How far would you go

[Weave]

If McEichel were the ONLY goal then Larsson and Ristolainen would not be on the roster. Murray can do more than he has to go for last place. Why hasn't he? He's either not as concerned with it as many think he is or he's grossly incompetent.

 

I don't know about that.  Larsson and Risto Are on a 30th place team.  He's built a beauty of a tank roster.

 

I have to assume that the Sabres were "talked to" about tanking last offseason.  The rhetoric changed significantly after reporters started asking Bettman about it.  I expect Buffalo has and continues to walk a fine line this season.

Edited March 22, 2015 by weave

[darksabre]

I'm not the one arguing a full on tank was about one single prospect. That's an absurd extreme, that if true, would fully justify the extremity of my proposed roster moves. In fact, sending every eligible contributor down to Rochester would be the only sensible action if it was only about McDavid.

 

It doesn't justify anything. This team as built needed no manipulation to achieve the goal. 

[LastPommerFan]

I think it would be useful to separate "ALL HOPES RESTING ON.." and "THE REASON FOR THE TANK IS..."

 

All hopes are not resting on getting McEichel. The team will improve, likely to a much better team than we've had in the better part of a decade, simply with the teardown and resulting multitude of picks. 

 

The "TANK", the effort put into not signing good FAs and not trading our picks for NHL players, the reason we did that is McEichel.

 

McEichel is the reason we traded for picks and held those picks, he is not our Obi-Wan.

[Weave]

I think it would be useful to separate "ALL HOPES RESTING ON.." and "THE REASON FOR THE TANK IS..."

 

All hopes are not resting on getting McEichel. The team will improve, likely to a much better team than we've had in the better part of a decade, simply with the teardown and resulting multitude of picks. 

 

The "TANK", the effort put into not signing good FAs and not trading our picks for NHL players, the reason we did that is McEichel.

 

McEichel is the reason we traded for picks and held those picks, he is not our Obi-Wan.

 

Begone.  There is no room for middle ground here.

[bunomatic]

There's absolutely no way the "Edmonton approach" is what we're going for here. No GM would be dumb enough to try to emulate that. 

Who said anything about the Edmonton approach ? 

 

Obviously you surround said picks with the right complimentary pieces. But you knew that. ;)

Edited March 22, 2015 by bunomatic

[TrueBlueGED]

I don't know about that. Larsson and Risto Are on a 30th place team. He's built a beauty of a tank roster.

 

I have to assume that the Sabres were "talked to" about tanking last offseason. The rhetoric changed significantly after reporters started asking Bettman about it. I expect Buffalo has and continues to walk a fine line this season.

Are you open to the possibility that the teardown Regier started was about McDavid, but Murray moderated the organization's stance? I can't reconcile the actions (and lack of action in some respects) with a "30th or bust" mission.

[Weave]

Are you open to the possibility that the teardown Regier started was about McDavid, but Murray moderated the organization's stance? I can't reconcile the actions (and lack of action in some respects) with a "30th or bust" mission.

 

I think it has been 30 or bust for 2 seasons now.  It seems rather obvious to me.  What actions can't you reconcile?

[Hoss]

I think both sides of the "it is/isn't about one player" parade are half wrong... It is about one player, but it isn't. It's about one player in that this was all done with attaining one player this year -- either McDavid or Eichel, as well as getting a top-end player last year.

I don't think Murray cared much if he got Reinhart/Bennett as long as it was a "top talent" last year.

 

This year is ABSOLUTELY about McEichel. Anything less is a huge misstep (won't say it's a failure because I do think that's a bit too far).

 

The key way to differentiate, because some are arguing the same thing but battling with semantics, is that the "it's about one player" doesn't mean that the team's entire plan and goals rely on one player. No. They've got a very good prospect pool and assets to make the proper moves to allow that one player lead a good group of hockey players to the promised land. If we don't get McEichel the route will be different and the road will be tougher.

 

It's about one player(s).

[Weave]

I think both sides of the "it is/isn't about one player" parade are half wrong... It is about one player, but it isn't. It's about one player in that this was all done with attaining one player this year -- either McDavid or Eichel, as well as getting a top-end player last year.

I don't think Murray cared much if he got Reinhart/Bennett as long as it was a "top talent" last year.

 

This year is ABSOLUTELY about McEichel. Anything less is a huge misstep (won't say it's a failure because I do think that's a bit too far).

 

The key way to differentiate, because some are arguing the same thing but battling with semantics, is that the "it's about one player" doesn't mean that the team's entire plan and goals rely on one player. No. They've got a very good prospect pool and assets to make the proper moves to allow that one player lead a good group of hockey players to the promised land. If we don't get McEichel the route will be different and the road will be tougher.

 

It's about one player(s).

 

I never suggested that there aren't plans and assets to move forward if the McEichel lottery passes us by.  But yeah, the whole point was to draft a generational talent.

[Huckleberry]

I never suggested that there aren't plans and assets to move forward if the McEichel lottery passes us by.  But yeah, the whole point was to draft a generational talent.

 

I think hanifin is up there with eichel and Mcdavid though, we just don't care because we need offense more.

[Weave]

I think hanifin is up there with eichel and Mcdavid though, we just don't care because we need offense more.

 

Noone is calling Hanifin generational.  Is anyone even calling him a franchise type player?  

[Hoss]

I think hanifin is up there with eichel and Mcdavid though, we just don't care because we need offense more.

He's not. He's a notch below. But I still put him in his own tier.

I never suggested that there aren't plans and assets to move forward if the McEichel lottery passes us by.  But yeah, the whole point was to draft a generational talent.

I wasn't suggesting that you did. That part was more for those who seem to be assuming that what the "it's about one player" side is inferring.

[Weave]

He's not. He's a notch below. But I still put him in his own tier.

I wasn't suggesting that you did. That part was more for those who seem to be assuming that what the "it's about one player" side is inferring.

 

I never suggested that you were suggesting that i suggested......... aww forget it.  I can't make the joke work.

[TrueBlueGED]

I think it has been 30 or bust for 2 seasons now. It seems rather obvious to me. What actions can't you reconcile?

Signing a guy like Moulson to a long term deal--an obvious step towards building something that helps win games this year. Trading for Gorges instead of signing an AHL-level player for that spot. Keeping Risto up all year. Keeping Larsson up when he's clearly not helping get to 30th. Not selling more at the deadline (a guy like Ennis). Not bringing in his own coach who would have a wink wink nudge nudge understanding about this season, or at least, making some attempt to get on the same page as Nolan vis a vis "long term developmental coaching" versus "win now at all costs." Going into the year with replacement level goaltending rather than average goaltending. Any number of things could have been done.

 

My bottom line is that I see "last or bust" as a very extreme goal, and I can't believe extreme action wouldn't follow said goal. But we haven't seen extreme action at all. I'm not saying he was trying to ice a winner this year, but I don't think he's gone balls to the wall for last place either. I firmly believe he entered this year wanting to finish last, but I don't believe that's the only thing that matters (roster building, developing some of the young talent, and so on are all important things that he set in motion which work against finishing last).

[Hoss]

I never suggested that you were suggesting that i suggested......... aww forget it.  I can't make the joke work.

[Weave]

Signing a guy like Moulson to a long term deal--an obvious step towards building something that helps win games this year. Trading for Gorges instead of signing an AHL-level player for that spot. Keeping Risto up all year. Keeping Larsson up when he's clearly not helping get to 30th. Not selling more at the deadline (a guy like Ennis). Not bringing in his own coach who would have a wink wink nudge nudge understanding about this season, or at least, making some attempt to get on the same page as Nolan vis a vis "long term developmental coaching" versus "win now at all costs." Going into the year with replacement level goaltending rather than average goaltending. Any number of things could have been done.

 

My bottom line is that I see "last or bust" as a very extreme goal, and I can't believe extreme action wouldn't follow said goal. But we haven't seen extreme action at all. I'm not saying he was trying to ice a winner this year, but I don't think he's gone balls to the wall for last place either. I firmly believe he entered this year wanting to finish last, but I don't believe that's the only thing that matters (roster building, developing some of the young talent, and so on are all important things that he set in motion which work against finishing last).

 

I guess we are differing in what we judge as extreme action.  Moulson was a calculated risk.  The revolving door at goalie is, to me, plenty evidence of deliberate tanking.  I don't think TM expected the goalie performance he got out of any of them.  I think the Gionta signing is a brilliant teach-the-rooks-but stay-bad move.  The long term injury list is evidence to me of roster manipulation.  The movement of Stafford for a guy who won't play until next season.... also brilliant.

Edited March 22, 2015 by weave

[TrueBlueGED]

I guess we are differing in what we judge as extreme action.  Moulson was a calculated risk.  The revolving door at goalie is, to me, plenty evidence of deliberate tanking.  I don't think TM expected the goalie performance he got out of any of them.  I think the Gionta signing is a brilliant teach-the-rooks-but stay-bad move.  The long term injury list is evidence to me of roster manipulation.  The movement of Stafford for a guy who won't play until next season.... also brilliant.

 

Oh I absolutely agree there has been roster manipulation, we just differ in how far we think Murray has gone to ensure 30th. 

 

By the way, I think most of us expected Stafford to be moved for a hypothetical guy who might one day 4 years from now play a game, so really the trade was actually a step up!  :P

Edited March 22, 2015 by TrueBluePhD

[Weave]

Oh I absolutely agree there has been roster manipulation, we just differ in how far we think Murray has gone to ensure 30th. 

 

By the way, I think most of us expected Stafford to be moved for a hypothetical guy who might one day 4 years from now play a game, so really the trade was actually a step up!  :P

 

 

It is hard to say he hasn't gone as far as he thinks he needs to when we are in 30th and the favorite to finish there.

[TrueBlueGED]

It is hard to say he hasn't gone as far as he thinks he needs to when we are in 30th and the favorite to finish there.

 

Not to mince words, but I didn't say he needed to go farther. My point is that he definitely could have done more, and if finishing 30th was the sole purpose for this season, I expect he would have gone farther.

[Thorner]

Not to mince words, but I didn't say he needed to go farther. My point is that he definitely could have done more, and if finishing 30th was the sole purpose for this season, I expect he would have gone farther.

 

I suspect this is true. I do think Murray is making a conscious effort to avoid an obvious all out tank. Whether this is because he is trying to toe some sort of Bettman imposed line, or because he really isn't extremely fussed on finishing last, it's hard to know for sure. But I do think if he was dead-set on last he could do more. I do think last is the goal, and what Murray wants. He's made enough moves to show this to be the case, as others have stated.

 

One thing i'll say is, I don't like when it is stated that the goal was all about ONE generation player. The true goal takes into account the presence of two. I don't think it's fair or correct to say the main goal of this season is McDavid. He is definitely the top prize, but the goal being last place is necessarily able to be as such because of the presence of Eichel. The anomaly of this season is that there are two generational talents said to be available, and gunning for last place, which of course guarantees one of the two, is something over which GMTM has a reasonable amount of control. 

 

I don't think he would be daft enough to set the goal for the season to be something that, even with everything going correctly, comes down to a measly 20% chance.

Edited March 23, 2015 by Thorny

[Drunkard]

I suspect this is true. I do think Murray is making a conscious effort to avoid an obvious all out tank. Whether this is because he is trying to toe some sort of Bettman imposed line, or because he really isn't extremely fussed on finishing last, it's hard to know for sure. But I do think if he was dead-set on last he could do more. I do think last is the goal, and what Murray wants. He's made enough moves to show this to be the case, as others have stated.

 

One thing i'll say is, I don't like when it is stated that the goal was all about ONE generation player. The true goal takes into account the presence of two. I don't think it's fair or correct to say the main goal of this season is McDavid. He is definitely the top prize, but the goal being last place is necessarily able to be as such because of the presence of Eichel. The anomaly of this season is that there are two generational talents said to be available, and gunning for last place, which of course guarantees one of the two, is something over which GMTM has a reasonable amount of control. 

 

I don't think he would be daft enough to set the goal for the season to be something that, even with everything going correctly, comes down to a measly 20% chance.

I agree. This year is special because there are 2 generational type talents and finishing last guarantees you one of them. The entire rebuild/tank has never been about 1 player though and it's not just about McDavid or Eichel either. It's about getting at least 2 elite level talents to build the rest of the improved team around. Look at just about every team who has won the cup in the last decade and they have had at least 2 elite players that the team is essentially built around. They don't have to come from the top 5 of the draft (Red Wings, Bruins, Ducks) but often they do (Blackhawks, Penguins, Kings). We potentially got one last year in Reinhart and most of us are hoping that we'll get an even better one this year in McEichel. Those two elite players with a supporting cast of Kane, Ennis, Girgensons, Moulson, Bogosian, Ristolainen, Zadorov, etc. along with any other moves that may be planned will hopefully put us into contender status but at the very least will complete the rebuild and get us back to respectability.