jame
-
Posts
651 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Events
Posts posted by jame
-
-
18 minutes ago, WildCard said:
Regardless of anything else you said Jame, we really have to stop thinking Tage Thompson is good, or even will be. In 41 GP last year he had 9 points, in more opportunities this year in 41 GP he has...10 points. He is bad, and will always be bad/mediocre at best
I agree. We really need Botts to not suck at his job so we can develop our prospects where they belong. Neither Tage or Mitts belonged in the NHL this year... it's been a gross mismanagement.
I don't think he's bad. I think he has NHL skills... we are just doing a terrible job of properly developing those skills. He should be building in the AHL, getting comfortable dominating with his size at a level that's appropriate.
-
41 minutes ago, LGR4GM said:
I would expect 50% of the forwards and the defenders named will not be impact NHL players. Our pool is thin especially at forward.
Yea... isn't that what you believe in, depth?
We have our core of impact players... and they will be with us for years to come. Maybe 1 or 2 guys from the non-nhl roster will be impact players... probably not. But that's now what we need... we need a pipeline of ELC NHL depth... I thought we actually agreed on this. I just don't believe every single first rounder is critical to building that pipeline. and we are just as capable of building it with good scouting/drafting in the mid rounds (Samuelsson, Laaksonen,etc) as we are with late 1sts.
-
Tier Rank Name Total 1 1 Dahlin 9.7 2 2 Mittelstadt 8.05 2 3 Pilut 7.75 3 4 Olofsson 7.4 3 5 Luukkonen 7.2 3 6 Nylander 7.15 3 7 Laaksonen 7.05 3 8 Thompson 6.9 4 9 Borgen 6.7 4 10 Guhle 6.5 4 11 Samuelsson 6.5 4 12 Asplund 6.4 5 13 Pekar 6.05 5 14 Smith 5.95 5 15 Davidsson 5.9 6 16 O'regan 5.25 6 17 Weissbach 5.25 6 18 Daugherty 4.9 6 19 Malone 4.9 6 20 Hickey 4.75 6 21 Fitzgerald 4.75 6 22 Glotov 4.75 6 23 Cronholm 4.75 6 24 Kukkonen 4.75 6 25 Worge-Kreu 4.75 6 26 Bryson 4.75 7 27 Oglevie 4.55 7 28 Stephens 4.55 7 29 Johansson 3.9 7 30 Cornel 3.9 7 31 Brown 3.75 7 32 Nyberg 3.75 7 33 Murray 3.75 8 34 Hurley 3.35 8 35 Chukarov 3.2 8 36 Willman 2.7 -
I'm interested in where everyone lands on our prospects... I consider a prospect anyone with less than 80 total games at the NHL level and under 24 years old. I use the following 4 weighted ranking categories:
- Talent / Ceiling 50%
- Current Development state 20%
- Floor 15%
- Current Projection 15%
I rank the Talent, Floor, and Projection on the following scale:
5 = Superstar talent 4.5 = Upper Top Line/Pair Talent 4.0 = Lower Top Line/Pair Talent 3.5 = 2nd tier (top checking, secondary scoring, 2nd pair etc) 3.0 = Upper Non Top6/Top4 NHL talent (Checker, PP QB, 3rd pair, etc) 2.5 = Lower Non Top6/Top4 NHL talent (4th line, depth D) 2.0 = Upper AHL/NHL Depth/Back to Europe 1.5 = Lower AHL/Fringe Major Pro League 1.0 = Lower League Fodder 0.5 = Find a new job
I rank Development on the following scale
5 = Proven NHLer 4.5 = NHL Ready 4 = Within a season of NHL Ready 3.5 = Pro level development 3 = Developing at proper rate 2.5 = Development is stalled 2 = Under developing 1.5 = Development failing 1 = Underdevelopment Complete 0.5 = Find a new job -
17 minutes ago, LGR4GM said:
No they are not. They are rookies. We are talking about players who are not in Buffalo impacting the team that we can count on to do that in the future.
That forward pipeline is bad. There are only 4 players in it. Asplund is a 3c at best. Nylander might be a top 6 winger. Olofsson is still a question mark but let's say middle 6. Davidsson doesn't play in NA yet but is probably middle 6. So at best for 12 forward spots we have maybe 3 guys coming.
I would expect 50% of the forwards and the defenders named will not be impact NHL players. Our pool is thin especially at forward.
So you believe Mittelstadt today, is the player he will be in 2-3 years? If the answer is yes... then you can stop calling him a prospect. I'll assume the answer is "No, I think he's going to be much better than he is as a 20 year old today"... when you provide that answer, you will be confirming that he is still a prospect.
If you are considering Mitts, Dahlin, etc NOT prospects...then you should be even less concerned about our pipeline, as you've now etched them in to their PROJECTED roles... and our pipeline becomes far less concerning when the core is locked in at its top potential.
Asplund and Davidsson being "bottom 6 center" prospects... is hardly an issue when you've annointed Mittelstadt as a #2 NHL center behind Eichel...
Olofsson and Nylander being question marks (your words) is hardly an issue when we have Reinhart, Skinner, and a proven NHLer (in your mind) in Thompson
-
1 minute ago, LGR4GM said:
What's interesting to me, is that the more I look into this draft, the more comfortable I feel about trading that SJS pick. I think at the midterm part, this draft is going to be better than 2014, but a clear step below 2015. I want to see how things shake out first.
I think there is a huge drop off in the 12-14 range of this draft... I wouldn't trade the Buffalo or St Louis picks in this draft.
-
4 minutes ago, LGR4GM said:
Actually 1 is pretty accurate. Our prospect pool at forward is thin. Defense is a little better.
So you are short sighted, good to know.
Actually you have a good shot at getting cheap talent. While I know there is a huge dropoff as the round progresses, there is also a good chance of getting someone. We shouldn't treat 1sts the same way is seconds. We don't have a 2nd this year, so if we are moving a first it needs to be for a player with term left or who is young, preferably both. Couturier fits that bill, Staal does not. The San Jose pick will probably be in the late 20's but that doesn't mean it is the same as pick 40. Unless we have no faith in our scouting department in which case none of this matters.
If you think our prospect pool is bad... you're not up to date on our prospects.
-
5 minutes ago, WildCard said:
I'd be curious why you're so quick to dismiss 1 and 2. Who exactly do we have in the prospect pool? And why is the expansion draft not relevant?
Dahlin, Thompson and Mittelstadt are still prospects.
Beyond that.
Borgen, Laaksonen, Samuelsson, Guhle is one of the best non-nhl defensive prospect pipelines in the league.
Nylander, Olofsson, Asplund, Davidsson is a solid forward pipeline.
UPL is looking like a stud.
Before the season started, most sites/publications had the Sabres prospect pipeline rated #1,2, or 3 in the league
Any GM making decisions based on #2 in 2019, should be fired immediately.
-
2 minutes ago, LGR4GM said:
Why drop it then? It leaves all our players static as well. They could take it behind the net or a pass in our zone and go. This does not explain why we continue to use 1 or sometimes 2 drop passes before moving up ice.
It allows the receiver of the drop pass to read and create his line before handling the puck, it's far more effective
-
Just now, WildCard said:
There's a pretty solid reason for that
1) We have no prospect pool.
2) The expansion draft
3) We will have to pay guys like Skinner, Eichel, Dahlin, and possibly Mitts; 1st round picks give you cheap talent
1. Nonsense
2. irrelevant today
3. Late 1sts give you cheap talent... rarely... and when they do, it's at a rate similar to 2nd rounders.
2 minutes ago, LGR4GM said:Maybe. But if you want to know if I would rather have Henri Jokiharju or Jonathan Kovacevic... while than the difference between a late first and a third is a ton.
Yea, that's a silly cherry picked example
-
2 minutes ago, dudacek said:
Skinner is 26 and a guy you’d like to add to your core.
Staal is 34.
I'm just talking about the cost....
The norm around here is "oh my god, no way am I trading a 1st"
Reality is a late 1st results in little tangible draft difference than an early-mid 2nd+3rd
4 minutes ago, LGR4GM said:For Morgan Frost? Definitely a first round pick at that point. Probably that and something else. Don't know how much they value Frost.
If Couturier is available, a 1st, prospect, player. I think you are talking a good prospect to add in there. Not sure who they could want.
See, I am not against trading a 1st, I am against trading 1 for a rental or an old guy.
Frost would cost Mittelstadt
Couturier would cost Mittelstadt, 1st, +
Frost is viewed as a top 10 "not yet in the NHL" prospect... he's equivalent to how Mittelstadt was viewed last year.
-
21 minutes ago, LGR4GM said:
The drop pass does not work the way the Sabres attempt it and they do it so regularly it doesn't catch a team off guard. Nothing like hitting center ice and just dropping the puck back to the blueline while 4 Sabres stand outside the zone waiting.
IMPO the drop should be used for 1 of 2 reasons. 1 because you come up through center and are blocked or being forced into pressure, drop it to change that up. 2 because you have a player coming behind you with speed who is going to burst into the zone. Just doing it to do it is silly.
The drop pass is used because we have two elite zone entry players. It's utilized to put the opponent in static positions, while allowing our elite talent to attack with speed.
It's not a tactic used to attack what the opponent is doing (being "blocked" as you say, or being pressured... it's used entirely because it puts the puck and decision making with the puck entirely in Eichel/Dahlin's hands rather than allowing the opponent to force/dictate the play
-
1
-
-
7 minutes ago, LGR4GM said:
We should try to get Morgan Frost from Philly.
What does an offer from Buffalo that peaks Philly's interest look like, in your opinion?
-
17 hours ago, North Buffalo said:
Looking at that chart... and ask yourself if there is much difference between spending a 2nd, 3rd, Pu on Skinner vs a 1st, 4th, Malone on Eric Staal....
-
25 minutes ago, MakeSabresGrr8Again said:
Personally, I'm not much of an adv stat guy. I do understand these but what I don't understand is why you went 1.5yrs. Why only Reinhart away from Jack? How does Skinner affect Jack's numbers? E. Kane? Pommers? TT? Sheary? Moulson? etc. How are Jack's numbers away from Sam this year only?
Reinhart is our best RW and these numbers show that he is, and because he is our best it would be obvious Jack is better with him than without. People here are arguing that Reinhart can't lead play or a line away from Jack and yet you are saying that Reinhart makes our best players better. If that's true, great. What we really need is for him to be able to make our not so great players better.
Actually we need Botts to remove the not so great players. Reinhart has made almost every player he’s played with better throughout his career. It’s his defining trait.
I only used the most recent 2 seasons to avoid controversy... if you include the 2016-17 season the gap is even worse (in terms of Eichel being worse without Reinhart).
You don’t need to be a stats guy to see Reinhart’s impact all over the ice...
-
1 hour ago, PerreaultForever said:
Yes, which is why I said he'd obviously try to trade him first, but if there was no interest then I could see him moving on again. I'm honestly not sure many teams would be interested in offering much for Sam as his body of work away from Eichel is pretty poor. That idea of lost confidence last year is rubbish imo. He does not lead the play and cannot lead a line, from any position. We are so weak at wing he is the best option we have for the Eichel line, but no way is he in the same class as Eichel and Skinner and if we found a better player to take that spot you will see I'm right.
As for Lehner, given the way he's played this year I'm gonna guess Hextall sits at home wishing he'd made that deal that was talked about last year.
Reinhart’s development path mirrors Schiefele’s.
And Reinhart is critical to Jack’s line being successful, because a successful line doesn’t just produce offense, they outproduce their matchup.
last 1.5 seasons:
eichel w/ reinhart
GF60: 3.04 & GA60: 2.23
result, we win the matchup when Eichel/Reinhart are together (+0.81)
eichel w/o Reinhart
GF60 2.92 & GA60 3.30
we lose the matchup when eichel is away from Reinhart (-0.38)
Reinhart has proven to be an incredible asset in our transition game, his zone exit percentage is off the charts (elite) and he’s turned himself into a top end forechecker. His subtle and/or under appreciated skills generate more opportunities for our best scorers... and keeps the puck away from our opponents best players.
Reinhart is the type of player every team wants on their top line... a player who makes your best players even better.
-
1
-
-
5 hours ago, PerreaultForever said:
Yup, if he can't trade him and he signs a replacement FA. Easy.
an RFA is an RFA.
and besides that Jame,
Yea, walking away from Tim Kennedy’s RFA arbitration award would totally be the same as letting a 70 point 25 year old walk for free.... ?
-
26 minutes ago, PerreaultForever said:
No, Sam is not Robin Lehner, just saying letting an RFA walk is not unheard of and that is just a recent example here.
Ok with a 3.6 million qualifying offer sure, but I doubt that's money he'd settle for. I'm talking about if his agent says we did the bridge and we proved our worth and we want a long term deal for bigger money, which is what I'd expect him to do. So in that scenario I can easily see JBot signing some other FA that he considers a better fit.
Scenario one would be signing Skinner and then adding a FA this year that ends up clicking with that line. Now Sam is bumped to Casey's wing or the third line, his numbers drop dramatically and suddenly everyone is questioning his worth. Could easily happen.
A completely incomparable scenario (Lehner) shouldn’t be an example for anything regarding Reinhart....
-
1 hour ago, PerreaultForever said:
Lehner was an RFA too.
I could be wrong, but JBot just strikes me as a guy who will only want his own players and I'm not sure he thinks Sam is a "fit" for what he wants. Hence the bridge to buy time, but in the long run he will try to move him and if he can't he will let him go and pay the money Sam will want to someone else who he thinks "fits".
As for the rest of the cap issue I think you need to take a longer view and you have to anticipate two other things. 1) there will be other draft picks who will be good and will need money later and 2) he will sign free agents that are not on the roster now, so we can't be privy to that plan and how much future money he is planning to put aside for that.
what? You think there is a plausible scenario where Botts let’s Reinhart walk for free because he didn’t draft him????
-
1 hour ago, Hoss said:
I’m not convinced this gets us there nor am I making that Staal deal
Do you agree that the SJ pick is likely to be a late 1st and that late 1sts have about a 20% success rate?
-
5 minutes ago, LGR4GM said:
No what you are is condescending. You have a lot of subtle digs in your posts that detract from others wanting to engage with you. For example your line above about being a "salve" to a long rebuild. It implies I think the only way is a long rebuild and therefore there is no way to change course. That would be highly inaccurate. I think it is the way forward for Buffalo. As I said if Murray doesn't screw up in 2015 and 2016, this would be necessary but here we are.
I can see many things in hindsight but again this is another example of your condescending tone. Hindsight says that Pittsburgh wasn't good enough to win multiple cups until recently. I think a chunk of that reason is wrapped up in drafting. Is that the singular reason, no. Obvious there are other factors. I wouldn't try to say otherwise.
I would say that if you're making decisions in 2019, based on actions taken in 2015.... yea, that's being a slave to a long rebuild.
So you really don't think those Penguins teams were good enough? I can only interpret that as you believing any team that doesn't win the cup... wasn't good enough to win it? Those were some great Penguins teams, they got knocked out in game 7 a couple of times... it's the NHL playoffs. If anything, they were done in by some awful coaching by Dan Bylsma in the post season (The Flyers series stands out, Peter Laviolette handed Byslma his lunch).
You used SJ as an example before... how did they get to a cup final if they weren't good enough at drafting? The washington capitals haven't drafted well for a decade... how did they win a cup?
The Penguins were one of the best teams in the league from 2009-2015, but failed to win a cup... which time frame do you think they drafted better during: 2009-2013 impacting their back to back cups (2015-2017).... or 2003-2007, impacting their dry spell (2009-2015)?
-
SJ 1st, Buf 4th, Sean Malone for Eric Staal
Marco Scandella for NYI 2nd
- Skinner-Eichel-Reinhart
- Erod/Sheary-Staal-Okposo
- Nylander-Mittelstadt-Thompson
- Erod/Sheary-Larsson-Girgs
- Dahlin-Bogo
- Pilut-Risto
- McCabe-Nelson/Hunwick/Beaulieu
Make playoffs (Add Staal, Nylander. Remove Poms, Sobotka, Scandella... old, slow)
2019 STL 1st - Ryan Suzuki
2019 BUF 1st - Arthur Kaliyev
-
1
-
12 minutes ago, LGR4GM said:
Not amazing at all. My biggest thing has been and will be depth. The grind of the playoffs. San Jose has been a top team for years and just never makes it. They draft ok but honestly I think they could draft better and that has hurt them long term. Again, it is my preferred team building philosophy.
Here's the thing. You can be condescending and act like some bully. You can tell me I have a confirmation bias, which is funny because it basically impacts everyone so yes I do. You can even call something utter nonsense. Here is my biggest issue. You are constantly trying to change the conversation and using your own confirmation bias. Every point I use just confirms to you, that you are correct. This means that we are at an impasse and there is no point moving forward. We disagree on how a team should be built.
So I won't back down and you trying to silence me by tossing out confirmation bias or whatever this post is trying to do, won't work. So in the words of Lando
I understand your preferred team building philosophy. I'm only trying to help you see your blind spots (a 100 point/1st place team... loses in the playoffs, because of "poor drafting"... is nonsense. You can't see that in hindsight?)
I don't have a rigid "team building philosophy". I have a view of what TYPE of team should be built, structurally/talent distribution/etc. But I'm not a slave to a long rebuild.
But I am happy to have my views and opinions challenged by others. What are we here for otherwise?
-
12 minutes ago, LGR4GM said:
The point is they were able to win those later cups because they drafted well enough to trade for or simply add good pieces, like the Kessel trade or Guentzel. You always have to draft well and you being condescending about that belief, which I hold, is going to do jack s### to change my mind.
As for the 6 year thing, yes. They didn't repeat as cup champions because they had all of their useful prospects in the NHL already. There was no one to replace players who left with cheap deals. It's why the LA kings suck now. We could burn all these picks and might repeat what the kings did and win a cup but we could also be like San Jose who did that a couple times and missed. It's just a different philosophy on team building that I believe in. Their 2007-2012 drafting was meh. They then start getting better, finding better impact guys, and there you go.
The interesting thing is that I think we are about to see another Pens downturn. Crosby is getting older and they haven't drafted enough high round players to restock. When the Sabres are a cup contender, sure I will be all for trading that 1st to get the guy to put us over the top, but we are a bubble team, we just aren't there yet and continually gutting depth to try and win now isn't the answer and wasn't in 2015 when Murray did it.
The bolded is utter nonsense.
I appreciate the level of confirmation bias you are willing to reach for though, that's a commitment.
Amazing how over those 6 years they were able to average 107 points a season... but apparently struck out in the playoffs because of their prospect pipeline... lol
Sabres Practice Report 1/28/2019
in The Aud Club
Posted
You don't run a PP from behind the net.
We run a 1-3-1 PP, it's run from the halfwall.
No.