I might've repeated myself a few times there to get the point across. You need a messier to throw a flame thrower to the place.
Darcy Regier had no self-control, and Tim Murray was a control freak. Neither personality traits are helpful in executing a leadership role. I like Botterill for what we've seen of him so far. This deadline is going to be a big test of his meddle. BTW, spring Sprong from PIT and he's going to get marked up. Just saying. You're right, skinny, building a team is predicated on finding talent for all 23 roster spots; actually finding up to 50 talented players for the org. However, building a SC Champion caliber team is predicated on having one to three superstars. Almost without exception there's only one way to acquire that type of player: by selecting very high in the first round. (Where would TOR be without Matthews? They'd have the nucleus of a promising future, but no one would talk seriously of the Leafs being a Cup contender without Matthews.)
This was discussed a lot on the Trades thread. I want to emphasize that talk of an NHL player coming to Buffalo in the Kane trade is more likely to make the trade work for the receiving team. I do not think Bots expects to add a player that fits into their future, in addition to a high draft pick and a prospect. It's much more likely, IMO, that it will be a player the other team wishes to move away from for salary reasons.
First rounders are important, it's just that you can only carry so many $8M-$12M players the cap will allow. Once you drafted your kane and toews, then the hard work begins. Developing those 3rd round picks, signing the key role player, key backup goalie.
Inability to find and develop those secondary players on ELCs is ultimately why the Bruins have been stagnant since ‘14/15. That and shit D.
I agree that you've got to have the top talent in combination with a solid roster. Right now, the Panthers have a lot of holes due to terrible mismanagement, but I think have some really outstanding young players and prospects. Do you guys see the Panthers as having those star players necessary for a potential run if they can shore up the holes? If so, who? Didn't mean to derail the thread. Was just curious while we were on the subject.
There's nothing wrong with the panthers players and prospects. The fear is Tallons ability to mess things up and push the self-destruct button. They have 4 or 5 real good prospects coming next season. There's a lot of decisions to be made. Do you bring them in all at once and risk making the team too young? The panthers have a good core, I don't watch them on a nightly basis. They took a step back from last year as far as being a complete team. It could take a while before they get to that complete level again. They'll have to develop prospects that can match what smith and marchessault were to the team. Not sure how the players are mixing in with the coach and system.
Cant say that Ive watched all that much from the Panthers this season but Barkov is a star. I think he'll be the best player in team history by the time he leaves. I think the Bjugstad & Huberdeau injuries have really hurt this team in the past and moved players around the lineup that probably shouldnt have.....Marchessault excluded. I'll say this about their prospects, Henrik Borgstrom is my favorite NCAA player and I think that he's gonna be something special.
I have a sample size of one game ever in Sunrise. I'm hardly an authority on the Panthers and how they're running the org. My observation from one game is that they were promoting an event rather than promoting hockey. To me that would point at a fundamental flaw in the way the organization conducts itself. Obviously it's much easier to promote hockey in places where it's a long time part of the area's culture. But other places (Tampa & Nashville for instance) have done a good job of making hockey the focus rather than laser shows, etc. I know that the location of the Sunrise arena is not ideal for attracting fans. Ottawa proves that that's not a problem confined to "non-traditional" markets. (I dislike the term, and I think it's already anachronistic. Any area can now be a hockey market with proper promotion.) What I'm getting at is this. The Panthers seem disorganized from top to bottom. They put together some exceptional talent, and then foolishly blow a wad on the expansion VGK's. If an organization cannot focus they're going to continue to be a clusterf#€< of wasted moves. (Kind of like Buffalo.) I'm not saying that IS the problem in Florida. I'm asking for your view and if you see these problems as systemic or are they superficial? Systems are hard to fix, it's rather easy to fix surface problems. If my observations are more accurate, then I think the outlook is not as bright as it should be based on the young talent there. I hope I'm wrong since I want hockey to succeed everywhere. The NHL cannot afford to permanently corrupt, really destroy, a market like they did to Atlanta.
Sweet! If history is our guide, then that's eight more points for the good guys this season! I lie. So what?
I'm not expecting these to be easy games, the leafs always have a tough time in buffalo. They've been taking nights off this year with games they think will be easy.
If any team overlooks the Sabres they will have their hats handed to them. Buffalo is still competitive and they still show up most nights. Ive seen a handful of their games this season and they appear to be close in many aspects... maybe just not close enough in some cases. I think they have the talent to be even more competitive, but something, and I don't pretend to know what it is, is amiss. They need a solidifying spark, a rallying call or someone to grab the bull by the horns and take over and become a true leader, so it seems to this fan. Its always tough to gauge exactly what is going on with a particular team at any given time... there must be multiple factors involved. Teams that come to mind quickly are the Blackhawks, Oilers and such. What went wrong with these teams? Who knows how to fix them? Good one season and down the next with basically the same pieces. Its got to be frustrating to GM's and fans alike. Using the Red Wings as an example. They were the 'dead things' for ever and finally turned things around with a growing and developing stud called Yzerman. I sat through season after season of BS hockey, it was a nightmare. Another example was the Wings being trapped in losing and below average energy and heart and it took a tragic hit on Drapper and the subsequent pay back from Darren McCarty to bring back some positive attitude and energy. Wings looked completely different after that... I think attitude is a big/huge part of the game and a teams success. Anyway, thanks for reading.
There's so much to like about this - too much to fit my reactions and reflections in one response. I'll pick up on a couple (my emphasis added to Will's message): 1) someone to grab the bull by the horns and take over and become a true leader. And, 2) attitude is a big/huge part of the game and a teams success. 1) Leadership is largely inborn, it is not a skill honed and perfected through hard work. There are a few players on the roster that have shown flashes of leadership qualities: Gus Girgensons may yet become a C one day. Ryan O'Reilly has a bit of the quiet lead-by-example trait that's part of leadership. Jack Eichel seems destined to take that role, but he is still very young. I find it interesting that teh Phil chose to assign the A, but no permanent C's to this team. There's no rule that says there must be a C, but it also does not inspire players to assert themselves. Jack is now universally accepted as the voice & face of this team, he has innate leadership qualities, and I think that designating him as C would help him to assume what is his de facto role. (I also think they miss Gionta in the lockerroom, but that's another story.) 2) To no particular credit to me, I happened to play on an exceptional HS football team. We literally never lost in four years, and my final year only one team scored on us. Sure that's HS, but the principles of attitude apply to all stages of life. I know that we had a winning attitude; when that one team scored on us we were a bit stunned at the oddity of it all, but we did not hang our heads or in any fashion think this would impact the outcome of the game. We did not so much expect to win; we knew we were going to win. I've seen the opposite from bad teams; one or two bad plays can be a huge distraction and a self-fulfilling sense of impending doom takes over. I think this team needs a shake up. I felt this way all those years back when PoS Lucic ran Ryan Miller; the Sabres' pathetic lack of response to him was astounding. Buffalo does not need to tear this down to the studs and then torch the frame a la Darcy Regier. But, they need to remove distraction and discontent from the locker room. Evander Kane is going to be traded because proper asset management dictates that he be moved by 2/26; he's not who I'm referring to. It may be Sam Reinhart; he's being talked of as a possible bust but in a recent 2014 draft redo, I saw that he'd be picked fourth based on his NHL stats. He is far from a bust, but he is clearly not focused. There are also some disquieting anecdotes that make me wonder if he's a source for discontent and even discord. For all his contributions and afore mentioned qualities, ROR may not have the right constitution for this team. I am not pointing fingers at these two players. I am using them to illustrate my point that more than some standard deadline dealing is needed. The team needs to make a statement, and they need to whack the team over the head with a 2x4 to get their collective attention. Someone who most think of as being part of the future needs to be moved. I do not give a damn if that player goes on to an all-star career in an alien sweater; GM Bots cannot be intimidated (like Regier was) into being afraid of the consequences of trading a good player. He needs to establish and implement a team identity, and that'll never happen if the roster is full of complacency or resignation over their status as a lousy team.
good reads gents. agreed on leadership being a born in trait. It can be brought out of people to a degree but you either have it or you dont. that '14 draft was crappy but theres no way either Sam goes in the top 4. Ekblad, Pastrnak, Ehlers, Draisaitl, Nylander. Then guys like Larkin, Point.......whoever. I dont think he's a bust but he hasnt worked out the way a #2 would be expected to, he was put in to a bad situation. I really think that swapping Sams could be beneficial for both parties.
That's key, in my opinion. One cannot walk with fear and intrepidation. The teams identity must start with its leadership and trickle on down. Hopefully the higher-ups in Buffalo have the right mindset for success and when the kill is in the sites, there wont be any hesitation... the trigger must be pulled. Its dog-eat-dog out there these days, a mean business, so one must be aggressive or lose out. On the other hand... it helps to be a bit lucky, lol.
