thesportsbuff Posted January 19, 2017 Report Share Posted January 19, 2017 (edited) I think this thread is ridiculous. As much as "tanking" has become a buzzword, it's not something you can just purposely do repeatedly for years on end. What actually IS tanking? Trading away your valuable players for picks and young talent that isn't NHL-ready yet, and hoping to lose games. We did that, we got our picks, we got our young talent, and we got our #2 draft pick. How do you suggest we go about "tanking" any further? Undo the O'Reilly trade? Trade Eichel & Sam for draft picks? It's not like we have a Vanek, Miller, Pominville to trade away. Nobody is going to give us much for say, Bogosian, and frankly the team isn't going to be any worse off without him. Also, the projected #1 pick this year, by all accounts I've read, is not really near the level of the top picks of the last few drafts. If you're suggesting we should have passed on the O'Reilly and Kane trades for a 20% (at best, but not likely we get that anyway) at Matthews last year then I would say you're crazy. Edit: The Lehner trade I could do without, but I don't really think that impacts our "tank" chances anyway. Edited January 19, 2017 by thesportsbuff Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Crusader1969 Posted January 20, 2017 Report Share Posted January 20, 2017 I think you misinterpreted my post. My point is that it is rare to land an elite generational player -- i.e. most #1/#2 draft picks do NOT fit that characterization. For every McD, there are 10 RNHs/Yakupovs/Halls/Fleurys.-- i.e. mostly good-to-very-good players (and some JAGs), but very few transformational players. That -- along with the prohibitive odds of winning the lottery in a year in which one of those guys is available -- is why the tank is chasing the pot of gold at the end of the rainbow. So I guess the Sabres were extremely lucky to find one of those rare guys! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WildCard Posted January 20, 2017 Report Share Posted January 20, 2017 We sucked so much ass to get a guy that could wind up worse than Marner/Werenski/Provorov, that's the part that hurts. That season was murder. Who, Reinhart? I still don't regret that pick. He was exactly what we needed at the time, and he's still going to be a great player. So what if there ended up being some better talent behind him Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Randall Flagg Posted January 20, 2017 Report Share Posted January 20, 2017 Who, Reinhart? I still don't regret that pick. He was exactly what we needed at the time, and he's still going to be a great player. So what if there ended up being some better talent behind him No, Jack. It's possible that those guys wind up better than he will be. And the fact that the talent behind either of them winds up better shows that, especially with what the lottery rules are now, it is not wise to throw away a season to the degree that we did those two years Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sabres Fan in NS Posted January 20, 2017 Report Share Posted January 20, 2017 No, Jack. It's possible that those guys wind up better than he will be. And the fact that the talent behind either of them winds up better shows that, especially with what the lottery rules are now, it is not wise to throw away a season to the degree that we did those two years I really don't think you have to worry about it. Jack, barring unforeseen situations, will be better than the three players you mentioned. He is almost McDavid level, but not quite. I agree that 2 seasons, at least, were thrown away, though. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nfreeman Posted January 20, 2017 Report Share Posted January 20, 2017 So I guess the Sabres were extremely lucky to find one of those rare guys! Except that he's shown no sign that he's on that level. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WildCard Posted January 20, 2017 Report Share Posted January 20, 2017 No, Jack. It's possible that those guys wind up better than he will be. And the fact that the talent behind either of them winds up better shows that, especially with what the lottery rules are now, it is not wise to throw away a season to the degree that we did those two yearsYeah I'll bet anything Jack will be better than any of those players. Give him a new coach and once we stop thinking he's Matthews or McDavid we'll realize how good he is Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nfreeman Posted January 20, 2017 Report Share Posted January 20, 2017 And when was the last time we were regularly making the 2nd round? How likely was that to happen during the tank years had we chosen to keep trying to win? Hell, even when we were good, how many big free agents would even give us the time of day? NY, Boston LA....yea, they can muddle their way through as a middle team and still get the big names. We can't, and we never could. Even with daddy warbucks and a new locker room, we couldn't even get Brad Richards to meet with us. Let's go back to 2011. The Pegulas had just taken over and the Sabres lost in the 1st round to Philly in 7 games, after being up in the series 3-2, and up by 2 goals at home in game 6 with the opportunity to close it out. (A series in which, btw, and apropos of the "clutchness" discussion in a different thread, the Sabres "top 6" scored a total of zero goals in the 2nd and 3rd periods of all 7 games.) At that point, they were pretty close to having the status I described -- i.e. a 2nd-round playoff team with a good coach, good goaltending, good ownership and good players. And, that summer, although they didn't get Richards, they got the 2nd-best UFA forward in Leino (who turned out to be a bust, but he was still the 2nd-best UFA forward) and the top UFA defenseman in Ehrhoff (who was a solid player but not elite). Neither player was the type of elite player I mentioned, but neither was paid as such, and both represented incremental improvement. We all know what happened next. Just like after Black Sunday, the Sabres' mental midgets hid under the bed and cried the following season, Lindy was fired in the middle of the season after that, and the tank was on. My point is that if the Sabres had made better decisions in that period -- the 2011 and 2012 offseasons, plus the drafts in the prior years -- i.e. bringing in a couple of good forwards with some heart and probably a different GM to run the show -- they could've built upon what they did in 2010 and 2011 (close 1st-round losses both years), instead of falling off the table and then burning the house down. Here's who they drafted in the 1st & 2nd rounds from 2006-2011, btw: Dennis Persson Enroth Mike Weber TJ Brennan Drew Schiestel Myers Ennis Luke Adam Kassian Pysyk Armia That is a freaking pathetic yield for 6 years' worth of top picks. I will also point out that the Sabres have in fact been able to get guys like PLF and Hawerchuk -- ie no-BS NHL stars. If they put a real team together again, they'll be able to attract top players. But they are far away from that now. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Drunkard Posted January 23, 2017 Report Share Posted January 23, 2017 It doesn't seem like we have stopped tanking yet. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GASabresIUFAN Posted January 23, 2017 Report Share Posted January 23, 2017 It doesn't seem like we have stopped tanking yet. Agreed. We have drafted 8th. 2nd, 2nd and 8th the last 4 years and look like a bottom 5 team this season. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WildCard Posted January 23, 2017 Report Share Posted January 23, 2017 The East is just really tight this year Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Doohickie Posted March 13, 2017 Report Share Posted March 13, 2017 The poll question presumes that the Sabres are no longer tanking. At this point I'm not sure that's clear. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Doohickie Posted March 13, 2017 Report Share Posted March 13, 2017 I had a thought. When GMTM had his talk and the Sabres looked good for one game, maybe there was a subtext about DD. Without coming out and saying it, he might have implied something like: Play just well enough to keep the fans engaged, but not so well that I feel I need to keep DD next season. He could have masked it by saying Trust your instincts, or, Believe in yourselves; you're growing into a special group of *players* (wink, wink), or, Don't be afraid to make mistakes in high risk/high reward situations. These are things that would lead to more scoring, while frustrating DD, making the team vacillate between run & gun and shut-down hockey, with predictably mediocre results and a handy excuse to fire the coach at season's end. And oh by the way, one more shot at a top draft pick. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
North Buffalo Posted March 13, 2017 Report Share Posted March 13, 2017 I had a thought. When GMTM had his talk and the Sabres looked good for one game, maybe there was a subtext about DD. Without coming out and saying it, he might have implied something like: Play just well enough to keep the fans engaged, but not so well that I feel I need to keep DD next season. He could have masked it by saying Trust your instincts, or, Believe in yourselves; you're growing into a special group of *players* (wink, wink), or, Don't be afraid to make mistakes in high risk/high reward situations. These are things that would lead to more scoring, while frustrating DD, making the team vacillate between run & gun and shut-down hockey, with predictably mediocre results and a handy excuse to fire the coach at season's end. And oh by the way, one more shot at a top draft pick. works for me... only thing i thought when i saw that title again was they didnt start soon enough. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Drunkard Posted March 14, 2017 Report Share Posted March 14, 2017 I had a thought. When GMTM had his talk and the Sabres looked good for one game, maybe there was a subtext about DD. Without coming out and saying it, he might have implied something like: Play just well enough to keep the fans engaged, but not so well that I feel I need to keep DD next season. He could have masked it by saying Trust your instincts, or, Believe in yourselves; you're growing into a special group of *players* (wink, wink), or, Don't be afraid to make mistakes in high risk/high reward situations. These are things that would lead to more scoring, while frustrating DD, making the team vacillate between run & gun and shut-down hockey, with predictably mediocre results and a handy excuse to fire the coach at season's end. And oh by the way, one more shot at a top draft pick. Seems awfully convoluted for a guy who isn't supposed to give a f***. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Doohickie Posted March 14, 2017 Report Share Posted March 14, 2017 Seems awfully convoluted for a guy who isn't supposed to give a f***. Who said I don't give a f***? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sabres Fan in NS Posted March 14, 2017 Report Share Posted March 14, 2017 Who said I don't give a f***? Pretty sure he is referring to GM TM and not you. We all know you give a lot of f***s. :flirt: Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Drunkard Posted March 14, 2017 Report Share Posted March 14, 2017 Pretty sure he is referring to GM TM and not you. We all know you give a lot of f***s. :flirt: Exactly. Thanks, NS. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sabres Fan in NS Posted March 14, 2017 Report Share Posted March 14, 2017 Exactly. Thanks, NS. It's a momentous occasion ... I actually got one right. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DarthEbriate Posted March 14, 2017 Report Share Posted March 14, 2017 The poll question presumes that the Sabres are no longer tanking. At this point I'm not sure that's clear. Or rather, what was the solution to continue the "tank" another season as opposed to beginning the ascent? Last season, should we have sent Samson back to the A last year and told Jack to stay in school for his sophomore season? Trade Ristolainen for picks? Trade newly-acquired Kane or O'Reilly when they realized we wouldn't be trying to win for another season? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Doohickie Posted March 14, 2017 Report Share Posted March 14, 2017 Now you're just being silly. I don't have a problem with not making the playoffs this year *if* by next year the team (such as it is) is much better next year. You can't simply assemble a bunch of pieces and expect them to gel instantly. Having all those players you discussed moving for picks and prospects on the team and playing together is important for developing chemistry and developing systems (although we all hope the system will be new next year with a new coach). Very seldom do you rebuild and achieve instant success. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WildCard Posted March 14, 2017 Report Share Posted March 14, 2017 (edited) https://hockey-graphs.com/2017/03/14/strong-and-weak-links-talent-distribution-within-teams/ But the above shows that this is the case even at the cost of creating weaknesses elsewhere in the lineup. This has implications for many of the major decisions that general managers make. When trading, this work suggests that quality is more important than quantity.* Tyler Seguin was traded for multiple pieces and Evgeni Malkin was rumored in plans to do the same, and I think that both Dallas and Pittsburgh are happy to have the best player rather than several lesser players. In free agency, it is better to spend cap space on a single star than on multiple pieces of the bench. For the draft, this piece provides rigorous evidence supporting the belief that tanking works, since tanking is one of the best ways to acquire elite talent (once again, see Moneypuck). Finally, I’d argue that this has implications for coaching as well: hockey is about creating goals, not avoiding mistakes, and there is a compelling case to give top players the freedom to make plays and win games. These findings also nicely complement DTMAboutHeart’s RITHAC presentation, in which he suggested it is better to spread out top players on different lines rather than putting them together. That suggests that individual matchups are also strong link games, and it is best to have as strong a player as possible on the ice at all times. Edited March 14, 2017 by WildCard Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dudacek Posted March 14, 2017 Report Share Posted March 14, 2017 https://hockey-graphs.com/2017/03/14/strong-and-weak-links-talent-distribution-within-teams/ Wait! Are you saying there are analytics that prove me and Tim Murray are right? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WildCard Posted March 14, 2017 Report Share Posted March 14, 2017 Wait! Are you saying there are analytics that prove me and Tim Murray are right? There's enough to prove that A) Tanking works B) Byslma is a moron Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Weave Posted March 14, 2017 Report Share Posted March 14, 2017 So Gorges and D-lo don't have much effect on winning, and keeping ROR and Eichel apart make sense. to go further, all this agina about Falk, Fedun, Georges, et al seems to be wasted energy if I'm taking this correctly. Get one very good player on each pair to make sure we have the better guy on the ice and the impact is greater. Along the same lines, keeping Kane on the 3rd line was the better choice. Who wants to champion Reinhart as our 4th line center? :devil: Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.