UPL's next contract

[Pimlach]

12 hours ago, PromoTheRobot said:

Adams was the only person willing to stick with Ukka at the start of last season when everyone wanted the Sabres to move on. So now he doesn't trust him? 🤔

I think the problem isn't Kev, it's UPL. I have a hunch he'd like to get out of town. Going to arbitration is the fast track there.

Who is everyone?  I can’t think of anyone that wanted that.  Comrie was always the guy that was both injury prone and mediocre. 
 

UPL could feel that Levi is the long term plan.  Adam’s gave up Reinhart to get him after all.   Then he handed him NHL ice time.    

[Pimlach]

6 hours ago, GASabresIUFAN said:

Actually they can.  When Ullmark left there wasn’t another remotely qualified goalie in the organization.  That’s no longer the case.  Levi is ready for a substantial role.  Reimer has hundreds of games of NHL experience and was solid last year for Detroit in a backup role.  Even Sandstrom has 30 games of NHL experience.  

I’m not saying losing UPL wouldn’t be a disappointment, but unlike when Ullmark left, Adams actually executed a plan B when he signed Reimer and Sandstrom. 

 

 

 

Reimer was signed two months after I posted my comment. 
 

Still, right now UPL is better than any option that we have, including Levi. We are in a 13 year drought, hanging on to your best goalie should be a priority.  

[kas23]

2 hours ago, Pimlach said:

Reimer was signed two months after I posted my comment. 
 

Still, right now UPL is better than any option that we have, including Levi. We are in a 13 year drought, hanging on to your best goalie should be a priority.  

We should give UPL what he deserves. The only thing I ask is to sign him to a tradable contract. 

[PromoTheRobot]

13 hours ago, PerreaultForever said:

If he had faith in him why 3 goalies on the roster? Why wasn't he the main starter at the beginning of the year? 

So I guess Adams was a genius for not signing Ullmark as well right? Goaltending wizard that man. 

Because Comrie was supposed to be the 1B and Levi was going to Rochester. Unfortunately Comrie couldn't fill that role adequately. (You'll note that the Sabres are doing the same thing this year with James Reimer.)

Oh, nice Jedi move introducing Ullmark into the discussion, as if it has anything to do with this. But since you brought him up, Ullmark won his Vezina, then fell off to the point where he got traded. If Adams had paid a ton to keep him here, I'm sure you'd be critical of that too, overpaying for a middling goalie.

4 hours ago, Pimlach said:

Who is everyone?  I can’t think of anyone that wanted that.  Comrie was always the guy that was both injury prone and mediocre. 
 

UPL could feel that Levi is the long term plan.  Adam’s gave up Reinhart to get him after all.   Then he handed him NHL ice time.    

Oh, come now.

[PerreaultForever]

3 hours ago, PromoTheRobot said:

Because Comrie was supposed to be the 1B and Levi was going to Rochester. Unfortunately Comrie couldn't fill that role adequately. (You'll note that the Sabres are doing the same thing this year with James Reimer.)

That's not the way it happened though. Levi played down the stretch the season before. Levi is Adam's guy. Levi wasn't going to be "blocked". At the beginning of the year the only discussion on UPL was would Tampa (or someone else) claim him if they sent him to Rochester. There was little to no thought of him being the starter. You have memory loss and recency bias to the extreme. 

3 hours ago, PromoTheRobot said:

Oh, nice Jedi move introducing Ullmark into the discussion, as if it has anything to do with this. But since you brought him up, Ullmark won his Vezina, then fell off to the point where he got traded. If Adams had paid a ton to keep him here, I'm sure you'd be critical of that too, overpaying for a middling goalie.

There's no Jedi tricks (I prefer Vulcan mind melds anyway) the point is simply to have you remember that Adams has screwed up goaltending for his entire tenure. He simply got lucky with UPL. That was never the "plan". If he actually had faith in UPL he wouldn't have drafted Leinonen so high or traded for Levi. Adams has been clueless on goaltending and he let a goalie we developed (and went out of our way to keep from Vegas) walk for nothing into his prime. Dumb. 

Your spin on Ullmark is wrong as well. He was not traded because he "fell off", it was because Swayman stepped up and there was no room on the roster for that much money to go to 2 starters. It was strictly financial. Swayman's deal is going to be large. Boston is a cap ceiling team every year and has to make these painful decisions. To say that he was traded because he "fell off" is most definitely you conjuring up the dark forces. 

[PromoTheRobot]

1 hour ago, PerreaultForever said:

That's not the way it happened though. Levi played down the stretch the season before. Levi is Adam's guy. Levi wasn't going to be "blocked". At the beginning of the year the only discussion on UPL was would Tampa (or someone else) claim him if they sent him to Rochester. There was little to no thought of him being the starter. You have memory loss and recency bias to the extreme. 

There's no Jedi tricks (I prefer Vulcan mind melds anyway) the point is simply to have you remember that Adams has screwed up goaltending for his entire tenure. He simply got lucky with UPL. That was never the "plan". If he actually had faith in UPL he wouldn't have drafted Leinonen so high or traded for Levi. Adams has been clueless on goaltending and he let a goalie we developed (and went out of our way to keep from Vegas) walk for nothing into his prime. Dumb. 

Your spin on Ullmark is wrong as well. He was not traded because he "fell off", it was because Swayman stepped up and there was no room on the roster for that much money to go to 2 starters. It was strictly financial. Swayman's deal is going to be large. Boston is a cap ceiling team every year and has to make these painful decisions. To say that he was traded because he "fell off" is most definitely you conjuring up the dark forces. 

That is a cynical take. A GM has faith in a player and he eventually comes though. You call it a lack of a plan and pure luck. I don't agree. It's more about pushing an agenda.

Edited July 17 by PromoTheRobot

[Thorner]

5 hours ago, PromoTheRobot said:

Because Comrie was supposed to be the 1B and Levi was going to Rochester. Unfortunately Comrie couldn't fill that role adequately. (You'll note that the Sabres are doing the same thing this year with James Reimer.)

Oh, nice Jedi move introducing Ullmark into the discussion, as if it has anything to do with this. But since you brought him up, Ullmark won his Vezina, then fell off to the point where he got traded. If Adams had paid a ton to keep him here, I'm sure you'd be critical of that too, overpaying for a middling goalie.

Oh, come now.

Eveything you post is revisionist. This bit here above is particularly off base: Levi was the starter heading into the season last year. Adams banked on it and it backfired. 

Edited July 17 by Thorny

[Thorner]

1 hour ago, PerreaultForever said:

That's not the way it happened though. Levi played down the stretch the season before. Levi is Adam's guy. Levi wasn't going to be "blocked". At the beginning of the year the only discussion on UPL was would Tampa (or someone else) claim him if they sent him to Rochester. There was little to no thought of him being the starter. You have memory loss and recency bias to the extreme. 

There's no Jedi tricks (I prefer Vulcan mind melds anyway) the point is simply to have you remember that Adams has screwed up goaltending for his entire tenure. He simply got lucky with UPL. That was never the "plan". If he actually had faith in UPL he wouldn't have drafted Leinonen so high or traded for Levi. Adams has been clueless on goaltending and he let a goalie we developed (and went out of our way to keep from Vegas) walk for nothing into his prime. Dumb. 

Your spin on Ullmark is wrong as well. He was not traded because he "fell off", it was because Swayman stepped up and there was no room on the roster for that much money to go to 2 starters. It was strictly financial. Swayman's deal is going to be large. Boston is a cap ceiling team every year and has to make these painful decisions. To say that he was traded because he "fell off" is most definitely you conjuring up the dark forces. 

He doesn’t have memory loss, and I’m not saying this flippantly: he’s got an active bias against the fans. What I mean by “not flippantly” is he literally doesn’t post about the quality of the performance of the team, standards in that sense. You haven’t noticed that? The only framing he uses is how the fans are wrong relative to *whatever* happened. He hasn’t found a single situation the team has been wrong about in 13 years, and if they were, the fans were more wrong.

i’m not exaggerating, the discussion is: “you fans are bad and whine and we are going to lose the team” 

He just wants the fanbase to be satisfied and is angry on a daily basis that we aren’t ok with endless losing 

Edited July 17 by Thorny

[PerreaultForever]

1 hour ago, PromoTheRobot said:

That is a cynical take. A GM has faith in a player and he eventually comes though. You call it a lack of a plan and pure luck. I don't agree. It's more about pushing an agenda.

No, it's called objectively looking back and not viewing it through fan glasses. Show me one person who said 2 years ago UPL was our future star goalie. Do you really think Adams was any different? 

[PromoTheRobot]

4 hours ago, PerreaultForever said:

No, it's called objectively looking back and not viewing it through fan glasses. Show me one person who said 2 years ago UPL was our future star goalie. Do you really think Adams was any different? 

You're basically arguing fans are dumb when it come to player evaluation, and Adams was right. I know that hurts.,

[PerreaultForever]

3 hours ago, PromoTheRobot said:

You're basically arguing fans are dumb when it come to player evaluation, and Adams was right. I know that hurts.,

No I don't think Adams was right at all. Maybe JBot was right, but not Adams. Adams went on to draft Leinonen. 

[thewookie1]

2 hours ago, PerreaultForever said:

No I don't think Adams was right at all. Maybe JBot was right, but not Adams. Adams went on to draft Leinonen. 

Who mind you looked much better this prospects camp and is still very early in his goalie journey.

Goalies are literally a shot in the dark; there isn't a surefire method to finding a prospect goalie.

[PromoTheRobot]

7 hours ago, PerreaultForever said:

No I don't think Adams was right at all. Maybe JBot was right, but not Adams. Adams went on to draft Leinonen. 

Who you have apparently declared a bust already. Okay, sure. Carry on. 🙄 (Don't tell anyone but most GMs draft a goalie every year )

[JohnC]

10 hours ago, PromoTheRobot said:

You're basically arguing fans are dumb when it come to player evaluation, and Adams was right. I know that hurts.,

I understand your perspective. We are all familiar with it. But the calculation for determining success is simple and understandable: your record. If the GM was right on UPL, then that is to his credit. But being right in judging a player doesn't tell you much how he is doing overall.  Assembling a roster obviously is not an easy endeavor because of the multiplicity of factors that go into it, especially the limitations that the GM has to work with regarding resources. But being right on an individual player assessment is not a persuasive argument for judging someone on how well he is doing his job. 

I believe that the GM made the right decision in hiring Lindy. And I believe that he has had a good offseason in addressing the structural imbalance of his roster. Let's remember that the correction being made on the roster relates to the deficiency in the roster that he assembled the prior year. And it's inarguable that the correction that he seems to have made this offseason is a correction that he could have made last season.  

[GoPuckYourself]

26 minutes ago, JohnC said:

I understand your perspective. We are all familiar with it. But the calculation for determining success is simple and understandable: your record. If the GM was right on UPL, then that is to his credit. But being right in judging a player doesn't tell you much how he is doing overall.  Assembling a roster obviously is not an easy endeavor because of the multiplicity of factors that go into it, especially the limitations that the GM has to work with regarding resources. But being right on an individual player assessment is not a persuasive argument for judging someone on how well he is doing his job. 

I believe that the GM made the right decision in hiring Lindy. And I believe that he has had a good offseason in addressing the structural imbalance of his roster. Let's remember that the correction being made on the roster relates to the deficiency in the roster that he assembled the prior year. And it's inarguable that the correction that he seems to have made this offseason is a correction that he could have made last season.  

Congrats to Adams, it took him 5 years to finally field a roster that might be tough to play against.

[ddaryl]

17 hours ago, PerreaultForever said:

. Show me one person who said 2 years ago UPL was our future star goalie. Do you really think Adams was any different? 

Not me, during last years offseason I was basically writing UPL off as he had not shown ANY consistency in call ups. 

UPL played well in a contract year but it still remains to be seen if he developed the consistency that we can depend upon. We will resign him because he is RFA and he will get a solid raise. He still has something to prove to the organization and the fans, but he went a long way last year showing what we hoped he would/could be.

 

[Pimlach]

18 hours ago, PromoTheRobot said:

That is a cynical take. A GM has faith in a player and he eventually comes though. You call it a lack of a plan and pure luck. I don't agree. It's more about pushing an agenda.

Does UPL think that Adams had faith in him?   Not all will agree, including UPL.  

Adams actions in last years off season, and even at the start of last season,  indicate that he gave Levi every chance to take the #1 slot.  UPL was actually the 3rd goalie to get into the rotation.  

[Pimlach]

1 hour ago, JohnC said:

I understand your perspective. We are all familiar with it. But the calculation for determining success is simple and understandable: your record. If the GM was right on UPL, then that is to his credit. But being right in judging a player doesn't tell you much how he is doing overall.  Assembling a roster obviously is not an easy endeavor because of the multiplicity of factors that go into it, especially the limitations that the GM has to work with regarding resources. But being right on an individual player assessment is not a persuasive argument for judging someone on how well he is doing his job. 

I believe that the GM made the right decision in hiring Lindy. And I believe that he has had a good offseason in addressing the structural imbalance of his roster. Let's remember that the correction being made on the roster relates to the deficiency in the roster that he assembled the prior year. And it's inarguable that the correction that he seems to have made this offseason is a correction that he could have made last season.  

You believe that Adams made a good decision by hiring Lindy, and maybe he did.  

We don't know if it was the right decision since he didn't interview anyone. 

At a minimum, Lindy should make the Sabres look and act more like an NHL team.  That's a start.  

[tom webster]

6 minutes ago, Pimlach said:

You believe that Adams made a good decision by hiring Lindy, and maybe he did.  

We don't know if it was the right decision since he didn't interview anyone. 

At a minimum, Lindy should make the Sabres look and act more like an NHL team.  That's a start.  

I just don’t understand the constant reference to the interview process. An interview process doesn’t guarantee success, the interview process lends almost nothing when you are talking about general coaches. What could you possibly learn from interviewing a veteran coach that you wouldn’t already know? 
 

If you are planning to hire a rookie coach, then yes, there is probably a lot to learn from talking to multiple candidates and yet it’s still a crap shoot.

 

[Pimlach]

1 minute ago, tom webster said:

I just don’t understand the constant reference to the interview process. An interview process doesn’t guarantee success, the interview process lends almost nothing when you are talking about general coaches. What could you possibly learn from interviewing a veteran coach that you wouldn’t already know? 
 

If you are planning to hire a rookie coach, then yes, there is probably a lot to learn from talking to multiple candidates and yet it’s still a crap shoot.

 

The interview process does not guarantee success, you also have to have the right selection criteria and be honest and unbiased. 

But it helps the organization learn more what is out there than they knew before.  Learning more about the people you didn't hire this time around has longer term advantages.  Relationships in the business are important.  

 It is arrogance to think otherwise.  Are you telling me that Adams, Pegula and company, know everything about Berube, McLellan, Gallant, Woodford, etc. ?

They know something about them sure, but the devil is in the details.  Whether your hiring the next CEO for Boeing (a critical position that is opening up by year end) or a sports coach, it comes down to vision, details, criteria, and honest unbiased thought.  

I am ok with Lindy because he is Buffalo, and the team is so down that he can only help.  But when I look at the past Pegula era selections for the Sabres GM and HC positions I am not impressed.   

[Taro T]

32 minutes ago, Pimlach said:

Does UPL think that Adams had faith in him?   Not all will agree, including UPL.  

Adams actions in last years off season, and even at the start of last season,  indicate that he gave Levi every chance to take the #1 slot.  UPL was actually the 3rd goalie to get into the rotation.  

Yes, Levi went into camp last season as the presumptive starter, but it wasn't entirely a case of Adams and Granato handing him the job.  Go back and look at how he, Comrie, and UPL played at the end of the previous season.  Yes, UPL had been playing pretty well in January of that year, but he wasn't consistently doing so by the end of that season.  Comrie was what he was.  And Levi looked good down the stretch.

In training camp last year, UPL did NOT look good at all, Comrie was Comrie, and until the Penguins game debacle (which in hindsight was a huge red flag) Levi was playing well there.

So, yes, Levi was given the opportunity to take the #1 slot, but neither Comrie nor UPL did anything at all to take it from him.  And, actually, Levi ended up taking the job from himself in October.  Neither Comrie nor UPL took hold of the job themselves until around the flip of the calendar when UPL really grabbed the reins.

[Pimlach]

4 minutes ago, Taro T said:

Yes, Levi went into camp last season as the presumptive starter, but it wasn't entirely a case of Adams and Granato handing him the job.  Go back and look at how he, Comrie, and UPL played at the end of the previous season.  Yes, UPL had been playing pretty well in January of that year, but he wasn't consistently doing so by the end of that season.  Comrie was what he was.  And Levi looked good down the stretch.

In training camp last year, UPL did NOT look good at all, Comrie was Comrie, and until the Penguins game debacle (which in hindsight was a huge red flag) Levi was playing well there.

So, yes, Levi was given the opportunity to take the #1 slot, but neither Comrie nor UPL did anything at all to take it from him.  And, actually, Levi ended up taking the job from himself in October.  Neither Comrie nor UPL took hold of the job themselves until around the flip of the calendar when UPL really grabbed the reins.

Agree.  Levi was given the first opportunity, and UPL's play did not come along right away, but eventually it did when given the reps.   But the question at hand is how does UPL feel about it?  

It is all a silly debate and very Sabresque.  Adams better sign UPL to a fair contract with enough term to attempt to stabilize the position for the next few years.  At the same time he has to create a culture of fairness, that the best players will play regardless of when and how they are acquired.   

[kas23]

18 hours ago, PerreaultForever said:

No, it's called objectively looking back and not viewing it through fan glasses. Show me one person who said 2 years ago UPL was our future star goalie. Do you really think Adams was any different? 

 

[JohnC]

1 hour ago, Pimlach said:

You believe that Adams made a good decision by hiring Lindy, and maybe he did.  

We don't know if it was the right decision since he didn't interview anyone. 

At a minimum, Lindy should make the Sabres look and act more like an NHL team.  That's a start.  

 

1 hour ago, tom webster said:

I just don’t understand the constant reference to the interview process. An interview process doesn’t guarantee success, the interview process lends almost nothing when you are talking about general coaches. What could you possibly learn from interviewing a veteran coach that you wouldn’t already know? 
 

If you are planning to hire a rookie coach, then yes, there is probably a lot to learn from talking to multiple candidates and yet it’s still a crap shoot.

 

The interview process was a sham and a charade.  If Lindy was the GM's preference before this insincere and hollow search was announced, then simply pick him. I don't appreciate having smoke blown up my derriere. 

[JohnC]

1 hour ago, Pimlach said:

You believe that Adams made a good decision by hiring Lindy, and maybe he did.  

We don't know if it was the right decision since he didn't interview anyone. 

At a minimum, Lindy should make the Sabres look and act more like an NHL team.  That's a start.  

Considering how this franchise has been run, adding a person who holds players accountable is a good start. What's normal for most franchises wasn't the norm for this faltering franchise. It's about freaking time!  Do I know that he will turn things around? No. What I do know for certain that if they didn't bring in an experienced coach who has a history of being in control of his players, this team would continue to be a meandering and mediocre team competing against serious teams.