Trade: C Ryan McLeod - Oilers for Matt Savoie

[kas23]

25 minutes ago, Thorny said:

Jack is on record saying he asked for a trade because Adams said he wanted to rebuild. Adams idea to rebuild came first. You can call Jack an outright liar but, it fits with what you are saying and I see no reason to take that tact especially because no one in the org has ever denied it 

The plan to rebuild came well after he was initially injured and we know the trade request came before he was injured. Adams first year as GM, while Krueger was still coach, they went “all in” (in a Sabres sense) and signed Hall. This was done to appease a disgruntled Jack. There was no plan to rebuild at that time.
 

In the beginning of that season Jack became injured and missed the majority of the season. It only then it became about the injury. Still, Jack being unhappy and wanting to leave came before the rebuild plan. 

[Thorner]

10 minutes ago, kas23 said:

The plan to rebuild came well after he was initially injured and we know the trade request came before he was injured. Adams first year as GM, while Krueger was still coach, they went “all in” (in a Sabres sense) and signed Hall. This was done to appease a disgruntled Jack. There was no plan to rebuild at that time.
 

In the beginning of that season Jack became injured and missed the majority of the season. It only then it became about the injury. Still, Jack being unhappy and wanting to leave came before the rebuild plan. 

Done to appease a Jack Eichel who said he wanted out if they followed through on their plan to rebuild 

Adams wanted to rebuild upon taking the job. Eichel didn’t like it. He was right: I don’t like it either 

Edited July 11 by Thorny

[ska-T Chitown]

3 hours ago, dudacek said:

I'm not so sure about this. There's been a lot of information and innuendo floated. This is my understanding:

• Eichel had made noises about his unhappiness with the team's progress well before Adams was hired.
• When Botterill was fired, Eichel made it clear he had no interest sticking around for any rebuild
• Krueger helped broker a plan with Pegula that the team would try to load up and make a run for the playoffs that year, which Adams then executed.
• Jack clearly arrived at camp with some kind of physical issue that was hindering him. The team got off to a terrible start and Jack was done after a hit 20-odd games into the season against the Islanders that either caused or aggravated his neck injury.
• With the season an abysmal failure and the Sabres historically bad, Adams went to Pegula with a plan to essentially hit the reset button and rebuild the team entirely.
• Pegula/team doctors (depending on who you believe) denied Jack his desired surgery, complicating a trade process that Jack clearly wanted regardless of injury, and Kevyn likely wanted as well despite playing the 'want to be here' card.

It's possible Adams had decided it best to move on from Eichel even before he got the job. It's possible that Eichel had been passive-aggressively pushing for — or even outright asking for — a trade before then too.

But Eichel was clearly injured before the well-publicized Florida trip where the teardown was approved, and he had clearly delivered his ultimatum well before the season had even started.

Are you saying that Eichel would have been happy to stay after the disaster that was Krueger's last year if only Adams did what he was told?

Or that Adams had tied his own hands by refusing to allow a player under contract to tell him how to manage the team?

FWIW - I hockey guy I know that is fairly well plugged in with the coaching and training community had mentioned to me that Eichel was not working with the big trainer that most superstars were using at the time and i think he implied that the guy Eichel was using was kinda viewed as "out there" and in his opinion (please message me and I will send you a grain of salt in the mail 🙂) it was not unreasonable to think the less orthodox methods of the trainer potentially led to an off-season injury. (double checking, i think i have enough wiggle words in there to cover any defamation lawsuits brought)

If there is sufficient curiosity from The Board At Large, I could reach back out to see if he would refresh me on the deets.

[jsb]

@Thorny so you think KA can do anything he wants carte blanche without Pegula’s ok?? I don’t understand what you disagreed with me about.

[Thorner]

21 minutes ago, jsb said:

@Thorny so you think KA can do anything he wants carte blanche without Pegula’s ok?? I don’t understand what you disagreed with me about.

No, you are right, that’s definitely true. That’s my mistake. I removed it. I think I meant to X your post that said it was all Pegula. You are right, it’s both 

Edited July 11 by Thorny

[nfreeman]

There you go again, swinging that big red X in a reckless, wanton and destructive manner.

Will no one think of the children?

[Brawndo]

Peter Fish, Eichel’s Former Agent, made it clear to the Sabres that Jack would welcome other opportunities in the NHL in the final months of the Botterill Tenure.

GMKA’s plan to rebuild certainly did nothing to stop it, but the inevitability of  Eichel being traded was already cast in stone 

Adams certainly does deserve a lot of other criticisms of course 

 

[Thorner]

1 hour ago, Brawndo said:

Peter Fish, Eichel’s Former Agent, made it clear to the Sabres that Jack would welcome other opportunities in the NHL in the final months of the Botterill Tenure.

GMKA’s plan to rebuild certainly did nothing to stop it, but the inevitability of  Eichel being traded was already cast in stone 

Adams certainly does deserve a lot of other criticisms of course 

 

“Adams did nothing to stop it. But it was inevitable and cast in stone. So he couldn’t have. What could Adams have even done, anyways?” Good grief.

By all means continue moving the goalposts. “Would welcome.” Ok. So he didn’t demand a trade outright until he got wind of Adams’ plan to rebuild: my point stands.

(and, that’s the final months of Botterill’s tenure during which Adams was already appointed by Pegula to spy, sorry, evaluate the team, correct? And Eichel was having dinners with Terry you said, right? It would defy logic to think Jack wasn’t aware of the specific writing on the wall that a rebuild was on the way during the last months of Botterill)

Also, “cast in stone” is patently absurd. Since when is it not the responsibility of a GM to convince a player, especially your FRANCHISE player that you tanked for, to stay on board when he’s merely “open” to other opportunities? Give me a break. All the reports we’ve heard of Adams’ negotiations falling through, we know his ability to sell the destination is questionable at best. There’s no reason to act like your franchise player HAD to be moved, nm to the tune of a 5 year (at least) rebuild, because he said he’d “welcome” moving (ALL Sabres would literally say this) and you said “oh ok bye.” 

- - - 

*convince him to stay by avoiding this stupid LT plan, instead of initiating it.*

We already know the plan failed; 5 years to make the playoffs is a poor plan, if we even make it next year. This wasn’t the correct course

Jack agreed to stay, did he not? When they “went” for it? So we already KNOW he was open to being convinced! The sticking point has always been that Adams used the failed Covid season as evidence we needed this build. Well, he was wrong, his build didn’t work in a reasonably timely manner 

I’ll take the 4 years of failure sample size over 21 games of an injured JE

Edited July 12 by Thorny

[TageMVP]

3 minutes ago, Thorny said:

By all means continue moving the goalposts. “Would welcome.” Ok. So he didn’t demand a trade outright until he got wind of Adams’ plan to rebuild: my point stands.

(and, that’s the final months of Botterill’s tenure during which Adams was already appointed by Pegula to spy, sorry, evaluate the team, correct? And Eichel was having dinners with Terry you said, right? It would defy logic to think Jack wasn’t aware of the specific writing on the wall that a rebuild was on the way during the last months of Botterill 

Also, “cast in stone” is patently absurd. Since when is it not the responsibility of a GM to convince a player, especially your FRANCHISE player that you tanked for, to stay on board when he’s merely “open” to other opportunities? Give me a break. All the reports we’ve heard of Adams’ negotiations falling through, we know his ability to sell the destination is questionable at best. There’s no reason to act like your franchise player HAD to be moved, nm to the tune of a 5 year (at least) rebuild, because he said he was open to moving and you said “oh ok bye.” 

Good response here. How many times has a player wanted to leave a team, but the coach, GM and the owner convinced the player to stay? I'd guess several times before, but thats not something that would get talked about if the player did end up staying. Wouldn't look good for the team that a player was upset. 

A good GM/coach absolutely should be able to convince a player to stay or at least try harder than Adams and Botterill did. I go back to Botterill botching O'Reilly, too. I highly doubt he tried to convince O'Reilly to stay, he lost his love for the game? Help him rediscover it, Botterill. He gave up immediately which is sad because everyone knew how much of a trainwreck from top to bottom those teams were. 

It's the GMs job to convince current and potential players that Buffalo is an excellent place to play. Adams and Botterill both failed miserably at that. 

[LGR4GM]

[Scottysabres]

Just now, LGR4GM said:

Yep, what's done is done, and cannot be undone, therefor we are done.

[Thorner]

10 minutes ago, TageMVP said:

Good response here. How many times has a player wanted to leave a team, but the coach, GM and the owner convinced the player to stay? I'd guess several times before, but thats not something that would get talked about if the player did end up staying. Wouldn't look good for the team that a player was upset. 

A good GM/coach absolutely should be able to convince a player to stay or at least try harder than Adams and Botterill did. I go back to Botterill botching O'Reilly, too. I highly doubt he tried to convince O'Reilly to stay, he lost his love for the game? Help him rediscover it, Botterill. He gave up immediately which is sad because everyone knew how much of a trainwreck from top to bottom those teams were. 

It's the GMs job to convince current and potential players that Buffalo is an excellent place to play. Adams and Botterill both failed miserably at that. 

Exactly, there’s mounds of evidence they struggled in this area. And people just continually continually leave out the fact Jack suited up for the 2021 season, injured. AFTER the shite all hit the fan. Do we think he wasn’t giving it his all? That he was lying outright when he told Friedman he was on board with Adams’ “go for it”? I don’t care if you think it’s right or wrong, whether Adams was right to ditch a quicker reset because of the disastrous result of Hall year. My point is merely that it was a choice, and one side of the choice reasonably means Jack stays. Again, he backed down from his “welcoming” of a trade in 2021 w/Hall 

Edited July 12 by Thorny

[dudacek]

I am as guilty of restarting this as anyone, but can we please move this discussion to its own thread?

[Thorner]

2 minutes ago, LGR4GM said:

The last post about McLeod was 8 hours ago. Would you rather just an empty thread? By all means, post something about. McLeod that sparks discussion 

[dudacek]

2 minutes ago, Thorny said:

The last post about McLeod was 8 hours ago. Would you rather just an empty thread? By all means, post something about. McLeod that sparks discussion 

Who was the last Sabre to have a better hockey player smile than Ryan McLeod?

There’s no chiclets left to spit.

Edited July 12 by dudacek

[Thorner]

1 minute ago, dudacek said:

Who was the last Sabre to have a better hockey player smile than Ryan McLeod?

There’s no chiclets left to spit.

There’s only one 

[LGR4GM]

Looking at line 3 to start last season, Mittelstadt was better than McLeod. However olofsson was worse. Greenway stays the same. The question then is how much does Benson or Zucker make up the Mitts difference. It's roughly .5pts per60 between Mitts and McLeod. Zucker however comes in at only .3 below Mitts. Benson is a WildCard cuz his scoring rate will increase. 

So let's say we have to replace Benson and Mitts on line 3 at 2.1 and 1.7 points per 60min. That's 3.8 p/60 and we ignore Greenway cuz he's the same. McLeod gives us 1.6 or 1.7, I'll lean with the higher. Zucker at 1.8. That's 3.5 total. In theory then, Buffalo lost about .3 p60 by swapping McLeod and Mitts. 

However, if we argue we're replacing Mitts and Olofsson on the 3rd with McLeod and Zucker, that's only a .1 p60 difference. The issue is that in pts, we didn't improve. 

We are ignoring Skinner who is essentially replaced by Benson. Skinner is a 2.3 p60 so Benson has ground to make up but this all ignored defense attributes. I think it's still valid because Buffalo has to up its scoring AND reduce goals against to be a playoff team. 

My over all point is unless Benson and McLeod improve, we took a step back. Quinn probably covers Skinners lost production but the 3rd line is less and Benson becomes the wild card to balance everything. Quinn btw, 2.7 p60... that's why everyone is projecting a good year from him. 

The margins are thin, Buffalo probably only improved by a couple wins overall without internal growth. 

[LGR4GM]

Krebs btw, 1.0 p60

He's .7 p60 below McLeod so idk what buffalo's plan for him is. Rafferty, 1.5 p60

Kubel 1.3 

Malenstyn 1.1

[Taro T]

3 minutes ago, LGR4GM said:

Looking at line 3 to start last season, Mittelstadt was better than McLeod. However olofsson was worse. Greenway stays the same. The question then is how much does Benson or Zucker make up the Mitts difference. It's roughly .5pts per60 between Mitts and McLeod. Zucker however comes in at only .3 below Mitts. Benson is a WildCard cuz his scoring rate will increase. 

So let's say we have to replace Benson and Mitts on line 3 at 2.1 and 1.7 points per 60min. That's 3.8 p/60 and we ignore Greenway cuz he's the same. McLeod gives us 1.6 or 1.7, I'll lean with the higher. Zucker at 1.8. That's 3.5 total. In theory then, Buffalo lost about .3 p60 by swapping McLeod and Mitts. 

However, if we argue we're replacing Mitts and Olofsson on the 3rd with McLeod and Zucker, that's only a .1 p60 difference. The issue is that in pts, we didn't improve. 

We are ignoring Skinner who is essentially replaced by Benson. Skinner is a 2.3 p60 so Benson has ground to make up but this all ignored defense attributes. I think it's still valid because Buffalo has to up its scoring AND reduce goals against to be a playoff team. 

My over all point is unless Benson and McLeod improve, we took a step back. Quinn probably covers Skinners lost production but the 3rd line is less and Benson becomes the wild card to balance everything. Quinn btw, 2.7 p60... that's why everyone is projecting a good year from him. 

The margins are thin, Buffalo probably only improved by a couple wins overall without internal growth. 

Internal growth and better coaching are reasons to expect the team is significantly better than last year.

Luukkonnen not being able to sustain top 5 in the league play and the possibilities of injuries being able to derail a potentially good season as there isn't much top end nor bottom end depth at F are the reasons to expect this team to be substantially what it was last year with only modest improvement.

A big part of why bringing in another 2W should be so beneficial.  It doesn't just allow both Benson and Greenway to be slotted into the bottom 6; it gives at least 1 (likely) legit top 6 F (besides Zucker who might be too long in the tooth) ready to bump up into the top 6 when an inevitable injury strikes there.

[LGR4GM]

13 minutes ago, Taro T said:

Internal growth and better coaching are reasons to expect the team is significantly better than last year.

Luukkonnen not being able to sustain top 5 in the league play and the possibilities of injuries being able to derail a potentially good season as there isn't much top end nor bottom end depth at F are the reasons to expect this team to be substantially what it was last year with only modest improvement.

A big part of why bringing in another 2W should be so beneficial.  It doesn't just allow both Benson and Greenway to be slotted into the bottom 6; it gives at least 1 (likely) legit top 6 F (besides Zucker who might be too long in the tooth) ready to bump up into the top 6 when an inevitable injury strikes there.

McLeod and Zucker weren't on this poorly coached mess last year. I agree internal growth is needed but my point stands, on paper in July, Buffalo didn't add significant pts to the roster. I'd expect all outside projections to reflect that. Benson, Quinn and Cozens will make or break this season in the end. 

McLeod isn't as good as Mitts but Zucker is way better than Olofsson. It's gonna be close for the playoffs. 

Edited July 12 by LGR4GM

[dudacek]

McLeod sounded a lot more relaxed and chill in his session with Marty and Duffer.

[Turbo44]

26 minutes ago, LGR4GM said:

McLeod and Zucker weren't on this poorly coached mess last year. I agree internal growth is needed but my point stands, on paper in July, Buffalo didn't add significant pts to the roster. I'd expect all outside projections to reflect that. Benson, Quinn and Cozens will make or break this season in the end. 

McLeod isn't as good as Mitts but Zucker is way better than Olofsson. It's gonna be close for the playoffs. 

Which all screams for a need for one more trade, this one for a top 6 forward. If KAs job is on the line, I would think he wouldn’t hope for “internal growth” and the luck card of staying healthy as a way to gain 15+ points in the standings. Tell me he has more in his plans…..tell me. I love what he’s done with the bottom 6, but it’s not enough 

[GASabresIUFAN]

1 hour ago, LGR4GM said:

Zucker is way better than Olofsson.

But isn't he really the current replacement for Skinner?

Tuch, TNT, JJP, Quinn, Cozens, Benson, and Greenway all return to their roles.

Mitts' job went to Krebs who has been demoted to a 4th line (or 13th forward) role in favor of McLeod.

Skinner was replaced by Zucker

The 4 bottom of the roster forwards at the end of last season were Jost, VO, Robinson and Z.  Now the bottom of the roster forwards are Kubel, Malenstyn, Lafferty and Krebs.

[That Aud Smell]

5 hours ago, GASabresIUFAN said:

But isn't he really the current replacement for Skinner?

When I consider Skinner’s diminished role at the end of last season (out of the top 6) and the complete overhaul of the team’s bottom/middle 6, I don’t view the team as having replaced Skinner on a one for one basis.

There’s risk in planning to replace his goals on a committee basis. @LGR4GM was running some numbers upthread (or elsewhere).

This is also why I’m still hoping that Adams still has a move for a top-6 forward up his sleeve. If he does, I wonder more and more about Greenway’s role on the team.

[LGR4GM]

2 hours ago, That Aud Smell said:

When I consider Skinner’s diminished role at the end of last season (out of the top 6) and the complete overhaul of the team’s bottom/middle 6, I don’t view the team as having replaced Skinner on a one for one basis.

There’s risk in planning to replace his goals on a committee basis. @LGR4GM was running some numbers upthread (or elsewhere).

This is also why I’m still hoping that Adams still has a move for a top-6 forward up his sleeve. If he does, I wonder more and more about Greenway’s role on the team.

I'll run it all in about 30 mins. I think we're short from last year. 

Edited July 12 by LGR4GM