darksabre Posted March 1, 2018 Report Posted March 1, 2018 From Friedman’s 31Thoughts Today 11. Buffalo GM Jason Botterill took heat for not getting a guaranteed first-rounder in exchange for Evander Kane. Word is one other team raised the possibility of a first-round pick for the winger three or four days prior to the deadline, but pulled the offer when something else came up. That left Botterill with San Jose’s Doug Wilson, who can grind with the best of them. Botterill had a choice: take what he could or lose Kane for nothing. Look at the deals where opening-round selections were included. Tampa gave up two (potentially) for McDonagh and J.T. Miller. Both have term or team control. Vegas gave up one for Tomas Tatar, still with term. Chicago got one for Ryan Hartman, a restricted free agent. (There was a lot of interest in him.) Pittsburgh gave up one for Brassard, with another year on his contract. Only two UFAs featured such a return — Rick Nash and Paul Stastny. Botterill tried to build a market, but Kane simply wasn’t as highly valued as Nash. As for Stastny, teams generally don’t ask players to waive full no-trade clauses without reason. Winnipeg gave St. Louis one. 12. There was some indication the Sabres could have gotten a better deal if they moved Kane last summer, but I remembered something Botterill said not long after taking the job. He discussed how you have to be careful to not make decisions based on what you heard, as opposed to what you see. One of Buffalo’s recent issues is spending so much on bad fits. Clearly, they made the choice to find out firsthand what they had. There wasn’t a market for Robin Lehner, either. If Botterill’s discovered anything, it’s that this is a much bigger rebuild than he thought. A guy I follow on twitter said that Friedman commented during one of his intermission segments last night that he expects the Sabres will not be qualifying Lehner.
Gramps Posted March 1, 2018 Report Posted March 1, 2018 The Kane deal kind of reminds me of the Dareus deal...dump the talented misfit even if it means losing the transaction. I tend not to believe Botterill when he said the owner wasn't involved in the decision....Kane produced but with our untalented players and unstable team structure surrounding him, he wasn't being maximized here. Plus he wasn't going to get $7-8 million for being a 20-30 goal scorer on a losing team, not with his history...The days of overpaying misfits are hopefully finally over for the Sabres. Now that Kane's on a good team, I think he will finally become the high scoring power forward he was always meant to be. I see great things ahead for Evander Kane with the Sharks. It wasn't going to happen in Buffalo... Botterill is never going to say that the Pegulas were involved just like Lehner would never admit he really did ask for a trade. A guy I follow on twitter said that Friedman commented during one of his intermission segments last night that he expects the Sabres will not be qualifying Lehner. Lehner knows this for sure and probably asked for a trade.
SDS Posted March 1, 2018 Report Posted March 1, 2018 Pat LaFontaine seems to have dodged the ire of the fanbase... He hand picked GMTM for that job - did he not?
WildCard Posted March 1, 2018 Report Posted March 1, 2018 Pat LaFontaine seems to have dodged the ire of the fanbase... He hand picked GMTM for that job - did he not? Indeed he did
woods-racer Posted March 1, 2018 Report Posted March 1, 2018 Pat LaFontaine seems to have dodged the ire of the fanbase... He hand picked GMTM for that job - did he not? Good point.
Stoner Posted March 1, 2018 Report Posted March 1, 2018 Pat LaFontaine seems to have dodged the ire of the fanbase... He hand picked GMTM for that job - did he not? Well, Battista too. Half kidding. Battista did go along on the interview with Pat. The interesting question is whether Pat was anti-tank and quickly left because of that and whether Murray was also anti-tank but went along to save his job. Murray saying he didn't want a five-year rebuild and his attempt to accelerate the rebuild would suggest he might not have been in favor of a tank if he had had the choice. I wonder how much Falk's "selfish" comment lowered Kane's value?
darksabre Posted March 1, 2018 Report Posted March 1, 2018 Well, Battista too. Half kidding. Battista did go along on the interview with Pat. The interesting question is whether Pat was anti-tank and quickly left because of that and whether Murray was also anti-tank but went along to save his job. Murray saying he didn't want a five-year rebuild and his attempt to accelerate the rebuild would suggest he might not have been in favor of a tank if he had had the choice. I wonder how much Falk's "selfish" comment lowered Kane's value? I think Pat assumed he was going to have more control over GMTM.
woods-racer Posted March 1, 2018 Report Posted March 1, 2018 I think Pat assumed he was going to have more control over GMTM. I think Pat assumed he'd be in total control. Pegula had a few to many advisers snooping around for that.
darksabre Posted March 1, 2018 Report Posted March 1, 2018 I think Pat assumed he'd be in total control. Pegula had a few to many advisers snooping around for that. I just think GMTM and Pat probably came to blows like... Day 1... and the Pegulas decided they weren't going to look like idiots by canning the GM they just hired. But maybe Patty La was right...
GASabresIUFAN Posted March 1, 2018 Report Posted March 1, 2018 Pat LaFontaine seems to have dodged the ire of the fanbase... He hand picked GMTM for that job - did he not? He did and certainly gets some of the blame, but on paper TM looked like a very good candidate. He had experience as a quality amateur scout, had proven draft winners, was a long time asst NHL GM and had experience as an AHL GM. He also had recommendations from respected hockey people. Overall the decision made sense on paper. Sadly, that experience didn’t translate to actual ability. Like failed GM Don Waddell in Atl, I doubt TM ever gets another GM job.
inkman Posted March 1, 2018 Report Posted March 1, 2018 (edited) Well, Battista too. Half kidding. Battista did go along on the interview with Pat. The interesting question is whether Pat was anti-tank and quickly left because of that and whether Murray was also anti-tank but went along to save his job. Murray saying he didn't want a five-year rebuild and his attempt to accelerate the rebuild would suggest he might not have been in favor of a tank if he had had the choice. I wonder how much Falk's "selfish" comment lowered Kane's value? None. Kane is who he is since his first pro game. Edited March 1, 2018 by inkman
Doohicksie Posted March 1, 2018 Report Posted March 1, 2018 I wouldn't call either the ROR or KO signings mistakes, but I do think both were overpaid and the KO contract will hurt more in terms of return after year 3. KO isn't a terrible player (like Moulson) but I'm not sure his style fits well with what they want to do here. If they could get a decent return I would trade him for more speed. ROR I trade IF there is a leadership locker room problem, otherwise no. I hear you, but he's begun to tilt the ice a bit the Sabres way in recent weeks, not so much with speed but with power. You can feature speed, but you also will need some physicality. KO brings that. Reino is trending that way, but he's not there yet. Nolan brings both power and speed but has hands of stone. Baptiste potentially brings all three, but he's still on the NHL learning curve. I think one of the mistakes the Oilers made is they brought in the same kind of player again and again. You need *some* variety to strike the right difference between speed and power and skill and hockey sense. I think JBot has done a decent job of accommodating the players already on the team with short term signings like Nolan and Pouliot and Josefson. I think it's taken a little time for HCPH to learn how to use the roster pieces to best advantage, but he's coming along.
Brawndo Posted March 1, 2018 Author Report Posted March 1, 2018 A guy I follow on twitter said that Friedman commented during one of his intermission segments last night that he expects the Sabres will not be qualifying Lehner. I saw that as well, I think he might be on Sabres Space as well. FWIW Pierre McGuire said on Montreal Radio that the Sabres would be one of Tavares Suitors should he hit UFA Status
That Aud Smell Posted March 1, 2018 Report Posted March 1, 2018 FWIW Pierre McGuire said on Montreal Radio that the Sabres would be one of Tavares Suitors should he hit UFA Status The guy will have no shortage of suitors, I'd imagine. And hey - not for nothing and I know the thread was locked - but I'd heard that Hamilton doubled down on his statement that O'Reilly said it was "very likely" he'd be traded.
Brawndo Posted March 1, 2018 Author Report Posted March 1, 2018 The guy will have no shortage of suitors, I'd imagine. And hey - not for nothing and I know the thread was locked - but I'd heard that Hamilton doubled down on his statement that O'Reilly said it was "very likely" he'd be traded. Bill Hoppe touched on the subject as well Sabres center Ryan O’Reilly knows even with five seasons left on his seven-year contract, he could be available to another team after the season. Botterill, remember, didn’t acquire or sign him. “It’s out of my control,” O’Reilly said of his future. “I think I have to do what I can. I want to be here. I want to be part of the solution here. I want an opportunity to stick around. I have a real good opportunity here.” http://www.buffalohockeybeat.com/trade-deadline-passed-sabres-want-finish-strongly/
Doohicksie Posted March 1, 2018 Report Posted March 1, 2018 I don't think they trade ROR unless they land Tavares. However, if ROR is that convinced he's being traded it may mean that the Sabres plan to go all-in on Tavares.
Drunkard Posted March 1, 2018 Report Posted March 1, 2018 I was one of the few people on here who didn't even want to pay the price for O'Reilly before he came here but if they trade him they better damn well be getting a solid NHL ready center back in return. Center was supposed to be our team strength but with Eichel battling ankle aids 2 years in a row and with it looking like Reinhart will be on the wing going forward we can't really afford to give him up without getting one who can play immediately in return.
TrueBlueGED Posted March 1, 2018 Report Posted March 1, 2018 It can be rationalized all day long. And I'm not even really mad at Botterill, because I do understand the rationale. But I'd be lying if I said I wasn't disappointed about the fact we got dick for a 30 goal scorer who performed among the best players on the team. I think it comes down to bad timing on Botterill's part on two counts. First, and not his fault, the timing of his arrival with regard to Kane's term. Botterill wanted to do a wait and see on all the players, so it wouldn't make sense to jump the gun and re-sign Kane right away. But he couldn't get much return for a player with no term when didn't like what he found. He could have done a sign and trade, but that carries hefty risk. Second, he didn't pull the trigger when he was offered a first last week. He had been shopping Kane for a while, and if he wasn't familiar enough with the market for Kane to know when to bite, that's on him. Maybe that team pulled the rug out from under him and gave the wrong/no impression of soft deadline, but the return was available at some point. You can hate the trade on its merits without pretending Kane is a 30-goal scorer. He's a 20-25 goal scorer, most of which will come at even strength. That's valuable. But he's not a 30-goal scorer in any meaningful sense.
That Aud Smell Posted March 1, 2018 Report Posted March 1, 2018 Bill Hoppe touched on the subject as well Sabres center Ryan O’Reilly knows even with five seasons left on his seven-year contract, he could be available to another team after the season. Botterill, remember, didn’t acquire or sign him. “It’s out of my control,” O’Reilly said of his future. “I think I have to do what I can. I want to be here. I want to be part of the solution here. I want an opportunity to stick around. I have a real good opportunity here.” http://www.buffalohockeybeat.com/trade-deadline-passed-sabres-want-finish-strongly/ I did see that. That is quite different from saying it was "very likely" he'd be traded.
Stoner Posted March 1, 2018 Report Posted March 1, 2018 The guy will have no shortage of suitors, I'd imagine. And hey - not for nothing and I know the thread was locked - but I'd heard that Hamilton doubled down on his statement that O'Reilly said it was "very likely" he'd be traded. Sonsabitch.
Thorner Posted March 2, 2018 Report Posted March 2, 2018 This is a very fair explanation of what happened. The trade still stinks and the fact Wilson grinded on Jbot makes perfect sense. In the end it is what it is and we can all thank TM for the great job he did and hope and pray that Jbot can fix the mess that is the Buffalo Sabres rebuild. As I said before, this rebuild is now in the hands for the development folks. If we are to keep this Titanic from sinking, Mittelstadt, Guhle, Nylander, Asplund, Pu and a few others are going to have to arrive over the next two years in Buffalo and make an immediate impact. There are so few player assets worth anything in Buffalo, besides Jack, Sam and Risto (none of which Jbot can part with), that drafting and developing is the only strategy left to build this team. Free agency remains a useable tool as well, as long as it is used sparingly. Well, Battista too. Half kidding. Battista did go along on the interview with Pat. The interesting question is whether Pat was anti-tank and quickly left because of that and whether Murray was also anti-tank but went along to save his job. Murray saying he didn't want a five-year rebuild and his attempt to accelerate the rebuild would suggest he might not have been in favor of a tank if he had had the choice. I wonder how much Falk's "selfish" comment lowered Kane's value? I don’t think Murray being against 5 year builds is evidence to support that he wasn’t pro-Tank. He was probably of the belief that a quicker turn around was in order should the Sabres land McEichel. Or, at least, McDavid. That appears to have been the strategy, at any rate.
Darryl Shannon's +/- Posted March 2, 2018 Report Posted March 2, 2018 I just think GMTM and Pat probably came to blows like... Day 1... and the Pegulas decided they weren't going to look like idiots by canning the GM they just hired. But maybe Patty La was right... Not sure he was here long enough to be right or wrong. Amazing how quickly he was booted from two front office jobs. And how ugly each one was.
GASabresIUFAN Posted March 2, 2018 Report Posted March 2, 2018 Free agency remains a useable tool as well, as long as it is used sparingly. Only as a stop gap until we turn the corner. I recommend taking a look at the up coming UFA class. The vast majority of the UFAs are 29 and older. Not guys I'm willing to build around. Younger guys like Kane and Carlson are in the heart of their prime, why would they want to come to a rebuild? No, I think, Jbot needs to use free agency to fill holes short-term and then and only when he have turned the corner should be look to make a splash in free agency and i think that is two years out at this point.
dudacek Posted March 2, 2018 Report Posted March 2, 2018 (edited) I’m curious when the unavailability of attractive UFAs will intersect with the rising value of high draft picks in order to finally make the offer sheet relevant. If Ryan Hartman is worth a first and Thomas Tatar is worth a 1,2,and 3, why not sign Boone Jenner to a five-year $19 million contract this summer? It would cost only a 2nd and could Columbus match? Or Jacob Trouba, seven years, $40 million. It’ll cost you a 1st and a third. It’s coming. It’ll just take one team at the right stage of development to target a team crushed up against the cap. Edited March 2, 2018 by dudacek
Recommended Posts