Sabre fan Posted March 7, 2017 Author Report Share Posted March 7, 2017 there's no hope in hell we'd ever win he draft lottery, so my idea here was o kinda be realistic of who we may have a shot at.We will draft in most likelyhood around 9 to 11 so this monster Rasmussen should be still on the board. We have to remember here's like 26 or 7 other teams all looking for stud d-men, so it is not as easy as it sounds to swing a deal with say Anaheim for one of their d-men. If it was that easy, a pile of teams would have already made a deal. anyways, I do trust GMTM more then I ever trusted Darcy, who drafted some pretty bad players. We were so lucky to get O'Reilly for those two stiffs Colorado took. sure could use another great trade like that but Colorado , in he words of the band The Who, "Won't get Fooled Again"... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WildCard Posted March 7, 2017 Report Share Posted March 7, 2017 Did Regier really draft BPA? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sabre fan Posted March 7, 2017 Author Report Share Posted March 7, 2017 I guess one could say Darcy drafted what he deemed the BPA (obviously these players were not he BPA but he seemed to think so). Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
inkman Posted March 7, 2017 Report Share Posted March 7, 2017 Did Regier really draft BPA? Why do you think he was doing? Guessing? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GASabresIUFAN Posted March 7, 2017 Report Share Posted March 7, 2017 (edited) Y'all act like there is a huge difference in the scouting grades of a the guy ranked 99 and the guy ranked 100 or even 110 or 115, There isn't. If you are drafting with the 99th pick and you are deciding between two players with nearly identical grades you take the position of need. Any GM that takes strictly drafts a higher that has a ranking of .0001 higher regardless of organization need is foolish and no good GM does it. If you want to argue that early in the draft, say in the 1st two rounds where the grade differentials maybe larger, that a GM should stick with BPA, I might agree in general. However, again, as we saw with Edmonton, this isn't always the smart thing to be either. Also take the last Sabres draft. Obviously GMTM stuck with BPA and drafted Nylander over Sergachev. Now that you have seen the mess our D look like and the lack of D prospects in the pipeline and the 16 million we wasted on other team's former D, can you honestly say that our organization might not be better off with Sergachev long-term then another winger in Nylander? Edited March 7, 2017 by GASabresIUFAN Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WildCard Posted March 7, 2017 Report Share Posted March 7, 2017 Why do you think he was doing? Guessing? Judging by his draft results it wouldn't surprise me Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dudacek Posted March 7, 2017 Report Share Posted March 7, 2017 Pretty much any GM worth his salt says you draft for ability and trade for roles. Position comes into play when you two players ranked equally, or as a reason to move up or down. Position comes into play stronger later in the draft, to get balance in the pipeline when its more of a crap shoot. For the record, Tim Murray has drafted nine defencemen in three years, three in the first three rounds. Darcy drafted six in his last three years, three in the first three rounds. Stan Bowman has drafted nine in the past three years, three in the first three rounds. The Penguins have drafted five, one in the first three rounds. The almighty rebuilding Leafs, eight, two in the first three rounds. I could go on. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
inkman Posted March 7, 2017 Report Share Posted March 7, 2017 Y'all act like there is a huge difference in the scouting grades of a the guy ranked 99 and the guy ranked 100 or even 110 or 115, There isn't. If you are drafting with the 99th pick and you are deciding between two players with nearly identical grades you take the position of need. Any GM that takes strictly drafts a higher that has a ranking of .0001 higher regardless of organization need is foolish and no good GM does it. If you want to argue that early in the draft, say in the 1st two rounds where the grade differentials maybe larger, that a GM should stick with BPA, I might agree in general. However, again, as we saw with Edmonton, this isn't always the smart thing to be either. Also take the last Sabres draft. Obviously GMTM stuck with BPA and drafted Nylander over Sergachev. Now that you have seen the mess our D look like and the lack of D prospects in the pipeline and the 16 million we wasted on other team's former D, can you honestly say that our organization might not be better off with Sergachev long-term then another winger in Nylander? So when the 5th round rolls around, a GM is going to think "hey I might need a LW in 5 years so I better take one here." My opinions are my opinions and I can not speak to the correctness of it but if a GM isn't picking the player he feels has the best potential, I don't want him as my GM. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dudacek Posted March 7, 2017 Report Share Posted March 7, 2017 The funny thing about all this harping on Murray not drafting D is that only two players that he passed on - Chychrun and Tryamkin - have actually made the NHL. Tryamkin was passed on 65 times. This team isnt in the playoffs with those two in the lineup. Or with Pysyk, or McNabb, or Zadorov, or Mcbain, Ehrhoff, Myers, Weber, or any other player Murray has traded away. Murray still needs to improve the D for us to be competitive. And the guys has brought in have not been the answer. Stop there and you won't get any argument from me. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Derrico Posted March 7, 2017 Report Share Posted March 7, 2017 Y'all act like there is a huge difference in the scouting grades of a the guy ranked 99 and the guy ranked 100 or even 110 or 115, There isn't. If you are drafting with the 99th pick and you are deciding between two players with nearly identical grades you take the position of need. Any GM that takes strictly drafts a higher that has a ranking of .0001 higher regardless of organization need is foolish and no good GM does it. If you want to argue that early in the draft, say in the 1st two rounds where the grade differentials maybe larger, that a GM should stick with BPA, I might agree in general. However, again, as we saw with Edmonton, this isn't always the smart thing to be either. Also take the last Sabres draft. Obviously GMTM stuck with BPA and drafted Nylander over Sergachev. Now that you have seen the mess our D look like and the lack of D prospects in the pipeline and the 16 million we wasted on other team's former D, can you honestly say that our organization might not be better off with Sergachev long-term then another winger in Nylander? I agreed with much of this up until the bolded. In the later rounds I would still go BPA but I'm not as concerned. But the first round especially there is a big difference (read drop off) with each pick of the top players. It's easy to say well if they had the same player ranked as equal. No. These are two different players, I need a GM figuring out who is going to be better regardless of position. I don't know how you could possibly defend the position today that we are better off with Sergachev vs. Nylander. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
carpandean Posted March 7, 2017 Report Share Posted March 7, 2017 (edited) What I "see" in draft grading and outcome is that you can, at best, put players into buckets. That is, small groups of players who have roughly the same estimated chance of performing at a particular level in the NHL. However, there is so much uncertainty in projecting that saying your rankings/ratings actually puts one player notably better than a handful of players around him is nonsense (other than those top few standouts in strong drafts.) So, yeah, if you're left with the last player from one bucket, then you go BPA, because there is a notable drop to go for need. Otherwise, you can draft for need within the current bucket (assuming that at least one choice meets that need.) These buckets will generally get larger the further back you go, but in most drafts, they start to appear even in the mid first round. Really, suggesting strict BPA implies that you can reasonably give players single-number ratings that provides some absolute ordering. The reality is that you have scouts who watch games (live/video) and use experience to project (guesstimate) where a players game will go in years to come. That would be hard enough if there were only one type of player, but there's many. Forwards vs. defensemen vs. goalies, offensive defensemen vs. stay-at-home, passer-first vs. shoot-first, etc. How can you possibly expect a true ordering? Ask 30 GMs and you'd get 30 different orderings. Some of that would be due to skill in identifying talent, but a lot of it would also be the actually uncertainty involved (the best GM in the world will just be more right, more often, but he will get plenty wrong.) Not to mention the fact that GMs don't personal watch/rate all (or even most) of the players. They can't; not enough time. They have scouts who are giving them their thoughts, which they then try to compile into one rating. I guess my point is that BPA sounds like a nice, precise science for drafting, but unfortunately is based on too much uncertainty to really be such. Edited March 7, 2017 by carpandean Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GASabresIUFAN Posted March 7, 2017 Report Share Posted March 7, 2017 (edited) What I "see" in draft grading and outcome is that you can, at best, put players into buckets. That is, small groups of players who have roughly the same estimated chance of performing at a particular level in the NHL. However, there is so much uncertainty in projecting that saying your rankings/ratings actually puts one player notably better than a handful of players around him is nonsense (other than those top few standouts in strong drafts.) So, yeah, if you're left with the last player from one bucket, then you go BPA, because there is a notable drop to go for need. Otherwise, you can draft for need within the current bucket (assuming that at least one choice meets that need.) These buckets will generally get larger the further back you go, but in most drafts, they start to appear even in the mid first round. Really, suggesting strict BPA implies that you can reasonably give players single-number ratings that provides some absolute ordering. The reality is that you have scouts who watch games (live/video) and use experience to project (guesstimate) where a players game will go in years to come. That would be hard enough if there were only one type of player, but there's many. Forwards vs. defensemen vs. goalies, offensive defensemen vs. stay-at-home, passer-first vs. shoot-first, etc. How can you possibly expect a true ordering? Ask 30 GMs and you'd get 30 different orderings. Some of that would be due to skill in identifying talent, but a lot of it would also be the actually uncertainty involved (the best GM in the world will just be more right, more often, but he will get plenty wrong.) Not to mention the fact that GMs don't personal watch/rate all (or even most) of the players. They can't; not enough time. They have scouts who are giving them their thoughts, which they then try to compile into one rating. I guess my point is that BPA sounds like a nice, precise science for drafting, but unfortunately is based on too much uncertainty to really be such. Thank you, you stated much more clearly what I was trying to express. I agree that tiers and buckets are a much better way of stating how players are grouped. Edited March 7, 2017 by GASabresIUFAN Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Weave Posted March 7, 2017 Report Share Posted March 7, 2017 (edited) Except we've heard GMTM speak post draft of his methods. He doesnt use buckets. He uses ratings of individual skill sets and picks what he prioritizes as most likely to give him an NHL player. Sometimes he drafts for high reward with high risk (Bailey for example was rough but athletic and I recall at least one other picked for this reason), but he doesnt go position, he goes with what he rates as highest potential. As he should. Edited March 7, 2017 by We've Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GASabresIUFAN Posted March 7, 2017 Report Share Posted March 7, 2017 (edited) Except Bailey wasn't drafted by GMTM. Fyi: Asplund was drafted to get a center and to quote Murray "he was the only 5 left in our ratings". So apparently he does tier. Also in 2014 he only drafted 1 D, 1 G in 9 picks. The following year he changed course and drafted 4 D in 6 picks. He said he was drafting for speed and skill in 2015, but when you take 4/6 D you are also drafting for need. It's not surprising then that our 2 legit NHL D prospects are from this draft. Edited March 7, 2017 by GASabresIUFAN Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ottosmagic13 Posted March 7, 2017 Report Share Posted March 7, 2017 Trade picks, Ennis, Moulson, Girgensons and any one else I've given up on that wasn't shipped to Vegas all to get 1.5 top 4 blue liners. oh and a new coach, can we trade DD for a Dman? I'd even be willing to keep some salary to sweeten the deal. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Weave Posted March 7, 2017 Report Share Posted March 7, 2017 but when you take 4/6 D you are also drafting for need.. He has said repeatedly he goes for BPA. Unless you have his draft notes you have no idea if those D weren't next on his list as BPA. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GASabresIUFAN Posted March 7, 2017 Report Share Posted March 7, 2017 (edited) Murray in the after draft press conference admitted after drafting Stephens in the 5th rd (his third D) that we didn't have depth at the position. He also said that he wanted to add a goalie, another position of need, but the goalies he wanted were drafted in the 3rd and he traded away the 3rd so we missed out. Obviously position is part of his thinking, despite other quotes saying he sticks to his list. Edited March 7, 2017 by GASabresIUFAN Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TrueBlueGED Posted March 7, 2017 Report Share Posted March 7, 2017 (edited) I think it's also worth noting that drafting for need is hardly easier than cleanly separating players for BPA. How do we define need? Current roster? Current pipeline? Projected future roster? Projected future pipeline? Doing this requires projecting not just the draftable prospects in question, but those already drafted, and some prognosis about shifting roster composition. Talk about compounding forecast error. Assuming static needs such that "what we need now is what we'll need in the future" is hugely problematic, to say nothing of trying to inject dynamism into the model. Edited March 7, 2017 by TrueBlueGED Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Crusader1969 Posted March 7, 2017 Report Share Posted March 7, 2017 Unless a miracle happens and Sabres win one of the lottery spots, Im feel confident that the pick will be one of 2 players. 1) Timothy Liljegren 2) Cale Makar i wouldn't want them to trade away a lottery pick as those players will be extremely valuable in 2 years when Eichel is done his ELC. I don`t think you have to trade away the top pick this year for a top 4D. With teams scrambling to not lose a valuable asset for nothing in in the expansion draft. Next Season - Failing the trade above, I would trade a lottery protected 2018, plus a prospect not named (Guhle, Nylander and Asplund) and Larsson or Girgensons for D help next season. I would like to see if they can bring back a healthy Kulikov on a 1 year deal at reasonable money. I know he is a much better player than what we have seen this year. You add a healthy Kulikov and Guhle plus another acquired by trade to Risto, Bogo, McCabe. I think you have substancially improved over this seasons D. In 2 seasons - You have Borgen, Devante Stephens (both with 1 year AHL experience) and the 1st round pick from this year to add. This is the year they move into the top 7 or 8 teams in the league. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WildCard Posted March 7, 2017 Report Share Posted March 7, 2017 Unless a miracle happens and Sabres win one of the lottery spots, Im feel confident that the pick will be one of 2 players. 1) Timothy Liljegren 2) Cale Makar i wouldn't want them to trade away a lottery pick as those players will be extremely valuable in 2 years when Eichel is done his ELC. I don`t think you have to trade away the top pick this year for a top 4D. With teams scrambling to not lose a valuable asset for nothing in in the expansion draft. Next Season - Failing the trade above, I would trade a lottery protected 2018, plus a prospect not named (Guhle, Nylander and Asplund) and Larsson or Girgensons for D help next season. I would like to see if they can bring back a healthy Kulikov on a 1 year deal at reasonable money. I know he is a much better player than what we have seen this year. You add a healthy Kulikov and Guhle plus another acquired by trade to Risto, Bogo, McCabe. I think you have substancially improved over this seasons D. In 2 seasons - You have Borgen, Devante Stephens (both with 1 year AHL experience) and the 1st round pick from this year to add. This is the year they move into the top 7 or 8 teams in the league. 2018 1st + Nylander + Larsson / Girgs better net me Karlsson Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brawndo Posted March 7, 2017 Report Share Posted March 7, 2017 Unless a miracle happens and Sabres win one of the lottery spots, Im feel confident that the pick will be one of 2 players. 1) Timothy Liljegren 2) Cale Makar i wouldn't want them to trade away a lottery pick as those players will be extremely valuable in 2 years when Eichel is done his ELC. I don`t think you have to trade away the top pick this year for a top 4D. With teams scrambling to not lose a valuable asset for nothing in in the expansion draft. Next Season - Failing the trade above, I would trade a lottery protected 2018, plus a prospect not named (Guhle, Nylander and Asplund) and Larsson or Girgensons for D help next season. I would like to see if they can bring back a healthy Kulikov on a 1 year deal at reasonable money. I know he is a much better player than what we have seen this year. You add a healthy Kulikov and Guhle plus another acquired by trade to Risto, Bogo, McCabe. I think you have substancially improved over this seasons D. In 2 seasons - You have Borgen, Devante Stephens (both with 1 year AHL experience) and the 1st round pick from this year to add. This is the year they move into the top 7 or 8 teams in the league. Any love for Nicholas Hague or Juuso Valimaki. I like Makar although he seems a tad bit on the smaller size. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
inkman Posted March 7, 2017 Report Share Posted March 7, 2017 2018 1st + Nylander + Larsson / Girgs better ###### net me Karlsson That package is barely good enough to get Carlson let alone Karlsson Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WildCard Posted March 7, 2017 Report Share Posted March 7, 2017 That package is barely good enough to get Carlson let alone Karlsson Point is, Nylander isn't being moved for me Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
inkman Posted March 7, 2017 Report Share Posted March 7, 2017 Point is, Nylander isn't being moved for me Meh if he nets a partner for Risto, I'm good. Alex, even at the WJ, did not wow me. He looked good against other boys, yippee. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WildCard Posted March 7, 2017 Report Share Posted March 7, 2017 Meh if he nets a partner for Risto, I'm good. Alex, even at the WJ, did not wow me. He looked good against other boys, yippee. Didn't he dominate the WJ? Murray wasn't going to move him for Fowler and that was before Fowler had this incredible season. 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.