PerreaultForever

Never forget the tax advantage Florida teams have. Tough to compete with that if they spend wisely. Of course on the other hand look at all that money going to Stamkos and currently not helping them at all. Good/lucky(?) drafting. Same for Carolina. Hence they could cut loose a guy like Skinner and do better after. So drafting well is the key always, not spending. and drafting well lets you spend less for years too. So on the one hand I guess getting rid of a scouting department is fine since maybe they didn't earn their money. But the plan is (?) virtually no scouting department? Ya sure, that seems like it'll work................

I pretty much feel that way about all 4. If I have to pick I prefer Vegas, but really don't care.

I don't know why this is surprising to people, it goes hand in hand with what was being said when JBot and all the scouts etc were fired. Cost cutting and fiscal restraint. Why did you think they'd spend on players??? The Sabres won't be alone in this approach. Arizona and Pittsburgh mentioned above and I'm sure there will be others. The next season will be a challenge to say the least in terms of generating revenue so a lot of owners are going to just spend as little as possible until things are fully back to normal.

I'm hoping 2, but you're probably right.

Not everyone 🙂 In general Stanley Cup winners are teams with great goaltending first and foremost, then very good specialty teams (both), and then a deep balanced lineup that can overcome injuries and has the ability to endure or adjust to an opponent. So a talented fast team doesn't have to be super tough or anything, but if they are facing a physical team they need enough toughness to counter that and vice versa. This year is slightly different in the depth department since everyone came in pretty much rested and healthy. Usually the playoffs are after the long grind and depth is more important. Trends come and go, as you said, but one dimensional teams rarely win it all (if ever).

the way he's playing now it also kind of shows that Murray was not wrong about assessing his talent and potential as a #1 goalie, but obviously he failed to assess his character (at the time) and his issues. Definitely, and proving the old point I tend to harp on that you need a balanced hockey team to be really good. We need talent, a 2C most definitely, but also size and toughness down the roster.

This is absolutely true, and maybe he turned his back on help that was offered earlier but from his side of it he seems to say he never realized what the problem was. So imo this is where the issue of good veteran leadership comes in. Young guys with their minds on fame and/or women and good times and all the other things of youth and money might look at him and go "our goalie's a psycho" but not really care or look deeper. Not a blame thing, just reality. So the leadership, the guys who get together and see it and think "we have to find a way to get this guy help" has to come from somewhere, and I don't think we had it. Certainly not like a lot of solid teams do. Everything on a team has to be a mix and a balance. Everything. You go all in in any one direction and you have problems.

In general I'd be reluctant to pay anyone over 30 big money unless it's very short term, and generally those guys want term. I think Lowry would be a good guy to include in any multi player (involving Risto if that's still a thing) Winnipeg deal as he's a pretty decent player with good grit and attitude and a Skinner-Lowry-Johanson line might actually not be too bad until Cozens is ready or another C can be obtained. obviously Cirelli. I like Bonino but he's getting up there in years. Good 3rd liner. Gourde in a heartbeat but for him and really anyone else it depends on the price tag.

It's the details I'm questioning and there is no answer so we can let it go. The WHEN is important as is the depth of understanding. Also, did the organization really try to help or did they prefer the easier path of just a handshake and a best wishes goodbye. I can understand why they might prefer the goodbye approach (and Lehner was not JBot's guy) but a team that chooses to stick by their people and help them, keep them, bring them closer in, that might be a team with a better culture. More of a family feeling than a corporate one.

We're going to have to disagree on that one but no point in keeping it going. I am curious though, since you view him so highly (i.e. not a 4th liner) what number/term would you offer him to stay?

My understanding is his addiction problems were due to (at the time) undiagnosed mental health issues. When he got the psychiatric help (and perhaps proper meds) the addiction problem went away. Perhaps the Sabres didn't look deep enough or care enough to find out the whole story. Does the team employ any sort of mental health counsellor(s)? They should.

I don't disagree with that in theory, but I have a little trouble referring to Larsson as a "shut-down" player. They may have used him in that capacity or attempted to, but he's really not that great. If I'm a star player I think of Bergeron as a shut down player and I'd rather not be matched against him (for example). Larsson I'd see more as a nuisance who will get in my way a little but in the end won't stop me completely so I'm fine facing him any time.

The problem to me with the tank is the timeline or length of the plan. I don't know if Murray was arrogant and impatient or if he was rushed by ownership, but whichever it was, that's the problem. You can't tank AND at the same time dump your draft picks and attempt some sort of instant rebuild (which is what Murray attempted). You get your superstar with the tank, but you also have to keep all those #1 and #2 picks to fill out a young roster in the form you envision it. If they'd held onto the picks and used them wisely think of all the talent we'd have? It's a lot. One superstar draft pick and a couple big name vets does not a team make. Compare our tank to Ottawa. There's wasn't really a tank, but they did end up gutting that roster. Loaded up on draft picks though and I wouldn't be surprised if they finish ahead of us this year. Maybe it takes another couple years, but they look to be on the right track. You just shouldn't trade away first round picks. drafting wisely and frequently is how you build a good franchise. It's really not rocket science. It's always been the same and it's even more important than ever in a free agency + cap league since rookie contracts are so comparatively cheap. It's really the only way.

I'm not sure teams are lining up to grab Girgs but maybe Larry. Certainly won't be shocked if either leaves. I'm not sure Vegas built that intentionally or it was just the best answer to utilize what they had. It's certainly the old philosophy though and I wouldn't argue against it. 2 scoring lines, a checking line and a crash/energy line. Pretty tough to have more than 2 scoring lines in a cap league so it's a reasonable approach for sure. and crash lines are fun to watch 🙂

welcome to the world of free enterprise.

Not sure if this was mentioned somewhere else yet but the draft is Oct 6 and Free Agency is Oct 9.

It's not a mischaracterization, it's what they should be. They got more ice time because Krueger was trying to create a work ethic scenario where effort was rewarded with playing time and since lines 2 and 3 were crap they often got start periods and play more. They also got tossed out against checking lines when Krueger wanted to keep those lines off Eichel. If they're still a line next season and they're not our 4th line we're in trouble.

That's a deal I'd make in our situation but I doubt it's a possibility. Domi has denied he asked for a trade anyway so the whole thing might be a non issue. I agree though, he's not really a center but he would give us a pretty deep left side and a better 2nd PP unit. Stil gonna need that 2C though.

Funny. Except no. None of their GMs, the men at the top had experience at that level. Murray was a scout true, but he was unqualified for a GM role, just an inexperienced product of nepotism in the Murray clan. Nolan? Nolan was a patsy. Filled the void for the tank, totally screwed over even though he had somewhat of a legacy here and fan favour (with some). Wonder why the culture sucks? Maybe it's for things like that. Botterill? No GM experience, I think everyone (probably even you) has said at some point he was in over his head and didn't have a clue. Housley? No pevious head coaching experience. and LaFontaine, he ran for the door (or was pushed out of it) practically day one. Actually experienced people who have been available at various points that they could have hired..........Tortorella, Lamorello, Trotts, Quennville, Dudley, ..............how long do you want that list to be, it's long.

It's Kim's team. Isn't that obvious? Exactly. As far as the analytics approach goes, I still don't think the Pegulas know anything about hockey so now they don't trust hockey people (even though they never hired experienced hockey people to run it) but they are business people so numbers and computers and charts and stuff seem to make sense to them so ya they say let's try that shiny newer thing.

I heard that too.

One small difference there. That was a Bruins GM who was fired because, although he helped create a good team, totally screwed up their salary cap. Doubled down on Lucic no less. A guy who the Bruins fire isn't quite the same as a guy moving up their organization and looking for advancement.

Sorry, but I've tried that for several seasons now and just can't any more as I see the same thing repeating yet again. What you say is true, but there is also that other adage that those who ignore history are destined to repeat it. What about Adams being hired and the current talk seems in any way different to you than when Murray or JBot was hired? Myself, it feels like deja vu and I'm not going to be fooled again. So if/when this new group does something real, something different, then I'm all in, but I'm not blindly buying in yet again just based on hope and rhetoric.

Lol, that was a funny typo and ya, in a way they did lose to themselves. (but you get the point)

We disagree on many things as you know (especially stats and analytics) but on this point 100% dead on agreement. It's always hard to tell as a fan if failures were poorly developed or just never had it, but it doesn't really matter, we traded away too many good picks and we squandered many of the ones we had with poor choices. Bad drafting, simple as that.