Simple goalie analytics

[LGR4GM]

6 hours ago, Porous Five Hole said:

I agree with you. But even with hindsight, what was the move Adams should have made to solidify the position? I’m not jealous of a single goaltending transaction this offseason. 
 

In the previous off-season, I lobbied for Jack Campbell. My assessment of him was wrong based on his 22-23 results.
Maybe there was an obvious move last off-season that he should have made and I don’t recall. But it isn’t like a bunch of teams fixed their goaltending with a trade or free agency signing where a goalie changed teams over the last two years. 
I previously suggested a Helle overpay for a one year rental, and you replied that my suggestion was bad asset management.  You weren’t wrong.
So the question remains…What was the big whiff on the GM’s part over the last 24 months that wouldn’t have us concerned with the crease going into this year? 

I would have offer sheeted Swayman. 

[JohnC]

2 hours ago, LGR4GM said:

I would have offer sheeted Swayman. 

Just curious because I simply don't know. How many offer-sheets have the Sabres given over the last five years? I can't recall of any. And if you know I would appreciate it: On average, how many offer-sheets are given per year are made in the league? 

[Porous Five Hole]

3 hours ago, LGR4GM said:

I would have offer sheeted Swayman. 

Once he filed for arbitration, he wasn’t eligible for an offer sheet. 

[LGR4GM]

4 hours ago, Porous Five Hole said:

Once he filed for arbitration, he wasn’t eligible for an offer sheet. 

That wasn't the question. 

It also doesn't matter. Adams didn't find a way to improve the goalies. 

[LGR4GM]

5 hours ago, JohnC said:

Just curious because I simply don't know. How many offer-sheets have the Sabres given over the last five years? I can't recall of any. And if you know I would appreciate it: On average, how many offer-sheets are given per year are made in the league? 

I'm not doing your research for you. Again, I was asked what I would have wanted Adams to do based on the offseason. I would have tried to offer sheet Swayman. We didn't, the goalies aren't good enough and relying on UPL and Comrie isn't smart gm-ing. 

Edited August 12, 2023 by LGR4GM

[JohnC]

22 minutes ago, LGR4GM said:

I'm not doing your research for you. Again, I was asked what I would have wanted Adams to do based on the offseason. I would have tried to offer sheet Swayman. We didn't, the goalies aren't good enough and relying on UPL and Comrie isn't smart gm-ing. 

It was pointed out to you by @Porous Five Hole that it couldn't be done because he filed for arbitration. What you wanted to do and what you were allowed to do are in conflict. What fantasy goalie did you want the GM to pursue? 

[LGR4GM]

53 minutes ago, JohnC said:

It was pointed out to you by @Porous Five Hole that it couldn't be done because he filed for arbitration. What you wanted to do and what you were allowed to do are in conflict. What fantasy goalie did you want the GM to pursue? 

He filed for arbitration July 5th. So yes we could have offer sheeted him between July 1 and July 5. 

I've answered the question. Your condescending "fantasy goalie" comment not withstanding. Raanta would have been a good option if you want an UFA that's better than Comrie or UPL. But now I've said that you'll just counter with "he signed with Carolina!" Which isn't relevant. It's simply 2 moves that were at least plausible, not fantasy. Adams has goaltending work to do unless Comrie suddenly regains his form.

[JohnC]

2 hours ago, LGR4GM said:

He filed for arbitration July 5th. So yes we could have offer sheeted him between July 1 and July 5. 

I've answered the question. Your condescending "fantasy goalie" comment not withstanding. Raanta would have been a good option if you want an UFA that's better than Comrie or UPL. But now I've said that you'll just counter with "he signed with Carolina!" Which isn't relevant. It's simply 2 moves that were at least plausible, not fantasy. Adams has goaltending work to do unless Comrie suddenly regains his form.

You assumed condescension when there wasn't any intended. There was a segment on WGR that reviewed the goalie options that were available this offseason. The conclusion was that when reviewing the options and factoring in contracts, who wanted to come here, the cost in assets etc. the realistic options were very limited for the GM.  That's the reality that overshadows all the "should have done" this or that talk. What you consider to be plausible is actually very improbable. 

[LGR4GM]

34 minutes ago, JohnC said:

You assumed condescension when there wasn't any intended. There was a segment on WGR that reviewed the goalie options that were available this offseason. The conclusion was that when reviewing the options and factoring in contracts, who wanted to come here, the cost in assets etc. the realistic options were very limited for the GM.  That's the reality that overshadows all the "should have done" this or that talk. What you consider to be plausible is actually very improbable. 

You ignore context of conversations often. 

You jumped into something and are now taking it to the extreme to "win" an argument we're not having. 

Adams had options. What they all are we'll never know but our goaltending has not improved. 

[JohnC]

10 minutes ago, LGR4GM said:

You ignore context of conversations often. 

You jumped into something and are now taking it to the extreme to "win" an argument we're not having. 

Adams had options. What they all are we'll never know but our goaltending has not improved. 

How do you know it hasn't improved? Levi will be better than the goalies we started the season with last year. His end of the season short stint indicates that. If you think otherwise, then why do you think so? Comrie was hurt for much of the season. Can he be a capable backup? I don't know. But I'm not writing him off. There is an assumption by many that UPL is a bust. If you want to write him off, then go ahead. I'm not. He needs to come into camp in better shape (slimmer and quicker) and compete for the backup spot. You are making assumptions and then declaring them to be facts. I don't see it in the declarative manner that you do. 

You and many others confidently state that there were better options in net this offseason. Marty Biron has on more than a few occasions gone through the number of possible of options to bring in. When the options were more closely examined the end result was that they were unappealing for a number of reason that we have already enumerated. 

Your point about context on this topic is very murky and is of your own creation. I'm simply not buying the context you are peddling. Again, when going through the goalie options that existed, the one's available were mostly unappealing for a number of reasons. 

[LGR4GM]

On 8/12/2023 at 12:30 AM, Porous Five Hole said:

I agree with you. But even with hindsight, what was the move Adams should have made to solidify the position? I’m not jealous of a single goaltending transaction this offseason. 

This was the starting point. Levi isn't relevant to that. It all revolves around the other two being below replacement level. I suggested 2 goalies that signed new deals as potential options I wish Adams could have done. This isn't that hard to understand. 

11 hours ago, JohnC said:

How do you know it hasn't improved? Levi will be better than the goalies we started the season with last year. His end of the season short stint indicates that. If you think otherwise, then why do you think so? Comrie was hurt for much of the season. Can he be a capable backup? I don't know. But I'm not writing him off. There is an assumption by many that UPL is a bust. If you want to write him off, then go ahead. I'm not. He needs to come into camp in better shape (slimmer and quicker) and compete for the backup spot. You are making assumptions and then declaring them to be facts. I don't see it in the declarative manner that you do. 

You and many others confidently state that there were better options in net this offseason. Marty Biron has on more than a few occasions gone through the number of possible of options to bring in. When the options were more closely examined the end result was that they were unappealing for a number of reason that we have already enumerated. 

Your point about context on this topic is very murky and is of your own creation. I'm simply not buying the context you are peddling. Again, when going through the goalie options that existed, the one's available were mostly unappealing for a number of reasons. 

See above. You don't understand the context of the question I was asked and you're jumping in feet first to defend Adams. Every single option you ever bring in has unappealing parts. That's also not relevant because nothing is more unappealing than bringing back 2 of the very worst goalies in the league last year. 

[LGR4GM]

Again, you're having an argument I'm not. UPL and Comrie were 2 of the worst goalies in the entire NHL last year. Wishing Adams found a better option is not some radical opinion. It's a fact btw those 2 were far below average. 

[JohnC]

3 hours ago, LGR4GM said:

This was the starting point. Levi isn't relevant to that. It all revolves around the other two being below replacement level. I suggested 2 goalies that signed new deals as potential options I wish Adams could have done. This isn't that hard to understand. 

See above. You don't understand the context of the question I was asked and you're jumping in feet first to defend Adams. Every single option you ever bring in has unappealing parts. That's also not relevant because nothing is more unappealing than bringing back 2 of the very worst goalies in the league last year. 

You keep saying he "should have done this" and he "could have done that". What I'm saying, and you are refusing to acknowledge, is that for a number of reasons those proposed deals that you find appealing couldn't be done. The fantasy trade "context" that your vivid imagination has concocted is a fun sport on bulletin boards. But in the real world of trades and free agency where contracts, term and asset costs are considered a deal that made sense for this team at this time could not be worked out. At least, from our GM's perspective. 

You act as if the GM is clueless in recognizing the talent he has on his team. I'm confident that he knows what the assets and liabilities of his players are. The issue then becomes what are the replacement costs if there are options in the marketplace. He's made a judgment that is contrary to your judgment. He's concluded that the timing and situation right now aren't favorable to make a deal for an upgrade to the position. That doesn't mean that the situation won't change later. For now, I'll take his judgment over yours. That's the real-world context that the GM is living in comparison to your "fantasy world" context that you unceasingly shout about. 

Edited August 13, 2023 by JohnC

[Hank]

9 minutes ago, JohnC said:

....in comparison to your "fantasy world" context that you unceasingly shout about. 

YMMV of course, but I don't believe you paint a fair picture here. When you say "unceasingly shout about", my mind goes to the 387 sticks Thorny has broken on his dead horse, which is why I find so many of his posts nothing more than eye roll worthy. I don't believe LGR has come close to that level. Again, YMMV. 

[pi2000]

I believe Adams fully understands the predicament in net, however he's sticking to his "want to be here" requirement.   

Buffalo is well known across the league as goaltender purgatory.   The team gives up too many shots and scoring chances.   For that reason established veteran goaltenders are avoiding Buffalo like the plague, it's career suicide.

The solution most likely needs to come from within.  The team needs to improve their defensive play and continue to develop their own goaltenders.

That said, it would be great if a veteran waived their no-trade believing they could be the missing piece to end the longest playoff drought in pro sports, but that hasn't happened.

[JohnC]

7 minutes ago, Hank said:

YMMV of course, but I don't believe you paint a fair picture here. When you say "unceasingly shout about", my mind goes to the 387 sticks Thorny has broken on his dead horse, which is why I find so many of his posts nothing more than eye roll worthy. I don't believe LGR has come close to that level. Again, YMMV. 

I appreciate your observations. Maybe I should have used the word frequently instead of unceasingly. There is a notion that is being promoted that the GM appears to be oblivious to our goalie situation. I don't believe that to be the case. He's made a judgment for now that doesn't satisfy many here. That's understandable and okay. What I've tried to suggest is that when one considers the "real" options that were available regarding the goalie position, they weren't as appealing, at least to the GM, as many would like to believe. 

[Hank]

6K was supposed to be in Rochester last year, he was not ready for the NHL. He legitimately stole two or three games the team did not deserve to win. Overall, despite having a winning record, he did not play very well. He's young. It's not unreasonable to think he could mature, learn, develop, and improve in a calendar year. I think he has a good year in a backup roll, playing over thirty games with a winning record. 

[Thorny]

19 minutes ago, Hank said:

YMMV of course, but I don't believe you paint a fair picture here. When you say "unceasingly shout about", my mind goes to the 387 sticks Thorny has broken on his dead horse, which is why I find so many of his posts nothing more than eye roll worthy. I don't believe LGR has come close to that level. Again, YMMV. 

By popular demand, this will be my last post 

cheers 

[JohnC]

6 minutes ago, Thorny said:

By popular demand, this will be my last post 

cheers 

There is no need for a swan song.  Everyone has different opinions and perspectives. That's just the nature of the setting. It's well known that you and I have very different views on the goalie situation and how the organization has handled it this offseason. That's okay. On this issue we diverge and other issues we are in accord. Very often, it's more productive from a growth standpoint to considers views that are at variance than in accord. It helps to widen one's perspective, or at least consider another perspective. 

There's no popular demand for anything. When one gets in the ring one gets hit. Sometimes it's fair and sometimes it is not. That's the nature of the environment. 

[Doohickie]

4 hours ago, Thorny said:

By popular demand, this will be my last post 

cheers 

[Sabres Fan in NS]

Bloody Hell !!

When does the season start ??

[LGR4GM]

9 hours ago, JohnC said:

You keep saying he "should have done this" and he "could have done that". What I'm saying, and you are refusing to acknowledge, is that for a number of reasons those proposed deals that you find appealing couldn't be done. The fantasy trade "context" that your vivid imagination has concocted is a fun sport on bulletin boards. But in the real world of trades and free agency where contracts, term and asset costs are considered a deal that made sense for this team at this time could not be worked out. At least, from our GM's perspective. 

You act as if the GM is clueless in recognizing the talent he has on his team. I'm confident that he knows what the assets and liabilities of his players are. The issue then becomes what are the replacement costs if there are options in the marketplace. He's made a judgment that is contrary to your judgment. He's concluded that the timing and situation right now aren't favorable to make a deal for an upgrade to the position. That doesn't mean that the situation won't change later. For now, I'll take his judgment over yours. That's the real-world context that the GM is living in comparison to your "fantasy world" context that you unceasingly shout about. 

Talking to your is like running my head into a wall. You still aren't paying attention, I even quoted the original question to help. 

You jumped into a hypothetical conversation and your response here is just useless. You're so eager to defend Adams when I'm not even really criticizing him. I fully believe he knows upl/ Comrie is a problem but he didn't find a way to fix it. 

You need to follow the context of conversations better. The rest of your post here is condescending trash that isn't even relevant to what the original question was. 

Lecturing me about the state of the Sabres and the talent level of this team is laughable. They are short a goalie, that's a fact. 

[LGR4GM]

On 8/12/2023 at 12:30 AM, Porous Five Hole said:

I agree with you. But even with hindsight, what was the move Adams should have made to solidify the position? I’m not jealous of a single goaltending transaction this offseason. 

Here's the original question I was posed. I said, wish they could have offered sheeted Swayman or signed Raanta, in direct response to this question. 

I'm now being accused of shouting and living in a fantasy world because I don't understand the NHL or the Sabres talent level. Life is fun. 

[JohnC]

15 minutes ago, LGR4GM said:

Talking to your is like running my head into a wall. You still aren't paying attention, I even quoted the original question to help. 

You jumped into a hypothetical conversation and your response here is just useless. You're so eager to defend Adams when I'm not even really criticizing him. I fully believe he knows upl/ Comrie is a problem but he didn't find a way to fix it. 

You need to follow the context of conversations better. The rest of your post here is condescending trash that isn't even relevant to what the original question was. 

Lecturing me about the state of the Sabres and the talent level of this team is laughable. They are short a goalie, that's a fact. 

No one's lecturing you. I don't give a dam what you think. Just don't respond back. You act as if you are the final authority on things, especially when there is a difference in views. You talk about me responding in a condescending manner when that was not the case. You are projecting your own arrogance. At times you are insightful and at times you are insufferable. 

(In general, I don't like communicating with a harsh tone. Doing so has the tendency of lowering the discourse level for everyone.) With you, I have no compunction doing so. You are being ridiculous. The problem is that you lack the self-awareness to understand how you are behaving. Just go take a hike and use the ignore button. 

[sabresparaavida]

22 hours ago, Thorny said:

By popular demand, this will be my last post 

cheers 

Chill with that, people don’t just want you gone (even if there might be 1 or 2). Yes, you are a lil too negative for my taste at times, but I know we still can have good discussion (see Power/Dahlin thread).