Ghost of Dwight Drane Posted May 27, 2011 Report Share Posted May 27, 2011 ...or looking back after it's all over saying it should've been different. You can't trade players away for picks when you're going into the playoffs. They're some of the best players on this team. You don't give them away as you're headed into the playoffs. That would've been just plain stupid. You mean, Montador who was a healthy scratch, Connolly who was ineffective then sustained his 4th head injury in 4 years, Pominville who is now lucky to be in training camp, Stafford who is about to get a 400% raise, and Boyes who was dumped by a team a few points behind the Sabres position in their respective conference? You'd have just as many playoff victories as you do right now. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tom webster Posted May 27, 2011 Report Share Posted May 27, 2011 So please enlighten us, other then winning the Cup, what level of success next year renders your argument incorrect? In other words at what point does your I told you so argument become moot, forcing you to redefine yourself? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
spndnchz Posted May 27, 2011 Report Share Posted May 27, 2011 I'm not in a mood to argue your sophistical points. I'll leave you two 2 play in your sandbox. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
shrader Posted May 27, 2011 Report Share Posted May 27, 2011 Right...the Myers who will cost you $7 million a year and Ennis $4 right about the time the old guard of overpayed players move on and now need to be replaced by $1 million 23 year olds who may or may not develop. There is nothing wrong with valuing and building around young guys. It is the ability to identify the timeframe where you have your maximum shot at the brass ring by making a move on unquestioned leaders and difference makers to put you over the top. Otherwise, it becomes a cycle of mediocrity +/- a few slots. Sound familiar? So past failure brings perpetual failure. I'm glad I don't live in your world (actually, with what I'm dealing with at work today, maybe I do). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
inkman Posted May 27, 2011 Report Share Posted May 27, 2011 I like boobies Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BuffaloSoldier2010 Posted May 27, 2011 Report Share Posted May 27, 2011 Umm, this isn't hindsight. This very subject was hotly debated in the days leading up to the deadline. And it turned out as predicted, 3 extra home games in April in exchange for draft picks foregone. i dont think enough can be said about those three extra home games though. First off, who would we pick with these picks we could have traded for? last i checked, the draft is pretty thin after the first 7 picks or so. Second. It was a sellers market, because 20 teams were looking for help? I don't know about that one... at least concerning possible player returns. Teams weren't going to give us the key pieces we wanted in exchange for our players, and the teams in lower position (aka the teams with the valuable picks) aren't looking to unload the rights to those lotto numbers any time soon when thats probably the most direct option they have to making a real impact on their teams future. The young guys learned a valuable lesson after they took their foot off the snake in game 6 this year. i think that is far more valuable than a second round pick in this years draft. With the acquisition of brad boyes, we also gained an asset. Look at the depth chart, in terms of right wing alone, we have boyes, pominville, stafford, mancari, and kassian making his way into the foray. Everyone always puts an emphasis on the value of our young defensive prospects. But many seem to ignore our right wing situation, and our general winger situation. Looking at the right side alone, i see three second tier forwards, no one i would say is top tier, but let's be honest, who needs that many top end wingers? We even have another coming up quick in kassian. One WILL go, as well as a defensive option, and i firmly believe that will be what gets us our defensive vet. Teams like vancouver grew and developed together, and imported important complimentary pieces along the way. i dont see why this should be seen as any different. Another thing i would like to point out, is the culture of the team and the fanbase. It's being transformed, and the million little things, while a little corny, are going to play an enormous role. It's not a stretch in my mind, that Buffalo will turn into a detroit, or even surpass it, as an American hockey city. A change in culture in such a way would result in more responsibility and pressure to succeed every night IMO. The organization is building from the crease out, and i think that's the best way to go about it. We have our goalies, we have our young defense, I'm looking to draft a multitude of forwards in the coming years. The hoard of defensive options we have lying in wait will continue to grow in value as we see teams retiring vets like pronger and lidstrom, rafalski is a prime example. The sabres are on the rise, and i hope the naysayers are pleasantly surprised, because we're all members of the greatest fan base in the world. Go Sabres Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ghost of Dwight Drane Posted May 27, 2011 Report Share Posted May 27, 2011 So please enlighten us, other then winning the Cup, what level of success next year renders your argument incorrect? In other words at what point does your I told you so argument become moot, forcing you to redefine yourself? Next year? I'm willing to say the team WILL NOT make it to the conference finals in the next 3 years. You probably don't win a playoff series next year and may win one or two total in 3 years. They probably don't win a playoff series next year, but you need to see the end product on the ice. I'm saying that they gave up, yet again, their best chance at making a real run to the top of the league in the near future. I told you, I'd give 10-1 against them winning a Cup in 3 years....and that defines them as an average team. If you truly believe they are on the verge of being a top team, that number should be somewhere between 3-1 and 6-1. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ghost of Dwight Drane Posted May 27, 2011 Report Share Posted May 27, 2011 Another thing i would like to point out, is the culture of the team and the fanbase. It's being transformed, and the million little things, while a little corny, are going to play an enormous role. It's not a stretch in my mind, that Buffalo will turn into a detroit, or even surpass it, as an American hockey city. A change in culture in such a way would result in more responsibility and pressure to succeed every night IMO. Go Sabres If you haven't done so, I suggest you watch The Music Man for proper perspective. I like your spunk, but until there is a turnover in actual people that have defined the Culture the past decade, it's a whole lot of Tony Robbins. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Braedon Posted May 27, 2011 Report Share Posted May 27, 2011 If you haven't done so, I suggest you watch The Music Man for proper perspective. I like your spunk, but until there is a turnover in actual people that have defined the Culture the past decade, it's a whole lot of Tony Robbins. In your analogy, TP is Harold Hill and the Sabres are the band. Since they became a good band in the end, I'm not deterred. Though if Lindy installs a 'Think System' for hockey, I'm finding a new team. Amenities aside, the only thing that is going to make this a premier hockey city is winning. You may infer that amenities influence good players to sign which in turn influence the on-ice product. But until you have a Cup, all you have over years past are improved amenities and therefore can't infer anything. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tom webster Posted May 27, 2011 Report Share Posted May 27, 2011 You set yourself up in a nice position if anything less then conference finals is only average. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LGR4GM Posted May 27, 2011 Author Report Share Posted May 27, 2011 Miller having 4 years is all the more reason to doubt. If you include Stafford who is about to get $4mil let's say, you could have NOT traded for Boyes, Collected a 2nd for Montador, a 2nd for Connolly, and a 1st and 3rd for Stafford. Guys like Hecht and Pominville had a market as well as Leopold. You could have dumped $20 million in salary on top of Montador and Connolly who walk for nothing, collected a multitude of picks which could have been used to go and get a difference maker this offseason, or parlayed them into Hemskey and/or Penner. Just by cleaning out the dead/overpayed contracts, you give yourself total flexability this year and sit on making giant strides into next year. It isn't so much about who is out there now, but having a once in 10 year sellers market where 20 teams were looking for help. By admitting that you didn't have the horses to get it done this year, you would have scored a mint and with a little innovative work, could have set yourself up to explode forward in '12-'13. The team went all-in on "fuzzy feeling". That got you 6 weeks of a high, and possibly 3 years of stagnation. I actually did agree and still do agree that the sabres should have sold at the deadline and stocked up on draft picks. If we had 2-3 seconds an extra 1st and a couple later ones and all we lost was stafford, sekera, and hecht/TC... I would still be fine with this team going forward and we could have packaged some of those into something. We all knew that beating Philly was a long shot, if we beat Philly, Washington would have been a task, then Boston would have undoubtedly broken us and by the end we would have to play Vancouver who would have torn us apart. The big picture tell us that we need 2-3 years of good development with 4-5 of our young defenders before we will be a significant threat to other teams to win the cup. Of course after all that hockey is like the lotto.... you never know. Brad Richards or Stamkos and Ehrhoff and bieksa and others come here this team will change quickly. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BuffaloSoldier2010 Posted May 27, 2011 Report Share Posted May 27, 2011 If you haven't done so, I suggest you watch The Music Man for proper perspective. I like your spunk, but until there is a turnover in actual people that have defined the Culture the past decade, it's a whole lot of Tony Robbins. One such turnover could be seen as the change from golisano and quinn to pegula and black. We're four months in here, i think i'm going to stick around for a while and put a little faith in those two instead of running for the lifeboats. I respect your viewpoint, and it's far from illogical to me, it makes a lot of sense. But what's done is done. I have to believe that management knows what it's doing, and that they already have multiple blueprints for championship rosters that can be achieved. There's never a sure fire way to build a contender, and while people will always disagree on how to get there, the goal is always the same. I'm an individual who believes we're not that far away, we need more than two players, but 5-7 changes could easily put us over the top, and honestly if it's the right people, 3 could do it in my mind. Maybe I'm blinded by my fandom, but i like to think that there's at least a tiny bit of logic behind my madness Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Braedon Posted May 27, 2011 Report Share Posted May 27, 2011 I actually did agree and still do agree that the sabres should have sold at the deadline and stocked up on draft picks. If we had 2-3 seconds an extra 1st and a couple later ones and all we lost was stafford, sekera, and hecht/TC... I would still be fine with this team going forward and we could have packaged some of those into something. We all knew that beating Philly was a long shot, if we beat Philly, Washington would have been a task, then Boston would have undoubtedly broken us and by the end we would have to play Vancouver who would have torn us apart. The big picture tell us that we need 2-3 years of good development with 4-5 of our young defenders before we will be a significant threat to other teams to win the cup. Of course after all that hockey is like the lotto.... you never know. Brad Richards or Stamkos and Ehrhoff and bieksa and others come here this team will change quickly. If we're as good as we think prospect-wise, what's stopping us from packaging future picks for players? Another perspective is that we are stocked enough to dampen the recourse of trading those picks. It's easy to play the hypothetical and say we would have gotten picks for those aforementioned players. But we'll never truly know what the offers looked like, if any. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SwampD Posted May 27, 2011 Report Share Posted May 27, 2011 You set yourself up in a nice position if anything less then conference finals is only average. You set yourself up for being average if all you are trying to do is be just a little better than it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tom webster Posted May 27, 2011 Report Share Posted May 27, 2011 I am not trying to be a little better then average and I'm not taking about continued development of everyone. I am saying that if Myers, Ennis, Stafford and Gerbe grow as I think they can and they add 2 elite players this team can be as good as any. However, that doesn't guarantee playoff success. Look how many years Vancouver flames out before this year. Look at Washington or Boston. These teams are being held as the standard but by Ghosts definition, they have been mostly average! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LGR4GM Posted May 27, 2011 Author Report Share Posted May 27, 2011 I like boobies cookies you mean cookies, check the complaint thread you shall see ;) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
X. Benedict Posted May 27, 2011 Report Share Posted May 27, 2011 You set yourself up in a nice position if anything less then conference finals is only average. :clapping: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ghost of Dwight Drane Posted May 27, 2011 Report Share Posted May 27, 2011 You set yourself up in a nice position if anything less then conference finals is only average. There are 30 teams 16 make the playoffs There are 15 playoff series a year The AVERAGE team in the league will win 1.5 playoff series in a span of 3 years I am saying the Sabres will win 1 or 2 playoff series TOTAL in a span of 3 YEARS By definition I am saying they are AVERAGE 6 teams will make the Eastern Conference finals in a span of 3 years The AVERAGE team has a 40% of making the conference finals in a span of 3 years. Please tell me where I am off base? Comfortable? Would you like me to give you 7-5 odds? Because that's what it is if they are just an AVERAGE team. If they are a contender and "1 or 2 players away", then they are better than even money are they not? Nice try. I am waiting with baited breath to see how you are going to bring in $15+ million in new salary to this team for the 2 players we are "away" from. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ghost of Dwight Drane Posted May 27, 2011 Report Share Posted May 27, 2011 One such turnover could be seen as the change from golisano and quinn to pegula and black. We're four months in here, i think i'm going to stick around for a while and put a little faith in those two instead of running for the lifeboats. I respect your viewpoint, and it's far from illogical to me, it makes a lot of sense. But what's done is done. I have to believe that management knows what it's doing, and that they already have multiple blueprints for championship rosters that can be achieved. There's never a sure fire way to build a contender, and while people will always disagree on how to get there, the goal is always the same. I'm an individual who believes we're not that far away, we need more than two players, but 5-7 changes could easily put us over the top, and honestly if it's the right people, 3 could do it in my mind. Maybe I'm blinded by my fandom, but i like to think that there's at least a tiny bit of logic behind my madness I understand, and I like Pegula and Black. I expected more of a business approach to making leadership decisions, but so far it has been fan-based and "feel-good". I think they are correct in identifying a culture change was needed, but the most efficient way of doing so has been passed by in my opinion in both maintaining status quo, and missing the first real chance to do something about the roster makeup. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ghost of Dwight Drane Posted May 27, 2011 Report Share Posted May 27, 2011 :clapping: I'm not sure if I should dock points from the math portion, or reading comprehension portion of your test score. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Taro T Posted May 27, 2011 Report Share Posted May 27, 2011 There are 30 teams 16 make the playoffs There are 15 playoff series a year The AVERAGE team in the league will win 1.5 playoff series in a span of 3 years I am saying the Sabres will win 1 or 2 playoff series TOTAL in a span of 3 YEARS By definition I am saying they are AVERAGE 6 teams will make the Eastern Conference finals in a span of 3 years The AVERAGE team has a 40% of making the conference finals in a span of 3 years. Please tell me where I am off base? Comfortable? Would you like me to give you 7-5 odds? Because that's what it is if they are just an AVERAGE team. If they are a contender and "1 or 2 players away", then they are better than even money are they not? Nice try. I am waiting with baited breath to see how you are going to bring in $15+ million in new salary to this team for the 2 players we are "away" from. No the AVERAGE (median) team will NOT win 1.5 playoff series over 3 seasons. As 1 to 3 teams in a given conference will by default win 3 or 4 games in a particular playoff year from a single conference. Only 4 teams win at least A playoff game in a year from a given conference, and only 2 teams win a pair each year, so only 12 teams can even be at 1 win but at most 6 teams can be at 2 wins. (And that 6 number assumes nobody makes it to the 2nd round twice in a row. I think that is rather unlikely - probably slightly less than the odds of the Cats making it to the playoffs in the next 3 years.) The median team will likely be at 1 playoff series win over a 3 year span. (Somewhere between 3 and 11 teams in each conference will win no playoff games over the next 3 years. My gut feel would be that # will be ~5 or 6, but don't have the time nor inclination to look up how many teams historically go 3 or more years between playoff series W's.) And if you view the AVERAGE team as the regular season median team (team 8 in a 15 team conference), the chance of making the conference finals is significantly lower than 40%. And, to take it further: over the next decade, at least one (and likey 2-4) of the 10 most successful teams from here through 2020 will wait 10 years to win a Stanley Cup. At least 1 consistently good team will wait a full decade for its next (first) Stanley Cup victory. People say look at how great the Wings, Caps, Phlyers, Sharks, Nucks, Hawks, Bruins, Pens, and Bolts have been recently. Guess what, at least 1 of them is waiting until 2018 to win it all. Probably a few more than that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ghost of Dwight Drane Posted May 27, 2011 Report Share Posted May 27, 2011 People say look at how great the Wings, Caps, Phlyers, Sharks, Nucks, Hawks, Bruins, Pens, and Bolts have been recently. Guess what, at least 1 of them is waiting until 2018 to win it all. Probably a few more than that. And how many of them have made it to the conference finals the past 3 years? Thank you Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ghost of Dwight Drane Posted May 27, 2011 Report Share Posted May 27, 2011 No the AVERAGE (median) team will NOT win 1.5 playoff series over 3 seasons. As 1 to 3 teams in a given conference will by default win 3 or 4 games in a particular playoff year from a single conference. Only 4 teams win at least A playoff game in a year from a given conference, and only 2 teams win a pair each year, so only 12 teams can even be at 1 win but at most 6 teams can be at 2 wins. (And that 6 number assumes nobody makes it to the 2nd round twice in a row. I think that is rather unlikely - probably slightly less than the odds of the Cats making it to the playoffs in the next 3 years.) The median team will likely be at 1 playoff series win over a 3 year span. (Somewhere between 3 and 11 teams in each conference will win no playoff games over the next 3 years. My gut feel would be that # will be ~5 or 6, but don't have the time nor inclination to look up how many teams historically go 3 or more years between playoff series W's.) And if you view the AVERAGE team as the regular season median team (team 8 in a 15 team conference), the chance of making the conference finals is significantly lower than 40%. And, to take it further: over the next decade, at least one (and likey 2-4) of the 10 most successful teams from here through 2020 will wait 10 years to win a Stanley Cup. At least 1 consistently good team will wait a full decade for its next (first) Stanley Cup victory. People say look at how great the Wings, Caps, Phlyers, Sharks, Nucks, Hawks, Bruins, Pens, and Bolts have been recently. Guess what, at least 1 of them is waiting until 2018 to win it all. Probably a few more than that. In the past 3 seasons, 40% of the teams in the east have won 2 or more playoff series. Pit,Was,TB,Bos,Phi,Mon Carolina has won 1. If you cannot win 2 series in 3 years, this put you in 7th in the conference to start. If you and Webster want to argue that I am supporting a "comfortable position" by countering unbridled optimism in stating the Sabres will not participate in a conference finals in the next 3 years and win at maximum 2 series, yet at the same time claim this team is already a contender and a player or two away from being a top team......I don't quite understand how those two things line up. To me, the comfortable position seems to be already setting up an excuse as to why they will not reach a conference final, yet at the same time you also chide the very same teams that have been able to do it the past few years. You guys like to carry the "29 teams don't win the Cup every year" banner, but that is not what I am saying. I'm saying this team in their current administrative and financial position will not be able to even sniff a cup in 3 years......or get to a position that 4-6 teams in the East will manage to do. If you are excited about a team that is the 5th-7th best in the conference going forward, be my guest. But I am offended by the seemingly constant excuses and lowering of the bar year after year so CoachForLife and his bretheren can meet the fans emotional standard for success. "Winning is not a belief, it's relative." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ghost of Dwight Drane Posted May 27, 2011 Report Share Posted May 27, 2011 No the AVERAGE (median) team will NOT win 1.5 playoff series over 3 seasons. As 1 to 3 teams in a given conference will by default win 3 or 4 games in a particular playoff year from a single conference. Only 4 teams win at least A playoff game in a year from a given conference, and only 2 teams win a pair each year, so only 12 teams can even be at 1 win but at most 6 teams can be at 2 wins. (And that 6 number assumes nobody makes it to the 2nd round twice in a row. I think that is rather unlikely - probably slightly less than the odds of the Cats making it to the playoffs in the next 3 years.) The median team will likely be at 1 playoff series win over a 3 year span. (Somewhere between 3 and 11 teams in each conference will win no playoff games over the next 3 years. My gut feel would be that # will be ~5 or 6, but don't have the time nor inclination to look up how many teams historically go 3 or more years between playoff series W's.) And if you view the AVERAGE team as the regular season median team (team 8 in a 15 team conference), the chance of making the conference finals is significantly lower than 40%. And, to take it further: over the next decade, at least one (and likey 2-4) of the 10 most successful teams from here through 2020 will wait 10 years to win a Stanley Cup. At least 1 consistently good team will wait a full decade for its next (first) Stanley Cup victory. People say look at how great the Wings, Caps, Phlyers, Sharks, Nucks, Hawks, Bruins, Pens, and Bolts have been recently. Guess what, at least 1 of them is waiting until 2018 to win it all. Probably a few more than that. Year 1) Philly 3 wins NJ 2 wins Bos 1 win Tor 1 win Year 2) Mon 3 wins Was 2 wins Bos 1 win Tor 1 win Year 3) Rangers 3 wins Islanders 2 wins Winnepeg 1 win Florida 1 win Teams with at least 2 wins (8): Phi, NJ, Mon, Was, NYR, NYI, Bos, Tor 8 teams Teams appearing in the conference finals (6): Phi, NJ, Mon, Was, NYR, NYI Now I understand what you are trying to convey as it is not often things will line up this way with the MEDIAN team ending up with over the AVERAGE/MEAN amount of series victories of 1.5 There will be teams such as Philadelphia that take a disproportionate share of playoff series victories There will be teams like Buffalo who have zero playoff series victories over years at a time Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tom webster Posted May 27, 2011 Report Share Posted May 27, 2011 It's amusing how you guys pick and choose how many years you go back to make your point. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.