Buffalo Sabres Training Camp (2020/21)

[dudacek]

3 minutes ago, Thorny said:

a hypothetical 5-3, 5-3, 5-3, 5-3, 3-5, 3-5, 3-5

..gets them 58 points, a pace of 85 over 82 and therefore unlikely to make the playoffs. 

I don’t think he was pitching it as math equation, just that you aren’t going to make the playoffs if you can’t  beat most of them of the eight-game series.

[Thorner]

9 hours ago, dudacek said:

Also makes reference to the Sabres 5 on 5 defence being top 10 in the NHL last year and calls it the foundation for team success. Says special teams are big focus to start (they added PK ‘specialists’) and do a better job driving the net and creating second chances. These are the areas they want to improve in order to make a jump.

Arguably they should have switched up the coaching staff a little bit then, do we know of any sort of play to address the PP?

4 minutes ago, dudacek said:

I don’t think he was pitching it as math equation, just that you aren’t going to make the playoffs if you can’t  beat most of them of the eight-game series.

But why state that as the goal, when you can achieve it and not make the playoffs? What's the point? The idea that you'd want to win more of the series than not is a ridiculously obvious notion. 

[Thorner]

9 hours ago, JohnC said:

You are giving to much weight to what has been said. You are overly parsing words made in a generic coach comment. Watch what they do. If the organization believes that it makes sense to upgrade the backup position, for the price it will cost them to do it, they will do it. They haven't done it yet. I don't think they will before the season starts. 

FTFY. 

The upgrade is assuredly available, but they may believe themselves to be priced out. 

To me that would be a mistake, but that's my opinion. Comes down to how crucial one weighs the need to be. 

Edited December 31, 2020 by Thorny

[dudacek]

22 minutes ago, Thorny said:

 

But why state that as the goal, when you can achieve it and not make the playoffs? What's the point? The idea that you'd want to win more of the series than not is a ridiculously obvious notion. 

The context was a question about the changes in schedule/division and his response was that they are approaching it as a series of eight game series. It seemed to me like a reasonable response to a reasonable question, so maybe you are reading things into the way I relayed it that weren’t there.

Edited December 31, 2020 by dudacek

[Thorner]

6 minutes ago, dudacek said:

The context was a question about the changes in schedule/division and his response was that they are approaching it as a series of eight game series. It seemed to me like a reasonable response to a reasonable question, so maybe you are reading things into the way I relayed it that weren’t there.

probably. I'm mostly just talking

[dudacek]

As listed on the training camp roster. Not sure if we had these numbers confirmed yet:

• 4 Hall
• 12 Staal
• 13 Rieder
• 17 Fogarty
• 20 Eakin
• 25 Ruotsalainen 
• 31 Tokarski
• 44 Irwin
• 88 Davidson

Unlisted yet:

Sheahan wore 23 last year, but has worn 15 the rest of career, last worn in Buffalo by Dea

Cozens wore 42 last year, the inverse of the 24 he wears in junior, last worn in Buffalo by Pilut

Quinn wears 22 in junior, last worn in Buffalo by Larsson.

[JohnC]

9 hours ago, Thorny said:

FTFY. 

The upgrade is assuredly available, but they may believe themselves to be priced out. 

To me that would be a mistake, but that's my opinion. Comes down to how crucial one weighs the need to be. 

I agree with what you said. However, I disagree with your opinion/conclusion that for the sake of the perceived upgrade for a backup goalie you should make a deal where you give up more (organization perspective) than what you get back in upgrade. If the issue were about the need to upgrade the starting goalie, then I would agree with you there should be a more aggressive effort to address that critical need. That wasn't the case here. The problem position that was under scrutiny was the backup goalie. 

I do believe, as most do, that the organization examined the market for another goaltender. The calculation was made that the exchange in assets to address a need didn't add up. Although many disagree with the outcome it has to be respected that there appears to be thoughtful analysis made on this issue.   

[dudacek]

Very nuanced conversation here. If I am reading this right:

@thorny believes the Sabres have shopped the goalie market and are mistakenly unwilling to pay the price for what they want.

@johnC believes they have shopped the goalie market and are prudently unwilling to pay the price for what’s available.

I believe they have identified players they want to acquire and a general market value and have been waiting for the seller to make up his mind on whether he wants to follow through on the deal or keep the asset and walk another path.

[Thorner]

9 hours ago, JohnC said:

I agree with what you said. However, I disagree with your opinion/conclusion that for the sake of the perceived upgrade for a backup goalie you should make a deal where you give up more (organization perspective) than what you get back in upgrade. If the issue were about the need to upgrade the starting goalie, then I would agree with you there should be a more aggressive effort to address that critical need. That wasn't the case here. The problem position that was under scrutiny was the backup goalie. 

I do believe, as most do, that the organization examined the market for another goaltender. The calculation was made that the exchange in assets to address a need didn't add up. Although many disagree with the outcome it has to be respected that there appears to be thoughtful analysis made on this issue.   

What?! When did I say this?

- - - 

I would frame it as - we value the backup addition differently. The price we'd each pay would be reflective of that. 

You can use whatever verbiage you like to frame it in such a way as to pretend you are objectively correct, but I'm not buying it. 

 

Edited January 1, 2021 by Thorny

[Thorner]

8 hours ago, dudacek said:

Very nuanced conversation here. If I am reading this right:

@thorny believes the Sabres have shopped the goalie market and are mistakenly unwilling to pay the price for what they want.

@johnC believes they have shopped the goalie market and are prudently unwilling to pay the price for what’s available.

I believe they have identified players they want to acquire and a general market value and have been waiting for the seller to make up his mind on whether he wants to follow through on the deal or keep the asset and walk another path.

If they fail to acquire a G, your view is either the same as mine, or his, depending on which side of the "mistakenly/prudently" fence you fall on. 

I'm also less absolute on my stance - I don't expect an upgrade but I haven't ruled it out. John seems to believe pretty firmly the end decision has been made. But I'm not positive on the extent of his stance beyond the notion that: If the organization did it, it's what the organization wanted, therefore it's all that we can reasonably ask for.

Edited January 1, 2021 by Thorny

[JohnC]

22 minutes ago, Thorny said:

What?! When did I say this?

- - - 

I would frame it as - we value the backup addition differently. The price we'd each pay would be reflective of that. 

You can use whatever verbiage you like to frame it in such a way as to pretend you are objectively correct, but I'm not buying it. 

 

You are getting carried away about motivations. You are giving your opinion and I'm giving my opinion. There is nothing more to read into my response. 

[Thorner]

5 minutes ago, JohnC said:

You are getting carried away about motivations. You are giving your opinion and I'm giving my opinion. There is nothing more to read into my response. 

Words matter. I'm still going to put thought into yours and mine even if you won't. 

In conclusion - No, I do not think the Sabres should give up more in value than they get back in value, have never said that, and won't. I'm not sure who would. 

Edited January 1, 2021 by Thorny

[LGR4GM]

20 hours ago, Thorny said:

a hypothetical 5-3, 5-3, 5-3, 5-3, 3-5, 3-5, 3-5

..gets them 58 points, a pace of 85 over 82 and therefore unlikely to make the playoffs. 

But it's not typical. There's less games and it's all within your division so it's all 0 sum games. 

[Thorner]

6 minutes ago, LGR4GM said:

But it's not typical. There's less games and it's all within your division so it's all 0 sum games. 

Well no technically due to 3 point games there are some that aren't zero-sum relative to the others. And it goes both ways - it's not going to be a lesser relative total than usual to get into the playoffs - wins are against Div opponents but so are losses, and loser points sacrificed to your own division opponents. 

I think dudacek cleared it up when he said he was more less talking about how they were going to approach the season in terms of looking at the blocks of 8, but I maintain if he said the goal was to win more of them than you lose, I'd say it's at best pointless (due to being so obvious) and at worst negligent of what the actual goal should be. 

But I'm giving them the benefit of the doubt and assuming THEY are assuming winning more of them that they'd lose would lead to playoffs, because playoffs should be the goal. 

It wouldn't be that statistically unlikely at all to win 4 of the series closely, but lose more thoroughly against Philly, Boston, and take your pick, the Islanders so as to miss comfortably. 

Edited January 1, 2021 by Thorny

[JohnC]

I'm hoping this link is for the WGR Instigator Show where Krueger is interviewed in an 18 min segment. There are few surprising revelations about his roster and the challenges playing with a compressed schedule. He said he is going to rely a lot on sports medicine and science to handle the workload. He made a comment about Mitts and the good condition he is. 

The Instigators With Andrew Peters And Craig Rivet | RADIO.COM

[bob_sauve28]

Fourth line: Lazar, Cozens and Reider! Love it! 

[JohnC]

22 hours ago, dudacek said:

Very nuanced conversation here. If I am reading this right:

@thorny believes the Sabres have shopped the goalie market and are mistakenly unwilling to pay the price for what they want.

@johnC believes they have shopped the goalie market and are prudently unwilling to pay the price for what’s available.

I believe they have identified players they want to acquire and a general market value and have been waiting for the seller to make up his mind on whether he wants to follow through on the deal or keep the asset and walk another path.

You have accurately characterized my position. 

And as an addendum to your comment about my position as I have stated before I believe the the organization was willing to acquire an upgrade at the backup goalie position if the cost made sense to them. I have no doubt that our GM made overtures to other organizations but our GM couldn't get a deal done because he wasn't willing to pay the price. (Or more simply stated I agree with the last sentence in your post.) 

[Brawndo]

Eichel Day to Day with a UBI

[LGR4GM]

 

 

Edited January 1, 2021 by LGR4GM

[LGR4GM]

Look how fluidly Dahlin turns and starts skating backwards. I also like how he puts his body on mitts here.

 

Edited January 1, 2021 by LGR4GM
clarity

[LGR4GM]

 

[LGR4GM]

 

[Taro T]

47 minutes ago, LGR4GM said:

 

 

Me likey the lines & pairings.

Was hoping Montour would be with Dahlin & expected McCabe-Ristolainen.  Mildly surprised that Krueger moved Miller to his off-hand as that didn't work well the couple of times it was tried last season, but that keeps the best 6 on the ice & lets Dahlin play w/ Montour who IMHO was his best partner last year.

Thought Eakin might end up with Thompson/Reider/Cozens but he definitely SHOULD be better than Lazar & Girgensons & Okposo will likely be getting 3rd line minutes, so that line makes sense. 

[inkman]

1 hour ago, LGR4GM said:

 

 

So Borgen and Bryson are already after thoughts.  Sigh. 

[Taro T]

2 minutes ago, inkman said:

So Borgen and Bryson are already after thoughts.  Sigh. 

Don't know that they're afterthoughts, but it makes sense that the 2 tweener vets that were brought in start out pencilled in ahead of them.  If either / both have NHL futures, it shouldn't be too hard for them to earn moves up the depth chart.