TrueBlueGED

I disagree. He was trending that way, but had a really poor season. He's not the kind of guy I'd throw a massive over sheet at even if we didn't have other needs.

If Turris ends up being our solution, it will further my simmering belief that the Sabres' analytics department is either really bad or wields close to zero influence in the organization. Even then, it would have to be for like a 5th round pick.

No, it wasn't moneypuck. Berglund was terrible as a Sabre, Blues fans knew he was toast, and his wasn't even playing center anymore in St. Louis.

I hate you.

I'm definitely afraid that Botterill's 2C solution will be a 3C.

Something something GMs who trade Selke centers ? I generally agree with you, I would just be shocked if Hoffman is a guy Botterill would target.

There are always exceptions to be made in extraordinary circumstances. What about the flip side? What if we make the playoffs with what is clearly an Ottawa-like puck luck season? Obviously he wouldn't be fired after that result, but it would do nothing to make me confident in him.

He also may have just extended Kane and not had the money to add Skinner in the first place.

I have a hard time believing a GM concerned with the culture of the locker room going anywhere within a 3000 mile radius of Mike Hoffman.

NHL GMs continue to be the worst.

I'm actually concerned he does the opposite. He was so burned by the ROR trade that he won't pull the trigger on Risto unless he gets a grand slam offer.

This is the second time this week I have completely failed at reading team splits on Hockey-Reference ?

Welp ? I'm more worried about durability than level of play. He had a 63 game season followed by a 5p game season, and he hasn't gotten any younger. Adding a 2C only does so much if he turns around and misses 40% of the season.

Is Stastny worth *daydreaming* about? He'd be a nice add, but I need convincing.

Back and forth on a message board? The horror!!! ?

It's not just NHL games though. It's NHL games *and* waiver eligibility that I'm looking at. And he has less than 82 games and waiver eligibility, so he's covered by my definition.

Yes, and he's obviously a huge outlier. You're not going to come up with a definition of prospect that prevents any and all outliers unless you simply say all players not in the NHL are prospects. Edit: Sometimes players come from unexpected places (either literally or figuratively in the case of a career timeline) to be regular NHL contributors. I don't think a reasonable definition of prospect needs to seek to include these players.

Seems logical to me they'd have to free up cash to pay Aho.

If a player has had 3 AHL seasons (which could potentially be...5 seasons post-draft including juniors?) and hasn't stuck in the NHL after 3 cracks at it, then yea, they're likely no more than a replacement level player.

Because they're probably not regular NHL material at that point.

...exceptionally well-played.

Yea, most (maybe all) other lottery protection that has been put in is automatic, not discretionary. Also @Thorny way to ruin a most excellent joke!

I would simply say waiver eligible and less than 1 full season of NHL games played.

I really don't think you can consider someone with 100 NHL games to be a prospect if you want the word to have any meaning whatsoever.

Oh, I definitely don't think it can get much worse for Buffalo from a recruitment perspective. I'm just trying to frame it the other way: I want to do something to make it better rather than avoiding something that makes it worse.