2020 Off-season gameplan

[Gabrielor]

4 minutes ago, LGR4GM said:

Adding overpriced 3/4 line vets doesn't add morale, it just adds more players who don't produce to a team that is short on production. 

If they had added Pavelski, sure I would agree but going out and adding a vet to add a vet because "morale" is the exact same logic that gets you Steve Ott, Dalton Smith, etc... and it doesn't change anything. 

Preeeeeeettttty big difference between those two names. One had a great career, one played 90 seconds...

[LGR4GM]

7 minutes ago, Gabrielor said:

Preeeeeeettttty big difference between those two names. One had a great career, one played 90 seconds...

And both added for the reason you laid out. 

[Curt]

2 hours ago, Gabrielor said:

Wayne Simmonds wasn't an add people who follow analytics enjoyed, but I thought he was the perfect add to morale, and they need to do that again this off season.

Anecdotal observation, but if Simmonds was so perfect for Buffalo, why did they have their worst stretch and losing streak of the season right after he joined the team?

[Gabrielor]

13 minutes ago, Curt said:

Anecdotal observation, but if Simmonds was so perfect for Buffalo, why did they have their worst stretch and losing streak of the season right after he joined the team?

To be clear, I'm in no way blaming Eichel. However, you asked me why we had our worst stretch after the trade deadline. I'd say that was why.

Edited August 24, 2020 by Gabrielor

[Gabrielor]

1 hour ago, LGR4GM said:

And both added for the reason you laid out. 

I'd say neither are really comparable situations to the Simmonds add though, and context matters.

 

Dalton Smith was brought up because Cernak elbowed Dahlin, played 90 seconds, and that was it. No prior NHL reputation or experience.

Steve Ott replaced our top line center. It wasn't really his addition that was the problem, it was what was given up.

 

Adding a Simmonds for cheap as a 4th line banger who has a history of having his teammates backs, and also abundant NHL experience? I'll take some of that. I'd prefer the add to also still play (Kyle Clifford), but it's still an element we need.

Edited August 24, 2020 by Gabrielor

[LGR4GM]

And how did it work out for us in the win column, this mythical addition of character/grit/morale?

[Gabrielor]

Just now, LGR4GM said:

And how did it work out for us in the win column, this mythical addition of character/grit/morale?

These one-liners are cool, but the fact is, we can't know. They played 7 games, and Eichel was playing injured in all of them. 

[LGR4GM]

Just now, Gabrielor said:

These one-liners are cool, but the fact is, we can't know. They played 7 games, and Eichel was playing injured in all of them. 

We do know. They lost and lost. If Simmonds and his whatever term you want to use were so vital to this team how come they had no effect? How come adding veterans like Frolic had no effect? The answer is simple, regardless of what intangibles we attach to these guys if they aren't talented enough to contribute on the ice, them being intimidating/moral boasting/gritty whatever it is, really doesn't matter. 

To the bold, exactly. The team lacks talent not some washed up vet presence we wasted 2.5mil in cap on. Or in Frolic's case 4.3. Or Sobotka's 3.5. 

Morale might push a good team further but a mediocre team lacking in talent, if your focus is adding morale you've already lost. 

[Gabrielor]

12 minutes ago, LGR4GM said:

We do know. They lost and lost. If Simmonds and his whatever term you want to use were so vital to this team how come they had no effect? How come adding veterans like Frolic had no effect? The answer is simple, regardless of what intangibles we attach to these guys if they aren't talented enough to contribute on the ice, them being intimidating/moral boasting/gritty whatever it is, really doesn't matter. 

To the bold, exactly. The team lacks talent not some washed up vet presence we wasted 2.5mil in cap on. Or in Frolic's case 4.3. Or Sobotka's 3.5. 

Morale might push a good team further but a mediocre team lacking in talent, if your focus is adding morale you've already lost. 

Where did I call this add vital? Where I was say it was a focus? I said need. That doesn't sound like the importance or urgency you want to represent my point as...

Where the hell do Frolik and Sobotka come into this? I feel like you just want to make a larger point about focusing on acquiring talent rather than fringe compontents, and in doing so are just misrepresenting the hell out of what I've said.

 

Or are you just really yearning to debate someone, and here I am? 

Edited August 24, 2020 by Gabrielor

[MakeSabresGrr8Again]

3 hours ago, Gabrielor said:

I imagine any Reinhart trade scenario would be sad for Jack, but so was Kane, Moulson, and Bogosian.

If hypothetically Monhahan and Gaudreau are coming back, Gaudreau particularly having played with him on Team NA, he'll rebound pretty fast.

 

I'm sure Jack wants some help from the office, and doesn't want to hear talk about futures (neither do the fans right now). I'm also pretty confident that Jack wants to win here, because he'll get a lion's share of the credit, and he's definitely a guy who attacks a challenge. He just wants guys around him willing to battle ("We need veteran toughness").

 

Wayne Simmonds wasn't an add people who follow analytics enjoyed, but I thought he was the perfect add to morale, and they need to do that again this off season.

I'm one of the few that like Simmons (now and the past). I believe he said he was playing through injuries this year. I think I read he is feeling good and wasn't opposed to returning. Don't see it though.

Edited August 24, 2020 by MakeSabresGrr8Again

[Gabrielor]

2 minutes ago, MakeSabresGrr8Again said:

I'm one of the few that like Simmons (now and the past). I believe he said he was playing through injuries this year. I think I read he is feeling good and wasn't opposed to returning. Don't see it though.

I wouldn't add Simmonds, specifically, again, mainly because his spot on a roster I'd speculate is where Okposo plays. I'm very interested in Kyle Clifford, however.

[dudacek]

I like the idea of adding "Wayne Simmonds" the concept. The actual Wayne Simmonds the hockey player looked like a very pale facsimile of that while he was in blue and gold.

Edited August 24, 2020 by dudacek

[LGR4GM]

19 minutes ago, Gabrielor said:

Where did I call this add vital? Where I was say it was a focus? I said need. That doesn't sound like the importance or urgency you want to represent my point as...

Where the hell do Frolik and Sobotka come into this? I feel like you just want to make a larger point about focusing on acquiring talent rather than fringe compontents, and in doing so are just misrepresenting the hell out of what I've said.

 

Or are you just really yearning to debate someone, and here I am? 

I view a need as something vital because you need it. 

Frolik, added because he was a veteran and pk killer

Sobotka added because he was a veteran

I used those 2 as recent examples of players added to the team for reasons outside of being able to score goals or win hockey games. 

Your original point about adding simmonds was about morale. What morale did Simmonds add?

12 minutes ago, Gabrielor said:

I wouldn't add Simmonds, specifically, again, mainly because his spot on a roster I'd speculate is where Okposo plays. I'm very interested in Kyle Clifford, however.

What does Clifford add?

Edited August 24, 2020 by LGR4GM

[LGR4GM]

50 minutes ago, Gabrielor said:

I'd say neither are really comparable situations to the Simmonds add though, and context matters.

 

Dalton Smith was brought up because Cernak elbowed Dahlin, played 90 seconds, and that was it. No prior NHL reputation or experience.

Steve Ott replaced our top line center. It wasn't really his addition that was the problem, it was what was given up.

 

Adding a Simmonds for cheap as a 4th line banger who has a history of having his teammates backs, and also abundant NHL experience? I'll take some of that. I'd prefer the add to also still play (Kyle Clifford), but it's still an element we need.

Hence why I mentioned Frolik and Sobotka, both fit the NHL experience mold you mention here.

[Flashsabre]

Kyle Clifford. do It!!!!

[kas23]

6 hours ago, Gabrielor said:

I wouldn't do 8+Reinhart for Monahan, let alone add Olofsson...

Reinhart for Monahan is a deal I begrudgingly do, because we need the center, and Reinhart won't get the chance to be one here for whatever reason.

As mentioned above, Rheino is the better player here. I do it though if they toss in Gaudreau for Montour. 
 

We always talk about perhaps having to “overpay” to get what our teams needs. But, what about the other team? What if they think they “need” Rheino? Then I want them to overpay. I guess it depends on who initially contacted who or who has the upper hand here. 

[LGR4GM]

3 minutes ago, Flashsabre said:

Kyle Clifford. do It!!!!

Kyle Clifford... the Matt Ellis's of Zemgus Girgensons

[Gabrielor]

2 minutes ago, kas23 said:

As mentioned above, Rheino is the better player here. I do it though if they toss in Gaudreau for Montour. 
 

We always talk about perhaps having to “overpay” to get what our teams needs. But, what about the other team? What if they think they “need” Rheino? Then I want them to overpay. I guess it depends on who initially contacted who or who has the upper hand here. 

It's completely unearned confidence in untested management, but I think if there's a Monahan+stuff for Reinhart+stuff, our stuff isn't going to be as crippling as Sabres fan were accustomed to under Botterill.

[Gabrielor]

19 minutes ago, LGR4GM said:

I view a need as something vital because you need it. 

Frolik, added because he was a veteran and pk killer Yep, and it failed miserably.

Sobotka added because he was a veteran Eh, he was added because Botterill thought him and Berglund could replace O'Reilly and increase depth, while he added futures. Doesn't really have anything to do with what we're talking about.

I used those 2 as recent examples of players added to the team for reasons outside of being able to score goals or win hockey games. And again, missing my point about adding a different element to the team. You just keep walking your own path...

Your original point about adding simmonds was about morale. What morale did Simmonds add? Covered this already. Our offensive catalyst got hurt, and we played 7 games. You're free to draw whatever conclusions you want from a 7 game sample size.

What does Clifford add? A tough, experienced bottom line forward who's truthworthy to not get cratered in his own zone.

Responses above, and I'm done with this one.

You see little or no value in adding grit to the bottom of the lineup; I do. Nothing more to be done.

[LGR4GM]

5 minutes ago, Gabrielor said:

Responses above, and I'm done with this one.

You see little or no value in adding grit to the bottom of the lineup; I do. Nothing more to be done.

You're right, I don't think adding grit to the bottom six really does anything. 

[Curt]

1 hour ago, Gabrielor said:

To be clear, I'm in no way blaming Eichel. However, you asked me why we had our worst stretch after the trade deadline. I'd say that was why.

Why didn’t Simmonds use his veteran leadership to inspire Eichel to play better?

You are kind of spelling out my point of view.  Simmonds’ veteran grit isn’t going to save the team.  They need better players.

[Gabrielor]

1 minute ago, Curt said:

Why didn’t Simmonds use his veteran leadership to inspire Eichel to play better?

You are kind of spelling out my point of view.  Simmonds’ veteran grit isn’t going to save the team.  They need better players.

Yeah, why didn't Simmonds use his veteran leadership to heal Eichel of all injuries....?

Also, who said anything about Simmonds 'saving the team'? This is misrepresentation-city today.

 

Yes, they do need better players, who's disagreeing with that? Yes, if I were to add bottom 6 grit, it would be like priority #8 on the list right now (in fact, this will started as a line in a larger post I made about acquiring better players...?)

 

I'm also not 'spelling out' your point of view at all, which seems to be a pretty childish one. 

Me: "They should add grit to the bottom 6"

You: "If adding grit is so important, why didn't we win? Why didn't that one suggestion fix all the problems"

Me: "???"

 

 

[LGR4GM]

If you could have Larsson or Clifford who would you pick and why?

[Gabrielor]

23 minutes ago, LGR4GM said:

If you could have Larsson or Clifford who would you pick and why?

Larsson, and it isn't close. 

Good player. Center. Fit. Chemistry with current pieces (Okposo). Bringing back LOG (even if it's just LO, and G is filled by someone else) would be good, and in conjunction with a 2C move would transform into amazing.

[Flashsabre]

52 minutes ago, LGR4GM said:

If you could have Larsson or Clifford who would you pick and why?

Larry.  Clifford is a UFA that adds toughness and is known as a real locker room guy with leadership.  He can play 4th line and isn’t going to break the bank.  Keep Larry, add Clifford.