Tage Thompson is a super star

[pi2000]

https://www.capfriendly.com/cost-per-point 👀

[Thorner]

7 minutes ago, nfreeman said:

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.

It doesn’t seem like Eichel could have a chance at proving anything you list in the first paragraph until he plays in the playoffs so I guess we’ll have to wait and see. 

Considering the “variables listed above” are all, subjective, intangible, undefinable variables, yes, I do admit that my determination as to whether Eichel is “the best” player on his team is based on provable, identifiable statistics, and the underlying metrics that have proven to largely be reflective of good players. 

Of course, people WILL rely on the subjective, often, that’s only natural. Plenty say Messier was the more valuable player in Edmomton’s Dynasty than Gretzky. People will ALWAYS debate who a team’s best player is. Fir years and years people beaked Crosby by saying he “wasn’t even the best player on his own team”. 

That is to say, I’m pretty sure the “capable of” wording protects the argument - it’s pretty clear, let’s say regular season wise, to allow for the wait-and-see-on-playoffs valid take you had, that he has as strong, or strong an argument, as anyone on that team right now. 

2-way.

[Quint]

 

[Doohicksie]

But that Tage Thompson.... he's pretty good, innit?

[nfreeman]

31 minutes ago, Thorny said:

It doesn’t seem like Eichel could have a chance at proving anything you list in the first paragraph until he plays in the playoffs so I guess we’ll have to wait and see. 

Considering the “variables listed above” are all, subjective, intangible, undefinable variables, yes, I do admit that my determination as to whether Eichel is “the best” player on his team is based on provable, identifiable statistics, and the underlying metrics that have proven to largely be reflective of good players. 

Of course, people WILL rely on the subjective, often, that’s only natural. Plenty say Messier was the more valuable player in Edmomton’s Dynasty than Gretzky. People will ALWAYS debate who a team’s best player is. Fir years and years people beaked Crosby by saying he “wasn’t even the best player on his own team”. 

That is to say, I’m pretty sure the “capable of” wording protects the argument - it’s pretty clear, let’s say regular season wise, to allow for the wait-and-see-on-playoffs valid take you had, that he has as strong, or strong an argument, as anyone on that team right now. 

2-way.

There are guys in every sport, including hockey, who "put up numbers" but who aren't great players and are certainly not guys that a good team can be built around.  Phil Kessel.  Thomas Vanek.  Sean Monahan.  Taylor Hall.  Max Pacioretty.  Tyler Seguin.

If we fast forward 4 years, we could easily come to the same conclusion about Eichel.  Time will tell.

[Thorner]

21 minutes ago, nfreeman said:

There are guys in every sport, including hockey, who "put up numbers" but who aren't great players and are certainly not guys that a good team can be built around.  Phil Kessel.  Thomas Vanek.  Sean Monahan.  Taylor Hall.  Max Pacioretty.  Tyler Seguin.

If we fast forward 4 years, we could easily come to the same conclusion about Eichel.  Time will tell.

Ya. I think the book on whether Jack truly amounts to being a “franchise C” or instead just a really good-to-great player is an open one, with plenty to be written. 

Anyone who reads my posts on the matter over time can see it’s the more extreme natured stances I take issue with.  I’m not really interested in proving that Jack is Him. I don’t care. My point has always been more along the lines of the idea that all the talk that Jack was an “untenable cancer unconducive to winning” was always bogus. How players are going to look in the playoffs is always an open mystery until we see it: for now it’s fair to say he’s playing just fine in Vegas and they are experiencing regular season winning, just fine. Best player right now, top 2, doesn’t really matter substantively to what I’m saying. He’s a very good player for them, right now.

Miscast in Buffalo. Not uncastable. 

Edited December 15, 2022 by Thorny

[Thorner]

1 hour ago, pi2000 said:

https://www.capfriendly.com/cost-per-point 👀

Nice. 

On a random note re: the above - Has Cozens ever actually played LW? 

[LGR4GM]

6 hours ago, Doohickie said:

But that Tage Thompson.... he's pretty good, innit?

Idk, even though he's 2nd in nhl goals I get to hear about Jack Eichel some more cuz... reasons?

[JohnC]

11 hours ago, Taro T said:

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?

The issue for me is not whether he lied or not. I don't care. In negotiations it's not surprising that each side leaves room (flexible language) for interpretation. And in the process of negotiations it shouldn't be surprising that positions change during the fluid process. What KA said on WGR is that the goalie would have signed with the Sabres if the organization was willing to pay more and add a year to the offer he had somewhere else. The GM specifically said on the radio that he declined to sign him because it went beyond the contract parameters that the organization set for him.

In essence, the player was demanding a premium price to remain with Buffalo rather than go to a more stable and competitive organization i.e. a loser tax. In his first year with the Bruins, he went to the playoffs. And this year he is thriving in Boston with a surging team. What I'm not going to do is criticize a player for acting in his best interest, especially when he is an UFA.   

This is my opinion: Even if Ullmark's contract demands were higher than what the GM established for him, it wasn't at such an exorbitant level that the organization couldn't have handled the increase, especially considering their copious cap situation. Again, this is my opinion: If we would have had Ullmark caliber goaltending this season, the Sabres would now have around 6 more points in the standings. An Ullmark and Anderson tandem would have given us the level of netminding that would have this team in playoff contention. No one can say for sure that we would make the playoffs with this tandem, but without a doubt the Sabres would be better this season if the GM decided to be less rigid in his contract stance. 

I want to make it clear that I'm a KA fan. Overall, as a GM he has done a tremendous job. His biggest accomplishment is in rebuilding and better staffing the organization. He put together a rebuilding blueprint and has adhered to it. There is a coherency throughout the organization that didn't exist before. I just think he unnecessarily let a goaltender go because he wasn't willing to bend as much as he should have. 

 

 

[LGR4GM]

56 minutes ago, JohnC said:

This is my opinion: Even if Ullmark's contract demands were higher than what the GM established for him, it wasn't at such an exorbitant level that the organization couldn't have handled the increase, especially considering their copious cap situation. Again, this is my opinion: If we would have had Ullmark caliber goaltending this season, the Sabres would now have around 6 more points in the standings. An Ullmark and Anderson tandem would have given us the level of netminding that would have this team in playoff contention. No one can say for sure that we would make the playoffs with this tandem, but without a doubt the Sabres would be better this season if the GM decided to be less rigid in his contract stance. 

So your argument boils down to, In July 2021 the GM should have known the team in November of 2022 would be offensively good enough to make the playoffs so he should have overpaid for a netminder with an injury history in the hopes that worked out and the guy maintained or improved his numbers. Hindsight is 20/20 they say. 

[bunomatic]

How bout that shot ? Old Tager is feeling neglected. Maybe someone should start a thread about Tage. Whats that ? There is one ?

[GASabresIUFAN]

44 minutes ago, LGR4GM said:

So your argument boils down to, In July 2021 the GM should have known the team in November of 2022 would be offensively good enough to make the playoffs so he should have overpaid for a netminder with an injury history in the hopes that worked out and the guy maintained or improved his numbers. Hindsight is 20/20 they say. 

I think his argument is that you build a team out from the goal and having stability in goal would have enable this team to turn the corner faster than it has.  

[Doohicksie]

For those of you discussion goaltending and Jack Eichel and the like,

you should be talking  about

if you post in this thread.

[Sabres Fan in NS]

17 hours ago, Second Line Center said:

TT had only 3 points in the first 7 games.  
 

So he has 41 points in the last 22 games.  

I remember the nashing of teeth over his contract extension during those first 7 games.  Good times, indeed.

Since then he is nearly a 2 point / game guy.  WOW!!  Not sustainable over 82 games, but the Sabres will have their first 100 point guy in forever, barring complete and utter disaster.

[Pimlach]

13 hours ago, nfreeman said:

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.

Sounds like Patrice Bergeron in todays game. 
 

Look at it our roster and maybe it’s Tage, Cuzy, Ras?   Let’s get some playoff games and see.  

[JohnC]

2 hours ago, LGR4GM said:

So your argument boils down to, In July 2021 the GM should have known the team in November of 2022 would be offensively good enough to make the playoffs so he should have overpaid for a netminder with an injury history in the hopes that worked out and the guy maintained or improved his numbers. Hindsight is 20/20 they say. 

This isn't hindsight. At the time, what options did the GM have to Ullmark if he didn't sign with the team? He didn't have an adequate option in place just in case if the contract discussions didn't work out. You keep insisting that Ullmark would have been overpaid if the GM signed him for what the player wanted. That's not the case. It would have been a little more and longer than what he wanted but it still would have fallen within the realm of being a reasonable contract, especially considering what our cap situation was. It would have resulted in minimal or even no cap pressure for the life of his contract. 

The Sabres had a goaltender who they developed. He was in our system for six years. A little more flexibility on the part of the GM would have resulted in retaining him cost this franchise an opportunity to seriously compete for a playoff spot this year. There is no doubt in my mind that with an Ullmark level of goalie play this year the Sabres would be in serious contention for a playoff spot. The Ullmark issue demonstrated bad judgment that was costly to the team and fanbase. 

[mjd1001]

Thompson:

51 goals, 42 assists (93 points) in his last 82 games...if my math is correct.

Sabres as a team are 35-38-9 over the last 82 games.....79 points.

Edited December 15, 2022 by mjd1001

[jad1]

18 hours ago, Taro T said:

But, and granted now Eichel missed much of that season, but in Jack's last season playing for the Sabres the team was on pace for 54 points.  Pretty sure there WAS an immediate & impressive improvement.  😉

Are you talking about last season when Eichel was on IR, waiting to have surgery and had no contact with the team, and thus no leadership impact?

 

 

[LGR4GM]

1 hour ago, JohnC said:

This isn't hindsight. At the time, what options did the GM have to Ullmark if he didn't sign with the team? He didn't have an adequate option in place just in case if the contract discussions didn't work out. You keep insisting that Ullmark would have been overpaid if the GM signed him for what the player wanted. That's not the case. It would have been a little more and longer than what he wanted but it still would have fallen within the realm of being a reasonable contract, especially considering what our cap situation was. It would have resulted in minimal or even no cap pressure for the life of his contract. 

The Sabres had a goaltender who they developed. He was in our system for six years. A little more flexibility on the part of the GM would have resulted in retaining him cost this franchise an opportunity to seriously compete for a playoff spot this year. There is no doubt in my mind that with an Ullmark level of goalie play this year the Sabres would be in serious contention for a playoff spot. The Ullmark issue demonstrated bad judgment that was costly to the team and fanbase. 

We don't agree. Moving on. 

[Refuting]

Just now, LGR4GM said:

We don't agree. Moving on. 

Moving on to what 

[JohnC]

23 minutes ago, LGR4GM said:

We don't agree. Moving on. 

I agree. We are just going in circles. 

[Thorner]

9 hours ago, LGR4GM said:

Idk, even though he's 2nd in nhl goals I get to hear about Jack Eichel some more cuz... reasons?

 

4 hours ago, bunomatic said:

How bout that shot ? Old Tager is feeling neglected. Maybe someone should start a thread about Tage. Whats that ? There is one ?

It’s an open thread. Make your posts about Tage Thompson. See if they gain traction.

“I love Democracy”

I’ll continue to respond to posts that quote me or engage in the discussions currently taking place 

Or a moderator can come in and separate it. But maybe they don’t cause there was a 10 hour gap where the thread would have been dead space anyways if not for a few folks following the natural line of convo within a thread 

Edited December 15, 2022 by Thorny

[Thorner]

4 hours ago, GASabresIUFAN said:

I think his argument is that you build a team out from the goal and having stability in goal would have enable this team to turn the corner faster than it has.  

I’m always curious with the “what could even have been done?” argument. If it immediately declines any deal perceived as an “overpay”? ie if it never allows for the scenario where you simply pay the price needed to be paid because, sure you are “overpaying” but the situation that arises by not doing so is in fact worse.

Ie - eventually you just need to go ahead and pay what it takes to acquire said player, right, when you are damned if ya don’t, anyways? I suppose my question for the “what could even have been done in 3 years?” crowd, who will only defend away one singular move at a time but never tackle the odds of not one solution being found, in the *entire* body of work, and this is a legitimate question: could this situation potentially be indefinite? If no situation to improve the goalie arises that wouldn’t be construed as an overpay, in say, the next 10 years, are you still sitting here saying, “well, what move?”

Legitimately asking. At what point does the time period grow so large that it would, to you, defy logic to suggest one sustainable move couldn’t have been completed in that time? Again, actually asking.

Edited December 15, 2022 by Thorny

[JohnC]

6 minutes ago, Thorny said:

I’m always curious with the “what could even have been done?” argument. If it immediately declines any deal perceived as an “overpay”? ie if it never allows for the scenario where you simply pay the price needed to be paid because, sure you are “overpaying” but the situation that arises by not doing so is in fact worse.

Ie - eventually you just need to go ahead and pay what it takes to acquire said player, right, when you are damned if ya don’t, anyways? I suppose my question for the “what could even have been done in 3 years?” crowd, who will only defend away one singular move at a time but never tackle the odds of not one solution being found, in the *entire* body of work, and this is a legitimate question: could this situation potentially be indefinite? If no situation to improve the goalie arises that wouldn’t be construed as an overpay, in say, the next 10 years, are you still sitting here saying, “well, what move?”

Legitimately asking. At what point does the time period grow so large that it would, to you, defy logic to suggest one sustainable move couldn’t have been completed in that time? Again, actually asking.

There is an economic aspect to the Ullmark issue or any other player transaction that improves the team. If a team becomes more competitive and is at the minimum a playoff contender, doesn't that correspond to more fans attending the games? That translates into more revenue. And also, teams that make the playoffs extend their seasons and generate more money from attendance. That certainly would defray or even offset an increase in salary for a player. 

No one is arguing to be hellbent on foolishly spending money on players for the sake of being a little more competitive at the expense of financially boxing yourself in the not-too-distant future. But sometimes judiciously extending your financial boundaries a little will more than pay itself both financially and from a competitive standpoint. Showing a little more urgency to improve a roster is a better marketing tool than just talking about the future while constantly lagging in the present. 

[sabremike]

 

That is all.