TrueBlueGED
-
Posts
29,076 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Events
Posts posted by TrueBlueGED
-
-
If Turris ends up being our solution, it will further my simmering belief that the Sabres' analytics department is either really bad or wields close to zero influence in the organization.
Just now, Derrico said:Ya that’s a HARD pass on Turris and that contract unless Nashville eats like half of it.
Even then, it would have to be for like a 5th round pick.
-
1
-
-
45 minutes ago, GASabresIUFAN said:
@nfreeman Thank you! You are exactly right. I am not excusing Jbot but I do support what I see as his plan, but the plan is useless if we don't see vast improvement and soon. I by the way have was a very vocal critic of the Kane trade and his lack of action to support last year's team following Bergy's departure and the end of the streak. Getting Montour was way to little and way to late.
As to Berglund, getting him, is exactly moneypuck. Sadly not every deal or move works out, but the reason for taking Bergy was to get a serviceable middle six center to shelter Mitts for a year or two. It didn't work in the end, but it actually had a pretty good start. The Sabres were 12-7-4 during Bergy's brief tenure with the club. While he only had 4 pts in those 23 games, he was starting in the D or neutral zone 80% of the time. Freeing Mitts to play in the offensive zone. This off-season all of us are praying that Jbot finds a serviceable middle center to take the load off Casey. Think we'll find a serviceable middle six center for as little as $3.5 mill we were supposed to pay Berglund?
What if Bergy stays and gets it going like he was/is capable of? We were 12-7-4 with him and 21-32-6 without. If he had played to his potential, my guess is we make the playoffs and although we'd all still be annoyed for ROR's success, I doubt we'd have the Queen of Hearts chorus for Jbot we've been hearing for weeks.
No, it wasn't moneypuck. Berglund was terrible as a Sabre, Blues fans knew he was toast, and his wasn't even playing center anymore in St. Louis.
-
1
-
-
5 minutes ago, Randall Flagg said:
Although that would be an improvement on last year's attempt
I hate you.
-
2 minutes ago, Randall Flagg said:
I hope people don't jump on me when I post this a thousand times when our 2C offseason move is trading for Cody Eakin or Erik Haula
I'm definitely afraid that Botterill's 2C solution will be a 3C.
-
1 hour ago, Hoss said:
GMs that are afraid of acquiring Mike Hoffman won’t be working in the league long.
Something something GMs who trade Selke centers ?
I generally agree with you, I would just be shocked if Hoffman is a guy Botterill would target.
-
4 minutes ago, dudacek said:
Wouldn’t it depend on circumstance? If Jack blows out his knee in game 4 and Ralph still has them in the playoff race anyway at the deadline while Montour turns into an all-star and Tage puts up 20, I’m good with it.
They have to show evidence that Botterill is on the right path and part of that is more wins but I hesitate to put a number on it.
There are always exceptions to be made in extraordinary circumstances.
What about the flip side? What if we make the playoffs with what is clearly an Ottawa-like puck luck season? Obviously he wouldn't be fired after that result, but it would do nothing to make me confident in him.
-
21 minutes ago, Taro T said:
I'd expect Murray would've given more to make sure that deal happened. Can't prove it; but fully believe it.
He also may have just extended Kane and not had the money to add Skinner in the first place.
-
I have a hard time believing a GM concerned with the culture of the locker room going anywhere within a 3000 mile radius of Mike Hoffman.
-
1
-
-
2 minutes ago, Brawndo said:
One agent said there’s no point in looking at the idea without answering three things: Who has the cap space, who has the draft picks and who has the “will” to do it? The Islanders check those boxes, and a couple of opponents wondered about Buffalo — to rejuvenate the team and market. Most don’t expect them to happen. (One GM specifically said he hoped it didn’t happen to Toronto, because he didn’t want to see the Maple Leafs, angry, with extra cap room and picks.)
Also from 31 Thoughts
NHL GMs continue to be the worst.
-
1
-
-
8 hours ago, dudacek said:
It sure feels like we’ve seen this movie before.
Ristolainen is O’Reilly all over again with the mopey locker room clean out interview, the “not trying to trade him but will listen to offers” reports, the Lebrun nuggets about the Sabre being a real valuable asset, the Sabre fanbase rating the player more highly than the consensus from other fanbases and the draft passing without a deal.
I’m not seeing a lot of reason to hope we can flip the script on the ending.
I'm actually concerned he does the opposite. He was so burned by the ROR trade that he won't pull the trigger on Risto unless he gets a grand slam offer.
-
4
-
-
2 minutes ago, Thorny said:
82 games followed by 50. 63 Blues, 19 Jets.
But it's still a solid point as he's been in the 60s or lower 3 of the last 4 seasons.
This is the second time this week I have completely failed at reading team splits on Hockey-Reference ?
-
1 hour ago, Brawndo said:
He’s the perfect stop gap 2C. Two years and his contract is up. The question is does he waive his M-NTC to come here?
Welp ?
53 minutes ago, Randall Flagg said:realistic non-Stastny 2C options for next year:
Sobotka
Mittelstadt
Rodrigues
Turris?
Bonino?
Brassard?
Haula?
Wennberg?
What else is conceivable in the real world?
I can't pretend I've seen a lot of Stastny recently, so I don't have a huge amount of details and could be mistaken about what he is, but his deal is golden for the situation we have (completely out of our hair after 2 seasons, which is enough time to find a long term option or develop Mitts into one) and he's got all the fancy stats that would tickle you pink unlike pretty much every other player on that list. He just seems to be a tier or seven above every other realistic option that pops into my head.
Oh ***** I didn't know about this
*****
I'm more worried about durability than level of play. He had a 63 game season followed by a 5p game season, and he hasn't gotten any younger. Adding a 2C only does so much if he turns around and misses 40% of the season.
-
5 minutes ago, Randall Flagg said:
Hoss my man you have me daydreaming Paul Stastny
Is Stastny worth *daydreaming* about? He'd be a nice add, but I need convincing.
-
1
-
-
15 minutes ago, Zamboni said:
All this back-and-forth… Thats why you take opinion out of it. And you go by the standard at which has been set. Not opinion. well I think this and I think that and this is what I feel and that’s what I feel. Take opinion out of it. Go by what the NHL has set fourth as what constitutes a rookie. Even if some fans disagree. Too bad IMO.
maybe I’ll make this poll idea I said in a prior message if no one else does it.
Back and forth on a message board? The horror!!! ?
-
1
-
-
13 minutes ago, GASabresIUFAN said:
Are you sure? Campbell played in 3 AHL season with call ups all three years and didn’t full make it until year 4. Same for Ullmark. An arbitrary 82 game limit for players who develop at different rates and is never linear is a little silly when the NHL uses 160 for waivers and 260 for developmental status in the AHL.
It's not just NHL games though. It's NHL games *and* waiver eligibility that I'm looking at.
2 minutes ago, GASabresIUFAN said:That’s why you use 23 and under, waiver exempt and played part of the prior season in the the AHL or other lesser leagues. That should cover most situations including outliers like Campbell, Ullmark or Thompson. Nylander also has received 3 call ups and has yet to stick.
And he has less than 82 games and waiver eligibility, so he's covered by my definition.
-
11 minutes ago, GASabresIUFAN said:
Are you sure? Campbell played in 3 AHL season with call ups all three years and didn’t full make it until year 4.
Yes, and he's obviously a huge outlier. You're not going to come up with a definition of prospect that prevents any and all outliers unless you simply say all players not in the NHL are prospects.
Edit: Sometimes players come from unexpected places (either literally or figuratively in the case of a career timeline) to be regular NHL contributors. I don't think a reasonable definition of prospect needs to seek to include these players.
-
8 minutes ago, Let's Go B-Lo said:
Freeing up cash on hand? deHaan is owed 4.7, 4.1 and 5.4M the next 3 seasons.
Seems logical to me they'd have to free up cash to pay Aho.
-
3 minutes ago, GASabresIUFAN said:
Really?
If a player has had 3 AHL seasons (which could potentially be...5 seasons post-draft including juniors?) and hasn't stuck in the NHL after 3 cracks at it, then yea, they're likely no more than a replacement level player.
-
7 minutes ago, GASabresIUFAN said:
If a prospect shuttles between the NHL and AHL over three years and plays 20 NHL games year 1, 30 games year 2 and 40 games year 3, but has yet to stick in the NHL; how is that player still not a prospect?
The NHL says 160 games for prospects signed from 18-20 to be waiver exempt. That seems like a good place to start.
Because they're probably not regular NHL material at that point.
-
7 minutes ago, Thorny said:
...exceptionally well-played.
-
1
-
-
5 minutes ago, #freejame said:
It was protected in that they had the decision to defer. Someone can correct me if I’m wrong but I think normal lottery protection isn’t deferrable like that.
Yea, most (maybe all) other lottery protection that has been put in is automatic, not discretionary.
Also @Thorny way to ruin a most excellent joke!
-
4 minutes ago, Zamboni said:
Ok, but that’s just opinion. How does Kris Baker define it? How does the NHL define it?
take the guess work and opinion out of it, even if it’s disagreeable. ?♂️
I would simply say waiver eligible and less than 1 full season of NHL games played.
-
I really don't think you can consider someone with 100 NHL games to be a prospect if you want the word to have any meaning whatsoever.
-
15 minutes ago, Derrico said:
While I agree with your last sentence I'm not sure things can get much worse in terms of Buffalo being a destination. They've already been out so long, small market yada yada that we already have to overpay for all these things. My biggest fear is eventually someone big on the team will want out. They have to become a legit playoff contender this season. Not until American Thanksgiving, not until March, until the very end.
Oh, I definitely don't think it can get much worse for Buffalo from a recruitment perspective. I'm just trying to frame it the other way: I want to do something to make it better rather than avoiding something that makes it worse.
2019 Free Agency Thread (Non-Sabres)
in The Aud Club
Posted
I disagree. He was trending that way, but had a really poor season. He's not the kind of guy I'd throw a massive over sheet at even if we didn't have other needs.