TrueBlueGED
-
Posts
29,076 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Events
Posts posted by TrueBlueGED
-
-
13 minutes ago, nfreeman said:
We'll be the judge of that, sir.
(Early returns are not promising, btw.)
Fine. I accepted his surrender like Michael Jordan accepted induction into the HoF. But when Liger goes off the deep end like he tends to do here and there, what other option did I have?!?!
-
8 minutes ago, Derrico said:
You mean your in a trade speculation thread, spout off multiple detailed posts about ROR whom has nothing to do with the thread but can’t name one player the sabres should trade for....in said thread?
I can and I have. Here and elsewhere, even if not during this particular conversation. The obvious two in Tampa (Miller and Johnson...strongish preference for Miller), Karlsson, Hayes, Duchene, Turris (only for cheap and/or salary retained). Bring me one.
6 minutes ago, WildCard said:I'm a believer that Housley was the reason we weren't even sniffing the playoffs last season. We will be this year
I definitely think he was a contributing factor. But it's not his fault his options at 2C were a smorgasbord of AHLers.
Edit: Moreover, we'll find out this year, right? If the team sucks again, are you really willing to blame the coach again? When is it a roster problem?
-
Just now, WildCard said:
I'd like some continuity for once. I'm giving him 4 years
I'd like some continuity too. But if we're not even sniffing the playoffs again, I find a hard time with continuity being a compelling reason to stay the course. Driving around the mountains can be tiresome but that doesn't mean the solution is to go straight and hop the guard rail.
-
2 minutes ago, Hoss said:
I was a huge fan of O’Reilly before we acquired him. I was a huge fan of him while he was here. I was a huge fan of him after he was traded. I’m incredibly happy he got a cup.
Now, what player can we trade for that would help you forgive Botterill for this?
I don't have a specific player in mind, honestly. I have some names for 2C I think are attainable and would help fill the void, but I don't really care who it is so long as it works to the tune of the playoffs. If we're not within a game or two of the playoffs (preferably in the playoffs) then I'll be on the fire Botterill bandwagon. Again, barring circumstances out of his control.
-
1
-
-
1 minute ago, LGR4GM said:
It isn't a surrender. ROR is a very good hockey player. I don't give a ***** what he says or thinks and I am sick to death of talking about a guy who is gone. He was better for St Louis than here, why who knows, all I know is... I no longer care.
Where did ROR get us?
No one was cheering for a tank when ROR was here.
You're posting a lot for someone who doesn't care ?
-
Just now, LGR4GM said:
You know what, I won't respond to anything ROR related anymore. He left and then trashed his old team. His brother was a pile of trash. Congrats to him for winning the cup, he has always been talented. I don't care anymore why he left. He's gone, he sounds like a prick, we completely lost the trade. Story over.
See above. I just don't care what ROR thinks anymore.
I graciously accept your surrender.
-
1
-
1
-
-
1 minute ago, LGR4GM said:
I don't actually believe this myth. The guys who stayed like Eichel and Reinhart clearly have worked hard in the off-season to try and turn this around. ROR just pulled the emergency eject and got out. He's very good player and the trade was garbage. At this point I just don't care about rehashing ROR.
No one was cheering for a tank and if ROR thinks that was the case, who cares. He's not part of the team or the community so he can ***** right off.
... point totals?
Do you honestly think it's that simple? He had more points, therefore tried harder?
-
Just now, LGR4GM said:
He clearly gave St Louis more so, more. I wanted him to give more.
Based on what?
-
8 minutes ago, darksabre said:
Good catch, you're right. Everyone was wearing A's after Gionta left.
It doesn't change my core argument though.It moves it some, I think. Correct me if I'm wrong, but part of your argument is Eichel and O'Reilly couldn't co-exist in the leadership group because making it Eichel's team would inherently mean a demotion of sorts for O'Reilly. But it was never O'Reilly's team in any formal sense. Maybe O'Reilly wanted the C, knew he wasn't getting it, and that caused friction. Maybe other players did get tired of O'Reilly being negative. But man, aren't those things relatively minor in the grand scheme? Is any of that so big that building up the room and icing a better roster (thus, winning) wouldn't have been able to work it out? I just find it all really hard to believe.
There are some situations where yes, you simply have to get a guy out. The whole thing a year ago with Hoffman and Karlsson strikes me as such a situation. I don't think the O'Reilly situation comes within a country mile of that severity from what we know.
-
1
-
-
1 minute ago, GASabresIUFAN said:
Why doesn’t Dahlin count? Do Jack and Sam count for TM? TM missed on Nylander and in his 3 drafts, the 1st of which is now 5 seasons ago, there are still no full time NHLers besides the 2 2nd overall picks from those drafts much less Sabres. I’d even accept an argument that TM missed on Sam because there are arguably 4 or 5 better players from 2014 including Draisaitl, Pastrnak, and maybe Larkin, Point, and Nylander drafted after him.
The best we can hope for from TM’s drafts are that Borgen, Olofsson and Asplund eventually contribute to the Sabres. Only 23 year old Olofsson appears close to NHL ready.
Now compare to Jbot in just two drafts. Pekar, Bryson and UPL will already be in Rochester next season. Laaksonen (along with UPL) are two of top rated prospects in the NHL and Samuelsson, Bryson and Davidsson seem to be on as good of a trajectory as Borgen, Olofsson and Asplund.
No, they don't. There is zero way for us to objectively judge how good Botterill's drafting is.
-
1
-
-
17 minutes ago, GASabresIUFAN said:
If your only criteria is points then we are in the same place, although our offense is clearly better.
However, TM’s team was a veteran team with a few kids that TM spent $80 mill actual dollars (cap was $73) to finish with the 5th worst team. We were loaded with a steaming pile of terrible contracts like Gorges, Bogosian, Kulikov, KO, Franson, Lehner, Ennis, and Moulson.
So while we maybe in the same spot in the standings, we have a better offense, a younger team with more upside, and only one bad contract. The TM team had no future, while this team does.
Is it? Murray's last two seasons yielded 402 goals, Botterill's first two yielded 425. But how much of that is a result of Botterill's moves versus the natural development of Eichel and Reinhart? Moderate goal output increase, questionable causal chain. That of course also has to be balanced by the worsening team defense. Botterill's teams gave up 551 goals to Murray's teams' 459. Combining these two figures, we're a whopping 69 goals in the red. Again, this team can have a future, but there is no evidence saying it does. Your belief is not evidence.
Oh, and this team has 3 bad contracts: Bogosian, Scandella, Okposo, and Sobotka, of which only two were inherited. We'd have a 5th if Botterill didn't luck into Berglund quitting.
-
2
-
-
20 minutes ago, darksabre said:
I think the trick here is that the veteran leadership thing had run its course. With Jack signing his long term deal and becoming the defacto captain of the team I don't think there was room for him and O'Reilly to share leadership duties, especially with guys like Bogo and Okposo very much in Jack's corner on things.
I get the feeling Jack wanted to lead the team his way and O'Reilly wasn't on the same page with him a lot of the time. We know there was conflict between them, although the extent of it was probably overblown.
But I don't know if stripping the C off of O'Reilly and giving it to Jack would have made things any better.
FWIW, I don't think this is an indictment of either Jack or Ryan. I just think these are two guys who don't "fit" together. And as @dudacek has said, we tend to undervalue things like fit around here.O'Reilly never had the C.
-
1
-
-
3 minutes ago, LGR4GM said:
Should have taken David Farrance at #89 and Laaksonen at #99 but Bryson at least has a shot.
Your ability to get worked up over mid-round picks never ceases to amaze me. I don't mean that critically, either. You obviously enjoy deep diving the draft, so good on you. I just can't get myself to care about draft picks after maybe pick 15 in the first round. All these guys are 3+ years away from mattering.
-
56 minutes ago, ... said:
My question is what do we gain from recognizing/admitting/knowing, in hindsight (especially), that the Sabres lost that trade? What do we do with this insight?
I think there's considerable value in understanding the processes that led to making, and subsequently losing, the trade. That can inform evaluations and discussion of other moves, both actual and potential.
-
3
-
-
8 minutes ago, LGR4GM said:
But how are you getting rid of the extra one in the end? Magic? You can't send them to Rochester because they have 2 goalies so you have to send him away via trade. Tricky prospect considering the trade market.
So move a Rochester goalie to the ECHL, Siberia, or the Atlantic ocean. I don't really care. The AHL depth chart should have zero effect on trying to improve the NHL goaltending.
-
9 minutes ago, Brawndo said:
I do believe there was an order from the top to trade him prior to the bonus being paid.
We know that St Louis, Montreal, Islanders, Arizona and Carolina were interested, with the latter two wanting a post July 1st Deal.
The rumor is that Carolina was willing to include Elias Lindholm as part of trade to the Sabres, and the fact he and Noah Hanifin were moved at the Draft gives more credence to this. Imagine if the deal had been ROR for Lindholm and Skinner or ROR and Risto for Lindholm/Skinner/Hanifin.
The July 1st Deadline severely hampered potential deals.
By Marc Bergevin’s own admission he would not trade 3rd Overall, Brady Tkatchuk would be a Sabre, nor Ryan Poehling and a 2nd Round Pick plus for ROR.
Chayka is on video asking if there were any assets from the Penguins that he could acquire that would make the deal happen.
I do believe that Botterill was originally asking for Robert Thomas or Jordan Kyrou at the Draft and even Armstrong wouldn’t even do that.
Also add on the fact that that Berglund was blindsided by the trade I do believe that the final deal was a rush job to meet the imposed deadline.
That being said, Jason Botterill was the GM who made the trade call, he was on the conference call on July 1st, so he is the focus of the ire of the Hockey Media and Sabres Fans.
In terms of Botterill being on the hot seat, I do not believe he is. Krueger’s Deal is for three seasons and Botterill has three left on his, barring a total collapse in the next 24 Months, they finish their deals. I doubt that Krueger takes the job if he did not have reassurance that Botterill was safe from the Pegulas..
And yes the trade sucks.
1) There may have been an order from the top to trade him before he got paid the bonus, but that doesn't mean that the order to trade in the first place originated at the top. I think it's likely Botterill decided to trade him (for whatever reason) and at that point was told he had better do it before the bonus. But we'll never know. Anyway, I don't think there's a way to look at the trade that makes either Botterill or Pegula look good--it's bad all 'round. However the trade came to be, it's incumbent upon Botterill to fill the giant hole it created.
2) Sir, the collapse already happened. The question is whether Botterill can reconstruct fast enough.
-
2
-
-
2 minutes ago, dudacek said:
I’m not sure what’s wrong with familiarity.
Saying “we need a world traveller with amazing flow, @Wyldnwoody44 would be perfect” then going out and getting him is not the same as saying “we need a poster who will maximize GDT engagement, my sister’s kid, @dudacek can type and is probably going to be there anyway” and calling it a day.
If you know somebody is good, by all means go get him.
Right. The problem comes in when knowing somebody leads you to have undue confidence in them. That doesn't appear to be the case here.
Just now, LGR4GM said:Why? Then we would have Ullmark, Hutton and Mrazek. How would that work?
Then maybe one of the three won't be smoldering garbage. May the best two win.
-
46 minutes ago, GASabresIUFAN said:
I have never seen so much misplaced anger or dying over spilled milk. There is clearly more to the ROR trade then just the $ and players involved.
However step back and be objective when looking at Jbot’s tenure.
When he got here our pipeline, especially on defense and center had been decimated. Our AHL team was a joke, our drafting was a joke (so far TM’s 3 drafts have yielded two full time NHL players - Jack and Sam), our NHL team was the most overpaid and underperforming team in the league and in cap hell to boot.
Under Jbot
1) Our AHL team is no longer a joke. (2 straight playoff appearences)
2) Our prospect pipeline is solid with excellent D depth, goaltending and solid mix middle forwards. (Pilut, UPL, Pekar, Borgen, Samuelsson, Bryson, Olofsson, Asplund, Laaksonen, and Ruotsalainen)
3) We are no longer in cap hell (20 mill to spend and only 6 contracts beyond this season with only one bad contract for KO)
4) We actually now have a good core of players we can build onto in Jack, Sam, Montour, Mitts, Dahlin, Skinner, McCabe and even Risto. Remember when Jbot got here Risto was our best D. He is now arguably our 3rd best D. We have a gifted top line and some young players like Pilut, Mitts, Dahlin, Asplund, Borgen and Olofsson who should continue to grow and improve.
Have there been mistakes? Sure. Housley sadly didn’t work out. Either did Baloo. Many of the forward depth acquisitions have not performed as hoped or expected. The ROR trade is a current disaster, but could be partially salvaged if Thompson (only 21) improves and we hit on the 2 remaining draft picks. (Maybe trade the 31st for Kapanen?).
However there have also been very good to excellent moves such as signing Pilut, trading for Skinner, acquiring Montour, and getting Sheary for nothing.
I’m sorry, but this franchise is in a much better place today then when TM was GM and with a couple of good moves to add some scoring and some more defensive D, we should be a playoff team next season.
You're not being objective, though. You clearly believe in Botterill and think it's going to work out long term, but if we're looking at objectivity, his first two seasons as GM have objectively been worse than Murray's last two. Murray's Sabres finished 23rd with 81 points and 26th with 78 points. Botterill has iced 31st in the league with 62 points and 27th in the league with 76 points. At best, they're in the same place. There is simply no evidence the team is moving in the right direction. You are free to believe it is, but that's not objectivity.
-
2
-
-
5 minutes ago, nfreeman said:
I too have had this concern about JB.
I think it's fair to say that JB has burned up quite a bit of his "new GM benefit of the doubt" quotient. The team needs to be a lot better this year, and JB needs to be proven right about guys like RK, Mittsy and Montour.
Correct. Barring unusual circumstances (injuries, stupidly bad puck luck, etc.) I'd go one farther and say they have to be a playoff team. Or so stupidly close they miss out on the final day of the season via shootout or something. Botterill has iced two teams worse than Murray did, one of which was tank-worthy while trying to win. Woof. There's no way to know how thin his ice is with Pegula, but I can't imagine he has much of any rope left with fans.
-
2
-
-
23 minutes ago, WildCard said:
You telling me I only have one more year to rob a bank? I can feel my internal clock ticking right now
I have full confidence in your ability to be an outlier ?
-
3
-
-
2 minutes ago, Drunkard said:
I don't trust Botterill at all but he's still the GM so I understand he'll continue to make decisions and I enjoy discussing it regardless. I'd rather see him make moves as a "buyer" the way he went after Skinner, Sheary, and Montour than to see him try to make moves as a "seller" the way he sold off O'Reilly and Kane. He seems to have more aptitude as a buyer, regardless of the fact that I'd like to see his head on a metaphorical stick.
I think this is a fair assessment given what he's done so far. I think he was seriously constrained by market forces with respect to the Kane trade, but it's not like we have a lot to go on other than that and O'Reilly.
-
9 minutes ago, PASabreFan said:
Some people remember Tyler Myers. And some took notice of dozens of absolutely atrocious defensive plays in his own zone. Are they going to magically disappear from his game? I don't see any reason to anoint the kid, maybe even put too much pressure on him. Let's see what we have in Year 2.
Myers didn't play in the NHL in his draft season. He also did that on a functional team with a good coach (no, 11 has not taken control of my keyboard). He also wasn't talked about as the next great defensive prospect since he was 16. I understand not wanting to be burned again, but the circumstances really aren't all that similar.
-
3
-
-
2 minutes ago, PASabreFan said:
Some of it's the language of the millennial. Incredible... amaaaaazing... So he's incredible but not in the conversation for the Norris? Words have to have some meaning. I think there are fans who want to wait until he's, ya know, incredible. Instead of very good for an 18-year-old playing defense and very promising.
For me, saying he's incredible has those things baked into it, but I get what you're saying.
And he was more than just very good for an 18 year old defenseman. He had one of the best seasons ever for an 18 year old defenseman, and he did it on a bad team. It's this part that I don't think a lot of people fully appreciate. It would be pretty shocking if he doesn't end up in the Norris conversation within a few years given what he was at 18.
-
1 minute ago, Drunkard said:
If you trade Ristolainen though, how is Montour going to slot in on the second pair? Won't he then be needed for the top pair at that point? That's what I don't understand about the argument.
Who replaces Ristolainen on the top pair? Bogosian? Nelson? Borgen? Are we just going to throw Dahlin out there by himself and go with 6 forwards? Moving Ristolainen requires somebody else to take those minutes and I've yet to see a good argument for where they should go because both you and LGR seem to think Montour belongs on the second pair, which is fine, but that means we need someone new for the top pair and since everyone who wants to trade Ristolainen seems to want to move him for forward help I can only imagine that means you either think he'll be replaced internally or you guys think Erik Karlsson is signing here or something.
Conceptually, I just don't think you need to put your best two defenseman on the top pair. I also don't think the minutes that Risto plays have to exist. Balance things across the top-4 rather than saddling one pair with it. That would be my approach.
-
1
-
How Would You Fix the Sabres?
in The Aud Club
Posted
I'm not saying you're wrong, but I would be disappointed. I don't think we have the firepower to effectively fill our needs only through trades, which means we're left hoping for some unexpected help from within coupled with growth. Again. I want to be able to look at the roster and think it's a playoff team, not think it could be a playoff team if 5 things fall correctly into place at once.