Robviously

I don't disagree with anything in bold. It takes a lot to win and drafting high isn't magic. You need good ownership, management, scouting, player development, etc. to make it all pay off. As for the Oilers, it's still too early for their last three first rounders (Hall, Nugent-Hopkins, and Yakapov) to have really done anything in the league. The oldest of those guys is 20! Realistically, what should they have been able to do by March 14th, 2013? Same with the Islanders. They got Tavares 1st overall in 2009 and then drafted 5th overall each of the past three years. Tavares is already awesome and definitely helping them and the other guys are too young to do anything (and the Isles have done a crappy job with Niederreiter).

I've listed the high draft picks that have helped teams win the Stanley Cup many times. As for statistical analysis, I've linked to the best study available. If your best argument is that I'm wrong because I haven't had the time (or inclination) to perform my own statistical analysis, then you go with that. Do you have any statistical analysis to back up your magical "winning begets winning" argument? No, of course not. Your best argument is to muddy the waters and hope that nothing is conclusive. This is why you're now clinging to the notion that we need a statistical analysis to prove that talent is the most important factor in winning. Let's all step back for a second and soak that in. It's now controversial to say that talent is the most important factor in winning. And that drafting higher gives you a better chance to land that talent. This is controversial now. As for the best Sabres team of the past 37 years, I assume you're talking about the 2006 team. Their best player was Tim Connolly, drafted 5th overall by the Islanders. Again, talent, and where that talent generally is drafted. [And, yes, Connolly was the best player on that team and his concussion did more to sink that run than anything. It's sad he was never the same.]

You need a ton of talent to win a championship. Your best chance for drafting talent is at the very top of the draft. This is borne out rather obviously by statistical analysis of which players make it in the NHL and by the number of teams that have won Stanley Cups thanks to high draft picks. You can muddy the waters all you like by talking about things like "loser inertia" (whatever that is), but at the end of the day, talent trumps everything. And you've never bothered to make any thoughtful argument for why "winning begets winning" makes more sense than "talent begets winning." As if winning is something that just "happens" and then leads to more winning. You will, but that's because the only people who use words like "guarantee" around high draft picks are the ones who want to downplay the benefits of having a high draft pick. Because attacking a straw man is the only way they can argue that point. There are no guarantees, only probabilities. And your highest probability for drafting the most talented player is at the very top of the draft. And your best chance of winning is by having the best talent. This, amazingly, has become controversial for some on the board. As another thought experiment, try describing the history of the Buffalo Sabres without ever mentioning any of the guys we drafted in the top five overall (Perrault, Martin, Schoenfeld, Barrasso, Anderson, Turgeon, Vanek).

Hopefully they still are at the end of the season. They seem like a streaky team to say the least.

The Amerks' last game is April 21st. The Sabres play a couple games after that. I could see the Sabres giving some young guys their first shot in the NHL then if both teams miss the playoffs. It could also happen depending on if we have a fire sale and who we move in three weeks.

No, but that wasn't the argument you were making two posts ago. You said Pominville and Vanek quit on Ruff. Here let me refresh your memory about what you posted: Of course, we know that isn't true. Ruff went out of his way to say that Vanek, Pominville, and Miller never quit on him. Now you're saying, OK, those guys never quit but they were the leaders and other guys quit, so the leaders should be responsible and I don't want young players learning from them. Let's think about that. 1. You've managed to completely ignore the level of talent on this roster. If Vanek and Pominville were better leaders, how much better would the rest of the team have played? Would Hecht be young again? Would Grigorenko be in his prime already? Would Stafford not be a head case? By this logic, Jarome Iginla is a scrub too I guess. 2. What more did you want from Vanek and Pominville in terms of leadership? They never gave up and they produced on the ice. If that isn't enough to make the other players want to step up, maybe it's time to wonder about those other players. 3. Since this discussion is about their influence on young players, which young players would you say were negatively influenced by Vanek and Pominville's leadership? I doubt you mean Hodgson, Ennis, Gerbe, or Foligno, since I haven't heard anyone complain about their levels of effort this year. And I doubt you mean Stafford, Hecht, Regehr, Leopold, etc., since those aren't young players. And you probably aren't dumb enough to say Myers' problems are because he doesn't have a captain with enough leadership. So what is it? 4. You're ignoring that each player's effort/character is still going to be determined primarily by who they are. Pominville, Vanek, Roy, Gaustad, and Stafford all had Briere and Drury as role models, but only the first two seemed to learn anything. Leaders/mentors aren't magic; it's still up to the individual to determine their own performance. 5. You're ignoring the message that is sent when you trade the only players who never gave up. In summary, you changed your argument mid-stream and it still doesn't make any sense. You're mad, you want the Sabres to trade everyone, you never seem concerned about what they're getting back, and your rationale for why these trades are necessary is whatever you need it to be from day to day.

I can't for the life of me figure out what we'd be trying to get back from LA.

Yeah, except for the part where Ruff literally named Vanek and Pominville (and Miller) as the guys who never quit on him in an interview right after he was fired. Good call, bro.

I was looking for info on Dan Catenacci and came across this old scouting report from right before the 2011 draft: http://thehockeywriters.com/danielcatenacci-prospectprofile/ It sure doesn't seem like his stock has dropped since then. It'll be cool to see what he can do in Rochester next year.

I do. But I'm just basing that on statistical analysis and hockey history, so who knows? :rolleyes: 1. That's a very important place to start this analysis given the important correlation between talent and longevity in the league. Controlling for injuries, talent will easily be the most important predictor of how long you last in the NHL. You could even group the ability to stay healthy in as a talent in some cases. 2. It doesn't just say that players drafted higher play more; it says the relationship is exponential. Meaning it's much more important where you draft in the first round as opposed to any other round. I can't believe TBPhd said "getting top end talent gives you the best chance to win" and you called it a "theory." Seriously, where is "getting top talent" on your list of things to do to win the Stanley Cup? Is it at least in the top five? Seems kind of important. The bold part is so true (and obvious and clear) that it should probably be framed and put in people's houses. Also, as a thought experiment, if the Sabres were drafting 10th overall, is there any reason you wouldn't like it better if they were drafting 9th overall? Of course not. At 9th overall, only 8 guys are gone from the draft and you have 1 more to chose from with your pick. So everyone intuitively would rather have the Sabres be the 9th team to pick a new guy than the 10th team to pick a guy, but for some reason it you expand that to say drafting at the top of the draft gives you the best chance to get the best player, suddenly it's controversial.

The Wings' last Cup was an outlier, but their 90's and early 2000's run is actually more proof that high picks are helpful. I posted this a couple weeks back. We have to hash this crap out a couple times a month for people who refuse to acknowledge statistical analysis or hockey history: Yzerman was a 4th overall pick, BTW. Except that no one is making the argument that you have to draft first overall OR that drafting first overall is enough to ensure that your team will turn around (and it does have to turn around if you're drafting that high). No one player is enough to fix a franchise and no single draft class can fix a franchise. This whole thing is about where you have the best chance of drafting the best players.

NOOOOOO!!!! But it doesn't always work!!!! What about that team that drafted first overall and the guy sucked??? HUH?? See, so it doesn't matter where you draft at all! Duh!

Or you could just look at the statistical analysis of what NHL draft picks are worth. But I'm sure looking for exceptions is more valid than this: http://myslu.stlawu.edu/~msch/sports/Schuckers_NHL_Draft.pdf

He didn't have a point. He brought up an exception to my point as if one exception completely invalidates the whole thing. No one is talking about absolutes or guarantees here except for the people who rush in to point out that these points don't work 100% of the time. Here's how that goes: "Air travel is very safe." "Yeah, except for that plane that crashed in Buffalo and all those people died." "Oh, you're right, air travel isn't safe at all. What was I thinking?" Bringing up exceptions to broader points that are correct overall isn't making a point, or really adding anything. WHO IS SAYING THE WORD "GUARANTEE"? Stop imagining words that I am not typing. If it "guarantees" anything, it's a better chance to get someone special. I'd welcome that chance.

Losing guarantees a better chance to draft a really good player. It does not guarantee that you will instantly win the Stanley Cup or that that one player will be enough to turn your franchise around. But I'd still rather have that chance.

Good call. The whole point is completely invalid because exceptions exist. <_<

Tell that to every team that has ever benefitted from a really high draft pick. I'm sure all the Indianapolis Colts fans that happily watched them lose two years ago feel pretty good right now after Andrew Luck led them back to the playoffs in his first year. Are Blackhawks fans upset that they were bad enough to get Toews 3rd overall in 2006 and Kane 1st overall in 2007? They seem pretty OK with it now. If you aren't going to make the playoffs, bottom out. The last time the Sabres had a top 5 pick was 10 years ago. That guy turned out pretty good. 7th in team history for goals and 23 goals away from being 4th all-time. It's "wrong" to hope they can do that again? I'd love a new franchise player to build around. I'm not counting on it, though; I'm pretty sure they'll string together enough wins to draft where they usually draft and we'll be talking about this same crap a year from now. Talent begets winning.

I've watched a lot of Blackhawks this year and they could definitely stand to upgrade in net. Crawford and Emery? If you're built to win right now, do you really want it all hinging on those two?

Co-signed.

We're not getting any established stars back for Poms, Miller, or Vanek. I'd also say Miller and Vanek for Kane and a 1st (probably 30th overall) is a pretty lopsided trade in their favor. If we're talking to the Blackhawks, we're looking at their last 2-3 drafts and this year's picks.

If the NHL was serious about head shots, this would be a 20 game suspension. I'm expecting 1, maybe 2. ###### you, Shanahan. ###### you, NHL.

The flip side of that is having Pominville/Vanek as the veteran presence while we try to work in all the young talent. How much easier is the transition to the NHL for Armia and Grigorenko (when we're actually depending on him for production) because we have veterans there to do the heavy lifting, and hopefully teach them a few things? If we can move them for young players who are going to be special later, that's one thing. If we're just going to get some late first rounders, we'd be much better off re-signing them (even if these contracts last into their mid 30s). The only guy whose age bugs me is Miller (at 32 already). Poms/Vanek should both be able to produce for a while.

I'm not dying to move him, although given his age and where the team is at, I'm interested. I wouldn't do it just to do it and I wouldn't do it for a crummy return. But for the life of me, I don't know why everyone always demands that we get a goalie back. What's the point?

Seems like total speculation and could have been written during the first half of each of the past two seasons as well. But if we're speculating, I'd wonder if Chicago would be interested. That's the only part of their team that isn't elite, and it makes everything about the team suspect in the playoffs, IMO.

No idea why anyone would want a goalie coming back if we're trading Miller. What's the point of trading Miller if we're just going to replace him with another guy that someone else didn't think was good enough (to the point that they moved him to get Miller)? Find your goalie of the future someplace else. A Miller trade should be about getting non-goalie assets (i.e. something a team without a great goalie would have a lot of and would be willing to part with for Miller).