Casey Mittlestadt has been sent to Amerks

[LGR4GM]

On 2/3/2020 at 6:16 PM, Taro T said:

Again, it could very well make sense to do so at the end of the month.  It makes sense to keep him on the farm at present.  But it is downright foolish to make that decision to keep him down for the full season at this time.

I just want him to learn as much as possible. We'll need him but this year is dead for the Sabres. If he can show up next year with the patience and understanding he's talking about, that's going to be invaluable. We'll see though. 

[darksabre]

2 minutes ago, LGR4GM said:

You're hitting on something that gives me just a hair of faith in botterill. Rochester is finally what it should be. I think that's a reason Olofsson has had the success he did. I just hope Mitts gets there too because if you have Mitts and Cozens as top 6 players in 2 years, so many problems solve themselves. 

This all gets back to the key failure of the tank which was the lack of anything substantial in the pipeline to bring up and play with the tank fruit. Better late than never, but it sure would have been nice if they hadn't put the cart before the horse.

[LGR4GM]

1 minute ago, darksabre said:

This all gets back to the key failure of the tank which was the lack of anything substantial in the pipeline to bring up and play with the tank fruit. Better late than never, but it sure would have been nice if they hadn't put the cart before the horse.

You're talking about the critical mass of talent. It's why I freaked out over all the picks and prospects sent away in 2015.

[Pimlach]

29 minutes ago, woods-racer said:

It's happening 2 years later than it should, but it's being done right.

 

You can blame Botterill for trying to rush his development by being on the big club, which is justified.

But, Botterill also knew he made a mistake and did the right thing by sending him to Rochester. I'm willing to bet more times than not a GM in the same situation trades a  player in the same situation.

The other major point in all this, Botterill has assembled a decent coaching staff in Rochester it appears. There is very little success on the big club unless the players coming up know how to play. When is the last time we had a GM we felt had this going for him?

Was this Boterill’s doing? Or was it Ralph? 
 

Ralph is the one who cut his minutes or simply did not play him.  
 

[Weave]

5 minutes ago, LGR4GM said:

You're talking about the critical mass of talent. It's why I freaked out over all the picks and prospects sent away in 2015.

Maybe it is chicken and egg, but the prospects that are doing well were put into situations where they could succeed, not losing situations.  Keeping those picks and feeding even more kids to the wolves to save draft picks wasn't going to help anyone's development.

After his rookie season, I wonder what could have come of Girgensons, for example, if he wasn't fed to the wolves.

[LGR4GM]

44 minutes ago, Weave said:

Maybe it is chicken and egg, but the prospects that are doing well were put into situations where they could succeed, not losing situations.  Keeping those picks and feeding even more kids to the wolves to save draft picks wasn't going to help anyone's development.

After his rookie season, I wonder what could have come of Girgensons, for example, if he wasn't fed to the wolves.

You're making an assumption here. You assume those players have to play before they are ready. We didn't have to make giant trades to fill out the roster. There's UFAs and there's smaller deals. It's always been about drafting and development. 

[LTS]

45 minutes ago, Pimlach said:

Was this Boterill’s doing? Or was it Ralph? 
 

Ralph is the one who cut his minutes or simply did not play him.  
 

It's both.  The coach manages the game and puts players out there but he can only choose from what he has.  So he works with the GM to discuss what players could make a difference and which ones are not.  In this case, Mittlestadt was not doing anything and they finally sent him down.

45 minutes ago, Weave said:

Maybe it is chicken and egg, but the prospects that are doing well were put into situations where they could succeed, not losing situations.  Keeping those picks and feeding even more kids to the wolves to save draft picks wasn't going to help anyone's development.

After his rookie season, I wonder what could have come of Girgensons, for example, if he wasn't fed to the wolves.

Some players don't need the AHL.  Most benefit from it.  But yes, you want players to be put into a place where they can succeed.  You can only do that if you have enough talent, properly distributed.  The Sabres, by virtue of trading away the ability to build that talent pool, caused a situation where the talent was forced to play at a higher level than they were prepared to do.  As such, you get failing throughout the organization.  This is why the Sabres are STILL recovering.

You need competition for every position, if you don't have it then people get complacent.  Relatively few people are self-motivated to the degree that they never need anyone pushing them.  Professional athletes are more motivated than others, but once they are around other professionals the differences in self-motivation are tiny, but do manifest themselves in noticeable ways.

[Weave]

3 minutes ago, LGR4GM said:

You're making an assumption here. You assume those players have to play before they are ready. We didn't have to make giant trades to fill out the roster. There's UFAs and there's smaller deals. It's always been about drafting and development. 

Am I reading you as advocating 2-4 more seasons of Mezaros, Benoit, old Moulson level rosters on the big club?

[Curt]

43 minutes ago, Weave said:

Maybe it is chicken and egg, but the prospects that are doing well were put into situations where they could succeed, not losing situations.  Keeping those picks and feeding even more kids to the wolves to save draft picks wasn't going to help anyone's development.

After his rookie season, I wonder what could have come of Girgensons, for example, if he wasn't fed to the wolves.

The picks that were traded were not really high picks that would be in the NHL at 19.  They were mostly 2nds/3rds and 2 late 1sts.  What if we had 5 prospects of Asplund’s quality and age right now?

As for Girgensons, I think the only reason he looked good his 2nd year (not his 1st) was because he was being fed to the wolves, as you say, and had a flukey high shooting %.  He was used as 1C in all situations, 19 mins per night and produced at a 40ish point pace.  It felt like more at the time because the team literally had nothing else.

[Weave]

2 minutes ago, LTS said:

It's both.  The coach manages the game and puts players out there but he can only choose from what he has.  So he works with the GM to discuss what players could make a difference and which ones are not.  In this case, Mittlestadt was not doing anything and they finally sent him down.

Some players don't need the AHL.  Most benefit from it.  But yes, you want players to be put into a place where they can succeed.  You can only do that if you have enough talent, properly distributed.  The Sabres, by virtue of trading away the ability to build that talent pool, caused a situation where the talent was forced to play at a higher level than they were prepared to do.  As such, you get failing throughout the organization.  This is why the Sabres are STILL recovering.

You need competition for every position, if you don't have it then people get complacent.  Relatively few people are self-motivated to the degree that they never need anyone pushing them.  Professional athletes are more motivated than others, but once they are around other professionals the differences in self-motivation are tiny, but do manifest themselves in noticeable ways.

You are preaching to the choir.  My take was that GMTM attempted to bring in talent more quickly that would have kept players at the level they needed to be.  Whether he chose the correct players is another matter entirely.

The reason we were so talent poor as to put players into positions that they weren't ready for is that the act of setting up for the tank depleted the organization to the point that there was no way to ice a team that would put players in positions to succeed.  Keeping those picks or moving them for ready for the NHL talent wouldn't have mattered.  The gap was too wide to overcome.

3 minutes ago, Curt said:

What if we had 5 prospects of Asplund’s quality and age right now?

Then we would have had 3-4 seasons where Jack, Sam, Zemgus, Risto, etc. all would have been even more heavily burdened by the weight of carrying a team with even less talent than they had already.  (Imagine that!)

[LTS]

1 minute ago, Weave said:

You are preaching to the choir.  My take was that GMTM attempted to bring in talent more quickly that would have kept players at the level they needed to be.  Whether he chose the correct players is another matter entirely.

The reason we were so talent poor as to put players into positions that they weren't ready for is that the act of setting up for the tank depleted the organization to the point that there was no way to ice a team that would put players in positions to succeed.  Keeping those picks or moving them for ready for the NHL talent wouldn't have mattered.  The gap was too wide to overcome.

 Sorry, I thought you were questioning it.  I mean, if Murray gets the right players, things might have been different.  If he had post-depression Lehner, it might be quite different. 

 

[LGR4GM]

I dont agree on your gap theory. There was plenty of money and talent around but we didn't acquire it. 

[Weave]

Just now, LGR4GM said:

I dont agree on your gap theory. There was plenty of money and talent around but we didn't acquire it. 

We have already seen the level of UFA willing to sign here.  And we know how bare the cupboards were for minor deals.  I don't see a better path forward with those limitations.

[LGR4GM]

Just now, Weave said:

We have already seen the level of UFA willing to sign here.  And we know how bare the cupboards were for minor deals.  I don't see a better path forward with those limitations.

I do. Lehner, Kane, and Fasching were all trades we could have skipped with minimal impact on our ability to field a team. There were ufas and lesser trades to fill the gaps. Gmtm gave away too much. 

[Weave]

6 minutes ago, LGR4GM said:

I do. Lehner, Kane, and Fasching were all trades we could have skipped with minimal impact on our ability to field a team. There were ufas and lesser trades to fill the gaps. Gmtm gave away too much. 

I don't see how lesser players improve the ability to develop the two biggest assets the organization has had since Turgeon and Mogilny.  Frankly, I see it as putting Sam and Jack at even greater risk.

[Curt]

24 minutes ago, Weave said:

Am I reading you as advocating 2-4 more seasons of Mezaros, Benoit, old Moulson level rosters on the big club?

Not speaking for Liger, but for me, yes.  I think the ROR trade is the only ”buying” trade that was a good idea.

Between the 2015 and 2016 drafts, Murray traded away two 1sts, three 2nds, and two 3rds.  In addition to Lemieux, Armia, Myers, Pysyk, and McNabb.

Getting in return mostly Kane, Bogo, Kulikov, Lehner, Gorges, Deslauriers, Fasching.

[Weave]

Quote

Not speaking for Liger, but for me, yes.  

Woof.  I guess if you are gonna support losing on purpose you may as well make it an ethos.

Quote

 

Between the 2015 and 2016 drafts, Murray traded away two 1sts, three 2nds, and two 3rds.  In addition to Lemieux, Armia, Myers, Pysyk, and McNabb.

Getting in return mostly Kane, Bogo, Kulikov, Lehner, Gorges, Deslauriers, Fasching.

 

My contention remains the concept was best for getting Jack and Sam into the proper environment.  GMTM chose the players to surround them poorly.  The risks of hiring inexperienced people to manage the transition.

I will argue until I reach total apathy that this would have worked if we had the veterans surrounding Jack and Sam that Sidney and Gino had around them their first few years.  But we destroyed any possiblity of that happening by going all in on the tank.

[Curt]

34 minutes ago, Weave said:

Then we would have had 3-4 seasons where Jack, Sam, Zemgus, Risto, etc. all would have been even more heavily burdened by the weight of carrying a team with even less talent than they had already.  (Imagine that!)

I think it would have been fine.  Who was acquired by trade who was really that helpful, apart from ROR?  Kane was good no doubt, but I never really liked the way he played with Ike.  Lehner was ok, but came with a whole set of personal issues.

Would the team really have been that much worse having Myers, Pysyk, McNabb, Armia, all the picks, and whatever FAs they could get instead?

Maybe finishing with 60-70 points instead of 70-80 for a couple years, but then some of the picks start to come in to take spots, and by now 4 years later, the team would be a lot more full of talent than they currently are.

[Weave]

10 minutes ago, Curt said:

I think it would have been fine.  Who was acquired by trade who was really that helpful, apart from ROR?  Kane was good no doubt, but I never really liked the way he played with Ike.  Lehner was ok, but came with a whole set of personal issues.

Would the team really have been that much worse having Myers, Pysyk, McNabb, Armia, all the picks, and whatever FAs they could get instead?

Maybe finishing with 60-70 points instead of 70-80 for a couple years, but then some of the picks start to come in to take spots, and by now 4 years later, the team would be a lot more full of talent than they currently are.

Honest question, as I have not been bothered in the least to pay attention, who did we forgo to get ROR, Kane, et al?

And your assertion doesn't counter my main point, that the players GMTM went after were simply not the correct ones.  It woiuldn't have been Kane, Bogo, Baptiste coming back.

[Curt]

7 minutes ago, Weave said:

Woof.  I guess if you are gonna support losing on purpose you may as well make it an ethos.

My contention remains the concept was best for getting Jack and Sam into the proper environment.  GMTM chose the players to surround them poorly.  The risks of hiring inexperienced people to manage the transition.

I will argue until I reach total apathy that this would have worked if we had the veterans surrounding Jack and Sam that Sidney and Gino had around them their first few years.  But we destroyed any possiblity of that happening by going all in on the tank.

I could get on board with this too I suppose.  I’d argue though that without going all in on the tank, they likely never would have gotten Eichel.  It was a full on race to the bottom that season, and the only way to guarantee getting one of McEichel was to finish last.

I am strongly in the anti tank group though.  I don’t think they should have  ever done that.

[Weave]

Just now, Curt said:

I am strongly in the anti tank group though.  I don’t think they should have  ever done that.

Common ground.  At last.

[Curt]

2 minutes ago, Curt said:

I could get on board with this too I suppose.  I’d argue though that without going all in on the tank, they likely never would have gotten Eichel.  It was a full on race to the bottom that season, and the only way to guarantee getting one of McEichel was to finish last.

I am strongly in the anti tank group though.  I don’t think they should have  ever done that.

You mean what was traded?  Or who were possible draft selections?

1 minute ago, Weave said:

Common ground.  At last.

Yeah, I’ll admit that I’m sure there were a variety of different paths to building a good team, both tanking and not tanking.

I just think if you ARE going to tank, you really need to use most of those picks to build back up organizational depth.  Not that you can’t make ANY moves to bring in veterans, but you need to be more selective than GMTM was.  If you couldn’t find the right guys all in a 6 month period (what he tried to do) then that’s ok.  It’s a rebuild.  If it takes 2 yrs to carefully find the 4-5 good young veterans you want to bring in, that’s ok.  The team doesn’t have to make a playoff push immediately.

To say they shouldn’t have tanked, is to say it’s ok if we didn’t get one of McEichel.  I think that would have been ok.  There are other, less demoralizing ways to build a team.

[MakeSabresGrr8Again]

32 minutes ago, Curt said:

You mean what was traded?  Or who were possible draft selections?

Yeah, I’ll admit that I’m sure there were a variety of different paths to building a good team, both tanking and not tanking.

I just think if you ARE going to tank, you really need to use most of those picks to build back up organizational depth.  Not that you can’t make ANY moves to bring in veterans, but you need to be more selective than GMTM was.  If you couldn’t find the right guys all in a 6 month period (what he tried to do) then that’s ok.  It’s a rebuild.  If it takes 2 yrs to carefully find the 4-5 good young veterans you want to bring in, that’s ok.  The team doesn’t have to make a playoff push immediately.

To say they shouldn’t have tanked, is to say it’s ok if we didn’t get one of McEichel.  I think that would have been ok.  There are other, less demoralizing ways to build a team.

This is what concerns me about this coming off season with what JBot has to work with. Can he do enough to appease the fan base AND give some help to the roster to push us forward? With questions as to "who would want to sign here" and what quality of players are available at the right price. RFA signings and such. Setting up for the expansion too.

Might he have to take a smaller step than we would like because of these questions?

[Weave]

48 minutes ago, Curt said:

You mean what was traded?  Or who were possible draft selections?

I mean, what does the roster look like if those trades weren't made?  Are we still without a 2C and a 3C? A starting goalie? A 1D?  Does Dahlin end up here?

IOW, does it even matter?  My contention is, until I can be shown pretty conclusively, it didn't matter. 

 

Edit- to go back to my assertion that we needed vets to allow the kids to develop, I very strongly believe that the ROR trade absolutley needed to happen.  Jack needed to be on the 2nd line.  Someone needed to be the guy getting all the pressure while Jack learned to be a pro.  I feel strongly enough about this that I think this season is the FIRST season Jack should have been the 1C.  I think we needed ROR last season to continue to develop Jack.

And that assertion extends to Sam, Dahlin, and should have happened to Risto as well. 

I'm hoping Casey gets that treatment now.  He'll benefit from being in a situation that allows success.

Edited February 9, 2020 by Weave

[Curt]

28 minutes ago, Weave said:

I mean, what does the roster look like if those trades weren't made?  Are we still without a 2C and a 3C? A starting goalie? A 1D?  Does Dahlin end up here?

IOW, does it even matter?  My contention is, until I can be shown pretty conclusively, it didn't matter. 

Kane, Bogo, Kasdorf for Myers, Stafford, Armia, Lemieux, 1st (Roslovic)

-So we could have Roslovic 3C/W and Armia big depth scoring W, maybe have Myers or traded him in a different deal.  Lemieux and Stafford were on the way out but we could have gotten something else for them.  We wouldn’t have Bogo or Ryan Johnson.

Lehner for a mid 1st was a bad idea I thought.

-It ended up being Connor White for Ottawa (meh) but there were several good players taken in that area of that deep draft.  Ilya Samsonov, Boeser, Konecny, Chabot, Kyle Connor, Barzal were all taken just before and after.

The ROR trade I actually liked to give Eichel some cover.  ROR and Jamie McGinn for Zadorov, Grigorenko, JT Compher, a 2nd.

Braden McNabb and two 2nds for Deslauriers and Fasching was terrible terrible.

-McNabb could have been a pretty good player for Buffalo plus two speculative 2nds.

It was just a lot of “win now” moves that didn’t work out for a team that wasn’t actually ready to win now.

Edited February 9, 2020 by Curt