The Sabres will make the playoffs this season if ___________

[LGR4GM]

25 minutes ago, dudacek said:

.

I’m agreeing with you that being a veteran is more about experience than age.

But if it’s your contention that it’s solely about the number of games played, I think that’s equally as narrow

Being a veteran is really about a state of mind.

External factors, especially ones like these have everything to do with one’s approach to life and career

No, being engaged or having a kid does not. A kid, maybe a small amount but lots of ppl have kids without being ready. Being engaged at 21 doesn't make you mature in any way. In fact, for the majority of ppl, I'd say it indicates a lack of maturity. 

14 minutes ago, Brawndo said:

They need to spend more money on the cap. 
 

Over the past 4 years, teams spending bottom 10 have made the playoffs 3 total times.

0 teams in the bottom 5. 

What’s interesting is based on a stat of total number of points per actual dollars spent, the Sabres were ranked ninth in the league.

They are projected to be about 8 million under once their pending RFAs are signed, this probably puts them back into the bottom five in terms of spending again. 

 

That's not reassuring. 

[PerreaultForever]

idk why people are talking about having kids and marital status. Off ice life has no bearing on whether or not you are a leader in the locker room. The hockey world is it's own place. 

[dudacek]

32 minutes ago, PerreaultForever said:

You're arguing little points to deflect from the central point which is that Adams intentionally constructed an incredibly young roster lacking in veteran leadership. That is not how you do it and has never worked. Whether or not these guys have reached a level where they can provide good veteran leadership is the question since that's what we are left with. 

Arguing about how many games it takes to qualify as a "veteran" or if losers can be good veteran leaders or any details like that are deflections and somewhat subjective to say the least. 

So you thought I was disagreeing with you? 

25 minutes ago, LGR4GM said:

No, being engaged or having a kid does not. A kid, maybe a small amount but lots of ppl have kids without being ready. Being engaged at 21 doesn't make you mature in any way. In fact, for the majority of ppl, I'd say it indicates a lack of maturity. 

I agree with the bold. Never said otherwise.

Things like that don’t mean you are mature, they challenge you to mature.

And they affect your choices in other areas of your life.

[Taro T]

3 hours ago, thewookie1 said:

Adams was more or less stuck with this model. Murray and Botts had more or less assured that. 
 

Balance is ideal but there really isn’t a sure fire way to acquire good to great middle aged talent without either throwing ridiculous money or trading for them. Issue is trading for them, especially at that point would of only exasperated the problems since we didn’t have much of a pool to draw from already.

The issue there is where are you planning to put them and how are you getting them with any semblance of relevance? To improve the team and gain vet presence simultaneously isn’t exactly a walk in the park. Jokiharju’s spot could certainly be used but who’s out there where’d we’d at minimum be staying level impact wise while adding experience? All while convincing them that they should devote what little remains of their career to help lead kids to the playoffs. We tried that last year with Erik Johnson. 
 

More or less you’d have to find a player with a Cup Ring on the tail end of his career looking to play for fun and enjoys leading while also still being a solid player. Effectively a Brian Gionta but a tad bigger. Honestly could we just go back in time and bring Gionta back with us, or even perhaps Vanek or Pominville. This is the team stage where that sort of relevant vet player would work well for the team. Zucker will certainly help if he still has a bit more gas in the tank. If Pavelski didn’t want to retire I’d say go get him but he started to show his age in the playoffs. 
 

If they want to swing Muel and Rosen to CGY for Weegar that might be helpful for this purpose.

To the bolded, w/ all due respect, no, he wasn't.  He still had a lot of pieces that as it turns out, and several here argued, were actually pretty good hockey players.  He decided that he didn't want players that didn't yearn to be Sabres and because of THAT decision he ended up "more or less stuck with this model."

But he could have judiciously added to the key players that were Sabres.  But he'd come to the conclusion that the core was rotten and if it wanted to be elsewhere he was fine with accomodating those pieces.  He also decided that with very few exceptions (Tuch being the prime example) he didn't want to bring back players in their prime for those assets but rather he wanted prospects and picks for them.  And he expected the team would be competing for a playoff spot ~last year (and because the East was so screwed up, they "competed" for a spot a year early, though finishing with 91 isn't exactly competing in most years and that sure seemed to affect how he and his former coach approached last season) and presumably making the playoffs this year and being legit contenders in a year or 2.  He might turn out to be correct that the team will be legit competitors a season or 2 from now; but if he isn't right about making the playoffs this year, there's a good chance that he won't be here to find out if he was right about when they'd be legit contenders.

[LGR4GM]

59 minutes ago, dudacek said:

So you thought I was disagreeing with you? 

I agree with the bold. Never said otherwise.

Things like that don’t mean you are mature, they challenge you to mature.

And they affect your choices in other areas of your life.

They certainly impact your life. Will be interesting to see what they bring. 

[PerreaultForever]

1 hour ago, dudacek said:

So you thought I was disagreeing with you? 

I agree with the bold. Never said otherwise.

Things like that don’t mean you are mature, they challenge you to mature.

And they affect your choices in other areas of your life.

Seemed like you were. Seemed like you were agreeing with Adams idea of growing your own leaders. 

[thewookie1]

2 hours ago, Taro T said:

To the bolded, w/ all due respect, no, he wasn't.  He still had a lot of pieces that as it turns out, and several here argued, were actually pretty good hockey players.  He decided that he didn't want players that didn't yearn to be Sabres and because of THAT decision he ended up "more or less stuck with this model."

But he could have judiciously added to the key players that were Sabres.  But he'd come to the conclusion that the core was rotten and if it wanted to be elsewhere he was fine with accomodating those pieces.  He also decided that with very few exceptions (Tuch being the prime example) he didn't want to bring back players in their prime for those assets but rather he wanted prospects and picks for them.  And he expected the team would be competing for a playoff spot ~last year (and because the East was so screwed up, they "competed" for a spot a year early, though finishing with 91 isn't exactly competing in most years and that sure seemed to affect how he and his former coach approached last season) and presumably making the playoffs this year and being legit contenders in a year or 2.  He might turn out to be correct that the team will be legit competitors a season or 2 from now; but if he isn't right about making the playoffs this year, there's a good chance that he won't be here to find out if he was right about when they'd be legit contenders.

Well he had three paths then

1. Go young and reset the core and try to grow them as a group

2. Try and salvage the previously built core although Risto wasn't good and Eichel wanted out

3. Some type of frankensteining of the two during COVID's offseason

Options 2&3 carried heavier risks since 2 required the continued use of the old core as a component in some manner although it may have been toxic at that point. 3 is what one might call trying to thread a needle blindfolded. 

 

I'd also add that him wanting players who wanted to be Sabres isn't a negative; you need your core to want to be here and be skilled. Otherwise there is a high likelihood of mercenary behavior which would make defensive play almost impossible to gain buy in for. Effectively, the core needed to be Buffalo lovers because otherwise your foundation won't last long.

 

One other thing, how in the world are you expecting us to pull off hockey trades with an RFA Reinhart, angry injured Eichel and Risto? We outright robbed the Flyers; I highly doubt Florida was interested in swapping a roster player for Reinhart and as for Eichel it was just FUBAR.

[thewookie1]

1 hour ago, PerreaultForever said:

Seemed like you were. Seemed like you were agreeing with Adams idea of growing your own leaders. 

You kind of need both but in acquiring a leader you need the right type of guys and they would need to wholeheartedly buy-in. Okposo was good until this year when he seemingly just gave up. ROR and Eichel got into a power struggle upon Gionta's departure and grabbing a random vet off the street doesn't do any good as a core team leader

[PerreaultForever]

59 minutes ago, thewookie1 said:

You kind of need both but in acquiring a leader you need the right type of guys and they would need to wholeheartedly buy-in. Okposo was good until this year when he seemingly just gave up. ROR and Eichel got into a power struggle upon Gionta's departure and grabbing a random vet off the street doesn't do any good as a core team leader

This was the crucial mistake of the team choosing the young supertstar who was not ready for that role and alienating the veteran who had all the makings of a leader as we have seen in St. Louis and now Nashville. Huge huge mistake moment for the franchise. 

Okposo? Nice guy, true professional, definitely can be part of a leadership group, but not captain material. You can't have a fringe player as your captain. That'll never work. He most definitely doesn't have to be your best player, but he has to be an integral part of the team that young guys will look up to and emulate. Listen to. 

We should have named ROR captain. We haven't had a good one in a long long time.

[thewookie1]

7 hours ago, PerreaultForever said:

This was the crucial mistake of the team choosing the young supertstar who was not ready for that role and alienating the veteran who had all the makings of a leader as we have seen in St. Louis and now Nashville. Huge huge mistake moment for the franchise. 

Okposo? Nice guy, true professional, definitely can be part of a leadership group, but not captain material. You can't have a fringe player as your captain. That'll never work. He most definitely doesn't have to be your best player, but he has to be an integral part of the team that young guys will look up to and emulate. Listen to. 

We should have named ROR captain. We haven't had a good one in a long long time.

I agree however I worry how Eichel might of responded; its part of why he had so much success in Vegas. Eichel had leadership qualities and seemingly solid work habits but his power in Buffalo likely got to head a bit. In Vegas he got a bit of a wake up call and learned that being a leader was far more than just being the best player.

Botts was likely at least part of the origin of this issue since he came from Pittsburgh and seemed hellbent on making Eichel the C whereas I'll always believe Murray intended ROR to be interim captain until Eichel grew up more. Murray may of possibly all but promised the C to ROR when he re-signed with us akin to the rumors of the Captaincy having an impact when he re-signed in St.  Louis. It would certainly make sense that having that seeming role yanked out from under him may have attributed to his "loss of love for the game." After all, ROR had played for a borderline bipolar Avalanche team already so a drop in team points shouldn't of shaken him enough.

[Doohicksie]

Heh.  I finally poked my head into this thread to see how the Sabres will make the playoffs moving forward.

 

 

 

 

And the conversation is being dominated by Jack Eichel.

[GASabresIUFAN]

Here is a good stat Sabres fans.  Only one team since the NHL returned from the lock-out in 2005 has missed the playoffs with a +20 differential (strike and Covid seasons exempted). That was the Avs in 06/07 with a +21 and they missed the playoffs by 1 pt (they still had 95 pts).  Only 5 other teams missed the playoffs with a +15 or better differential.  The Sabres of last season are tied with Minn of 05/06 with the lowest point total (84) for a team with a +differential.  The Sabres also managed to miss the playoffs with a +13 in 07/08 and + 16 in 08/09.

Edited July 23 by GASabresIUFAN

[GASabresIUFAN]

A follow-up note on differential.  Of the teams since 2005, 61% of the teams with a positive differential of +1 to +10 made the playoffs (30 of 49), and 83% of the teams with a positive differential of +11 to +20 made the playoffs (50/60).

If the Sabres have at least +20 differential in 24/25 they will make the playoffs.

Edited July 23 by GASabresIUFAN

[PerreaultForever]

9 hours ago, thewookie1 said:

I agree however I worry how Eichel might of responded; its part of why he had so much success in Vegas. Eichel had leadership qualities and seemingly solid work habits but his power in Buffalo likely got to head a bit. In Vegas he got a bit of a wake up call and learned that being a leader was far more than just being the best player.

Botts was likely at least part of the origin of this issue since he came from Pittsburgh and seemed hellbent on making Eichel the C whereas I'll always believe Murray intended ROR to be interim captain until Eichel grew up more. Murray may of possibly all but promised the C to ROR when he re-signed with us akin to the rumors of the Captaincy having an impact when he re-signed in St.  Louis. It would certainly make sense that having that seeming role yanked out from under him may have attributed to his "loss of love for the game." After all, ROR had played for a borderline bipolar Avalanche team already so a drop in team points shouldn't of shaken him enough.

I think that's a reasonable possibility. I tend to think it was Pegula's decision but it may very well have been a difference between Murray and JBot. You could be right about that. In any event a huge mistake. 

How would Eichel have responded? Well, that speaks to the cultural issues doesn't it? Not having to earn it, not waiting for your time, being the center of all things for any player. You can do a deep analysis here of cultural issues, but the bottom line is the tank left a void and that void wasn't filled properly. We are at a crossroads now. I hope they get it right this time. 

[Thorner]

On 7/22/2024 at 5:16 PM, French Collection said:

Malenstyn is 26 but has only 105 GP, a quarter of Dahlin’s total.

A sure sign of looming quality 

[thewookie1]

Murray wasn’t a good GM but I think Botts is what effectively killed 2 separate cores. 
 

Botts either overtly or inadvertently caused a leadership crisis in his first year as the GM by not, likely promised by Murray, fulfilling ROR’s role as the next captain. Instead he wanted to make Eichel the captain akin to Crosby. Which obviously created some drama, perhaps only subconsciously, between Eichel and ROR. I don’t think Eichel hated ROR and I don’t believe ROR hated Eichel but I have a sneaking suspicion that deep down ROR was subconsciously angry at Eichel. (This coming from the fact ROR was apparently very unhappy when they skipped him for captain for Landeskog) The captaincy seemed to be an important factor to him and had he been given the C here without ordeal; all three of Eichel, ROR and Reinhart are likely still here. Botts gifting Eichel the C based on his talent only made him more of a messianic figure who couldn’t be touched. Eichel has leadership qualities for sure, but he was still too young and headstrong to be a good captain of a team.

If ROR becomes captain without fuss, the hypothetical GM would likely move Kane due to his bad influence on the team. We want the players to follow ROR’s example and finding solid vet pieces to fit around the three would have been far more effective in guiding the young ones. Lehner is also a goner due to his drinking problem so the GM would need to redo the defense and goaltending. 
 

That would of certainly been a happier timeline

 

[Brawndo]

13 hours ago, thewookie1 said:

Murray wasn’t a good GM but I think Botts is what effectively killed 2 separate cores. 
 

Botts either overtly or inadvertently caused a leadership crisis in his first year as the GM by not, likely promised by Murray, fulfilling ROR’s role as the next captain. Instead he wanted to make Eichel the captain akin to Crosby. Which obviously created some drama, perhaps only subconsciously, between Eichel and ROR. I don’t think Eichel hated ROR and I don’t believe ROR hated Eichel but I have a sneaking suspicion that deep down ROR was subconsciously angry at Eichel. (This coming from the fact ROR was apparently very unhappy when they skipped him for captain for Landeskog) The captaincy seemed to be an important factor to him and had he been given the C here without ordeal; all three of Eichel, ROR and Reinhart are likely still here. Botts gifting Eichel the C based on his talent only made him more of a messianic figure who couldn’t be touched. Eichel has leadership qualities for sure, but he was still too young and headstrong to be a good captain of a team.

If ROR becomes captain without fuss, the hypothetical GM would likely move Kane due to his bad influence on the team. We want the players to follow ROR’s example and finding solid vet pieces to fit around the three would have been far more effective in guiding the young ones. Lehner is also a goner due to his drinking problem so the GM would need to redo the defense and goaltending. 
 

That would of certainly been a happier timeline

 

@PerreaultForeveris correct. Pegula was the driving force behind Eichel’s Captaincy 

[Taro T]

15 hours ago, thewookie1 said:

Murray wasn’t a good GM but I think Botts is what effectively killed 2 separate cores. 
 

Botts either overtly or inadvertently caused a leadership crisis in his first year as the GM by not, likely promised by Murray, fulfilling ROR’s role as the next captain. Instead he wanted to make Eichel the captain akin to Crosby. Which obviously created some drama, perhaps only subconsciously, between Eichel and ROR. I don’t think Eichel hated ROR and I don’t believe ROR hated Eichel but I have a sneaking suspicion that deep down ROR was subconsciously angry at Eichel. (This coming from the fact ROR was apparently very unhappy when they skipped him for captain for Landeskog) The captaincy seemed to be an important factor to him and had he been given the C here without ordeal; all three of Eichel, ROR and Reinhart are likely still here. Botts gifting Eichel the C based on his talent only made him more of a messianic figure who couldn’t be touched. Eichel has leadership qualities for sure, but he was still too young and headstrong to be a good captain of a team.

If ROR becomes captain without fuss, the hypothetical GM would likely move Kane due to his bad influence on the team. We want the players to follow ROR’s example and finding solid vet pieces to fit around the three would have been far more effective in guiding the young ones. Lehner is also a goner due to his drinking problem so the GM would need to redo the defense and goaltending. 
 

That would of certainly been a happier timeline

 

Well, we'll never know, but it is very possible that the owners didn't want to hand O'Reilly the C when the very 1st thing he did after signing with the Sabres was drive his truck into a Timmy Ho's.  It definitely soured the owners on him.  The question is to just what degree did it sour them?

There are times that it REALLY seems as if this team is cursed.  (Realize it isn't; but those that want to claim it is can make a persuasive case.)

Hopefully, we're finally watching them get back onto the right track.  Time will tell.

[jsb]

Well back on topic: 

1) They quit giving up a goal in the 1st 2 minutes of the games they play

2) No major injuries to their top 6, whoever joins Cozens and Quinn on line 2 helps them gain their potential

3) UPL continues his improved play

4) Fix the PP

5) That young backend of Dahlin, Samuelsson, Power, Byram plays up to their draft status and becomes the strength of the team

6) Ruff can still coach

7) Quit giving up so many odd man rushes to the opposition

8) PK improves and keeps Thompson especially fresh and off of it

[triumph_communes]

19 hours ago, thewookie1 said:

Murray wasn’t a good GM but I think Botts is what effectively killed 2 separate cores. 
 

Botts either overtly or inadvertently caused a leadership crisis in his first year as the GM by not, likely promised by Murray, fulfilling ROR’s role as the next captain. Instead he wanted to make Eichel the captain akin to Crosby. Which obviously created some drama, perhaps only subconsciously, between Eichel and ROR. I don’t think Eichel hated ROR and I don’t believe ROR hated Eichel but I have a sneaking suspicion that deep down ROR was subconsciously angry at Eichel. (This coming from the fact ROR was apparently very unhappy when they skipped him for captain for Landeskog) The captaincy seemed to be an important factor to him and had he been given the C here without ordeal; all three of Eichel, ROR and Reinhart are likely still here. Botts gifting Eichel the C based on his talent only made him more of a messianic figure who couldn’t be touched. Eichel has leadership qualities for sure, but he was still too young and headstrong to be a good captain of a team.

If ROR becomes captain without fuss, the hypothetical GM would likely move Kane due to his bad influence on the team. We want the players to follow ROR’s example and finding solid vet pieces to fit around the three would have been far more effective in guiding the young ones. Lehner is also a goner due to his drinking problem so the GM would need to redo the defense and goaltending. 
 

That would of certainly been a happier timeline

 

ROR can only blame himself for the captain thing 

[thewookie1]

Just now, triumph_communes said:

ROR can only blame himself for the captain thing 

Well if it purely stemmed from the Timmies thing than sure.

[Doohicksie]

The Sabres will make the playoffs this season if UPL signs a multi-year deal before going to arbitration.

[French Collection]

5 hours ago, Doohickie said:

The Sabres will make the playoffs this season if UPL signs a multi-year deal before going to arbitration.

I know some people don’t like them but scratching and clawing for a loser point when they don’t have their best stuff will make a difference. That’s a mental hurdle they need to overcome, like their poor starts to games.

This is where Lindy should make an impact.

[Claude Balls]

If 15 or 16 team charters fall out of the sky. 

Yeah, I'm a little morbid, but I had a rough childhood. 

[sabresparaavida]

3 hours ago, Claude Balls said:

If 15 or 16 team charters fall out of the sky. 

Yeah, I'm a little morbid, but I had a rough childhood. 

Pretty sure the season would get cancelled at that point.