Why is it Different This Time?

[Thorner]

7 minutes ago, Marvin said:

In and of himself, Samuelsson is not that valuable.  However, he complements Dahlin and makes Dahlin a lot better, drops Power to the second pair, lessens Power's responsibilities, gets Power a more complementary defencive partner, and pushes Bryson to the 3rd pair.  That is an enormous impact.

Well when talking value, the data points you lay out are *always* key factors, with any player. That's exactly what I mean by value and impact. McDavid doesn't do it "on his own" he also elevates everyone substantially. 

If inserting Samuelsson into the lineup changes a bad team to a good team, that's his impact and his impact alone

7 minutes ago, Taro T said:

JFC, am done w/ this discussion at least until the Nills game is over because you are discounting everything we've said over the past few years, and focusing on imprecise words said between plays.  Was ALWAYS high on Ullmark.  But most everybody bitched that he was just a backup.  Expect Comrie will turn out to be similar.

Man dunno why you are getting mad at me. I can't argue on behalf of what "most everyone" was saying. 

I argued that Ullmark was good. 

Why should I have to back down from that stance, now, when I was right? I'm not using hindsight, I made a good faith argument for years and it looks like, hey, Ullmark IS good. 

It's not my fault Adams didn't want to pay what was required to keep him. He had a level he would go to, and wouldn't go beyond it. I said it at the time: he liked Ullmark, he wanted him back, but the *priority* was the future and that wouldn't be sacrificed in the name of the now: he wouldn't budge on his evaluation. 

Edited November 20, 2022 by Thorny

[Thorner]

Here are a couple of my posts on the matter from around a year ago (there are numerous)

On 1/12/2022 at 1:46 PM, Thorny said:

I wonder if KA would like a mulligan on declining the extra year or two with Ullmark...

His sv% sits exactly where it did last year for the Sabres 

 

On 1/12/2022 at 2:15 PM, Thorny said:

Don't really buy the Anderson argument personally. I thought he'd get hurt and he did. I think that's something KA should have easily seen/expected.

IIRC the sticking point with Ullmark was term - salary at this stage of the game isn't a concern for the buffalo sabres, re: the cap. 

To me, sacrificing a bit of cash and term to ensure the future we are planning on actually *does* arrive, would be the way to go. 

By refusing to compromise on one iota of that future when it came to Ullmark, looks to me like a self-fulfilling prophecy where they are risking that future to a much greater extent in the process of trying to protect it. 

You also "liked" both of these Taro. 

I'm sorry, but I even used the term self-fulfilling prophecy which I've taken to using a lot over the last few days. 

@Doohickiethis is the sort of "victory lap" I was referring to 

Edited November 20, 2022 by Thorny

[Taro T]

1 hour ago, Thorny said:

Well when talking value, the data points you lay out are *always* key factors, with any player. That's exactly what I mean by value and impact. McDavid doesn't do it "on his own" he also elevates everyone substantially. 

If inserting Samuelsson into the lineup changes a bad team to a good team, that's his impact and his impact alone

Man dunno why you are getting mad at me. I can't argue on behalf of what "most everyone" was saying. 

I argued that Ullmark was good. 

Why should I have to back down from that stance, now, when I was right? I'm not using hindsight, I made a good faith argument for years and it looks like, hey, Ullmark IS good. 

It's not my fault Adams didn't want to pay what was required to keep him. He had a level he would go to, and wouldn't go beyond it. I said it at the time: he liked Ullmark, he wanted him back, but the *priority* was the future and that wouldn't be sacrificed in the name of the now: he wouldn't budge on his evaluation. 

Was mad at myself for not staring clearly enough in a post making a point about Comrie by using an example of the general thoughts about Ullmark a point that it wasn't made clearly enough because the football game was the focus & not our discussion.

But you now seeming to think that yours truly thought that Ullmark was just an average backup or not even that is mildly annoying considering all the discussions we've had in the past.  (And usually being on the same page to boot.)  Expected Ullmark to become what he is now with an actual team in front of him.  Heck, was the one pointing out that the end of THE losing streak was because Ullmark came back not not because of something mystical the coach had done.  Was extremely frustrated that they let Linus walk especially after it was reported they'd offered to match the Bruins offer.  That offer should've been the one Adams gave to Linus before hitting FA.  Then it would've been the B's that had to beat it, not the other way 'round.  (And really don't want to make this a relitigation of the Ullmark departure.)

The point of the original post that sent us off into the weeds is, again, Comrie is better than his fancy stats this year say he is.  (And, though not previously said, he's likely worse than he historical fancy stats say he was.)  IMHO both guys are pretty much Marty Birons.  Decent starters on a good team but not top 10 guys (probably not even top 20) & absolutely at the top of the list if he can be your backup.  Very few teams have a guy that good as the backup and almost never for long.

And further, back to the context of the thread, expecting his being out is a huge part of why this is going to be similar to the rest of the lost decade plus.  He's good enough to give them a chance against Florida, though not good enough to necessarily get them the win.  He's good enough so that with a reasonable defense & not what we've seen this month (ever since Lyubushkin reinjured or worsely injured his leg in their last win) they will have a reasonable chance to win any game & more importantly won't go into (or remain in) a massive tailspin with a healthy roster.  UPL radiates no such warm fuzzies.  

[Edit: and statistically Ullmark was pretty much an average goalie (aka an average backup) though those of us that watched him knew he was better than that.  So, stand by the original comment you took such exception to.]

Edited November 20, 2022 by Taro T

[Refuting]

I think both of you guys are reading way too into it. Ullmark was going to leave anyway. Theres nothing Adams could have done

Taro you say Adams should have gave Ullmark an offer before free agency but you have no proof he would have signed it. I get why Adams didn't give him an offer. He was injured quite frequently. Doesn't matter anyway. If Boston offers you a contract you take it if you care about winning or winning immediately 

I don't blame anyone for him leaving. Sometimes players just leave. Would have liked to keep him, but he left. So be it 

[Thorner]

Yep. There’s nothing we could have done. 

[Thorner]

40 minutes ago, Taro T said:

 

[Edit: and statistically Ullmark was pretty much an average goalie (aka an average backup) though those of us that watched him knew he was better than that.  So, stand by the original comment you took such exception to.]

Can’t say I really understand what you mean here, as in, why an “average goalie” equates to “average backup”.

Linus, from 2018-2021, ranked 17th (mid pack for starters) out of all goalies with a .911 sv%. So he was a starter, of average quality. I’d imagine your average backup is significantly worse. 
 

And, as you said, Linus was putting up reasonable starter numbers on a *bad team*. We saw a good goalie that could be great (see, Boston) not an average backup that could be an average starter. 

Edited November 20, 2022 by Thorny

[Thorner]

37 minutes ago, Toilet_Mop said:

I think both of you guys are reading way too into it. Ullmark was going to leave anyway. Theres nothing Adams could have done

Taro you say Adams should have gave Ullmark an offer before free agency but you have no proof he would have signed it. I get why Adams didn't give him an offer. He was injured quite frequently. Doesn't matter anyway. If Boston offers you a contract you take it if you care about winning or winning immediately 

I don't blame anyone for him leaving. Sometimes players just leave. Would have liked to keep him, but he left. So be it 

Even if we attack any perceived miss from Adams by demanding that posters prove a negative “can you PROVE Ullmark didn’t call KA and tell him to eff off? Can you? Ehhh?!”  which IMO is ludicrous considering we heard Linus was open to an extension, this argument still falls apart on the basis of it being a reasonable decline from Ullmark based on the chosen strategy of Adams. 
 

Sorry, only the “win now, add talent” strategy can have consequences? Heck no, that would be super disingenuous. Part of the fallout from choosing a strategy where you don’t intend on winning is that...it’s harder to convince players to “want to be here”. You have to take your medicine - expecting players to decline needs to be accounted for in the strategy, when those sort of things would be entirely predictable. 
 

Sorry, what was the back up plan Adams had for after missing on Ullmark? That’s what I thought. 
 

Sorry, you don’t think Ullmark not being interested in the plan was his deciding factor in leaving? Have fun proving that negative. 
 

If money couldn’t have kept him, if term couldn’t have kept him, if a different strategy couldn’t have kept him, we are left with “Ullmark wanted out of Buffalo, full stop, he hated the city.”

Then why did he show up to the negotiating table for months? Just to humour the GM? 

This is staring us right in the face and people don’t want to acknowledge it. 

Edited November 20, 2022 by Thorny

[Stoner]

 

 

3 hours ago, Taro T said:

Am not saying they'll get to 98 points.  (Have never gone there, regardless of what the old man from Pennsyltucky misremembers.)  But, if Comrie were still available rather than UPL, they can still generally win 3 out of 5 moving forward once they finally get the monkey off their backs. 

Fine. But you think once they both come back the Sabres will improve to close to a 98 point pace. You think they will fall short of that in the end. But by how much?

This one def. will get bookmarked.

[Thorner]

1 minute ago, PASabreFan said:

 

 

Fine. But you think once they both come back the Sabres will improve to close to a 98 point pace. You think they will fall short of that in the end. But by how much?

This one def. will get bookmarked.

Personally, I thought we might be done with point pace sample sizes smaller than 82 games after the transition from last season, to this. 

Who cares. 

[Refuting]

20 minutes ago, Thorny said:

Even if we attack any perceived miss from Adams by demanding that posters prove a negative “can you PROVE Ullmark didn’t call KA and tell him to eff off? Can you? Ehhh?!”  which IMO is ludicrous considering we heard Linus was open to an extension, this argument still falls apart on the basis of it being a reasonable decline from Ullmark based on the chosen strategy of Adams. 
 

Sorry, only the “win now, add talent” strategy can have consequences? Heck no, that would be super disingenuous. Part of the fallout from choosing a strategy where you don’t intend on winning is that...it’s harder to convince players to “want to be here”. You have to take your medicine - expecting players to decline needs to be accounted for in the strategy, when those sort of things would be entirely predictable. 
 

Sorry, what was the back up plan Adams had for after missing on Ullmark? That’s what I thought. 
 

Sorry, you don’t think Ullmark not being interested in the plan was his deciding factor in leaving? Have fun proving that negative. 
 

If money couldn’t have kept him, if term couldn’t have kept him, if a different strategy couldn’t have kept him, we are left with “Ullmark wanted out of Buffalo, full stop, he hated the city.”

Then why did he show up to the negotiating table for months? Just to humour the GM? 

This is staring us right in the face and people don’t want to acknowledge it. 

I don't agree with any of this. People say one thing and do another all the time. Every single day 

The simplest answer is he left because he didn't want to be here 

You're trying to analyze every little detail. If he wanted to be here, he would have stayed 

Adams backup plan was Comrie 

You're spinning your wheels like crazy 

[Curt]

1 minute ago, Toilet_Mop said:

I don't agree with any of this. People say one thing and do another all the time. Every single day 

The simplest answer is he left because he didn't want to be here 

You're trying to analyze every little detail. If he wanted to be here, he would have stayed 

Adams backup plan was Comrie 

You're spinning your wheels like crazy 

I don’t think this is entirely correct.  It’s a pretty hard sell to say that Ullmark simply had no interest in remaining in Buffalo.  They definitely were negotiating right up until the end, both sides said as much.

[Thorner]

3 minutes ago, Toilet_Mop said:

I don't agree with any of this. People say one thing and do another all the time. Every single day 

The simplest answer is he left because he didn't want to be here 

You're trying to analyze every little detail. If he wanted to be here, he would have stayed 

Adams backup plan was Comrie 

You're spinning your wheels like crazy 

Lol good stuff. 
 

If in depth and thoughtful discussions aren’t your thing maybe try Twitter? 

[Refuting]

Just now, Curt said:

I don’t think this is entirely correct.  It’s a pretty hard sell to say that Ullmark simply had no interest in remaining in Buffalo.  They definitely were negotiating right up until the end, both sides said as much.

Right they were negotiating until Boston came in. You wanna be somewhere you sign the deal. An outside team wouldn't matter 

[Thorner]

1 minute ago, Curt said:

I don’t think this is entirely correct.  It’s a pretty hard sell to say that Ullmark simply had no interest in remaining in Buffalo.  They definitely were negotiating right up until the end, both sides said as much.

I also made a good faith argument as to why our own organizational choices may have affected/had a part in his desire to be here, too (really, how couldn’t they?) but I suppose that’s just wheel spinning 

[Refuting]

1 minute ago, Thorny said:

Lol good stuff. 
 

If in depth and thoughtful discussions aren’t your thing maybe try Twitter? 

Lol @ getting mad. There's no reason to get mad. I just disagree with you.

Maybe you'd like Twitter better you seem pretty hyper 

[Thorner]

1 minute ago, Toilet_Mop said:

Right they were negotiating until Boston came in. You wanna be somewhere you sign the deal. An outside team wouldn't matter 

So theoretically negotiations could have concluded prior to Boston riding in? Could it not be arguable that a GM could have made a greater effort/put a higher priority on persuading said player, knowing how IMPORTANT it was to get it done?

1 minute ago, Toilet_Mop said:

Lol @ getting mad. There's no reason to get mad. I just disagree with you.

Maybe you'd like Twitter better you seem pretty hyper 

I’m not mad, these are the jokes I make on this website when I’ve so thoroughly tanked someone’s argument. 
 

next 

[Refuting]

Just now, Thorny said:

1.So theoretically negotiations could have concluded prior to Boston riding in?

2.Could it not be arguable that a GM could have made a greater effort/put a higher priority on persuading said player, knowing how IMPORTANT it was to get it done?

1. Yes 

2. Possibly but wouldn't matter if player wanted to leave anyway 

[Refuting]

5 minutes ago, Thorny said:

So theoretically negotiations could have concluded prior to Boston riding in? Could it not be arguable that a GM could have made a greater effort/put a higher priority on persuading said player, knowing how IMPORTANT it was to get it done?

I’m not mad, these are the jokes I make on this website when I’ve so thoroughly tanked someone’s argument. 
 

next 

You are definitely mad giving credit to yourself for supposedly "tanking" my argument 

Your borderline livid now 

[PerreaultForever]

1 hour ago, Toilet_Mop said:

I think both of you guys are reading way too into it. Ullmark was going to leave anyway. Theres nothing Adams could have done

Taro you say Adams should have gave Ullmark an offer before free agency but you have no proof he would have signed it. I get why Adams didn't give him an offer. He was injured quite frequently. Doesn't matter anyway. If Boston offers you a contract you take it if you care about winning or winning immediately 

I don't blame anyone for him leaving. Sometimes players just leave. Would have liked to keep him, but he left. So be it 

The blame isn't for Ullmark leaving, it's for KA not having a plan B. When Ullmark didn't sign before the trade deadline he should have been dealt and we should have moved on to plan B then. Teams were willing to trade off goalies because of the expansion draft. If not that, plan C. But there was no real plan if Ullmark didn't sign. It was tank like. That's all on KA. 

[Refuting]

1 minute ago, PerreaultForever said:

The blame isn't for Ullmark leaving, it's for KA not having a plan B. When Ullmark didn't sign before the trade deadline he should have been dealt and we should have moved on to plan B then. Teams were willing to trade off goalies because of the expansion draft. If not that, plan C. But there was no real plan if Ullmark didn't sign. It was tank like. That's all on KA. 

This makes more sense to me 

[Thorner]

2 minutes ago, Toilet_Mop said:

You are definitely mad giving credit to yourself for supposedly "tanking" my argument 

Your borderline livid now 

You’re*

[Refuting]

Just now, Thorny said:

You’re*

*Yore 

[Curt]

19 minutes ago, Toilet_Mop said:

Right they were negotiating until Boston came in. You wanna be somewhere you sign the deal. An outside team wouldn't matter 

If Ullmark knew he didn’t want to be in Buffalo, why negotiate with them?  Do things like money, and who will give you more of it, generally factor in when deciding which job offer to take?

You say that others are focusing too much on the details of the situation.  I think you are oversimplifying it to the point of naïveté.

[Thorner]

7 minutes ago, PerreaultForever said:

The blame isn't for Ullmark leaving, it's for KA not having a plan B. When Ullmark didn't sign before the trade deadline he should have been dealt and we should have moved on to plan B then. Teams were willing to trade off goalies because of the expansion draft. If not that, plan C. But there was no real plan if Ullmark didn't sign. It was tank like. That's all on KA. 

Right, which I did mention::

46 minutes ago, Thorny said:

Sorry, what was the back up plan Adams had for after missing on Ullmark? That’s what I thought. 

Sorry, you don’t think Ullmark not being interested in the plan was his deciding factor in leaving? Have fun proving that negative. 

So, it wasn’t a case of Adams getting unlucky once, there were several factors at play here that suggest a different outcome was certainly possible 

11 minutes ago, Toilet_Mop said:

1. Yes 

2. Possibly but wouldn't matter if player wanted to leave anyway 

Well, because you said there’s nothing we could have done, right? If you admit negotiations could have wrapped up before Boston was a factor, then things certainly could have gone differently. 

If it’s not Boston specifically and you are saying he had just outright made his mind up that he was leaving, why did he negotiate for months, reportedly? You mentioned people change their mind, and it’s true. But there was a window of quite a while to work with: again, not a case of Adams getting unlucky once 

[PerreaultForever]

17 minutes ago, Thorny said:

Right, which I did mention::

So, it wasn’t a case of Adams getting unlucky once, there were several factors at play here that suggest a different outcome was certainly possible 

Well, because you said there’s nothing we could have done, right? If you admit negotiations could have wrapped up before Boston was a factor, then things certainly could have gone differently. 

If it’s not Boston specifically and you are saying he had just outright made his mind up that he was leaving, why did he negotiate for months, reportedly? You mentioned people change their mind, and it’s true. But there was a window of quite a while to work with: again, not a case of Adams getting unlucky once 

I'm pretty confident in speculating that Ullmark played hardball with the Sabres and Adams felt he had made him the best offer he'd get so he'd take it. Bruins offer raised quite a few eyebrows at the time as an overpayment. Adams didn't want to be Skinner'd but as we've discussed, he didn't have a back up plan and should have. 

He really should have been going after 2 goalies all the time not just one. 

and, let me add this. I'm sure nobody here would have been excited if his signing this year was Martin Jones, but he was available, and Seattle either got really lucky or did their homework much better than Adams did.