Ullmark week to week, Sabres Injury Updates

[PerreaultForever]

6 minutes ago, Zamboni said:

I’m not going to sit here and assume that the Sabres didn’t try to address goaltending in the summer… they probably tried to address it. But the asking price was just way too high for goaltending. 

Right. paying Taylor Hall was a much better decision. 🙂

 

[LabattBlue]

8 minutes ago, Zamboni said:

I’m not going to sit here and assume that the Sabres didn’t try to address goaltending in the summer… they probably tried to address it. But the asking price was just way too high for goaltending. 

Seriously?  Should we give Kevy a gold star and a participation award for “probably trying to acquire a goaltender”?

[thewookie1]

7 minutes ago, PerreaultForever said:

Right. paying Taylor Hall was a much better decision. 🙂

 

 

I'm honestly of the opinion that at the time it seemed like a far better use of the money than trying to pry a goalie off another team for assets. Adams likely looked for a goalie but the cost was too high. Hall, in hindsight did terrible, but no one could of predicted his complete implosion. He probably wasn't going to put up 80 pts in 56 games but the fact he scored 2 goals total in 36 games is akin to hiring a plumber with rave reviews only for him to stab the waterline and cost you thousands in water damage.

[bob_sauve28]

3 minutes ago, thewookie1 said:

 

I'm honestly of the opinion that at the time it seemed like a far better use of the money than trying to pry a goalie off another team for assets. Adams likely looked for a goalie but the cost was too high. Hall, in hindsight did terrible, but no one could of predicted his complete implosion. He probably wasn't going to put up 80 pts in 56 games but the fact he scored 2 goals total in 36 games is akin to hiring a plumber with rave reviews only for him to stab the waterline and cost you thousands in water damage.

I thought it was pretty insane to not find another goalie. Hutton was just junk and Ullmark had been injured the year before with devistating consequences. Only thing I can figure is that someone actually believed Hutton had an eye problem that had been fixed. 

[Mustache of God]

The problem was Jbot signed Hutton to a 3 year deal. He was untradeable and the contract was up at the end of this year. I can kind of understand why Adams didn't do anythign this year (banking on increased offense) but things obviously went off the rails. 

Is there a more tragic combination than that of Jason Bottril and the St. Louis Blues?

[inkman]

11 minutes ago, LabattBlue said:

Seriously?  Should we give Kevy a gold star and a participation award for “probably trying to acquire a goaltender”?

Depends on how heavily they weigh Ullmark’s injury.  You can argue it several ways.  They should have been prepared for his injury history.  They thought UPL would be ready to see significant minutes.  It’s an undeniable flaw in Adams tenure.  How much leniency anyone wants to give him due to the aforementioned circumstances is in the Pegulas hands now.  Regardless, I don’t think Kevyn is going anywhere. 

[Zamboni]

41 minutes ago, LabattBlue said:

Seriously?  Should we give Kevy a gold star and a participation award for “probably trying to acquire a goaltender”?

No

45 minutes ago, PerreaultForever said:

Right. paying Taylor Hall was a much better decision. 🙂

 

Hahahaha 

Hahahaha

Hahahaha 

 

words in mouth much? 😂

[Taro T]

1 hour ago, thewookie1 said:

 

I'm honestly of the opinion that at the time it seemed like a far better use of the money than trying to pry a goalie off another team for assets. Adams likely looked for a goalie but the cost was too high. Hall, in hindsight did terrible, but no one could of predicted his complete implosion. He probably wasn't going to put up 80 pts in 56 games but the fact he scored 2 goals total in 36 games is akin to hiring a plumber with rave reviews only for him to stab the waterline and cost you thousands in water damage.

Adams did look for a goalie.  All the reports are that he was extremely close to a deal with at least 3 different teams.  He couldn't get any of the GMs to pull the trigger in the fall.  And then when games got pushed back to a January start that would include a taxi squad those deals all fell through.

He should've sweetened the pot on at least when a deal was close; but AFAIK the taxi squad idea wasn't being floated back when he was close to a deal, so it would appear he didn't expect to need to sweeten the deals.

Understandable miscalculation, but horrific none-the-less.  

The positive to likely come out of this is truly can't see any way he doesn't take a legit shot at fixing the GT this off-season.  (Will he get it right?  No data.  But it will be addressed.)

[thewookie1]

17 minutes ago, Taro T said:

Adams did look for a goalie.  All the reports are that he was extremely close to a deal with at least 3 different teams.  He couldn't get any of the GMs to pull the trigger in the fall.  And then when games got pushed back to a January start that would include a taxi squad those deals all fell through.

He should've sweetened the pot on at least when a deal was close; but AFAIK the taxi squad idea wasn't being floated back when he was close to a deal, so it would appear he didn't expect to need to sweeten the deals.

Understandable miscalculation, but horrific none-the-less.  

The positive to likely come out of this is truly can't see any way he doesn't take a legit shot at fixing the GT this off-season.  (Will he get it right?  No data.  But it will be addressed.)

Who knows what his offers already were? For instance I would not of traded a 1st for a goalie

[Taro T]

Just now, thewookie1 said:

Who knows what his offers already were? For instance I would not of traded a 1st for a goalie

Whatever the price that was nearly agreed to, have to believe adding a 2nd or 3rd to the rest of the package should've been enough to push 1 through.

Don't know why he wouldn't ante up any more than what was on the table (or, for that matter exactly what was on the table), but not having 2 quality NHL netminders to start the season doomed it in short order.

Imagine how much different this season would've been if Hutton, Tokarski, & Johansson were 3-5 on the depth chart rather than 2-4.  They'd've had to break 1 more NHLer before they were looking to ride Johansson / Tokarski.  (And, yes, that could happen, but it wouldn't be likely & if it did that would not have been on Adams.)

[LabattBlue]

Bottom line...Adams and Co. believed Hutton was better than any potential F/A or trade acquisition.  BIG MISTAKE, and by far the biggest reason we are in last place. 

[Taro T]

1 minute ago, LabattBlue said:

Bottom line...Adams and Co. believed Hutton was better than any potential F/A or trade acquisition.  BIG MISTAKE, and by far the biggest reason we are in last place. 

That's not accurate IMHO.  He didn't believe Hutton was bad enough to increase the offers on the table prior to the league's decision to introduce the taxi squad.

After the league decided teams would need to keep 3 goalies available either directly on the roster or via the taxi squad, teams no longer were forced to waive a goalie out of the gate & the price of a goalie went up substantially.

Yes, a couple of goalies got waived mid-season due to injury related cap crunches, but the Sabres weren't ahead of Joisey on the waiver priority list at the time Dell was released.  (Pretty sure they weren't ahead of the team that got the other guy early in the year either.

So, when he expected to have at a minimum a goalie being waived by AZ and another team, i.e., there was a legit 'Plan B', he wouldn't budge on his price.   But when that Plan B went away, the price for a goalie also shot up and his original offers weren't going to be accepted without a significant add.  A sweetener wasn't going to get any of the deals done.

The league has been consistently changing rules mid-stream the past couple of years, and it seems every one of those bite the Sabres in the bippy.  (Seattle delaying a year, closing the league down hours before the Sabres could've moved back ahead of Moe-ray-all in the standings, deciding they'd rather have the Rags in the playoffs than the Sabres (yes they're record was better than Buffalo's, but they were a 7th place team for cryin' out loud), bumping the relaunch from December w/ no taxi squad to January with one.)   It's tough to TOTALLY excoriate Adams when the friggin' rules changed mid-stream.  But, he does deserve shade for not getting a deal done.   That inability sealed a lost season's fate.

[LabattBlue]

29 minutes ago, Taro T said:

That's not accurate IMHO.  He didn't believe Hutton was bad enough to increase the offers on the table prior to the league's decision to introduce the taxi squad.

After the league decided teams would need to keep 3 goalies available either directly on the roster or via the taxi squad, teams no longer were forced to waive a goalie out of the gate & the price of a goalie went up substantially.

Yes, a couple of goalies got waived mid-season due to injury related cap crunches, but the Sabres weren't ahead of Joisey on the waiver priority list at the time Dell was released.  (Pretty sure they weren't ahead of the team that got the other guy early in the year either.

So, when he expected to have at a minimum a goalie being waived by AZ and another team, i.e., there was a legit 'Plan B', he wouldn't budge on his price.   But when that Plan B went away, the price for a goalie also shot up and his original offers weren't going to be accepted without a significant add.  A sweetener wasn't going to get any of the deals done.

The league has been consistently changing rules mid-stream the past couple of years, and it seems every one of those bite the Sabres in the bippy.  (Seattle delaying a year, closing the league down hours before the Sabres could've moved back ahead of Moe-ray-all in the standings, deciding they'd rather have the Rags in the playoffs than the Sabres (yes they're record was better than Buffalo's, but they were a 7th place team for cryin' out loud), bumping the relaunch from December w/ no taxi squad to January with one.)   It's tough to TOTALLY excoriate Adams when the friggin' rules changed mid-stream.  But, he does deserve shade for not getting a deal done.   That inability sealed a lost season's fate.

That being said, were there F/A options available prior to the "taxi squad" being approved?  Not sure of the timeline this past summer.

[nfreeman]

1 hour ago, Taro T said:

That's not accurate IMHO.  He didn't believe Hutton was bad enough to increase the offers on the table prior to the league's decision to introduce the taxi squad.

After the league decided teams would need to keep 3 goalies available either directly on the roster or via the taxi squad, teams no longer were forced to waive a goalie out of the gate & the price of a goalie went up substantially.

Yes, a couple of goalies got waived mid-season due to injury related cap crunches, but the Sabres weren't ahead of Joisey on the waiver priority list at the time Dell was released.  (Pretty sure they weren't ahead of the team that got the other guy early in the year either.

So, when he expected to have at a minimum a goalie being waived by AZ and another team, i.e., there was a legit 'Plan B', he wouldn't budge on his price.   But when that Plan B went away, the price for a goalie also shot up and his original offers weren't going to be accepted without a significant add.  A sweetener wasn't going to get any of the deals done.

The league has been consistently changing rules mid-stream the past couple of years, and it seems every one of those bite the Sabres in the bippy.  (Seattle delaying a year, closing the league down hours before the Sabres could've moved back ahead of Moe-ray-all in the standings, deciding they'd rather have the Rags in the playoffs than the Sabres (yes they're record was better than Buffalo's, but they were a 7th place team for cryin' out loud), bumping the relaunch from December w/ no taxi squad to January with one.)   It's tough to TOTALLY excoriate Adams when the friggin' rules changed mid-stream.  But, he does deserve shade for not getting a deal done.   That inability sealed a lost season's fate.

But didn't goalies (and other waiver-eligible players) have to clear waivers in order to be assigned to the taxi squad?

[Taro T]

33 minutes ago, nfreeman said:

But didn't goalies (and other waiver-eligible players) have to clear waivers in order to be assigned to the taxi squad?

Yes, they did.  But because of the taxi squad teams could EASILY keep 3 goalies on the NHL roster without affecting their practices nor player availability on their farm clubs.  Instead of waiving their 3rd goalie teams (those who were previously motivated to move a goalie) and placing that 3rd goalie on the taxi squad, teams waived their 21st skater onto the taxi squad and then had that skater practice with the big club while the 3rd goalie that was actually on the big club worked with the taxi squad.

(Heck, to meet the 3 goalie minimum, the Sabres even kept an injured Hutton on the roster prior to the trade deadline keeping only 2 spare skaters on the NHL roster rather than the typical 3.)

Prior to to the taxi squad being introduced, there were extremely few teams that would keep a 3rd goalie on their roster for several reasons.  But now, with the taxi squad teams had to keep a 3rd goalie traveling with the parent club.  They were now required to keep 1 extra goalie available to the NHL team, and keep that goalie unavailable to their minor league club.  There was no* incentive to waive that 3rd goalie if they had any concerns at all that somebody else would make a waiver claim on him.  And teams like AZ that definitely would've waived a goalie on cut down day under the original system now no longer had to do so, and the incentive to trade 1 rather than lose 1 for nothing was no longer there.  

* Presuming the team could keep 3 goalies up & both maintain cap compliance and maintain minimum roster limits.  Teams that couldn't meet all 3 requirements (such as the Loafs a few weeks after the start of the season, which is why they were forced to waive Dell who was claimed by the Devils) did have to waive their 3rd goalie to (try to) move him from the roster to the taxi squad.

[Taro T]

1 hour ago, LabattBlue said:

That being said, were there F/A options available prior to the "taxi squad" being approved?  Not sure of the timeline this past summer.

There were FA options available in the off-season, but IIRC those musical chair seats were filled rather quickly.  Don't recall anyone that wasn't Tokarski level getting signed after the timeline changed.  (Apologies if there were any guys that were obviously better than Hutton might be signed after that.)

[PerreaultForever]

7 hours ago, thewookie1 said:

 

I'm honestly of the opinion that at the time it seemed like a far better use of the money than trying to pry a goalie off another team for assets. Adams likely looked for a goalie but the cost was too high. Hall, in hindsight did terrible, but no one could of predicted his complete implosion. He probably wasn't going to put up 80 pts in 56 games but the fact he scored 2 goals total in 36 games is akin to hiring a plumber with rave reviews only for him to stab the waterline and cost you thousands in water damage.

Markstrom, Khudobin, Griess, Holtby. Quite a few goalie FAs last year. Also think we could have pried one out of Arizona if we'd tried. 

[bob_sauve28]

18 hours ago, Taro T said:

Yes, they did.  But because of the taxi squad teams could EASILY keep 3 goalies on the NHL roster without affecting their practices nor player availability on their farm clubs.  Instead of waiving their 3rd goalie teams (those who were previously motivated to move a goalie) and placing that 3rd goalie on the taxi squad, teams waived their 21st skater onto the taxi squad and then had that skater practice with the big club while the 3rd goalie that was actually on the big club worked with the taxi squad.

(Heck, to meet the 3 goalie minimum, the Sabres even kept an injured Hutton on the roster prior to the trade deadline keeping only 2 spare skaters on the NHL roster rather than the typical 3.)

Prior to to the taxi squad being introduced, there were extremely few teams that would keep a 3rd goalie on their roster for several reasons.  But now, with the taxi squad teams had to keep a 3rd goalie traveling with the parent club.  They were now required to keep 1 extra goalie available to the NHL team, and keep that goalie unavailable to their minor league club.  There was no* incentive to waive that 3rd goalie if they had any concerns at all that somebody else would make a waiver claim on him.  And teams like AZ that definitely would've waived a goalie on cut down day under the original system now no longer had to do so, and the incentive to trade 1 rather than lose 1 for nothing was no longer there.  

* Presuming the team could keep 3 goalies up & both maintain cap compliance and maintain minimum roster limits.  Teams that couldn't meet all 3 requirements (such as the Loafs a few weeks after the start of the season, which is why they were forced to waive Dell who was claimed by the Devils) did have to waive their 3rd goalie to (try to) move him from the roster to the taxi squad.

Does this mean that if they eliminate the Taxi squad for next season (I mean, they would, right?) there might be a glut of decent goalies out there to make offers to? 

[Taro T]

2 hours ago, bob_sauve28 said:

Does this mean that if they eliminate the Taxi squad for next season (I mean, they would, right?) there might be a glut of decent goalies out there to make offers to? 

It'll probably be back to a normal year where there are about 3 teams that, on paper, have 1 too many waiver eligible goalies.  Hopefully Adams doesn't count too heavily on that hole card of having 1st or 2nd (in all reasonable probabilty) priority when trying to make a waiver claim on cut down day just in case something screwy happens again.

(Separately, there's a very good chance league GMs will try to slip 2 or 3 gems onto their AHL rosters.  Adams filling the last couple of spots on 4th line in camp w/ cheap vets with plans to convert those last 2 players into tweeners replaced by serviceable 2nd contract guys that might potentially be on the verge of turning into a Pominville or Thorburn wouldn't necessarily be a horrible plan.)