Murray, Prow and MacInnis assigned to Amerks

[Thorner]

2 minutes ago, dudacek said:

I don't know what you've been watching if you aren't seeing a significant drop-off when Prow is in for Bryson or Dell for Anderson, or an obvious boost when Jokiharju came in for Butcher or Tuch for Bjork.

Interchangeable is Bjork for Caggiula

The results. 

[dudacek]

31 minutes ago, Thorny said:

The results. 

Never mind the injuries, never mind the kids who aren't here yet.

We have had NHL goaltending (from an unproven prospect and a past-his-prime veteran) for exactly 14 games. In those games, we are 6/6/2.

 

[PromoTheRobot]

1 hour ago, Thorny said:

It's okay to be of the position that says, "Not only could we not have expected better on-ice this season, from the players we have, our GM also had no choice in assembling said roster the way he did, and taking the pathway he did." - it just doesn't leave any room for discussion. We are simply witnessing justified inevitability, then. 

I do know that certain posters I may or may not be conversing with right now were posting screengrabs of the Sabres' position in the standings this past October after a few games, so I have indeed been under the impression taking a stance on the actual results may have merit, and/or bear discussion. 

So this is you sticking it back to those who celebrated what success we had? Why not? They had it coming, right? How dare they enjoy this team!

It's also so very easy to say something else could have been done. How can we prove you wrong? The road not taken is always the path to glory. If I didn't know better I could say that some people...some...revel in the failure of the Sabres. But certainly no one I can think of.

Edited January 7, 2022 by PromoTheRobot

[Thorner]

7 minutes ago, dudacek said:

Never mind the injuries, never mind the kids who aren't here yet.

We have had NHL goaltending (from an unproven prospect and a past-his-prime veteran) for exactly 14 games. In those games, we are 6/6/2.

 

It's just such a small sample size. And, what, 5 of those games were early season? It was a fool's gold start to the year. We have a mere 5 wins since - the incredible drop off suggests the change was due to far, far more than just the GT. For the change to be that extreme.  

If the premise is that, with good goaltending, we'd be a better team - of course I agree with that. For my part, though, the context of the conversation is how the team is stacking up heading into next season - what we might expect (early guesses, type stuff). I'm admittedly pretty firm in my stance that Craig Anderson doesn't build too much of an argument, within this context. Do you actually believe he'd be able to replicate that short performance, over a full season next year, at his age? Would you be comfortable lining up with him between the pipes, to start next year? If the answer is "no", toting his stats early this year as evidence for why we might be better next year doesn't hold much water, not without telling me where that performance is going to come from. 

If the answer is, Adams needs to actively add to the roster, we'll have found common ground. 

Edited January 7, 2022 by Thorny

[Thorner]

23 minutes ago, PromoTheRobot said:

So this is you sticking it back to those who celebrated what success we had? Why not? They had it coming, right? How dare they enjoy this team!

It's also so very easy to say something else could have been done. How can we prove you wrong? The road not taken is always the path to glory. If I didn't know better I could say that some people...some...revel in the failure of the Sabres. But certainly no one I can think of.

The beauty of my argument in this case is that it's consistent. There isn't a hidden agenda here. I don't really care if you want to question my motives as a fan, it's no skin off my neck. I will provide one reference here so as to try and show you what I mean, if you actually have interest in giving me the benefit of the doubt:

On 10/29/2021 at 7:51 AM, Thorny said:

That's a playoff team so, probably unlikely. 

Points percentage .500 seems possible, and I didn't think it was, believe someone here said they might beat Bylsma's 81 point season and I said it wouldn't happen - maybe it will. 

Couldn't watch again yesterday, just too late for me when I work nights. But looked like another big downturn in the metrics from what I saw posted online. How did the game actually look to the eye? 

I would be pretty surprised. It's uncommon for a deluca .500 team to miss the playoffs 

I had no problem shifting my stance when the results were different. I was singing a different tune. I always claim that I look to the bottom-line for the lion's share of evaluation (maybe that's the worst way to do it, I don't really care, just being transparent), the results, and as far as I know when the wins were there I was talking about how I may have been wrong, posting in the GDT's about how fun the wins were, etc. Perhaps some sort of anti-sabres bias would be reflected better by sticking to initial predictions in an effort to look cool rather than changing them on october 29th at the earliest chance it looked reasonable to do so. 

There's no point caring about what I say If you hate that that's the way I look at things. If you are correct that the wins are on the way, my point of view will shift to accurately reflect the results, in due time, and you'll be proven correct in the prediction. 

I don't care about being right. I've won enough arguments to last a lifetime. Maybe if my argument was that I was sure they'd be great, I wouldn't want to be proven wrong. 

I'm here to be swayed. Why do you think I engage @dudacek's posts so often 

Edited January 7, 2022 by Thorny

[dudacek]

7 hours ago, Thorny said:

It's just such a small sample size. And, what, 5 of those games were early season? It was a fool's gold start to the year. We have a mere 5 wins since - the incredible drop off suggests the change was due to far, far more than just the GT. For the change to be that extreme.  

If the premise is that, with good goaltending, we'd be a better team - of course I agree with that. For my part, though, the context of the conversation is how the team is stacking up heading into next season - what we might expect (early guesses, type stuff). I'm admittedly pretty firm in my stance that Craig Anderson doesn't build too much of an argument, within this context. Do you actually believe he'd be able to replicate that short performance, over a full season next year, at his age? Would you be comfortable lining up with him between the pipes, to start next year? If the answer is "no", toting his stats early this year as evidence for why we might be better next year doesn't hold much water, not without telling me where that performance is going to come from. 

If the answer is, Adams needs to actively add to the roster, we'll have found common ground. 

This whole conversation started because I said that we are a better team than our record shows. That's all.

Loosely speaking, there are three levels of NHL players:

•     Elite players who can drive play and need to be accounted for every shift.
•     Solid players who can play with, or hold their own against the above.
•     Role players capable of helping in limited situations.

Of course they need to add better players to the ones that compiled this record.  The difference between us seems to be that I see upgrades in the system.

I count Power, Tuch and Mittelstadt among those players because i see them as 2nd-level players who have not played for us this year and will be replacing 3rd-level players.

I have my fingers crossed UPL is not a mirage and can also be a 2nd-level player who will be replacing a 3rd-level player, or worse

I don't think it is unreasonable to think some of Krebs, Quinn, Peterka and Samuelsson can upgrade the JAGs on our 3rd level.

These players have not been on the team that has compiled our current record, I stand by them being enough to make us a better team.

Why you seem to be reading that as me thinking that bringing them in is all that needs to be done I'm not sure.

Edited January 8, 2022 by dudacek

[Taro T]

16 hours ago, dudacek said:

This whole conversation started because I said that we are a better team than our record shows. That's all.

Loosely speaking, there are three levels of NHL players:

•     Elite players who can drive play and need to be accounted for every shift.
•     Solid players who can play with, or hold their own against the above.
•     Role players capable of helping in limited situations.

Of course they need to add better players to the ones that compiled this record.  The difference between us seems to be that I see upgrades in the system.

I count Power, Tuch and Mittelstadt among those players because i see them as 2nd-level players who have not played for us this year and will be replacing 3rd-level players.

I have my fingers crossed UPL is not a mirage and can also be a 2nd-level player who will be replacing a 3rd-level player, or worse

I don't think it is unreasonable to think some of Krebs, Quinn, Peterka and Samuelsson can upgrade the JAGs on our 3rd level.

These players have not been on the team that has compiled our current record, I stand by them being enough to make us a better team.

Why you seem to be reading that as me thinking that bringing them in is all that needs to be done I'm not sure.

Presuming they can get capable goaltending next year & a typical (or less) amount of key injuries, they certainly will be better next year simply from 9 of those 10 players you've mentioned being available and a year closer to their primes.  (Obviously Anderson is the outlier.)  But it is likely only better to an NHL 0.500-0.550 which isn't good enough, though it will be the best they've been in about a decade.  (How sad.)

In a lot of ways, this team is the '03 Sabres. (Though right now we can only wish the C's to step up as well as that team's did 2 years later.)  They were assembling a fast paced, young team that played entertaining hockey and lost a lot early on.  Lack of goaltending will likely sabotage this team's chance to finish the year like that one did.  They had one of the best records in the whole league from late January on.  That team was 2 years away from being relevant, just like this one likely is.

And, they will still need at least 1 good vet D-man & 2 if Pysyk doesn't come back.  (Ideally 2 good vet D-men come in.)  But there is hope (as for once, we very likely won't see a huge reset AGAIN w/in the next 2 years setting it all 2 steps back again) & a very reasonable expectation this team will be one of the most improved teams next year (a 20 point upswing is huge, even though it will still have them on the outside looking in).

[JohnC]

30 minutes ago, Taro T said:

Presuming they can get capable goaltending next year & a typical (or less) amount of key injuries, they certainly will be better next year simply from 9 of those 10 players you've mentioned being available and a year closer to their primes.  (Obviously Anderson is the outlier.)  But it is likely only better to an NHL 0.500-0.550 which isn't good enough, though it will be the best they've been in about a decade.  (How sad.)

In a lot of ways, this team is the '03 Sabres. (Though right now we can only wish the C's to step up as well as that team's did 2 years later.)  They were assembling a fast paced, young team that played entertaining hockey and lost a lot early on.  Lack of goaltending will likely sabotage this team's chance to finish the year like that one did.  They had one of the best records in the whole league from late January on.  That team was 2 years away from being relevant, just like this one likely is.

And, they will still need at least 1 good vet D-man & 2 if Pysyk doesn't come back.  (Ideally 2 good vet D-men come in.)  But there is hope (as for once, we very likely won't see a huge reset AGAIN w/in the next 2 years setting it all 2 steps back again) & a very reasonable expectation this team will be one of the most improved teams next year (a 20 point upswing is huge, even though it will still have them on the outside looking in).

You give a fair representation of the status of this team for now and the next couple of years. Assuming the organization stays on course, next year this roster is going to have an infusion of at least half a dozen young players. Not all of them will quickly adapt to the elevated play of the higher league. But what all of these players will have is an upside that bodes well for the not-too-distant future.  

It's unlikely that there are going to be major trades that will bring in any impact players. Improvement is going to be predicated on internal talent within the system. What is encouraging is that we already can identify a half-dozen or more players ready to make that climb up to the higher league. (If one adds Tuck to that list it definitely is more.)

It is not outrageous to believe that in two years the Sabres will be in a better talent situation than the Bruins, and maybe even the Penguins, from the talent standpoint that we have more upswing players than they do with their older players who are more in the down cycle of their careers. Hopefully, this organization (ownership) needs to have the fortitude to stay the course. 

Edited January 8, 2022 by JohnC

[dudacek]

2 hours ago, Taro T said:

Presuming they can get capable goaltending next year & a typical (or less) amount of key injuries, they certainly will be better next year simply from 9 of those 10 players you've mentioned being available and a year closer to their primes.  (Obviously Anderson is the outlier.)  But it is likely only better to an NHL 0.500-0.550 which isn't good enough, though it will be the best they've been in about a decade.  (How sad.)

In a lot of ways, this team is the '03 Sabres. (Though right now we can only wish the C's to step up as well as that team's did 2 years later.)  They were assembling a fast paced, young team that played entertaining hockey and lost a lot early on.  Lack of goaltending will likely sabotage this team's chance to finish the year like that one did.  They had one of the best records in the whole league from late January on.  That team was 2 years away from being relevant, just like this one likely is.

And, they will still need at least 1 good vet D-man & 2 if Pysyk doesn't come back.  (Ideally 2 good vet D-men come in.)  But there is hope (as for once, we very likely won't see a huge reset AGAIN w/in the next 2 years setting it all 2 steps back again) & a very reasonable expectation this team will be one of the most improved teams next year (a 20 point upswing is huge, even though it will still have them on the outside looking in).

This is where I’m at as well. So much depends on how much the kids improve and how fast.

There is a critical mass factor at play, where adding enough good players makes all the other good players better.

Donnie talked about how plugging Mittelstadt and Tuch into the lineup not only makes the team better because they are better than the players they replace, but they can move Cozens and Thompson into better situations because they give those guys better linemates or weaker opponents. And they give the Hinostrozas and Caggiulas incentive because they now have to be better more often to hang on to their roster spots. And they mean Dahlin is spending less time on the ice with Eakin and Bjork and more with forwards who can take better advantage of his skills.

Then if Krebs and Quinn and Power start playing at the level of Tuch and Mittelstadt and Dahlin, you add another layer to the same formula. Add some well-timed saves, limit goalie whiffs and you boost the confidence of everyone. Things snowball.

It’s incremental, it’s slow, and it comes with no guarantees, but the theory is sound. It’s what powered the last good Sabres teams.

The players just have to be good enough and you have to have enough of them. With so many Sabres pieces, we don’t yet know what we have.

Edited January 8, 2022 by dudacek

[dudacek]

Riffing off @Taro T’s 2003 reference, here’s some food for thought.

• When Ryan Miller was Devon Levi’s age he was putting up similarly extraordinary numbers in college
• When Marty Biron was UPL’s age he was just emerging as a regular NHL player filling in for a faltering Hasek
• When Hank Tallinder was Owen Power’s age he was playing his first year in the SEL and was 5 years away from being an NHL top 4 D
• When Brian Campbell was Rasmus Dahlin’s age he was an AHL rookie, 5 years away from his 1st NHL 40 point season
• When Jay Mckee was Matthias Samuelsson’s age he was playing his last games in the AHL and emerging as an NHL regular
• When Dimitri Kalinin was Henri Jokiharju’s age he was showing promise in his 3rd NHL season
• When Tim Connolly was Casey Mittelstadt’s age he was facing big questions about his future after following up a 45-point season with just 25 points in 80 games
• When JP Dumont was Alex Tuch’s age he was in the midst of his 2nd 20 goal season
• When Danny Briere was Tage Thompson’s age he was smashing his previous NHL high of 15 points by scoring 60 in 78 games.
• When Derek Roy was Peyton Krebs age he was putting up 19 points in 49 games as an NHL rookie, after starting the year as a point-a-game player in Rochester.
• When Chris Drury was Dylan Cozens age he was dominating college hockey, two years away from a 44-point rookie NHL season
• When Thomas Vanek was Jack Quinn’s age he was putting up 68 points in 74 games in Rochester
• When Max Afinogenov was JJ Peterka’s age has was putting up 21 points in 38 games in his last year in Russia
• When Jochen Hecht was Rasmus Asplund’s age he was a 40-point 2nd year NHLer
• When Jason Pominville was Isak Rosen’s age he hadn’t been drafted yet and was 5 years away from the NHL

Edited January 8, 2022 by dudacek