Jbot Do Something Already - 4 Saving the Playoffs Edition

[Samson's Flow]

2 minutes ago, Carmel Corn said:

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. 

Fair enough.

The 'fan entertainment' comment was alluding to the neanderthals on NBCS that love big hits and wax poetically about the good old days. Fans like to see big hits and fights, but from my perspective hits are just one way to disposses the puck from your opponent. I'd much rather see a smaller hit that effectively wins the puck than a big open ice hit that puts you out of position and doesn't win the puck for your team. I'm more sensitive to comments around "toughness" and "physicality" because I hear them all the time from general fans.

I think you are right that we have a lot of players on the roster that are unable to use their hockey talents to win the puck, maintain it through a check, and get to the key scoring areas. Whether it be through size/strength or speed/agility, we need more guys willing to pay the price on both ends of the ice to do the things that lead to winning.

[jame]

3 minutes ago, LGR4GM said:

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

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. 

Either answer to that question IMO, is a failure.

1. He thought it would work = He's an idiot

2. He knew it wouldn't work, and thus tanked in Eichel's 3rd season = He's an idiot

The Bills didn't have Andrew Luck.

[LGR4GM]

6 minutes ago, jame said:

Either answer to that question IMO, is a failure.

1. He thought it would work = He's an idiot

2. He knew it wouldn't work, and thus tanked in Eichel's 3rd season = He's an idiot

The Bills didn't have Andrew Luck.

I 100% disagree with number 2. You wanted him to change course when we got Dahlin but not when he showed up with Moulson on the roster? He couldn't make all the moves in 1 offseason. I think he doubted that team, gave them a chance, saw he was right, and started executing his plan. 

I didn't like and still am not a big fan of the ROR trade. That said, Botterill doesn't strike me as an idiot. Methodical is a better word. 

Edited January 24, 2019 by LGR4GM

[jame]

7 minutes ago, LGR4GM said:

I 100% disagree with number 2. You wanted him to change course when we got Dahlin but not when he showed up with Moulson on the roster? He couldn't make all the moves in 1 offseason. I think he doubted that team, gave them a chance, saw he was right, and started executing his plan. 

I didn't like and still am not a big fan of the ROR trade. That said, Botterill doesn't strike me as an idiot. Methodical is a better word. 

Who needed 20+ games to see that Moulson was no longer an NHL player?

Who brought in Pouliot, Tennyson and Griffith for NHL jobs? He started a season with 33% of a roster that is not in the NHL 18 months later. There were better moves available, and cap space to make them. And then, when marginal upgrades were available on waivers... he passed. 

How can you say he gave them a chance? 

Methodical? Choosing a rebuild plan that will buy him the longest leash possible is not methodical. Not re-evaluatiing the plan after lucking in to Dahlin is not methodical.

[LGR4GM]

Again, I disagree 100%

I think you are viewing those moves through a very narrow lens. He didn't have enough NHL talent and knew that. He may have hoped for better but new it would take time. Giving an NHL gm time to evaluate and make changes to his roster is not stupid or something an idiot would do. An idiot would sign players long term and try to go 100% day 1 as opposed to understanding the situation and figuring out where and when to make changes. 

I am unsure what waiver options you are speaking of so I can't really comment on that currently. 

[Carmel Corn]

4 minutes ago, jame said:

Who needed 20+ games to see that Moulson was no longer an NHL player?

Who brought in Pouliot, Tennyson and Griffith for NHL jobs? He started a season with 33% of a roster that is not in the NHL 18 months later. There were better moves available, and cap space to make them. And then, when marginal upgrades were available on waivers... he passed. 

How can you say he gave them a chance? 

Methodical? Choosing a rebuild plan that will buy him the longest leash possible is not methodical. Not re-evaluatiing the plan after lucking in to Dahlin is not methodical.

JB was dealt a crap hand and IMHO made many more good moves vs. bad ones.  Let's not fool ourselves into thinking other teams were interested in overpaying for our junk.  He did not sign Moulson and moved him off the roster because "Moulson was no longer an NHL player".  He signed some other FA's with very minimal term so as to not have to carry mediocre talent more than one season (ex. Pouliot).  Goaltending was not a strength either and so two years later, we have new goaltenders.  He had to build a roster with what was available in the market and did so without locking in any of the so-so guys for a long term commitment.....smart in my opinion.

Sure, we can beat up the ROR deal, but that story is still not over yet.  As far as HCPH, time will tell there too, but how many other good head coach candidates were available at the time?

[Mustache of God]

7 minutes ago, jame said:

Who needed 20+ games to see that Moulson was no longer an NHL player?

Who brought in Pouliot, Tennyson and Griffith for NHL jobs? He started a season with 33% of a roster that is not in the NHL 18 months later. There were better moves available, and cap space to make them. And then, when marginal upgrades were available on waivers... he passed. 

How can you say he gave them a chance? 

Methodical? Choosing a rebuild plan that will buy him the longest leash possible is not methodical. Not re-evaluatiing the plan after lucking in to Dahlin is not methodical.

These decisions landed us Dahlin, so I'll allow it.

[Sabres Fan in NS]

1 hour ago, ... said:

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

 

1 hour ago, MakeSabresGrr8Again said:

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

I have a funny feeling about this guy.  We really have a live one on our hands.

[MakeSabresGrr8Again]

12 minutes ago, New Scotland (NS) said:

 

I have a funny feeling about this guy.  We really have a live one on our hands.

Maybe he is ROR and is upset that his team is behind us (at least for now).

He might even have a different idea of where the "drive-thru" is.

Edited January 24, 2019 by MakeSabresGrr8Again

[...]

18 minutes ago, New Scotland (NS) said:

I have a funny feeling about this guy.  We really have a live one on our hands.

Everyone is an idiot.  I guess it works on the radio. 

[Sabres Fan in NS]

4 minutes ago, ... said:

Everyone is an idiot.  I guess it works on the radio. 

Of all the terrible 'hot takers' that have come along over the years, this guy is the most terrible, IMO.

[PerreaultForever]

I'm just going to say one thing.

Rule #1 of building a successful nhl team, you never trade away your first round picks. You avoid trading away any picks, but you never trade firsts.

Rule #1of building a dynasty , you try to acquire extra first and second round picks and you use them wisely.

A structure based on good scouting and a strong development program at all levels is the rest of the equation. That's it.

[jame]

4 hours ago, Mustache of God said:

These decisions landed us Dahlin, so I'll allow it.

Yea, in hindsight it’s brilliant...

[jame]

20 minutes ago, PerreaultForever said:

I'm just going to say one thing.

Rule #1 of building a successful nhl team, you never trade away your first round picks. You avoid trading away any picks, but you never trade firsts.

Rule #1of building a dynasty , you try to acquire extra first and second round picks and you use them wisely.

A structure based on good scouting and a strong development program at all levels is the rest of the equation. That's it.

 

Rule #1 of building a successful team/dynasty : There are no rules in how you do it, but acquiring talent is the ONLY rule.

whether you methodically draft and wait a decade like Winnipeg, or you trade 1sts and top prospects and turn it around immediately LA... the only thing that matters is the amount of talent you acquire.

Edited January 24, 2019 by jame

[MakeSabresGrr8Again]

6 hours ago, LGR4GM said:

Paul Statsny. 1st, 4th, Eric Foley. 

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

Conditional 1st, cond. 4th, Foley, and STL retained half of Stastny salary ($3.75M).

[Brawndo]

5 hours ago, LGR4GM said:

I 100% disagree with number 2. You wanted him to change course when we got Dahlin but not when he showed up with Moulson on the roster? He couldn't make all the moves in 1 offseason. I think he doubted that team, gave them a chance, saw he was right, and started executing his plan. 

I didn't like and still am not a big fan of the ROR trade. That said, Botterill doesn't strike me as an idiot. Methodical is a better word. 

Players of ROR’s Caliber do not get traded very often and yet he was traded twice in a period of three years. Can someone answer why that would happened? 

I believe you are correct about Botterill being Methodical with his plan. He moved veterans to acquire prospects and picks and probably has parameters on what he will move those for.

As Dark has mentioned, video scouting and horrible drafting decimated the prospect pool. 

GMTM made things worse by trading quite a few picks and prospects. 

I trust Botterill, but this is a big offseason for him, we will have to see how it plays out. 

 

[Taro T]

20 hours ago, PerreaultForever said:

There aren't a lot of FA centers coming up that aren't over the hill or close to it. So you want to trade assets for one from a team that throws in the towel. Which magic fix do you have in mind that you can actually get without giving up first round picks or good assets that'll be missed in the near future?

 

Again, take a look at the guys GA has mentioned numerous times as potentially being available for reasonable prices.  He's come up with a list of about 5 guys, the only 1 that would likely cost one of those 1sts in a package would be Couturier.  And it would hurt to pull that trigger, but a C spine of Eichel, Couturier, Mittelstadt, & Larsson would be solid at absolute minimum for the 2 more years you have Sean locked up & there's a real possibility that you could get him re-signed to keep that together LT or if you can't, you move him at the trade deadline 2 years from now to fill a different need after Mittelstadt has stepped up.

The other guys like Johannson would be cheaper, but not as good a fit as Couturier.  

Not sure why you're taking exception to the "magic fix" phrase.  Expecting the 2C hole gets filled this year or next year without Botterill making a move IS expecting a magic fix because NEXT YEAR's true 2C is notin the organization at present.  If you know of one that is here now, please point him out & the "magic fix" phrasing will be taken back. But if the ST solution isn't available, a price will have to be paid to bring that guy in.  AKA there ISN'T a magic fix.  And they may go very cheap looking for a Berglund caliber player on either a ST contract or who may be a FA but that will be a high risk (of failure to adequately filling that 2C role prior to a lockout) solution.  There are guys that should be available at a cost higher than that (but not as costly as a Couturier package would be) that would provide a greater likelihood of having a playoff team.

But IMHO, if the Sabres don't upgrade 2C there is a very strong likelihood that they miss the playoffs this year & next.  And that is simply inexcusable, again IMHO.

[PerreaultForever]

Coutourier would be a good 2C on any team but what is the point of talking about him? Ain't going to happen. 

Peyton Krebs or Trevor Zegras.  Two potential centres likely available when we get a pick. Keep your #1's. 

[Hoss]

On 1/23/2019 at 10:30 PM, ... said:

Nice, duds.  This makes the future look less bleak.  I'm not sold on Nylander/Olofsson being on that first line, although I'd like to be.  They can be swapped out to that third line, though, and more expensive player put on the first and it would even out.  

That’s essentially the same roster, so we’re banking on a lot of guys making huge jumps in the next few years and nobody flaming out. That doesn’t give me the warm and fuzzies.

[Taro T]

5 hours ago, PerreaultForever said:

Coutourier would be a good 2C on any team but what is the point of talking about him? Ain't going to happen. 

Peyton Krebs or Trevor Zegras.  Two potential centres likely available when we get a pick. Keep your #1's. 

Almost nobody is advocating for giving up a 1st unless the Sabres are getting back a Couturier-type.  To continue to harp on not trading the 1sts seems to have more than a tinge of strawman argument to it.

Do you agree the Sabres have a 2C issue at present?  If so, do you expect they'll have 1 next season?  If not, why not?  If so, are you ok with the Sabres addressing it through the draft (which barring some extreme good fortune won't address it next season)?.  If not, what would you like to see them do to address it.

This team, IMHO, NEEDS to make the playoffs next year.  Without a legit upgrade at 2C, that will be extremely difficult, again IMHO.  Considering they need the upgrade next season, and are within a stone's throw of the playoffs this season, really don't see an issue with paying a premium of a 2nd or 3rd or taking on ST salary over whatever the cost would be to land that 2C now that they should be going after in the off-season.

 

[LGR4GM]

6 hours ago, PerreaultForever said:

Coutourier would be a good 2C on any team but what is the point of talking about him? Ain't going to happen. 

Peyton Krebs or Trevor Zegras.  Two potential centres likely available when we get a pick. Keep your #1's. 

I think Krebs is a winger at the NHL level. 

[LGR4GM]

15 hours ago, jame said:

 

Rule #1 of building a successful team/dynasty : There are no rules in how you do it, but acquiring talent is the ONLY rule.

whether you methodically draft and wait a decade like Winnipeg, or you trade 1sts and top prospects and turn it around immediately LA... the only thing that matters is the amount of talent you acquire.

And the best and most effective way to get talent is finding it in the draft. That is how you navigate the Salary Cap Era. 

LA is screwed for a long time. They have 3 forwards under 25, their youngest defender is 26, and their best and only really good prospect is Rasmus Kupari. I wouldn't want to be LA right now. 

[jame]

19 minutes ago, LGR4GM said:

And the best and most effective way to get talent is finding it in the draft. That is how you navigate the Salary Cap Era. 

LA is screwed for a long time. They have 3 forwards under 25, their youngest defender is 26, and their best and only really good prospect is Rasmus Kupari. I wouldn't want to be LA right now. 

LA is screwed for a long time... and has two cups. I'll take a decade of being screwed for 1 cup.

The Pens have been winning cups without doing much of anything with the draft for a decade... the last time they drafted a 1st or 2nd round player that was meaningful... was Jordan Staal in 2006.

This idea that one way is more successful than another is hogwash.

It's all about acquiring talent... whether through the draft, trade, or signings. The only thing that matters is making good decisions on who those players are.

Edited January 25, 2019 by jame

[LGR4GM]

7 minutes ago, jame said:

LA is screwed for a long time... and has two cups. I'll take a decade of being screwed for 1 cup.

The Pens have been winning cups without doing much of anything with the draft for a decade... the last time they drafted a 1st or 2nd round player that was meaningful... was Jordan Staal in 2006.

This idea that one way is more successful than another is hogwash.

They won a cup in 2009 I think because they drafted well. They then won cups in 2016/17 I think because they drafted well. 

Your bolded is just flat out wrong. Guentzel, Matta, Murray were all draft picks and helped them win cups. So what if they weren't 1st or 2nd round guys? It shows the importance of drafting well regardless. There is a list of other players they drafted and traded who helped them add pieces to win cups. It all starts with drafting. All of it. 

Edited January 25, 2019 by LGR4GM

[LGR4GM]

Since 2006, the Penguins have 16 players that have played or will reach 100 games played. We should take out the last 3 drafts because we don't know about them yet. So for the drafts from 2007-2015, they have 16players that become some type of NHL player. And you want to tell me drafting isn't the way? I don't believe you and will not because I know you are wrong. 

They did that with 53 total picks. 30% success rate and they only had 7 first round picks. Drafting matters and being good at it matters and is how you become and maintain success. 

If I include 2006 that is another 3 players in 5 picks. That gives them a 33% hit rate. You don't wanna know what Buffalo's is... but I will run the numbers. 

Edited January 25, 2019 by LGR4GM