart is closer than Olofsson and brings more to the table. 

You can add the laugh emoji to all of these, really doesn't change what you are asking. Doesn't change that Olofsson is a middle 6 player at 5v5. 

[Taro T]

1 minute ago, LGR4GM said:

You are conflating ideas. PP is not the same as 5v5 and we all know that. 

Actually he got 6 5v5 goals last year so in my original idea I am giving him 4 more so that seems pretty fair. Again, you are asking Hall and Eichel to drag Olofsson up to their level and again Reinhart is closer than Olofsson and brings more to the table. 

He had 11 PP goals last year, which gives him 9 ES goals.

So, no, you are off.

[Curt]

2 hours ago, Taro T said:

Again, a lot of that ice time came when he was in the "only scores on the pp," "rushed back from injury injury, probably shouldn't be playing much less playing top line," and "the next goal is worth a ton of $$$'s gripping the stick too tight" phases.  Prior to getting injured, he was playing well at 5v5 and actually getting points.  Too small a sample to make a compelling argument for, but he was playing very well in that stretch.  My gut says that's the Olofsson we'll get should he be 1RW.

He didn’t score an ES goal in his first 11 games.

He only played 7 games after coming back from injury and actually scored 2 ES goals in those games.

His lack of ES production wasn’t due to his play after coming back from injury.  His production does not support your narrative.

[LGR4GM]

13 hours ago, Brawndo said:

An interesting stat, in 654 minutes of 5 v 5 play with Eichel this past year Olofsson had only six goals. Putting him on the second or third line isn’t the worst idea. 
 

I would play Reinhart down the lineup as well to better balance the forward grouping. The caveat is, if the Sabres have an OZ Start with less than 45 seconds left in the period or are trailing with ten minutes left in the third, I would put Hall-Eichel-Reinhart out there in those situations. 

 

25 minutes ago, Taro T said:

He had 11 PP goals last year, which gives him 9 ES goals.

So, no, you are off.

... are you following the conversation here? We are talking about Olofsson on the top line and how Eichel was a major reason he was really good. We then talked about how Hall would elevate that. I took the 6 goals from when he played with Eichel to show that even Eichel couldn't really drag Olofsson up that far so how much better will Hall do. 

So, no, you are off. But I like the attacks and sarcasm from you today. You gonna make it?

9 minutes ago, Curt said:

He didn’t score an ES goal in his first 11 games.

He only played 7 games after coming back from injury and actually scored 2 ES goals in those games.

His lack of ES production wasn’t due to his play after coming back from injury.  His production does not support your narrative.

That's what I keep trying to tell ppl. Olofsson is really good on the pp and probably a solid 3rd line player that can play the 2nd line in a pinch but, IMPO, he will not be some massive good 5v5 producing forward even with Hall and Eichel. 

[Taro T]

7 minutes ago, Curt said:

He didn’t score an ES goal in his first 11 games.

He only played 7 games after coming back from injury and actually scored 2 ES goals in those games.

His lack of ES production wasn’t due to his play after coming back from injury.  His production does not support your narrative.

He actually played 12 games after coming back from injury.  But after getting to 19 goals, he had a severe slump of 7 games with no points and a minus 3.  But should've combined the post injury and next goal is worth a ton as they were pretty much overlapping for the last 9 games.

And, as stated, his lack of ES production was gripping the stick too tightly early & injury / slump after the injury.  6 of his 10 goals in that period lasting from scoring his 1st ES goal until the injury were ES.

[Thorny]

2 hours ago, JohnC said:

Good players on teams are often dealt or let go because of the cap squeeze. It happens all the time. Rosters are constructed differently with different emphasizes in the units. You and others understandably advocated to upgrade our goaltending this offseason. Most people would agree with you that there were visible deficiencies. Why didn't it happen? You don't think that cap considerations played a part in continuing with the status quo at that position? The Cap issue isn't a jargon issue. It's a reality that forces decisions relating to one's priorities and one's vision as to how to construct a roster. Certainly, one strives to have a complete well-rounded roster. It usually doesn't happen no matter what analytics you want to rely on. In the real world you live with limitations. 

 By jargon I meant your continuous insistence in explaining rudimentary elements of the cap, or anything, really, that ventures into eye-roll territory frequently, especially considering the condescension in the second bolded above. 

We get how the cap works. Yes, I really do.

We have been terrible for 9 seasons - there is nothing wrong with measuring things based on results, and only results now - instead of the lazy arguments you are already presenting, that we already saw presented endlessly with Botterill - "what else could he have done?" All you are doing is deciding in advance you are going to be OK with what Adams did, and going back and inventing reasons for why the offseason had to be the way it was, without any specific reasons for why a goaltending upgrade couldn't also have been completed, other than vague references to how a salary cap works in the grand scheme.

There are other players that could have hypothetically been moved to make space. Other avenues that would have been explored and converted on to improve. I am simply explaining, with nuance, the things I am happy with this off season, the things I'm not happy with, and my thoughts for how I think things may unfold. It can only, and will only, be judged on results. And yes, I understand that if we *do* underachieve this season, you'll be among the first to talk about how we couldn't have expected better. 

Yes, 9 seasons of missing a 50/50 playoffs. What else can we do?

[Thorny]

4 hours ago, LGR4GM said:

Because, and I keep trying to tell ppl this, he is not a top line forward. 

I hope you understand that people know that. As has been explained endlessly, it's not about putting Olofsson at 1RW because he deserves it on paper, but because people believe that is how the lineup would be best maximized. 

It's fine to disagree, but you keep coming back to your first point while disregarding the logic others are using. Again, disagree with the logic, but we aren't putting VO up top for the reasons you keep saying people are. 

[Thorny]

23 minutes ago, Curt said:

He didn’t score an ES goal in his first 11 games.

He only played 7 games after coming back from injury and actually scored 2 ES goals in those games.

His lack of ES production wasn’t due to his play after coming back from injury.  His production does not support your narrative.

Was it a lack of ES production, or a lack of ES GOAL production? You are conflating two things here. 

[Taro T]

 

9 minutes ago, LGR4GM said:

 

... are you following the conversation here? We are talking about Olofsson on the top line and how Eichel was a major reason he was really good. We then talked about how Hall would elevate that. I took the 6 goals from when he played with Eichel to show that even Eichel couldn't really drag Olofsson up that far so how much better will Hall do. 

So, no, you are off. But I like the attacks and sarcasm from you today. You gonna make it?

That's what I keep trying to tell ppl. Olofsson is really good on the pp and probably a solid 3rd line player that can play the 2nd line in a pinch but, IMPO, he will not be some massive good 5v5 producing forward even with Hall and Eichel. 

Holy Moving the Goalposts Batman.

You are actually saying that because Olofsson had 6 ES goals playing w/ Eichel in about 26 games that you expect him to possibly get all the way up to 10 in this coming season playing 50 or so games with Eichel & Hall.  Even though he had 11 ES goals through the 54 games he played in last year.

You've also said he'd probably get 20 PP goals this coming season.

Now, who is the one not following the conversation? 😉

 

[Thorny]

FYI, VO was ~ 36th for EVEN STENGTH points per games played for LWs last season. 

That's a fringe top line LW, by merely even strength production, as a rook. 

[nfreeman]

Let's make it a bit friendlier in here, please.

[Weave]

1 minute ago, Thorny said:

FYI, VO was ~ 36th for EVEN STENGTH points per games played for LWs last season. 

That's a fringe top line LW, by merely even strength production, as a rook. 

I would not have guessed that.   He frequently didn't LOOK like a 1 line player to me, but that stat says I may be wrong about it.  That's BOOM material.

[Thorny]

12 minutes ago, Weave said:

I would not have guessed that.   He frequently didn't LOOK like a 1 line player to me, but that stat says I may be wrong about it.  That's BOOM material.

Too much focus on raw goals around here. Yes he started slow at ES, but credit to @dudacekfor mentioning it a good while ago, and @Taro Tis doing a good job now of highlighting how he seemed to come along on that front as the season went on. Not as much goal scoring, but certainly on the even strength assist front, which last I checked still count towards even strength production.

VO had the same rate of even strength points per total point as Draisaitl, for what that's worth. 

He had a better rate than McDavid. 

Edited December 4, 2020 by Thorny

[JohnC]

1 hour ago, Thorny said:

 By jargon I meant your continuous insistence in explaining rudimentary elements of the cap, or anything, really, that ventures into eye-roll territory frequently, especially considering the condescension in the second bolded above. 

We get how the cap works. Yes, I really do.

We have been terrible for 9 seasons - there is nothing wrong with measuring things based on results, and only results now - instead of the lazy arguments you are already presenting, that we already saw presented endlessly with Botterill - "what else could he have done?" All you are doing is deciding in advance you are going to be OK with what Adams did, and going back and inventing reasons for why the offseason had to be the way it was, without any specific reasons for why a goaltending upgrade couldn't also have been completed, other than vague references to how a salary cap works in the grand scheme.

There are other players that could have hypothetically been moved to make space. Other avenues that would have been explored and converted on to improve. I am simply explaining, with nuance, the things I am happy with this off season, the things I'm not happy with, and my thoughts for how I think things may unfold. It can only, and will only, be judged on results. And yes, I understand that if we *do* underachieve this season, you'll be among the first to talk about how we couldn't have expected better. 

Yes, 9 seasons of missing a 50/50 playoffs. What else can we do?

You act as if the front office hasn't made efforts to upgrade the roster. They very much did this offseason. One of the first acts the new GM took was to address the critical 2C. He did so with the acquisition of Staal. That certainly isn't a long term solution for that important position but it was more than a modest deal to upgrade. And he did it by giving up a player who was a lesser player and it also saved cap money and didn't cost us any draft picks. Are you going to say that wasn't a meaningful deal from a roster shaping sense?  Hall was a surprising and tremendous deal for a player who not too long ago was an MVP player. He is going to be on the first line with Jack and whomever. On paper with his inclusion this line should be one of the top first lines in the league. Are you going to consider this a trivial deal? There were also some secondary deals that should help on the lower lines and hopefully improve the lackluster PK.

Apparently you believe that other players could have been moved to make cap space for other replacement players. Who? The players that you might think are valuable chips might not be as marketable as you think. Certainly their current contract or term might lessen their market value to the extent that the organization believes they have more value being kept. A lot of people constantly bring up Risto's name as a player that should be traded. But it seems that Krueger and the organization value him more than others do.  Subject to change of course the organization believes that it would rather for the most part keep the unit together than parlay some of the players for other assets. If the brain trust doesn't think that they are getting back at least equal value for a player then why make a deal? 

Right now, and again subject to change, it appears that the organization believes that with Ullmark as the #1 goalie and Hutton the backup this tandem is adequate. Did the organization look to upgrade this offseason especially for the backup position? Probably so. But if a deal couldn't be made to their satisfaction then from a player and contract standpoint then I understand why a change in staffing wasn't made.  

You may be disappointed at what this front office has accomplished this offseason but I'm not. 

[Thorny]

3 hours ago, JohnC said:

You act as if the front office hasn't made efforts to upgrade the roster. They very much did this offseason. One of the first acts the new GM took was to address the critical 2C. He did so with the acquisition of Staal. That certainly isn't a long term solution for that important position but it was more than a modest deal to upgrade. And he did it by giving up a player who was a lesser player and it also saved cap money and didn't cost us any draft picks. Are you going to say that wasn't a meaningful deal from a roster shaping sense?  Hall was a surprising and tremendous deal for a player who not too long ago was an MVP player. He is going to be on the first line with Jack and whomever. On paper with his inclusion this line should be one of the top first lines in the league. Are you going to consider this a trivial deal? There were also some secondary deals that should help on the lower lines and hopefully improve the lackluster PK.

Apparently you believe that other players could have been moved to make cap space for other replacement players. Who? The players that you might think are valuable chips might not be as marketable as you think. Certainly their current contract or term might lessen their market value to the extent that the organization believes they have more value being kept. A lot of people constantly bring up Risto's name as a player that should be traded. But it seems that Krueger and the organization value him more than others do.  Subject to change of course the organization believes that it would rather for the most part keep the unit together than parlay some of the players for other assets. If the brain trust doesn't think that they are getting back at least equal value for a player then why make a deal? 

Right now, and again subject to change, it appears that the organization believes that with Ullmark as the #1 goalie and Hutton the backup this tandem is adequate. Did the organization look to upgrade this offseason especially for the backup position? Probably so. But if a deal couldn't be made to their satisfaction then from a player and contract standpoint then I understand why a change in staffing wasn't made.  

You may be disappointed at what this front office has accomplished this offseason but I'm not. 

First bold: Yup, that's me. You've got it /s

Second bold, I have talked *endlessly* about "losing" a deal to make space for a goaltender addition. I'm not explaining it all again because you clearly don't read my posts. Which is fine, honestly. But sorry dude, it's the old "fool me once, shame on.....point is, can't get fooled again" situation. 

Furthermore, I cannot believe we are still going down the route of, "well, WHO could we have moved?!111!?" after all the times we heard that re: Botterill and "*who*???" he could have brought in at 2C when KA addressed the spot in his first 5 minutes. We assuredly *could* have made space and brought in a goalie. *Of course* KA has made the judgement, thus far, that potential deals weren't to his liking. This is the decision I disagree with, so far - the decision to stand pat on upgrading in net. 

The third bold to your credit does do a good job of summing up your viewpoint, on this and as far as I can see, any topic - you believe *they believe* they are doing the appropriate things therefore you have adjudged it to be adequate. Full participation marks. As long as we don't stumble onto a GM who *doesn't* believe what they are doing is adequate, I think you'll be ok. 

I don't care what they believe. I care about results. 

Neither of us know what deals were on the table exactly or what avenues or lack thereof exist, or existed. We don't have the data to analyze in the micro whether or not those potential avenues should have been capitalized on, on an individual basis. I have no problem looking at the macro, judging GT to be a key area of need, and being disappointed in our failure to thus far address it. It's simply called forming an opinion. In this case you are the stifler of opinions - your default is the belief that all we can expect from the management team is adherence to their own plan. 

- - - 

The very fact I can't opine about *one specific* offseason failure without you dialing up a post about how I probably can't see value in *anything* Adams has done proves my point. You gotta like everything or you like nothing, right?

Edited December 4, 2020 by Thorny

[Curt]

2 hours ago, Thorny said:

Was it a lack of ES production, or a lack of ES GOAL production? You are conflating two things here. 

Lack of ES goal production specifically is what I was talking about.  He did pick up assists at an ok rate but I don’t think he made a lot of plays that directly led to others’ goals.

Im not saying that Olofsson isn’t good, or that he shouldn’t be in the top 6.  He is good, and he would be fine in the top 6.  I just don’t think he has been so good at ES that he must be on the 1st line or even the 2nd.

People often refer to his awesome chemistry and 1-timer with Jack and use that as evidence that he should definitely be on Jacks wing, when in fact, Olofsson was not an impressive goal scorer on Jacks wing.

[Thorny]

5 minutes ago, Curt said:

Lack of ES goal production specifically is what I was talking about.  He did pick up assists at an ok rate but I don’t think he made a lot of plays that directly led to others’ goals.

Im not saying that Olofsson isn’t good, or that he shouldn’t be in the top 6.  He is good, and he would be fine in the top 6.  I just don’t think he has been so good at ES that he must be on the 1st line or even the 2nd.

People often refer to his awesome chemistry and 1-timer with Jack and use that as evidence that he should definitely be on Jacks wing, when in fact, Olofsson was not an impressive goal scorer on Jacks wing.

I'm not sure anyone at all is saying he's so good he must be on line 1 by talent alone. 

[klos1963]

On 12/2/2020 at 10:00 AM, dudacek said:

I think there are some assumptions being made about player value that might be faulty.

• Sergachev got $4.8 over 3, DeAngelo got $4.8 over 2. Weren't they this off-season's best Dahlin comparables?
• Mantha got $5.7 over 4, Toffoli $4.2 over 4, Anderson $5.5 over 7. Aren't they of similar stature to Reinhart?
• Nobody else offered Hall more than $5 or $6 this year. Pietrangelo was one of the best UFAs ever. He got $8.8

If Reinhart is getting 7, Dahlin 8, and Hall 10 next summer, they aren't only going to need career years, they are going to have to be signing in a considerably more bullish market than the one we just saw.

Unless Dahlin is in Norris trophy territory, he's not getting $8 million, likely bridge contracts like Reinhart's. 2 years $5-6 million.

[Thorny]

I'd bet on Dahlin and give him term. He's on a completely different level to Reinhart. 

[Andrew Amerk]

On 12/4/2020 at 1:17 PM, Taro T said:

 

Holy Moving the Goalposts Batman.

You are actually saying that because Olofsson had 6 ES goals playing w/ Eichel in about 26 games that you expect him to possibly get all the way up to 10 in this coming season playing 50 or so games with Eichel & Hall.  Even though he had 11 ES goals through the 54 games he played in last year.

You've also said he'd probably get 20 PP goals this coming season.

Now, who is the one not following the conversation? 😉

 

Yikes. 

[PerreaultForever]

On 12/4/2020 at 9:16 AM, Taro T said:

The team overall will score more with Olofsson on the top line & Reinhart on the 2nd than it will with Reinhart there and Vic on the 2nd or 3rd line. 

I really don't think so. I can't see Reinhart Skinner Staal working as well. You're taking the big line from the year before and switching Eichel for Staal, and that's quite a drop off. Skinner and Reinhart both go towards the net so you need a guy to control the open ice. Staal also goes to the front so a speedy winger on that line is a better fit for the line chemistry.

Any sort of sniper would fit with Hall/Eichel so yes, Olofsson will get points/goals on that line but I'd rather see a net guy for garbage rebounds and let Jack shoot more. As much as I'm not a Reinhart fan, he'd fit that role better from our roster than Olofsson. I see a lot of Eichel carrying the puck, passing to Hall who will draw the D away from Jack and then pass back to Jack and shoots/scores or rebound for Sam. 

I might be jumping the gun, but if you really want Sam on line 2, I actually think Cozens would fit better than Olofsson on line 1. Guy loves to get in close and mix it up.