Sabres Management and Coaching Thread

[sabrebuild]

Am I the only one who finds it humorous that Eichel on ROR's wing or vice versa wasn't tried out beyond a shift here or there, for two years. And when it is, bylsma does it after eichel really needs the help.

To bad he was forced to put reinhart at center, that seems like it's a disaster too...

Why does this coach need to be forced into trying basic variations? That are logical to the context of the team?

Anyway continue...

 

[haseoke39]

This argument about why not keep them together if they're playoff caliber is not moot. We're about to make decisions about letting Kulikov walk or exposing Bogosian with no replacements lined up. If you still believe this is a playoff caliber core, you try to sign Kulikov and protect Bogo, and then focus on additions.

Otherwise, you could be handing Bylsma's successor a much worse defense than you handed Bylsma.

That, again, is if your premise is these guys are good enough to take the next step.

 

[Husko]

I'm beginning to think Murray feels about defensrmen the way Jame feels about goalies. Every major draft pick, every major trade of futures for NHL talent, and his biggest UFA acquisition has targeted forwards. It's no accident our defense blows.

I don't think so. He tried for Fowler last year. He acquired Kulikov thinking he was getting a top 4 player. He brought in Bogosian, Georges, and Franson. My bigger concern is that he seems to overly prioritize physicality (Georges, Bogosian, Kulikov, Falk all have it) and undervalue puck mocking and possession (Pysyk). We'll see.

 

[Husko]

This argument about why not keep them together if they're playoff caliber is not moot. We're about to make decisions about letting Kulikov walk or exposing Bogosian with no replacements lined up. If you still believe this is a playoff caliber core, you try to sign Kulikov and protect Bogo, and then focus on additions.

Otherwise, you could be handing Bylsma's successor a much worse defense than you handed Bylsma.

That, again, is if your premise is these guys are good enough to take the next step.

It's just a silly semantics argument.

Could it be good enough to make the playoffs with this defense? Sure.

Could they win a cup with this defense? No.

Do they need to improve? Absolutely.

Arguing over what 'caliber' it is is just silly.

 

[Husko]

Healthy you feel we have one of the 5 worst defenses in the league?

With this coach we might. I think Kulikov and Bogosian are just atrocious fits in Bylsma's system. Total round peg square hole. In a different scheme maybe they're both top 4 Dmen, or maybe they both just suck.

 

[joshjull]

With this coach we might. I think Kulikov and Bogosian are just atrocious fits in Bylsma's system. Total round peg square hole. In a different scheme maybe they're both top 4 Dmen, or maybe they both just suck.

He said with any coach

 

[struckbyaparkedcar]

We're a generic bottom 15 defense if they prioritize results from Risto rather than playing the entire unit in high opportunity cost roles.

 

[AustonsNostrils]

After listening to Murray's WGR interview I think it's much more likely than not that we're getting a new coach. He stressed the importance of the end of the year interviews with the players, I think those will convince him that he can't risk another mediocre start to a season by bringing Bylsma back.

 

[Jame]

This argument about why not keep them together if they're playoff caliber is not moot. We're about to make decisions about letting Kulikov walk or exposing Bogosian with no replacements lined up. If you still believe this is a playoff caliber core, you try to sign Kulikov and protect Bogo, and then focus on additions.

Otherwise, you could be handing Bylsma's successor a much worse defense than you handed Bylsma.

That, again, is if your premise is these guys are good enough to take the next step.

Yea, if being playoff caliber is the goal, you can keep Byslma too

 

[Jame]

Fire the coach.

Upgrade the D through the draft. Patiently develop.

Fire the coach
Upgrade the D
Win

 

[haseoke39]

Yea, if being playoff caliber is the goal, you can keep Byslma too

So, you're saying what, exactly? That Dan Bylsma is a good coach?

Playoff caliber in the NHL means, roughly, average. The fact that some goalie or group of forwards or defense is going to appear in the playoffs who are below average doesn't mean the conversation is meaningless.

If you think this is an average or better NHL defense in terms of talent, you should be trying to keep these guys in addition to bringing in an upgrade. Just letting guys walk or go to Vegas presumes that great players are just going to fall into your lap to fill their spots, which is no given.

I guess I'm confused about what people are trying to argue. Murray did well because the players are good, the coach is the problem, so get rid of the coach, but also the players because the players are also a problem, but not because of Murray.

 

[Jame]

So, you're saying what, exactly? That Dan Bylsma is a good coach?

Playoff caliber in the NHL means, roughly, average. The fact that some goalie or group of forwards or defense is going to appear in the playoffs who are below average doesn't mean the conversation is meaningless.

If you think this is an average or better NHL defense in terms of talent, you should be trying to keep these guys in addition to bringing in an upgrade. Just letting guys walk or go to Vegas presumes that great players are just going to fall into your lap to fill their spots, which is no given.

I guess I'm confused about what people are trying to argue. Murray did well because the players are good, the coach is the problem, so get rid of the coach, but also the players because the players are also a problem, but not because of Murray.

I'm willing to keep anyone on our defense, if/when Bylsma is fired. But that firing doesn't also preclude me from wanting to upgrade any given one of them.

Not sure what's so hard to understand here. We'd be significantly better with a competent head coach.

Yes. I think Bylsma is the primary and overriding problem with this team. That viewpoint isn't a shock to anyone. So, logically, with guys like Bogo/Kulikov who have been bonafide and quality top 4 defensemen throughout their careers... I would be fine with bringing them back under a competent head coach.

And yes... this whole arbitrary "playoff caliber" narrative is stupid...

Bottom line, I can think the coach is the problem and simultaneously want to upgrade the blueline while also acknowledging the natural upgrade it would receive from a coaching/system change.

 

[haseoke39]

So, logically, with guys like Bogo/Kulikov who have been bonafide and quality top 4 defensemen throughout their careers... I would be fine with bringing them back under a competent head coach.

So you'd be fine with bringing them back, they're of some acceptable quality, also fine with letting them go if an upgrade is brought in.

I'm just a little curious about the passivity of that latter option, though. If we let Kulikov walk and leave Bogo exposed, there's no guarantee their superior is acquired. Leaving us worse off than we were before, potentially.

 

[Jame]

So you'd be fine with bringing them back, they're of some acceptable quality, also fine with letting them go if an upgrade is brought in.

I'm just a little curious about the passivity of that latter option, though. If we let Kulikov walk and leave Bogo exposed, there's no guarantee their superior is acquired. Leaving us worse off than we were before, potentially.

I don't see it as passive. I see it as a function of the expansion draft.

ultimately, it's all dependent on Murray's decision on Bylsma first.

I'm not fine with bringing them back if Bylsma is still here. But I also don't think there is much hope if Bylsma is brought back (in terms of the big picture).

We could acquire Scandella, and that's a replacement of Kulikov... under Bylsma, what's the difference?

We could trade Bogo for Muzzin... under Bylsma, what's the difference?

Here's the problem... if Bylsma is still here, it means to solve our problems we probably have to trade Reinhart to get an elite puck moving defensemen. And then Kane for another.

If Bylsma is gone, we can address the blueline in less desperate fashion (see Scandella/Muzzin examples)

If we had a competent head coach, that played to our forwards strengths... we could have a "playoff caliber" blueline with something like:

Kane for Muzzin
Picks/Young Forward for Scandella
Sign Franson

Muzzin-Risto
Scandella-Bogo
McCabe-Franson
x Gorges, Falk

Muzzin's been a top pair/top 4 on a cup champion
Scandella and Bogo have been successful top 4s under competent head coaches
Franson stabilized this season
McCabe is still developing
Gorges, Falk is veteran depth
Guhle in the pipe

That defense in 2017-18 is "playoff caliber" under a good head coach, it's bottom 5 under Bylsma

 

[rtfirefly]

So we add Scandella, a 27-year-old, 55th overall pick, who is -3 on a team that is +55,
and Muzzin, a 28-year-old, 141st overall pick who is -21. Players who, it is safe to say, have already maximized their potential on good teams. Perhaps there are better answers to the defense problem.

 

[Myllz]

So we add Scandella, a 27-year-old, 55th overall pick, who is -3 on a team that is +55,
and Muzzin, a 28-year-old, 141st overall pick who is -21. Players who, it is safe to say, have already maximized their potential on good teams. Perhaps there are better answers to the defense problem.

That's an extremely narrow way to look at it, especially considering how subjective +/- is. Doughty is +3 on that same +55 team, you really think that +4 is a massive difference between him and Muzzin?

 

[Husko]

So we add Scandella, a 27-year-old, 55th overall pick, who is -3 on a team that is +55,
and Muzzin, a 28-year-old, 141st overall pick who is -21. Players who, it is safe to say, have already maximized their potential on good teams. Perhaps there are better answers to the defense problem.

Way to use +/- and at the same time find a measurement even more useless.

That said, I do hope we get at least one high end defender, ala Tanev, Fowler, Brodin, etc.

 

[Jame]

So we add Scandella, a 27-year-old, 55th overall pick, who is -3 on a team that is +55,
and Muzzin, a 28-year-old, 141st overall pick who is -21. Players who, it is safe to say, have already maximized their potential on good teams. Perhaps there are better answers to the defense problem.

We make this mistake all the time... isn't it more likely that, "perhaps not"?

What's more likely:
1. We acquire a true top pair/elite defensemen and sign/add the depth needed behind the top pair and along with Bylsma's witty system become a playoff caliber defense
or
2. We acquire good, solid, proven NHL caliber, top 4 defensemen, who aren't washed up or athletically challenged.... and add a competent head coach to become a playoff caliber defense

sure there's a 3rd option.... combining the elite defensemen from option 1, with the coaching change from option 2.... and that would be amazing.

 

[flashsabre]

During Murray's WGR interview yesterday he said that they have to find a way to get younger and more mobile on the backend. I don't think he is looking at dmen in there late 20s such as Tanev. Maybe he is focused on a young stud in his early 20s and fill in with guys like Antipin and Guhle.

 

[Jame]

During Murray's WGR interview yesterday he said that they have to find a way to get younger and more mobile on the backend. I don't think he is looking at dmen in there late 20s such as Tanev. Maybe he is focused on a young stud in his early 20s and fill in with guys like Antipin and Guhle.

I think it's safe to say Fowler is still a primary target of his.

 

[sabrebuild]

So we add Scandella, a 27-year-old, 55th overall pick, who is -3 on a team that is +55,
and Muzzin, a 28-year-old, 141st overall pick who is -21. Players who, it is safe to say, have already maximized their potential on good teams. Perhaps there are better answers to the defense problem.

A lot of thought went into this..

 

[Moskau]

A lot of thought went into this..

He had to look where they were drafted for some inexplicable reason so maybe there was a lot of thought.

 

[rtfirefly]

A lot of thought went into this..

A lot of thought, and a lot of observation. All of which led to the conclusion that both of these players have already passed their upside potential. And they will be further diminished assets in two or three or four years, when the Sabres most talented players will be entering their best years. Given how bad the Sabres defense is now, these players could well be worth a couple more wins next year, but as part of a long-term plan they would prove to be more detriment than asset. Each also carries a $4million+ cap hit for the next three years. Ideally (and Murray may or may not be able to achieve this) the core of the team will consist of as many players as possible closest to their peak years. Mid-level players who are relatively expensive, and five or six or seven years older than the prospective core are not the best long-term solutions. Or so I believe.

 

[Jame]

If Murray's comments about getting younger on the blueline are true... maybe he's ready to go nuclear and use the offersheet?

 

[Jame]

A lot of thought, and a lot of observation. All of which led to the conclusion that both of these players have already passed their upside potential. And they will be further diminished assets in two or three or four years, when the Sabres most talented players will be entering their best years. Given how bad the Sabres defense is now, these players could well be worth a couple more wins next year, but as part of a long-term plan they would prove to be more detriment than asset. Each also carries a $4million+ cap hit for the next three years. Ideally (and Murray may or may not be able to achieve this) the core of the team will consist of as many players as possible closest to their peak years. Mid-level players who are relatively expensive, and five or six years older than the prospective core are not the best long-term solutions. Or so I believe.

You had to put a lot of thought and observation into determining that 28 year olds had passed the stage of having "upside potential"?

I think this is about being realistic. Under contract for next season our defense is:
Gorges-Risto
McCabe-Bogo
Falk-xxxx

Leaving out the context of Bylsma being a total anchor around our defensemen's skates... we can objectively say we need to make a move that pushes one of Gorges/Falk out of the lineup (ideally both) and someone to replace Franson's minutes and/or pushes Bogo down to the 3rd pair.

Now... it's easy to vote for adding Fowler and Tanev to accomplish this. But you need to have a plan B.

Plan B adds quality top 4 defensemen, while we continue to grow the future behind them (Guhle, Borgen, etc). We can either trade for cost controlled players like Muzzin and Scandella with only 3 remaining years at below market cap numbers... or we can hit up free agency and overpay for Michael Stone, or bring back Franson and Ruhwedel types.

Yes, there is a big gap between the elites we dream of (Fowler, etc) and the realistic trade targets (Scandella)... but there is also a big gap between the realistic trade targets and the UFA scraps.

PS the Sabres most talented players are either in their best year or entering them right now...