If you're able to attend a training camp session, please post your observations here.

[Randall Flagg]

I would be thrilled if Sam was Pominville - Jason peaked as a top 20 NHL scorer, which is equivalent to scoring 70 points in today's NHL, which would be an incredible thing to get from Samson. 

I would be happy with him becoming a 60 point player. Obviously you hope for more boom from a 2nd overall pick but I don't want to hold his slot in a weak draft against him. 

[That Aud Smell]

And this is why I continue to beat the drum that he has more value on a top 6 line as a winger. He won't be able to get much going with the left over wingers on a 3rd line. Wasted asset.

 

A fair concern.

 

This is why Sam needs to be the #2 C and O'Reilly needs to be on the wing. Wasted assets!

 

(I understand why people don't want to take O'Reilly out of the center position, but I think he can be more special at wing)

 

I agree with the idea of ROR on the wing.

 

It's very possible that Sam is just a slightly better Pominville. 

 

I'm suffering from recency bias, I guess. This seems ... like not enough.

 

Then again -- peak Pominville was as a very good winger on a SC contending team.

 

I think the memory of Pominville is stained by virtue of the rotten core years.

 

And also influenced by that dumb, clueless look he gave me circa 2010 as he was eating his lunch while he walked along Delaware Avenue with a woman who was presumably his gf/wife, but who also looked to be 17 years old.

[French Collection]

It's still pre-season, but if the amount of power plays remain higher than previous years, we will see Sam on the first unit with the rest of our top talent. Phil will have to match him up with the other team's weaker lines at even strength due to his linemates. He may end up with Kane if he can't mesh with Jack.

 

Players may adjust to the newer calls but I think we will see more penalties.

 

I think he can be the pivot on a decent 3rd line and then shine on the PP.

[nfreeman]

It's very possible that Sam is just a slightly better Pominville. 

 

 

It is. And that's not bad at all.

(If you are talking the Pominville of his prime)

 

 

 

I'm suffering from recency bias, I guess. This seems ... like not enough.

 

 

 

I'm solidly in the "I want more from Reino than slightly better than peak Pommer" camp.

 

Pommer was a nice player, but on an SC contender, he shouldn't be higher than the 5th- or 6th-best forward. 

 

Reino needs to be better than that.

[Randall Flagg]

I'm solidly in the "I want more from Reino than slightly better than peak Pommer" camp.

 

Pommer was a nice player, but on an SC contender, he shouldn't be higher than the 5th- or 6th-best forward. 

 

Reino needs to be better than that.

Even during Pominville's peak years, like I mentioned above, when he was a top 20 NHL scorer?

 

I don't know that a single team has ever had 5-6 skaters in the top 20 in league scoring. 

 

And it's not like he was a defensive liability during that time - far from it.

Edited September 29, 2017 by Randall Flagg

[nfreeman]

Even during Pominville's peak years, like I mentioned above, when he was a top 20 NHL scorer?

 

I don't know that a single team has ever had 5-6 skaters in the top 20 in league scoring. 

 

And it's not like he was a defensive liability during that time - far from it.

 

I don't follow -- did Reino make it into the top 20 while I was looking away?

 

And you're right that Pommer was a good 2-way player.  He just wasn't the kind of player you build a team around -- and I want Reino to be that kind of player.

[Randall Flagg]

I don't follow -- did Reino make it into the top 20 while I was looking away?

 

And you're right that Pommer was a good 2-way player.  He just wasn't the kind of player you build a team around -- and I want Reino to be that kind of player.

I was contending the point that on an SC contender he shouldn't be higher than the 5th-6th best player with the fact that during his prime he was a top 20 scorer. Phil Kessel finished in a similar spot and has been no worse than 4th on those Penguins cup teams (3rd during the first one) - and Pittsburgh was incredibly offensively heavy. I think a prime Pominville could have been the 3rd or 4th best player on an SC contender, provided the players above him were C's and D's, and not wingers like we had. (And for most of that time Vanek was the only clearly better player). 

[nfreeman]

I was contending the point that on an SC contender he shouldn't be higher than the 5th-6th best player with the fact that during his prime he was a top 20 scorer. Phil Kessel finished in a similar spot and has been no worse than 4th on those Penguins cup teams (3rd during the first one) - and Pittsburgh was incredibly offensively heavy. I think a prime Pominville could have been the 3rd or 4th best player on an SC contender, provided the players above him were C's and D's, and not wingers like we had. (And for most of that time Vanek was the only clearly better player). 

 

Well, we are pretty far apart on this.

 

I think peak Pommer can't be any better than the 5th or 6th best forward​ (not player) on an SC contender, or at least not one that is built around an elite offense (i.e. if the team is built around Pronger and Niedermayer, then Pommer can probably be the 4th-best forward).  And while I recognize that peak Pommer had seasons where he put up numbers, there is always someone to put up numbers on lousy teams.

 

Of course, an SC contender also needs at least 3 defensemen who are more valuable NHL players than peak Pommer.

 

Pommer's game also doesn't translate well in the playoffs, which is borne out by his playoff numbers.

 

As for Pittsburgh, Kessel is in another league compared to peak Pommer IMHO.  I'd liken Pommer to Sheary on last year's Penguins -- and I'd argue that Guentzel on that team was better than peak Pommer -- so that puts Pommer in a tie for 5th forward.

[Randall Flagg]

Well, we are pretty far apart on this.

 

I think peak Pommer can't be any better than the 5th or 6th best forward​ (not player) on an SC contender, or at least not one that is built around an elite offense (i.e. if the team is built around Pronger and Niedermayer, then Pommer can probably be the 4th-best forward).  And while I recognize that peak Pommer had seasons where he put up numbers, there is always someone to put up numbers on lousy teams.

 

Of course, an SC contender also needs at least 3 defensemen who are more valuable NHL players than peak Pommer.

 

Pommer's game also doesn't translate well in the playoffs, which is borne out by his playoff numbers.

 

As for Pittsburgh, Kessel is in another league compared to peak Pommer IMHO.  I'd liken Pommer to Sheary on last year's Penguins -- and I'd argue that Guentzel on that team was better than peak Pommer -- so that puts Pommer in a tie for 5th forward.

I simply don't believe that the stats point to this at all, adjusted for the NHL that each player played in. I chose Kessel because last season he was ranked on the nose where Pominville was in 07/08 and 11/12, the two seasons I felt like looking up, remembering them as his best. Phil accomplished this feat of being as good as Pominville scoring wise, and worse two-way, on the highest scoring team in the NHL. 

Players whose scoring was worse relative to the rest of the league last year than Pominville during his peak include:

Matthews, Ovechkin, Benn, Pavelski, Pacioretty, Tavares, Kuznetsov, Kesler, Toews, with guys like Seguin and Getzlaf finishing 1-2 points higher than this production level.

Although the more I think about this the more I'm splitting hairs. 

 

I'd stop at 4, and 3 if he's having an insane stretch during the playoffs (like Kessel's in 2015-16). 5-6 just felt like too far for me based on his productivity at his peak, and the recent Pittsburgh teams winning cups with garbage bags playing defense.

Edited September 29, 2017 by Randall Flagg

[nfreeman]

I simply don't believe that the stats point to this at all, adjusted for the NHL that each player played in. I chose Kessel because last season he was ranked on the nose where Pominville was in 07/08 and 11/12, the two seasons I felt like looking up, remembering them as his best. Phil accomplished this feat of being as good as Pominville scoring wise, and worse two-way, on the highest scoring team in the NHL. 

Players whose scoring was worse relative to the rest of the league last year than Pominville during his peak include:

Matthews, Ovechkin, Benn, Pavelski, Pacioretty, Tavares, Kuznetsov, Kesler, Toews, with guys like Seguin and Getzlaf finishing 1-2 points higher than this production level.

Although the more I think about this the more I'm splitting hairs. 

 

I'd stop at 4, and 3 if he's having an insane stretch during the playoffs (like Kessel's in 2015-16). 5-6 just felt like too far for me based on his productivity at his peak, and the recent Pittsburgh teams winning cups with garbage bags playing defense.

 

Respectfully, I think you're weighting point production stats here far too highly.  Peak Pommer was a nice player with a well-rounded regular-season game who put up numbers, but he was not dynamic or impactful.

 

The Sabres were pathetic in 07-08.  They had just lost Drury and Briere and they carried themselves like Mom had just gotten plastered and run over the dog in the driveway.  Pommer put up numbers on a bad team.  He wasn't a difference-maker.

 

And he had 1 goal in 5 playoff games in 2011 as the Sabres blew a 3-2 lead to Philly in the 1st round and their entire "top 6," of which Pommer was an integral part, combined for zero goals in the 2nd and 3rd periods of that series.  It was one of the most embarrassing Buffalo sports moments of all time.  (I think Pommer captained that team -- not sure though.)

 

Meanwhile, Kessel had 8-15-23 in 25 playoff games last year.

 

Out of the guys you mentioned, I think 28 or more NHL GMs would take any of them (except maybe Kesler or Pacioretty) for a playoff run over peak Pommer.

[Randall Flagg]

Respectfully, I think you're weighting point production stats here far too highly.  Peak Pommer was a nice player with a well-rounded regular-season game who put up numbers, but he was not dynamic or impactful.

 

The Sabres were pathetic in 07-08.  They had just lost Drury and Briere and they carried themselves like Mom had just gotten plastered and run over the dog in the driveway.  Pommer put up numbers on a bad team.  He wasn't a difference-maker.

 

And he had 1 goal in 5 playoff games in 2011 as the Sabres blew a 3-2 lead to Philly in the 1st round and their entire "top 6," of which Pommer was an integral part, combined for zero goals in the 2nd and 3rd periods of that series.  It was one of the most embarrassing Buffalo sports moments of all time.  (I think Pommer captained that team -- not sure though.)

 

Meanwhile, Kessel had 8-15-23 in 25 playoff games last year.

 

Out of the guys you mentioned, I think 28 or more NHL GMs would take any of them (except maybe Kesler or Pacioretty) for a playoff run over peak Pommer.

Kessel was that exact same guy until he was in the right situation, namely, a team with the best centers in the league. Your post reads exactly like hf-leafs from 2010-2015, only you are far, far nicer to Pominville than they were to Kessel in the character/difference maker category. 

And I don't mean to compare Pominville's prime to Kessel's prime, just Pominville's prime to Kessel now. 

 

Kessel's prime was better than Pominville's prime and he still led his team to less success. 

I also wouldn't take Pominville over those guys, who are all guys that can be a top 2 player on a cup contender when their GM has actually built a functional team around them, but I'm illustrating that production wise he was up there, and if his GM had been able to keep his ###### centers he could have been a top 4 player on a contender. Especially since he was a top 20 scorer with good two-way play being centered by Derek Roy, Tim Connolly, or Paul Gaustad instead of PPG Danny Briere or stud Drury. 

Edited September 29, 2017 by Randall Flagg

[North Buffalo]

Kessel was that exact same guy until he was in the right situation, namely, a team with the best centers in the league. Your post reads exactly like hf-leafs from 2010-2015, only you are far, far nicer to Pominville than they were to Kessel in the character/difference maker category. 

And I don't mean to compare Pominville's prime to Kessel's prime, just Pominville's prime to Kessel now. 

 

Kessel's prime was better than Pominville's prime and he still led his team to less success. 

I also wouldn't take Pominville over those guys, who are all guys that can be a top 2 player on a cup contender when their GM has actually built a functional team around them, but I'm illustrating that production wise he was up there, and if his GM had been able to keep his ###### centers he could have been a top 4 player on a contender. Especially since he was a top 20 scorer with good two-way play being centered by Derek Roy, Tim Connolly, or Paul Gaustad instead of PPG Danny Briere or stud Drury. 

Interesting debate.  My only correction to the above was that the Sabres were hit two fold by the loss of Briere. Drury was going regardless... the screw up was losing Briere and Connolly concussions... without drafting a center worth anything, who could carry the puck.  Vanek in hind sight should have been let go to Edmonton... but the Sabres as a result would have immediately been put into the the tank mode with the losses up the middle... talk about a perfect storm.  4 number 1s would have been nice... sigh it is was it is.

[dudacek]

I think this debate - like the Reinhart debate and the Larsson debate currently occupying the board - is more proof that style matters.

It's not just what you do, it's how and when you do it, that matters to people.

 

There is a pretty good argument that Thomas Vanek was every bit the player Danny Briere was. Or Ryan O'Reilly is superior to Chris Drury. But our opinions are coloured by the joys those Briere/Drury teams provided that the O'Reilly teams haven't and the Vanek teams never did.

 

We all have things we look for in a hockey player, that we value more than others: I love guys that outthink the opponent, and guys that are willing to get dirty and pay the price and that's why I like like Larsson despite the fact he doesn't skate well or produce much. Pokey focuses on the latter. Pi loves skating, thus his infatuation with Tyson Barrie despite his disastrous defence, Deluca loved Lucic for his machismo to the point he ignored how many games he slept through. Some guys loved Pysyk for his smoothness. Freeman looked at him and said "what does he actually do out there?" Some guys see Bailey's skills to and get excited. Flagg says he might look good some times, but he doesn't actually accomplish anything.

 

I'm not saying we can't appreciate different nuances, but we each tend to focus on those areas we value more. We tend to judge our players - positively and negatively - a lot more strongly than we do guys on other teams. And once we make up our minds, we struggle to change them.

Edited September 29, 2017 by dudacek

[North Buffalo]

I think this debate - like the Reinhart debate and the Larsson debate currently occupying the board - is more proof that style matters.

It's not just what you do, it's how and when you do it, that matters to people.

 

There is a pretty good argument that Thomas Vanek was every bit the player Danny Briere was. Or Ryan O'Reilly is superior to Chris Drury. But our opinions are coloured by the joys those Briere/Drury teams provided that the O'Reilly teams haven't and the Vanek teams never did.

 

We all have things we look for in a hockey player, that we value more than others: I love guys that outthink the opponent, and guys that are willing to get dirty and pay the price and that's why I like like Larsson despite the fact he doesn't skate well or produce much. Pokey focuses on the latter. Pi loves skating, thus his infatuation with Tyson Barrie despite his disastrous defence, Deluca loved Lucic for his machismo to the point he ignored how many games he slept through. Some guys loved Pysyk for his smoothness. Freeman looked at him and said "what does he actually do out there?" Some guys see Bailey's skills to and get excited. Flagg says he might look good some times, but he doesn't actually accomplish anything.

 

I'm not saying we can't appreciate different nuances, but we each tend to focus on those areas we value more. We tend to judge our players - positively and negatively - a lot more strongly than we do guys on other teams. And once we make up our minds, we struggle to change them.

Nice thoughts.  My only wish was that in hindsite, the Sabres kept Briere and Vanek...  Drury was gone, it was known that he wanted to go the NYR... Darcy dropped the ball on Briere and then scrambled to sign Vanek...  short of this, the Sabres would have been in default full on tank mode back then and he would have been fired right away.... should have been anyway at that point... I am in the keep Larry camp... hence my bias... but I think his talents showed last year with Foligno and the Sabres sorely missed him... good passer, underestimated skater... though an awkward style and love his grit and sandpaper...  He is everything a third liner needs to be...  he has hands and is a good passer, good forechecker... I just don't see the Sabres having anyone to replace his role.

[Randall Flagg]

I think this debate - like the Reinhart debate and the Larsson debate currently occupying the board - is more proof that style matters.

It's not just what you do, it's how and when you do it, that matters to people.

 

There is a pretty good argument that Thomas Vanek was every bit the player Danny Briere was. Or Ryan O'Reilly is superior to Chris Drury. But our opinions are coloured by the joys those Briere/Drury teams provided that the O'Reilly teams haven't and the Vanek teams never did.

 

We all have things we look for in a hockey player, that we value more than others: I love guys that outthink the opponent, and guys that are willing to get dirty and pay the price and that's why I like like Larsson despite the fact he doesn't skate well or produce much. Pokey focuses on the latter. Pi loves skating, thus his infatuation with Tyson Barrie despite his disastrous defence, Deluca loved Lucic for his machismo to the point he ignored how many games he slept through. Some guys loved Pysyk for his smoothness. Freeman looked at him and said "what does he actually do out there?" Some guys see Bailey's skills to and get excited. Flagg says he might look good some times, but he doesn't actually accomplish anything.

 

I'm not saying we can't appreciate different nuances, but we each tend to focus on those areas we value more. We tend to judge our players - positively and negatively - a lot more strongly than we do guys on other teams. And once we make up our minds, we struggle to change them.

Awesome post. 

 

I'm making a thread about this. 

[nfreeman]

Kessel was that exact same guy until he was in the right situation, namely, a team with the best centers in the league. Your post reads exactly like hf-leafs from 2010-2015, only you are far, far nicer to Pominville than they were to Kessel in the character/difference maker category. 

And I don't mean to compare Pominville's prime to Kessel's prime, just Pominville's prime to Kessel now. 

 

Kessel's prime was better than Pominville's prime and he still led his team to less success. 

I also wouldn't take Pominville over those guys, who are all guys that can be a top 2 player on a cup contender when their GM has actually built a functional team around them, but I'm illustrating that production wise he was up there, and if his GM had been able to keep his ###### centers he could have been a top 4 player on a contender. Especially since he was a top 20 scorer with good two-way play being centered by Derek Roy, Tim Connolly, or Paul Gaustad instead of PPG Danny Briere or stud Drury. 

 

I agree that neither Kessel nor Pommer was the type of player who could lift up a team by force of will and dominant play.  (I think wingers who can are pretty rare.)  And certainly peak Pommer would've been a good player on the Penguins.  But current Kessel IMHO still is a much better player in that role than peak Pommer.  I don't think Pittsburgh would've considered for a second giving Pommer $5.5MM x 5 years -- but they are happy to give Kessel $8MM.

 

I think this debate - like the Reinhart debate and the Larsson debate currently occupying the board - is more proof that style matters.

It's not just what you do, it's how and when you do it, that matters to people.

 

There is a pretty good argument that Thomas Vanek was every bit the player Danny Briere was. Or Ryan O'Reilly is superior to Chris Drury. But our opinions are coloured by the joys those Briere/Drury teams provided that the O'Reilly teams haven't and the Vanek teams never did.

 

We all have things we look for in a hockey player, that we value more than others: I love guys that outthink the opponent, and guys that are willing to get dirty and pay the price and that's why I like like Larsson despite the fact he doesn't skate well or produce much. Pokey focuses on the latter. Pi loves skating, thus his infatuation with Tyson Barrie despite his disastrous defence, Deluca loved Lucic for his machismo to the point he ignored how many games he slept through. Some guys loved Pysyk for his smoothness. Freeman looked at him and said "what does he actually do out there?" Some guys see Bailey's skills to and get excited. Flagg says he might look good some times, but he doesn't actually accomplish anything.

 

I'm not saying we can't appreciate different nuances, but we each tend to focus on those areas we value more. We tend to judge our players - positively and negatively - a lot more strongly than we do guys on other teams. And once we make up our minds, we struggle to change them.

 

Respectfully, while I agree with some of this post, I disagree with much of it.

 

First, I find the bolded statement revolting and a borderline crime against nature, although in a large enough nation, there is a theory for everyone.

 

More importantly, although you are certainly right that we all bring our individual baggage to our opinion-forming processes, and that winning and losing plays a big role as well, I think that those factors play out on the margins.  You don't think Larsson is a #1 or #2 center.  I don't think Pysyk belongs in the ECHL.  Pi had us all going last year, but he doesn't really think Moulson is a 30-goal guy any more. 

 

I also think that while the offseason may be a time for people believing what they want to believe, once the ammo is live, most here evaluate what they see with a respectable degree of fairness.

[WildCard]

Well, we are pretty far apart on this.

 

I think peak Pommer can't be any better than the 5th or 6th best forward​ (not player) on an SC contender, or at least not one that is built around an elite offense (i.e. if the team is built around Pronger and Niedermayer, then Pommer can probably be the 4th-best forward).  And while I recognize that peak Pommer had seasons where he put up numbers, there is always someone to put up numbers on lousy teams.

 

Of course, an SC contender also needs at least 3 defensemen who are more valuable NHL players than peak Pommer.

 

Pommer's game also doesn't translate well in the playoffs, which is borne out by his playoff numbers.

 

As for Pittsburgh, Kessel is in another league compared to peak Pommer IMHO.  I'd liken Pommer to Sheary on last year's Penguins -- and I'd argue that Guentzel on that team was better than peak Pommer -- so that puts Pommer in a tie for 5th forward.

But he already has been, multiple times. This statement is just false.

 

By the way, you threw one postseason where he had a rough time. In his career, he's a 21-30-51 in 81 GP, or .63 PPg, in the playoffs. In the regular season, he's a .44 PPG. So really, what you're saying is just wrong.

 

Also, don't try and say Pominville can't come up in big moments

 

[That Aud Smell]

^

 

My favourite moment in franchise history. I'd bet it's the same for many.

[darksabre]

^

 

My favourite moment in franchise history. I'd bet it's the same for many.

I love beating Ottawa in the playoffs. It just feels right. 

[Randall Flagg]

But he already has been, multiple times. This statement is just false.

 

By the way, you threw one postseason where he had a rough time. In his career, he's a 21-30-51 in 81 GP, or .63 PPg, in the playoffs. In the regular season, he's a .44 PPG. So really, what you're saying is just wrong.

 

Also, don't try and say Pominville can't come up in big moments

 

There's no way Pominville is only .44 points per game in the regular season

 

Dude had multiple 70+ point seasons and even more 60+ and even had 47 when "washed up" last year, and 47 is almost .6 points per game

He's 0.73 points per game in the regular season.

[That Aud Smell]

After sleeping on it, I will say: If Reinhart were to make a career of being a Peak Pominville Plus Player, I would be more than happy.

 

That's a PPPP, for those scoring at home.

[WildCard]

There's no way Pominville is only .44 points per game in the regular season

 

Dude had multiple 70+ point seasons and even more 60+ and even had 47 when "washed up" last year, and 47 is almost .6 points per game

He's 0.73 points per game in the regular season.

You're right. On that same page, look one column over, and see where I got .44 from :lol:

[darksabre]

After sleeping on it, I will say: If Reinhart were to make a career of being a Peak Pominville Plus Player, I would be more than happy.

 

That's a PPPP, for those scoring at home.

And given that Pominville didn't break through on the Sabres until he was 23, I would say Sam has a few more years to work up from his current ~0.5 ppg, which is nothing to sneeze at.  

[nfreeman]

But he already has been, multiple times. This statement is just false.

 

By the way, you threw one postseason where he had a rough time. In his career, he's a 21-30-51 in 81 GP, or .63 PPg, in the playoffs. In the regular season, he's a .44 PPG. So really, what you're saying is just wrong.

 

Also, don't try and say Pominville can't come up in big moments

 

 

When?

 

The only time he was on a true SC contender was on the '06 and '07 Sabres.  Those teams had:

 

Drury

Briere

Vanek

Connolly

Roy

Afinogenov

Dumont ('06 only)

Kotalik

 

Pommer was #12 in scoring in '06 (#7 in the playoffs) and #4 in '07 (also #4 in the playoffs) -- although Max missed 26 games that season with injury and his PPG was well north of Pommer's.

 

So -- it's fair to say that Pommer was well below the #5 forward in '06 -- and that team was a true SC contender -- and #4 or #5 in '07 -- on a substantially weaker team.

 

None of Pommer's Minnesota teams were nearly as much of an SC contender as those Sabres teams were.

[WildCard]

When?

 

The only time he was on a true SC contender was on the '06 and '07 Sabres.  Those teams had:

 

Drury

Briere

Vanek

Connolly

Roy

Afinogenov

Dumont ('06 only)

Kotalik

 

Pommer was #12 in scoring in '06 (#7 in the playoffs) and #4 in '07 (also #4 in the playoffs) -- although Max missed 26 games that season with injury and his PPG was well north of Pommer's.

 

So -- it's fair to say that Pommer was well below the #5 forward in '06 -- and that team was a true SC contender -- and #4 or #5 in '07 -- on a substantially weaker team.

 

None of Pommer's Minnesota teams were nearly as much of an SC contender as those Sabres teams were.

So none of Minnesota's teams won the President's trophy, and that means they weren't SC contenders?