Roster Moves January 25th

[Curt]

19 minutes ago, PerreaultForever said:

Coaches shouldn't have to be. Players are paid to play and the coach is their boss. The minute you start pampering a player the team falls apart. 

Mostly agree here.  Though if I coach is using a player poorly, in a way that does not benefit the team, that’s on the coach.

7 minutes ago, 7+6=13 said:

 

As apposed to flying anywhere on the east coast in an hour and a half?

Covid impacts air travel, especially across state lines.  Travel by car is much less complicated with regards to this.

[Brawndo]

37 minutes ago, 7+6=13 said:

 

As apposed to flying anywhere on the east coast in an hour and a half?

 

31 minutes ago, Curt said:

Mostly agree here.  Though if I coach is using a player poorly, in a way that does not benefit the team, that’s on the coach.

Covid impacts air travel, especially across state lines.  Travel by car is much less complicated with regards to this.

Yep, Commercial Air Travel buys you quarantine.

Less than a five hour car ride does not. 

 

[JohnC]

1 hour ago, PerreaultForever said:

Coaches shouldn't have to be. Players are paid to play and the coach is their boss. The minute you start pampering a player the team falls apart. 

The issue isn't pampering a particular player. The issue is putting the player in a position to succeed. There are things that Skinner does well and things that he doesn't do well. The coach's job is to accentuate the player's assets and do his best to minimize his liabilities. If you have a player who previously scored 40 goals in a season and is now in a drought that measures zero there needs to be an adjustment made. Skinner is a player who is not slacking off or sulking at his role. If you watched him it is evident that he is putting in the effort. The coach needs to be more flexible and change the way he has handled Skinner. It's not working!

[dudacek]

54 minutes ago, JohnC said:

The issue isn't pampering a particular player. The issue is putting the player in a position to succeed. There are things that Skinner does well and things that he doesn't do well. The coach's job is to accentuate the player's assets and do his best to minimize his liabilities. If you have a player who previously scored 40 goals in a season and is now in a drought that measures zero there needs to be an adjustment made. Skinner is a player who is not slacking off or sulking at his role. If you watched him it is evident that he is putting in the effort. The coach needs to be more flexible and change the way he has handled Skinner. It's not working!

No, it’s the coach’s job to win hockey games.

Im sure if you got Ralph to be honest, he’d say he is maximizing Skinner - within the context of this team - by putting him with and against players that minimize his defensive flaws, create the O-Zone chaos he needs and don’t get frustrated with what @Kelly the Dog aptly referred to as his puck hog tendencies.

You’re exactly right that it’s not about pampering a player. It not about punishing him either. Ralph is doing what he thinks will give the team the best chance to succeed.

I’m not saying he’s right in the way he’s using Skinner, I just don’t think he is doing it to send him a message or that he should change things up just because it would be better for Skinner.

I don’t think Skinner should get a shot with Eichel to get Skinner going, but I’m open to him getting a shot with Eichel to get the first line going. If the first line was playing better I would probably feel differently.

 

Edited January 28, 2021 by dudacek

[inkman]

11 minutes ago, dudacek said:

No, it’s the coach’s job to win hockey games.

Im sure if you got Ralph to be honest, he’d say he is maximizing Skinner - within the context of this team - by putting him with and against players that minimize his defensive flaws, create the O-Zone chaos he needs and don’t get frustrated with what @Kelly the Dog aptly referred to as his puck hog tendencies.

You’re exactly right that it’s not about pampering a player. It not about punishing him either. Ralph is doing what he thinks will give the team the best chance to succeed.

I’m not saying he’s right in the way he’s using Skinner, I just don’t think he is doing it to send him a message or that he should change things up just because it would be better for Skinner.

I don’t think Skinner should get a shot with Eichel to get Skinner going, but I’m open to him getting a shot with Eichel to get the first line going. If the first line was playing better I would probably feel differently.

 

But the first line is playing great.  

[dudacek]

Just now, inkman said:

But the first line is playing great.  

Territorially sure.

But theyve combined for one ES goal in 7 games.

How long do you stay patient?

[Broken Ankles]

29 minutes ago, dudacek said:

Territorially sure.

But theyve combined for one ES goal in 7 games.

How long do you stay patient?

The first line this year is quite the conundrum.  They are out chancing teams two to one and yet Eichel, Reinhardt, and Hall are on the ice for far more ES against than goals scored. (The dreaded and dare I say forbidden or uneducated stat of +/-).  They are a combined -14.  Logic tells you that they will break through 5V5, because they have shown signs of dominance.  But I still fall in the camp of moving Skinner to the first line b/c we know what history has shown they can do.  Hall will get minutes on FL#2.  Jeff just needs more 5v5 minutes than 10-12 per game.  

[PerreaultForever]

4 hours ago, Curt said:

Mostly agree here.  Though if I coach is using a player poorly, in a way that does not benefit the team, that’s on the coach.

That's a difficult argument the way you phrased that. It implies I think that the player is playing well, just not being allowed to be in his best spot. 

So regarding Skinner, I find it hard to think that Ralph is just demoting him because he doesn't like the style of his haircut (if you get my drift). It has to be about his play and/or his attitude and/or his not listening to his coaches and at least trying to do what they ask. 

I think Kreuger is probably in the right on this issue BUT, and it's a big BUT, we are stuck with Skinner more than any other player on the roster so he has to give in to some extent and we should at least give Skinner some shifts on a top line to see if he delivers. If he doesn't, argument over and back down to the bottom he goes and it's all on JBot (I guess) and we work with less cap space than other teams owning the worst contract in the league (or maybe close to Louie Erikson) but just digging your heels in and hoping he comes around one day, I don't think that will work and Skinner will outlast Kreuger. 

[PerreaultForever]

3 hours ago, JohnC said:

The issue isn't pampering a particular player. The issue is putting the player in a position to succeed. There are things that Skinner does well and things that he doesn't do well. The coach's job is to accentuate the player's assets and do his best to minimize his liabilities. If you have a player who previously scored 40 goals in a season and is now in a drought that measures zero there needs to be an adjustment made. Skinner is a player who is not slacking off or sulking at his role. If you watched him it is evident that he is putting in the effort. The coach needs to be more flexible and change the way he has handled Skinner. It's not working!

He's putting in a certain kind of "effort" but we don't really know all the issues between them. At this point it's all behind closed doors but I have to believe he's not doing what the coaches are asking of him. 

The Kreuger philosophy is a simple one. Play well and get more ice time, play with better players. Do your job and you will be rewarded. Fight the system and the opposite happens.

The thing that bugs me personally is JBot gave him BOTH a no movement clause AND a massive salary. (One that every single league expert said was too much) . Usually you negotiate one at the expense of the other at least a little. It's a horrible contract and a terrible bind for the team. 

[JohnC]

7 hours ago, PerreaultForever said:

He's putting in a certain kind of "effort" but we don't really know all the issues between them. At this point it's all behind closed doors but I have to believe he's not doing what the coaches are asking of him. 

The Kreuger philosophy is a simple one. Play well and get more ice time, play with better players. Do your job and you will be rewarded. Fight the system and the opposite happens.

The thing that bugs me personally is JBot gave him BOTH a no movement clause AND a massive salary. (One that every single league expert said was too much) . Usually you negotiate one at the expense of the other at least a little. It's a horrible contract and a terrible bind for the team. 

I have never heard anyone say that Skinner is a malcontent or is defiant toward the coach and what he is espousing. There is no question that Skinner doesn't fit the Krueger model of the type of two way player he prefers. Skinner is an offensive player who roams and doesn't strictly play within the coach's tighter lanes. Not only is he's not that type of player but never has been.  I agree that Skinner is not a fit within the Krueger system. But because of his contract it is unlikely that he can be dealt. 

I see Skinner putting in the effort to better conform to what the coach wants. I also believe that the coach should be a little more flexible in utilizing this former scoring dynamo. When you have an asset why not try to find a way to take advantage of it? 

[JohnC]

10 hours ago, dudacek said:

No, it’s the coach’s job to win hockey games.

Im sure if you got Ralph to be honest, he’d say he is maximizing Skinner - within the context of this team - by putting him with and against players that minimize his defensive flaws, create the O-Zone chaos he needs and don’t get frustrated with what @Kelly the Dog aptly referred to as his puck hog tendencies.

You’re exactly right that it’s not about pampering a player. It not about punishing him either. Ralph is doing what he thinks will give the team the best chance to succeed.

I’m not saying he’s right in the way he’s using Skinner, I just don’t think he is doing it to send him a message or that he should change things up just because it would be better for Skinner.

I don’t think Skinner should get a shot with Eichel to get Skinner going, but I’m open to him getting a shot with Eichel to get the first line going. If the first line was playing better I would probably feel differently.

 

The highlighted area is my point. The point I'm making is that being more flexible in how Skinner is used benefits the team. I would like to see him on the second line and periodically moved to the first line in order to alter the dynamics of a stalled line. When you have an asset you should use it even if in doing so you are bending your philosophy a tad.

As I stated in a prior post Skinner is putting in the effort and is taming his roaming game, somewhat. I just think that the other side of the of the equation needs to yield a little more. 

[Doohickie]

10 hours ago, inkman said:

aptly

Dude, you're being articulate and stuff.

[JohnC]

8 hours ago, PerreaultForever said:

That's a difficult argument the way you phrased that. It implies I think that the player is playing well, just not being allowed to be in his best spot. 

So regarding Skinner, I find it hard to think that Ralph is just demoting him because he doesn't like the style of his haircut (if you get my drift). It has to be about his play and/or his attitude and/or his not listening to his coaches and at least trying to do what they ask. 

I think Kreuger is probably in the right on this issue BUT, and it's a big BUT, we are stuck with Skinner more than any other player on the roster so he has to give in to some extent and we should at least give Skinner some shifts on a top line to see if he delivers. If he doesn't, argument over and back down to the bottom he goes and it's all on JBot (I guess) and we work with less cap space than other teams owning the worst contract in the league (or maybe close to Louie Erikson) but just digging your heels in and hoping he comes around one day, I don't think that will work and Skinner will outlast Kreuger. 

You eloquently captured the essence of of what I'm attempting to say on this issue. Thank you. 🍺

[PerreaultForever]

5 hours ago, JohnC said:

I have never heard anyone say that Skinner is a malcontent or is defiant toward the coach and what he is espousing.

Buffalo has been quiet on it and good for them as any issues shouldn't be fought in the media or on twitter or whatever IF they exist. Not saying they do, just saying it's pretty obvious that Skinner and Kreuger have some sort of issue(s). 

As for you not hearing, did you not pay attention to the things coming out of Carolina? Pretty much well known. Uncoachable was a word often used, and Carolina, as a team, got better without him. That's old news. 

[nfreeman]

1 hour ago, PerreaultForever said:

Buffalo has been quiet on it and good for them as any issues shouldn't be fought in the media or on twitter or whatever IF they exist. Not saying they do, just saying it's pretty obvious that Skinner and Kreuger have some sort of issue(s). 

As for you not hearing, did you not pay attention to the things coming out of Carolina? Pretty much well known. Uncoachable was a word often used, and Carolina, as a team, got better without him. That's old news. 

This is a bit of an oversimplification.  Carolina has indeed improved since trading Skinner, but they've made a bunch of moves in that time frame, so their improvement can't really be attributed solely to them unloading Skinner.

[JohnC]

2 hours ago, PerreaultForever said:

Buffalo has been quiet on it and good for them as any issues shouldn't be fought in the media or on twitter or whatever IF they exist. Not saying they do, just saying it's pretty obvious that Skinner and Kreuger have some sort of issue(s). 

As for you not hearing, did you not pay attention to the things coming out of Carolina? Pretty much well known. Uncoachable was a word often used, and Carolina, as a team, got better without him. That's old news. 

Contract and cap considerations are important considerations for deciding whether to retain or dispatch a player. Carolina knew that in the not too distant that they weren't going to pay him the prevailing rate for his talent and scoring prowess. You are oversimplifying the situation. 

I disagree with you that he is not coachable. He has a style of play that is difficult to mesh in a regimented system. I'm not criticizing the team or the player. He is what he is. And when the Sabres acquired him they got who and what he was. 

The former GM signed him to a rich and long term contract that is nearly impossible to shed. This is a case where both the player and the coach need to bend a little to utilize his scoring talents. 

[Curt]

2 hours ago, PerreaultForever said:

Buffalo has been quiet on it and good for them as any issues shouldn't be fought in the media or on twitter or whatever IF they exist. Not saying they do, just saying it's pretty obvious that Skinner and Kreuger have some sort of issue(s). 

As for you not hearing, did you not pay attention to the things coming out of Carolina? Pretty much well known. Uncoachable was a word often used, and Carolina, as a team, got better without him. That's old news. 

I do not recall anyone from Carolina calling Skinner uncoachable.  Could you tell me where I can find this pretty much well known information?  I thought Skinner’s issues in Carolina were related to the two sides not being close on contract talks and him wanting to be close to Toronto?

[GASabresIUFAN]

2 minutes ago, Curt said:

I do not recall anyone from Carolina calling Skinner uncoachable.  Could you tell me where I can find this pretty much well known information?  I thought Skinner’s issues in Carolina were related to the two sides not being close on contract talks and him wanting to be close to Toronto?

That's how I remember it.  He had one year left on his deal and it looked like they couldn't re-sign him so they traded him to get some value.  Aho and Teravainen were becoming stars and Svechnikov was coming the next year.  

[Doohickie]

2 hours ago, PerreaultForever said:

As for you not hearing, did you not pay attention to the things coming out of Carolina? Pretty much well known. Uncoachable was a word often used, and Carolina, as a team, got better without him. That's old news. 

I think that's what everyone assumes is going on in Buffalo, but there's no direct evidence of that other than the fact he's not playing in the top 6.  Maybe RFK put it to Skinner this way:  If you want to freelance, we're putting you on the fourth line.  If your chaos will reap rewards, it will be against lesser talent.  Maybe Skins said, sure, better than having to follow the structure you want.

[Taro T]

1 hour ago, nfreeman said:

This is a bit of an oversimplification.  Carolina has indeed improved since trading Skinner, but they've made a bunch of moves in that time frame, so their improvement can't really be attributed solely to them unloading Skinner.

Not the least of which was going from getting bad goaltending from Ward and Darling to good goaltending from Mrazek & McIlhenny under the tutelage of the Goalie Whisperer that year they traded away Skinner.

[PerreaultForever]

5 hours ago, nfreeman said:

This is a bit of an oversimplification.  Carolina has indeed improved since trading Skinner, but they've made a bunch of moves in that time frame, so their improvement can't really be attributed solely to them unloading Skinner.

Basically just saying he was not missed.