Tage Thompson is a super star

[JohnC]

2 hours ago, Thorny said:

Borderline blasphemous 

I'm reluctant to get into a Jack discussion because of the heat it generates. So let my comment be divorced from a specific player and team. The reality of pro sports (all sports) is that there is nothing new about player and team relationships fracturing. It's simply part of the environment of sports. In reality, it has always been part of the business. But it is now even more of a factor because of contracts and cap considerations and franchises going through different stages of rebuilding. If Wayne Gretsky, the greatest player in the history of hockey can be dealt or moved on more than a few occasions, then anyone can!

As I and others have said, Jack being traded was the best thing that happened to him from a career standpoint, and trading him was the right thing for the organization to do because the GM made a decision to move on from him and reboot the roster. Did the GM get an equal value for Jack, one of the best players in the league when healthy? I believe he got a fair return for him. In my view that deal helped to accelerate the rebuild. In this case both sides of the equation should be happy with the outcome.  

I don't want to start another interminable heated argument but it can be argued that a bigger factor that set this franchise back was not re-signing Ullmark. This team would be in a much better position with Ullmark and Anderson as our goalies. 

 

[LGR4GM]

1 minute ago, JohnC said:

I'm reluctant to get into a Jack discussion because of the heat it generates. So let my comment be divorced from a specific player and team. The reality of pro sports (all sports) is that there is nothing new about player and team relationships fracturing. It's simply part of the environment of sports. In reality, it has always been part of the business. But it is now even more of a factor because of contracts and cap considerations and franchises going through different stages of rebuilding. If Wayne Gretsky, the greatest player in the history of hockey can be dealt or moved on more than a few occasions, then anyone can!

As I and others have said, Jack being traded was the best thing that happened to him from a career standpoint, and trading him was the right thing for the organization to do because the GM made a decision to move on from him and reboot the roster. Did the GM get an equal value for Jack, one of the best players in the league when healthy? I believe he got a fair return for him. In my view that deal helped to accelerate the rebuild. In this case both sides of the equation should be happy with the outcome.  

I don't want to start another interminable heated argument but it can be argued that a bigger factor that set this franchise back was not re-signing Ullmark. This team would be in a much better position with Ullmark and Anderson as our goalies. 

 

Ullmark was a ufa, why is this so hard for posters? He wanted to leave and did. 

Not sure what Tage Thompson has to do with a goalie that left 2 years ago but here we are. 

[Refuting]

2 minutes ago, JohnC said:

I'm reluctant to get into a Jack discussion because of the heat it generates. So let my comment be divorced from a specific player and team. The reality of pro sports (all sports) is that there is nothing new about player and team relationships fracturing. It's simply part of the environment of sports. In reality, it has always been part of the business. But it is now even more of a factor because of contracts and cap considerations and franchises going through different stages of rebuilding. If Wayne Gretsky, the greatest player in the history of hockey can be dealt or moved on more than a few occasions, then anyone can!

As I and others have said, Jack being traded was the best thing that happened to him from a career standpoint, and trading him was the right thing for the organization to do because the GM made a decision to move on from him and reboot the roster. Did the GM get an equal value for Jack, one of the best players in the league when healthy? I believe he got a fair return for him. In my view that deal helped to accelerate the rebuild. In this case both sides of the equation should be happy with the outcome.  

I don't want to start another interminable heated argument but it can be argued that a bigger factor that set this franchise back was not re-signing Ullmark. This team would be in a much better position with Ullmark and Anderson as our goalies. 

 

Lol 

[JohnC]

Just now, LGR4GM said:

Ullmark was a ufa, why is this so hard for posters? He wanted to leave and did. 

You constantly misrepresent what happened. Ullmark would have stayed if the Sabres would have paid him a premium $$ and term for staying with this franchise. The GM made a decision not to. How do I know? The GM said so on WGR. That's a fact!

[Thorner]

5 minutes ago, JohnC said:

I'm reluctant to get into a Jack discussion because of the heat it generates. So let my comment be divorced from a specific player and team. The reality of pro sports (all sports) is that there is nothing new about player and team relationships fracturing. It's simply part of the environment of sports. In reality, it has always been part of the business. But it is now even more of a factor because of contracts and cap considerations and franchises going through different stages of rebuilding. If Wayne Gretsky, the greatest player in the history of hockey can be dealt or moved on more than a few occasions, then anyone can!

As I and others have said, Jack being traded was the best thing that happened to him from a career standpoint, and trading him was the right thing for the organization to do because the GM made a decision to move on from him and reboot the roster. Did the GM get an equal value for Jack, one of the best players in the league when healthy? I believe he got a fair return for him. In my view that deal helped to accelerate the rebuild. In this case both sides of the equation should be happy with the outcome.  

I don't want to start another interminable heated argument but it can be argued that a bigger factor that set this franchise back was not re-signing Ullmark. This team would be in a much better position with Ullmark and Anderson as our goalies. 

 

You have my endorsement.

[LGR4GM]

Just now, JohnC said:

You constantly misrepresent what happened. Ullmark would have stayed if the Sabres would have paid him a premium $$ and term for staying with this franchise. The GM made a decision not to. How do I know? The GM said so on WGR. That's a fact!

Ullmark was gonna sign, Boston came in and upped the offer and term, and Ullmark said top that or I walk. That's what happened. Adams had a value on him and didn't think going a million more and probably an extra year was worth it.

Ullmark hit ufa and decided to leave. 

[Thorner]

1 minute ago, JohnC said:

You constantly misrepresent what happened. Ullmark would have stayed if the Sabres would have paid him a premium $$ and term for staying with this franchise. The GM made a decision not to. How do I know? The GM said so on WGR. That's a fact!

Everything has to be a one sided moment in time where only one possible conclusion can be drawn, that fits happily into the determinations we’ve formed in advance, rather than a long, gradual process with a multitude of potential off shoots along the way, where in this unlimited universe it stands to reason there are MANY potential outcomes. 

Consider there are infinite parallel universes (there are) - 

(sorry)

Of course Adams COULD have signed Ullmark. Before he became a UFA. Beyond it being strictly possible, it defies logic to think it not reasonably possible when Ullmark from all reports was negotiating with the team for a long time.

and ya, the GM said it lol 

[Taro T]

2 minutes ago, LGR4GM said:

Ullmark was gonna sign, Boston came in and upped the offer and term, and Ullmark said top that or I walk. That's what happened. Adams had a value on him and didn't think going a million more and probably an extra year was worth it.

Ullmark hit ufa and decided to leave. 

And not to beat another dead horse, but considering Adams WAS willing to match what Boston offered AND Ullmark had agreed to sign the offer Adams did originally make PROVIDED IT wasn't topped; Adams should've STARTED w/ the offer Boston made.  The Sabres had the cash & cap rto easily absorb it w/ zero affects to the rest of the cap.  The Bruins would've been hard pressed to beat that offer.  They already had Swayman, thought there was a possibility that Rask could be back later in the year (might be misremembering that part), & were fairly tight to the cap.  With Ullmark's injury history, don't believe they could've beat the deal he did sign for.

[LGR4GM]

1 minute ago, Taro T said:

And not to beat another dead horse, but considering Adams WAS willing to match what Boston offered AND Ullmark had agreed to sign the offer Adams did originally make PROVIDED IT wasn't topped; Adams should've STARTED w/ the offer Boston made.  The Sabres had the cash & cap rto easily absorb it w/ zero affects to the rest of the cap.  The Bruins would've been hard pressed to beat that offer.  They already had Swayman, thought there was a possibility that Rask could be back later in the year (might be misremembering that part), & were fairly tight to the cap.  With Ullmark's injury history, don't believe they could've beat the deal he did sign for.

This could also be true if you logic it out. 

My only point is we can't just say "oh Adams should've just signed Ullmark" because it's more complicated. 

[JohnC]

6 minutes ago, LGR4GM said:

This could also be true if you logic it out. 

My only point is we can't just say "oh Adams should've just signed Ullmark" because it's more complicated. 

The Ullmark story is complicated. I never said that it was a simple issue. There was no question that the player and his agent were not forthright in their negotiations. That shouldn't be a surprise in the hockey business world. It's part of the negotiating process. What I can declaratively say is that the GM stated on WGR that the player and his agent came back to the GM and gave them what their terms were to sign with the Sabres. It was a longer term and more per year than the proposed Boston deal. The GM publicly stated on the airwaves that it was outside their parameters. I believe that it was a mistake. I'm fine with others having another opinion about whether he should be signed at the elevated price. My point is that there was a price where he would have stayed. And I believe that the franchise even at the increased price should have signed him. 

[JohnC]

26 minutes ago, LGR4GM said:

Ullmark was gonna sign, Boston came in and upped the offer and term, and Ullmark said top that or I walk. That's what happened. Adams had a value on him and didn't think going a million more and probably an extra year was worth it.

Ullmark hit ufa and decided to leave. 

Your post is restating what I have been saying all along. And I believe that paying that extra million $$ and year on his term was doable and reasonable considering this franchise's cap situation.  

[Taro T]

16 minutes ago, JohnC said:

The Ullmark story is complicated. I never said that it was a simple issue. There was no question that the player and his agent were not forthright in their negotiations. That shouldn't be a surprise in the hockey business world. It's part of the negotiating process. What I can declaratively say is that the GM stated on WGR that the player and his agent came back to the GM and gave them what their terms were to sign with the Sabres. It was a longer term and more per year than the proposed Boston deal. The GM publicly stated on the airwaves that it was outside their parameters. I believe that it was a mistake. I'm fine with others having another opinion about whether he should be signed at the elevated price. My point is that there was a price where he would have stayed. And I believe that the franchise even at the increased price should have signed him. 

There absolutely is question as to whether Ullmark lied in the negotiations.  (Frame it in pretty words if you'd like, but don't believe he wasn't "forthright.")

[K-9]

As soon as we found out that it wasn't enough just to match Boston’s offer and that Ullmark demanded a premium to stay in Buffalo on top of that, I was glad he left. That would have been a terrible precedent for KA to set and I’m glad he is smarter than that.

[Doohicksie]

Haven't we already hashed and rehashed the Ullmark situation?  Is this thread even REMOTELY about goaltending?

 

Anyway,  I just popped in to say that while Tage may not have the best one-timer in the league, I think it's safe to say he has the most intimidating one.  When he connects like he did on his second goal last night it's just a sight to behold:  Fast release, heavy shot, 100 mph.  If I'm a goalie I'm not going out of my way to stop that.

[JohnC]

12 minutes ago, Taro T said:

There absolutely is question as to whether Ullmark lied in the negotiations.  (Frame it in pretty words if you'd like, but don't believe he wasn't "forthright.")

Negotiations are negotiations. The players on both sides of the table aren't always speaking precisely or with clarity. That's not unusual and shouldn't be a surprise. Each side is trying to get a better deal for itself. In the end Ullmark came back to the Sabres and told him what his price was to stay. It was more than what Boston offered. KA said no to that deal. Ullmark then signed with Boston. 

[Taro T]

1 minute ago, K-9 said:

As soon as we found out that it wasn't enough just to match Boston’s offer and that Ullmark demanded a premium to stay in Buffalo on top of that, I was glad he left. That would have been a terrible precedent for KA to set and I’m glad he is smarter than that.

Not sure why.

He had a deal w/ Buffalo w/ a caveat that if somebody beat that, he would take it.

Boston beat that original deal & it seems he had the same deal w/ them.  If nobody beats it, it's good enough that he'll sign.

It never was reported that the Sabres would merely have to match any better deal.  IF that was the original agreement between Buffalo & Ullmark, why even bother w/ the months long negotiation?

If Adams was really willing to match the B's offer, and that appears to be the case, then THAT should've been the offer.

[Pimlach]

4 hours ago, SDS said:

Going into the season what sort of money would you have bet that the Sabres would have not only one, but two players with higher point totals than Jack at this point in the season?

Right now we have 5. 

 

Tage, Dahlin, Cozens, Skinner, and Tuch are all ahead of Jack in point totals.     I would have never imagined, that and doubt all 5 hold that up to year end, but for now it feels good. 

[K-9]

3 minutes ago, Taro T said:

Not sure why.

He had a deal w/ Buffalo w/ a caveat that if somebody beat that, he would take it.

Boston beat that original deal & it seems he had the same deal w/ them.  If nobody beats it, it's good enough that he'll sign.

It never was reported that the Sabres would merely have to match any better deal.  IF that was the original agreement between Buffalo & Ullmark, why even bother w/ the months long negotiation?

If Adams was really willing to match the B's offer, and that appears to be the case, then THAT should've been the offer.

If I understand what I’ve read in this thread correctly, it wasn’t just a question of KA matching the offer; he had to top it in order for Ullmark to stay. Buffalo just wasn’t preferable at X; it had to be X plus. I prefer players who want to be here for reasons other than just money. 

[Taro T]

1 minute ago, JohnC said:

Negotiations are negotiations. The players on both sides of the table aren't always speaking precisely or with clarity. That's not unusual and shouldn't be a surprise. Each side is trying to get a better deal for itself. In the end Ullmark came back to the Sabres and told him what his price was to stay. It was more than what Boston offered. KA said no to that deal. Ullmark then signed with Boston. 

Ullmark told Adams he would sign the Sabres offer if nobody beat it.  What in that was he not "forthright" about?

Either he would've signed had Boston not beat it or he lied.  Which was it?

[Weave]

17 minutes ago, Doohickie said:

Haven't we already hashed and rehashed the Ullmark situation?  Is this thread even REMOTELY about goaltending?

 

Anyway,  I just popped in to say that while Tage may not have the best one-timer in the league, I think it's safe to say he has the most intimidating one.  When he connects like he did on his second goal last night it's just a sight to behold:  Fast release, heavy shot, 100 mph.  If I'm a goalie I'm not going out of my way to stop that.

Ovie-esque.

Those two have to be the most lethal one timers in the NHL right now, no?

[Taro T]

1 minute ago, K-9 said:

If I understand what I’ve read in this thread correctly, it wasn’t just a question of KA matching the offer; he had to top it in order for Ullmark to stay. Buffalo just wasn’t preferable at X; it had to be X plus. I prefer players who want to be here for reasons other than just money. 

But INITIALLY, when FA opened, Adams had a deal w/ Ullmark that if nobody else beat that offer, he would sign it.  And apparently Adams didn't expect anybody to top it.  AND apparently Adams didn't make his best offer to Ullmark at that time.  We know that because he then offered to match the Bruins offer.

Really don't see where Ullmark was in the wrong asking Adams to now top the Bruins offer.  THEY were the ones that initially gave him that offer.  It sure seems he gave them the same courtesy he had offered Buffalo. Give me your best offer & if nobody tops it, we're good.  Players only get in that spot 1 or 2 times in their career.  Don't blame one for looking out for himself especially if he found out the GM he'd negotiated the "best deal" from then comes back w/ a better offer once a rival beat that original best offer.

[K-9]

2 minutes ago, Taro T said:

But INITIALLY, when FA opened, Adams had a deal w/ Ullmark that if nobody else beat that offer, he would sign it.  And apparently Adams didn't expect anybody to top it.  AND apparently Adams didn't make his best offer to Ullmark at that time.  We know that because he then offered to match the Bruins offer.

Really don't see where Ullmark was in the wrong asking Adams to now top the Bruins offer.  THEY were the ones that initially gave him that offer.  It sure seems he gave them the same courtesy he had offered Buffalo. Give me your best offer & if nobody tops it, we're good.  Players only get in that spot 1 or 2 times in their career.  Don't blame one for looking out for himself especially if he found out the GM he'd negotiated the "best deal" from then comes back w/ a better offer once a rival beat that original best offer.

Like I said, I prefer players who want to be here for more reasons than just the money. Ultimately, giving him more money was the only way Ullmark was gonna stay in Buffalo. What happened in the negotiations prior to that point mean nothing to me in that equation. I don’t blame Ullmark nor do I blame KA. There’s no fault here. But if money was the only factor in getting him to stay, and it appears that it was, then good riddance, imo. 

[Taro T]

2 minutes ago, K-9 said:

Like I said, I prefer players who want to be here for more reasons than just the money. Ultimately, giving him more money was the only way Ullmark was gonna stay in Buffalo. What happened in the negotiations prior to that point mean nothing to me in that equation. I don’t blame Ullmark nor do I blame KA. There’s no fault here. But if money was the only factor in getting him to stay, and it appears that it was, then good riddance, imo. 

Fair enough.

[Richard Noggin]

On 12/10/2022 at 4:22 PM, K-9 said:

Other people in both the PSE offices and the arena have mentioned what a surly cuss he was.

Bravo to this line right here. 

[nfreeman]

4 hours ago, Thorny said:

This is semantics, though. 

I wasn’t using “around” in the manner you took it - it wasn’t a comment about whether he can, to a certainty, “start” as the focal point - in the manner we saw them place the franchise focus on him. It’s “around the concept of Eichel being the best player on said team” not necessarily that he’s the ideal starting point. I think in the right situation it would defy logic to think that was *impossible* but truthfully I’m not interested in arguing that, really. Too much unknown. The way the Sabres structured around Jack clearly did not work. But what about, if they hadn’t tanked to get him? Or if they made ROR captain? If the Sabres centred their entire build focus around Jack to the detriment of the rest of the roster, there’s plenty of blame on the organization for doing that, not just Jack. They had to cave to the 18 year old’s demands? 

Eichel is capable of being the best player on a good team. This is the point of what I was saying. Your contention is about when that player can be added to the fold. We can’t know whether based on the data, a good team can be built up around Eichel, from a starting point of “bad” - all I know is that the Sabres build, around Eichel, didn’t work. But that’s already apparently obvious. With only one failure to build around him from the staring point of bad team, where there are *myriad* of variables present, it can’t be suggested to be proven that it cannot be done. Likewise, I’d be asking you to prove a negative if I asked you to prove it CANNOT be done. It’s within the realm of possibility it can’t be but we can’t know.

If anyone wants to claim to a certainty that the Sabres were doomed from the beginning and even with a proper GM, COULD NOT possibly have built a good team, once Jack was here, have at it, I guess.

Who knows. I’m content in the point I’m making that Eichel is capable of being the best player on a good team. How exactly that team needs to be constructed in terms of the order of addition is anyone’s guess and to think there would be an full-stop rule rather than a myriad of potential scenarios based on fit would be exceptionally dicey imo

The bolded is not what I was saying -- it has nothing to do with timing.  It has to do with whether the player in question is the man, the leader, the guy who sets the tone, the guy everyone looks to, the rock, the foundation, the guy who scores with 7 seconds left at home to tie game 5 in a playoff series, the guy who scores the OT winner in maybe the best playoff game the team's ever played, the guy without whom the team is lost.  That's the guy around whom the team is built.  Eichel has not come even close to showing that he can be that guy for a good team.

As for your assertion that "Eichel is capable of being the best player on a good team" -- I suppose it depends on how you define "best player."  If you mean scoring production and/or fancystats, that's probably true.  But I think the "best player" has a large dose of the attributes I mention above -- that's the difference between "most talented player" and "best player."  That's why I'd rather have Stone than Eichel.