Is the bad goaltending now ruining the Amerks season as well?

[DarthEbriate]

The funny thing about not blocking the youth... the youth still needs to be good enough to surpass the block. 

[GASabresIUFAN]

15 minutes ago, DarthEbriate said:

The funny thing about not blocking the youth... the youth still needs to be good enough to surpass the block. 

That’s the problem with KA’s plan.  The concept is good, but you have to have prospects that are close to NHL ready.  Anyone who saw UPL last season knew he wasn’t close to NHL ready.  KA knew or should have known that UPL wasn’t close to ready and should have had a legit plan to support his young team.  
 

With Levi and Portillo years away, KA has to upgrade this position the sooner the better.

Edited November 21, 2021 by GASabresIUFAN

[Thorner]

11 hours ago, GASabresIUFAN said:

The last couple of games, we have watched bad goaltending in Rochester doom the Amerks.  The bottomline is that the goaltending in Buffalo and Rochester is terrible as expected.  Not really a surprise given how all of these goaltenders performed last season.  Sadly, as I feared in the off-season, both teams' terrible goaltending is destroying the chances of both team to compete.  Yes, we have received some good night from Anderson (now injured), from Tokar and the Amerks have received a few good nights from UPL.  However the numbers below are awful.

Tokarski: NHL 2020-21 3.54 .904; 2021-22 3.07 .909

Dell: NHL 2020-21 4.62 .839; 2021-22 3.76 .861

UPL:  AHL 2020-21 3.60 .888; 2021-22 3.61 .878

Houser AHL 2020-21 2.33 .924; 2021-22 3.12 .881

Admittedly some of this is small sample size, but when it's a continuation of the same terrible play like Dell and UPL with Tokar being only marginally better, the trends don't look good.  KA really needs to do something, but probably won't.   

 

This is a good post. The goalies Adams brought in weren't good. He hasn't brought in good goalies since he started. Adams knows the goalies he brought it aren't good. 

It must be part of the plan.

5 hours ago, tom webster said:

Goaltending is a tough position to figure out. Everyone thought Seattle pull off a huge coup with their tandem and the two of them are among the worst in the league this year. For that matter, our old friend Linus isn’t much better. 

Poor Adams lol 

 

4 hours ago, LabattBlue said:

Part of the problem is the GM’s approach to the goaltending situation in the off-season.  One part of his solution was signing a 40 year old goalie. Go figure…he breaks down in the 1st month of the season, and now the trickle down effects both teams goaltending. 
 

On paper, it looks like Adams did the best he could with shipping out the old core this offseason, but this is two years running he has $hit the bed in terms of goaltending within the organization. 

Results don't matter though.

It's hard to acquire good goalies in this league. It's hard to win games in this league. 

Winning is hard!

[PerreaultForever]

Just a random thought. Bad goaltending in Rochester might ruin their season, but maybe it helps with the development of the other players who will have to work harder, play better team D and not get to coast to easy victories where they rely on a hot goalie? Might actually be good for their overall learning.

[Thorner]

1 minute ago, PerreaultForever said:

Just a random thought. Bad goaltending in Rochester might ruin their season, but maybe it helps with the development of the other players who will have to work harder, play better team D and not get to coast to easy victories where they rely on a hot goalie? Might actually be good for their overall learning.

I'm not sure if the bold was actively sought by Adams but I think it's clear any negative associated with such was adjudged to be less detrimental than what ever "future sacrifice" would have had to have been made to bring in competent goaltending. 

Goalies were not a priority - they just weren't. 

[Marvin]

8 minutes ago, Thorny said:

I'm not sure if the bold was actively sought by Adams but I think it's clear any negative associated with such was adjudged to be less detrimental than what ever "future sacrifice" would have had to have been made to bring in competent goaltending. 

Goalies were not a priority - they just weren't. 

And they needed to be.  It is a clear blind spot GMKA has had two years running.

This may be the flaw with relying too much on analytics, which says that goaltending does not matter much.  Bad goaltending is always a problem.

Edited November 21, 2021 by Marvin, Sabres Fan

[Thorner]

1 minute ago, Marvin, Sabres Fan said:

And they needed to be.  It is a clear blind spot GMKA has had two years running.

You know how I feel about the strategy - so I agree with you on the GT.

But aside from my personal leanings, there's an argument that, within the dynamics of the plan itself, goaltending didn't need to be an area of focus this year. This is something I buy as plausible. 

The idea that Adams actually tried to upgrade the position/field competent goaltending seems much less likely to me, and frankly, much less palatable as a defence of Adams. If Adams actually thought these guys were going to work out, we have bigger issues. 

[Marvin]

1 minute ago, Thorny said:

You know how I feel about the strategy - so I agree with you on the GT.

But aside from my personal leanings, there's an argument that, within the dynamics of the plan itself, goaltending didn't need to be an area of focus this year. This is something I buy as plausible. 

The idea that Adams actually tried to upgrade the position/field competent goaltending seems much less likely to me, and frankly, much less palatable as a defence of Adams. If Adams actually thought these guys were going to work out, we have bigger issues. 

Even if he did not expect goaltending to be an area of focus this year, Anderson's injury was eminently predictable.

IMHO, he was hoping UPL would rise to the occasion rather than fall on the part below the coccyx.  That's on GMKA because we all hoped we were wrong.

[Thorner]

2 minutes ago, Marvin, Sabres Fan said:

Even if he did not expect goaltending to be an area of focus this year, Anderson's injury was eminently predictable.

IMHO, he was hoping UPL would rise to the occasion rather than fall on the part below the coccyx.  That's on GMKA because we all hoped we were wrong.

Ya - I think Adams probably knew Anderson would struggle re: durability and that there was a good chance UPL would fail. 

I have to assume he made the calculations that told him these negative results were still preferable to whatever sacrifice would have been necessary to bring in good goalies for now 

[Marvin]

2 minutes ago, Thorny said:

Ya - I think Adams probably knew Anderson would struggle re: durability and that there was a good chance UPL would fail. 

I have to assume he made the calculations that told him these negative results were still preferable to whatever sacrifice would have been necessary to bring in good goalies for now 

Any chance Bales can convince Arturs Irbe to coach UPL?

[Taro T]

2 minutes ago, Thorny said:

You know how I feel about the strategy - so I agree with you on the GT.

But aside from my personal leanings, there's an argument that, within the dynamics of the plan itself, goaltending didn't need to be an area of focus this year. This is something I buy as plausible. 

The idea that Adams actually tried to upgrade the position/field competent goaltending seems much less likely to me, and frankly, much less palatable as a defence of Adams. If Adams actually thought these guys were going to work out, we have bigger issues. 

Would agree w/ the bolded and a big part about what was so maddenly frustrating about this off-season.  There's almost no possible way Adams expected any of the 5 guys (6 including whomever the guy still in Cincy is) he has to be reasonable answers to the quest for solid goaltending.  But, if they cost the team 5-6 more games than they steal, it could boost their lottery odds from those of the ~8th worst team to those of the ~4th worst.  And am REALLY tired of watching (on TV & in person) teams that are highly overmatched but getting good wasn't a goal this year so we get another year of being overmatched at least on the road.  If it happens that they do climb the standings, they aren't trading away Girgensons to further torpedo the season, but the topography already has enough potholes that no additional ones such as that are necessary in all likelihood.

Gutting all the good players that are more than a year removed from ELC's wasn't enough.  Effectively gutting the netminding also happened.  When the goalies are on, these kids, has beens, & never were's are good enough to beat the defending champs, Crosby's squad in Pittsbugh, & McDavid's, & Matthews' teams as well.  W/out goaltending, these kids will get to lose a lot.  Really don't expect the better lottery odds are worth all the extra losing that not addressing GTing entails.

[bob_sauve28]

27 minutes ago, Taro T said:

Would agree w/ the bolded and a big part about what was so maddenly frustrating about this off-season.  There's almost no possible way Adams expected any of the 5 guys (6 including whomever the guy still in Cincy is) he has to be reasonable answers to the quest for solid goaltending.  But, if they cost the team 5-6 more games than they steal, it could boost their lottery odds from those of the ~8th worst team to those of the ~4th worst.  And am REALLY tired of watching (on TV & in person) teams that are highly overmatched but getting good wasn't a goal this year so we get another year of being overmatched at least on the road.  If it happens that they do climb the standings, they aren't trading away Girgensons to further torpedo the season, but the topography already has enough potholes that no additional ones such as that are necessary in all likelihood.

Gutting all the good players that are more than a year removed from ELC's wasn't enough.  Effectively gutting the netminding also happened.  When the goalies are on, these kids, has beens, & never were's are good enough to beat the defending champs, Crosby's squad in Pittsbugh, & McDavid's, & Matthews' teams as well.  W/out goaltending, these kids will get to lose a lot.  Really don't expect the better lottery odds are worth all the extra losing that not addressing GTing entails.

My understanding is that Ullmark wanted an extra million a year over what the Bruins were offering, would you have paid that? 

I dunno. I don't blame him for passing on that 

[DarthEbriate]

20 minutes ago, bob_sauve28 said:

My understanding is that Ullmark wanted an extra million a year over what the Bruins were offering, would you have paid that? 

I dunno. I don't blame him for passing on that 

An extra year and an extra million? Ullmark was not going to block UPL this season. And if Ullmark is a block in 3 years, then that means they're both playing well and UPL has made it and projects higher than Ullmark, so you trade Ullmark when it gets you a good package. This team had no cap issues for the next couple seasons. (And then Okposo either comes back for $2M or retires, and we can buy out Skinner in June 2023 with only one more bad cap hit.) 

But Dell was trending downward each of the past few years while Ullmark has been trending upward every year. And Anderson was retired. So...    I think we could've gotten Ullmark and Dell, or Ullmark and Anderson and have better overall goaltending than any of the previous 3 years.

But the trouble was Ullmark didn't want only $750k.

Edited November 21, 2021 by DarthEbriate

[Thorner]

15 minutes ago, bob_sauve28 said:

My understanding is that Ullmark wanted an extra million a year over what the Bruins were offering, would you have paid that? 

I dunno. I don't blame him for passing on that 

(From the perspective of trying to field a team that wins) not signing Ullmark for the reason you listed reason can make perfect sense - but that doesn't give them the okay to then go with derpy goaltending sans signing him. Not locking up Ullmark isn't an excuse to have poor goaltending - playing that kind of hardball, regardless of whether Adams "thought" it'd probably get done, without a viable backup plan leaves one beholden to the results nonetheless. 

[bob_sauve28]

24 minutes ago, Thorny said:

(From the perspective of trying to field a team that wins) not signing Ullmark for the reason you listed reason can make perfect sense - but that doesn't give them the okay to then go with derpy goaltending sans signing him. Not locking up Ullmark isn't an excuse to have poor goaltending - playing that kind of hardball, regardless of whether Adams "thought" it'd probably get done, without a viable backup plan leaves one beholden to the results nonetheless. 

 I have no idea who else they could have gotten. If he passed on a doable deal, or missed an opportunity that seemed obvious then I'd criticize him. I just dont know what was and what was not possible. But that demand from Ullmark sure doesnt give me confidence he wants to play here, and oh ya, the injury history. 

But I do wish KA had done something better

[bob_sauve28]

33 minutes ago, DarthEbriate said:

An extra year and an extra million? Ullmark was not going to block UPL this season. And if Ullmark is a block in 3 years, then that means they're both playing well and UPL has made it and projects higher than Ullmark, so you trade Ullmark when it gets you a good package. This team had no cap issues for the next couple seasons. (And then Okposo either comes back for $2M or retires, and we can buy out Skinner in June 2023 with only one more bad cap hit.) 

But Dell was trending downward each of the past few years while Ullmark has been trending upward every year. And Anderson was retired. So...    I think we could've gotten Ullmark and Dell, or Ullmark and Anderson and have better overall goaltending than any of the previous 3 years.

But the trouble was Ullmark didn't want only $750k.

Or he comes back and is injured all the time. I couldnt stomach that after giving in to his insulting demands

[Thorner]

2 minutes ago, bob_sauve28 said:

Or he comes back and is injured all the time. I couldnt stomach that after giving in to his insulting demands

Doesn't dude have a young new family? And he reached UFA for the first time? 

[Weave]

Judging by Linus’ play on a good team, KAs choice to not chase him was based on performance expectations. And probably lack of a passion to be a Sabre.

Granted, he’s still a better goalie than what we currently have.

[bob_sauve28]

7 minutes ago, Thorny said:

Doesn't dude have a young new family? And he reached UFA for the first time? 

Best wishes to them 

[Taro T]

1 hour ago, bob_sauve28 said:

My understanding is that Ullmark wanted an extra million a year over what the Bruins were offering, would you have paid that? 

I dunno. I don't blame him for passing on that 

He shouldn't have put himself in a place where he'd need to beat a reasonable offer.  Make the Bruins offer while you still have the exclusive negotiating rights & make the Bruins either beat it or make a liar of Ullmark.  Really don't believe Ullmark would've gone back on his word, so your question becomes & should've been from the start: can & will the B's go to the higher $ amount.

Everybody standing up for Adams on this negotiation are neglecting 2 items: 1 he claimed his 1st choice was to have Ullmark as his #1 until one of his prospects could take the job away from him & 2 he knew he was going to have a cap floor roster and that a lot of teams that might be interested in Linus wouldn't have much, if any, spare capspace.  If 1 was true, and have no reason to not believe Adams so take him at his word, then wtf didn't he consider 2?  Because if he does, Ullmark is still a Sabre.

We don't have to analyze the decision making only at the endpoint of the process; better decisions earlier in the process can lead to better results.

[Thorner]

7 minutes ago, Weave said:

Judging by Linus’ play on a good team, KAs choice to not chase him was based on performance expectations. And probably lack of a passion to be a Sabre.

Granted, he’s still a better goalie than what we currently have.

Can't agree - he *did* try to sign him. He was willing to pay *close* to what Ullmark got, for the poor goaltending he's providing, just not the full amount? Doubt it. 

[Taro T]

6 minutes ago, Weave said:

Judging by Linus’ play on a good team, KAs choice to not chase him was based on performance expectations. And probably lack of a passion to be a Sabre.

Granted, he’s still a better goalie than what we currently have.

Possibly.  But Miller looked like dog doo doo on the Blues, but was pretty good on his next stops.  Ullmark not being an ideal fit in Beantown doesn't mean he wouldn't have been better here nor elsewhere.

[Thorner]

7 minutes ago, bob_sauve28 said:

Best wishes to them 

Then why are you insulted lol

[Taro T]

And, as @Thorny states, he DID pursue him to the point he believed he had a deal.

[Thorner]

Just now, Taro T said:

And, as @Thorny states, he DID pursue him to the point he believed he had a deal.

Yup. Adams has done a lot of things that look good, no need to invent things to support the argument. "See! Adams KNEW he'd be bad! Great talent eval!" doesn't work when all we've heard was he *thought* he had him locked up. 

Gotta pick a road, here