The New Jersey Devils can do it, But not the Sabres.

[Thorner]

@LGR4GMim not sure you understand the mathematics at play here as well as I think you did, my apologies 

saying you can point out one example of a team that spent and didn’t win as a means to disprove the correlation between spending and winning is..a poor attempt at understanding what correlation represents.

Curt already explained it in less words by pointing out how it would look on an x y axis. You are saying things like “there is literally no correlation” (an objectively false statement), so I don’t think we can have a math based discussion without you having at least a rudimentary understanding of the math. 
 

- - - 

Let me simplify: I agree with you that Adams should have spent at least a little bit above the cap floor: as you point out, you would have added a d-man, etc. This is, in fact, what I was saying all along, which you would have noticed if you ever had any inclination at all to have a good faith discussion with anyone. Your entry point into the discussion as it related to me was quoting my post that said there was a positive correlation between spending and winning, taking issue with that factual statement. I proceeded to defend the statement in terms of its accuracy, and off you went. For whatever reason, you chose to take that to mean I was saying we needed to max out the cap. I truly have no idea why, I wish the discussions didn’t have to go like this.

Most of the rest of your word salad involves arguing against imaginary points I didn’t make, for reasons best known to yourself (ie - Adams should go spend all his money on expensive trades and signings) so, we’ll just ignore those, no harm no foul 

Hope that clears it up 

Edited November 22, 2022 by Thorny

[Thorner]

7 hours ago, LTS said:

I did read through the other link you sent.  What I don't see (may have missed) is the timing of the spend relative to success of the players it was spent on.

Take the Avalanche as an example.  They were pretty low in salary cap. They had lots of young talent. They won before their spend caught up to them. Next year they will be near the top. The Lightning were similar in that regard but also managed a few mid-tier salary agreements. I think most of the team you look at that end up spending money are the ones that developed their players and then paid them.  It was just a question of whether the top talent got the contract before or after the success.

The one thing that plagues Buffalo unlike other franchises is the change in ownership and a complete lack of continuity and strategy for the better part of the Pegula ownership.

However, you've seen the beginning of the change with the Thompson contract. You see the Samuelsson contract that so many panned but once he was injured the defense suffered greatly. The building blocks are there.  Fans carry the length of the losing on their backs, it's tough to shed that.  I bet Kevyn Adams could go out and spend money tomorrow... it might equate to a season of winning.. and then it might very well end up leading to more losing because of the desire to go for the short term flash. It might also work out. Both happen quite frequently.

Spending analysis needs to extend beyond looking at the amounts spent and really look at how it was spent. Was it paying youth that was drafted or acquired in a good trade or was it spent on a UFAs.  How long did that spend equate to winning?  Is it enough to win one or two seasons or does it lead to long term success?  How much change occurred during that spend when it comes to ownership and management? There are so many more factors than just records and money that have to be accounted for to truly get a sense of what works best.

 

Lots of good points. And I agree with you. Particularly the bit about how strategies can be put together spending a lot, or spending not as much - that there is more than one way of doing things. This has been a repeated theme of my posts in this discussion. 
 

But, again, my issue with the current plan is the extreme nature to which we are not spending. You are trying to explain the nature of spending as if I have no understanding: as I have repeatedly belaboured - I don’t think Adams should be going out and breaking bank. I’ve said repeatedly - I do not thing spending at the CAP FLOOR right now is a means to the success we want, both short and long term. 
 

If you would like to defend the position of why we should spend at the cap floor, I’d be happy to have that discussion. If your point is more along the lines of judicial spending, I agree. 

- - - 

Otherwise, I’ll continue to opine that it would have been in our interest to not bind ourselves so stringently to spending the least amount possible this season - that adding another reasonable d man or forward, utilizing just a little of the cap space we have, would have been a good things. Heck, even picking up Reilly. 
 

We didn’t need to max out the cap to keep Ullmark, either. Making sure we spend nothing demonstrably prevents us from moves here or there that would seemingly add improvement: plenty of examples have been pointed out by board wide.

- - -

It’s about balance. We shouldn’t be spending at the floor right now, or the ceiling. Either is a needless and damaging extreme. 

Edited November 22, 2022 by Thorny

[Refuting]

1 hour ago, Thorny said:

This is barely intelligible and I stopped at circle jerk 

 

Looooool 

[LGR4GM]

3 hours ago, Thorny said:

This is barely intelligible and I stopped at circle jerk 

Yup, agree 

Kinda like some of your circular posting of do something but only the right something. Cheers!

3 hours ago, Thorny said:

@LGR4GMim not sure you understand the mathematics at play here as well as I think you did, my apologies 

saying you can point out one example of a team that spent and didn’t win as a means to disprove the correlation between spending and winning is..a poor attempt at understanding what correlation represents.

Curt already explained it in less words by pointing out how it would look on an x y axis. You are saying things like “there is literally no correlation” (an objectively false statement), so I don’t think we can have a math based discussion without you having at least a rudimentary understanding of the math. 
 

- - - 

Let me simplify: I agree with you that Adams should have spent at least a little bit above the cap floor: as you point out, you would have added a d-man, etc. This is, in fact, what I was saying all along, which you would have noticed if you ever had any inclination at all to have a good faith discussion with anyone. Your entry point into the discussion as it related to me was quoting my post that said there was a positive correlation between spending and winning, taking issue with that factual statement. I proceeded to defend the statement in terms of its accuracy, and off you went. For whatever reason, you chose to take that to mean I was saying we needed to max out the cap. I truly have no idea why, I wish the discussions didn’t have to go like this.

Most of the rest of your word salad involves arguing against imaginary points I didn’t make, for reasons best known to yourself (ie - Adams should go spend all his money on expensive trades and signings) so, we’ll just ignore those, no harm no foul 

Hope that clears it up 

Oh goody. Now it's condescension. My favorite. 

[LGR4GM]

2 hours ago, Toilet_Mop said:

Looooool 

.... laughing...Out out out out out out... Loud? 

 

[Thorner]

9 minutes ago, LGR4GM said:

Kinda like some of your circular posting of do something but only the right something. Cheers!

Oh goody. Now it's condescension. My favorite. 

Ya man I didn't really intend for it to come off that way, I am admittedly struggling to get my message across in a way I feel like you might read. If you read my posts at all before jumping in initially, you would see that our opinions are actually aligned. You took issue with a factual statement I made that stands on its own, about correlation between winning and spending and somehow that began to become conflated with the idea I want them to spend willy-nilly. I'm not really sure what to say: aside from clarification on the point you jumped in @ me with initially....I agree with you. Like, I beg you: read the posts. 

23 hours ago, LGR4GM said:

No,  there literally isn't. 

Look, I think Adams should use at least some of the money we are not using but I also don't think the options available to him would have helped as much as we wanted. 

This is *exactly* what I am saying. We aren't disagreeing - you are attributing a position to me I haven't taken, and have this whole time. Again, don't really know what to say. 

[LGR4GM]

5 minutes ago, Thorny said:

Ya man I didn't really intend for it to come off that way, I am admittedly struggling to get my message across in a way I feel like you might read. If you read my posts at all before jumping in initially, you would see that our opinions are actually aligned. You took issue with a factual statement I made that stands on its own, about correlation between winning and spending and somehow that began to become conflated with the idea I want them to spend willy-nilly. I'm not really sure what to say: aside from clarification on the point you jumped in @ me with initially....I agree with you. Like, I beg you: read the posts. 

This is *exactly* what I am saying. We aren't disagreeing - you are attributing a position to me I haven't taken, and have this whole time. Again, don't really know what to say. 

I saw your post in the other thread. You're right, we aren't disagreeing. 

[Thorner]

Just now, LGR4GM said:

I saw your post in the other thread. You're right, we aren't disagreeing. 

THANK you. And I apologize for being a condescending ass. 

Let's never fight again.

[LGR4GM]

3 minutes ago, Thorny said:

THANK you. And I apologize for being a condescending ass. 

Let's never fight again.

Wooo. Wooo woo.  Let's not go that far. 

[Thorner]

Just now, LGR4GM said:

Wooo. Wooo woo.  Let's not go that far. 

I watched the Cornetto trilogy again recently (about once a year) and...Shaun of the Dead and Hot Fuzz are legitimately masterpieces. Not being hyperbolic. The third one is pretty reasonable it just suffers from being weak relative to the first 2. 

[SwampD]

30 minutes ago, Thorny said:

I watched the Cornetto trilogy again recently (about once a year) and...Shaun of the Dead and Hot Fuzz are legitimately masterpieces. Not being hyperbolic. The third one is pretty reasonable it just suffers from being weak relative to the first 2. 

Just added to my to witch list. Can't get Hot Fuzz.

 

Edited November 23, 2022 by SwampD

[LGR4GM]

36 minutes ago, Thorny said:

I watched the Cornetto trilogy again recently (about once a year) and...Shaun of the Dead and Hot Fuzz are legitimately masterpieces. Not being hyperbolic. The third one is pretty reasonable it just suffers from being weak relative to the first 2. 

All true. 

I like Hot Fuzz the best but Shaun of the Dead is fantastic. The last one is fine, just the weakest of the 3.

[Thorner]

7 minutes ago, SwampD said:

Just added to my to witch list. Can't get Hot Fuzz.

 

They are so good. You haven't seen any of them? 

What do you mean you can't get Hot Fuzz, like a way to view it?

[LGR4GM]

The World's End isn't bad, but the other 2 are just more memorable. 

[SwampD]

7 minutes ago, Thorny said:

They are so good. You haven't seen any of them? 

What do you mean you can't get Hot Fuzz, like a way to view it?

Not a one.

It's on a service I don't have.

[Thorner]

2 minutes ago, LGR4GM said:

All true. 

I like Hot Fuzz the best but Shaun of the Dead is fantastic. The last one is fine, just the weakest of the 3.

Agree. I usually pick a day and watch all 3 in a row, always notice a bit of a dip for the third one but that doesn't stop it from rounding out the "trilogy" nicely. 

Hot Fuzz is in my top 10 films - have always ranked it #1 of the 3 myself, but on my most recent viewing I was forced to concluded SOTD is every bit as good. For whatever reason it just took that one extra viewing. 

[Thorner]

26 minutes ago, SwampD said:

Not a one.

It's on a service I don't have.

@SwampD What do you watch on? Do you have a service where you can download the Amazon prime tv app? I watch on PS4. It's not free to subscribe to but you can download the app for free, you can get a free trial run, then it's a tad confusing but within amazon prime they offer a free trial subscription to "Starz", and on that, Hot Fuzz is available for free : the free trial is exactly how I completed my latest viewing of the film

https://www.amazon.com/Hot-Fuzz-Simon-Pegg/dp/B000UIVRXG

 

https://www.amazon.com/gp/video/offers/ref=atv_dp_atf_mv_signup_3p_bb_t1P4CAAAAA0wr0?force_return_url=1&return_url=%2Fgp%2Fvideo%2Fdetail%2FB000UIVRXG%2Fref%3Datv_dp_sign_suc_3P&benefitId=starzSub&skipMarketingPage=1

you'll get a screen like this where you get a free trial to both at the same time - just be sure to remember to get it cancelled before you pay anything

Edited November 23, 2022 by Thorny

[LGR4GM]

If you're board and want to see the movies in a new way, great overview of why they are good. Pretty sure they did all of them too. 

 

[LTS]

7 hours ago, Curt said:

How do you type so much with one hand down your pants all day?

I assumed voice dictation.

7 hours ago, JohnC said:

There is a middle ground that included adding a couple of additional players to create more depth. I'm not suggesting, or ever suggested, that the organization should go full throttle to address the short-term needs at the expense of hindering the development of our younger players. What I'm suggesting is the opposite of that. What I'm advocating for here is that adding a couple, or few more additional players would have given this roster more depth, and also more importantly provided more support to the younger players. 

I think its a reasonable plan. It's just not the plan the Sabres have stated they are on. The debate can rage on but the final judgment really can't be made until the plan is terminated and the Sabres were either successful or not. I think this team has the capacity to play like they did when they started the season and tonight against Montreal. I think they'll begin tweaking the team for next season. It's not what many fans want (and hell, I would love them to win more this season) but I'll accept it because I really do think there's a good amount of talent in the organization now.

5 hours ago, Thorny said:

Lots of good points. And I agree with you. Particularly the bit about how strategies can be put together spending a lot, or spending not as much - that there is more than one way of doing things. This has been a repeated theme of my posts in this discussion. 
 

But, again, my issue with the current plan is the extreme nature to which we are not spending. You are trying to explain the nature of spending as if I have no understanding: as I have repeatedly belaboured - I don’t think Adams should be going out and breaking bank. I’ve said repeatedly - I do not thing spending at the CAP FLOOR right now is a means to the success we want, both short and long term. 
 

If you would like to defend the position of why we should spend at the cap floor, I’d be happy to have that discussion. If your point is more along the lines of judicial spending, I agree. 

- - - 

Otherwise, I’ll continue to opine that it would have been in our interest to not bind ourselves so stringently to spending the least amount possible this season - that adding another reasonable d man or forward, utilizing just a little of the cap space we have, would have been a good things. Heck, even picking up Reilly. 
 

We didn’t need to max out the cap to keep Ullmark, either. Making sure we spend nothing demonstrably prevents us from moves here or there that would seemingly add improvement: plenty of examples have been pointed out by board wide.

- - -

It’s about balance. We shouldn’t be spending at the floor right now, or the ceiling. Either is a needless and damaging extreme. 

I think the Sabres are at the floor for no other reason than that's how the plan played out. There have to be reasons they aren't picking up the players some think they should be. We might not agree with the decisions but I'm not going to assume Adams is incompetent. I think what we are seeing is judicial spending, but there's still a gray area in the judiciousness of it.

I wasn't trying to insinuate you did not understand spending. I was just commenting on the articles you linked.

4 minutes ago, LGR4GM said:

If you're board and want to see the movies in a new way, great overview of why they are good. Pretty sure they did all of them too. 

 

I assume this is just the full movie... but listed this way to make the copyright monitors not realize it..

I'll sum these movies up.. "Off the F---n' chain"

 

[Brawndo]

On 11/21/2022 at 9:31 PM, LGR4GM said:

List moves you wish or think Adams should have made. I've said repeatedly we needed to add another top 4 defender. 

The John Marino would have been a perfect addition to the team, Ventura was responsible for His Long Term Extension with Pittsburgh. Unfortunately the only defensive prospect the Sabres have who is similar to Ty Smith, is Ryan Johnson. 
 

Andrew Copp would have been another very good addition as a veteran forward.  However I’m not surprised that a player Born in Ann Arbor, who went to Michigan decided to sign with Detroit. 
 

Gaudreau and Kadri-Yeah Right 

Ruuta signed with Pittsburgh. 
 

Tne Marino, Copp or Ruuta moves would have been nice, but there are paths to figure out why they didn’t happen 
 

Also Fitzgerald had been part of New Jersey’s Hockey Ops since 2015. Consistency helps, along with not getting into the position where a franchise center asks for a trade. 

 

Edited November 23, 2022 by Brawndo

[SwampD]

I know we’ve derailed the thread (it needed derailing, anyway), but I just finished The Worlds End. Figured I would start with the.”weakest” of the three.

I had absolutely no idea what I was in for. Just thought I was in for one of those euro cheese fests like Love Actually 🤮. When they fought those blue goo robot kids in the bathroom, the whole thing turned upside down.

Loved it. Cant wait for the next two.

[LGR4GM]

9 hours ago, LTS said:

I assumed voice dictation.

I think its a reasonable plan. It's just not the plan the Sabres have stated they are on. The debate can rage on but the final judgment really can't be made until the plan is terminated and the Sabres were either successful or not. I think this team has the capacity to play like they did when they started the season and tonight against Montreal. I think they'll begin tweaking the team for next season. It's not what many fans want (and hell, I would love them to win more this season) but I'll accept it because I really do think there's a good amount of talent in the organization now.

I think the Sabres are at the floor for no other reason than that's how the plan played out. There have to be reasons they aren't picking up the players some think they should be. We might not agree with the decisions but I'm not going to assume Adams is incompetent. I think what we are seeing is judicial spending, but there's still a gray area in the judiciousness of it.

I wasn't trying to insinuate you did not understand spending. I was just commenting on the articles you linked.

I assume this is just the full movie... but listed this way to make the copyright monitors not realize it..

I'll sum these movies up.. "Off the F---n' chain"

 

No it's not the full movie. 

[GASabresIUFAN]

So why NJ and not Buffalo this year?  3 names - Palat, Marino and Vanacek.  They wanted to add veteran winning leadership and they brought in players like Cup winner Palat at forward, Marino from perennial contender Pitts to shore up the defense and Vanacek from another perennial contender in Wash in goal.  Lindy Ruff said on NHL they needed more vocal leaders in the lockerroom and off-season buy in from their kids.  It looks like got it.  

We brought in Comrie and Lyubushkin.

[LGR4GM]

13 minutes ago, GASabresIUFAN said:

So why NJ and not Buffalo this year?  3 names - Palat, Marino and Vanacek.  They wanted to add veteran winning leadership and they brought in players like Cup winner Palat at forward, Marino from perennial contender Pitts to shore up the defense and Vanacek from another perennial contender in Wash in goal.  Lindy Ruff said on NHL they needed more vocal leaders in the lockerroom and off-season buy in from their kids.  It looks like got it.  

We brought in Comrie and Lyubushkin.

eyeroll 

Palat has played a grand total of 6 games for NJD

Marino was a good add

Vanacek has been okay, currently being outplayed by Akira but that might not hold

 

Boosh is comparable to Marino although we needed both players. Comrie started well than got injured so idk, vanacek is probably better. Palat... uhhh he has 3pts and only played 6 games. 

Pretty sure NJD are good because Bratt, Hischier, and Hughes. 

18 minutes ago, GASabresIUFAN said:

So why NJ and not Buffalo this year?  3 names - Palat, Marino and Vanacek.  They wanted to add veteran winning leadership and they brought in players like Cup winner Palat at forward, Marino from perennial contender Pitts to shore up the defense and Vanacek from another perennial contender in Wash in goal.  Lindy Ruff said on NHL they needed more vocal leaders in the lockerroom and off-season buy in from their kids.  It looks like got it.  

We brought in Comrie and Lyubushkin.

BTW, I am eyerolling you here because this is such a simplistic take that your using because you want it to be true to prove another point you are just hinting at there. 

[GASabresIUFAN]

Bush is in no way comparable to Marino.  Marino is an solid 2 way D who puts up 25 pts a year and play solidly in the D zone. Bush has 26 pts total in 225 career games, he is also slow and mediocre in the D zone.  He mostly brings a physical presence that consistently causes unneeded penalties.  Marino is a top 4 D and Lyubushkin is a bottom pair guy at best on a good team.

Palat has only played 6 games because of groin surgery, and Vanacek is twice the goalie that Comrie is.  I also forgot they added Erik Haula.  Here is a foreign concept, their GM actually made trades to improve the roster, instead of just shopping at only the FA bargain bin.
 

 

Edited November 23, 2022 by GASabresIUFAN