Worst of GMKA

[Thorny]

1 minute ago, Porous Five Hole said:

I’m going to let it go, but the point I took issue with was a poster saying GMKA wanted Eichel gone the day he took the job. Wanting a rebuild doesn’t prove KA wanted Eichel gone.
 

You’ve made the best case, which is KA is using the “want to be here” as his rebuild mantra and Jack didn’t want that. But there’s truly no way KA says to Terry, “I want to trade Jack Eichel” and he still gets the job. There is some revisionist history going on. 

I think you are right, there. I don’t think “getting rid of Eichel” was a pillar of the actual plan - in fact I’d argue we know it wasn’t, considering the change of course for the Covid year. It simply became an accepted consequence of instituting the desired plan, which we saw the following year.

To me it makes the idea “trading Eichel” is synonymous with the decision to rebuild re: the purposes of this poll even more apt, as it really was more so a fallout of that decision than something that was, as you point out, an actual bullet point of their plan 

they chose their long form rebuild over keeping Eichel. The “decision” to trade Eichel was inevitable once the plan was cemented. They should have chosen “Eichel” and the timeline, and roster building his presence suggested, but instead chose the path that had no expectations for the foreseeable future 

[Mustache of God]

The Power contact.

The Cozens contract. 

Eichel.

3 goalies.

 

[Porous Five Hole]

Just now, Mustache of God said:

The Power contact.

The Cozens contract. 

Eichel.

3 goalies.

 

Want me to add the Power extension as a poll option?

[Doohickie]

32 minutes ago, Doohickie said:

34 minutes ago, Porous Five Hole said:

Gonna need a source on this one

My source was probably Sabrespace.  😉 

28 minutes ago, Thorny said:

“In an exclusive interview with Elliotte Friedman, Jack Eichel lays out his timeline for when it went completely sideways for him in Buffalo, not wanting to be part of another Sabres’ rebuild.”

the horse’s mouth:

https://www.sportsnet.ca/nhl/video/jack-eichel-explains-things-went-sideways-buffalo/

He explains in the very first answer of the segment that they made a GM change and things were headed towards a period where they “weren’t trying to win.” 

it’s factually clear that the decision to rebuild is what cost us Eichel. I think it’s fair to consider trading Eichel and rebuilding as synonymous re: this poll 

judges? 

I'm pretty sure I read this way back when on Sabrespace.  😉 

[Thorny]

3 minutes ago, Doohickie said:

I'm pretty sure I read this way back when on Sabrespace.  😉 

I posted it before all my endless Eichel propaganda was black listed 

[kas23]

To me, it was Ulmark and relying on Levi to come in a year later. The beginning of the end of the goalie situation. Sure, Ulmark made the decision to leave, then he should’ve traded him at the deadline and got an asset. The not addressing the goalie situation was the last straw. 

[BuffRaleigh]

Drafting Owen Power, then signing him to a 7 year, 58 million dollar contract to be the biggest (pansy) in the league.

[Porous Five Hole]

Wow there’s ten options and Other is still the number one answer lol

[Thorny]

2 minutes ago, Porous Five Hole said:

Wow there’s ten options and Other is still the number one answer lol

He’s a veritable smorgasbord of ineptitude

[Taro T]

4 hours ago, Porous Five Hole said:

Ok but wanting a long form rebuild and wanting to trade Eichel are two different things. 

Not when they are part and parcel of the same thing.

He wanted Eichel gone (probably was mean to him in the hallways) and he wanted the long form rebuild.  And keeping Eichel didn't fit in with a long form rebuild.

[Weave]

I voted palm trees and taxes. Only because it signaled to me that he was a man of excuses and a piss poor leader.  Yhe statement wasnt the worst move he made, in the sense of its direct effect on the ice, but it was the worst overall because it illuminated just how unqualified he was for the position.