TrueBlueGED
-
Posts
29,076 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Events
Posts posted by TrueBlueGED
-
-
10 hours ago, dudacek said:
He was that player at the beginning and the end of the season.
For me it was the 40-something games in the middle where he scored exactly 3 goals and gave us literally nothing else - no forecheck, no backcheck, no breakout and some of worst puck battle and engagement I’ve seen since the days of Marc-Andre Gragnani.
Forgive me for channeling @nfreeman, but when the season was on the line he was nowhere to be found.
Who did give us anything during that stretch? Why zero in on a 3rd liner? If he had performed the same way all season he'd have put up a top-6 season. Maybe a more equal distribution of those 35 points is what you're looking for, but that's just not how 3rd liners normally produce. In fact, I'd say the consistent 3rd liner is close to a myth
-
22 minutes ago, LGR4GM said:
Lol.
Vesey is a 3 year nhl vet who's already 26. Compared to Sheary who is 27 and a 4 year vet. So basically you just want someone bigger.
I fundamentally don't understand the hate that Sheary gets. Were people's expectations especially unrealistic? He's a solid 3rd line player who produced as such.
-
3
-
-
1 hour ago, inkman said:
I don't like the idea of letting a guy off the hook for not choosing Buffalo. I don't want sloppy seconds. He had his chance. Piss off Jimmy.
Didn't you just tell us to get over the O'Reilly trade? Get over Vesey.
11 minutes ago, nfreeman said:Did you not think that Sheary was useless for much of last season?
If you were offered Vesey in exchange for Sheary, how would you respond?
I would say no. Sheary is the better player by all available metrics other than height.
-
2
-
-
1 minute ago, Brawndo said:
Sheary is 50 weeks older than Vesey, they are less than a year apart in age.
Would he be an improvement over Wilson or Zemgus is a better question
That, I think, is a clear yes.
-
6 minutes ago, nfreeman said:
Based on the fact that Sheary is fully cooked and was essentially useless for most of last season, while Vesey is younger, bigger and may have more upside.
I would certainly rather have Kreider, but he would cost a lot more than Vesey and I’m skeptical that the Rangers will end up trading him.
You’re right that Vesey would cause angst in some fans, but I think it would be a small minority.
So the guy with the same points and better possession metrics was near useless, where the other guy is a clear upgrade because he *may* have more upside. Good to see you taking the GA approach to evidence.
-
1
-
-
1 hour ago, nfreeman said:
If the price is reasonable I’d be happy to take Vesey. Good speed and scoring touch, and he’d be an upgrade over Sheary (and quite likely better than Olofsson and Nylander).
Based on what? Certainly not based on scoring or shot metrics.
-
1
-
-
1 hour ago, Brawndo said:
Friedman in his 31 Thoughts mentioned the Sabres are among the most active in trade talks and that they have talked to New York about Jimmy Vesey
No thanks on Vesey
Insert a Botterill and college player joke here.
-
1
-
-
8 hours ago, nfreeman said:
I think improvement at both positions is mission-critical and probably a bit more so at goalie.
I also think it's more likely that the plan will be to coach up the incumbent goalies than to bring in a new one, while it's likely that a new center will be brought in.
This is another item that JB needs to get right.
Yea, I think there's virtually zero chance Botterill brings in a goalie to compete for an NHL job. He's banking on a different goalie coach fixing it.
-
Has Granato coached any of the NTDP prospects at the top of this year's draft?
-
42 minutes ago, LGR4GM said:
Like that time he traded spare parts for Jeff Skinner or the time he traded spare parts for Montour?
Sir, as our resident Mr. Draft, you're not allowed to consider a late 1st/early 2nd to be "spare parts" ?
-
3
-
-
4 minutes ago, dudacek said:
If I remember correctly, he heard we will rotate through our history and announce we are reverting to the royals permanently at the end of the year.
As far as that three-year thing goes, do you really think removing the pit stains counts as a change? More of a tweak, no?
It's the NHL, I'm not comfortable assuming any kind of sound logic.
-
1
-
1
-
-
1 hour ago, darksabre said:
When you want to be the bad guys
This has to be a pure money move for the Caps, right? I know Niskanen showed some slippage last year, but he's still pretty clearly a better player than Gudas.
8 minutes ago, dudacek said:Isn’t Niskanen nine levels of good over Gudas, or has he slipped?
Are the Caps clearing space for another move? They didn’t have much cap room.
And while that kills any chance of the Risto to Philly speculation coming true, it does mean those rumours of Ghost on the move may be more realistic.
Philly is going to be the major player this summer: tons of cap room, good young assets and highly motivated. Plus, they are the Flyers.
Beat me to it. And sign me up for Ghost!
-
4 minutes ago, dudacek said:
Our expansion cousins revealed their anniversary season uniforms yesterday.
Minor tweaks to the current jersey, plus a variation of the original and the late ‘80s blacks with the skate.
I bet bet big money we’ll do something similar and we’ll see royal blue at some point this year.
Didn’t @CallawaySabres have inside info that was the plan?
Maybe as an alternate, but I know there's something about only being able to change the primary jersey every 3 years and we changed it when the league switched manufacturers. Maybe an exception can be granted, but I'm not expecting a change to the primary this year.
-
Just now, inkman said:
Well I can't do anything about it so I'm not going to constantly bitch about it like a pretty little bitch.
But you are pretty, Inky! Don't let anyone tell you different!
-
3
-
-
7 hours ago, Derrico said:
I like the two Tampa and hope something gets done there. I know it's the forward group that needs upgrading the most but I can't stop thinking about Trouba. That guy can be a monster and if Risto is dealt in the Tampa trade then he would be the perfect replacement IMO. What's the deal on Kessel? Does he have a NMC? If not would you entertain the idea? Can you imagine a top line of Skinner - Eichel - Kessel?
Sure, sign me up for Kessel. I'd certainly rather go after him than Zucker.
2 hours ago, LTS said:You think it's a bad way to judge athletes. That's fine.
Why did so few other GM's jump on the acquire Ryan O'Reilly train? He had very low interest from the league. Is it because they only cared about his on-ice capabilities?
Have we ever heard GMs, teammates, etc. talk about how another player is in the locker room, or their off-field/off-ice issues and how it can be disruptive to the team?
What I care about, is what his parents have said of their own child that is completely contradictory of what their own child did. He's so mentally tough that he's the ONLY athlete I can recall ever saying that he lost his love of the game because of losing. Is there another one? Please, I'd love to find another one.
I care about that, and the fact that when a really good hockey player could be had for peanuts, the number of GMs that came calling were next to none. Why? If ROR is so freakin' awesome why is it so few? If he's the kind of player that can LEAD A TEAM TO GREATNESS because he's now the Stanley Cup MVP, why wouldn't you trade to get that player?
It doesn't make sense, UNLESS, there is a reason that is not rooted in the easily observed on-ice performance of one Ryan O'Reilly that kept GMs from going after him.
2 hours ago, dudacek said:I remember during the trade chatter how so many fans of rival teams downplayed O’Reilly’s worth; his value was a late first and a good, but not great prospect, they said. St Louis fans wouldn’t give up their #4 D (Dunn) or Robert Thomas - who sat in the stands while O’Reilly won the Smythe - for a guy they said was a 2nd liner they didn’t need.
I put his value around that of Richards and Carter and I was mocked. I might have been proven wrong last July, but I’m not happy to be proved right 11 months later.
GMs must have seen what I saw on the ice. What scared them off?
Plenty of reasons other than locker room poison. First, there aren't 30 teams that can add a $7.5M salary due to cap constraints. Second, there's going to be a group of teams who could add it but are rebuilding and would not want to deal futures for a 27 year old. There's another group legitimately set at center that would rather use their assets in other ways. There will be a group of (presumably small market) teams that the owner simply won't pay a $7.5M bonus. Sure, there will be a few who buy into the culture rumors. And there might even be some who misjudged his ability and thought Botterill wanted too much in return (it's laughable to think about on the surface, but looking at Botterill's work it's not insane to think he actually liked the St. Louis package). The idea that every GM in the league not named Armstrong was scared off by nebulous "room" concerns is pretty flimsy.
This is also a league where Dougie Hamilton was moved for pennies on the dollar (the original Boston trade, not the Calgary trade), Hall for Larsson, Panarin for Saad, etc. A total head scratching move due to bad GMing isn't exactly a rare occurrence.
-
3
-
-
7 minutes ago, Weave said:
Maybe you misunderstood? Gio and Jack didn't get along because Gio didn't like Jack's approach to the game, just like ROR didn't like Jack's approach to the game.
Frankly, I don't much like Jack's approach to the game.
What do we know about Jack's approach to the game? He's gotten better every year, in every aspect of the game. Certainly not the kind of trajectory you'd likely see from somebody not honing his craft.
-
2
-
-
1 minute ago, LTS said:
See my nearly immediate edit. I had omitted that. And it doesn't change the substance of what I posted. All of that and you went for the one thing I corrected before you even got a chance to post? Excellent.
And I expanded my criticism of your position. You care more about what he said than how he played. I think that's a really bad way to judge athletes.
-
4 minutes ago, LTS said:
Well, it was hashed about but it's because at least one of the kids didn't really like him? See below though.
You think they are minor. But it only matters what the people who are involved think. That said, I read LeBrun's article today about the Ryan O'Reilly story and there were a few points I found interesting.
His Mother
His Father
His Father Again
From LeBrun
What I read into those comments are.
He felt he was the problem and he was so "mentally tough" that he lost his love of the game. In Colorado, when they were losing and in Buffalo, he takes it personally. Yes, most players hate losing. Most don't talk about how they lose their love of the game however. In fact, I've never heard a player say that before. As we said, he takes on the personality of the team. He's not the guy to pull the team out of losing.
But the real key for me was LeBrun's commentary. For a player everyone knew was available. For a player people all over are roasting the Sabres for trading away. Why was the interest so low in him? Do you not want to smack every other GM and say "Why didn't you go get ROR?" He was available for nothing.
Despite all the this, the that, and the other things that are out there. I can't get over that a player so amazing. A player that makes such a difference. A player, that doesn't have his on-ice production questioned. Why would that player not be in demand by every franchise out there?
At this point, I'm with Liger. The ROR discussion can continue, but I'm done with it.
Not even when the Germans bomb Pearl Harbor!
That's literally the opposite of what the article said. It said that he felt the team thought he was the problem, not that he himself thought it. And I still can't believe you're putting more weight into what he said than what he did. He said he lost his love of the game, but his game never showed it. So who cares? And maybe it shouldn't even be taken so literally? Mayhaps it was just how he expressed his disdain for another losing season?
-
1
-
-
2 minutes ago, inkman said:
Jeff Skinner. Except fans are shortsighted d-bags who only push agendas that match their narrative.
I really don't understand why people want to keep rehashing ***** that's is in the past. It happened. Deal with it. On your own. Privately. Stop bitching like PA standing at the restaurant door at 4:25 yammering about the early bird special.
The Sabres are certainly testing our patience with the unmitigated disaster they've iced since 2012.
Because it still has an impact in the present. This isn't like rehashing the co-captains who would have been long gone anyway. We're still facing a gaping hole at center because of the trade, and we're going to have to use assets to fill it we could have used to improve elsewhere.
-
1
-
-
20 minutes ago, SwampD said:
So you agree with dudacek and me.
teehee.
Well, I don't disagree as much as you might think I do. It's not that I think being able to clear the crease and whatnot have no value at all, I just don't think they're as valuable as you think they are relative to other skills. I also think that if their relative value was as high as you think it is, that it would eventually bear out in goal and shot results.
-
7 minutes ago, Thorny said:
You've said you don't believe in addition by subtraction, but if we do move Risto for a forward, are you ok with rolling a balanced top 4 with the D currently here, sans Risto?
No, I at least need a placeholder who can play in the NHL without embarrassing himself. I've mentioned Stralman before, and I think he could be an ideal fit for a couple of years.
-
9 minutes ago, SwampD said:
As was stated in upthread, their are plenty of things that make a good defensemen that there are no stat for.
Let's go with the assumption that this is true. That doesn't necessarily mean a defenseman who is good at these things is good enough at them to overcome the other aspects they're bad at. At best, it's a balancing act. Conversely, just because a defenseman struggles with something doesn't mean the value he generates in other ways isn't enough to compensate. Dahlin's turnovers were brought up earlier, and he did lead the defense corps in turnovers. But he also led in takeaways and his turnover ratio was equal to that of Risto all while generating way more in terms of shots and scoring chances. So who cares?
-
35 minutes ago, SwampD said:
I'm not doing that. I shouldn't have to. Dahlin did not carry the defense.
Correct. And no stat exists to say he did, even if he did. However, there are a lot of stats that say he was our best defenseman in basically every aspect of the game.
-
12 minutes ago, Thorny said:
Beat me to it. How much of a leash are you personally giving Botterill?
This season. I need to see real, sustainable improvement to the tune of either making the playoffs or being so close I want to cry that we missed. He arrived to a team that was quite flawed, yes, but possessed a nice collection of talent and assets plus a foundational piece. It shouldn't take 4 years to move 20 points up the standings. It probably shouldn't even take 3, but I don't begrudge a GM a second coach.
-
3
-
Non Sabres Deadline Trades/Rumors
in The Aud Club
Posted
Quick, do Risto....*ducks*