Eichel’s End of Season Zoom Meeting/Now with Risto Quotes.

[Gatorman0519]

Risto is clearly communicating “I want out for goodness sakes”.  I still think he’s a very good player that’s been hampered by this franchise.  It’s a shame but I can understand I needs a change of scenery. 

[DarthEbriate]

5 hours ago, Kristian said:

During the lockdown I sat down and watched some of the old 1999 Series games.

Wow... Just WOW! Take Dom away, even with Roloson in net, this team was a nightmare to play against, and I feel 100% convinced that the 1999 team would sweep the current Sabres in any series. Without Dom.

No superstars, just plain hard work and the occasional pest.

Note: One superstar in Hasek. Those posted '99 games are amazing fun. They're all tense because they're generally low-scoring, but in each of the Eastern match-ups it's apparent the Sabres are the better "team". A nasty, forechecking, speed wagon of 2Cs and shot blocking. No matter which team came out of the West, that Sabres squad would have been underdogs. (Just go and look at the who's who of Dallas, Detroit, and Colorado of the late '90s.) But that was a really good team.

And yes, they'd punish today's Sabres roster into submission whether playing by '99 rules or 2020 rules and officiating. (Although Eichel would still be the most talented skater on the ice and would get his points ala Mats Sundin, but it wouldn't matter in a playoff series.)

[bob_sauve28]

If Carter Hutton had not crapped the bed starting in November, we would have made the playoffs and things would be better now. Yes, we do need more scoring but getting a goalie is number one priority now. 

[Randall Flagg]

12 hours ago, PASabreFan said:

Assuming an Eichel trade will bring back trash isn't the right way to go about debating the proposition, nor are insults and self congratulation. You seem to be suggesting that Jack is so good it would be impossible to trade him and win the trade. You would have hated the idea of trading Pierre Turgeon.

Trading Jack is a thought experiment. In mine the Sabres have a good GM and win the trade. Your experiment relies on that GM's ability to put the right pieces around a 10 million player to just get into the playoffs... because we just learned near-peak Eichel isn't enough.

Sorry, I'm not married to the guy. Win the trade and he's another guy who gets booed in Buffalo. Lose it... we suck. We already suck.

The Sabres are hydrochloroquine to me. I'll take my chances with a risky cure. What do we have to lose?

That said he's not getting traded. 

I'm not assuming it brings back trash. It's just not going to solve the team's problems unless it's a return that I'm not comfortable betting on getting. We have the fewest scoring chances in the nhl. Jack is like top 10 in scoring chance generation for all individual players, year in and year out. I don't need to elaborate further on that.

Near peak Eichel isn't enough for what? Dragging a surrounding last place offensive roster to the playoffs? McDavid was the best skater in the league and couldn't do it with bad rosters either (in 16-17 they had a stable roster) until a teammate became MVP level. My entire point is that your "Jack isn't enough anyway" perspective hand waves everything actually important and relevant to winning hockey games. It's mediocre hockey analysis and mediocre contrarianism

19 minutes ago, bob_sauve28 said:

If Carter Hutton had not crapped the bed starting in November, we would have made the playoffs and things would be better now. Yes, we do need more scoring but getting a goalie is number one priority now. 

We are last place in generating scoring chances, this is as much of a priority as the guy who tends net for 30 games 

[bob_sauve28]

3 minutes ago, Randall Flagg said:

I'm not assuming it brings back trash. It's just not going to solve the team's problems unless it's a return that I'm not comfortable betting on getting. We have the fewest scoring chances in the nhl. Jack is like top 10 in scoring chance generation for all individual players, year in and year out. I don't need to elaborate further on that.

Near peak Eichel isn't enough for what? Dragging a surrounding last place offensive roster to the playoffs? McDavid was the best skater in the league and couldn't do it with bad rosters either (in 16-17 they had a stable roster) until a teammate became MVP level. My entire point is that your "Jack isn't enough anyway" perspective hand waves everything actually important and relevant to winning hockey games. It's mediocre hockey analysis and mediocre contrarianism

We are last place in generating scoring chances, this is as much of a priority as the guy who tends net for 30 games 

I totally disagree, goaltending is the most important position and aside from LU we totally sucked at the position. We actually started a an AHL goalie over our veteran because he was so bad. You just can't win that way. We do need more scoring, but we scored more goals than the Islanders and they had a great record. 

 

Perhaps if we had one of the Islanders goalies and they had Carter Hutton things would of been switched. 

 

 

[Randall Flagg]

6 minutes ago, bob_sauve28 said:

I totally disagree, goaltending is the most important position and aside from LU we totally sucked at the position. We actually started a an AHL goalie over our veteran because he was so bad. You just can't win that way. We do need more scoring, but we scored more goals than the Islanders and they had a great record. 

 

Perhaps if we had one of the Islanders goalies and they had Carter Hutton things would of been switched. 

 

 

They are going to play Ullmark 55 games or more next year. Our outcomes next year will be equally as hindered by an offense that generates the fewest chances in the league (because you cannot assume scoring will greatly out produce this, it won't) as it will by the goalie getting the other 25 games

[Stoner]

14 minutes ago, Randall Flagg said:

I'm not assuming it brings back trash. It's just not going to solve the team's problems unless it's a return that I'm not comfortable betting on getting. We have the fewest scoring chances in the nhl. Jack is like top 10 in scoring chance generation for all individual players, year in and year out. I don't need to elaborate further on that.

Near peak Eichel isn't enough for what? Dragging a surrounding last place offensive roster to the playoffs? McDavid was the best skater in the league and couldn't do it with bad rosters either (in 16-17 they had a stable roster) until a teammate became MVP level. My entire point is that your "Jack isn't enough anyway" perspective hand waves everything actually important and relevant to winning hockey games. It's mediocre hockey analysis and mediocre contrarianism

That's OK. I'm not here to try and prove to other fans that I'm a brilliant hockey analyst or that I know more than whoever is the GM and could do his job better. I'm smarter than Terry and Kim, that's enough for me.

What got me going was the pity party for Jack. It's not quite the right tone.

By the way, you can relax. I don't actually have the power to trade Jack.

[bob_sauve28]

1 hour ago, Randall Flagg said:

They are going to play Ullmark 55 games or more next year. Our outcomes next year will be equally as hindered by an offense that generates the fewest chances in the league (because you cannot assume scoring will greatly out produce this, it won't) as it will by the goalie getting the other 25 games

I just totally disagree with this. How did we do when Ullmark was hurt last year? I really don't want to live through that again. 

 

We outscored the Islanders even though that team played with the lead way more often than that. Letting in a soft goal--which happened on a regular basis last year with Hutton and whoever that other guy was--changes the game. We would have had more scoring opportunities if we had the lead or were tied. Or just getting more out of a PP that should have been way better. 

[Kristian]

2 hours ago, DarthEbriate said:

Note: One superstar in Hasek. Those posted '99 games are amazing fun. They're all tense because they're generally low-scoring, but in each of the Eastern match-ups it's apparent the Sabres are the better "team". A nasty, forechecking, speed wagon of 2Cs and shot blocking. No matter which team came out of the West, that Sabres squad would have been underdogs. (Just go and look at the who's who of Dallas, Detroit, and Colorado of the late '90s.) But that was a really good team.

And yes, they'd punish today's Sabres roster into submission whether playing by '99 rules or 2020 rules and officiating. (Although Eichel would still be the most talented skater on the ice and would get his points ala Mats Sundin, but it wouldn't matter in a playoff series.)

Yes Hasek was a superstar, but these guys would kill the 2020 Sabres with Roloson in net too, hence the “no superstar” comment.

Also, although the Sabres lost the finals, it’s not like the Stars had their way with them. There’s a sequence in game 4 where Derian Hatcher gets drilled three times on the same shift, and a slow-mo of him collecting himself after the third hit - He just has that look of “These guys are for real....” all over his face ?

Edited May 29, 2020 by Kristian

[Kristian]

5 hours ago, Drag0nDan said:

 

Housley was a terrible coach, JB probably should've been fired with him tbh.  

I have no evidence to back this up,  but I always thought that naturally gifted players are worse coaches, because they are unable to properly teach, something that comes to them naturally.

Or I could be totally wrong ?

[DarthEbriate]

1 hour ago, Kristian said:

Yes Hasek was a superstar, but these guys would kill the 2020 Sabres with Roloson in net too, hence the “no superstar” comment.

Also, although the Sabres lost the finals, it’s not like the Stars had their way with them. There’s a sequence in game 4 where Derian Hatcher gets drilled three times on the same shift, and a slow-mo of him collecting himself after the third hit - He just has that look of “These guys are for real....” all over his face ?

The Stars definitely didn't run away with it, and I'll bet Hatcher was taking the Sabres seriously midway through game 1, let alone in game 4. ;-]  Agreed, that 1999 squad and Rollie the goalie were still very solid.

In hindsight, the Stars were probably the worst matchup for the Sabres that year because they were sooo good defensively playing in '99 rules with Hitchcock's system and that roster. At least with the Avalanche or Red Wings it would've opened up more and possibly benefited the Sabres to an extent -- though Sakic/Forsberg and Yzerman/Fedorov... you know, pick your poison. Of course, losing Grosek (20 G) on the first shift of the Final, and having Satan on one ankle all series didn't help either. Still these games are fun to watch.

1 hour ago, Kristian said:

I have no evidence to back this up,  but I always thought that naturally gifted players are worse coaches, because they are unable to properly teach, something that comes to them naturally.

Or I could be totally wrong ?

Anecdotally, you're absolutely right. I'm not bothering with research either, but I can't think of "transcendent/Hall of Fall" players who then became great coaches or managers, rather they were helpless/feckless/reckless as coaches. But a guy who was a player who never quite made it or was a career backup, or the outlier is maybe anybody who was a catcher in baseball... those guys can hack it.

[Thorner]

18 hours ago, PASabreFan said:

Assuming an Eichel trade will bring back trash isn't the right way to go about debating the proposition, nor are insults and self congratulation. You seem to be suggesting that Jack is so good it would be impossible to trade him and win the trade. You would have hated the idea of trading Pierre Turgeon.

Trading Jack is a thought experiment. In mine the Sabres have a good GM and win the trade. Your experiment relies on that GM's ability to put the right pieces around a 10 million player to just get into the playoffs... because we just learned near-peak Eichel isn't enough.

Sorry, I'm not married to the guy. Win the trade and he's another guy who gets booed in Buffalo. Lose it... we suck. We already suck.

The Sabres are hydrochloroquine to me. I'll take my chances with a risky cure. What do we have to lose?

That said he's not getting traded. 

I understand your viewpoint, but it loses me at the bolded. We didn't have to learn near-peak Eichel wasn't enough. No one player is enough. McDavid could be the greatest ever and he was certainly incapable of carrying his team on his lonesome, as we've seen. 

Edited May 29, 2020 by Thorny

[Thorner]

6 hours ago, Randall Flagg said:

I'm not assuming it brings back trash. It's just not going to solve the team's problems unless it's a return that I'm not comfortable betting on getting. We have the fewest scoring chances in the nhl. Jack is like top 10 in scoring chance generation for all individual players, year in and year out. I don't need to elaborate further on that.

Near peak Eichel isn't enough for what? Dragging a surrounding last place offensive roster to the playoffs? McDavid was the best skater in the league and couldn't do it with bad rosters either (in 16-17 they had a stable roster) until a teammate became MVP level. My entire point is that your "Jack isn't enough anyway" perspective hand waves everything actually important and relevant to winning hockey games. It's mediocre hockey analysis and mediocre contrarianism

We are last place in generating scoring chances, this is as much of a priority as the guy who tends net for 30 games 

I sometimes think I shouldn't post if I'm a few hours behind because sure enough, if I respond before finishing the thread, you (or dudacek, if it's the 60% we agree on in complete totality and not the 40% we are completely in disagreement on ?) will have covered my viewpoint in a following post, making mine redundant.  

6 hours ago, Randall Flagg said:

They are going to play Ullmark 55 games or more next year. Our outcomes next year will be equally as hindered by an offense that generates the fewest chances in the league (because you cannot assume scoring will greatly out produce this, it won't) as it will by the goalie getting the other 25 games

I'd say "much more so", sooner than "equally". 

Edited May 29, 2020 by Thorny

[Weave]

2 hours ago, DarthEbriate said:

The Stars definitely didn't run away with it, and I'll bet Hatcher was taking the Sabres seriously midway through game 1, let alone in game 4. ;-]  Agreed, that 1999 squad and Rollie the goalie were still very solid.

In hindsight, the Stars were probably the worst matchup for the Sabres that year because they were sooo good defensively playing in '99 rules with Hitchcock's system and that roster. At least with the Avalanche or Red Wings it would've opened up more and possibly benefited the Sabres to an extent -- though Sakic/Forsberg and Yzerman/Fedorov... you know, pick your poison. Of course, losing Grosek (20 G) on the first shift of the Final, and having Satan on one ankle all series didn't help either. Still these games are fun to watch.

Anecdotally, you're absolutely right. I'm not bothering with research either, but I can't think of "transcendent/Hall of Fall" players who then became great coaches or managers, rather they were helpless/feckless/reckless as coaches. But a guy who was a player who never quite made it or was a career backup, or the outlier is maybe anybody who was a catcher in baseball... those guys can hack it.

Larry Robinson.  Stevie Y.

Only ones I can think of.

[Taro T]

2 minutes ago, Weave said:

Larry Robinson.  Stevie Y.

Only ones I can think of.

Toe Blake.

[Thorner]

7 hours ago, PASabreFan said:

That's OK. I'm not here to try and prove to other fans that I'm a brilliant hockey analyst or that I know more than whoever is the GM and could do his job better. I'm smarter than Terry and Kim, that's enough for me.

What got me going was the pity party for Jack. It's not quite the right tone.

By the way, you can relax. I don't actually have the power to trade Jack.

For the record, I don't really feel bad for Jack. He plays hockey for a living at a 10 mil per clip. I know he wants to win, that he has that drive, but, he's gonna be ok.

No, I feel bad for myself, at the potential thought that all this losing will cost us the player, by a trade demand or something, a player who could go a long way towards a Stanley Cup. Funny to say considering where we've been lately, but he was a no-bs Top 10 NHL player last year. If he can maintain that, that's a key, key piece. A piece that's clearly growing frustrated. 

And that frustration frustrates me, PA. It frustrates me. 

Edited May 29, 2020 by Thorny

[Stoner]

1 hour ago, Thorny said:

I understand your viewpoint, but it loses me at the bolded. We didn't have to learn near-peak Eichel wasn't enough. No one player is enough. McDavid could be the greatest ever and he was certainly incapable of carrying his team on his lonesome, as we've seen. 

What does it say that the Sabres spent to the cap and Eichel had a career year and it wasn't even enough to finish 24th? That Botterill's a bum? It tells me that for whatever reason it's not going to be practically possible to add enough around Eichel to push them all over the finish line, defined in my mind as being a serious Cup contender. That's still the bare minimum of a goal, right?

Trying to do it is fine by me. I like Jack. Developing another strategy is also OK. It's logical. But my dream isn't Eichel lifting a Cup, it's any Sabre doing so. Call me Spock.

By the way imagine five years ago someone telling this board Eichel would be elite in Year 5 and the Sabres would "go for it" in terms of spending. No one would believe it wouldn't add up to at least a playoff berth.

[Thorner]

50 minutes ago, PASabreFan said:

What does it say that the Sabres spent to the cap and Eichel had a career year and it wasn't even enough to finish 24th? That Botterill's a bum? It tells me that for whatever reason it's not going to be practically possible to add enough around Eichel to push them all over the finish line, defined in my mind as being a serious Cup contender. That's still the bare minimum of a goal, right?

Trying to do it is fine by me. I like Jack. Developing another strategy is also OK. It's logical. But my dream isn't Eichel lifting a Cup, it's any Sabre doing so. Call me Spock.

By the way imagine five years ago someone telling this board Eichel would be elite in Year 5 and the Sabres would "go for it" in terms of spending. No one would believe it wouldn't add up to at least a playoff berth.

Honestly, yes.

We are a playoff team already with a capable GM. Dude - We don’t have a second line centre. That’s the 2nd most important spot on a hockey team. Depending on where you factor in goalie, which, surprise, Botts also botterbotched. 

Your post says you’ve come to the probable conclusion that Eichel cannot be the centrepiece of a cup team. I just don’t see it that way. Where’s @Doohickie? You would have said the same about Yzerman, and you should be saying it about McDavid. 

I agree with your premise that it’s about winning, regardless of if Eichel is here or not. It’s Vulcan. But your resemblance to Spock cedes to nill when you suggest we have anywhere near the data to suggest we CAN’T win with Eichel.

Get back to me when Eichel can’t get us to the next level once he’s surrounded with a competent roster for the first time in Botterill’s tenure. 

To require enough proper data to draw a conclusion, is only logical. 

Edited May 30, 2020 by Thorny

[Curt]

39 minutes ago, PASabreFan said:

What does it say that the Sabres spent to the cap and Eichel had a career year and it wasn't even enough to finish 24th? That Botterill's a bum? It tells me that for whatever reason it's not going to be practically possible to add enough around Eichel to push them all over the finish line, defined in my mind as being a serious Cup contender. That's still the bare minimum of a goal, right?

Trying to do it is fine by me. I like Jack. Developing another strategy is also OK. It's logical. But my dream isn't Eichel lifting a Cup, it's any Sabre doing so. Call me Spock.

By the way imagine five years ago someone telling this board Eichel would be elite in Year 5 and the Sabres would "go for it" in terms of spending. No one would believe it wouldn't add up to at least a playoff berth.

Nonsense.  Spending money does not automatically equate to adding the necessary talent.  There are good ways and bad ways to spend money.

[Weave]

17 minutes ago, Thorny said:

Honestly, yes.

We are a playoff team already with a capable GM. Dude - We don’t have a second line centre. That’s the 2nd most important spot on a hockey team. Depending on where you factor in goalie, which, surprise, Botts also botterbotched. 

Your post says you’ve come to conclusion that Eichel cannot be the centrepiece of a cup team. I just don’t see it that way. Where’s @Doohickie? You would have said the same about Yzerman, and you should be saying it about McDavid. 

I agree with your premise that it’s about winning, regardless of if Eichel is here or not. It’s Vulcan. But your resemblance to Spock cedes to nill when you suggest we have anywhere near the data to suggest we CAN’T win with Eichel. We COULDN’T win with ROR either. 

Get back to me when Eichel can’t get us to the next level once he’s surrounded with a competent roster for the first time in Botterill’s tenure. 

To require enough proper data to draw a conclusion, is only logical. 

I get PA's point.  I don't know if it is accurate, but I get it.

Too lazy to verify, but I'm relatively sure Yzerman was in the playoffs in year 2, and another year or two before the dominant team was built.  So maybe there was early evidence that Yzerman was going places. 

I think there is a real chance that Eichel is Turgeon2.0.  I'm sure he's a better player, but is he the right player?  I don't know.  And I think that is PA's point.  Maybe if he isn't the right player he can grow into it.  Turgeon was not the same guy after 7-8 yrs that he was in Buffalo.  But he was also becoming a secondary piece as well.  Not to say Jack is destined to be a secondary piece, just that he might not be the right player, right now.

In the end I most strongly suspect that Jack is the right guy, but needs more around him.  But I acknowledge the possibility that it might not be the case.

 

[Pimlach]

On 5/28/2020 at 9:25 PM, Gatorman0519 said:

JBot got nothing for ROR.  Worst trade in modern history.  Keep ROR and we’d be in the playoffs right now.  His plan to gut our center spine was an epic failure.  Then overpaid for Skinner.   It seems he has no real plan honestly.  

But wait, Kim sees a plan ... it’s just you fans that can’t see it.   I think I could start tomorrow and run the Sabres better than her.  

[Thorner]

1 hour ago, Weave said:

I get PA's point.  I don't know if it is accurate, but I get it.

Too lazy to verify, but I'm relatively sure Yzerman was in the playoffs in year 2, and another year or two before the dominant team was built.  So maybe there was early evidence that Yzerman was going places. 

I think there is a real chance that Eichel is Turgeon2.0.  I'm sure he's a better player, but is he the right player?  I don't know.  And I think that is PA's point.  Maybe if he isn't the right player he can grow into it.  Turgeon was not the same guy after 7-8 yrs that he was in Buffalo.  But he was also becoming a secondary piece as well.  Not to say Jack is destined to be a secondary piece, just that he might not be the right player, right now.

In the end I most strongly suspect that Jack is the right guy, but needs more around him.  But I acknowledge the possibility that it might not be the case.

 

I was saying pretty much the same thing as you do here, though. There are certainly multiple possibilities, but trying to reach a conclusion before we address a massive variable (the team around Jack) seems pretty difficult. 

[Weave]

14 minutes ago, Thorny said:

I was saying pretty much the same thing as you do here, though. There are certainly multiple possibilities, but trying to reach a conclusion before we address a massive variable (the team around Jack) seems pretty difficult. 

He wasn’t reaching a conclusion though.  If anything he was questioning those that had already reached theirs.

[OverPowerYou]

12 hours ago, bob_sauve28 said:

If Carter Hutton had not crapped the bed starting in November, we would have made the playoffs and things would be better now. Yes, we do need more scoring but getting a goalie is number one priority now. 

The season ended prematurely. I wonder if Ryan Miller would come back for 1 more year and show UPL how to be a starting goalie 

[Thorner]

2 hours ago, Weave said:

He wasn’t reaching a conclusion though.  If anything he was questioning those that had already reached theirs.

 

6 hours ago, PASabreFan said:

What does it say that the Sabres spent to the cap and Eichel had a career year and it wasn't even enough to finish 24th? That Botterill's a bum? It tells me that for whatever reason it's not going to be practically possible to add enough around Eichel to push them all over the finish line, defined in my mind as being a serious Cup contender. That's still the bare minimum of a goal, right?

Trying to do it is fine by me. I like Jack. Developing another strategy is also OK. It's logical. But my dream isn't Eichel lifting a Cup, it's any Sabre doing so. Call me Spock.

By the way imagine five years ago someone telling this board Eichel would be elite in Year 5 and the Sabres would "go for it" in terms of spending. No one would believe it wouldn't add up to at least a playoff berth.

That’s a pretty conclusive statement.