carpandean

Charts are bigger than the Sabres. They don't have the power to get rid of them. ;) Good point. There are a few, though, that I could name 15+ guys that I'd be more OK with moving, so they are (slightly) distinguished.

If those two are the measuring stick for "success" with throw ins, then Darcy may turn Hackett into a reliable backup. Those two are still only 5-8 defensemen, though Sulzer got a little bit of a lift because he'd played with Ehrhoff. So, will Hackett backup Enroth or just replace him? :P

Pretty much how I'd go, but some of the "I wouldn't cry if he went elsewhere" crew (e.g., Hodgson) would be under "he can play on my team." Oh, and Darcy would join Stafford. The biggest problem is that, while most fall under the "can play" and "wouldn't cry" categories, together they don't make a team. As much as it pains me to borrow a line from Andrew Peters, I'm fine with Ennis on the team, but I couldn't have a team with 12 Ennises at forward. Taken individually, Darcy makes good trades and has brought in some good players; taken together, they've been mediocre at best for most of their recent history.

True (about it being a supposition and possibly BS ... though, to be fair, I asked a question rather than stating it as a fact. ;) ) I have no problem with starting higher than fair and then negotiating down. I just get the feeling that Darcy starts high and stays high, holding out to see if the other guy ever blinks. Think about the Gaustad deal. It wasn't until the very last minute that someone finally agreed to his inflated price. Had they not blinked, he would have gotten nothing for the asset. If I remember correctly, he basically said that's what he thought was happening (i.e., the clock was turning 3:00 and he was thinking, "I guess there's no takers.) There's certainly a lot of value between what he got and what wouldn't have been worth taking. It just made me wonder about players who haven't been moved in years past that probably should/could have been.

Their 3-game win streak netted them 2 points against 8th place, which offsets the two points that they lost against 8th place in the previous two games. Going 6-2-2 netted them 4 points against 8th place. Now, they have fewer games to make up more points (assuming that they'll lose the ROW tie-breaker.)

As suspected, the % of 3-point games has gone up steadily (now up to 20.65% for the season in the EC.) What I did not account for is that over half of the conference would converge to almost the same spot.

To me, Darcy is that guy on Ebay (ok, most guys on Ebay), who puts up something for 50% more than it's worth. When some sucker finally comes along and pays what he's asking, then he looks like a genius. The problem is that he doesn't, then, hit enough to fix the problems on this team (or make a lot of money in the analogy.) Take Roy, for example. Ott was a very good return, but how many deals did he pass on over the two or so years before this offseason that still would have made the team better, but would have done so sooner? Similarly, he got a first-round pick for Gaustad, which is great, but how many times has he passed on fair deals in similar situations before hitting on that one? In the aggregate, does that one help us more? As an analogy, imagine that I make a product for $10. If I sell it for $15, then my demand will be 1,000 units. However, I decide to sell it for $20. Should I be praised for getting $20 each when I only sell 300 units? No, I should be fired for missing out on the other $2000 (1000*5 - 300*10) that I could have gotten. Additionally, how many GMs no longer bother talking seriously with Darcy because his price is always too high. If I'm a GM, now, and Darcy agrees to a trade, I have to assume that the market will perceive that I lost it. We've had players that have stayed here too long and holes that have gone unfilled for too long. How many of those "too longs" stem from Darcy passing on fair deals that would have helped? One last point: it is actually not good practice to judge (positively or negatively) a GM (or any manager) based on the outcome of one decision (trade, drafted player, etc.)* It is, however, absolutely good practice to judge him based on the aggregate effect of his decisions. He controls the draft, he chooses the coach, he decides who stays up and who goes down, etc, etc, etc. So, when you look at the end product and find that it sucks, then he needs to go. * obviously, there are extreme exceptions.

Almost certainly, he did. My point isn't so much that this was a bad deal to make, but rather that it's not nearly as good of a deal as I thought. Hmmm, good question. Probably not, but it's not a lock for me. To be fair, though, the odds makers would probably give Pittsburgh a much better chance of winning two round than LA. As such, LA would be (in theory) giving up less (in expected value) than Pittsburgh did. In other words, Pittsburgh's probably thinking "unless something goes terribly wrong, we're giving them two seconds," while LA would be thinking "unless we go on a run again, we're probably just giving them one second." I'd still take the 2013 and 2014, and then turn each into a 2015 2nd plus. Unless, as has been suggested, every GM shares the belief that this is a thin draft class, but the 2015 one will be strong, there almost surely a noticeable difference in value between the 2013 2nd and the 2015 2nd.

That's still not true. Even if the Sabres value the 2015 2nd more (which I doubt), the market value of a 2013 2nd is higher than the 2015 2nd. Had they had received a 2013 2nd instead, then they could have traded it for a 2015 2nd plus something else. They could make the same pick in two years, and also have something else in addition.

It's not just inflation. If you give me $100 today, then I can put it in a CD to gain a small % return (say, 1%, to make the numbers easy.) As such, $100 today is worth at least what $101 in a year is worth to me today (or $100 in a year is worth 100/1.01 = $99.01 today), even in a period without inflation (note: without inflation, both have the same spending power, but right now I value the $100 today more than a guarantee of $100 in a year.) Many individuals and most companies have a higher expected rate of return, so they would actually value receiving the $100 today even more highly relative to a year from now. You still delay the benefit (to the Sabres or to any team that they might trade the pick to) by a year. This is particularly important for the rest of the league where GMs are not on unlimited contracts. Their owners and fans want immediate returns. Imagine that you offered another GM (to make it easier, assume that your teams are tied in the standings and at around the same stage of development) your 2013 2nd round pick plus ____ for their 2015 2nd round pick (the difference between the 2013 2nd, 2014 2nd we thought we were getting and the 2014 2nd, 2015 2nd that we got); what is that GM going to ask for in the ____? It's definitely not nothing. Even if you pick the same basic player, he will be developed a year (or two, in this case) sooner.

"Joe, we want to trade you." "Really, where to?" "Buffalo" "It's good to want." *Cuddles up to no movement clause.* "So ... that's a no, then?"

I just had a terrible thought: what if Columbus' GM had been considering giving the Sabres a first for Stafford until he read this and thought, "wait, if this is a joke ... then it's not a good deal?"

Good one Chz. That said, having the trade deadline be right after April 1 was a bad idea. I don't know why it wasn't last week, anyway, but I don't know how funny these types of tweets are for the real players.

That last quote tells me he's not done, and I look forward to what comes next. It tells me that he talks to himself.

I would have to disagree. "Early in the season, the players weren't performing up to the ability level that we knew they had, which put them in a deep hole. They showed great heart and resolve by working their way back into the playoffs. Unfortunately, they ran into a team that was in a better position at the deadline, so that they were able to 'go all in' with pickups like Morrow, Iginla and Murray. We're not there, yet, but we feel that we are better poised to take a big step forward next season." I would argue that it would be worse for Darcy if they made it to 7th and then lost to Montreal.

To be fair, they are relying on prorated cap hits. Pittsburgh's current roster would be around a $73M cap hit, if they had them all year, while Buffalo's would be around $63M (ignoring buried players). Not that I think the roster is well built or fairly priced, but comparing to a team that brought in $13.6M worth of players at basically the deadline is a little unfair.

They learn the truth on pg 10, if anyone wants to skip ahead.

6G, 3A in 4 playoff games.

Upside down, that spells El Tool Tool El

1) I see Ott's ability to win faceoffs as a bonus, not a replacement for that ability in a defensive center. In other words, I don't see it as a waste of assets to still get one. It's a small part of what a true defensive center brings, plus when used correctly, the third line is the most important line to not have lose faceoffs (if they're against the other team's best line.) In addition, it gives you two guys that you can use in critical situations (perhaps off their usual line or on special teams.) I would say that having Ott might allow you to get a third-line center who is just OK on faceoffs, then pick up someone like Zenon Konopka (very good on faceoffs) for your fourth line. 2) Indeed, very hard. ;)

Four years late ... but OK.

1) I have no problem with a defensive line having more than one guy who can win faceoffs. Heck, linemen throw guys out during almost every draw these days. Saying that having Ott means that we need a center who doesn't win faceoffs is like Darcy saying that they were set at scoring-line center because they had two of them. Good teams have three or four. Having an extra one playing on the wing is not a bad thing. 2) It took me five minutes after I heard about the trade to find an article in which Leino's coach in his final year in Finland credited his increase in production (basically double) with being moved to the wing. He was a mediocre player at center, then got moved to wing and earned a one-year contract with Detroit.

There are so many factors not corrected for in the analysis (as far as I've seen, anyway.) The first that I would bring in is strength of competition on FO's. Yes, the difference in top-to-bottom for team is typically ~8% and between players (who regularly take FO's) is around 15% (45-60%), but if teams send out their best FO men for most key faceoffs, then 5 or 10% overall might mean a lot more than it seems. As an overly simple example, consider two teams with 2 centers: A1, A2 vs. B1, B2. The 1's are the best at faceoffs. If the game stats look like this: A1 vs. B1: 5-5 A1 vs. B2: 4-1 A2 vs. B1: 1-4 A2 vs. B2: 5-5 Then, A1 and B1 are at 60%, while A2 and B2 are at 40%, and the teams are at 50%. However, if they replaced A1 with another A2 (call them A2a and A2b), who spit all of the faceoffs, then A2a and A2b would at 35%, B2 would be at 50% and B1 would be at 80%. Overall team are at 35% and 65%, winning 10.5 and 19.5 (on average) out of 30. Now, factor in that the big shift is in the key faceoffs (originally taken by A1.) One problem is that almost every team makes sure that they have at least one player who is strong on faceoffs. As such, you won't likely find a significant relationship with such little variation in the independent variable (overall team FO ability), given the relatively small sample size However, not being able to prove that there is an effect doesn't mean there isn't one. The Sabres are a perfect example. By using Cody - a player who is not a top FO player - in key faceoffs, they have an unusually low team FO ability, which has almost certainly had an effect on their ability to win. If they used Steve Ott, who is over 57%, for more than 16% of faceoffs, they would be closer to the normal range and likely winning more. The fact that Hodgson will take FOs on the PP even when Ott is on the ice shows me that either (a) they are relying on the same (possible flawed) overall stats, or (b) have determined that Cody's development is critically important. Another problem is that the stats may be diluted by non-critical faceoffs. Do those top guys really work hard at winning neutral-zone faceoffs? Probably not as hard as on critical ones. So, we might see something closer to 50-50 when a 1 meets a 2 above, because they usually only see each other in the neutral zone. Were they to face each other in critical draws, that % might be far more one-sided. I'd really have to see the analysis to make any real decisions about whether they matter or not.

Hearing Lindy took the job?

I can't believe that happened so quickly. I figured it would never happen, because .