How much better would we be with ROR and Kane?

[MattPie]

54 minutes ago, LGR4GM said:

And then you would have complained when he got claimed on waivers. It's no win for you with botterill you absolutely hate him and everything he does is confirmation bias feeding that. 

Glad I'm not the only one that sees the pattern. ?

[jame]

9 hours ago, LGR4GM said:

And then you would have complained when he got claimed on waivers. It's no win for you with botterill you absolutely hate him and everything he does is confirmation bias feeding that. 

Why would he have gotten claimed? Are you going to follow up your argument that no one wanted Lehner with a counter argument that suddenly teams would want him?

 

Housley’s comments today on Lehner are so telling...

[jame]

 

 

it would be funny if it wasn’t so depressing 

[PerreaultForever]

4 minutes ago, jame said:

 

 

it would be funny if it wasn’t so depressing 

It's not depressing at all. I said the same thing in another place earlier. Trotz has them playing a boring close checking system and Lehner has thrived in it. It's crap dull hockey though and I'd be shocked if they didn't go out first round of the playoffs. That system gets you regular season wins, it does not win in the playoffs unless your roster has above average talent on it (like an Ovechkin).

[jame]

5 minutes ago, PerreaultForever said:

It's not depressing at all. I said the same thing in another place earlier. Trotz has them playing a boring close checking system and Lehner has thrived in it. It's crap dull hockey though and I'd be shocked if they didn't go out first round of the playoffs. That system gets you regular season wins, it does not win in the playoffs unless your roster has above average talent on it (like an Ovechkin).

So youre opposed to regular season wins...

all you’re saying with your interpretation of the comment is that the Sabres could’ve gotten Vezina level goaltending and thus playoff qualifying wins had their coach been capable of implementing a winning system...

and you’re saying Eichel doesn’t qualify as an above average talent? Or you’re saying we would’ve been successful in the playoffs with said “structure”? Which one?

Edited February 12, 2019 by jame

[In The Buff]

Just because one player leaves a team & has a solid season, it doesnt mean that the previous regime made a mistake in letting them go. Timing is everything sometimes. He was given multiple chances to succeed & failed, was given a big investment by our team to have him here & failed, only for the light to finally go on & play up towards his potential. Getting clean & staying clean from the pills & alcohol & whatever substance abuse issues he was dealing with before is a big part of it too. After all that then maybe you can get into scheme & whatnot.

But I don't see how Lehner's career turn around has anything to do with our GM's ability or inability to evaluate him, thats just ridiculous. It sounds like he just turned his life around & focused more on hockey & tbh i'm happy for him. I just hope he gets pulled in the 1st period after letting in 5 goals as the Sabres storm towards a much needed victory

[Weave]

Boy, "structure" can be taken so many ways.  I'm not sure most of them would reflect well on PH.

[PerreaultForever]

2 hours ago, jame said:

So youre opposed to regular season wins...

all you’re saying with your interpretation of the comment is that the Sabres could’ve gotten Vezina level goaltending and thus playoff qualifying wins had their coach been capable of implementing a winning system...

and you’re saying Eichel doesn’t qualify as an above average talent? Or you’re saying we would’ve been successful in the playoffs with said “structure”? Which one?

Ya, real shame we didn't have Trotz coaching us tonight against the Islanders. That stupid Housley only got us a 2 goal win. Damn rookie coach.

 

[jame]

Just now, PerreaultForever said:

Ya, real shame we didn't have Trotz coaching us tonight against the Islanders. That stupid Housley only got us a 2 goal win. Damn rookie coach.

 

How did I know you’d take the opportunity to appeal to a single game authority...

[LGR4GM]

3 hours ago, jame said:

Why would he have gotten claimed? Are you going to follow up your argument that no one wanted Lehner with a counter argument that suddenly teams would want him?

 

Housley’s comments today on Lehner are so telling...

Why wouldn't he have gotten claimed? He got signed so clearly someone was interested. I'm gonna use your strategy against  you.  You said send him to Rochester, provide an argument why he would have cleared waivers.

Where do I say no one wanted him? I want that quoted back. I've said we didn't want him. 

Like i said, it was going to be a no win with you. 

Edited February 13, 2019 by LGR4GM

[jame]

19 minutes ago, LGR4GM said:

Why wouldn't he have gotten claimed? He got signed so clearly someone was interested. I'm gonna use your strategy against  you.  You said send him to Rochester, provide an argument why he would have cleared waivers.

Where do I say no one wanted him? I want that quoted back. I've said we didn't want him. 

Like i said, it was going to be a no win with you. 

4 million dollar goalie performing at an unqualifiable level don’t get claimed mid season on waivers. How many 4 million dollar players have ever been claimed mid season?

he ended up getting signed for 1/4 of the money, well into the offseason, after every other team said hell no.

its also worth noting that the team that finally signed him... wasn’t under the same coach/management structure.

Regardless... so what if he’s claimed? Once the season was long gone, what was the risk in sending him to Rochester? He either gets to Rochester and gets the wake up call and you benefit from that... or he gets claimed, in which case he gets the wake up call elsewhere which is no different than the outcome we found ourselves in... other than the fact that we arrived at that outcome via Botts doing nothing instead of something.

i wouldn’t have faulted Botts for being proactive  and trying to help/fix Lehner. I fault him for not having the skillset

Edited February 13, 2019 by jame

[LGR4GM]

7 minutes ago, jame said:

4 million dollar goalie performing at an unqualifiable level don’t get claimed mid season on waivers. How many 4 million dollar players have ever been claimed mid season?

he ended up getting signed for 1/4 of the money, well into the offseason, after every other team said hell no.

its also worth noting that the team that finally signed him... wasn’t under the same coach/management structure.

Regardless... so what if he’s claimed? Once the season was long gone, what was the risk in sending him to Rochester? He either gets to Rochester and gets the wake up call and you benefit from that... or he gets claimed, in which case he gets the wake up call elsewhere which is no different than the outcome we found ourselves in... other than the fact that we arrived at that outcome via Botts doing nothing instead of something.

i wouldn’t have faulted Botts for being proactive  and trying to help/fix Lehner. I fault him for not having the skillset

I'm gonna respond tomorrow because I'm on my phone but if we had waived Lehner mid season you most certainly would have been mad at botterill. I'll give my full response tomorrow but you're proving my point. This was a kobayashi maru for botterill in your eyes. 

[jame]

Just now, LGR4GM said:

I'm gonna respond tomorrow because I'm on my phone but if we had waived Lehner mid season you most certainly would have been mad at botterill. I'll give my full response tomorrow but you're proving my point. This was a kobayashi maru for botterill in your eyes. 

I don’t know why you think that... maybe because it’s a lazy way to debate.

 

[PerreaultForever]

3 hours ago, jame said:

How did I know you’d take the opportunity to appeal to a single game authority...

Same way I know that you will argue against success.

 

Jame, are you actually Tim Murray trolling the board? 

[LGR4GM]

10 hours ago, jame said:

I don’t know why you think that... maybe because it’s a lazy way to debate.

 

Oh look, a backhanded insult. Maybe I was going to bed at the time and it wasn't lazy at all. I can't say the same for your arguments because when you are caught you turn to insults. It is a pattern that has been repeated on here several times in the last week. Further you rarely defend your points with as much info as others. 

Edited February 13, 2019 by LGR4GM

[LGR4GM]

On 2/11/2019 at 10:30 PM, jame said:

The point isn’t about how many people predicted it... the point is a veteran GM who has seen it all, and a veteran coach who has dealt with it all... were able to help get him right.

our organization is run by rookies with no experience...

the fans should stop making excuses for Bottsley, just because it helps them believe in an unknown future more. 

 

On 2/12/2019 at 1:39 AM, PerreaultForever said:

How exactly did they do that since you seem to know?

I think it far far more likely Lehner himself saw the writing on the wall when nobody wanted to sign him and he woke up to reality. Islanders took a chance cause they and absolutely nothing to lose.

Doesn't matter, he quit on us and had to go. Our "rookie" GM did exactly the right thing in letting him walk and nobody thought otherwise.

 

On 2/12/2019 at 7:57 AM, jame said:

Yes our rookie gm was I’ll equipped to get the right wake up call... he could’ve put Lehner on the bus in Rochester.

 

14 hours ago, jame said:

Why would he have gotten claimed? Are you going to follow up your argument that no one wanted Lehner with a counter argument that suddenly teams would want him?

 

10 hours ago, jame said:

4 million dollar goalie performing at an unqualifiable level don’t get claimed mid season on waivers. How many 4 million dollar players have ever been claimed mid season?

he ended up getting signed for 1/4 of the money, well into the offseason, after every other team said hell no.

its also worth noting that the team that finally signed him... wasn’t under the same coach/management structure.

Regardless... so what if he’s claimed? Once the season was long gone, what was the risk in sending him to Rochester? He either gets to Rochester and gets the wake up call and you benefit from that... or he gets claimed, in which case he gets the wake up call elsewhere which is no different than the outcome we found ourselves in... other than the fact that we arrived at that outcome via Botts doing nothing instead of something.

i wouldn’t have faulted Botts for being proactive  and trying to help/fix Lehner. I fault him for not having the skillset

So let's break this down because yes, you would have blamed Botterill regardless of what he did. 

First, if he had been waived mid season which was not originally what I thought you meant, you would have been in here now saying how bad Botterill was for forcing Ullmark up early and having Johnson as a backup. That would have been your argument. Botterill sucks because he waived his starting goalie and had to call up Ullmark who wasn't a guaranteed starter in the middle of the season. 

Second, if he waives Lehner mid season and he is claimed you would have been blaming Botterill for losing an asset for nothing, which you are basically doing now by saying they couldn't fix Lehner and now see what he is doing. Saying they could have gotten him right implies you are mad that they did not get him right and would equally be mad if they waived him and he was claimed. You don't know if he wouldn't have been claimed.  You don't know if he would have. You don't get to use a whataboutism every time someone pokes a gaping hole in your theory. This what if scenario is already falling apart because what if he gets claimed or not, is completely subjective. 

Third, they keep Lehner into the offseason and qualify him. That would mean he gets more money than that 4mil correct? Would they not have to add to his deal as an RFA? Okay, so they qualify him. You are now mad at Botterill because Lehner hasn't gotten his head right and he is wasting cap on a bad asset. Lehner would have come off a bad season and gotten paid, another strike for Botterill. Lehner then comes in and looks the same because why wouldn't he? The system in Buffalo is far more wide open then the bore fest that gets played on Long Island. 

Fourth, they pay Lehner and then in October when final cuts are made they waive him. He goes unclaimed and goes to Rochester. You then complain about Botterill wasting the cap on Lehner and what a bad deal it was and how he should not have qualified him. 

Fifth, they pay Lehner and waive him and he gets claimed, now Botterill is an idiot for not trading Lehner. See above. 

Sixth, they pay him and he stays and he's good... THE ONLY scenario that you can't criticize Botterill for and the least likely outcome by far considering Lehner got better after he was not signed and needed to go through that process to get his head straight AND he plays in a system that directly benefits the goalies. How do I know that? Greiss has a .927sv% let alone what Lehner has. So again, Lehner stays and is mediocre. You criticize Botterill for not getting rid of him. 

 

This is a no win scenario. If you are okay with him getting waived and claimed then why are you not okay with him not getting qualified? The answer is simple, you don't like Botterill and will twist anything he does into a negative to support your argument. 

[rickshaw]

ROR needed to go. There has been many rumors about him being a bad teammate. He’s clearly a good player but he wanted to be the man, like another said earlier, and this team isn’t his, it’s Jack’s.

you always hope the return is better but it’s done. The Blues are on fire right now but it’s gonna be too little too late.

[GASabresIUFAN]

13 hours ago, LGR4GM said:

 

 

 

 

So let's break this down because yes, you would have blamed Botterill regardless of what he did. 

First, if he had been waived mid season which was not originally what I thought you meant, you would have been in here now saying how bad Botterill was for forcing Ullmark up early and having Johnson as a backup. That would have been your argument. Botterill sucks because he waived his starting goalie and had to call up Ullmark who wasn't a guaranteed starter in the middle of the season. 

Second, if he waives Lehner mid season and he is claimed you would have been blaming Botterill for losing an asset for nothing, which you are basically doing now by saying they couldn't fix Lehner and now see what he is doing. Saying they could have gotten him right implies you are mad that they did not get him right and would equally be mad if they waived him and he was claimed. You don't know if he wouldn't have been claimed.  You don't know if he would have. You don't get to use a whataboutism every time someone pokes a gaping hole in your theory. This what if scenario is already falling apart because what if he gets claimed or not, is completely subjective. 

Third, they keep Lehner into the offseason and qualify him. That would mean he gets more money than that 4mil correct? Would they not have to add to his deal as an RFA? Okay, so they qualify him. You are now mad at Botterill because Lehner hasn't gotten his head right and he is wasting cap on a bad asset. Lehner would have come off a bad season and gotten paid, another strike for Botterill. Lehner then comes in and looks the same because why wouldn't he? The system in Buffalo is far more wide open then the bore fest that gets played on Long Island. 

Fourth, they pay Lehner and then in October when final cuts are made they waive him. He goes unclaimed and goes to Rochester. You then complain about Botterill wasting the cap on Lehner and what a bad deal it was and how he should not have qualified him. 

Fifth, they pay Lehner and waive him and he gets claimed, now Botterill is an idiot for not trading Lehner. See above. 

Sixth, they pay him and he stays and he's good... THE ONLY scenario that you can't criticize Botterill for and the least likely outcome by far considering Lehner got better after he was not signed and needed to go through that process to get his head straight AND he plays in a system that directly benefits the goalies. How do I know that? Greiss has a .927sv% let alone what Lehner has. So again, Lehner stays and is mediocre. You criticize Botterill for not getting rid of him. 

 

This is a no win scenario. If you are okay with him getting waived and claimed then why are you not okay with him not getting qualified? The answer is simple, you don't like Botterill and will twist anything he does into a negative to support your argument. 

Amen Brother!  You can added the two very Lehner-ish goals the Sabres scored on him last night to show that while he is better in the more goalie friendly system he is still the goalie we saw for the last few years in Buffalo.

I’m happy he is healthy and happy he is playing well.  I’m also happy he is no longer here.  He wasn’t a $4 mill goalie and was given every chance to grow and succeed here.  He didn’t and it was time to move on.  

I also don’t understand this rookie GM BS.  He isn’t.  He was interim GM of the Penguins briefly in 2014.  Also, it’s not like they plucked some guy from he stands and made him GM.  Jbot served in the NHL offices, as a Scout for Dallas and spent a decade with the Pens in various roles including AGM, Director of Hockey Admin (including the team’s cap management and scouting) and GM of their AHL team.  

Lets face facts.  @jame doesn’t like Jbot and that is his right, but none of the facts support his contention that Jbot is incompetent as a GM.  I understand dislike of a GM.  I loath TM and it was the Lehrer trade that did me in.  His lack of drafting D early in the draft, poor cap management, destruction of our prospect pool and general distain for the Amerks added to my dislike. 

We have seen none of that so far from Jbot.  He cleaned up the cap, made the Amerks a priority and competitive, rebuild our D prospect pool, all while making the Sabres better and maybe even playoff competitive team in just his 2nd year.  He also seems to have drafted well. Mitts is developing pretty well and for the first time in many years we seem to have some mid to late rd picks who look like future NHL players (like Pekar and Laaksonen).

Can you find places to criticize Jbot? sure!  I didn’t like the return for Kane and others are unhappy that ROR is gone or at the return for him. However we upgraded Kane with Skinner. While we certainly miss ROR, the team is way better then last year in all phases of game.

With Kane and ROR (and Lehner) the Sabres finished dead last last year in the NHL with 62 pts in 82 games.  They scored an NHL worst 2.43 goals per game (199 total) while allowing an NHL 3rd worst 3.42 (280) for a -81 differential (worst in the league). That team earned .76 pts per game played

This edition of the Sabres already has 63 pts in only 56 games.  We sit 16th in the NHL standings just 2 points out of a playoff spot.  We have scored 165 goals (2.95) and allowed 171 (3.05).  This is genuine improvement.  We are earning 1.125 pts per game played 

By the way in 2016-17 the Sabres with Kane, ROR, Lehner, Etc... finished with 78 pts (26th in the NHL) with the 5th highest actual payroll in the NHL over $80 mill.  That great team scored 201 goals (2.45) and allowed 237 (2.89).  That team earned .95 pts per game played.

There is no objective measure that says Jbot has done a bad job.  The additions of Skinner, Sheary, Thompson, Mitts, Sobotka, Hutton, Pilut and Dahlin , whether you like these players or not, have made this team better then we ever were with Kane, Lehner and ROR.  It’s really that simple. 

 

Edited February 14, 2019 by GASabresIUFAN

[dudacek]

On 2/11/2019 at 10:39 PM, PerreaultForever said:

How exactly did they do that since you seem to know?

I think it far far more likely Lehner himself saw the writing on the wall when nobody wanted to sign him and he woke up to reality. Islanders took a chance cause they and absolutely nothing to lose.

Doesn't matter, he quit on us and had to go. Our "rookie" GM did exactly the right thing in letting him walk and nobody thought otherwise.

From his Athletic article it sounded to me like Lehner saw the writing on the wall in the spring and took steps to address his mental health problems, not when free agency hit and he wasn't in demand.

He also made it pretty clear that he didn't quit on us; on the contrary, he wanted to succeed with the Sabres but Botterill had a broken dressing room to fix and investing $4 million qualifying a reclamation risk like Lehner wasn't what was best for the team.

I agree wholeheartedly with the bolded.

21 hours ago, Weave said:

Boy, "structure" can be taken so many ways.  I'm not sure most of them would reflect well on PH.

I'd like to think structure refers to a healthy dressing room hierarchy that was absent while Lehner was here. As others have pointed out, our biggest problem with Kane, O'Reilly and Lehner was they were leaders here, not the followers.

And Tim Murray's biggest flaw as a GM was that he was a horse trader of talent, not a manager of people. I'm desperately hoping Botterill doesn't end up being the opposite.

Edited February 13, 2019 by dudacek

[SDS]

19 minutes ago, dudacek said:

From his Athletic article it sounded to me like Lehner saw the writing on the wall in the spring and took steps to address his mental health problems, not when free agency hit and he wasn't in demand.

He also made it pretty clear that he didn't quit on us; on the contrary, he wanted to succeed with the Sabres but Botterill had a broken dressing room to fix and investing $4 million qualifying a reclamation risk like Lehner wasn't what was best for the team.

I agree wholeheartedly with the bolded.

I'd like to think structure refers to a healthy dressing room hierarchy that was absent while Lehner was here. As others have pointed out, our biggest problem with Kane, O'Reilly and Lehner was they were leaders here, not the followers.

And Tim Murray's biggest flaw as a GM was that he was a horse trader of talent, not a manager of people. I'm desperately hoping Botterill doesn't end up being the opposite.

There is a really nice TED talk that make s the case that the world needs fewer leaders and more first followers. 

Because if everyone is a leader, who exactly is doing the following?

note that this is “first” follower, not just a follower. It’s having the recognition of who actually has the chops to be a real leader and throwing your suppprt behind them. 

[MakeSabresGrr8Again]

9 hours ago, LGR4GM said:

 

Sixth, they pay him and he stays and he's good... THE ONLY scenario that you can't criticize Botterill for and the least likely outcome by far considering Lehner got better after he was not signed and needed to go through that process to get his head straight AND he plays in a system that directly benefits the goalies. How do I know that? Greiss has a .927sv% let alone what Lehner has. So again, Lehner stays and is mediocre. You criticize Botterill for not getting rid of him. 

 

This is a no win scenario. If you are okay with him getting waived and claimed then why are you not okay with him not getting qualified? The answer is simple, you don't like Botterill and will twist anything he does into a negative to support your argument. 

Well done and I agree.....except for the bolded.

I can see the argument being......an experienced GM would have hired a coaching staff that would install a system which best suited the strengths/ weaknesses of the players on hand leading to success. Example being that Isles coach and GM has done just that. 

This is just to conclude that there is no scenario that will not allow for someone to criticize JBott.

[nfreeman]

If I may:

- Lehner was a disaster last season, no doubt in part due to his personal demons.  Even so, I'd guess 90% to 100% of NHL GMs would've made the same decision that JB made.  And it's nonsense to blame JB and Howie for not saving him and/or getting more out of him.

- The debate tactic of "If X had happened, you would've said Y" is weak sauce.  It can't be proven or disproved and IMHO doesn't advance a position.

- I've already given my opinion on ROR multiple times, so will forbear here, but as to Kane:  he's having a very strong season and seems to have landed in the right place.  Good for him.  I would've been OK keeping Kane, but understood the decision to move on from him.  I also think Skinner is better than Kane -- but I'd sure rather have Kane on his contract than KO on his.

- As to the broader questions of whether JB and Howie have the right stuff:  it's too early to tell IMHO.  Certainly there are reasons for both optimism and pessimism.  I think it's worth remembering that people tend to improve at their jobs with experience.

[MakeSabresGrr8Again]

3 hours ago, nfreeman said:

If I may:

- Lehner was a disaster last season, no doubt in part due to his personal demons.  Even so, I'd guess 90% to 100% of NHL GMs would've made the same decision that JB made.  And it's nonsense to blame JB and Howie for not saving him and/or getting more out of him.

- The debate tactic of "If X had happened, you would've said Y" is weak sauce.  It can't be proven or disproved and IMHO doesn't advance a position.

- I've already given my opinion on ROR multiple times, so will forbear here, but as to Kane:  he's having a very strong season and seems to have landed in the right place.  Good for him.  I would've been OK keeping Kane, but understood the decision to move on from him.  I also think Skinner is better than Kane -- but I'd sure rather have Kane on his contract than KO on his.

- As to the broader questions of whether JB and Howie have the right stuff:  it's too early to tell IMHO.  Certainly there are reasons for both optimism and pessimism.  I think it's worth remembering that people tend to improve at their jobs with experience.

Not sure who or what post you are referring to in the bolded. Just for the record...I wasn't debating anything. 

[PerreaultForever]

9 hours ago, dudacek said:

He also made it pretty clear that he didn't quit on us; on the contrary, he wanted to succeed with the Sabres but Botterill had a broken dressing room to fix and investing $4 million qualifying a reclamation risk like Lehner wasn't what was best for the team.

 

He can say that, but I watched him quit during some games he played in. Maybe it was only my perception, but I saw that guy go through the motions on many nights.

This guy, on the other hand, this guy sounds like he's the kind of guy we want to build on. EVERYBODY should read this article on Ullmark:

https://buffalonews.com/2019/02/13/buffalo-sabres-linus-ullmark-rochester-americans-modo-nhl-ahl-news/

 

[MODO Hockey]

1 hour ago, PerreaultForever said:

He can say that, but I watched him quit during some games he played in. Maybe it was only my perception, but I saw that guy go through the motions on many nights.

This guy, on the other hand, this guy sounds like he's the kind of guy we want to build on. EVERYBODY should read this article on Ullmark:

https://buffalonews.com/2019/02/13/buffalo-sabres-linus-ullmark-rochester-americans-modo-nhl-ahl-news/

 

That's Linus alright, for sure. He got it all, just a matter of time i hope until he manage to fit everything together perfectly. 
If he does, which i believe, he will be the new king, no doubt.

Edited February 14, 2019 by MODO Hockey