Potential Sabres deadline moves(sellers)…

[dudacek]

12 minutes ago, GASabresIUFAN said:

This fantasy view of KA's tenure so far is really amazing.  Giving him a free pass for year 1 is simply wrong.  He signed Hall, gave him $8 mill and a NTC thereby destroying his trade value when the plan failed and using up our cap space to help in other areas.  He signed Eakin for 2 years.  He acquired Staal.  He failed to replace Hutton.  He failed to extend Ullmark (and McCabe for that matter).   He doesn't get a free pass for these mistakes.  They are on him.  

Again, whether you call it a development year or a tank, the result is the same.  KA built a team to lose.  To me that's a tank.  If it makes you feel better call it something else call it something else.  The results are the same.  How many seasons now have Dahlin, Mitts, Thompson, Asplund, and Jokiharju seen without a commitment to building a winning team.  How many seasons are they witnessing where the top end players are sent packing and are they replaced with dumpster fires Eakin, Hayden, Caggilua, Bjork, Butcher, Rieder, and Sheahan?  

 

This is my take on Adams' tenure so far, fantasy as it may be:

Situation: He gets hired, mostly on a whim and without a full resume, with marching orders from Pegula to purge the hockey department.

Verdict: Pass. He does what he was hired to do. It's not clear yet whether the people he kept were the right ones, but the people let go haven't hurt.

 

Situation: Eichel immediately rebels, saying if this is a rebuild, trade me. Krueger convinces the Pegulas that the team is not too far away. Adams is told to pacify Jack and give Ralph the players he wants to give the core one last shot.

Verdict: Pass. He convinces Eichel to hold off on the trade request, and acquires Hall, Eakin and Reider at Krueger's request on short-term deals that don't burden the team long-term.

 

Situation: He inherits a roster with questions in goal, an obvious hole at 2C and playoff aspirations.

Verdict: Fail. In his first significant move as GM he brings in Eric Staal to play centre. The price - Johansson plus some cap savings - is fine, but Staal is huge bust. His decision to stick with the oft-injured Ullmark and the terrible Hutton also blows up in his face. His depth signings are a mixed bag. Sheahan is fine, Irwin is not.

 

Situation: short months after stripping his scouting staff, and hampered by a short season where he didn't get a chance to view prospects, he conducts his first draft.

Verdict: Pass (but it's early). He challenges his staff to reset their list through the lens of "upside," as defined by skill and the desire to improve, veers from the public consensus to take Quinn, and trades up for Peterka. A year later, both of his top picks are looking very promising.

 

Situation: The Sabres suck, coming back from a COVID outbreak to establish themselves as the worst team in the league and looking terrible while doing it.

Verdict: Pass. He fires Krueger, albeit too slowly, and heads to Florida to present the Pegulas with his plan to rebuild the Sabres, and, by most accounts gets their blessing. At this point, to my mind, he stops being the franchise front man, and starts becoming its architect.

 

Situation: The Sabres are a last-place team in need of a new plan.

Verdict: TBD. Adams decides to rebuild the hockey department with a focus on drafting and development, and the roster based on "players who want to be here" which I translate to mean "fix the culture". He decides to move on from the failed previous core, accumulate picks, prospects and cap space, and use the existing, unproven "Blinding Light Brigade" as his starting point. I like his organizational focus on talented self-starters. Given the fact that his good players no longer wanted to be here, and the malaise surrounding the organization in general, I think it was probably the choice I would have made.

 

Situation: The Sabres were operating with an inexperienced, skeleton hockey operations department.

Verdict: TBD, but promising. Acquiring a connected, veteran assistant GM with 3 cup rings and 20 years experience in Karmanos filled the most obvious hole. Adding a handful of scouts was good and necessary, but choosing to keep that department lean while significantly beefing up the analytics and player development staffing instead was an interesting, progressive tack.  Integrating the analytics team into the overall department was an important move. The hirings there have been acclaimed, for what that's worth. Meanwhile, I can't recall a group of Sabres prospects that have shown more progress. The analytics staff helped select them, and the hockey development staff is overseeing their progress.

 

Situation: Taylor Hall is a pending UFA.

Verdict: Pass. Hall had a complete NTC, was coming off a horrible performance, and wanted to go to Boston. He had to trade him and he got what he could.

 

Situation: Brandon Montour is a pending UFA.

Verdict: Fail. I'm sure he took the best offer he had, but a right-handed D with Montour's track record should have garnered more than a 3rd. There was an option to retain salary. I wonder why that wasn't exercised.

 

Situation: Eric Staal is a pending UFA.

Verdict: Pass. Getting a 3rd and a 4th for a player who had deteriorated as much as Staal had and is now out of the league was a job well-done

 

Situation: Linus Ullmark is a pending UFA

Verdict: Fail. Ullmark should have been signed before the deadline or traded. Adams was either played, or he gambled and lost.

 

Situation: The Sabres need a head coach

Verdict: Pass. Don Granato was hired primarily to develop the young talent already on the roster and keep the room together through what was bound to be a tough season as far as results go. So far, so good; the kids have stepped up and the team seems more focused and together than it it has in years. It has also generally been better to watch. Honestly, I don't think Donnie is getting enough credit for keeping this team out of the basement. Adams dumped 7 of a bad roster's 8 best players for no immediate return, and didn't give him an NHL goalie.

 

Situation: Sam Reinhart made it clear he was not going to sign a long-term contract.

Verdict: Fail. Sam would have been a perfect bridge player for the core between the bad years and the good, not only in the leadership way of Okposo, but also on the ice, like Tuch. Sure he wasn't signing long-term this past summer, but the opportunity was there the previous summer and Adams chose not to pursue it. Given that the package we got in July would probably still be available at this deadline, why not keep him around in the hopes of helping the kids while trying to change his mind?  Devon Levi still has the power to change my mind.

 

Situation: Rasmus Ristolainen was a year away from UFA status and it wasn't clear if he was going to re-sign.

Verdict: Pass. I wasn't a Rasmus hater, but it was time. Getting the 13th pick in the draft for him was stunning on its own. Adding the adequate Hagg to fill part of the roster hole and a 2nd was a coup.

 

Situation: He comes into his 2nd draft with a multitude of picks including the 1st overall, and a much deeper, more developed hockey department, including Karmanos and Ventura.

Verdict: Pass. A year ago there was doubt about Power's upside. This year has obliterated that doubt; he looks every inch a top-pairing defenceman in the making. Beyond that, Rosen has disappointed. The Russian 2nd-rounders look OK and later picks Novikov, Bloom and Nadeau are intriguing. We're a few years from knowing anything, but their approach was refreshing and thoughtful.

 

Situation: Jack Eichel demanded a trade

Verdict: TBD. Adams was put in the worst of situations here. He had to make the trade he knew he was going to lose. And he had to do it with Jack's health and treatment controversy shrinking the market and complicating the return. The ask — the equivalent of 4 1st-rounders — was an entirely fair starting point. The fact that he almost got that given the circumstances is to his credit. I would have happily flipped pick 13 in last year's draft for either Tuch, or Krebs, and we also got the Vegas 1st. I think Adams tried to hold out for more after finally getting Tuch and Krebs on the table but caved last-minute on the 4th piece after Vegas leaked the fake Calgary rumour to undermine those talks and Jack threatened to ***** all over the Sabres to Friedman. The fact that he did not have to take on a bad contract is a point in his favour.  Basically, for me, Adams gets and A for effort, but his overall grade will be based more on how the team progresses without Jack than on how good the pieces turn out.

 

Situation: With so many key departures, he needed to completely reshape his roster for this season.

Verdict: TBD. Adams decided every move this year would be made through the lens of putting the future ahead of the present, and he adapted three guiding principles to make that happen:

• He was going to develop his best young roster players by using them in key roles
• He was not going to commit significant assets or cap space into new players who he did not see as being part of this team when it got good.
• Prospects would be kept away from the big club and in situations that allowed them to dominate.

IMO, the first is mostly working, with the Dahiln and Thompson growing a ton, and Jokiharju and Cozens improving more slowly. Bryson and Asplund looked good initially but have stalled. Mittelstadt unfortunately has been wracked by injuries. R2 is the only disappointment and the only one who didn't get time in a key role.

And the 3rd looks real good so far, with Quinn, Krebs, Peterka, Power, Samuelsson, and Levi dominating at their current levels, and Luukkonen seizing his NHL opportunity.

As for the 2nd, it's hard to judge without knowing what else might have been on the table. In terms of bang for the buck, Hinostroza was a good pickup, while the others — save Butcher and Dell — have all been fine in their roles. It's not hard to wonder why a veteran RHD or middle-six forward could not have been added without blocking a prospect or paying a price we were going to regret. Trusting a developing club to a 40-year-old pulled out of retirement, two minor leaguers and an unproven prospect in goal is the definition of pennywise and pound-foolish.

But basically 2 only matters if it breaks 1 and 3. This season is only about setting the table for next. Will the kids be better? Will the cap space be used?

Guess we'll find out.

I need this year to mean something by next year actually starting to show a payoff.

[Weave]

Dudecek has been infected by whatever word soup bug infects GA.

[JohnC]

7 hours ago, dudacek said:

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

This season is only about setting the table for next. Will the kids be better? Will the cap space be used?

 

T

Guess we'll find out.

I need this year to mean something by next year actually starting to show a payoff.

With respect to the highlighted comments this is where I am at. The GM has essentially wiped much of the slate clean from the inherited roster. Now he is at the stage of putting the pieces together to replace the jettisoned players. Are the younger players in the system ready to make the move up? By next year I believe a number of them will be. Will the GM wisely use the large cap space or will it not be utilized for the betterment of the team? On this issue I'm not sure what the plans are. I don't believe ownership wants his GM to spend to the upper limit, at least at this stage in the rebuild. I don't consider that to be realistic expectation. However, what I will be watching to see is whether the GM is going to wisely use his cap money to add enough mid-range players who can make this team better and provide a more positive environment for the young players. As it stands, they have been too exposed to persistent losing. It is corrosive. As @ducacek stated that is TBD. 

[GASabresIUFAN]

@dudacek

giving KA a “pass” on the Hall fiasco is funny my friend.

To put it simply he overpaid to get Hall. Gave him a NMC which destroyed his trade value.  He played a position that was already deep with Skinner and VO and therefore didn’t fix any roster holes. His addition sent Skinner to RK purgatory. He was terrible on the ice with 2 goals in 37 games.  The trade garnered for us a late 2nd rd pick (Kisakov), who may not reach NA for 2-3 more years, plus we gave up a serviceable 4th line center in Lazar (something we still need)for an awful depth forward in Bjork who we are stuck with because he had a 3 year deal.  

That is the ultimate fail for any GM at both ends for the transaction.  Getting 2 goals for an $8 investment is a fail.  Getting only a 2nd rd pick for a former recent MVP is a fail and being stuck with 2.5 years of Bjork makes it worse.

 

[dudacek]

13 minutes ago, GASabresIUFAN said:

@dudacek

giving KA a “pass” on the Hall fiasco is funny my friend.

To put it simply he overpaid to get Hall. Gave him a NMC which destroyed his trade value.  He played a position that was already deep with Skinner and VO and therefore didn’t fix any roster holes. His addition sent Skinner to RK purgatory. He was terrible on the ice with 2 goals in 37 games.  The trade garnered for us a late 2nd rd pick (Kisakov), who may not reach NA for 2-3 more years, plus we gave up a serviceable 4th line center in Lazar (something we still need)for an awful depth forward in Bjork who we are stuck with because he had a 3 year deal.  

That is the ultimate fail for any GM at both ends for the transaction.  Getting 2 goals for an $8 investment is a fail.  Getting only a 2nd rd pick for a former recent MVP is a fail and being stuck with 2.5 years of Bjork makes it worse.

 

I gave him a pass on the Hall trade.

I believe the Hall signing was instigated by Krueger and ordered by Pegula.

I know you disagree.

[Thorner]

10 hours ago, dudacek said:

 

This is my take on Adams' tenure so far, fantasy as it may be:

Situation: He gets hired, mostly on a whim and without a full resume, with marching orders from Pegula to purge the hockey department.

Verdict: Pass. He does what he was hired to do. It's not clear yet whether the people he kept were the right ones, but the people let go haven't hurt.

 

Situation: Eichel immediately rebels, saying if this is a rebuild, trade me. Krueger convinces the Pegulas that the team is not too far away. Adams is told to pacify Jack and give Ralph the players he wants to give the core one last shot.

Verdict: Pass. He convinces Eichel to hold off on the trade request, and acquires Hall, Eakin and Reider at Krueger's request on short-term deals that don't burden the team long-term.

 

Situation: He inherits a roster with questions in goal, an obvious hole at 2C and playoff aspirations.

Verdict: Fail. In his first significant move as GM he brings in Eric Staal to play centre. The price - Johansson plus some cap savings - is fine, but Staal is huge bust. His decision to stick with the oft-injured Ullmark and the terrible Hutton also blows up in his face. His depth signings are a mixed bag. Sheahan is fine, Irwin is not.

 

Situation: short months after stripping his scouting staff, and hampered by a short season where he didn't get a chance to view prospects, he conducts his first draft.

Verdict: Pass (but it's early). He challenges his staff to reset their list through the lens of "upside," as defined by skill and the desire to improve, veers from the public consensus to take Quinn, and trades up for Peterka. A year later, both of his top picks are looking very promising.

 

Situation: The Sabres suck, coming back from a COVID outbreak to establish themselves as the worst team in the league and looking terrible while doing it.

Verdict: Pass. He fires Krueger, albeit too slowly, and heads to Florida to present the Pegulas with his plan to rebuild the Sabres, and, by most accounts gets their blessing. At this point, to my mind, he stops being the franchise front man, and starts becoming its architect.

 

Situation: The Sabres are a last-place team in need of a new plan.

Verdict: TBD. Adams decides to rebuild the hockey department with a focus on drafting and development, and the roster based on "players who want to be here" which I translate to mean "fix the culture". He decides to move on from the failed previous core, accumulate picks, prospects and cap space, and use the existing, unproven "Blinding Light Brigade" as his starting point. I like his organizational focus on talented self-starters. Given the fact that his good players no longer wanted to be here, and the malaise surrounding the organization in general, I think it was probably the choice I would have made.

 

Situation: The Sabres were operating with an inexperienced, skeleton hockey operations department.

Verdict: TBD, but promising. Acquiring a connected, veteran assistant GM with 3 cup rings and 20 years experience in Karmanos filled the most obvious hole. Adding a handful of scouts was good and necessary, but choosing to keep that department lean while significantly beefing up the analytics and player development staffing instead was an interesting, progressive tack.  Integrating the analytics team into the overall department was an important move. The hirings there have been acclaimed, for what that's worth. Meanwhile, I can't recall a group of Sabres prospects that have shown more progress. The analytics staff helped select them, and the hockey development staff is overseeing their progress.

 

Situation: Taylor Hall is a pending UFA.

Verdict: Pass. Hall had a complete NTC, was coming off a horrible performance, and wanted to go to Boston. He had to trade him and he got what he could.

 

Situation: Brandon Montour is a pending UFA.

Verdict: Fail. I'm sure he took the best offer he had, but a right-handed D with Montour's track record should have garnered more than a 3rd. There was an option to retain salary. I wonder why that wasn't exercised.

 

Situation: Eric Staal is a pending UFA.

Verdict: Pass. Getting a 3rd and a 4th for a player who had deteriorated as much as Staal had and is now out of the league was a job well-done

 

Situation: Linus Ullmark is a pending UFA

Verdict: Fail. Ullmark should have been signed before the deadline or traded. Adams was either played, or he gambled and lost.

 

Situation: The Sabres need a head coach

Verdict: Pass. Don Granato was hired primarily to develop the young talent already on the roster and keep the room together through what was bound to be a tough season as far as results go. So far, so good; the kids have stepped up and the team seems more focused and together than it it has in years. It has also generally been better to watch. Honestly, I don't think Donnie is getting enough credit for keeping this team out of the basement. Adams dumped 7 of a bad roster's 8 best players for no immediate return, and didn't give him an NHL goalie.

 

Situation: Sam Reinhart made it clear he was not going to sign a long-term contract.

Verdict: Fail. Sam would have been a perfect bridge player for the core between the bad years and the good, not only in the leadership way of Okposo, but also on the ice, like Tuch. Sure he wasn't signing long-term this past summer, but the opportunity was there the previous summer and Adams chose not to pursue it. Given that the package we got in July would probably still be available at this deadline, why not keep him around in the hopes of helping the kids while trying to change his mind?  Devon Levi still has the power to change my mind.

 

Situation: Rasmus Ristolainen was a year away from UFA status and it wasn't clear if he was going to re-sign.

Verdict: Pass. I wasn't a Rasmus hater, but it was time. Getting the 13th pick in the draft for him was stunning on its own. Adding the adequate Hagg to fill part of the roster hole and a 2nd was a coup.

 

Situation: He comes into his 2nd draft with a multitude of picks including the 1st overall, and a much deeper, more developed hockey department, including Karmanos and Ventura.

Verdict: Pass. A year ago there was doubt about Power's upside. This year has obliterated that doubt; he looks every inch a top-pairing defenceman in the making. Beyond that, Rosen has disappointed. The Russian 2nd-rounders look OK and later picks Novikov, Bloom and Nadeau are intriguing. We're a few years from knowing anything, but their approach was refreshing and thoughtful.

 

Situation: Jack Eichel demanded a trade

Verdict: TBD. Adams was put in the worst of situations here. He had to make the trade he knew he was going to lose. And he had to do it with Jack's health and treatment controversy shrinking the market and complicating the return. The ask — the equivalent of 4 1st-rounders — was an entirely fair starting point. The fact that he almost got that given the circumstances is to his credit. I would have happily flipped pick 13 in last year's draft for either Tuch, or Krebs, and we also got the Vegas 1st. I think Adams tried to hold out for more after finally getting Tuch and Krebs on the table but caved last-minute on the 4th piece after Vegas leaked the fake Calgary rumour to undermine those talks and Jack threatened to ***** all over the Sabres to Friedman. The fact that he did not have to take on a bad contract is a point in his favour.  Basically, for me, Adams gets and A for effort, but his overall grade will be based more on how the team progresses without Jack than on how good the pieces turn out.

 

Situation: With so many key departures, he needed to completely reshape his roster for this season.

Verdict: TBD. Adams decided every move this year would be made through the lens of putting the future ahead of the present, and he adapted three guiding principles to make that happen:

• He was going to develop his best young roster players by using them in key roles
• He was not going to commit significant assets or cap space into new players who he did not see as being part of this team when it got good.
• Prospects would be kept away from the big club and in situations that allowed them to dominate.

IMO, the first is mostly working, with the Dahiln and Thompson growing a ton, and Jokiharju and Cozens improving more slowly. Bryson and Asplund looked good initially but have stalled. Mittelstadt unfortunately has been wracked by injuries. R2 is the only disappointment and the only one who didn't get time in a key role.

And the 3rd looks real good so far, with Quinn, Krebs, Peterka, Power, Samuelsson, and Levi dominating at their current levels, and Luukkonen seizing his NHL opportunity.

As for the 2nd, it's hard to judge without knowing what else might have been on the table. In terms of bang for the buck, Hinostroza was a good pickup, while the others — save Butcher and Dell — have all been fine in their roles. It's not hard to wonder why a veteran RHD or middle-six forward could not have been added without blocking a prospect or paying a price we were going to regret. Trusting a developing club to a 40-year-old pulled out of retirement, two minor leaguers and an unproven prospect in goal is the definition of pennywise and pound-foolish.

But basically 2 only matters if it breaks 1 and 3. This season is only about setting the table for next. Will the kids be better? Will the cap space be used?

Guess we'll find out.

I need this year to mean something by next year actually starting to show a payoff.

Excellent read.

And sorry, obligatory, you called on him:

”We got him?! We got Matt Irwin??”

[Buffalonill]

19 minutes ago, GASabresIUFAN said:

@dudacek

giving KA a “pass” on the Hall fiasco is funny my friend.

To put it simply he overpaid to get Hall. Gave him a NMC which destroyed his trade value.  He played a position that was already deep with Skinner and VO and therefore didn’t fix any roster holes. His addition sent Skinner to RK purgatory. He was terrible on the ice with 2 goals in 37 games.  The trade garnered for us a late 2nd rd pick (Kisakov), who may not reach NA for 2-3 more years, plus we gave up a serviceable 4th line center in Lazar (something we still need)for an awful depth forward in Bjork who we are stuck with because he had a 3 year deal.  

That is the ultimate fail for any GM at both ends for the transaction.  Getting 2 goals for an $8 investment is a fail.  Getting only a 2nd rd pick for a former recent MVP is a fail and being stuck with 2.5 years of Bjork makes it worse.

 

Rather be stuck with him then hall for 6 years at 8m 

[Thorner]

21 minutes ago, GASabresIUFAN said:

@dudacek

giving KA a “pass” on the Hall fiasco is funny my friend.

To put it simply he overpaid to get Hall. Gave him a NMC which destroyed his trade value.  He played a position that was already deep with Skinner and VO and therefore didn’t fix any roster holes. His addition sent Skinner to RK purgatory. He was terrible on the ice with 2 goals in 37 games.  The trade garnered for us a late 2nd rd pick (Kisakov), who may not reach NA for 2-3 more years, plus we gave up a serviceable 4th line center in Lazar (something we still need)for an awful depth forward in Bjork who we are stuck with because he had a 3 year deal.  

That is the ultimate fail for any GM at both ends for the transaction.  Getting 2 goals for an $8 investment is a fail.  Getting only a 2nd rd pick for a former recent MVP is a fail and being stuck with 2.5 years of Bjork makes it worse.

 

Giving Hall the NMC is immaterial to determining whether Adams is doing a good job. Giving him the clause is what allowed the deal to be facilitated - it was always going to be included. The clause being a negative was only the case if the talent evaluation/decision to bring him in at all was a poor one. Only the initial decision is at play here, imo. 

Hall was also better here than us fans will give him credit for. People won’t want to hear it, but, it’s true. Leaving out his good assist total doesn’t serve your argument - why do people always leave out assists? It’s transparent. Hall’s metrics were also among the best on the team.

Hall’s effort dropped off the table once he knew he was being dealt and for that get out the tar, followed by the feathers. Ultimately, the team he assembled last season wasn’t good enough and I put that on Adams. But in terms of Hall specifically my biggest gripe comes back to the plan: 

Hall signing likely prevented a Reinhart extension. 

[GASabresIUFAN]

Signing Hall I don't think in any way prevented a Reinhart extension.  Samson was under contract for the last season with Hall or without him.  Had they signed Sam to an extension it would have kicked in this season.  It's more likely that when the team starting going further down hill TP/KP told KA to scrap the thing and Reinhart told management to trade him.  No extension was on the table from the Sabres and no extension was requested from Reinhart.  To bad.  I agree with @dudacek that it would have been great to have Samson back this season to be the top line center and allow the kids to grow in secondary roles.  I also agree that the deal we got for him for have been on the table ( or even a better one) come the deadline.  Honestly the dealing of Reinhart this summer instead of a bridge deal for the season to me looks more and more as evidence of a  mandate to save $ and a decision to not put the best possible product on the ice, but I digress.  

Also 17 assists in 37 games for a top line player is not a good assist total., especially when you consider a 71% O zone start percentage. With 19 points total in 37 games, Hall was on pace for a 41 pt season.  Mitts, VO and especially Reinhart all out pointed him in both actual and in p/gp for significantly less $.  Hall was a waste.

Also the $8 mill contract when the market price was $5 mill is what facilitated the deal.  Hall's camp asked for the NMC and KA stupidly gave it to him.  He would have signed the deal with a limited NTC or possibly none at all to get the money.  Also we had better offers at the deadline according to news reports for the NYI and Caps.  

Edited January 20, 2022 by GASabresIUFAN

[Taro T]

7 minutes ago, GASabresIUFAN said:

Signing Hall I don't think in any way prevented a Reinhart extension.  Samson was under contract for the last season with Hall or without him.  Had they signed Sam to an extension it would have kicked in this season.  It's more likely that when the team starting going further down hill TP/KP told KA to scrap the thing and Reinhart told management to trade him.  No extension was on the table from the Sabres and no extension was requested from Reinhart.  To bad.  I agree with @dudacek that it would have been great to have Samson back this season to be the top line center and allow the kids to grow in secondary roles.  I also agree that the deal we got for him for have been on the table ( or even a better one) come the deadline.  Honestly the deadline of Reinhart this summer instead of a bridge deal for the season to me looks a mandate to save $ and a decision to not put the best possible product on the ice, but I digress.  

Also 17 assists in 37 games for a top line player is not a good assist total., especially when you consider a 71% O zone start percentage. With 19 points total in 37 games, Hall was on pace for a 41 pt season.  Mitts, VO and especially Reinhart all out pointed him in both actual and in p/gp for significantly less $.  Hall was a waste.

Also the $8 mill contract when the market price was $5 mill is what facilitated the deal.  Hall's camp asked for the NMC and KA stupidly gave it to him.  He would have signed the deal with a limited NTC or possibly none at all to get the money.

Huh?  Reinhart got a 1 year, 2nd bridge deal before last season.  His 1st bridge deal had expired and he was an RFA w/ 2 years to go to UFA status.

The Hall deal absolutely might have been a factor in him getting that rather than a LT deal.

[Carmel Corn]

1 hour ago, GASabresIUFAN said:

@dudacek

giving KA a “pass” on the Hall fiasco is funny my friend.

To put it simply he overpaid to get Hall. Gave him a NMC which destroyed his trade value.  He played a position that was already deep with Skinner and VO and therefore didn’t fix any roster holes. His addition sent Skinner to RK purgatory. He was terrible on the ice with 2 goals in 37 games.  The trade garnered for us a late 2nd rd pick (Kisakov), who may not reach NA for 2-3 more years, plus we gave up a serviceable 4th line center in Lazar (something we still need)for an awful depth forward in Bjork who we are stuck with because he had a 3 year deal.  

That is the ultimate fail for any GM at both ends for the transaction.  Getting 2 goals for an $8 investment is a fail.  Getting only a 2nd rd pick for a former recent MVP is a fail and being stuck with 2.5 years of Bjork makes it worse.

 

I don't agree with your viewpoint here....if I'm not mistaken, we gave up NOTHING to acquire Hall.  Sure, maybe he didn't earn Pegula's money for a partial season, but it was only for 1 year (not several), plus we had the cap space to spend it.  When he traded him, there was no salary retention.  GMKA took a chance on a player who was still productive and not too old, in hopes his presence would improve the team.  It didn't work out, maybe because of the horrible coaching we had.  I think you would be more displeased if Hall was still here making $6MM a year for another few years.

[Thorner]

4 minutes ago, Carmel Corn said:

I don't agree with your viewpoint here....if I'm not mistaken, we gave up NOTHING to acquire Hall.  Sure, maybe he didn't earn Pegula's money for a partial season, but it was only for 1 year (not several), plus we had the cap space to spend it.  When he traded him, there was no salary retention.  GMKA took a chance on a player who was still productive and not too old, in hopes his presence would improve the team.  It didn't work out, maybe because of the horrible coaching we had.  I think you would be more displeased if Hall was still here making $6MM a year for another few years.

Nothing other than a LT Reinhart extension..

 

6 minutes ago, Taro T said:

Huh?  Reinhart got a 1 year, 2nd bridge deal before last season.  His 1st bridge deal had expired and he was an RFA w/ 2 years to go to UFA status.

The Hall deal absolutely might have been a factor in him getting that rather than a LT deal.

Agree

[Thorner]

28 minutes ago, GASabresIUFAN said:

Signing Hall I don't think in any way prevented a Reinhart extension.  Samson was under contract for the last season with Hall or without him.  Had they signed Sam to an extension it would have kicked in this season.  It's more likely that when the team starting going further down hill TP/KP told KA to scrap the thing and Reinhart told management to trade him.  No extension was on the table from the Sabres and no extension was requested from Reinhart.  To bad.  I agree with @dudacek that it would have been great to have Samson back this season to be the top line center and allow the kids to grow in secondary roles.  I also agree that the deal we got for him for have been on the table ( or even a better one) come the deadline.  Honestly the dealing of Reinhart this summer instead of a bridge deal for the season to me looks more and more as evidence of a  mandate to save $ and a decision to not put the best possible product on the ice, but I digress.  

Also 17 assists in 37 games for a top line player is not a good assist total., especially when you consider a 71% O zone start percentage. With 19 points total in 37 games, Hall was on pace for a 41 pt season.  Mitts, VO and especially Reinhart all out pointed him in both actual and in p/gp for significantly less $.  Hall was a waste.

Also the $8 mill contract when the market price was $5 mill is what facilitated the deal.  Hall's camp asked for the NMC and KA stupidly gave it to him.  He would have signed the deal with a limited NTC or possibly none at all to get the money.  Also we had better offers at the deadline according to news reports for the NYI and Caps.  

Bah.

You said he was “terrible” - that’s the barometer I needed to defend against. 17 assists is certainly closer to a good total than terrible. 

Like I said, Hall’s performance took a dive once he saw the writing on the wall: before Jack left the lineup, Hall was on a 50 point pace. That’s a top 6 pace, it’s certainly not “terrible”

Edited January 20, 2022 by Thorny

[JohnC]

18 hours ago, Taro T said:

Getting Scandella back would be great, though doubt that's possible.  We likely get very good Jokiharju back as well.  And we get Dahlin back w/ Pysyk for now & hopefully someone that belongs higher up the food chain for him to pair w/ next season.

Dahlin-Pysyk

Scandella-Joliharju

Samuelsson-Power 

is significantly better than what's been out there on a nightly basis.

 

And while many here don't seem to see any way to get a goalie next year, the large amount of capspace should, & needs to, be used to upgrade the goaltending either via FA or trade - they can take on a 1-2 year albatross contract to make the price of an actual honest to God current NHL netminder doable w/out gutting the future waiting for Levi &/or Portillo &/or UPL to be ready to take the reins.

I agree with your take on the goalie issue. However, it is my sense that KA believes that UPL is ready or near ready to be slotted for the #1 goalie role.  I believe he is taking a great risk in rushing the young netminder for that more prominent role. As like you, my preference would have been to make it a priority to bring in a goalie and give UPL a subordinate role to ease him into the higher stakes NHL game. It just seems to me that KA doesn't want to use up much cap space and assets to bring in a more upscale goalie. Considering where this franchise is with its cap situation it is an unnecessary gamble.  

[nfreeman]

25 minutes ago, GASabresIUFAN said:

Signing Hall I don't think in any way prevented a Reinhart extension.  Samson was under contract for the last season with Hall or without him.  Had they signed Sam to an extension it would have kicked in this season.  It's more likely that when the team starting going further down hill TP/KP told KA to scrap the thing and Reinhart told management to trade him.  No extension was on the table from the Sabres and no extension was requested from Reinhart.  To bad.  I agree with @dudacek that it would have been great to have Samson back this season to be the top line center and allow the kids to grow in secondary roles.  I also agree that the deal we got for him for have been on the table ( or even a better one) come the deadline.  Honestly the dealing of Reinhart this summer instead of a bridge deal for the season to me looks more and more as evidence of a  mandate to save $ and a decision to not put the best possible product on the ice, but I digress.  

Also 17 assists in 37 games for a top line player is not a good assist total., especially when you consider a 71% O zone start percentage. With 19 points total in 37 games, Hall was on pace for a 41 pt season.  Mitts, VO and especially Reinhart all out pointed him in both actual and in p/gp for significantly less $.  Hall was a waste.

Also the $8 mill contract when the market price was $5 mill is what facilitated the deal.  Hall's camp asked for the NMC and KA stupidly gave it to him.  He would have signed the deal with a limited NTC or possibly none at all to get the money.  Also we had better offers at the deadline according to news reports for the NYI and Caps.  

I agree that Hall was a waste and a huge disappointment (and he's landed on my "least favorite NHL players" list as a result), but the rest of this post is peppered with (bolded) dodgy assertions.

We'll never know whether signing Hall prevented a Reino extension.  IMHO it's pretty likely that KA decided that the Sabres' long-term cap situation could only hold a fat extension for one, but not both, of Hall or Reino (since Eichel and Skinner already had them and presumably Dahlin would get one), and decided to see how the season played out before deciding which of them to offer the big contract to. 

In fairness to GA, it's also possible that KA, who was already probably leaning toward a culture cleanse, wasn't entirely sold on Reino being part of the solution -- and if that was the reason for not offering him an extension that summer, then it wouldn't have been related to Hall.

 

[GASabresIUFAN]

16 minutes ago, Thorny said:

Bah.

You said he was “terrible” - that’s the barometer I needed to defend against. 17 assists is certainly closer to a good total than terrible. 

Like I said, Hall’s performance took a dive once he saw the writing on the wall: before Jack left the lineup, Hall was on a 50 point pace. That’s a top 6 pace, it’s certainly not “terrible”

it is terrible.  If we were paying him the market value of $5 mill and he produces a 40 pts season no big deal, but if you are paying someone $8 you need to get 20 goals and 60 assists to justify the contract.  Why do we all rag on Skinner?  It's because he isn't producing close to even half value on his contract (although he is on a 30 goal pace this season without RK).  

Also the stats don't reflect your performance argument.  Hall had 6 pts (of his 19 total) in his first 3 games and then only 13 (1 goal) pts in the next 34 with 3 coming in his last 7.  Sorry friend, but after the first 3 games he was down right awful.  That's a 31 pt pace for the season after the first 3 games, but a 35 pt pace in the last 7 games before the trade.

Edited January 20, 2022 by GASabresIUFAN

[Thorner]

5 minutes ago, GASabresIUFAN said:

it is terrible.  If we were paying him the market value of $5 mill and he produces a 40 pts season no big deal, but if you are paying someone $8 you need to get 20 goals and 60 assists to justify the contract.  Why do we all rag on Skinner?  It's because he isn't producing close to even half value on his contract (although he is on a 30 goal pace this season without RK).  

Also the stats don't reflect your performance argument.  Hall had 6 pts (of his 19 total) in his first 3 games and then only 13 (1 goal) pts in the next 34 with 3 coming in his last 7.  Sorry friend, but after the first 3 games he was down right awful.  That's a 31 pt pace for the season after the first 3 games, but a 35 pt pace in the last 7 games before the trade.

Maybe you should have said terrible “relative to his contract” then in your initial post rather than moving the goal posts. You’d still be wrong, but at least it’d be closer to the mark!

[Thorner]

8 minutes ago, GASabresIUFAN said:

it is terrible.  If we were paying him the market value of $5 mill and he produces a 40 pts season no big deal, but if you are paying someone $8 you need to get 20 goals and 60 assists to justify the contract.  Why do we all rag on Skinner?  It's because he isn't producing close to even half value on his contract (although he is on a 30 goal pace this season without RK).  

Also the stats don't reflect your performance argument.  Hall had 6 pts (of his 19 total) in his first 3 games and then only 13 (1 goal) pts in the next 34 with 3 coming in his last 7.  Sorry friend, but after the first 3 games he was down right awful.  That's a 31 pt pace for the season after the first 3 games, but a 35 pt pace in the last 7 games before the trade.

You can’t remove 3 games from a 23 game sample size to fit your argument and call it a day lol

[Thorner]

My point was never to claim Hall was good after Eichel went down - indeed I baked that into my original point, that he wasn’t.

The 23 games Hall played with Jack in the lineup: 50 point pace

The 14 games Hall played without Jack in the lineup: 29 point pace

Edited January 20, 2022 by Thorny

[nfreeman]

@Thorny -- despite numerous glitches in his Hall tirade, @GASabresIUFAN is again right on the core issue -- which is that Hall was freaking terrible for the bulk of his time as a Sabre.  This is one of those times where the eye test needs to take precedence over the stats (especially where the main stat is assists).  He was shockingly ineffective.

[Thorner]

10 minutes ago, nfreeman said:

@Thorny -- despite numerous glitches in his Hall tirade, @GASabresIUFAN is again right on the core issue -- which is that Hall was freaking terrible for the bulk of his time as a Sabre.  This is one of those times where the eye test needs to take precedence over the stats (especially where the main stat is assists).  He was shockingly ineffective.

Your eye test, you mean?

Hall had a terrible shooting % didn’t he? He was getting a ton of chances in my eyes prior to Jack going down. Indeed, my initial eye test is what triggered my argument and then I looked into the stats any found out they supported it.

The bulk of his time as a Sabre was with Jack and in that stretch he was objectively not “freaking terrible” statistically. I’m not arguing he wasn’t bad after JE went down or that he shouldn’t be lambasted for such. By all means. My argument is that, along with his 50 point pace during said time frame, Hall was not terrible on the ice during that stretch while (an injured) Jack was still playing.

I reject outright your implication that he should be in some way docked because his production was in assists. Hall has always primarily been a playmaker. I view set-up in a regard quite as high as finishing and always have

Edited January 20, 2022 by Thorny

[Thorner]

14 minutes ago, nfreeman said:

@Thorny -- despite numerous glitches in his Hall tirade, @GASabresIUFAN is again right on the core issue -- which is that Hall was freaking terrible for the bulk of his time as a Sabre.  This is one of those times where the eye test needs to take precedence over the stats (especially where the main stat is assists).  He was shockingly ineffective.

Should also be noted that 79% of Hall’s points in that stretch were primary.  Only 3 of his assists were secondary 

[nfreeman]

1 hour ago, Thorny said:

Your eye test, you mean?

Hall had a terrible shooting % didn’t he? He was getting a ton of chances in my eyes prior to Jack going down. Indeed, my initial eye test is what triggered my argument and then I looked into the stats any found out they supported it.

The bulk of his time as a Sabre was with Jack and in that stretch he was objectively not “freaking terrible” statistically. I’m not arguing he wasn’t bad after JE went down or that he shouldn’t be lambasted for such. By all means. My argument is that, along with his 50 point pace during said time frame, Hall was not terrible on the ice during that stretch while (an injured) Jack was still playing.

I reject outright your implication that he should be in some way docked because his production was in assists. Hall has always primarily been a playmaker. I view set-up in a regard quite as high as finishing and always have

Well, eye test is always subjective, and I'm not sure the concept of "objectively [anything] statistically" has any meaning -- but in this case I think Hall was freaking terrible as an objective matter.

Since you are relying on stats, though, here are a few:

- during the portion of the season when he allegedly made magic with Eichel, he had an 11-game stretch where his production consisted of 3 assists, all against NJ, a terrible team against which his competitive fires, such as they are, were presumably running hot since they dumped him after he won the MVP for them. 

- A few games later, after Eichel was done for the year, he had a 9-game stretch in which his production consisted of 1 assist. 

That's a total of 4 pts, all assists, 3 of which were against a terrible team, in 2 stretches comprising 20 of his 37 games as a Sabre.  YMMV, of course, but IMHO that is being "terrible for the bulk of his time as a Sabre."

EDIT:  also, valuing assists equally with goals is silly.  There's a reason 2 assists are awarded (most of the time) for each goal.  

[Flashsabre]

1 hour ago, GASabresIUFAN said:

it is terrible.  If we were paying him the market value of $5 mill and he produces a 40 pts season no big deal, but if you are paying someone $8 you need to get 20 goals and 60 assists to justify the contract.  Why do we all rag on Skinner?  It's because he isn't producing close to even half value on his contract (although he is on a 30 goal pace this season without RK).  

Also the stats don't reflect your performance argument.  Hall had 6 pts (of his 19 total) in his first 3 games and then only 13 (1 goal) pts in the next 34 with 3 coming in his last 7.  Sorry friend, but after the first 3 games he was down right awful.  That's a 31 pt pace for the season after the first 3 games, but a 35 pt pace in the last 7 games before the trade.

So is your argument that Adams should have had a psychic look into the future and told him what Hall’s point totals for the year were going to be and pay him based on those?

Who cares, it was a one year deal. Adams should get a medal for not signing him to a 7 year deal. 

Adams is the last person to look at for the Hall deal. Krueger and Eichel wanted it, Pegula said get it done.

[Thorner]

5 minutes ago, nfreeman said:

Well, eye test is always subjective, and I'm not sure the concept of "objectively [anything] statistically" has any meaning -- but in this case I think Hall was freaking terrible as an objective matter.

Since you are relying on stats, though, here are a few:

- during the portion of the season when he allegedly made magic with Eichel, he had an 11-game stretch where his production consisted of 3 assists, all against NJ, a terrible team against which his competitive fires, such as they are, were presumably running hot since they dumped him after he won the MVP for them. 

- A few games later, after Eichel was done for the year, he had a 9-game stretch in which his production consisted of 1 assist. 

That's a total of 4 pts, all assists, 3 of which were against a terrible team, in 2 stretches comprising 20 of his 37 games as a Sabre.  YMMV, of course, but IMHO that is being "terrible for the bulk of his time as a Sabre."

 

I guess I don’t understand the way you want to twist the numbers. The barometer you guys are going with is “terrible”. If a 40 point pace is terrible, then I guess I agree? 

You realize any player with 40-50 points is going to produce nothing in the majority of the season’s games, right? By that definition any 40 point scorer could be deemed “terrible for the bulk”