Roster Off-Season Gameplan

[Marvin]

35 minutes ago, Hoss said:

To be fair, it pretty much did work. They just remained stagnant for one year so the front office and team got blown up.

Although that was the last almost-passable team the Sabres had, they were not good.  I think that, at best, they were a marginal playoff pretender.

The goaltending was solid to slightly above average -- except in shoot-outs.  The top 3 forward lines were solid if ill-fitting.  The 4th line was almost useless all season.  After Gorges and the injured Kulikov, that defence had zero hockey sense.  After those two plus Ristolainen and Bogosian, the defencemen were dreadful.  They lacked NHL-calibre depth.  As a team, they were often sloppy or mistake-prone.

That team was poorly constructed on the ice.  Off the ice, they might have been worse.

[Taro T]

24 minutes ago, Hoss said:

Potentially. That seems to be the assumption ownership made, as well. They’ve certainly done a good job making decisions over the course of their time here.

Imagine what could be if they just start doing the opposite of what they think is the right thing to do. (At least with regards to the Sabres.)

[PerreaultForever]

7 hours ago, Hoss said:

That’s precisely what I’m saying. Blow it completely up. I honestly feel kind of inspired by the success Vegas has had early on. Florida also had success with a HUGE roster overhaul like ten years ago but that was with less talent. I think when you get a ton of new guys in a room they’re forced to foster good culture.

I'm with you. People keep saying we tried this and comparing it to tanking, but it's not the same thing at all. With the tank the cupboard was bare and the starting point was Eichel with a side order of Reinhart. We have a different youthful group that can be brought along together as a team of equals. We just need to find a goalie, draft Power and build out with what we have and what we get for the big 3. 

I once again tell the doubters to consider the Islanders as an example of what you can do removing your centerpiece star and building with a good goalie and a solid NHL coach. Remember too they got absolutely nothing for Tavares. We will get stuff for Eichel/Reinhart/Risto. Follow the model though. Do that. 

[Hoss]

18 minutes ago, PerreaultForever said:

I'm with you. People keep saying we tried this and comparing it to tanking, but it's not the same thing at all. With the tank the cupboard was bare and the starting point was Eichel with a side order of Reinhart. We have a different youthful group that can be brought along together as a team of equals. We just need to find a goalie, draft Power and build out with what we have and what we get for the big 3. 

I once again tell the doubters to consider the Islanders as an example of what you can do removing your centerpiece star and building with a good goalie and a solid NHL coach. Remember too they got absolutely nothing for Tavares. We will get stuff for Eichel/Reinhart/Risto. Follow the model though. Do that. 

It's exciting when you say it like that. And it legitimately can't be worse than it has already been. Let's make something happen here.

[Thorny]

It’s so easy to get the fan base onboard for endless rebuilds I’m shocked anyone is ever surprised that’s the course they take. Hook line sinker every time 

Maybe this time! We’ll know in a few years 

[PerreaultForever]

4 minutes ago, Thorny said:

It’s so easy to get the fan base onboard for endless rebuilds I’m shocked anyone is ever surprised that’s the course they take. Hook line sinker every time 

Maybe this time! We’ll know in a few years 

Here's the thing though, it's not a rebuild. We haven't built anything in the last decade so there's no "re". It's just been a bunch of people standing around a round hole trying to fit square pegs into it from different angles. Time to dig a new hole and pour a foundation into it. 

[Thorny]

14 minutes ago, PerreaultForever said:

Here's the thing though, it's not a rebuild. We haven't built anything in the last decade so there's no "re". It's just been a bunch of people standing around a round hole trying to fit square pegs into it from different angles. Time to dig a new hole and pour a foundation into it. 

No, it’s a rebuild. “What are we even tearing down?” Is just the new straw man. We have (very important; hard to find) pieces that are going to be willingly sold off and the timeline bumped back accordingly. 

That’s what makes it a rebuild to me - that intentional step back. The refrain is, “we can’t compete”, the acceptance is punting more years of hockey away in the name of potential good being the enemy of great. 

If the playoffs aren’t the absolute focus next season, imo they are doomed to fail 

Edited June 10, 2021 by Thorny

[Hoss]

1 hour ago, Thorny said:

No, it’s a rebuild. “What are we even tearing down?” Is just the new straw man. We have (very important; hard to find) pieces that are going to be willingly sold off and the timeline bumped back accordingly. 

That’s what makes it a rebuild to me - that intentional step back. The refrain is, “we can’t compete”, the acceptance is punting more years of hockey away in the name of potential good being the enemy of great. 

If the playoffs aren’t the absolute focus next season, imo they are doomed to fail 

You can call it what you want but when what you have and do isn't working you do something else.

[Weave]

1 hour ago, Thorny said:

No, it’s a rebuild. “What are we even tearing down?” Is just the new straw man. We have (very important; hard to find) pieces that are going to be willingly sold off and the timeline bumped back accordingly. 

That’s what makes it a rebuild to me - that intentional step back. The refrain is, “we can’t compete”, the acceptance is punting more years of hockey away in the name of potential good being the enemy of great. 

If the playoffs aren’t the absolute focus next season, imo they are doomed to fail 

I don’t want a rebuild.  I’m certainly OK with a few players gone if they don’t want to be here, even if it is out star players.  But there is no reason it has to set us back.  The return has to be correct of course, but losing Jack, Sam, and Risto does not have to be a step backwards.  A return that makes next season hopeful is certainly possible, but it can’t be a futures heavy return.  It can’t look like what we did 8 yrs ago when we moved everything for lottery tickets.

 

holy poorly structured paragraph, Batman!

Edited June 10, 2021 by Weave

[Thorny]

2 hours ago, Hoss said:

You can call it what you want but when what you have and do isn't working you do something else.

I would argue what “isn’t working” ISN’T our best players, and, in fact, the dearth of talent on the rest of the roster. But what do I know 

[Thorny]

1 hour ago, Weave said:

I don’t want a rebuild.  I’m certainly OK with a few players gone if they don’t want to be here, even if it is out star players.  But there is no reason it has to set us back.  The return has to be correct of course, but losing Jack, Sam, and Risto does not have to be a step backwards.  A return that makes next season hopeful is certainly possible, but it can’t be a futures heavy return.  It can’t look like what we did 8 yrs ago when we moved everything for lottery tickets.

 

holy poorly structured paragraph, Batman!

So am I just waging an argument pointlessly for a month? When we get the return and it’s almost purely futures, people will admit it’s the wrong course? 

The “rebuild” camp seems to be in 2 segments: the one that you laid out, and the one that Brawndo laid out, that is very prevalent in other discussion spots, that we can’t possibly compete next season and it’s not worth trying 

[Curt]

1 hour ago, Weave said:

I don’t want a rebuild.  I’m certainly OK with a few players gone if they don’t want to be here, even if it is out star players.  But there is no reason it has to set us back.  The return has to be correct of course, but losing Jack, Sam, and Risto does not have to be a step backwards.  A return that makes next season hopeful is certainly possible, but it can’t be a futures heavy return.  It can’t look like what we did 8 yrs ago when we moved everything for lottery tickets.

 

holy poorly structured paragraph, Batman!

Just going to prod you a little on this.

How about returns that feature a vet or two who might be an ok player but is mostly there to offset salary, good prospects who have played in the NHL already or are ready to next season, young roster players who have established themselves as useful NHL players but should have more potential to develop, and a couple picks too?  I think this is the likely type of returns.

Would you be ok with this, or are you hoping for it to see mostly NHL veterans coming back?  (Hockey trade)

[Thorny]

Just now, Curt said:

Just going to prod you a little on this.

How about returns that feature a vet or two who might be an ok player but is mostly there to offset salary, good prospects who have played in the NHL already or are ready to next season, young roster players who have established themselves as useful NHL players but should have more potential to develop, and a couple picks too?  I think this is the likely type of returns.

Would you be ok with this, or are you hoping for it to see mostly NHL veterans coming back?  (Hockey trade)

If the vets are mostly just there to offset salary, I think we know it’s a futures based return and the players were taken on to facilitate said return. They aren’t going to be players that aid in a playoff push, offset salary players are the Berglunds and Sobotkas of the world.

If we trade Jack, we should get a first line centre back or don’t deal him 

[Weave]

1 hour ago, Thorny said:

So am I just waging an argument pointlessly for a month? When we get the return and it’s almost purely futures, people will admit it’s the wrong course? 

The “rebuild” camp seems to be in 2 segments: the one that you laid out, and the one that Brawndo laid out, that is very prevalent in other discussion spots, that we can’t possibly compete next season and it’s not worth trying 

I’ll be honest, I haven’t attempted to keep track of who is in which camp and what the details of the two sides consist of.  I just know what I want to see.

And I’m not sure what you are asking, if its a futures based trade we can’t compete, or if Jack is traded we can’t compete?  I suspect the 1st is most likely accurate and suspect with the right players coming back in the 2nd we should be competitive.

1 hour ago, Curt said:

Just going to prod you a little on this.

How about returns that feature a vet or two who might be an ok player but is mostly there to offset salary, good prospects who have played in the NHL already or are ready to next season, young roster players who have established themselves as useful NHL players but should have more potential to develop, and a couple picks too?  I think this is the likely type of returns.

Would you be ok with this, or are you hoping for it to see mostly NHL veterans coming back?  (Hockey trade)

I’d have to see the return to comment. 

[Weave]

1 hour ago, Thorny said:

If the vets are mostly just there to offset salary, I think we know it’s a futures based return and the players were taken on to facilitate said return. They aren’t going to be players that aid in a playoff push, offset salary players are the Berglunds and Sobotkas of the world.

If we trade Jack, we should get a first line centre back or don’t deal him 

This is mostly where I am at, but I think the “right” 2C could be effective enough to move ahead.  Obviously the other pieces would need adjustment to compensate.

[JohnC]

1 hour ago, Thorny said:

So am I just waging an argument pointlessly for a month? When we get the return and it’s almost purely futures, people will admit it’s the wrong course? 

The “rebuild” camp seems to be in 2 segments: the one that you laid out, and the one that Brawndo laid out, that is very prevalent in other discussion spots, that we can’t possibly compete next season and it’s not worth trying 

It appears to me that you and @Weaveare more in concert than in conflict. In reading your posts on this topic my interpretation of what the both of you are saying is that if handled adroitly even with the departure of some of our prime players it can be used to enhance the roster. Even if there is a short-term setback the foundation can be strengthened and the team can be better situated.  

[Thorny]

15 minutes ago, Weave said:

I’ll be honest, I haven’t attempted to keep track of who is in which camp and what the details of the two sides consist of.  I just know what I want to see.

And I’m not sure what you are asking, if its a futures based trade we can’t compete, or if Jack is traded we can’t compete?  I suspect the 1st is most likely accurate and suspect with the right players coming back in the 2nd we should be competitive.

I’d have to see the return to comment. 

Yep, the former 

13 minutes ago, Weave said:

This is mostly where I am at, but I think the “right” 2C could be effective enough to move ahead.  Obviously the other pieces would need adjustment to compensate.

Agree with this too, like say a Lindholm from Calgary 

[Thorny]

5 minutes ago, JohnC said:

It appears to me that you and @Weaveare more in concert than in conflict. In reading your posts on this topic my interpretation of what the both of you are saying is that if handled adroitly even with the departure of some of our prime players it can be used to enhance the roster. Even if there is a short-term setback the foundation can be strengthened and the team can be better situated.  

I agree his and my positions are reasonably close, even if I doubt the likelihood of a successful Eichel deal, full stop, as it's just such a hard trade to pull off.

The key for me: it needs to be a hockey trade - I admittedly sort of have developed a rather hard-line position on this, but my belief is that even the mental acknowledgement/willful intention of a "step back", even if short-term (in theory) in nature, is a poisonous line of thinking. I've spoken of this ad nauseam, but I think the idea of prioritizing the future and being afraid to "mortgage" it is creating a self-fulfilling prophecy of sorts where that "future" will never actually come. 

[JohnC]

2 minutes ago, Thorny said:

I agree his and my positions are reasonably close, even if I doubt the likelihood of a successful Eichel deal, full stop, as it's just such a hard trade to pull off.

The key for me: it needs to be a hockey trade - I admittedly sort of have developed a rather hard-line position on this, but my belief is that even the mental acknowledgement/willful intention of a "step back", even if short-term (in theory) in nature, is a poisonous line of thinking. I've spoken of this ad nauseam, but I think the idea of prioritizing the future and being afraid to "mortgage" it is creating a self-fulfilling prophecy of sorts where that "future" will never actually come. 

Where I have a slight disagreement with you is that I'm more willing to bring in a high-end prospect such as Byfield in a trade transaction for one of our prime players. The impact clearly won't be immediate but it should be impactful. I'm not talking about an either/or deal but simply part of a deal that would be beneficial in the not too distant long run. I do believe (and I think you do so also) that this team can be a better team even with the departure of a couple of our prime players if the trades are handled smartly. 

 

 

[Thorny]

49 minutes ago, JohnC said:

Where I have a slight disagreement with you is that I'm more willing to bring in a high-end prospect such as Byfield in a trade transaction for one of our prime players. The impact clearly won't be immediate but it should be impactful. I'm not talking about an either/or deal but simply part of a deal that would be beneficial in the not too distant long run. I do believe (and I think you do so also) that this team can be a better team even with the departure of a couple of our prime players if the trades are handled smartly. 

 

 

I don't think a trade exists for Jack Eichel where we end up better, I think we could theoretically end up better, inclusive of an Eichel deal, if other steps are also taken this offseason to augment the roster. IMO the likelihood of that avenue succeeding is less likely than the one with the team w/ Jack on it 

[Hoss]

7 hours ago, Thorny said:

I would argue what “isn’t working” ISN’T our best players, and, in fact, the dearth of talent on the rest of the roster. But what do I know 

We should definitely trade some of our bottom six players for guys like Zegras and other potentially franchise-changing players then.

[WildCard]

3 minutes ago, Hoss said:

We should definitely trade some of our bottom six players for guys like Zegras and other potentially franchise-changing players then.

We have franchise-changing players, do we have to trade them just because they're disgruntled? 

[Hoss]

2 minutes ago, WildCard said:

We have franchise-changing players, do we have to trade them just because they're disgruntled? 

That’s part of the equation.

[WildCard]

1 minute ago, Hoss said:

That’s part of the equation.

What's the rest?

[Hoss]

5 minutes ago, WildCard said:

What's the rest?

Making actual change and not just shuffling the chairs on the titanic a million times hoping it makes a difference. You have the chance to turn one asset into many which is an enticing opportunity. If you get it right it changes the fortunes of the franchise. If you get it wrong, well, you don’t have far to fall.

This isn’t me saying it’s the direction I would’ve picked two months ago but it has its appeal.