[Incomplete Title] Sabres (21-12-5) & NHL 2018-19 - Game 39 (MSG-B) vs. BOS (20-14-4) at 7 PM ET on 12/29

[K-9]

11 minutes ago, JohnC said:

Respectfully, I have a different take from you and the despairing Plenzmd. This team isn't collapsing as much as it is faltering. Let's put things in perspective. The Sabres were not only the worst team in hockey last year---- they were also unwatchable. Last year, there was no redeemable entertaining value to watching them. Not so this year. Maybe that was the gruesome plan to give them a greater opportunity to pick Dahlin? So if that was the low point then let's look at where we are now. When this season is completed this team will be more than 20 pts better. I'm aware that the benchmark is low but that is where we were last year. That's progress. 

 

The vets that the Sabres have are all disposable. We added vets just for the sake of filling roster spots. It's really not worth being bothered by their lack of production because all of those end of the line players are systematically going to be replaced next year or at worst the year after. I believe that Mittelstadt and Tage are going to be legitimate second line players.  Episodically, they do show glimpses of talent but for the most part their lack of experience is revealed. That's not to be unexpected. It's part of the exasperating developmental process. Another player I'm following is Pilut. For a young player who hasn't played in North America I think he is showing talent. His mistakes due to inexperience can be crushing but again that is part of the developmental process. I'm hoping that Nylander and Guhle will get a chance to play this season. But if the GM decides to keep them down on the farm to get more playing time I will understand the reasoning. 

 

I really believe that our GM (who I'm impressed with) will make some consequential moves this offseason. That's when those types of big moves are made. I understand the frustration by the fans with not being a playoff team for so long. But I feel strongly that it would be a mistake to deal off assets to get a chance to squeak into the playoffs this season.

 

I understand what Botterill is doing, and I agree with it. We are not as far off as many people think. We have played well against most of the top dog teams this year. For the most part we were competitive to the end. But in the end the more talented team prevailed. I'm confident that if we stay the course by next year this team will move up into the playoff echelon. I advocate for patience and having the fortitude to trust the process. 

 

 

 

 

Much of this I agree with. 

 

Collapse vs. faltering? To go from where we were after the first 25 games to literally being the worst team in the league over the last 23 is the definition of collapse. No need to parse the language, although I appreciate your optimistic take even in that regard.

 

About those consequential moves in the off-season, other than (hopefully) attracting a top FA or two (and that’s a big if given the state of the team), with what capital do we use to transact those moves? Draft picks JBotts won’t and shouldn’t trade? Prospects he shows no interest in moving at this time? Certainly not those useless vets we currently have. As it stands right now, we are entirely dependent on the kids on the farm and future picks yet to be made. 

 

And if that’s the case, we may as well start the youth movement as I, Plenz, and Harrington have suggested. I just don’t think JBotts and Housley see eye to eye on that score. 

 

I look forward to the future and will certainly continue to root like hell. But this team as currently comprised, is not a good team. Simp,e as that.

[BillsFan4]

 

Surprised it took this long...  but at least they were smart enough to do it before he made some terrible trade out of desperation. 

 

 

Looking at his tenure as GM, there are not a whole lot of moves he made that look very good. Almost every trade was awful, and he managed to somehow almost make the oilers worse. 

 

It is inexcusable to surround one of the best players on the planet with so little. 

It’s a crime not to build a team around McDavid. 

 

 

If Edmonton is smart, they will finally clear out that whole old boys club (Lowe, MacTavish etc). They have been there, in prominent roles (GMs, coach, president, Vice President) through the Oilers entire decade+ run of futility. 

Until the owner decides its more important to win than to keep ex-Oiler dynasty players  employed so he can hang out with them, the Oilers will probably continue to struggle. I think their problems start right at the top. 

 

 

 

 

 

[JohnC]

1 hour ago, BillsFan4 said:

 

Surprised it took this long...  but at least they were smart enough to do it before he made some terrible trade out of desperation. 

 

 

Looking at his tenure as GM, there are not a whole lot of moves he made that look very good. Almost every trade was awful, and he managed to somehow almost make the oilers worse. 

 

It is inexcusable to surround one of the best players on the planet with so little. 

It’s a crime not to build a team around McDavid. 

 

 

If Edmonton is smart, they will finally clear out that whole old boys club (Lowe, MacTavish etc). They have been there, in prominent roles (GMs, coach, president, Vice President) through the Oilers entire decade+ run of futility. 

Until the owner decides its more important to win than to keep ex-Oiler dynasty players  employed so he can hang out with them, the Oilers will probably continue to struggle. I think their problems start right at the top. 

 

 

 

 

 

The Taylor Hall to New Jersey turned out to be a boondoggle deal. It invigorated the Devils and set them on a course of adding youth and speed to a slow and sluggish team. The acquisition of Larsson and the costly Lucic didn't help as much as it was hoped. What the Taylor Hall deal demonstrates is that you have to be cautious when you are making it out of desperation. In this case it was to buttress a weak defense. When you have a dynamic player such as Hall you have to be sure that the return is at least equal to what you are giving up. This trade clearly wasn't. And most of the critical commentary after the deal reflected that imbalance. 

 

I understand why the Oilers wanted to add some muscle with their acquisition of Lucici. However, his contract was too rich for what he added to the team. In a cap system a bad contract can foreclose a lot of future options. 

 

A number of frustrated fans want Botterill to be less cautious and more willing to make deals for a struggling team. He's doing the right thing by being judicious and not forced into making a deal that will hurt our near future. My recommendation that riles an impatient faction  is to stay the course. 

[plenzmd1]

3 hours ago, JohnC said:

The Taylor Hall to New Jersey turned out to be a boondoggle deal. It invigorated the Devils and set them on a course of adding youth and speed to a slow and sluggish team. The acquisition of Larsson and the costly Lucic didn't help as much as it was hoped. What the Taylor Hall deal demonstrates is that you have to be cautious when you are making it out of desperation. In this case it was to buttress a weak defense. When you have a dynamic player such as Hall you have to be sure that the return is at least equal to what you are giving up. This trade clearly wasn't. And most of the critical commentary after the deal reflected that imbalance. 

 

I understand why the Oilers wanted to add some muscle with their acquisition of Lucici. However, his contract was too rich for what he added to the team. In a cap system a bad contract can foreclose a lot of future options. 

 

A number of frustrated fans want Botterill to be less cautious and more willing to make deals for a struggling team. He's doing the right thing by being judicious and not forced into making a deal that will hurt our near future. My recommendation that riles an impatient faction  is to stay the course. 

well, lets not forget in the first year of that deal Edmonton went out in game 7 of round 2, and everyone and their brother thought a team on the come big time, and that deal was praised as knowing what the team needed....

 

some interesting names here..I know I may get killed here but I have been floating the idea in my teeny tiny brain of trading Skinny as well..I mean if you have a wink wink deal he will come back and you can get a kings ransom...and you are not going to be a buyer.????

Edited January 23, 2019 by plenzmd1

[K-9]

3 hours ago, JohnC said:

The Taylor Hall to New Jersey turned out to be a boondoggle deal. It invigorated the Devils and set them on a course of adding youth and speed to a slow and sluggish team. The acquisition of Larsson and the costly Lucic didn't help as much as it was hoped. What the Taylor Hall deal demonstrates is that you have to be cautious when you are making it out of desperation. In this case it was to buttress a weak defense. When you have a dynamic player such as Hall you have to be sure that the return is at least equal to what you are giving up. This trade clearly wasn't. And most of the critical commentary after the deal reflected that imbalance. 

 

I understand why the Oilers wanted to add some muscle with their acquisition of Lucici. However, his contract was too rich for what he added to the team. In a cap system a bad contract can foreclose a lot of future options. 

 

A number of frustrated fans want Botterill to be less cautious and more willing to make deals for a struggling team. He's doing the right thing by being judicious and not forced into making a deal that will hurt our near future. My recommendation that riles an impatient faction  is to stay the course. 

Stay the course. Stay the course. That’s all fine and dandy as long as everyone realizes exactly what that means. And that’s asking an awful lot of a fan base that has suffered seven years of no post season play. And finishing dead LAST a couple of times along the way.

 

I’ve asked the question before: how long will staying the course take to get there? Is that acceptable when added to the time it’s already taken?

 

Do we stay the course with the players currently assembled? The obvious answer suggests that won’t work.

 

Unless JBotts is willing to trade promising prospects, we lack the necessary ammo to make the deals necessary to get better, already established NHL ready players so we have to commit to the youth movement and that’s not staying the course. 

 

Waive or send the dead weight to Rochester and get on with it already. The course for this season is the same as seasons past and we know where it’s going. Let’s see what the kids can do at the NHL level. 

 

[JohnC]

49 minutes ago, K-9 said:

Stay the course. Stay the course. That’s all fine and dandy as long as everyone realizes exactly what that means. And that’s asking an awful lot of a fan base that has suffered seven years of no post season play. And finishing dead LAST a couple of times along the way.

 

I’ve asked the question before: how long will staying the course take to get there? Is that acceptable when added to the time it’s already taken?

 

Do we stay the course with the players currently assembled? The obvious answer suggests that won’t work.

 

Unless JBotts is willing to trade promising prospects, we lack the necessary ammo to make the deals necessary to get better, already established NHL ready players so we have to commit to the youth movement and that’s not staying the course. 

 

Waive or send the dead weight to Rochester and get on with it already. The course for this season is the same as seasons past and we know where it’s going. Let’s see what the kids can do at the NHL level. 

 

You are misreading my comments that I have made over the past number of weeks. No one is saying that we should stand pat for the sake of passively waiting for our prospects to bare fruit. That's not what I am saying and have been saying. What I am saying is making deals just to get to the point of being a marginal playoff team is an investment to nowhere. The consequential deals that are more likely to happen will happen in the offseason, not during the season. I'm adamantly opposed to dealing assets for the shortsighted purpose of hanging on to a very thin thread of a playoff appearance.

 

The Skinner trade was a consequential deal. It happened in the offseason. The ROR deal was a consequential deal that in the short term set us back. That transaction happened in the offseason. Hopefully in the long term it will work out well for us because it gave us cap flexibility and a good young player in Tage. In addition, It also moved out a player who simply didn't want to be here any longer.  

 

The Sabres were the worst team in hockey last year. They are going to be more than twenty points better than last year. You may sneer at that increase but I am not. As it stands we have a few players in Rochester who should be ready to play in the NHL next year. Will some of those AHL players be moved up to the big club as you want? Maybe? If the GM determines that it is best for the younger players to get more playing time in the minors for the benefit of their development then I'm fine with it. 

 

You constantly point out that the timeline is too long to get to the point beyond respectability. My repeated response is the same: What has extended the process is the constant churning of staff and the frequent changing of rebuilding plans. Much to your dismay I still say: Stay the course because that is the only viable course. If a deal makes sense then make it. If it doesn't then don't make it. I'm just more encouraged with what has transpired this year than you are. Let it play out. 

[JohnC]

1 hour ago, plenzmd1 said:

well, lets not forget in the first year of that deal Edmonton went out in game 7 of round 2, and everyone and their brother thought a team on the come big time, and that deal was praised as knowing what the team needed....

 

some interesting names here..I know I may get killed here but I have been floating the idea in my teeny tiny brain of trading Skinny as well..I mean if you have a wink wink deal he will come back and you can get a kings ransom...and you are not going to be a buyer.????

The short-term thinking that you are proposing is a recipe for an even longer period of mediocrity. In hindsight the Taylor Hall deal was a disaster. You can point out the short term benefit of that deal but in the long run it was a very poor deal. The problem I have with Edmonton's trade of him wasn't that he was dealt but what they got in return. As time has gone by it has become abundantly  clear that that transaction was a franchise damaging deal. 

 

With regards to your conspiring line of thinking with a  tacit deal with Skinner that would bring him back after being dealt my recommendation is for you to stop drinking and sober up. That type of backroom deal simply isn't going to happen. If we can't get a deal done the Sabres will take his designated money and use it for another prime-time player. 

[K-9]

5 minutes ago, JohnC said:

You are misreading my comments that I have made over the past number of weeks. No one is saying that we should stand pat for the sake of passively waiting for our prospects to bare fruit. That's not what I am saying and have been saying. What I am saying is making deals just to get to the point of being a marginal playoff team is an investment to nowhere. The consequential deals that are more likely to happen will happen in the offseason, not during the season. I'm adamantly opposed to dealing assets for the shortsighted purpose of hanging on to a very thin thread of a playoff appearance.

 

The Skinner trade was a consequential deal. It happened in the offseason. The ROR deal was a consequential deal that in the short term set us back. That transaction happened in the offseason. Hopefully in the long term it will work out well for us because it gave us cap flexibility and a good young player in Tage. In addition, It also moved out a player who simply didn't want to be here any longer.  

 

The Sabres were the worst team in hockey last year. They are going to be more than twenty points better than last year. You may sneer at that increase but I am not. As it stands we have a few players in Rochester who should be ready to play in the NHL next year. Will some of those AHL players be moved up to the big club as you want? Maybe? If the GM determines that it is best for the younger players to get more playing time in the minors for the benefit of their development then I'm fine with it. 

 

You constantly point out that the timeline is too long to get to the point beyond respectability. My repeated response is the same: What has extended the process is the constant churning of staff and the frequent changing of rebuilding plans. Much to your dismay I still say: Stay the course because that is the only viable course. If a deal makes sense then make it. If it doesn't then don't make it. I'm just more encouraged with what has transpired this year than you are. Let it play out. 

Per the bold text:

 

Yes, the Sabres were the worst team last year and, over the last 23 games, they are again the worst team in the league. I find that more than coincidental. I see it as reverting to form and it’s more than a legitimate reason to be concerned. And it’s EVERY reason to call out the current regime and strategy. 

 

20 points better is a nice improvement, but it’s not acceptable given where they were at the end of the streak. Not in the least. As fluky as it may have been, it changed the measuring stick. We are now seeing their inability to meet higher expectations. I’m not OK with that after years of willfully lowering my expectations in the hopes of seeing real progress. And the analytics suggest we haven’t made real progress while other poor teams have and continue to do so. Somehow, even though they’ve had regime turnover, they’ve been able to improve while we remain stagnant. I have to ask why. It’s a reasonable question. 

 

I constantly point out the timeline because as it stands now, it’s going to take another few years. That gets us to 10 years and counting. Hard pill to swallow given the success of other bad teams in much shorter time frames. 

 

I wish i could  be encouraged by what I’ve seen but, other than an exciting winning streak, there really isn’t much to celebrate, other than watching Jack’s line and a few promising rookies. 

 

Waive the dead weight and bring up the kids. Status quo isn’t doing anything. 

 

 

[K-9]

2 hours ago, plenzmd1 said:

well, lets not forget in the first year of that deal Edmonton went out in game 7 of round 2, and everyone and their brother thought a team on the come big time, and that deal was praised as knowing what the team needed....

 

some interesting names here..I know I may get killed here but I have been floating the idea in my teeny tiny brain of trading Skinny as well..I mean if you have a wink wink deal he will come back and you can get a kings ransom...and you are not going to be a buyer.????

Bold strategy indeed, Cotton! Hey, it worked with Molson! 

 

I hope we are not a buyer as I think it’s a fait accompli that we aren’t going to the playoffs, I don’t think we have any vets to fetch a decent return,  and I don’t want to risk losing our prospects. 

 

Waive the dead weight, bring up the kids, and start the youth movement! And screw Housley if he doesn’t like it.

 

 

[JohnC]

4 minutes ago, K-9 said:

Per the bold text:

 

Yes, the Sabres were the worst team last year and, over the last 23 games, they are again the worst team in the league. I find that more than coincidental. I see it as reverting to form and it’s more than a legitimate reason to be concerned. And it’s EVERY reason to call out the current regime and strategy. 

 

20 points better is a nice improvement, but it’s not acceptable given where they were at the end of the streak. Not in the least. As fluky as it may have been, it changed the measuring stick. We are now seeing their inability to meet higher expectations. I’m not OK with that after years of willfully lowering my expectations in the hopes of seeing real progress. And the analytics suggest we haven’t made real progress while other poor teams have and continue to do so. Somehow, even though they’ve had regime turnover, they’ve been able to improve while we remain stagnant. I have to ask why. It’s a reasonable question. 

 

I constantly point out the timeline because as it stands now, it’s going to take another few years. That gets us to 10 years and counting. Hard pill to swallow given the success of other bad teams in much shorter time frames. 

 

I wish i could  be encouraged by what I’ve seen but, other than an exciting winning streak, there really isn’t much to celebrate, other than watching Jack’s line and a few promising rookies. 

 

Waive the dead weight and bring up the kids. Status quo isn’t doing anything. 

 

 

The Sabres are not as good a team as their 10 game win streak would suggest. It was very fluky. Don't let that streak be your measuring stick for how good this team actually was. And the corollary is that the Sabres are not as bad as their current floundering seems to indicate. (I'm confident that you disagree with my assessment.)

 

With respect to the timeline where I significantly disagree with you is that I'm not going to attach the failures and accumulated boondoggles of the prior regimes onto the current regime headed by Botterill. That's simply not fair and right. You asked me before what my timeline was for being better than respectful? My judgment is two more years as the Rochester players get phased in next year. I also expect the GM to make some moves this offseason. 

 

Your exhortation to wave the deadweight is understandable. But I'm not caught up with that issue because in the not to distant future they will be systematically dispatched and be replaced with the pipeline players and with players acquired in deals. As I said in a prior post those players are simply placeholders until the younger and better players take their vacated spots. 

 

I understand where you and Plezmd are coming from. It is not only an understandable position to take but it is also a reasonable position to take. Where we diverge is that I see more upside from the current roster and pipeline than you do. I also have a lot of faith in Botterill and his judgments. He certainly isn't a dynamic fellow but he is a substantive and analytical manager. He knows what he has and what needs to be done.  I see him making some deals this offseason that will accelerate the process. I never expected this team to catapult to the upper echelon. However, I feel that this franchise is steadily and inexorable moving up the ranks. I am not discouraged from what I have seen so far. Quite the contrary. I am confident that we are on the right course. Now is not the time to panic and deviate from the course. 

[K-9]

24 minutes ago, JohnC said:

The Sabres are not as good a team as their 10 game win streak would suggest. It was very fluky. Don't let that streak be your measuring stick for how good this team actually was. And the corollary is that the Sabres are not as bad as their current floundering seems to indicate. (I'm confident that you disagree with my assessment.)

 

With respect to the timeline where I significantly disagree with you is that I'm not going to attach the failures and accumulated boondoggles of the prior regimes onto the current regime headed by Botterill. That's simply not fair and right. You asked me before what my timeline was for being better than respectful? My judgment is two more years as the Rochester players get phased in next year. I also expect the GM to make some moves this offseason. 

 

Your exhortation to wave the deadweight is understandable. But I'm not caught up with that issue because in the not to distant future they will be systematically dispatched and be replaced with the pipeline players and with players acquired in deals. As I said in a prior post those players are simply placeholders until the younger and better players take their vacated spots. 

 

I understand where you and Plezmd are coming from. It is not only an understandable position to take but it is also a reasonable position to take. Where we diverge is that I see more upside from the current roster and pipeline than you do. I also have a lot of faith in Botterill and his judgments. He certainly isn't a dynamic fellow but he is a substantive and analytical manager. He knows what he has and what needs to be done.  I see him making some deals this offseason that will accelerate the process. I never expected this team to catapult to the upper echelon. However, I feel that this franchise is steadily and inexorable moving up the ranks. I am not discouraged from what I have seen so far. Quite the contrary. I am confident that we are on the right course. Now is not the time to panic and deviate from the course. 

I knew their win streak wasn’t indicative of who they really were as the underlying analytics suggested as much. But fair or not, that catapulted them into playoff contention where .500 hockey (not unreasonable,  but it if it is, that’s even more telling) the rest of the way would virtually guarantee playing meaningful games late in March. We are sub .400 since, let alone even. 

 

But it’s not a question of them not being as good as the streak suggested, it’s a question of being as bad as they were last year. They are closer to that reality than not as their previous 23 games, every bit as good a sample size as their first 25,  suggests. 

 

Last year, they had a 16 point regression from Bylsma’s team the year before. You’ve projected a 20 point increase this season to an 88 point finish. We need 34 points out of the remaining 68 to get there. That’s an even .500 clip. Something this team, under this coach, aside from that fluky winning streak, has never come close to showing they are capable of. 

 

I’m glad they can be competitive against better teams. We saw that last year as well.

 

I’m dismayed we can look like crap against worse teams. Something we also saw last year.

 

It all amounts to treading water and going nowhere. 

 

Bring up the kids and commit to seeing what they may bring if given the time to develop at the NHL level. 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Edited January 23, 2019 by K-9

[shrader]

Rask for Niederreiter.  Is that a case of either team selling off their future for a shot at today?  This idea none of the so called hockey deals are made at this time of the year, it needs to die.  Seeing that same exact response to any suggestion of trades is getting tiresome.

[JohnC]

1 hour ago, shrader said:

Rask for Niederreiter.  Is that a case of either team selling off their future for a shot at today?  This idea none of the so called hockey deals are made at this time of the year, it needs to die.  Seeing that same exact response to any suggestion of trades is getting tiresome.

What deal would you propose that would be beneficial for the Sabres and make sense for a trading partner? None of our veterans are worth much. And I'm not willing to jettison a prime prospect for the long-shot odds of squeaking into the playoffs. 

 

Don't distort what I am saying. I'm not saying, or ever had said, that these in season deals can't be a factor for a contending team. You make a judgment where the team is and where it is going. And then you determine what you got and what you can get for what you got. I stand by my stance that I don't see a significant deal materializing that will make a difference for us within the season.

 

If you can propose a deal that would enhance our status without derailing where we want to be in a year so then state it. Fanciful hypothesizing usually doesn't come to fruition in the real world. 

[bbb]

1 hour ago, JohnC said:

Fanciful hypothesizing usually doesn't come to fruition in the real world. 

 

Every year, GR turns into all trade talk, all the time, and I don't think I've ever heard one that actually happens.

[JohnC]

13 minutes ago, bbb said:

 

Every year, GR turns into all trade talk, all the time, and I don't think I've ever heard one that actually happens.

The only valuable and worthwhile assets the Sabres have are young and upcoming players such as Guhle, Nylander, Mittelstadt, Tage etc. Why would we deal these promising players whose better days are in front of them?  What's the point of making a deal that can only help marginally to be more competitive for a wildcard chase?  That makes no sense from the Sabres's perspective. That is shortsighted thinking that has kept this floundering franchise stuck in the muck of mediocrity. 

 

Our veteran players have little value on the market for the obvious reason that in general they suck! What are we going to get back in return for the caliber of players that this organization is systematically dispatching in order to play the better younger players in our system. 

 

I have pointedly asked the vocal trade advocates to make a hypothetically deal that improves this roster. The response is silence. Plezmd suggested trading Risto. He is a legitimate top pairing and our workhorse defenseman who is still getting better. Without a doubt teams would covet him. But what would we get back in return? What's the point of creating another gaping hole on a thin roster, and then having to go back and fill it. 

 

As I stated in prior posts I believe the GM will make more impacting moves in the offseason. But the potential in-season deals for us is limited. That is not to say that a team such as Toronto with near future cap issues and with a legitimate chance to compete for the cup won't make a big splash deal. The reality is that we are not close to being in that situation. The problem that many people have is that they are not willing to face that reality so they create their own fiction in order to cope with the frustrations of following the Sabres.   

[BringBackFergy]

@Hapless Bills Fan @Chandler#81 @Canadian Bills Fan Can someone override this thread title to just make it “Sabres Season 2018-19” or maybe someone can keep updating the current record? The Bruins game title from weeks ago makes me think our team is still good. 

[Chandler#81]

Topic titles must reflect the content of the topic (and it must contain more than just a name). This helps to reduce the number of duplicate topics and makes the community much more user friendly.

 

Please edit the title so that it properly reflects the discussion that you started.

 

Thank you.

 

EDIT: 26 CB no longer frequents the site. Only the OP can change the title. If y’all wish, I can kill the tread and start another for the 2nd half of the season. Let me know.

[BillsFan4]

45 minutes ago, Chandler#81 said:

Topic titles must reflect the content of the topic (and it must contain more than just a name). This helps to reduce the number of duplicate topics and makes the community much more user friendly.

 

Please edit the title so that it properly reflects the discussion that you started.

 

Thank you.

 

EDIT: 26 CB no longer frequents the site. Only the OP can change the title. If y’all wish, I can kill the tread and start another for the 2nd half of the season. Let me know.

 

I started a new thread and will do my best to keep thr title updated. If I forget too often, I will switch it to a generic thread title as BringBackFergy suggested.