Toggle sidebar

Sabres Management and Coaching Thread

  • Xenforo Cloud will be upgrading us to version 2.3.5 on March 3rd at 12 AM GMT. This version has increased stability and fixes several bugs. We expect downtime for the duration of the update. The admin team will continue to work on existing issues, templates and upgrade all necessary available addons to minimize impact of this new version. Click Here for Updates
Status
Not open for further replies.
Jame said:
You had to put a lot of thought and observation into determining that 28 year olds had passed the stage of having "upside potential"?
Click to expand...

I wasn't making any observation about "28 year olds". Rather, I had developed an opinion about the two specific players in question, and about how they would fit into the Sabres' plans going forward. In Scandella's case, his offensive production has decreased every year for three years. His plus/minus has gotten worse (marginally so) every year for three years. His TOI has also gone down, and is now more than three-and-a-half minutes per game less than three years ago. You may disagree, but my determination (based on watching games, as well as noting stats) that he has already maximized his upside potential is hardly some off-the-wall notion.
 
Last edited:
rtfirefly said:
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.
Click to expand...

They may or may not diminish, but there is value in guys being able to "Hold down the Fort" until the next wave of young defenseman in our pipeline are ready for the NHL. That is essentially what Bogo, Kulikov, Franson, and Gorges were supposed to be. Guys who can solidify the defense until our prospects are ready to be brought up. Same thing is happening with our forwards.

So by the time Scandella(for example) is on the "downside" guys like Borgen, Stephens are on their way to being ready for NHL action. While that is happening our best players should be at their peak and we should be fairly competitive and a very attractive place for UFAs, who could also fill the same role.
 
rtfirefly said:
I wasn't making any observation about "28 year olds". Rather, I had developed an opinion about the two specific ones in question, and about how they would fit into the Sabres' plans going forward. In Scandella's case, his offensive production has decreased every year for three years. His plus/minus has gotten worse (marginally so) every year for three years. His TOI has also gone down, and is now more than three-and-a-half minutes per game less than three years ago. You may disagree, but my determination (based on watching games, not simply on noting stats) that he has already maximized his upside potential is hardly some off-the-wall notion.
Click to expand...

I don't think anyone is advocating that Scandella is a long term solution. They are advocating that he is a short term one while our prospects. and hopefully the high D we select in this years draft, cook a little. Not only that, but he is likely obtainable without Reinhart or Nylander going the other way.
 
hizzoner said:
My best memory of Meehan was him scoring right in front of me with 15 seconds to go to put Philly out of the playoffs.
Click to expand...
Against Doug Favell, who later played for the Colorado Rockies, IIRC. I really liked the Rockies unis which matched their state flag.

Jame said:
Fire the coach
Upgrade the D
Win
Click to expand...
It IS this simple, people.

Jame said:
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.
Click to expand...

Jame said:
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.
Click to expand...

rtfirefly said:
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.
Click to expand...
What is your alternative proposal?
Jame said:
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...
Click to expand...
My hope is a new Sabre defenseman from each of those 3 piles, and I'm fine with Kulikov and/or Franson re-signed if Bylsma is gone.
 
I wonder if Brett Pesce could be an option. Ceci also, he seems to me like he may be developed into a player very similar to Tanev. Big, defensive minutes that allow the offensive pair (Karlsson for Ottawa, Ristolainen for Buffalo) to be given big minutes in the offensive zone.

Both young guys, good skaters, enough skill even if they don't put up offensive numbers. Also, both will soon be getting new contracts, so Kane might be an option especially since both teams seem to be looking for scoring.

As for another guy with skill that wouldn't require assets, I could see them going after Del Zotto on a short term-prove it deal.
 
Last edited:
dkollidas said:
I wonder if Brett Pesce could be an option. Cecil also, he seems to me like he may be developed into a player very similar to Tanev. Big, defensive minutes that allow the offensive pair (Karlsson for Ottawa, Ristolainen for Buffalo) to be given big minutes in the offensive zone.

Both young guys, good skaters, enough skill even if they don't put up offensive numbers. Also, both will soon be getting new contracts, so Kane might be an option especially since both teams seem to be looking for scoring.

As for another guy with skill that wouldn't require assets, I could see them going after Del Zotto on a short term-prove it deal.
Click to expand...

Cecil signed with St.Louis so that's not an option
 
Hopefully getting younger means moving on from Georges. Him and Franson are the only guys we can really "get younger" from without going after RFAs.
 
Step 1: Move on from Bylsma. Hire a coach who implements a system where the defense can carry the puck more often, only fire stretch passes when the situation merits, and has forwards on the Buffalo side of the red line for the breakout. That will immediately improve Bogosian's play. He is a carry-first freight train. As we can see, reading the play and moving the puck via long passes is not something he's good at. At all.

Step 2: Bolster the 2nd pair. Add a player like Tanev or Scandella. Even Brodin would do. Create a second pair that takes the defensive burden off Ristolainen. That allows Ristolainen to become an offensively oriented #1D. The added benefit of getting Tanev or Brodin is that both play/can play RD. That bumps Bogosian down to the third pair or makes him tradeable. That's a bonus.

Step 3: Find a partner for Ristolainen or the 2nd pairing defenseman. Either bring in a puck-mover to work with Ristolainen, or someone to play with the defensive-minded 2nd pairing defender.

Step 4: Sign a LHD to play with Bogosian. Antipin works. We know Hainsey plays well with Bogosian.

Puck mover - Ristolainen
McCabe - Defensive minded D
Antipin/Hainsey - Bogosian
x Gorges

Kane to Minnesota for Brodin or Scandella (part of a bigger deal), or Kane to Vancouver for Tanev answers the mail on the defensive minded D.

2017 1st plus to Anaheim for Fowler fills the second. I'm willing to throw a lot of adds into this deal, including Nylander.

Win.
 
Husko said:
Hopefully getting younger means moving on from Georges. Him and Franson are the only guys we can really "get younger" from without going after RFAs.
Click to expand...

I'm fine with Franson playing bottom pairing minutes and PP2 on a 2x3aav tyor of deal.

EDIT: am I the only one who thinks Bogo looks better on the left side as an playmaking D as compared to the RHD covering his partners mistakes?
 
kenfury said:
I'm fine with Franson playing bottom pairing minutes and PP2 on a 2x3aav tyor of deal.

EDIT: am I the only one who thinks Bogo looks better on the left side as an playmaking D as compared to the RHD covering his partners mistakes?
Click to expand...

I do, but pay no attention to me I know nothing about hockey.
 
After hearing Murray's interview, I still think Bylama's going to be given that first chunk of next season before getting the the old heave-ho. Unless exit interviews with the players are particularly damning, we should get comfortable with the idea of him starting here. (On the other hand, they probably will be particularly damning).

Sounded like Murray could even have an arrangement where he gets an extra unofficial protected player or two based on that Washington trade. That would be so cool if the take Eniss just to pay back a favor. Murray's cred would go through the roof in my book.
 
Last edited:
Doug Prishpreed said:
After hearing Murray's interview, I still think Bylama's going to be given that first chunk of next season before getting the the old heave-ho. Unless exit interviews with the players are particularly damning, we should get comfortable with the idea of him starting here. (On the other hand, they probably will be particularly damning).

Sounded like Murray could even have an arrangement where he gets an extra unofficial protected player or two based on that Washington trade. That would be so cool if the take Eniss just to pay back a favor. Murray's creed would go through the roof in my book.
Click to expand...

Care to elaborate more on the 2nd half of your statement?
 
DJN21 said:
Care to elaborate more on the 2nd half of your statement?
Click to expand...

Murray said there was some specific language remembered by both men regarding a favor being owed, implying that they both agreed he owed Murray a favor. It was during a discussion re: expansion draft
 
Jim Benning seems to be getting smarter the longer he's in his job in Vancouver. It's absolutely ludicrous to think he'd give up Tanev for Kane+ considering Kane quite conceivably will be available to him for free in just a year's time.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Latest posts

Ad

Upcoming events

Ad

Top Bottom