Wow..lightning running away with the Presidents Trophy..

[SwampD]

1 hour ago, LGR4GM said:

How many hitters does Tampa have? Are they tough enough? I'm trying to make a point. 

It's not always about hits.

[Weave]

7 hours ago, SwampD said:

It's not always about hits.

Shush you.  He's got a narrative.

 

Hey, I see why people do that now.

[Thorner]

On 1/9/2019 at 10:39 AM, GASabresIUFAN said:

Reinhart, maybe (not fast enough) and Risto, I doubt it, not good enough defensively and they have bone crushers and Sergachev and Hedman to add to the offense.

lol @ "maybe". 

Reinhart has more points than all but 3 of their players. And 7 more points than their 4th guy. 

[North Buffalo]

1 hour ago, Thorny said:

lol @ "maybe". 

Reinhart has more points than all but 3 of their players. And 7 more points than their 4th guy. 

Their D is where we want the Sabres to be...  Goalie is awesome... other than their top line... they are very good but not great but they play as a team and hustle all game long.

[GASabresIUFAN]

3 hours ago, Thorny said:

lol @ "maybe". 

Reinhart has more points than all but 3 of their players. And 7 more points than their 4th guy. 

 But he is playing in a top line role for us.  He would be lucky to be on the 2nd line for them.

[Thorner]

9 hours ago, GASabresIUFAN said:

 But he is playing in a top line role for us.  He would be lucky to be on the 2nd line for them.

And if he's unlucky he's on their 3rd line then. Everyone has room for a near point a game, 3.65m forward. 

[bob_sauve28]

How have they stayed under the cap with this team?? 

[TrueBlueGED]

On 1/12/2019 at 11:31 AM, bob_sauve28 said:

How have they stayed under the cap with this team?? 

Hedman taking a bad contract and Kucherov on a bridge deal certainly help things out. Then they get cheap production on ELCs from draft picks everyone wants to trade away because we fell into a 10 game win streak and the playoff conversation. 

[Thorner]

9 hours ago, TrueBlueGED said:

Hedman taking a bad contract and Kucherov on a bridge deal certainly help things out. Then they get cheap production on ELCs from draft picks everyone wants to trade away because we fell into a 10 game win streak and the playoff conversation. 

This needs to stop. I thought the Sabres should be contending for a playoff spot, all season, before the season started. That they are playing at a 70s point pace for the majority of this season is unacceptable and if a move can be made to right the ship, it should be done. 

The Sabres only needed to play at a .500 points percentage pace after the streak to do so. Whether anyone likes it or not, they WERE solidly in the playoff hunt, and staying in the hunt, and basically making the playoffs, required an exceptionally reasonable output from this team. 

It's not even about making the playoffs anymore. If this team continues to play at the pace it has since the streak, they've made little to no improvement over last season. 

Edited January 14, 2019 by Thorny

[TrueBlueGED]

2 minutes ago, Thorny said:

This needs to stop. I thought the Sabres should be contending for a playoff spot, all season, before the season started. That they are playing at a 70s point pace for the majority of this season in unacceptable and if a move can be made to right the ship, it should be done. 

It needs to stop because you disagreed with it before the season? Nonsense. Myself and a whole lot of others thought the low-to-mid 80-point range was the likely outcome. So from my point of view, yes, this is an "NHL .500" team that fell into the playoff race. 

[Thorner]

16 minutes ago, TrueBlueGED said:

It needs to stop because you disagreed with it before the season? Nonsense. Myself and a whole lot of others thought the low-to-mid 80-point range was the likely outcome. So from my point of view, yes, this is an "NHL .500" team that fell into the playoff race. 

No, it needs to stop because you are implying you understand the reasons for why "everyone" wants them to be in the playoff race for the remainder of the season, when it's just not true. 

I, for one, do not want to make a deal because we fell into the playoff conversation. I want to make a deal because I think that's where they should be this season, regardless. You are more than welcome to see it completely differently. But the "everyone" dialogue is too much. 

I don't like this idea that fans have been deluded by the streak, incapable of understanding what this team "really" is. I know what this team is and they need to be better, right now, one way or another. 

These guys in the last 20 games have 16 points. I'd love to see them return to being a .500 team. Botterill has been the GM for 2 years. It's time to win hockey games. 

Edited January 14, 2019 by Thorny

[TrueBlueGED]

20 hours ago, Thorny said:

No, it needs to stop because you are implying you understand the reasons for why "everyone" wants them to be in the playoff race for the remainder of the season, when it's just not true. 

I, for one, do not want to make a deal because we fell into the playoff conversation. I want to make a deal because I think that's where they should be this season, regardless. You are more than welcome to see it completely differently. But the "everyone" dialogue is too much. 

I don't like this idea that fans have been deluded by the streak, incapable of understanding what this team "really" is. I know what this team is and they need to be better, right now, one way or another. 

These guys in the last 20 games have 16 points. I'd love to see them return to being a .500 team. Botterill has been the GM for 2 years. It's time to win hockey games. 

You may not like the idea, but a whole lot of people are seemingly shocked and dismayed that a team that won 10 in a row could proceed to be mediocre thereafter. To me, it was not only predictable, but a reasonable expectation. It's why seasons aren't measured in 10 game chunks, or even 20 game chunks. Wanting them to be better, or thinking it's appropriate to be better at this stage in the rebuild, is totally fair. But I really don't understand looking at this roster and really thinking they're better than a bubble team in the best case, whether that judgment is based on a pre-season assessment or something from the streak.

[Thorner]

14 minutes ago, TrueBlueGED said:

You may not like the idea, but a whole lot of people are seemingly shocked and dismayed that a team that won 10 in a row could proceed to be mediocre thereafter. To me, it was not only predictable, but a reasonable expectation. It's why seasons aren't measured in 10 game chunks, or even 20 game chunks. Wanting them to be better, or thinking it's appropriate to be better at this stage in the rebuild, is totally fair. But I really don't understand looking at this roster and really thinking they're better than a bubble team in the best case, whether that judgment is based on a pre-season assessment or something from the streak.

I think this is fair. 

Keeping in mind that my opinion is already framed by indeed expecting and believing in that best case scenario you mentioned, the problem for me arises because after the streak,  they only did need to be mediocre to make the playoffs. They haven't been mediocre after the streak, they've been the worst team in the NHL sans Rangers. This is where the disconnect arises for me. The idea they've been mediocre just isn't true. 

If this team finishes around .500, or whatever most wanted pre-season, based solely on the strength of that streak, after showing themselves to be inferior to that pace for the other 89% of the season, the season to me represents an abject failure. They won't have made enough progress based on what could be reasonably expected. At least to me. 

----

IF this team continues the pace it's set over it's last 20, over the remaining 37 games, they'll finish with 82 points. Serious question: That would seem to be in line with your pre-season expectations, but would you consider that a reasonable result considering how badly the team will have been trending down for the majority of the season? I think context matters to how that 82 points is achieved. 

For my part, that 82 points would represent failure to contend for the playoffs, a disappointing season, without even beginning to factor in the trend line. 

Edited January 14, 2019 by Thorny

[TrueBlueGED]

12 minutes ago, Thorny said:

I think this is fair. 

Keeping in mind that my opinion is already framed by indeed expecting and believing in that best case scenario you mentioned, the problem for me arises because after the streak,  they only did need to be mediocre to make the playoffs. They haven't been mediocre after the streak, they've been the worst team in the NHL sans Rangers. This is where the disconnect arises for me. The idea they've been mediocre just isn't true. 

If this team finishes around .500, or whatever most wanted pre-season, based solely on the strength of that streak, after showing themselves to be inferior to that pace for the other 89% of the season, the season to me represents an abject failure. They won't have made enough progress based on what could be reasonably expected. At least to me. 

----

IF this team continues the pace it's set over it's last 20, over the remaining 37 games, they'll finish with 82 points. Serious question: That would seem to be in line with your pre-season expectations, but would you consider that a reasonable result considering how badly the team will have been trending down for the majority of the season? I think context matters to how that 82 points is achieved. 

For my part, that 82 points would represent failure to contend for the playoffs, a disappointing season, without even beginning to factor in the trend line. 

First, thanks for spelling it out like that. When framed this way, the angst makes a lot more sense to me. 

As for how I think I'll feel if they finish with 82 points despite the streak, I'll be mildly disappointed. It'd be hard for me to crush them for ending up about where I expected, but at the same time being significantly better than I expected for 10 games shouldn't necessitate they fall short of expectations for the other 72.

[Thorner]

30 minutes ago, TrueBlueGED said:

First, thanks for spelling it out like that. When framed this way, the angst makes a lot more sense to me. 

As for how I think I'll feel if they finish with 82 points despite the streak, I'll be mildly disappointed. It'd be hard for me to crush them for ending up about where I expected, but at the same time being significantly better than I expected for 10 games shouldn't necessitate they fall short of expectations for the other 72.

And with this post, a clear understanding of where we each stand. 

Edited January 14, 2019 by Thorny

[Thorner]

The one other thing that's factoring in to my thinking, that I think bears mentioning, is the health of the team. We've had a few injuries sprinkled in, but for the most part, we are seeing unprecedented health across the board for this team relative to recent seasons. Even now, we are sitting with a lone Nelson on the injury list. 

Failing to capitalize on this seems like a missed opportunity to me. We can't count on such luck next season.

[Weave]

1 hour ago, Thorny said:

I think this is fair. 

Keeping in mind that my opinion is already framed by indeed expecting and believing in that best case scenario you mentioned, the problem for me arises because after the streak,  they only did need to be mediocre to make the playoffs. They haven't been mediocre after the streak, they've been the worst team in the NHL sans Rangers. This is where the disconnect arises for me. The idea they've been mediocre just isn't true. 

If this team finishes around .500, or whatever most wanted pre-season, based solely on the strength of that streak, after showing themselves to be inferior to that pace for the other 89% of the season, the season to me represents an abject failure. They won't have made enough progress based on what could be reasonably expected. At least to me. 

----

IF this team continues the pace it's set over it's last 20, over the remaining 37 games, they'll finish with 82 points. Serious question: That would seem to be in line with your pre-season expectations, but would you consider that a reasonable result considering how badly the team will have been trending down for the majority of the season? I think context matters to how that 82 points is achieved. 

For my part, that 82 points would represent failure to contend for the playoffs, a disappointing season, without even beginning to factor in the trend line. 

I'm with you.  Who are we building a bunker for?

[Thorner]

27 minutes ago, Weave said:

I'm with you.  Who are we building a bunker for?

I have an issue with how Botterill managed the centre ice position heading into the season, and his lack of action regarding replacing a player like Berglund in a timely matter. Not close to setting up a bunker for him though as I've liked much of what he has done so far. But he's no white knight. 

I've dipped my toe into the Home Depot holding the materials for the Housley bunker, because to me he's the most responsible for the thing most easily fixed that potentially represents the biggest relative swing, that's at the same time most in our control: the Power Play. 

Don't have to "mortgage the future", don't have to wait for a market to be set, shouldn't hinge on where the mind-set of other teams is at. If the PP can be first in the league on a last place team (or close to last, whatever it was that season), there's just no excuse for how bad it is. We are talking a realistic avenue for real immediate improvement that could make the difference between wins and losses, playoffs or no. 

Has there been any significant attempt to alter the first unit, or the strategy it employs? Have they stopped that ridiculous 50 foot drop pass on zone entry? It's just status quo. Unacceptable. 

I was also on him for Dahlin playing on the right, but he has since appeared to change his mind on that.

Edited January 15, 2019 by Thorny

[PerreaultForever]

1 minute ago, Thorny said:

I have an issue with how Botterill managed the centre ice position heading into the season, and his lack of action regarding replacing a player like Berglund in a timely matter. Not close to setting up a bunker for him though as I've liked much of what he has done so far. But he's no white knight. 

I've dipped my toe into the Home Depot holding the materials for the Housley bunker, because to me he's the most responsible for the thing most easily fixed that potentially represents the biggest relative swing, that's at the same time most in our control: the Power Play. 

I was on him for Dahlin playing on the right but he has appeared to change his mind on that now. 

Is that JBot's fault or the fact that Reinhart and Girgensens (both drafted as future centres) can't play centre well?  His first draft he surprised us with a potential future centre (albeit struggling a bit now but I have hope) and he fixed the weakest part of the team (D). 

Could anyone predict Berglund doing what he did? I think not. 

Have faith, I am sure after signing Skinner, adding or drafting a centre will be top of his to do list. 

[Thorner]

19 minutes ago, PerreaultForever said:

Is that JBot's fault or the fact that Reinhart and Girgensens (both drafted as future centres) can't play centre well?  His first draft he surprised us with a potential future centre (albeit struggling a bit now but I have hope) and he fixed the weakest part of the team (D). 

Could anyone predict Berglund doing what he did? I think not. 

Have faith, I am sure after signing Skinner, adding or drafting a centre will be top of his to do list. 

In the two full years he has been our GM, our rostered centre depth has actually gone backwards. Including starting this season with a rookie and a cap dump penciled in to the 2/3 slots. Is it on him that they both failed to adequately fill those spots? People will have their own views on that. Is it on him he hasn't replaced the one that bailed? People will have their own views on that. 

As said, I'm not on the Botterill bashing bandwagon right now. His work and evaluation is certainly in a state of flux.

Housley has much less plausible deniability for me. 

Edited January 15, 2019 by Thorny