Off-season Game Plan 2024

[seer775]

On 5/14/2024 at 10:56 AM, thewookie1 said:

And that my friend is how your city loses your only two Top Pro Sport teams.

Good. 

Do it Japanese style and retain our honor.

You want your hard earned taxpayer's dollars to be spent on a garbage product? Go ahead.

On 5/14/2024 at 11:11 AM, Thorny said:

I don’t even think it’s some nefarious thing, liger is right they take on the mindset of the organization, but they more less imbibe it: the top-down refusal to measure results in the now becomes part of a fabric of their developing identity 

Some recognize it and ask out 

Don’t forget that Jack specifically said on record he asked to be dealt *because* Adams wanted to rebuild. We didn’t have to rebuild because Jack wanted out 

Some don't and accept a pro career in perpetual loserness compensated by a fat paycheck paid for by the clueless fan (aka you and me).

Without Jack we weren't Jack *****. We still aren't Jack *****.

He went and got a cup and an "A" AND his checks got fatter.

WE are the losers.

Edited May 15 by seer775

[dudacek]

I would absolutely be interested in Ehlers for the right price.

Very much would prefer to see them use their assets on a similar-level player with a different skill set.

[thewookie1]

1 hour ago, Thorny said:

Going in circles a bit with the vet point: I entirely disagree. Eichel and Reinhart were done because Adams wanted to rebuild, we didn’t need to rebuild cause they were done. So I do not agree the veterans point stands 

.493 to .512 is 3 points. That’s not considerable. The irony is that the only considerably worse year, 17-18, was by way of this stupid “tear down to the studs and build up” mentality 

I think Eichel was done even prior to that; he was apparently unhappy with Botterill's handling of the roster that year and had wanted us to trade our 1st+ for Taylor Hall

I guess both agree with Eichel's anger with Botts screwing up that season royally while also thinking he's nuts wanting Taylor Hall, of all players, to throw the kitchen sink at.

So I disagree about Eichel wanting to leave because of Adams wanting to do another rebuild; I think that was final straw but not the original reason. The player we could've kept on the other hand was Sam Reinhart but I'm guessing COVID itself and/or Adams and the brain trust being unsure of Reinhart's value sans Eichel sent us down the 1 year bridge deal into a precipice.

 

One hypothetical I'd like to propose is that Eichel & Reinhart would still be Sabres had Botterill traded Risto and a 4th for Nik Ehlers near the start of the season which had been widely reported he balked at due to the 4th. With Ehlers our top 6 would of looked much better as well as it would of fixed our logjam on RHD thus allowing Montour and Scandella to stick around. 

[Thorny]

7 minutes ago, thewookie1 said:

I think Eichel was done even prior to that; he was apparently unhappy with Botterill's handling of the roster that year and had wanted us to trade our 1st+ for Taylor Hall

I guess both agree with Eichel's anger with Botts screwing up that season royally while also thinking he's nuts wanting Taylor Hall, of all players, to throw the kitchen sink at.

So I disagree about Eichel wanting to leave because of Adams wanting to do another rebuild; I think that was final straw but not the original reason. The player we could've kept on the other hand was Sam Reinhart but I'm guessing COVID itself and/or Adams and the brain trust being unsure of Reinhart's value sans Eichel sent us down the 1 year bridge deal into a precipice.

 

One hypothetical I'd like to propose is that Eichel & Reinhart would still be Sabres had Botterill traded Risto and a 4th for Nik Ehlers near the start of the season which had been widely reported he balked at due to the 4th. With Ehlers our top 6 would of looked much better as well as it would of fixed our logjam on RHD thus allowing Montour and Scandella to stick around. 

Agree with a lot in here but not really the semantics on Eichel - if Adams desire to rebuild was the “final straw” that means it was salvageable before that: I believe the evidence bears this out as well:

we shouldn’t forget that Jack initially rescinded the trade request when Adams briefly committed to winning: and did so WHILE PLAYING HURT 

Dude was willing to put his body and career on the line during the shortened Covid year for the Buffalo Sabres. Shouldn’t be forgotten. He suited up, injured, for 21 games in 2021 because Adams said they’d commit to winning.

Edited May 15 by Thorny

[seer775]

2 minutes ago, Thorny said:

Agree with a lot in here but not really the semantics on Eichel - if Adams desire to rebuild was the “final straw” that means it was salvageable before that: I believe the evidence bears this out as well 

we shouldn’t forget that Jack initially rescinded the trade request when Adams briefly committed to winning: and did so WHILE PLAYING HURT 

Dude was willing to put his body and career on the line during the shortened Covid year for the Buffalo Sabres. Shouldn’t be forgotten 

and then we went on to put up the longest losing streak of all time.

Can't blame the guy for wanting to leave at any point in his tenure with the Sabres.

Sabres are nothing but bad.

[Thorny]

1 minute ago, seer775 said:

and then we went on to put up the longest losing streak of all time.

Can't blame the guy for wanting to leave at any point in his tenure with the Sabres.

Sabres are nothing but bad.

It doesn’t escape me that the biggest justification for why we couldn’t win with Eichel was a short Covid season where we…didn’t have Eichel 

[seer775]

4 minutes ago, Thorny said:

It doesn’t escape me that the biggest justification for why we couldn’t win with Eichel was a short Covid season where we…didn’t have Eichel 

It's all bad man.

[Thorny]

Just now, seer775 said:

It's all bad man.

I understand what you mean, but personally the greatest angst comes from the fact it’s *not/hasn’t* been all bad. Not all. Even after the Eichel disaster we only missed the playoffs by a single point. The Sabres always seem to find themselves on the extremes, a league outlier. Tank better, miss the playoffs more, can’t just stop at a great prospect pool: we need to continue adding to it so it’s the best prospect pool ever… I don’t even like Adams strategy and we’d still have been in the playoffs with better GT two season ago. One small budge on Adams “Levi timeline” and we’d be in, REGARDLESS of the other bad you correctly mentioned.

But he wouldn’t do it. It was the Levi timeline, after all. We adhere to the plan or we adhere to nothing at all 

[seer775]

8 minutes ago, Thorny said:

I understand what you mean, but personally the greatest angst comes from the fact it’s *not/hasn’t* been all bad. Not all. Even after the Eichel disaster we only missed the playoffs by a single point. The Sabres always seem to find themselves on the extremes, a league outlier. Tank better, miss the playoffs more, can’t just stop at a great prospect pool: we need to continue adding to it so it’s the best prospect pool ever… I don’t even like Adams strategy and we’d still have been in the playoffs with better GT two season ago. One small budge on Adams “Levi timeline” and we’d be in, REGARDLESS of the other bad you correctly mentioned.

But he wouldn’t do it. It was the Levi timeline, after all. We adhere to the plan or we adhere to nothing at all 

Does past performance indicate future results?

It does if you have the same guy at the helm.

No new owner, no new results, period. Unless somebody gets reaaaal smart.

I have an infinitude of doubt. So does everyone else who came through the system apparently.

Edited May 15 by seer775

[Thorny]

2 minutes ago, seer775 said:

Does the past indicate future performance?

It does if you have the same guy at the helm.

No new owner, no new results, period. Unless somebody gets reaaaal smart.

I have an infinitude of doubt.

You don’t need to be smart you just need to be a little bit quicker of wit than the guy running from the same bruin 

[seer775]

3 minutes ago, Thorny said:

You don’t need to be smart you just need to be a little bit quicker of wit than the guy running from the same bruin 

The team has gotten eaten by the bruin in so many humiliating ways, they might as well be called the "Buffalo Hot Wings".

Edited May 15 by seer775

[Flashsabre]

Didn’t know where to put this. It is a Swedish media interview (it’s in Swedish) but it gives a tour of all the facilities in the arena. It is very interesting to see. There is a brief UPL cameo.

[Flashsabre]

Watching Power-Parayko play together for Canada at the Worlds is easy on the eyes😃

I think they need to find Power a defensive minded, physical dman partner. DeMelo, Tanev or Roy are ufas or find a trade partner.

Edited May 16 by Flashsabre

[thewookie1]

Some suggested Kevin Hayes as a possible 3/4C for a couple years. I’m mixed on him. In St. L last year he certainly adopted a more defensive approach with more Dzone than Ozone starts and had a 56% FO. However he’s still making 2x3.75 and isn’t historically a great FO guy.

[PerreaultForever]

4 hours ago, Flashsabre said:

Watching Power-Parayko play together for Canada at the Worlds is easy on the eyes😃

I think they need to find Power a defensive minded, physical dman partner. DeMelo, Tanev or Roy are ufas or find a trade partner.

Absolutely. Parayko is a guy several of us have been advocating we should try to get (along with Pesce as another similar). I'm a firm believer in the one offensive guy one defensive guy (in simplest terms) pairings on D. Samuelsson was supposed to give us that, maybe he still will, but I'd like another one brought in for sure. 

5 minutes ago, thewookie1 said:

Some suggested Kevin Hayes as a possible 3/4C for a couple years. I’m mixed on him. In St. L last year he certainly adopted a more defensive approach with more Dzone than Ozone starts and had a 56% FO. However he’s still making 2x3.75 and isn’t historically a great FO guy.

Big no to Kevin Hayes. Flyers fans I know absolutely hated him and Torts pointed at him as one of the top "subtractions" needed a year ago. He is notorious for taking nights off and slacking and that is the exact opposite of what we need. 

If you want a forward like that I'd rather look at Domi or Bertuzzi as examples. Inconsistent as well but at least they give you grind and as Burke used to say "truculence". 

I wonder if there's a Philly trade possible around Laughton and perhaps Samuelsson on our end with picks and other players/prospects each wants or doesn't? Remember his dad has history there and Flyers like to inbreed.  Samuelsson can stay on IR there with Risto 🙂

Sign a free agent D man along with trading Samuelsson for Laughton, we are instantly better. 

[thewookie1]

2 hours ago, PerreaultForever said:

Absolutely. Parayko is a guy several of us have been advocating we should try to get (along with Pesce as another similar). I'm a firm believer in the one offensive guy one defensive guy (in simplest terms) pairings on D. Samuelsson was supposed to give us that, maybe he still will, but I'd like another one brought in for sure. 

Big no to Kevin Hayes. Flyers fans I know absolutely hated him and Torts pointed at him as one of the top "subtractions" needed a year ago. He is notorious for taking nights off and slacking and that is the exact opposite of what we need. 

If you want a forward like that I'd rather look at Domi or Bertuzzi as examples. Inconsistent as well but at least they give you grind and as Burke used to say "truculence". 

I wonder if there's a Philly trade possible around Laughton and perhaps Samuelsson on our end with picks and other players/prospects each wants or doesn't? Remember his dad has history there and Flyers like to inbreed.  Samuelsson can stay on IR there with Risto 🙂

Sign a free agent D man along with trading Samuelsson for Laughton, we are instantly better. 

Laughton is god awful man, he's fallen off a cliff over the past two years

[PerreaultForever]

1 hour ago, thewookie1 said:

Laughton is god awful man, he's fallen off a cliff over the past two years

I'm not sure about him but I disagree. Good on face offs, checks well, kills penalties. I think he'd be a good 3C. 

[thewookie1]

4 minutes ago, PerreaultForever said:

I'm not sure about him but I disagree. Good on face offs, checks well, kills penalties. I think he'd be a good 3C. 

 

His stats and general analytics are rather ugly and if I could find it those bar charts has him pure red

[PerreaultForever]

1 minute ago, thewookie1 said:

 

His stats and general analytics are rather ugly and if I could find it those bar charts has him pure red

On a garbage team with bad linemates and expectations of being a 2C. I'm not sold on Laughton being all that and everything but if you want to add people you need to think of who might actually be a guy we could get as well as just wanting guys. There are better guys but with higher price tags and harder to get. 

[dudacek]

26 minutes ago, PerreaultForever said:

On a garbage team with bad linemates and expectations of being a 2C. I'm not sold on Laughton being all that and everything but if you want to add people you need to think of who might actually be a guy we could get as well as just wanting guys. There are better guys but with higher price tags and harder to get. 

Do you think Samuelsson is a low price tag?

A 24-year-old 6’4” 230-pound defensively strong defenceman on a team that has no one else like that?

[PerreaultForever]

1 hour ago, dudacek said:

Do you think Samuelsson is a low price tag?

A 24-year-old 6’4” 230-pound defensively strong defenceman on a team that has no one else like that?

I didn't suggest a one for one. I said they might be the centerpieces of a larger trade involving picks/prospects players but in the end they'd get a D (which they need desperately) plus etc. and we'd get a 3C plus etc.  The GMs can work out the equivalencies on how to make it "equal" or pleasing to each other. 

[Flashsabre]

Start your Friday off with this beauty someone came up with🤣

[French Collection]

1 hour ago, Flashsabre said:

Start your Friday off with this beauty someone came up with🤣

Print that and use it as toilet paper.

[Brawndo]

12 hours ago, PerreaultForever said:

On a garbage team with bad linemates and expectations of being a 2C. I'm not sold on Laughton being all that and everything but if you want to add people you need to think of who might actually be a guy we could get as well as just wanting guys. There are better guys but with higher price tags and harder to get. 

Evolving Hockey’s Model had Laughton in the one percentile for defensive metrics this past season. 
Even on a bad team putting up that number in a Torts System is a major red flag. 

Here’s Skinner Player Card for comparison 

[dudacek]

10 hours ago, PerreaultForever said:

I didn't suggest a one for one. I said they might be the centerpieces of a larger trade involving picks/prospects players but in the end they'd get a D (which they need desperately) plus etc. and we'd get a 3C plus etc.  The GMs can work out the equivalencies on how to make it "equal" or pleasing to each other. 

At the risk of being told I don't want win, any trade where the 2 biggest pieces involved are Samuelsson and Laughton is a trade I don't want to make.