Jump to content

Recommended Posts

Posted
6 hours ago, Radar said:

In this case money wouldn't win in my opinion. Anyways, don't think they're cash strapped byany means.

I boiled my point down to a jingoistic comparison, but you're right, it's not a sure thing.  I also don't think it's a sure thing that he stays.  If another team offers 1.5X what the Canes do, does he take it?  2X?  Maybe just 20% more is enough.

Who knows?

  • Like (+1) 1
Posted
9 hours ago, sabremike said:

If Boudreau wants the job and the team passes on him it's a staggering act of malfeasance. A guy with a long track record of success in multiple places who would bring instant credibility to an organization sorely in need of it. You hire him and I'll throw down a marker that both Jack and Sam see this means that the Sabres have decided to become an actual NHL outfit instead of the joke they are now and decide to stay.

The Sabres could run away with the regular season, just imagine, but falter, as Brucy coached teams always have, at some point in the playoff.

Boudreau would not be a good fit for this roster at this point, IMO.  He needs a very good roster to do well.

  • Like (+1) 1
Posted
8 hours ago, Radar said:

Not buddies but I believe the jobs are interconnected. Seen many cases over the years where if not at least having a good working relationship it doesn't work.

There's no argument that it's better if they get along, and they usually do as GMs tend to pick their guys, I'm just not sure it's essential. All speculative anyway. I don't actually have any idea why Gallant got fired, I just know he creates winners and gets max. talent out of his roster. 

1 hour ago, Doohickie said:

It helps it they're pulling in the same direction.  If a coach wants a speed game and the GM agrees but the GM doesn't provide the right players for that system, you're going to have problems.  Better if they're in communications and get along:  GM:  Hey want me to extend Jeff Skinner?  Coach:  No, he's fast, he's tenacious, but he freelances too much.

Absolutely. Always better if everybody's on the same page as they like to say. 

  • Like (+1) 2
Posted
18 minutes ago, LTS said:

I think you have this wrong.  Trotz left the Capitals.  https://www.nbcsports.com/washington/capitals/now-islanders-coach-barry-trotz-explains-why-he-left-capitals

Owners may still be stupid, but in this case I don't think it applies.

Correct.  His contract was up, and they weren’t able to come to an extension.

It was kind of a weird situation, because I think ownership was hesitant to extend him because Washington had been unable to get over the hump and they were considering letting him go, then they went and won the Cup and Trotz said “you didn’t want me?  FU.”  Or something along those lines.

  • Like (+1) 1
Posted
1 hour ago, New Scotland (NS) said:

The Sabres could run away with the regular season, just imagine, but falter, as Brucy coached teams always have, at some point in the playoff.

Boudreau would not be a good fit for this roster at this point, IMO.  He needs a very good roster to do well.

Worrying about failing in the playoffs is a problem I would kill to have.

  • Like (+1) 4
Posted
24 minutes ago, sabremike said:

Worrying about failing in the playoffs is a problem I would kill to have.

Haven’t been to the playoffs in 10 years, advocating not picking a coach because of his playoff record.🤣

If he can get us even a sniff of the playoffs, SIGN HIM UP.😀

Posted
18 minutes ago, Flashsabre said:

Haven’t been to the playoffs in 10 years, advocating not picking a coach because of his playoff record.🤣

If he can get us even a sniff of the playoffs, SIGN HIM UP.😀

I get that, but my point was that Brucy would not be a good coach for this roster.  My playoff lack of success point was just that and was not why I don't think he would be a wise choice at this point.  That said, I don't want playoffs ... I want a cup.

  • Like (+1) 2
Posted
8 minutes ago, New Scotland (NS) said:

I get that, but my point was that Brucy would not be a good coach for this roster.  My playoff lack of success point was just that and was not why I don't think he would be a wise choice at this point.  That said, I don't want playoffs ... I want a cup.

I have nothing against BB but if our team is as young as I think it will be I don't think he's the best match. As I've stated before Granato seems a better match.

  • Like (+1) 1
Posted
Just now, spndnchz said:

I don’t want to make a big deal about it but I have to say goodbye for now. 
 

it’s all a lot of ouster’s but no pearls

Hope you’re back soon.

  • Like (+1) 8
Posted
3 minutes ago, spndnchz said:

I don’t want to make a big deal about it but I have to say goodbye for now. 
 

it’s all a lot of ouster’s but no pearls

Do what you need to do.  Good luck and best of health for you, your friends, and your family.

  • Like (+1) 5
Posted
29 minutes ago, spndnchz said:

I don’t want to make a big deal about it but I have to say goodbye for now. 
 

it’s all a lot of ouster’s but no pearls

 I hope your health issues are resolved fairly soon.  Take care.  You will be missed. 😞

  • Like (+1) 4
Posted
4 hours ago, spndnchz said:

I don’t want to make a big deal about it but I have to say goodbye for now. 
 

it’s all a lot of ouster’s but no pearls

Good luck with whatever you're dealing with.

Looking forward to having you back.

  • Like (+1) 1
Posted
On 5/20/2021 at 5:53 PM, Marvin, Sabres Fan said:

They have to be, right?  They have to get someone who will make the most of the skills of the players on the roster at their level of development.  They probably have different candidates depending on what the plan is with Eichel, Reinhart, and Ristolainen.  IMHO, the fewer of these three who are here, the more likely Granato is here.

Addendum: As it is, because they have already interviewed a college coach, I think at least two of them are gone if not all three.

Hope you're wrong but it looks likely.

Posted
20 hours ago, New Scotland (NS) said:

The Sabres could run away with the regular season, just imagine, but falter, as Brucy coached teams always have, at some point in the playoff.

Sign me up 

Posted
1 minute ago, Thorny said:

Sign me up 

I get that, but as I said, the Sabres have done that many times over the past 50+ years.

I don't want to run away with the regular season, I don't want the playoff ... I want a damn cup!!  Just 1!!

Posted
3 minutes ago, New Scotland (NS) said:

I get that, but as I said, the Sabres have done that many times over the past 50+ years.

I don't want to run away with the regular season, I don't want the playoff ... I want a damn cup!!  Just 1!!

I hear you, it's just not my priority anymore

Posted
8 minutes ago, Thorny said:

I hear you, it's just not my priority anymore

Winning's a priority, just not in the playoffs? I'd think a more principled stand would be, "Winning's not important. I just want to be entertained."

Posted
4 minutes ago, PASabreFan said:

Winning's a priority, just not in the playoffs? I'd think a more principled stand would be, "Winning's not important. I just want to be entertained."

They have to walk before they can run.  When they start going out in the 1st couple of rounds every year, move on from Marty Schottenheimer; but right now, getting to the dance every year but getting kicked out for chewing gum is a lot better than getting barred at the door every single time.

Posted
6 minutes ago, PASabreFan said:

Winning's a priority, just not in the playoffs? I'd think a more principled stand would be, "Winning's not important. I just want to be entertained."

What I'm taking a "stand" on is the Cup being the goal. For me, it's not. Being entertained is the goal, and for me that involves being a winning hockey team. A winning hockey team in the NHL generally makes the playoffs. 

I've experienced runs in the playoffs where we only got half way (won 2 series) that I can confidently say have given me some of my best memories, and for me provide the joy necessary to justify the amount of time I put into the team. Any team making it can fluke off a series win or two, it's just about making it and being in the conversation. 

It's simple math - win more than you lose and you enjoy more than you don't. Winning more than you lose in a league where half the teams make the playoffs means being a winning team generally gets you in - playoffs are just a symptom of being a winning hockey team.

That's all I want, to be entertained - a winning hockey team. 50/50 odds going into any season? To me that's logical. 

  • Like (+1) 2
This topic is OLD. A NEW topic should be started unless there is a VERY SPECIFIC REASON to revive this one.

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Restore formatting

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
×
×
  • Create New...