Jbot Do Something Already - 4 Saving the Playoffs Edition

[Samson's Flow]

3 minutes ago, jame said:

 

So you agree that the current state is hurting development, chemistry and structure.... but fixing that is not worth the cost of a late 1st?

This is the part I just don't get.... How is that late 1st, which has about a 50% chance of even making the NHL, and a less than 20% chance of being a top 6/top 4 player more critical than developing and building the players who have already beaten those odds?

It doesn't make any sense

The current state of a different lineup every night is hurting development as the NHL roster players don't have clear expectations for what their role is.

That can be corrected without a new player being brought in, just by solidifying the Girgs-Larsson-Okposo line as the checking/defensive role, and identifying say ERod as the 2C and Mitts as the 3C going forward. Sink or swim, let those players demonstrate if they are good enough to play those roles so that we know where the holes are going into next year.

It's not trade our 1sts or bust.

[LGR4GM]

3 minutes ago, Samson's Flow said:

The current state of a different lineup every night is hurting development as the NHL roster players don't have clear expectations for what their role is.

That can be corrected without a new player being brought in, just by solidifying the Girgs-Larsson-Okposo line as the checking/defensive role, and identifying say ERod as the 2C and Mitts as the 3C going forward. Sink or swim, let those players demonstrate if they are good enough to play those roles so that we know where the holes are going into next year.

It's not trade our 1sts or bust.

I would be fine with Erod being the 2c as long as he gets proper wingers and Sheary gets demoted. He has been bad. 

[Samson's Flow]

5 minutes ago, LGR4GM said:

This will be the only year ROR hits 65 points. He's a 55pt player. It certainly will not take years to fix the hole considering were we currently are with Casey. Will Casey be as good as ROR? Idk, hard to tell but he will be a capable 2nd line center. 

ROR doesn't make or break this team but I agree the trade was mediocre at best. Sobotka is an offensive black hole and Berglund is gone, thankfully. We basically got Tage and a 1st for ROR and that's a risky trade. 

I said this in another thread. To be very clear it would cost more than a 1st to bring in Staal or a player of his level. You are talking a 1st, rochester prospect, and another prospect or player. And all you get is Staal for 3 months. Your ROI isn't great there. 

That and by the nature of the trade, the first year was always going to look worse for the Sabres. We were trading an established NHL player in his prime for futures and complimentary players. Give it two years to see if Tage is a solid scoring winger and what becomes of the 1st rounder, and then compare that to if ROR is still a 65 pt player/worth his contract.

It is disingenuous to judge the quality of a NHL'er for Futures trade in year 1. It was a calculated risk to be worse this year to be better long term. 

[...]

15 minutes ago, jame said:

Anyone who thought Berglund/Sobotka would help this team going forward, wasn't fit to judge the trade in the first place. They were brutal cap dumps to take on in the deal. The fact that the Buffalo Media carried the water on this trade, along with the impetus to get it done before the bonus... is all the confirmation that's needed to know that Pegula ordered the trade. A good, experienced GM would've been able to talk a dumb owner out of it. We didn't have one in place to do that. So we got fleeced and created a massive hole that we will likely spend years trying to fix. On the scale of bad organizational moves the ROR trade is on the same scale as Golisano penny pinching Briere, and losing both co caps because of it.

And of course Botts deserves some blame for bringing a quitter in to the lockerroom from which he was supposedly trying to purge sadness from.... it was on Botts to ensure Berglund had waived his NTC. Had he done his due diligence, he should've known STL was trying to pull a fast one on Berglund, and that bringing in a guy against his wishes isn't a great idea.

It probably doesn't matter, but I will not take anything you write seriously after reading these two paragraphs.  FWIW, YMMV, FYI.

[Carmel Corn]

3 minutes ago, LGR4GM said:

I don't agree with parts of this. I don't care when Wilson is on the ice, if I do, then I am not focused on doing my job. 

Custodian or Janitor, different things to different people.  I've got news for you, a lot of the players are not focused on doing their jobs on the ice anyway...otherwise they might be winning a few more battles and games.  I for one would love to have a Tom WIlson type player on this team.

[LGR4GM]

Just now, Carmel Corn said:

Custodian or Janitor, different things to different people.  I've got news for you, a lot of the players are not focused on doing their jobs on the ice anyway...otherwise they might be winning a few more battles and games.  I for one would love to have a Tom WIlson type player on this team.

Why? 

[jame]

7 minutes ago, LGR4GM said:

This will be the only year ROR hits 65 points. He's a 55pt player. It certainly will not take years to fix the hole considering were we currently are with Casey. Will Casey be as good as ROR? Idk, hard to tell but he will be a capable 2nd line center. 

ROR doesn't make or break this team but I agree the trade was mediocre at best. Sobotka is an offensive black hole and Berglund is gone, thankfully. We basically got Tage and a 1st for ROR and that's a risky trade. 

I said this in another thread. To be very clear it would cost more than a 1st to bring in Staal or a player of his level. You are talking a 1st, rochester prospect, and another prospect or player. And all you get is Staal for 3 months. Your ROI isn't great there. 

ROR scored 60 points... twice.... in Buffalo.... while basically never playing at ES with Eichel. Over the previous 5 seasons (not counting this year), he averaged 63 points per 82 games.

I agree it would cost more than a 1st for Staal, but the additional pieces would be negligible/filler... i.e. SJ 1st, 3rd, Malone. We could look towards the Rick Nash Boston trade for comparable.

[Samson's Flow]

9 minutes ago, Carmel Corn said:

True, but I don't see that combination with any of our forwards.  To me, physical is going to the hard areas PLUS:  dishing out checks (vs. avoiding them), getting into the other team's faces after the whistle blows (vs. heading straight to the sanctuary of the bench), going after the other team if they cheap shot your teammate.  Someone the other team knows is willing and able to drop the gloves when needed.  If you are a defenseman on the Sabres, do you pay attention when someone like Tom Wilson is on the ice? 

Sorry Carmel, but you talk about 'physical' in all the ways that I feel are nice for the fan's entertainment but don't lead to much improvement in team win probability.

I need guys that can do things like win board battles, willing to go to the net to screen goalie/put in rebounds, play through opposition checking/physicality. You can accomplish these things in all sorts of ways as a player - Jeff Skinner does all of the things I mentioned but he does it more with quickness and tenacity than pure overwhelming physicality. I absolutely agree that not enough of our players can consistently do what I mentioned above, but mandating size/strength is not the only way to accomplish improving the team.

[MakeSabresGrr8Again]

13 minutes ago, jame said:

I honestly have no idea where you get the bolded... that's not remotely what I said or implied.

We have 4 first rounders in two drafts.... we would be able to keep our pipeline stocked the same way most teams in the league do it... with 1 1st a year....

Anyone who thought Berglund/Sobotka would help this team going forward, wasn't fit to judge the trade in the first place. They were brutal cap dumps to take on in the deal. The fact that the Buffalo Media carried the water on this trade, along with the impetus to get it done before the bonus... is all the confirmation that's needed to know that Pegula ordered the trade. A good, experienced GM would've been able to talk a dumb owner out of it. We didn't have one in place to do that. So we got fleeced and created a massive hole that we will likely spend years trying to fix. On the scale of bad organizational moves the ROR trade is on the same scale as Golisano penny pinching Briere, and losing both co caps because of it.

And of course Botts deserves some blame for bringing a quitter in to the lockerroom from which he was supposedly trying to purge sadness from.... it was on Botts to ensure Berglund had waived his NTC. Had he done his due diligence, he should've known STL was trying to pull a fast one on Berglund, and that bringing in a guy against his wishes isn't a great idea.

Yes, it will take more time... but it didn't have to.: Botts very easily could've added the following to the 2017-18 roster

• Dahlin and Skinner (two additional star level talents)
• Bogo, McCabe, Sheary, Hunwick (real NHL depth)
• Mittelstadt, Erod, Pilut (young NHL talent)
• Ullmark, Hutton

And he could've done it without cratering the roster by subtracting a 65 point Selke caliber NHL center in his prime. But instead, it WILL take more time now... significantly more time. All because of bad ownership/front office decisions.

No sense in arguing anymore about this because now you're just being a Massive A**hole about it.

[LGR4GM]

Your right he didn't play much ES with Eichel but he played lots of pp with Eichel. 0.39 of ROR's total points as a Sabre were scored on the PP. 

We still get you don't like the ROR trade, I don't understand why you are continually coming back to it. 

[Carmel Corn]

4 minutes ago, LGR4GM said:

Why? 

Why not?  Big, mean, has some scoring ability and is cheaper than either Okposo or Pominville with several years of term left on his deal.

[LGR4GM]

5 minutes ago, jame said:

ROR scored 60 points... twice.... in Buffalo.... while basically never playing at ES with Eichel. Over the previous 5 seasons (not counting this year), he averaged 63 points per 82 games.

I agree it would cost more than a 1st for Staal, but the additional pieces would be negligible/filler... i.e. SJ 1st, 3rd, Malone. We could look towards the Rick Nash Boston trade for comparable.

I think that is a low offer for Staal. You are talking 1st, Guhle, and something else

[LGR4GM]

1 minute ago, Carmel Corn said:

Why not?  Big, mean, has some scoring ability and is cheaper than either Okposo or Pominville with several years of term left on his deal.

Okposo and Pominville have nothing to do with this. 

His scoring ability is nice but he doesn't score because he is mean and takes people's heads off. 

[jame]

Just now, LGR4GM said:

I think that is a low offer for Staal. You are talking 1st, Guhle, and something else

What's your comparable? Rarely does a rental go for a 1st AND a very good prospect. Boston had to give up Lindgren along with the first, but also got NY to take cap dumps

But I don't disagree that Staal will be highly sought after and cost a lot.

 

[Scottysabres]

7 minutes ago, LGR4GM said:

Your right he didn't play much ES with Eichel but he played lots of pp with Eichel. 0.39 of ROR's total points as a Sabre were scored on the PP. 

We still get you don't like the ROR trade, I don't understand why you are continually coming back to it. 

I asked the same thing. What's done is done.

[Carmel Corn]

2 minutes ago, LGR4GM said:

Okposo and Pominville have nothing to do with this. 

His scoring ability is nice but he doesn't score because he is mean and takes people's heads off. 

So are you saying you don't want a player like this on our team....what's your point?  I am saying this is the type of player the Sabres need (among other gaps, like a 2C)

[LGR4GM]

1 minute ago, jame said:

What's your comparable? Rarely does a rental go for a 1st AND a very good prospect. Boston had to give up Lindgren along with the first, but also got NY to take cap dumps

But I don't disagree that Staal will be highly sought after and cost a lot.

 

Paul Statsny. 1st, 4th, Eric Foley. 

2 minutes ago, Carmel Corn said:

So are you saying you don't want a player like this on our team....what's your point?  I am saying this is the type of player the Sabres need (among other gaps, like a 2C)

My point is that we don't need a player because he is mean, we need him because he can score. 

[jame]

Just now, LGR4GM said:

Paul Statsny. 1st, 4th, Eric Foley. 

agreed....

you think Eric Foley is significantly better than Sean Malone?

[jame]

13 minutes ago, LGR4GM said:

Your right he didn't play much ES with Eichel but he played lots of pp with Eichel. 0.39 of ROR's total points as a Sabre were scored on the PP. 

We still get you don't like the ROR trade, I don't understand why you are continually coming back to it. 

It's the most relevant debate of the season. Fixing the mistake of the ROR trade should be the priority. Otherwise, we are going to flush season after season down the toilet like we've done in Botts 1st two years.

My continued pointing to the ROR trade, is no different than those who disagree and want a slow rebuild continue to point to the Murray trades and the impact they have today.

 

Edited January 24, 2019 by jame

[LGR4GM]

4 minutes ago, jame said:

agreed....

you think Eric Foley is significantly better than Sean Malone?

yes. He has certainly produced more at the NCAA level than Malone did. Malone was only really good his senior year. Foley was good his sophomore and junior year. Sadly he is injured this year but yes, I think he would have been thought of higher at the time of that trade. 

1 minute ago, jame said:

It's the most relevant part of the season. Fixing the mistake of the ROR trade should be the priority. Otherwise, we are going to flush season after season down the toilet like we've done in Botts 1st two years.

My continued pointing to the ROR trade, is no different than those who disagree and want a slow rebuild continue to point to the Murray trades and the impact they have today.

 

I don't think Botterill wasted the last 2 years. He restructured the team and in year 2 they have a shot at the playoffs. Pretty good to go from last to there. 

A mistake implies that he should not have done it. I am unsure if that is the case. I think Botterill wanted to do it and did. I think he knew that this year would be up and down because Casey was going to be up and down and Berglund needed to help. Berglund flamed out and Jbott can partially be blamed for that. He still has time to help the team but burning picks on a short term fix is not the way. 

Edited January 24, 2019 by LGR4GM

[jame]

1 minute ago, LGR4GM said:

yes. He has certainly produced more at the NCAA level than Malone did. Malone was only really good his senior year. Foley was good his sophomore and junior year. Sadly he is injured this year but yes, I think he would have been thought of higher at the time of that trade. 

I don't know... any difference between the two as prospects is in the negligible to insignificant range... similar to my inclusion of a 3rd vs your inclusion of a 4th.

[...]

8 minutes ago, LGR4GM said:

Berglund flamed out and Jbott can partially be blamed for that. 

I have no idea how anyone can come to that conclusion without relying on the fantastical.  

[Carmel Corn]

23 minutes ago, Samson's Flow said:

Sorry Carmel, but you talk about 'physical' in all the ways that I feel are nice for the fan's entertainment but don't lead to much improvement in team win probability.

I need guys that can do things like win board battles, willing to go to the net to screen goalie/put in rebounds, play through opposition checking/physicality. You can accomplish these things in all sorts of ways as a player - Jeff Skinner does all of the things I mentioned but he does it more with quickness and tenacity than pure overwhelming physicality. I absolutely agree that not enough of our players can consistently do what I mentioned above, but mandating size/strength is not the only way to accomplish improving the team.

Agree:  we absolutely need players like Skinner because that is what helps elevate teams from the last place to being a playoff contender.  I get that he is not the most defensively responsible guy, but I will gladly take his speed, goal scoring and tenacity any day.  Skinner plays "bigger" than many of his teammates who have more size than him.  Sets a good example.

Disagree:  it is not about fan entertainment at all for me, but rather you need players who can do other things that Skinner cannot.  You need physical players who will initiate checks, knock other players off the puck to gain control in the offensive zone.  Guys who can also create turnovers with muscle and then feed it to guys like Skinner.  Guys who can also send a message to the other team when one is needed.

We have more skill guys than we have seen for years and the team is doing better as a result.  What I am saying is that adding some grit and size to the roster can further help this team. 

[jame]

20 minutes ago, LGR4GM said:

yes. He has certainly produced more at the NCAA level than Malone did. Malone was only really good his senior year. Foley was good his sophomore and junior year. Sadly he is injured this year but yes, I think he would have been thought of higher at the time of that trade. 

I don't think Botterill wasted the last 2 years. He restructured the team and in year 2 they have a shot at the playoffs. Pretty good to go from last to there. 

A mistake implies that he should not have done it. I am unsure if that is the case. I think Botterill wanted to do it and did. I think he knew that this year would be up and down because Casey was going to be up and down and Berglund needed to help. Berglund flamed out and Jbott can partially be blamed for that. He still has time to help the team but burning picks on a short term fix is not the way. 

Let's not forget that he took them from ~80 point team... to last place. Now, thank GOD we won the Dahlin lottery...  because otherwise, Botts tanked a season WITH Eichel on the roster. Which is crazy. He actually went in to the season with a straight face putting guys like Tennyson and Griffith and Moulson on the roster. He did that... by choice.

The biggest mistake Botts made was not realizing how much Dahlin changed the equation. By winning the lottery, he should've changed course slightly to recognize that he'd just landed a generational player who would make a difference immediately. The availability of Skinner and some depth moves.

Whoever had the desire to move ROR (Whether it was largely influenced by Pegula, or a decision Botts made on his own), it should've been changed the day the lottery was won.

[LGR4GM]

I think tenacity is a good word. I would love more of that on the team. 

1 minute ago, jame said:

Let's not forget that he took them from ~80 point team... to last place. Now, thank GOD we won the Dahlin lottery...  because otherwise, Botts tanked a season WITH Eichel on the roster. Which is crazy. He actually went in to the season with a straight face putting guys like Tennyson and Griffith and Moulson on the roster. He did that... by choice.

The biggest mistake Botts made was not realizing how much Dahlin changed the equation. By winning the lottery, he should've changed course slightly to recognize that he'd just landed a generational player who would make a difference immediately. The availability of Skinner and some depth moves.

Whoever had the desire to move ROR (Whether it was largely influenced by Pegula, or a decision Botts made on his own), it should've been changed the day the lottery was won.

But you have to ask yourself, did Botterill think this would work, or did he know it wouldn't and needed the year to clear the deck? He basically did the same thing McBeane did with the Bills. Cleared the deck and then started building, the only difference is Buffalo lucked into the playoffs in McBeanes first season.