Around the NHL 2023 Summer Edition

[Eleven]

4 hours ago, LGR4GM said:

Dumba will never be a Sabre. By 2024, Novikov will be beating down the doors and Samuelsson will be doing what he can do hold him off. 

Hey, you're the one who asked the original question.  I just answered it.  

[JohnC]

On 8/5/2023 at 2:24 PM, dudacek said:

 I think when people talk about teams making moves they tend to focus mostly on who they added and not who they lost, or what they need.

Case in point was Andrew Peters gushing over the Leafs:

Bertuzzi, Domi, Reaves and Kilngberg, all veterans I’ve heard of!

Im not saying these guys can’t be good additions, but I will say that you are collectively adding some talent and some edge, but you are also adding a group of mercenaries who tend to take bad penalties, make defensive miscues, don’t do well with structure and haven’t produced up to their reputations in recent years.

And, at the same time, you have subtracted O’Reilly, Kerfoot, Bunting, Holl, Acciari, Schenn, Simmonds, Engvall Sandin and Aston-Reese, some of whom played significant roles in last year’s team.

Isn’t the more pertinent question how well have they addressed the perceived weaknesses of last year’s team: the goaltending, play without the puck and the playoff worth of the core 4?

It’s a significantly different team than the one they were icing prior to the trade deadline, but is it actually better?

Is Levi an upgrade in net? I would say so. How good are our core 4 players? If you put Tage, Tuch, Skinner, Dahlin, Cozens and Power (stretching out the core) I would say they will continue to be good, if not better, because Tuch, Cozens, Power and Dahlin still have some upside to their game. 

You smartly homed in on what I consider to be the critical issue that will determine whether this team takes the next step forward or gets stuck in the fringe playoff  pack i.e. how does this offensive minded unit collectively adjust their style of play and play without the puck. In my opinion, playing a more responsible two-way team game is a more critical issue than even our goaltending issue. 

[That Aud Smell]

1 hour ago, JohnC said:

In my opinion, playing a more responsible two-way team game is a more critical issue than even our goaltending issue. 

"more critical" may be pushing it, but "equally important" is definitely fair, imo.

[JohnC]

Just now, That Aud Smell said:

"more critical" may be pushing it, but "equally important" is definitely fair, imo.

I'm aware that I'm going against the grain here. I contend that the team defense issue is more important than the goalie issue. Obviously, they are interlinked. In my view, the goalie staffing has been upgraded with the addition of Levi. Am I being presumptuous? Admittingly so. And with the hope/expectation for tighter play of the team, the play of the goalies should also improve. I'm certainly not making the claim that our goalie unit is elite. We're not. But the key to getting better revolves around how this team plays a more responsible two-way game. 

[Thorner]

It’s interesting because the frequent refrain is that we don’t need to supplement the forwards, or even replace Quinn, because we score so much, but it’s also being stated we don’t need a goalie because team D will simply cover it. Which is it? Doesn’t shifting away from a system that so prioritized goals (both ways) and high event hockey mean we can’t assume defensive improvement without suffering on offense? Are we sure, then, that Quinn’s injury remains in a state of not needing to be addressed? 

[Thorner]

1 hour ago, That Aud Smell said:

"more critical" may be pushing it, but "equally important" is definitely fair, imo.

I agree. Yes we can help goaltending by improving team D but we can also improve team D by...improving goaltending. Expecting the F to pick up the slack isn’t free improvement because we don’t want to pay for a goalie. It will stretch the roster nonetheless and open up a hole. We want to shell game Quinn and shell game our goaltending deficiencies but the other viable option is still the GM..ya know, making a transaction. I know this is a wild suggestion. 

Again, it’s not that we can’t shore up, and get required D results that way. (Just checking, didn’t Tage’s offensive pace slow down considerably as season went on? Was that just injury and fatigue, or was there a renewed commitment to team D across the lineup?). But yes, we can shore up the D that way. But also, better goaltending aids on that front without having to shy away from as many goals for as you may have during the shore up process. Ie - we may get to keep our #3 offence if we gave them Levi and a reliable 2

Seems to be framed as an either or position but I’ve never seen the issue with improving team D a bit AND improving the actual roster 

Edited August 10, 2023 by Thorny

[JohnC]

7 minutes ago, Thorny said:

It’s interesting because the frequent refrain is that we don’t need to supplement the forwards, or even replace Quinn, because we score so much, but it’s also being stated we don’t need a goalie because team D will simply cover it. Which is it? Doesn’t shifting away from a system that so prioritized goals (both ways) and high event hockey mean we can’t assume defensive improvement without suffering on offense? Are we sure, then, that Quinn’s injury remains in a state of not needing to be addressed? 

There is little doubt that playing a less freewheeling offensive style of hockey will lower the offensive stats. So what! The template to follow is the tighter style that the Sabres played at the end of the season. Against good teams in a playoff environment the team had a good record. Can the Sabres alter their style of play this season? That's the bigger issue and question.  

Is the GM going to bring in outside help for the lines? Probably not. And to his credit he did add Johnson and Clifton to the blueline. Is the GM going to bring outside help for the goalie position? I don't think he will. Many observers here believe that if he doesn't it will be an impending catastrophe. I'm not in that lamenting group. The biggest issue (for me) is team defense. That's my main concern. 

 

[Thorner]

13 minutes ago, JohnC said:

There is little doubt that playing a less freewheeling offensive style of hockey will lower the offensive stats. So what! The template to follow is the tighter style that the Sabres played at the end of the season. Against good teams in a playoff environment the team had a good record. Can the Sabres alter their style of play this season? That's the bigger issue and question.  

Is the GM going to bring in outside help for the lines? Probably not. And to his credit he did add Johnson and Clifton to the blueline. Is the GM going to bring outside help for the goalie position? I don't think he will. Many observers here believe that if he doesn't it will be an impending catastrophe. I'm not in that lamenting group. The biggest issue (for me) is team defense. That's my main concern. 

 

Ya. So what! Great convo 

- - - 

You’ve stated your stance truly ad nauseam, I understand you aren’t concerned with additions to the F unit and G - this is why I didn’t quote your post, I didn’t need you to yet again reiterate your belief to me that those additions won’t come. Yes, I know you don’t think they will come and don’t want them - I promise you I will not forget this. Ever

Do you have a link or a post you can quote that indicates who thinks failing to upgrade the GT will be an impending catastrophe? Who is taking that position that you are arguing against? Actually asking 

Many HERE you say believe it WILL be an impending catastrophe. Please quote the many, or even a few 

Edited August 10, 2023 by Thorny

[Thorner]

@Hank 

that’s 25 “eye rolls”, you owe me one actual post.

Do YOU have a link to many posters saying goalie is an impending catastrophe?

 

[JohnC]

1 hour ago, Thorny said:

Ya. So what! Great convo 

- - - 

You’ve stated your stance truly ad nauseam, I understand you aren’t concerned with additions to the F unit and G - this is why I didn’t quote your post, I didn’t need you to yet again reiterate your belief to me that those additions won’t come. Yes, I know you don’t think they will come and don’t want them - I promise you I will not forget this. Ever

Do you have a link or a post you can quote that indicates who thinks failing to upgrade the GT will be an impending catastrophe? Who is taking that position that you are arguing against? Actually asking 

Many HERE you say believe it WILL be an impending catastrophe. Please quote the many, or even a few 

I agree with you that the "impending catastrophe" description is hyperbolic. And you are correct that my response on the goalie issue is repetitive, maybe to the ad nauseum level. But you need to exhibit a little more self-awareness in recognizing that your position on this issue has also been repeatedly made. Maybe not to my ad nauseum level but approaching it. 

My position is a minority position. Whenever the goalie issue is discussed an overwhelming majority end up calling for new blood in the net. I do not have the same view. And up to this point, neither does the GM. If that bothers you, then ignore it and don't respond to it.  There's no need for the eye roll emoji because I'm sure you get what I'm saying. 

[Thorner]

20 minutes ago, JohnC said:

I agree with you that the "impending catastrophe" description is hyperbolic. And you are correct that my response on the goalie issue is repetitive, maybe to the ad nauseum level. But you need to exhibit a little more self-awareness in recognizing that your position on this issue has also been repeatedly made. Maybe not to my ad nauseum level but approaching it. 

My position is a minority position. Whenever the goalie issue is discussed an overwhelming majority end up calling for new blood in the net. I do not have the same view. And up to this point, neither does the GM. If that bothers you, then ignore it and don't respond to it.  There's no need for the eye roll emoji because I'm sure you get what I'm saying. 

That’s interesting because the difference is the post of mine that you chose to quote, that didn’t even quote you, posed 3 open-ended questions for discussion, and listed zero definitive stances. You decided to quote it and in so doing take another opportunity to use it as part of your framing that “folks think there will be catastrophe, but me, me, I think it’s going to be ok”. You keep framing your argument against a stance that doesn’t exist: not only that, you are inventing a radical stance and contrasting to it, which only further radicalizes one’s position. This is when I’m saying - it’s not so much you keep reiterating the same stance it’s that you aren’t well interpreting the ones you say you keep reading. If you are going to call out my post in the process of doing so, I’m going to notice and tell you you’re arguing against a wall 

“if it bothers you, ignore it”. My man, you quoted me to TELL me your stance again, I don’t have a problem that you feel the way you do about there not being upgrades. You are missing the point that no one has an issue with your stance on it, it’s not that uncommon, you aren’t on an island. No one is afraid of reckoning with the actual stance you take, it’s just made nearly impossible by the improv-Esque block you put on the convo by immediately pigeonholing it

Hank literally follows me around and issues eye rolls to the majority of my posts without ever actually quoting them so I don’t really know what your point is there 

Edited August 10, 2023 by Thorny

[JohnC]

21 minutes ago, Thorny said:

That’s interesting because the difference is the post of mine that you chose to quote, that didn’t even quote you, posed 3 open-ended questions for discussion, and listed zero definitive stances. You decided to quote it and in so doing take another opportunity to use it as part of your framing that “folks think there will be catastrophe, but me, me, I think it’s going to be ok”. You keep framing your argument against a stance that doesn’t exist: not only that, you are inventing a radical stance and contrasting to it, which only further radicalizes one’s position. This is when I’m saying - it’s not so much you keep reiterating the same stance it’s that you aren’t well interpreting the ones you say you keep reading. If you are going to call out my post in the process of doing so, I’m going to notice and tell you you’re arguing against a wall 

“if it bothers you, ignore it”. My man, you quoted me to TELL me your stance again, I don’t have a problem that you feel the way you do about there not being upgrades. You are missing the point that no one has an issue with your stance on it, it’s not that uncommon, you aren’t on an island. No one is afraid of reckoning with the actual stance you take, it’s just made nearly impossible by the improv-Esque block you put on the convo by immediately pigeonholing it

Hank literally follows me around and issues eye rolls to the majority of my posts without ever actually quoting them so I don’t really know what your point is there 

This back and forth is getting too exhausting to continue on. You have your view and I have my view. They don't intersect. That's okay. 

[Thorner]

4 minutes ago, JohnC said:

This back and forth is getting too exhausting to continue on. You have your view and I have my view. They don't intersect. That's okay. 

Other than the fact that I’ve said continuously that I think there’s a very reasonable chance our goaltending works out fine this season. Which is a stance I believe you share? Like I said, you want to paint some sort of disagreement on the extremes and it’s just not there. They actually do intersect quite a bit, that was my original point. I apparently can not convince you of this intersection so I can subscribe to your opening sentence

[PerreaultForever]

5 hours ago, JohnC said:

I'm aware that I'm going against the grain here. I contend that the team defense issue is more important than the goalie issue. Obviously, they are interlinked. In my view, the goalie staffing has been upgraded with the addition of Levi. Am I being presumptuous? Admittingly so. And with the hope/expectation for tighter play of the team, the play of the goalies should also improve. I'm certainly not making the claim that our goalie unit is elite. We're not. But the key to getting better revolves around how this team plays a more responsible two-way game. 

Good luck convincing the majority of people around here. I've been stressing this concept for years. 

(excitedly awaiting my eye roll(s))

Edited August 10, 2023 by PerreaultForever

[JohnC]

2 hours ago, PerreaultForever said:

Good luck convincing the majority of people around here. I've been stressing this concept for years. 

(excitedly awaiting my eye roll(s))

People have different views. Very often, what seems to be a contrary view is in itself not necessarily a total repudiation of what the other party is saying. Sometimes it is simply looking at an issue and focusing on one aspect of it while the other party is focusing on another aspect of the issue. Sometimes the differences aren't as glaring as it seems. 

[PerreaultForever]

1 hour ago, JohnC said:

People have different views. Very often, what seems to be a contrary view is in itself not necessarily a total repudiation of what the other party is saying. Sometimes it is simply looking at an issue and focusing on one aspect of it while the other party is focusing on another aspect of the issue. Sometimes the differences aren't as glaring as it seems. 

Absolutely, but in the summertime, one wrong word................... 🙂

[nfreeman]

Yikes:

 

[Scottysabres]

10 hours ago, nfreeman said:

Yikes:

 

 

[Hank]

Plus Suter to the Canucks, 2x1.6. 

[PerreaultForever]

16 hours ago, nfreeman said:

Yikes:

 

This is the kind of internet comment that needs detailed elaboration though. What does "worst" mean? Worst off the ice? Worst on the ice ? Worst to journalists? Worst is a really broad and open ended term that can mean a lot of things. The "covering crime" part makes this seem a little attention grabbing and probably a little full of bs too. What exactly is the implication?

[nfreeman]

1 minute ago, PerreaultForever said:

This is the kind of internet comment that needs detailed elaboration though. What does "worst" mean? Worst off the ice? Worst on the ice ? Worst to journalists? Worst is a really broad and open ended term that can mean a lot of things. The "covering crime" part makes this seem a little attention grabbing and probably a little full of bs too. What exactly is the implication?

Well, it's hard to say exactly, but I'd guess the general meaning is morally compromised in a profound way.  I doubt we'll get details on any specific bad acts.

FWIW, this isn't some twitter rando -- my understanding is that he's been a writer for the main newspaper in Winnipeg for 20+ years.

[kas23]

11 minutes ago, nfreeman said:

Well, it's hard to say exactly, but I'd guess the general meaning is morally compromised in a profound way.  I doubt we'll get details on any specific bad acts.

FWIW, this isn't some twitter rando -- my understanding is that he's been a writer for the main newspaper in Winnipeg for 20+ years.

They didn’t necessarily have to commit actual crimes. Many criminals possess anti-social personality traits, but not everyone with such traits actually go on to commit a crime. Some people can control their impulses better, but this doesn’t automatically make them good people. It sounds like by hanging around the locker room, he met such personalities. We’ve all met such people in our lives at one point. 

[PerreaultForever]

1 hour ago, nfreeman said:

Well, it's hard to say exactly, but I'd guess the general meaning is morally compromised in a profound way.  I doubt we'll get details on any specific bad acts.

FWIW, this isn't some twitter rando -- my understanding is that he's been a writer for the main newspaper in Winnipeg for 20+ years.

I get that, but it still needs more detail to have real meaning. I mean is he implying they are party animals? rapists? gamblers? substance abusers? There's so many possibilities and they go from morally suspect to criminal so where on that spectrum are they and more importantly WHO are they?

[nfreeman]

16 hours ago, PerreaultForever said:

I get that, but it still needs more detail to have real meaning. I mean is he implying they are party animals? rapists? gamblers? substance abusers? There's so many possibilities and they go from morally suspect to criminal so where on that spectrum are they and more importantly WHO are they?

We're kinda counting angels on the head of a pin here, but since there isn't much else to discuss, I'd respond by saying that although you're right that this doesn't give us the deets we needs to evaluate anyone, it's still meaningful that an experienced journalist has stated publicly that there are some really bad people on the Jets' roster.

I'll refer to your pre-KA-rebuild take on the Sabres -- which I think was correct -- that the team's culture was fatally flawed and a total cleanout was needed.  That situation was a bit different, as you had identified Eichel, Reino and Risto as guys who needed to go, and on the Jets we don't know who the problem children are.  Still, though, I think this similarly is an indicator in favor of a significant rebuild.

I'd like more info, but I still think this was noteworthy.  Certainly if, say, John Vogl had tweeted this about the Sabres, we'd be deep into the weeds on this board about it.

[Weave]

1 hour ago, nfreeman said:

We're kinda counting angels on the head of a pin here, but since there isn't much else to discuss, I'd respond by saying that although you're right that this doesn't give us the deets we needs to evaluate anyone, it's still meaningful that an experienced journalist has stated publicly that there are some really bad people on the Jets' roster.

I'll refer to your pre-KA-rebuild take on the Sabres -- which I think was correct -- that the team's culture was fatally flawed and a total cleanout was needed.  That situation was a bit different, as you had identified Eichel, Reino and Risto as guys who needed to go, and on the Jets we don't know who the problem children are.  Still, though, I think this similarly is an indicator in favor of a significant rebuild.

I'd like more info, but I still think this was noteworthy.  Certainly if, say, John Vogl had tweeted this about the Sabres, we'd be deep into the weeds on this board about it.

First thought I had was the slow crucifixion Harrington went through after stating similar, yet not as damning, accusations about the Sabres locker room.