Ullmark Signed One Year 2.6 Million

[matter2003]

14 hours ago, Andrew Amerk said:

It IS a team game, you know. 

It is...and Ullmark's role on it is to be the best penalty killer on the ice, and most times he is the worst.

Ullmark ranked 65th in the NHL last year with a .838 save percentage when the Sabres were shorthanded. That is abysmal. He is at .849 for his career.  Still abysmal.

In comparison, Ryan Miller was .882 over his career and Robin Lehner is at .894 over his career. 

No other way to put it other than Ullmark is costing this team games by being so bad when they are shorthanded.

[Zamboni]

26 minutes ago, matter2003 said:

It is...and Ullmark's role on it is to be the best penalty killer on the ice, and most times he is the worst.

Ullmark ranked 65th in the NHL last year with a .838 save percentage when the Sabres were shorthanded. That is abysmal. He is at .849 for his career.  Still abysmal.

In comparison, Ryan Miller was .882 over his career and Robin Lehner is at .894 over his career. 

No other way to put it other than Ullmark is costing this team games by being so bad when they are shorthanded.

I’m not saying Ullmark doesn’t need to improve.... but if you put Osgood in front of last year‘s team he’d have similar numbers… If you put Fleury in front of last year‘s team he’d have similar numbers. If you put Rask in front of last year‘s team he’d have similar numbers. The team as a whole was abysmal. Including goaltending, not in spite of it, and not the only position that needs improvement.

[PerreaultForever]

19 hours ago, JohnC said:

The last thing this franchise would want to do if Skinner gets back on track and the team is positioning itself for the playoffs is to deal the contributing player for future considerations that will probably get you little in return. That makes little sense to me. I don't understand the constant talk about taking actions that set you back in the present in order to theoretically put your team in a better situation for the future.

I was talking about trading him when he wasn't signed at that deadline. By not trading him JBot put himself in a very very bad bargaining position and Skinner's agent took advantage of that. If he'd been dealt (we weren't making the playoffs that year regardless) we'd have some extra picks and prospects and then we still could have negotiated in free agency and signed him to probably less. No one, absolutely no one was going to give him money near what he got from JBot so he would have still come back. win win. 

If we are on the bubble for playoffs this year as much as I'd like to make them if we can get huge returns for Hall, or other 1 year and pending UFAs at the deadline I'd make those deals too, and then again, sign them back or others after the season. That'd build a franchise for the long term not just one playoff round or so.  Arizona kept Hall and got to play a round of bubble hockey but they'd have been better off to get something for him.

[dudacek]

3 minutes ago, PerreaultForever said:

If we are on the bubble for playoffs this year as much as I'd like to make them if we can get huge returns for Hall, or other 1 year and pending UFAs at the deadline I'd make those deals too, and then again, sign them back or others after the season. That'd build a franchise for the long term not just one playoff round or so.  Arizona kept Hall and got to play a round of bubble hockey but they'd have been better off to get something for him.

There are times this might make sense. We are nowhere near that time.

If we are near the playoffs and making any trade that doesn't improve our team right away they are doing nothing but extending a huge middle finger to Jack Eichel and the other holdovers, not to mention the thousands of fans who have been ***** on for a decade now.

 

[GASabresIUFAN]

2 minutes ago, dudacek said:

There are times this might make sense. We are nowhere near that time.

If we are near the playoffs and making any trade that doesn't improve our team right away they are doing nothing but extending a huge middle finger to Jack Eichel and the other holdovers, not to mention the thousands of fans who have been ***** on for a decade now.

 

Correct. This team needs to do everything in it's power to make the playoffs this coming season and KA needs to support the team along the way to do as much as possible to insure a playoff appearance.  

When I started the JBot do something already threads it was because of his failure to support the team each time it got into playoff contention for the last 2 years.  He seemed to only make moves at the deadline or the off-season, and rarely during the season when we needed the help.

When Berglund walked out, Jbot should have found some immediate help to show confidence in the team.  Berglund walked in mid Dec 2018.  I believe that team was at or near the top of the NHL at the time.  Jbot did nothing to replace Berglund.  Instead his first move was acquiring Montour at the deadline.  Good pick up, but much to late to support the team.

Last season he made just one move when the team was decimated by injuries up front when he acquired Frolik.  Not exactly a game changer and a complete failure of a move.  Again the team slide into near oblivion until the deadline moves again (Simmonds and Kahun).  

KA cannot repeat this pattern.  If the goaltending stinks, he needs to get one mid season.  I understand that the market may not be very active mid season, but moves are made every year including some blockbusters from Oct to Jan (of a normal season).   For example; we moved Vanek on 10/27, Hall was traded on 12/16/2019,  Matt Duchene on 11/5/2017, and the Jones for Johansen deal came on Jan 6, 2016.  

[matter2003]

1 hour ago, Zamboni said:

I’m not saying Ullmark doesn’t need to improve.... but if you put Osgood in front of last year‘s team he’d have similar numbers… If you put Fleury in front of last year‘s team he’d have similar numbers. If you put Rask in front of last year‘s team he’d have similar numbers. The team as a whole was abysmal. Including goaltending, not in spite of it, and not the only position that needs improvement.

No they wouldn't.  Ullmark and Hutton's save percentage on high danger shots relative to the rest of the NHL was terrible.

[JohnC]

19 minutes ago, PerreaultForever said:

I was talking about trading him when he wasn't signed at that deadline. By not trading him JBot put himself in a very very bad bargaining position and Skinner's agent took advantage of that. If he'd been dealt (we weren't making the playoffs that year regardless) we'd have some extra picks and prospects and then we still could have negotiated in free agency and signed him to probably less. No one, absolutely no one was going to give him money near what he got from JBot so he would have still come back. win win. 

If we are on the bubble for playoffs this year as much as I'd like to make them if we can get huge returns for Hall, or other 1 year and pending UFAs at the deadline I'd make those deals too, and then again, sign them back or others after the season. That'd build a franchise for the long term not just one playoff round or so.  Arizona kept Hall and got to play a round of bubble hockey but they'd have been better off to get something for him.

I'm still not receptive to your argument about trading good players when they are contributing. With respect to Skinner he was well on his way to a 40 goal season on a team that lacked scorers. That's why he got such a grandiose contract. The former GM did overpay but doing what he had to do to re-sign him did make sense for a 40 goal scorer on a team with a dearth of scorers. And if he was dealt at the trade deadline he was not going to give you much of a return. Your argument that they could be dealt at the deadline for assets and then acquired in the offseason is very improbable. 

The same argument applies to Hall. He is an UFA. If the Sabres are floundering and they decide to deal him the return is going to be miniscule for a player who is more than likely a rental player for the team acquiring him. 

I'll repeat what I have already said about the Skinner contract. If you want to get a better value for that lucrative contract the best way to do that is to put him in a position to succeed. The market return on his contract which includes a very long term is minimum. And with respect to Hall if you want to increase the chances of working out a deal at the end of the season the best way to do that is for the team to be successful making it an appealing place to play.  

[Zamboni]

8 minutes ago, matter2003 said:

No they wouldn't.  Ullmark and Hutton's save percentage on high danger shots relative to the rest of the NHL was terrible.

Ok. Agree to disagree. All good.

for clarity sake I’m not disagreeing with anything that you’re saying stat wise. I’m just of the belief that even if you had an upgrade in goaltending last year, The team in front of them were so bad that their numbers would be close to what Ullmark had. It’s OK that we disagree… No skin off my nose. 👍🏼

[MODO Hockey]

43 minutes ago, matter2003 said:

No they wouldn't.  Ullmark and Hutton's save percentage on high danger shots relative to the rest of the NHL was terrible.

And why would you think "high danger shots" appear ? 

[nfreeman]

1 hour ago, PerreaultForever said:

I was talking about trading him when he wasn't signed at that deadline. By not trading him JBot put himself in a very very bad bargaining position and Skinner's agent took advantage of that. If he'd been dealt (we weren't making the playoffs that year regardless) we'd have some extra picks and prospects and then we still could have negotiated in free agency and signed him to probably less. No one, absolutely no one was going to give him money near what he got from JBot so he would have still come back. win win. 

If we are on the bubble for playoffs this year as much as I'd like to make them if we can get huge returns for Hall, or other 1 year and pending UFAs at the deadline I'd make those deals too, and then again, sign them back or others after the season. That'd build a franchise for the long term not just one playoff round or so.  Arizona kept Hall and got to play a round of bubble hockey but they'd have been better off to get something for him.

This is theoretically possible but very uncommon, especially when the team involved stinks.  I think if they had traded Skinner at the deadline the likelihood of re-signing him would've been quite low.

[JohnC]

1 hour ago, GASabresIUFAN said:

Correct. This team needs to do everything in it's power to make the playoffs this coming season and KA needs to support the team along the way to do as much as possible to insure a playoff appearance.  

When I started the JBot do something already threads it was because of his failure to support the team each time it got into playoff contention for the last 2 years.  He seemed to only make moves at the deadline or the off-season, and rarely during the season when we needed the help.

When Berglund walked out, Jbot should have found some immediate help to show confidence in the team.  Berglund walked in mid Dec 2018.  I believe that team was at or near the top of the NHL at the time.  Jbot did nothing to replace Berglund.  Instead his first move was acquiring Montour at the deadline.  Good pick up, but much to late to support the team.

Last season he made just one move when the team was decimated by injuries up front when he acquired Frolik.  Not exactly a game changer and a complete failure of a move.  Again the team slide into near oblivion until the deadline moves again (Simmonds and Kahun).  

KA cannot repeat this pattern.  If the goaltending stinks, he needs to get one mid season.  I understand that the market may not be very active mid season, but moves are made every year including some blockbusters from Oct to Jan (of a normal season).   For example; we moved Vanek on 10/27, Hall was traded on 12/16/2019,  Matt Duchene on 11/5/2017, and the Jones for Johansen deal came on Jan 6, 2016.  

The cold-blooded truth about the Sabre team is that they didn't have enough talent. At best they were a fringe playoff team, and that is stretching the issue. You pointed out that the Sabres were near the top of the NHL when Berglund walked. I can say with supreme confidence that he wasn't a primary reason why the Sabres plummeted after his ignominious departure.  The NHL regular season is a marathon and a grind. Whatever weaknesses that you have and are compensating for will eventually be exposed and exploited. Or to put it in simple terms during that period of time we didn't have enough talent and enough depth to deal with any setbacks that will inevitably occur during the season. 

Could Botts have done more to bring in talent during the season? He sure could have if he would have been willing to give up prized assets such as high round picks and good prospects who were not that far away from moving up the ranks. To his credit and to his fault Botts was playing the long game in building the franchise. Time simply ran out for him. 

[Thorner]

2 hours ago, dudacek said:

There are times this might make sense. We are nowhere near that time.

If we are near the playoffs and making any trade that doesn't improve our team right away they are doing nothing but extending a huge middle finger to Jack Eichel and the other holdovers, not to mention the thousands of fans who have been ***** on for a decade now.

 

100.

1 hour ago, GASabresIUFAN said:

Correct. This team needs to do everything in it's power to make the playoffs this coming season and KA needs to support the team along the way to do as much as possible to insure a playoff appearance.  

When I started the JBot do something already threads it was because of his failure to support the team each time it got into playoff contention for the last 2 years.  He seemed to only make moves at the deadline or the off-season, and rarely during the season when we needed the help.

When Berglund walked out, Jbot should have found some immediate help to show confidence in the team.  Berglund walked in mid Dec 2018.  I believe that team was at or near the top of the NHL at the time.  Jbot did nothing to replace Berglund.  Instead his first move was acquiring Montour at the deadline.  Good pick up, but much to late to support the team.

Last season he made just one move when the team was decimated by injuries up front when he acquired Frolik.  Not exactly a game changer and a complete failure of a move.  Again the team slide into near oblivion until the deadline moves again (Simmonds and Kahun).  

KA cannot repeat this pattern.  If the goaltending stinks, he needs to get one mid season.  I understand that the market may not be very active mid season, but moves are made every year including some blockbusters from Oct to Jan (of a normal season).   For example; we moved Vanek on 10/27, Hall was traded on 12/16/2019,  Matt Duchene on 11/5/2017, and the Jones for Johansen deal came on Jan 6, 2016.  

Agree with your whole post, but re: the bold he should go ahead and make the upgrade we need right now before the year starts. 

[Thorner]

16 minutes ago, JohnC said:

The cold-blooded truth about the Sabre team is that they didn't have enough talent. At best they were a fringe playoff team, and that is stretching the issue. You pointed out that the Sabres were near the top of the NHL when Berglund walked. I can say with supreme confidence that he wasn't a primary reason why the Sabres plummeted after his ignominious departure.  The NHL regular season is a marathon and a grind. Whatever weaknesses that you have and are compensating for will eventually be exposed and exploited. Or to put it in simple terms during that period of time we didn't have enough talent and enough depth to deal with any setbacks that will inevitably occur during the season. 

Could Botts have done more to bring in talent during the season? He sure could have if he would have been willing to give up prized assets such as high round picks and good prospects who were not that far away from moving up the ranks. To his credit and to his fault Botts was playing the long game in building the franchise. Time simply ran out for him. 

This reads as if his tenure was a mix of good and bad. 

It was decidedly poor and an abject failure. He didn't just fail to field a competitive roster in an objective sense, he failed within the parameters of his own strategy. Even accepting a long game strategy to the extent he targeted as viable (and I don't), he failed within that specific context. 

Taking 3 full seasons to get back to a point total lower than that of a season Murray was fired after isn't enough progress even in the longest of long game strategies. 

Edited October 27, 2020 by Thorny

[steveoath]

Why is there chat of trading Hall? He has a no move doesnt he? 

[JohnC]

2 minutes ago, Thorny said:

This reads as if his tenure was a mix of good and bad. 

It was decidedly poor and an abject failure. 

We simply have a different assessment of his tenure. I consider it more of a  mixed bag than your stark black and white unyielding view. In my opinion Adams is now taking advantage of where the former GM placed this franchise. (I'm well aware that you and many others resolutely disagree with that judgment but that's how I see it.) Right now it seems that Krueger and Adams are on the same wavelength and are working in a cohesive and coherent fashion that benefits the franchise. It should be remembered that it was Botts who brought Krueger into the organization. 

[Thorner]

5 minutes ago, JohnC said:

We simply have a different assessment of his tenure. I consider it more of a  mixed bag than your stark black and white unyielding view. In my opinion Adams is now taking advantage of where the former GM placed this franchise. (I'm well aware that you and many others resolutely disagree with that judgment but that's how I see it.) Right now it seems that Krueger and Adams are on the same wavelength and are working in a cohesive and coherent fashion that benefits the franchise. It should be remembered that it was Botts who brought Krueger into the organization. 

This is not a fair representation of my viewpoint at all. I've pointed out several positives of Botterill's tenure up to and including the fact we'd need to give him serious kudos for the Cozens pick if he pans out as we hope. 

It's not *my* analysis that's so one sided - his tenure was objectively bad. This is a consensus - you are in fact a severe outlier in this case, and there's nothing wrong with that. 

You have this weird idea that I have these un-nuanced opinions on pretty much everything and I have to be honest - I don't really understand it. You can't just take a median viewpoint on everything - not everything is an ambiguous, viewpoint-dependent scenario. 

He did a bad job. Look at our record during his tenure. We can't remove all semblance of objectivity on this. If being near the bottom of the league the entirety of his 3 year tenure isn't enough to say it was a bad tenure, there's just zero bar for anything. 

Edited October 27, 2020 by Thorny

[JohnC]

7 minutes ago, Thorny said:

This is not a fair representation of my viewpoint at all. I've pointed out several positives of Botterill's tenure up to and including the fact we'd need to give him serious kudos for the Cozens pick if he pans out as we hope. 

It's not *my* analysis that's so one side - his tenure was objectively bad. This is a consensus - you are in fact a severe outlier in this case, and there's nothing wrong with that. 

I recognize that my position is very much a minority position. 

And it should be noted that the owners were going to keep the GM that you and others have so much disdain for except for the reason that he wasn't willing to agree to the austere organizational restructuring. He was then fired. 

Edited October 27, 2020 by JohnC

[Thorner]

16 minutes ago, JohnC said:

I recognize that my position is very much a minority position. 

And it should be noted that the owners were going to keep the GM that you and others have so much disdain for except for the reason he wasn't willing to agree to the austere organizational restructuring. He wouldn't go along with the owners' desire. He was then fired. 

I've mentioned this several times as a reason why I was weary with the GM change - that it was being made for the wrong reasons. Wanting to believe it served as more of a tipping point than the sole cause. 

Adams has operated so far extremely differently to my eye than Botts has, with the draft being a possible exception. So perhaps some of the other stuff did factor in, and even if not, and if the Pegula's just got lucky their replacement for Botterill ended up having some different ideas, that's fine by me, too. 

I agree with your point about Adams and Krueger working together cohesively being a good thing in theory. Even though Botterill brought in Krueger himself they didn't seem quite on the same page, not when looking at Skinner, for example. 

Edited October 27, 2020 by Thorny

[Taro T]

24 minutes ago, Thorny said:

I've mentioned this several times as a reason why I was weary with the GM change - that it was being made for the wrong reasons. Wanting to believe it served as more of a tipping point than the sole cause. 

Adams has operated so far extremely differently to my eye than Botts has, with the draft being a possible exception. So perhaps some of the other stuff did factor in, and even if not, and if the Pegula's just got lucky their replacement for Botterill ended up having some different ideas, that's fine by me, too.

I agree with your point about Adams and Krueger working together cohesively being a good thing in theory. Even though Botterill brought in Krueger himself they didn't seem quite on the same page, not when looking at Skinner, for example. 

My opinion was that while Botterill had earned getting canned was not in favor of pulling the trigger because had severe reservations about how good of a decision the Pegulas would make when choosing his replacement.

Choosing a guy with no experience that they knew personally did not quell those concerns initially but rather heightened them.  But it is clear that Adams has a vision and an actual strategy to implement that plan.  Will it work; don't know, but am hopeful it can.

He has avoided each of the pitfalls his predecessors succumbed to.  Murray typically overpaid in assets to get the guys he wanted.  Botterill took on too much actual $'s to get the guts he targeted.  So far, with a couple of minor exceptions, Adams hasn't spent more than necessary and hasn't overpaid in assets for what he wants either.  Let's hope his penchant for ST deals (in a very chaotic environment, so there is a justification for 1 year deals) doesn't turn out to be his Achilles heel.  Based on on paper results so far am reasonably confident they won't be.

Get another goalie & the off-season was very successful.  Have faith that'll happen.

[Thorner]

^Ya I'd imagine the one year deal being so common is less an Adams trend and more environment relative. Not that he had no choice in the matter - he definitely did. But I think the climate was a factor that influenced his choices (duh).

Edited October 27, 2020 by Thorny

[PerreaultForever]

4 hours ago, dudacek said:

There are times this might make sense. We are nowhere near that time.

If we are near the playoffs and making any trade that doesn't improve our team right away they are doing nothing but extending a huge middle finger to Jack Eichel and the other holdovers, not to mention the thousands of fans who have been ***** on for a decade now.

 

I suppose the devil would be in the details wouldn't it? Many factors to consider, especially how realistic your chances are. 

[PerreaultForever]

3 hours ago, nfreeman said:

This is theoretically possible but very uncommon, especially when the team involved stinks.  I think if they had traded Skinner at the deadline the likelihood of re-signing him would've been quite low.

Where do you think he would have gone, Detroit? 

idk, I think if you approach the player the right way and explain it he'd have no problem with it and he'd have enjoyed a possible cup run instead of a sad locker clean out. and if not, you give the money to somebody else. You simply never let yourself get squeezed or assume they'll stick with you. Tavares, Hall, nobody much has any real loyalty any more. Its very rare. 

[Andrew Amerk]

4 hours ago, Thorny said:

This reads as if his tenure was a mix of good and bad. 

It was decidedly poor and an abject failure. He didn't just fail to field a competitive roster in an objective sense, he failed within the parameters of his own strategy. Even accepting a long game strategy to the extent he targeted as viable (and I don't), he failed within that specific context. 

Taking 3 full seasons to get back to a point total lower than that of a season Murray was fired after isn't enough progress even in the longest of long game strategies. 

Eh. 
 

I think his strategy was to get to where the Sabres were this off season, with cap room to make moves he wanted. 
 

Which have now landed us a bunch of players. And KA gets the credit for Botts patience. 

[Thorner]

42 minutes ago, Andrew Amerk said:

Eh. 
 

I think his strategy was to get to where the Sabres were this off season, with cap room to make moves he wanted. 
 

Which have now landed us a bunch of players. And KA gets the credit for Botts patience. 

I could have done this. 

Anyone could have done this. 

It's not an accomplishment to make sure the bad players you sign have deals that expire. 

Are we dialing this down to we give Botterill credit for not signing the bad players he signed for longer than he did? BRAVO! Cap savant!

This fascination with the "blank slate" as if it's needed to make the moves we needed to become competitive... We needed a 2C. We had the ability to add one some time in the last 3 years. Staal is cheaper than Johansson. Adams added that key piece on his first day basically. At the expense of a player Botterill did NOT have expiring this year. 

Edited October 28, 2020 by Thorny

[Thorner]

It's not that he has nothing on the positive side of the ledger, but Botterill's hits to me include a potentially underrated drafting resume (as much as I disagreed with some of his well documented drafting biases) and a couple of good to great value somewhat under the radar deals (Jokijarju, and, oddly enough, Kahun). His navigation of the salary cap was drastically oversold, his blunder trades outweighed the positive ones, his best contract (Eichel) he didn't want to give out, and, most importantly, we were bad for 3 years. 

Edited October 28, 2020 by Thorny