Thorny

They are exactly this, they draft players in the mold, and they are apparently encouraging it from Östlund, etc. I’m much more of an old school, play D and playmake type guy re: entertainment value, but.. kids these days Norris has one of the worst primary assist rates in the league. They like snipers

Norris likely shut down. So he’ll be billed as the key offseason addition. Östlund will look to cement his spot

“Only through me do you have the power to achieve relevancy!” *does the thing* “Please, teach me the ways of relevancy!” “….well, about that..only one has sabres GM has achieved it before but I’m sure if we put our heads together we can work something out.”

Good thing we have a savvy GM to steer the ship through these troubling times

You know what they awoke in the darkness

We know he’s actually good so I’d rather overpay than lose him. We’d just be looking for another JJ Peterka for the top 6 when we already need help there and if we don’t want to wait on someone young (the actual plan), we’d have to overpay for the devil you don’t, anyways. If there’s a hockey trade to be made that’s an option, too. I don’t think he’ll be signed to an offer sheet and if so I doubt it’s some huge Vanek like overpay, teams won’t be able to afford that. Could be an overpay in line with what we are probably already looking at

In the end the differential of distinction isn’t going to sway me on the level of forward add we need: the best we can get. McLeod can be defensible as a 2C, but the combination of Norris and McLeod being a capable 1-2 punch doubles the bet and makes it far more unlikely to work out: the sort of thing we constantly do. If Thompson is on the wing, we essentially need an add at centre if we are serious about configuring a roster that’s going to make the playoffs. If Thompson is at C, the likelihood of ONE of McLeod or Norris locking down 2C does goes way up: much better bet. It’s why I like/want Tage back at C. We still need to add in this case if we can, but it can be at wing, and therefore much more attainable there’s a Marner sized hole at RW, or we can run back Quinn and hope for the best. Marner may be a pipe dream, but a top 6 wing would go a long way you are looking to add to the roster in any way you can if you are in 27th place and your *best* stats are mid pack. Your weaknesses are too strong and your strengths aren’t strong enough to balance out the weaknesses. Still in a position to add to strengths and address weaknesses, both unless you are good with configuring teams that have a chance at playoffs if almost eveything works out in our favour, and Dahlin doesn’t miss any games

But you meant to say he’d be an “excellent” 3C on a playoff team, no? You’d think the connotation of excellent 2C would be one bordering on 1 and McLeod isn’t that. Debate here is between 2 and 3 good 2C, excellent 3C was I thought your argument

It’s still an issue. Being like 17th (instead of 19th. But still 19th depending on the calculation method) in even strength differential is not close to “good enough, worry about the rest” *Stanley cup* contenders add forwards, dude its 15th in 5v5 differential. It’s nothing to write home about. - - - I’ll never agree with your, “aim really low, complain a lot when it goes wrong”‘ strategy

Reimer very likely couldn’t have done this over a full season if we are being honest

The shooting percentage thing is extremely observable even without looking at the stats. When they wind up right now it has the “feeling” it’s gonna go in

I think he actually meant to type excellent 3C tbh

It’s “McLeod” (only phonetic) and you are right, it was a great trade. Never mind just “good”. Tuch doesn’t apply in this context, we traded the vastly superior player to get him, that doesn’t indicate trading aptitude

You mean excellent 3C on a playoff team He’s a perfect Sabres 2C. Squint and it’s good enough

Levi is Hasek was a time, man I also don’t believe my classification verges very thoroughly on hyperbole, either

Palm trees gets the flowers but real die hards know “we got him? we got Matt Irwin?” is the real lore

Mr burns had done it the power plant had won it

But with Kulich we *might* make it - it’s not an absurd likelihood. If we can give ourselves a chance to make it while still making sure we are working towards the long term goal of developing a cup contender, that’s gotta be the best of both worlds Give the kid a shot, I say

It’s one of those things I SO would love to discuss with them in a quiet office with no windows and distractions, in a candid manner, face to face. I don’t quite understand and can’t wrap my mind around the disconnect. The stated mantra IS in fact “we don’t want to just be a playoff team, we want to be a cup contender”. But, to your point, they build the rosters to the tune of only just scratching a playoff berth in the now, if things go right I guess that’s it? They somehow view the prioritization of *ensuring* a playoff berth in the now as working in opposition to their long term contender goal i frequently argue the opposite: you have to lay the first brick. You stack contendership upon the shoulders of playoff bricks you’ve laid. Upon that respectability its two fold: you’ve built a playoff roster (what a concept!), AND, the franchise surely had an easier time attracting players which facilitates the long term goal ie Adams is full of ***** He should know the attracting players concern would dissipate with respectability. It’s not chicken and egg: we don’t need a cup team to attract players. We just need to be respectable

It’s also about consciously raising the bar. The fascination with things being “ok” is not just odd it actively prevents the goals from being achieved. Are we not tired of rosters that “could” make it? Make one that “could” finish top 10: so when we fall short inevitably due to unforeseen circumstances that arise every year, we still make the playoffs is the goal to make the playoffs, or give us a chance to make the playoffs? The UTTER lack of urgency blows my mind. It’s like with goalies where no one seems to think it’s ok to expect them to make some saves that are “above the line”. There’s no rule your goalie just has to be average and the rest of the team has to pick up the slack. Any component of the roster can be improved to help facilitate a playoff berth we were “no stone unturned” two years ago. the sabres are like 15th in ES differential , not first. It’s *conceivably* good enough to be a playoff team. We aren’t close to maxed out there lol. A goal added is still as valuable as one prevented: we aren’t close to a situation where we’d “lose value” from having too many scorers it’s so fascinating - people will argue BPA for the draft regardless of composition but can’t envision the roster in the same terms. *the sabres are not close to* being at the critical mass, anywhere

It’s the whole online world lol

No, I led off with “and” because it was a supplement to your post not in disagreement. Thought that would be caught Is it me? Am I ridiculously unclear all too often?

No one does. The point is you address the roster based on the full impressions of the player not the streak. The point of my post wasn’t that Tuch’s production the following year wasn’t good.