GDT: Sabres at Bruins 4-28-22 7PM

[matter2003]

Apparently they already were on the golf course?

 

Hopefully they have one good performance left in them tonight. Building is going to be packed for RJ's Last Call and he deserves a better send off than last night's effort.

Didn't watch the game last night with the NFL draft going on but I didn't miss much it seems.

Did anyone punch Brad Marchand in the face? That's always the first hope I have when they face the Bruins. I literally hate him as much as I do Laviolette 

[LGR4GM]

7 hours ago, GASabresIUFAN said:

Ullmark is a decent to good starting goalie.  He should have been re-signed.  Considering the crap KA has foisted on this team in goal and how lousy most of the options are in both the trade and FA market, we would have been much better off just keeping Ullmark.  It’s KA’s biggest failure to date and could very well derail next season as well.

He's not, but keep posting this repeatedly. 

We should be striving to sign better than Ullmark. 

[LGR4GM]

I left last night after they lost because I could have written most of your posts. The doom and gloom and cliches. They played a bad 2/3 of the game and lost. Not going to read too much into it other than UPL needs to be in Buffalo next year and they need a veteran starter. All stuff we knew before the game. 

[Pimlach]

9 hours ago, Doohickie said:

Did you hear Marty's explanation of the one in between periods?  He said Granato was actually correct and the officials got the ruling wrong.  Basically there are two play conditions:  Zone entry and Tagup.  If you're entering the zone and any part of you is outside the line (even if up in the air) after the puck is in the zone, it's onside.  If you're already established in the offensive zone (which Foligno was), you have to tagup which means you have to physically touch the ice in the neutral zone (being above it is not sufficient).  In the case of the first challenge, Foligno was solidly in the Sabres zone.  As the puck entered, he tried to get to the bench but he also lifted both feet up.  The right foot was over neutral ice but he never touched neutral ice to tag up.  As such it should have been offsides.

Only the NHL can review a play and still not understand the rules.  

[Archie Lee]

9 minutes ago, LGR4GM said:

He's not, but keep posting this repeatedly. 

We should be striving to sign better than Ullmark. 

I rarely make a point of strongly disagreeing with a post as we are all just offering opinions here. Your view of Ullmark is just wrong though. 
 

We will be incredibly fortunate if we find a goalie this off-season who comes close to posting a .917 save % (as Ullmark has done the past two years) or a .913 save % as Ullmark has done over his career. If we do get someone that good who is around Ullmark’s age, or if one of our prospects turns out to be that good, then locking that player up long-term at around $5 million per year should be a priority. 
 

Having a good goalie like Ullmark locked up long term does not prevent a team from finding and developing a Shesterkin. These can occur independently. 
 

 

[JohnC]

33 minutes ago, LGR4GM said:

He's not, but keep posting this repeatedly. 

We should be striving to sign better than Ullmark. 

Assuming the Sabres do sign a goalie this offseason odds are that player will not be better than Ullmark. He may be as good but unlikely to be better. The GM created a hole that needed to be filled when he didn't have a better option at the time. No one has argued that Ullmark is a top tier goalie in this league. That doesn't mean he isn't a mid-pack caliber starting goalie. And that is what this organization currently doesn't have. The GM has made a lot of good decisions since taking over the reigns. How he has handled the goalie position is not one of them. 

[SwampD]

9 hours ago, Doohickie said:

Did you hear Marty's explanation of the one in between periods?  He said Granato was actually correct and the officials got the ruling wrong.  Basically there are two play conditions:  Zone entry and Tagup.  If you're entering the zone and any part of you is outside the line (even if up in the air) after the puck is in the zone, it's onside.  If you're already established in the offensive zone (which Foligno was), you have to tagup which means you have to physically touch the ice in the neutral zone (being above it is not sufficient).  In the case of the first challenge, Foligno was solidly in the Sabres zone.  As the puck entered, he tried to get to the bench but he also lifted both feet up.  The right foot was over neutral ice but he never touched neutral ice to tag up.  As such it should have been offsides.

I have been making this point for over a decade. I would ask refs during games. Nobody understands the rule and they get it wrong all the time.

I find it hilarious that even at the NHL level, they are idiots.

[nfreeman]

1 hour ago, LGR4GM said:

He's not, but keep posting this repeatedly. 

We should be striving to sign better than Ullmark. 

What is this obnoxious dismissal of someone else's opinion based on?

Ullmark is 10th in GAA this year, 10th in SV% and 17th in wins despite only starting 41 games (6 fewer starts than anyone with more wins).

[LGR4GM]

1 hour ago, nfreeman said:

What is this obnoxious dismissal of someone else's opinion based on?

Ullmark is 10th in GAA this year, 10th in SV% and 17th in wins despite only starting 41 games (6 fewer starts than anyone with more wins).

Can you buy a thesaurus so you can learn another word besides "obnoxious"? 

Asking for a friend. 

1 hour ago, JohnC said:

Assuming the Sabres do sign a goalie this offseason odds are that player will not be better than Ullmark. He may be as good but unlikely to be better. The GM created a hole that needed to be filled when he didn't have a better option at the time. No one has argued that Ullmark is a top tier goalie in this league. That doesn't mean he isn't a mid-pack caliber starting goalie. And that is what this organization currently doesn't have. The GM has made a lot of good decisions since taking over the reigns. How he has handled the goalie position is not one of them. 

There's a UFA goalie who is better. Ville Husso

[LGR4GM]

Ullmark wanted more term and money than Adams has offered. He found it and he bailed. However John C and GA in every thread repeatedly harp on how Adams basically should have given Ullmark more. No, you put a value on a player and you stick with it. Giving Ullmark more money or more term to keep him from Boston would not have been a smart move. Ullmark was a ufa and he left, wish he didn't but omg we don't need to read about it in every thread, constantly, over a year later. 

Jeff skinner is what happens when you play the "gotta keep this guy no matter what" card. 

[Taro T]

7 minutes ago, LGR4GM said:

Ullmark wanted more term and money than Adams has offered. He found it and he bailed. However John C and GA in every thread repeatedly harp on how Adams basically should have given Ullmark more. No, you put a value on a player and you stick with it. Giving Ullmark more money or more term to keep him from Boston would not have been a smart move. Ullmark was a ufa and he left, wish he didn't but omg we don't need to read about it in every thread, constantly, over a year later. 

Jeff skinner is what happens when you play the "gotta keep this guy no matter what" card. 

Reportedly, Adams did offer to match the Bah-stan offer, so apparently he didn't stick w/ the value he put on Ullmark.  And, if that's the case, & pretty sure it is, he should've given Linus the B's offer to start with because then the B's would've needed to beat it, rather than the other way round.

Goalie is a different animal than the rest of the roster.  An "overpayment" of what the B's did give him wouldn't have messed w/ the salary structure, would've helped w/ getting them to the cap floor, and would've provided better goaltending than the Sabres got through any stretch more than 2-3 games with the possible exception of Anderson's 1st 6 or so starts prior to his early season injury.

Presuming he'd've taken the same M-NMC in years 3 & 4 like he actually did sign up for, there really was no substantial downside to making that offer 1st.  Adams misjudged it.  It (along w/ the previous season's goalie inaction) is his only major misstep to date that can't be handwaived away w/ the 'well, it's not my way, but we'll try 1 final time w/ 'the rotten core V2' missteps.

[nfreeman]

22 minutes ago, LGR4GM said:

Ullmark wanted more term and money than Adams has offered. He found it and he bailed. However John C and GA in every thread repeatedly harp on how Adams basically should have given Ullmark more. No, you put a value on a player and you stick with it. Giving Ullmark more money or more term to keep him from Boston would not have been a smart move. Ullmark was a ufa and he left, wish he didn't but omg we don't need to read about it in every thread, constantly, over a year later. 

Jeff skinner is what happens when you play the "gotta keep this guy no matter what" card. 

Well, this isn't what you said a few posts above -- you said Ullmark wasn't good.

As for repeatedly harping on things in multiple threads -- how many posts in how many threads have you made saying Eakin stinks?  Check yo'self.

[GASabresIUFAN]

3 hours ago, LGR4GM said:

He's not, but keep posting this repeatedly. 

We should be striving to sign better than Ullmark. 

 

https://moneypuck.com/goalies.htm

According to moneypuck.com Ullmark’s numbers are solid to above average of goalies who have played 30 games + this season.  There are 44 goalies that have played 30+ games this year and Ullmark’s numbers are top 14-18 in every category.  That’s good goaltending.  Not elite, but good goaltending.

You keep saying the above, but show me the available better than Ullmark goalie willing to come here or who is available in trade without restriction? There are 3 listed above Ullmark who are in theory available.  They are Quick, Kuemper, and Husso.  That’s it.  Quick isn’t leaving LA as they have the cap room to keep him and he outperformed Petersen.  Kuemper will have his pick of jobs if not re-signed by Cup contender Colorado and I doubt Colorado lets him walk.  That leaves Husso who just had a break out year.  He’s certain to want the biggest and longest deal he can get.  KA is unlikely to pay the price, but at least there is a chance. 

“Strive for better” is a great slogan, but sometimes a reality check is needed.  The reality is there in next to nothing in better than Ullmark available goaltending who we can acquire.  

As to when Ullmark should have been re-signed, the best opportunity was not last off-season after the team cratered, but the one prior, when he gave us playoff quality goaltending in RK’s first season.  Instead KA took Ullmark to arbitration and signed a 2.6 mill deal for one season.  

This lack of foresight cost us this season and will probably cost us again next season if KA’s goaltender search fails again.

Edited April 29, 2022 by GASabresIUFAN

[Stoner]

Nobody... nobody!... circles the forearm like Cody James Eakin!

@Doohickie will field any questions.

[PerreaultForever]

7 hours ago, thewookie1 said:

According to Marty the foot can't be in the air for a tag up, essentially on an entry you can be above the blue line but to tag up you must physically touch the blue line/neutral zone. So in theory, if you enter the offensive zone, magically gain the ability to fly and fly up to the jumbotron; you would still be considered in the offensive zone.

idk, the refs viewed it as I did. Rob Ray said Granato would lose the challenge as soon as he saw the replay (I know, it's Rob Ray.....) so I'm not sure why Marty sees it this way but in the end that one goal really didn't matter anyway. We were never going to score in that game regardless. 

[Taro T]

14 hours ago, Doohickie said:

Did you hear Marty's explanation of the one in between periods?  He said Granato was actually correct and the officials got the ruling wrong.  Basically there are two play conditions:  Zone entry and Tagup.  If you're entering the zone and any part of you is outside the line (even if up in the air) after the puck is in the zone, it's onside.  If you're already established in the offensive zone (which Foligno was), you have to tagup which means you have to physically touch the ice in the neutral zone (being above it is not sufficient).  In the case of the first challenge, Foligno was solidly in the Sabres zone.  As the puck entered, he tried to get to the bench but he also lifted both feet up.  The right foot was over neutral ice but he never touched neutral ice to tag up.  As such it should have been offsides.

Really don't belive that Marty was correct in this case.  The defending team cleared the puck out of the zone, so there was no delayed off-sides in effect.  So, it wasn't a case of tagging up while the attacking team did not have possession.  Foligno was outside the zone before the puck entered the zone, so his having a skate above the blue line is good enough as of this season.

But, darn, Marty missed his true calling of being a lawyer.  He can make a very convincing case.

[JohnC]

3 hours ago, LGR4GM said:

 

 

There's a UFA goalie who is better. Ville Husso

How many teams do you think will be vying for his services? And what would be the cost? And as an UFA it is unlikely that he would prefer to come to Buffalo unless a gilded contract is offered. This is what happens when you make a critical goalie decision without having a reasonable option for a replacement.  A lack of foresight has consequences. 

[Doohicksie]

16 hours ago, PerreaultForever said:

No I don't think so. The one foot was up in the air and the other skate blade was out over the blueline. He turned his skate blade to make sure. Clearly onside. 

They showed an angle that showed that was clearly *not* the case.  The skate closer to the neutral zone never made contact with the ice.  He was trying to get off the ice and was leaning on the boards so that skate never came back down on the ice.

16 hours ago, PerreaultForever said:

I don't really disagree, I just think it's a bigger step to "Granato will need to get the team to learn to play against defense like that" than you think. A lot of players struggled tonight including Tage.  Mitts was horrible. Vinnnie might bot be here next year but he was also struggling big time. Cozens and Krebs gave effort but looked like the kids they are. 

On the plus side I thought Muel as our best player and Power had some good moments so it will get better. 

As for the 20%, well maybe, I'm not going to try to list them off, but in playoff hockey that number is much higher and that's what I want to build for. Getting in the playoffs one day will be great, but I don't want years of early Leaf style exits either. That'll end up almost as frustrating as this decade was. best way to avoid that is to start working on that now, and I'm still not sure Granato (or this roster) will give us that. 

[Doohicksie]

(or as Rayzer would say, "No, you're right.")

[Doohicksie]

7 hours ago, LGR4GM said:

Can you buy a thesaurus so you can learn another word besides "obnoxious"? 

That attempt at a comeback was obnoxious.

[Doohicksie]

7 hours ago, Taro T said:

Reportedly, Adams did offer to match the Bah-stan offer, so apparently he didn't stick w/ the value he put on Ullmark.  And, if that's the case, & pretty sure it is, he should've given Linus the B's offer to start with because then the B's would've needed to beat it, rather than the other way round.

The part that Boston beat was not the AAV, it was the term.  And even if Boston had merely but not exceeded the Sabres offer, Ullmark may very well have left anyway.  He apparently wanted out of Hockey Hell.

[PerreaultForever]

14 hours ago, LGR4GM said:

Can you buy a thesaurus so you can learn another word besides "obnoxious"? 

Asking for a friend. 

You have a friend????

 

16 hours ago, nfreeman said:

What is this obnoxious dismissal of someone else's opinion based on?

Ullmark is 10th in GAA this year, 10th in SV% and 17th in wins despite only starting 41 games (6 fewer starts than anyone with more wins).

hey, didn't see this before. Good to see. I take back part of what I said in the other thread. 

[PerreaultForever]

 

7 hours ago, Doohickie said:

The part that Boston beat was not the AAV, it was the term.  And even if Boston had merely but not exceeded the Sabres offer, Ullmark may very well have left anyway.  He apparently wanted out of Hockey Hell.

You can't blame him. Hall and Lazar were both gushing with praise for the place and saying how much they loved it there. He probably knew others as well. There was no glimmer or inkling here that things would change any time soon and hate them all you want, but he's extremely happy there even with the early season criticisms he faced and apparently him and Swayman are already best buds. This, was never going to be invented here:

 

[Doohicksie]

I'm not blaming Ullmark.  I give Adams credit for not overpaying.  But that continues to be his hole.

[JohnC]

On 4/29/2022 at 10:59 AM, LGR4GM said:

Ullmark wanted more term and money than Adams has offered. He found it and he bailed. However John C and GA in every thread repeatedly harp on how Adams basically should have given Ullmark more. No, you put a value on a player and you stick with it. Giving Ullmark more money or more term to keep him from Boston would not have been a smart move. Ullmark was a ufa and he left, wish he didn't but omg we don't need to read about it in every thread, constantly, over a year later. 

Jeff skinner is what happens when you play the "gotta keep this guy no matter what" card. 

I agree with you that Jeff Skinner is over paid and his term is too long. However, even considering those contract excesses, he is a valuable member of the roster who contributes by doing one thing that this team desperately needs i.e. score goals. Over paying someone who is a major contributor is a salary mistake I could live with, especially when have one of the lowest salary structure in the league. The debilitating problem happens when you over pay someone when they don't contribute. Then the mistake is compounded. The Ullmark contract issue is altogether different from the Skinner situation. There is a big difference between stretching the boundary and blowing up the boundary. The Ullmark situation was a mere stretch that could have easily been absorbed with no negative consequences from a cap and roster standpoint.  When you dig a hole you then have to go back and fill it. Simple solution: Don't dig yourself into a hole.