Thorny

Sabres come here in November instead of January! What a treat

Not as a rule. But past precedent is wildly in your favour

It’s true, the discussion can’t really go anywhere if you are operating as if handedness concerns on D provide no different obstacle to value than handedness concerns at F. And if I’m sticking with what my interpretation of the data is. If D can move around positionally as freely, I’d be hard pressed to make an argument we need a F more than a D, if D are just D, LHD/RHD need not apply. Functionally, we are then selecting a Guy Who Will Play Right Side D with Simashev. I just don’t believe that to the case. For the sake of argument, if handedness IS more of a concern with D, if there’s isn’t a reasonable “BPA” option that shoots right around where we are picking, I’d definitely trade the pick rather than take a guy we might not get full value from anyways at 13 due to organizational depth

The thing is, there are exceptions to every rule. BPA included. The Sabres aren’t “pretty set” at LHD. It’s nothing like the other positions, they are unbelievably *stacked* at LHD. Ignoring the context and going with a hard line rule is ridiculously shortsighted. We have two *number 1 overall* picks who play LHD. 66% of our LHD unit is filled by first overall picks, 2/3rds. Spending 2 first overall picks and then adding a 13th overall at LHD would be insane to me. It’s not that it couldn’t work to a reasonably degree, but you are cutting off your own value. I’d imagine the haul you could get in a trade would dwarf it if we actually used it as as opportunity to build the team rather than horde value.

Yes, forwards can transition to W without drop-off as handedness is specifically an added difficulty when it comes to defending and being a defenseman. The data, and operations of GMs, have statistically borne that out in vast sample sizes

It’s not always about value. Winning trades. Build a team.

Centres famously get moved to wing all the time, and there are way more F spots It we draft Simashev, two of Power Dahlin Simashev Samuelsson *must* play on their offhand. I guess you could play Samuelsson on pair 3 but that seems exceptionally unlikely And if the idea is we can trade one, trade a high level prospect, the various Wookiee led discussions of the past several weeks would determine that to be a near impossibility If you can’t find anyone else to call BPA when it’s time to pick a left shot D, you should absolutely, positively be trading the pick. We aren’t maximizing the value of a 13th overall pick by adding another left shot D, we just aren’t

You know the “But I was told Steph Curry couldn’t shoot, hmm?!?” meme? A meme because of the idea no one actually says these things, but people make them up so they can argue with themselves? Buffalonill is that made-up stuff personified. The whole board tears his takes to shreds and then ppl like Liger claim the board is too negative. It’s one guy as the face of a bunch of arguments no one else shares lol. That’s not a shot at his posts either, it’s good to have a differentiating view. I don’t see it as trolling I think it’s in good faith.

Couple of second line wingers for a team about to ship out it’s core. Losing Dubois doesn’t hurt but this trade doesn’t do much of anything for Winnipeg either. LA will be a winner or loser based on that contract to Dubois

2 left shots on the right side would be *mandatory* to get the proper value out of said pick. Not only is that asking for trouble, the data broke down quite clearly that not only was Adams aware it was harder to play your off hand (thus sheltering the younger players from having to do it), Dahlin, who is a unicorn in being able to handle it, had his numbers *suffer* relative to his output on the left. They are going to be willfully handcuffing 2 (exceptionally important) players, as a rule, if they take Simashev

Don’t worry, I won’t argue with you about it. I’ll just give up lol Again, it sorta leaves handedness “concerns” in the rear view mirror. It’s the inverse of committing to handedness: we’d be committing to NOT adhering to handedness. Just as hard line and absolute as the other way

At this point I think my biggest thing is I hope they don’t draft Simashev at 13. There’s BPA, there’s drafting guys who have flexibility in playing both sides, and then there’s using your highest value selection on a LHD when when your probably two best future players are LHD and we also have Samuelsson, all of which are very young. Which mitigates the need to replenish the “system” at left D. Again, positional flexibility is one thing, but investing such an extreme amount of capital in LHD essentially pigeonholes us into *necessarily* needing to play two players on their offhand in the top 4. It wouldn’t be an option, it would be strictly necessary to maximize the value of those selections BPA is fine in concept but the Sabres seeking to be the extreme outlier there, as they so often seem to do, in other ways, would be a mistake imo. You start to hedge the value of your own guys if you just keep stocking the same position.

I know but I’m saying he should have been 4-5th regardless Had he not slowed down at all he was easily 2nd

8th too low

A victory for points! - - - Dahlin finished 8th lmao

This show is so odd lol They basically put McDavid into a position on camera where he had to either commit to doing a bit on live tv, or donate 10 000 to charity lol

Power finished 3rd

I agree but we know the highest he can finish now is 4th

So if we get a guy capable of playing right D it’s a happy coincidence, I guess, given system strength

What’s the difference between “best fit” and “best Sabre” No regard for position in the latter?

It’s kinda odd. The poll results have Kulich as only the third most likely to become a star, but ranks two players as less likely to become stars in the following question Anyway I had Quinn Kulich and Östlund

Ahh good old Jocelyn Hecht I liked him

Do you think Adams will draft based on a BPA philosophy or do you think position will factor in significantly? (Yes, there’s the semantic “best is subjective and can include position” @GA but let’s just go with a more strict definition of “best” for the sake of argument )

What I would do? Something like this probably