A Knights Tale: From Sabre to Knight; one man’s failure to make the playoffs AND how it benefits the Sabres draft position

[ddaryl]

Boy has the narrative done a 180 degree flip...   Sabres look to have gotten this one right and its becoming noticeable to the media and Joe and Jane Fan

Sabres have definitely shown to me that they are a better team minus Jack, and its not lost on me that many of the players who have been around Jack are actually doing better away from him

 

[Marvin]

2 minutes ago, Taro T said:

Great question.

The reason should be that when the players will get a set amount of money to split between themselves league wide (like NHL players do under the terms of the CBA & MOU), if Vegas is over the cap by $10-20MM that's an extra $10-20MM in the denominator that everybody's individual share get divided by.

Expecting though that isn't the reason.  (But, darn it, it should be.)

I think the escrow matters a lot.  I also know that players resented the Kucherov shenanigans last year because of the escrow.  And I imagine Vegas turning cap cheating up to 17 really pisses players off.

[nfreeman]

7 minutes ago, That Aud Smell said:

Good post.

A thought that's been kicking around in my head over the past couple of weeks: Las Vegas -- and, by the way, it's effing LAS Vegas, they don't get to jettison-by-branding the Spanish article that's part of their city's name -- is a franchise located in a town that's founded on the glitzy, glimmering shine of fool's gold, the vain hopes of get-rich-quick wanderers, and entertainment nightly performed by the permanently famous. Until recently, I looked at the pre-game theatrics of the Las Vegas Knights and envied them (maybe I still do, a bit). More recently, though, I see that stuff as being of a piece with a franchise that may be unduly influenced by an urge to entertain with the biggest, splashiest show that can be assembled. Trading for Eichel seems emblematic of that. That big casino on the strip might not be the only mirage in town.   

Well, I think from Vegas' perspective trading for Eichel was a hockey move, not an entertainment move, although the Q factor was a nice bonus.  But I think they made the trade because they thought, justifiably based on pre-injury Eichel, that they were getting a 25-year-old superstar who is under contract for a while and who had maxed out on wasting his career with a dysfunctional franchise -- and acquiring a guy like that is supposed to make your team better.

The problem is that Eichel is not where he was pre-injury.  I watched parts of the game last night and he doesn't look, to me anyway, anywhere near as fast or as powerful as he was pre-injury.  Maybe he gets back to that level after an off-season of conditioning, and if he does then the trade will look much better for Vegas, but maybe he doesn't.

[Doohicksie]

56 minutes ago, dudacek said:

Vegas built a team that was easy to bond with and tossed a lot of its key parts to the curb in favour of "better" but less-lovable players.

That whole talent versus team debate creates an interesting thought exercise in terms of what wins and what the fan base wants.

The "loveable" part is a red herring:  Fans "love" a winner.  They "love" a team that plays hard, night in, night out.  Less loveable is actually code for players who may be very good but don't play well as a team.  There's a balance there:  You want talented players that will play for each other.  Jack wasn't that for us and doesn't seem to be that for VGK.  Reino is a different case- he seemed pretty good as far as playing together with others, even as he was getting turned off the the continual failure of the Sabres to build a winning team.  Take him out and plug him into a better locker room and BOOM- 30 goal scorer as a middle-six player (also speaks to depth of talent on the Panthers).

The fan base wants a winner.  Frankly I don't care if it's all kumbaya or the bickering Bills, as long as they all pull in the same direction when the game is played.  We did see, though, that recent versions of the Sabres couldn't produce as a team.  I think that goes back to GMs and coaches and what players they brought in and how those players were handled.

Previous GMs seemed to bring in a certain type of player in terms of physical characteristics like size and speed, points scored, etc., but didn't balance that against the personality of the player.  Do they see themselves at their best when they succeed, or when the team succeeds?

I look at one of the first guys brought in by KA/DG:  Vinny Hinostroza.  He's good speed, so-so talent, average scoring, not a big guy, but he's a wonder piece of a line; he works well with others.  Give him a role and he executes it, even if everyone knows he's not the best at that role.  Hall, as a KA/RK acquisition, was none of those things.  He wanted to skate on Eichel's wing and score goals to set up his next contract and when Eich was injured Hall was a slug.

Bringing in players based on attitude as much as talent seems too be making the team better; the byproducts of better and good attitude is likeable.

1 hour ago, mjd1001 said:

Players that Jack spent a lot of time with in Buffalo are having bounce-back or career years after he left (Reinhart, Okposo, Skinner).  These things are no longer small one-time things fans in Buffalo are looking for to take shots at him...they are now front and center and obvious.  Vegas is in their most important stretch of games this season and as others have said, no goals, no points for Jack in over a week.

I think the low point they're bouncing back from is Krueger, not Eichel.

[Curt]

35 minutes ago, Weave said:

I get why this all would be meaningful for fans that are rooting against Vegas.  But I get the sense that players around the league are also rooting against Vegas.  I find this interesting, and I don’t think what you’ve described explains it.

Would love to hear from someone with current player contacts regarding what the motivations are for players to he rooting against Vegas.

I believe that players see the Vegas organization as ruthless, untrustworthy, and disloyal.  They will toss away a player who loves it there, is performing, and has been vital to their team success to bring a player who they perceive to be 5% better.  Vegas has systematically shipped out many of the key players/coaches who carried them to success in the first place.

Players don’t like that.  If they are performing on the ice, the team is winning, and they like it there, they don’t want to traded so that some other guy can be brought in to take their position.

[Doohicksie]

42 minutes ago, That Aud Smell said:

Until recently, I looked at the pre-game theatrics of the Las Vegas Knights and envied them (maybe I still do, a bit). More recently, though, I see that stuff as being of a piece with a franchise that may be unduly influenced by an urge to entertain with the biggest, splashiest show that can be assembled.

The only reason it was to be envied is that the team was good.  The worse the team gets the more foolish all that glitz will look.

[dudacek]

I think for many (most?) winning trumps all. See Patriots, New England.

But the way you do it also matters. See also Patriots, New England.

This point is less about “your” team and more about everybody else’s.

[LGR4GM]

24 minutes ago, Curt said:

I believe that players see the Vegas organization as ruthless, untrustworthy, and disloyal.  They will toss away a player who loves it there, is performing, and has been vital to their team success to bring a player who they perceive to be 5% better.  Vegas has systematically shipped out many of the key players/coaches who carried them to success in the first place.

Players don’t like that.  If they are performing on the ice, the team is winning, and they like it there, they don’t want to traded so that some other guy can be brought in to take their position.

The MAF trade told us everything we needed to know about Vegas.

[Weave]

58 minutes ago, Curt said:

I believe that players see the Vegas organization as ruthless, untrustworthy, and disloyal.  They will toss away a player who loves it there, is performing, and has been vital to their team success to bring a player who they perceive to be 5% better.  Vegas has systematically shipped out many of the key players/coaches who carried them to success in the first place.

Players don’t like that.  If they are performing on the ice, the team is winning, and they like it there, they don’t want to traded so that some other guy can be brought in to take their position.

Why would players around the league have dislike for a team that makes moves to get marginally better?  Wouldn’t everyone want to be on the team that is continuously trying to upgrade?  Isn’t that why the Bills are currently a team everyone wants to be on?

I get it if we are talking about the guys that got moved.  Everyone is entitled to sour grapes.  But why would say….. Timo Meier be extra motivated to knock Vegas out of the playoffs?

[SDS]

10 minutes ago, Weave said:

Why would players around the league have dislike for a team that makes moves to get marginally better?  Wouldn’t everyone want to be on the team that is continuously trying to upgrade?  Isn’t that why the Bills are currently a team everyone wants to be on?

I get it if we are talking about the guys that got moved.  Everyone is entitled to sour grapes.  But why would say….. Timo Meier be extra motivated to knock Vegas out of the playoffs?

Vegas has had a pretty long streak against them. I think Timo was just aggravated with losing to them.

[RochesterExpat]

I don't think PDB is a good coach (the Lehner situation alone proves it) and we know that he replaced Gallant because the owners wanted it. McCrimmon is managing by chasing talent--presumably at the owner's direction. I wonder how much of an impact the owners are having on VGK's success/failures.

Even with injuries the team should be more competitive than it is. I really do blame the coaching more than anything. Eichel is not the problem. He is merely a symptom.

That's my $.02 anyway.

 

[kas23]

48 minutes ago, Weave said:

Why would players around the league have dislike for a team that makes moves to get marginally better?  Wouldn’t everyone want to be on the team that is continuously trying to upgrade?  Isn’t that why the Bills are currently a team everyone wants to be on?

Yes, the Bills do this, but they have also yet to win a Super Bowl while having Super Bowl talent. I’m not saying the Bills won’t win one, but the sports world is littered with teams who have won the offseason only to get bounced prematurely from the playoffs. 
 

I want the Bills to win, but Beane is walking a very fine line here. Again, it comes back to personalities weighed against talent. You need to build a team and be transparent with the “correct” players at the same time. 

[Curt]

55 minutes ago, Weave said:

Why would players around the league have dislike for a team that makes moves to get marginally better?  Wouldn’t everyone want to be on the team that is continuously trying to upgrade?  Isn’t that why the Bills are currently a team everyone wants to be on?

I get it if we are talking about the guys that got moved.  Everyone is entitled to sour grapes.  But why would say….. Timo Meier be extra motivated to knock Vegas out of the playoffs?

I believe that Vegas has a reputation around the league as not treating their players well.  Treating them as easily changeable assets, as opposed to vital, valued members of the organization.  I think any employee would prefer the later.

Even the very best, top performing players on Vegas have found themselves packing their bags.  A player is doing well on ice, is a key player, and the team is having success, yet that player still needs to worry about being moved.  I think it’s perceived as disrespectful to the contributions that individual guys make to the team.

There are deep relationships across the NHL which are not separated by team.  These guys all know and respect each other.  Of course players on other teams are going to hold it against Vegas if they perceive that they treat players shabbily.

I can’t speak to what the Bills are doing.  I have no clue.

With regard to Meire specifically, he did have a couple hard fought playoff series against Vegas in 2018 and 2019, in addition to being their division rival.

[kas23]

2 minutes ago, Curt said:

I believe that Vegas has a reputation around the league as not treating their players well.  Treating them as easily changeable assets, as opposed to vital, valued members of the organization.  I think any employee would prefer the later.

I think this is pretty much what the Bills do…on the surface. But, I imagine the conversations behind closed doors are much different; transparent and respectful. We now have former players begging to come back and play for the Bills, but this may simply be a function of these players wanting to play for a winning team. Or, it’s a combination of both the culture and winning. 

[Doohicksie]

1 hour ago, Weave said:

Why would players around the league have dislike for a team that makes moves to get marginally better?  Wouldn’t everyone want to be on the team that is continuously trying to upgrade?  Isn’t that why the Bills are currently a team everyone wants to be on?

It depends:  Have the moves VGK made improved the team?  After flailing around and failing to get better, it's clear they management doesn't know what they're doing.  Jack is gonna hate it there  😄

[PerreaultForever]

24 minutes ago, Curt said:

I believe that Vegas has a reputation around the league as not treating their players well.  Treating them as easily changeable assets, as opposed to vital, valued members of the organization.  I think any employee would prefer the later.

Even the very best, top performing players on Vegas have found themselves packing their bags.  A player is doing well on ice, is a key player, and the team is having success, yet that player still needs to worry about being moved.  I think it’s perceived as disrespectful to the contributions that individual guys make to the team.

You can view that sort of thing a different way though. If you put individual players ahead of the organization, ahead of the team, you end up pampering them and worrying about their needs and then the organization falters. This is what we did with Eichel. Everything was always about Eichel. Is Eichel happy? What can we do to make Eichel happy? etc etc etc. and now it's about the Sabres again. That's how it should be. No individual should be ahead of the team, it should always be team first and they should want to be part of that. Adams seems to have this part right, finally. 

[PerreaultForever]

2 minutes ago, Doohickie said:

It depends:  Have the moves VGK made improved the team?  After flailing around and failing to get better, it's clear they management doesn't know what they're doing.  Jack is gonna hate it there  😄

They had great team chemistry and a all for one, one for all thing going with Gallant, but management got greedy and added "stars" and they lost the chemistry. There's a lesson for all in this. Team first. Develop your own stars, don't try to import them. 

[PromoTheRobot]

2 hours ago, nfreeman said:

Well, I think from Vegas' perspective trading for Eichel was a hockey move, not an entertainment move, although the Q factor was a nice bonus.  But I think they made the trade because they thought, justifiably based on pre-injury Eichel, that they were getting a 25-year-old superstar who is under contract for a while and who had maxed out on wasting his career with a dysfunctional franchise -- and acquiring a guy like that is supposed to make your team better.

The problem is that Eichel is not where he was pre-injury.  I watched parts of the game last night and he doesn't look, to me anyway, anywhere near as fast or as powerful as he was pre-injury.  Maybe he gets back to that level after an off-season of conditioning, and if he does then the trade will look much better for Vegas, but maybe he doesn't.

Missing a huge chunk of the season will do that. Same with Mittelstadt. Next year will tell the tale for both players.

[Doohicksie]

8 minutes ago, PerreaultForever said:

They had great team chemistry and a all for one, one for all thing going with Gallant, but management got greedy and added "stars" and they lost the chemistry. There's a lesson for all in this. Team first. Develop your own stars, don't try to import them. 

Living in the Dallas market in 1998, I remember when they signed Brett Hull and thinking, ooh, they're really going for it.  But that's probably a year or two down the road in the Sabres' case.  In general I like the path the Sabres are taking.  Like you said, develop stars.  I think there are enough horses (and one Muel) in the stable to expect this with the current roster and the top prospects.

[K-9]

21 minutes ago, PerreaultForever said:

They had great team chemistry and a all for one, one for all thing going with Gallant, but management got greedy and added "stars" and they lost the chemistry. There's a lesson for all in this. Team first. Develop your own stars, don't try to import them. 

Importing a star can work as long as he’s the right kind of star. 

[Curt]

27 minutes ago, PerreaultForever said:

You can view that sort of thing a different way though. If you put individual players ahead of the organization, ahead of the team, you end up pampering them and worrying about their needs and then the organization falters. This is what we did with Eichel. Everything was always about Eichel. Is Eichel happy? What can we do to make Eichel happy? etc etc etc. and now it's about the Sabres again. That's how it should be. No individual should be ahead of the team, it should always be team first and they should want to be part of that. Adams seems to have this part right, finally. 

Yeah, sure, it’s possible to go too far in either direction.

24 minutes ago, PerreaultForever said:

They had great team chemistry and a all for one, one for all thing going with Gallant, but management got greedy and added "stars" and they lost the chemistry. There's a lesson for all in this. Team first. Develop your own stars, don't try to import them. 

Don’t trade away your revered veteran franchise goalie the offseason after he wins the Vezina and you go to the conference finals.

Don’t trade away your top pair defenseman the offseason after making the conference finals.

Don’t fire the inspirational coach who molded your team from nothing and led them to Stanley Cup finals in their first year of existence.

Bridges too far.

[thewookie1]

50 minutes ago, PerreaultForever said:

They had great team chemistry and a all for one, one for all thing going with Gallant, but management got greedy and added "stars" and they lost the chemistry. There's a lesson for all in this. Team first. Develop your own stars, don't try to import them. 

I only slightly disagree, develop your own stars but you can bring in one or two. You can’t however bring in all your stars. Chicago brought in Hossa, LA brought in Carter and Richards. The vital part is they mesh with your already existing stars. 
 

2 hours ago, Weave said:

Why would players around the league have dislike for a team that makes moves to get marginally better?  Wouldn’t everyone want to be on the team that is continuously trying to upgrade?  Isn’t that why the Bills are currently a team everyone wants to be on?

It’s not the upgrade part that is an issue; it’s the more the “upgrades” they made. When your team goes to the Cup Finals, it makes sense to try and get that piece that puts you over the edge. Vegas seems to be perpetually in that state but even more so cannibalizing their own base. Was Petroangelo an upgrade over Schmidt, yes but by what degree? Schmidt had stepped up over his time in Vegas and had grown into a great player while there. Then after signing an extension to stay there and having a solid season he was jettisoned for a slightly older but more generally viewed better Dman. Vegas didn’t push depth down, they effectively traded the homegrown guy for a new shiny object who was marginally better. Vegas has done that a few times already at this point and I’d guess players don’t exactly like that sort of “improvement.”

Additionally there’s a degree of honor that comes with growing with a team. If you give your team everything you have; you feel entitled to at very least get some degree of loyalty in return. How they dealt with Fleury was appalling but even worse was the whole Dadanov situation. Vegas went into this season with a need for a 1C and needing to likely deal Fleury due to cap restrictions. So they dump Fleury, their Vezina winning goalie at the side of the road to get cap space. Everyone assumed it was to get Eichel. Then they deal a mid round pick for an expensive winger in Dadonov whom was a completely unnecessary move. If Vegas had depth anywhere it was at the wings. Just off the top of my head they had: Patches, Stone, Smith, Marsh, Tuch(injured), Carrier, Kolesar, Janmark, Reeves and Nosek. Some of which also played center but anyone with half a brain could see their weakness was center depth, especially Top 6 center depth. Trading for Dadonov made no sense and preceded to close the cap space Fleury’s departure created. From there they somehow never learned of his NTC and tried trading him after 50 games with the team. It doesn’t look good for a team to trade for a player and then within a year attempt to dump them with a literal bribe. Why go to Vegas with your family if you might be moving again within 8 months because a new shiny toy came available? 

[kas23]

2 hours ago, PerreaultForever said:

They had great team chemistry and a all for one, one for all thing going with Gallant, but management got greedy and added "stars" and they lost the chemistry. There's a lesson for all in this. Team first. Develop your own stars, don't try to import them. 

Probably a bad example. All the Vegas Knights were “imported” on those teams. Otherwise, I agree. 

[Norcal]

Ticker on NHLN and Weekes just spoke it out loud says Lehner out for season ending surgery. And it continues. 

[LGR4GM]

Just now, Norcal said:

Ticker on NHLN and Weekes just spoke it out loud says Lehner out for season ending surgery. And it continues.