Reexamining the 2014 NHL draft

[Weave]

Probably comes down to were they raised to be hard working, don't take anything for granted like their baby boomer parents/grandparents or were they raised like a typical millenial who expects everything on a platter and is not willing to work for any of it. I'm entitled, gimme gimme gimme, where's my phone, I can't live without it generation.

 

Hey, look at the bright side.  Maybe those millennials won't be the selfish bastards that the boomers were and take everything for themselves and leave the bills and aftermath for the next generation to deal with.

[Taro T]

Hey, look at the bright side.  Maybe those millennials won't be the selfish bastards that the boomers were and take everything for themselves and leave the bills and aftermath for the next generation to deal with.

Well, a few of the Millenials have Gen Xers for parents. So they have that working for them. Which is nice. ;)

[jsb]

 

Such a completely ridiculous take.  They absolutely expected everything to be given to them.  So much so that they made it to be in the top 3-5% of players in the entire world at a sport and managed to get drafted in the NHL.  No hard work required.

 

Hey, look at the bright side.  Maybe those millennials won't be the selfish bastards that the boomers were and take everything for themselves and leave the bills and aftermath for the next generation to deal with.

Actually the remark was intended to be a very tongue in cheek remark in response to a couple of other posters completely opposite take.

As for the bolded.................... Nobody accused us of being stupid  :P  :P  :P

[LTS]

The bolded is certainly fair.  If some of the non-Eichel picks turn into gems then GMTM's legacy will improve. 

 

As for damned if you do/don't and BPA:  again, he was paid millions of dollars not to try, but to succeed.  Anyone here could've tried and failed.  He failed.  It wasn't (presumably) out of greed or laziness or malice, but he undeniably failed, and it's fair to evaluate him accordingly. 

 

No one here had the credentials to get an interview in the first place.  It's not like a chump off the street gets handed the opportunity.  Moreover, I wouldn't give anyone on this forum a more than a 1% chance of success in the role.  At worst Murray was probably a 50/50 shot.

 

He was also hired by a guy who then immediately left the organization.  He's under the rule of an owner who's established a penchant for turning over team leadership staff.  He was forced to draft Eichel and certainly no one on here thought he was pleased about that.  He goes out and looks for talent that can turn the team around faster and gets it but then he has to deal with a rift in the locker room between the coach and Eichel (a guy he didn't want in the first place presumably).  If it's not a healthy situation and you know you can't move Eichel because the owner won't let you then why would you WANT to keep the job anyway?

 

I think there's more to the story of what happened while Murray was GM.  I am sure some of it will start to play out in the next year or so and we'll begin to understand it even more.

Be honest, if the Sabres win the lottery and they take McDavid do we feel the same way about him?

 

Hey, look at the bright side.  Maybe those millennials won't be the selfish bastards that the boomers were and take everything for themselves and leave the bills and aftermath for the next generation to deal with.

 

In order to leave bills you have to have credit to be able to spend.  In order to get credit and leave aftermath you have to actually do something.  Isn't the whole problem with millenials the fact that they want other people to do everything for them?  ;)

Edited December 21, 2017 by LTS

[Doctor of Philhousley]

In order to leave bills you have to have credit to be able to spend.  In order to get credit and leave aftermath you have to actually do something.  Isn't the whole problem with millenials the fact that they want other people to do everything for them?  ;)

"They" work more hours per week than previous generations, but don't let that ruin the narrative.  ;)

[nfreeman]

No one here had the credentials to get an interview in the first place.  It's not like a chump off the street gets handed the opportunity.  Moreover, I wouldn't give anyone on this forum a more than a 1% chance of success in the role.  At worst Murray was probably a 50/50 shot.

 

He was also hired by a guy who then immediately left the organization.  He's under the rule of an owner who's established a penchant for turning over team leadership staff.  He was forced to draft Eichel and certainly no one on here thought he was pleased about that.  He goes out and looks for talent that can turn the team around faster and gets it but then he has to deal with a rift in the locker room between the coach and Eichel (a guy he didn't want in the first place presumably).  If it's not a healthy situation and you know you can't move Eichel because the owner won't let you then why would you WANT to keep the job anyway?

 

I think there's more to the story of what happened while Murray was GM.  I am sure some of it will start to play out in the next year or so and we'll begin to understand it even more.

Be honest, if the Sabres win the lottery and they take McDavid do we feel the same way about him?

 

 

Huh?  You think GMTM was not on board with the tank?

 

I don't think I've seen anyone here post that theory.

 

As for no one here having the credentials to get an interview -- no kidding!  My point was that GMTM was paid millions of dollars to do a better job than a Sabrespace poster would've done -- and he failed to do so. 

[Robviously]

Huh?  You think GMTM was not on board with the tank?

 

I don't think I've seen anyone here post that theory.

 

As for no one here having the credentials to get an interview -- no kidding!  My point was that GMTM was paid millions of dollars to do a better job than a Sabrespace poster would've done -- and he failed to do so. 

He was on board with the tank and helped finish it but then was inexplicably shocked and visibly upset when we lost the 1st overall pick (which was an 80% chance).

 

I didn't love the Kane trade when we made it, but his freak out at the draft lottery when Edmonton got the McDavid pick was the first time I was really worried we had the wrong GM.  His behavior that night was completely bizarre and awful.

[nfreeman]

He was on board with the tank and helped finish it but then was inexplicably shocked and visibly upset when we lost the 1st overall pick (which was an 80% chance).

 

I didn't love the Kane trade when we made it, but his freak out at the draft lottery when Edmonton got the McDavid pick was the first time I was really worried we had the wrong GM.  His behavior that night was completely bizarre and awful.

 

I've often wondered about this.  You might be exaggerating a bit in your description, but XGMTM was unquestionably more overtly disappointed and PO'd that night than was logically justified, given that the Sabres had only a 1-in-5 shot at McD.  Did he really think the Sabres were going to get him? 

 

And of course the more alarming question:  did his plan rely on getting McD?

 

If he did, and his plan did, then it should've been clear immediately that he was the wrong guy for the job.

[LTS]

I've often wondered about this.  You might be exaggerating a bit in your description, but XGMTM was unquestionably more overtly disappointed and PO'd that night than was logically justified, given that the Sabres had only a 1-in-5 shot at McD.  Did he really think the Sabres were going to get him? 

 

And of course the more alarming question:  did his plan rely on getting McD?

 

If he did, and his plan did, then it should've been clear immediately that he was the wrong guy for the job.

 

Well, let's be honest here.  If you were GM of the team would you want to rebuild with McDavid or Eichel?

 

The rebuild was started before he came on board.  He was offered a shot to be a GM, naturally he should take it.

 

For argument sake, let's propose that Murray's scouting report on Eichel is that he is not generational but peaks at very good and will exhibit the issues that we've seen to date.  Your report on McDavid is that he's clearly a cut above Eichel.  Here you are as Murray, the entire world says Eichel and McDavid are 1-2, you have to rebuild a team and you know one of these guys can speed the process and the other will not.

 

Are you excited when you don't get the #1 pick?

 

This is nothing he could control and now he has to deal with it. Every GM's plan would have relied upon getting McDavid. Every GM would have had to take Eichel with the #2 pick. If you can make a credible argument against that I am listening.

 

This is what I mean when sometimes the cards are not in your hands.  I think we can look back at the moment and wish he had drafted McAvoy or Sergachev instead of Nylander.  Of course he was trying to up the scoring of a team that couldn't score.  So, if you operate under that assumption you look at which player is going to benefit your team the most.  Sitting at 8th he's lost out on Matthews, Laine, Dubois, Puljujarvi, Tkachuk, and Keller.  

 

The only players after Nylander that I would have considered would be: Jost and Fabbro and neither of them have proven more than Nylander as near as I can tell. Once again, his hands are tied.

 

Let's say the Sabres luck out and are able to move up in the lottery to the top 3.  No one here thinks he's picking Nylander right?  Again, what choices does he have?

 

I think blasting him on the trade front is a little easier.  He had 3 firsts in the 2015 draft.  If he had kept them at #21 and #25 he could have acquired Boeser at #21.  So, we can discuss now, would Boeser or Lehner be better for this team.  I think that's an easy answer based on hind sight.

 

The #25 picks would not have acquired much of anything.  It did help get Kane which may turn into something else in the near future.  We shall see.  Right now, on face value, that #25 pick has netted the team its top forward scorer.  I think that has to be considered a positive.

[Weave]

I’m on board with LTS’s take on TM and thos drafts. And it wouldn’t surprise me if he had info suggesting the Eichel issues we see today.

[nfreeman]

 

-snip-

 

This is nothing he could control and now he has to deal with it. Every GM's plan would have relied upon getting McDavid. Every GM would have had to take Eichel with the #2 pick. If you can make a credible argument against that I am listening.

 

This is what I mean when sometimes the cards are not in your hands.  I think we can look back at the moment and wish he had drafted McAvoy or Sergachev instead of Nylander.  Of course he was trying to up the scoring of a team that couldn't score.  So, if you operate under that assumption you look at which player is going to benefit your team the most.  Sitting at 8th he's lost out on Matthews, Laine, Dubois, Puljujarvi, Tkachuk, and Keller.  

 

The only players after Nylander that I would have considered would be: Jost and Fabbro and neither of them have proven more than Nylander as near as I can tell. Once again, his hands are tied.

 

-snip-

 

Well, we might be mincing words here, but while I agree that every GM would've hoped to get McD, I don't think any competent GM's plan would've relied on getting McD.

 

If your plan relies on a 5-to-1 longshot paying off -- it's a stupid plan. 

 

What does the hope/rely distinction mean in practice?  It means that since you know you probably won't get McD, you plan accordingly.  Maybe you don't squander your picks/prospects like a drunken sailor.  Maybe you bring in better leaders.  Maybe you don't tank to begin with.  Maybe a bunch of other things, but what is certain is that you know you most likely aren't getting him, so don't put yourself into a situation where you are screwed if you don't get him.

 

As for the Nylander draft:  yes, they needed scoring.  They also needed D -- and many observers at the time felt that they needed D more than they needed scoring.  Moreover, a good all-around defenseman -- like MacAvoy -- can help team scoring as much as a good winger -- like Nylander may or may not become. 

 

Again:  XGMTM was paid millions of dollars to make the right calls in these situations.  He failed to do so.

[Robviously]

Well, let's be honest here.  If you were GM of the team would you want to rebuild with McDavid or Eichel?

 

The rebuild was started before he came on board.  He was offered a shot to be a GM, naturally he should take it.

 

For argument sake, let's propose that Murray's scouting report on Eichel is that he is not generational but peaks at very good and will exhibit the issues that we've seen to date.  Your report on McDavid is that he's clearly a cut above Eichel.  Here you are as Murray, the entire world says Eichel and McDavid are 1-2, you have to rebuild a team and you know one of these guys can speed the process and the other will not.

 

Are you excited when you don't get the #1 pick?

 

This is nothing he could control and now he has to deal with it. Every GM's plan would have relied upon getting McDavid. Every GM would have had to take Eichel with the #2 pick. If you can make a credible argument against that I am listening.

 

This is what I mean when sometimes the cards are not in your hands.  I think we can look back at the moment and wish he had drafted McAvoy or Sergachev instead of Nylander.  Of course he was trying to up the scoring of a team that couldn't score.  So, if you operate under that assumption you look at which player is going to benefit your team the most.  Sitting at 8th he's lost out on Matthews, Laine, Dubois, Puljujarvi, Tkachuk, and Keller.  

 

The only players after Nylander that I would have considered would be: Jost and Fabbro and neither of them have proven more than Nylander as near as I can tell. Once again, his hands are tied.

 

Let's say the Sabres luck out and are able to move up in the lottery to the top 3.  No one here thinks he's picking Nylander right?  Again, what choices does he have?

 

I think blasting him on the trade front is a little easier.  He had 3 firsts in the 2015 draft.  If he had kept them at #21 and #25 he could have acquired Boeser at #21.  So, we can discuss now, would Boeser or Lehner be better for this team.  I think that's an easy answer based on hind sight.

 

The #25 picks would not have acquired much of anything.  It did help get Kane which may turn into something else in the near future.  We shall see.  Right now, on face value, that #25 pick has netted the team its top forward scorer.  I think that has to be considered a positive.

This isn't "Who would you rather rebuild with - Eichel or McDavid?".  This is "You have an 80% chance of Eichel and a 20% chance of McDavid" and you know that, and you just found out it's Eichel.  Why would you be visibly upset to reporters at that lottery and make an ass of yourself?  If his plan "relied on" getting McDavid with his 20% shot, he never should have been allowed to be an NHL GM.  Betting your future on a 1 in 5 chance of success is completely stupid.

 

Even if he *knew* from scouting that Eichel wasn't going to be nearly as good as McDavid (which completely buys into the myth that he was some amazing scout, but sure), you still need to be an adult and plan for the 80% chance that you're getting Eichel after the draft lottery takes place.  So don't freak out when it doesn't happen and actually plan for the less-appealing but far more likely outcome that you're getting Eichel.

 

This discussion is making me remember what a complete buffoon GMTM was.

[GASabresIUFAN]

Well, we might be mincing words here, but while I agree that every GM would've hoped to get McD, I don't think any competent GM's plan would've relied on getting McD.

 

If your plan relies on a 5-to-1 longshot paying off -- it's a stupid plan. 

 

What does the hope/rely distinction mean in practice?  It means that since you know you probably won't get McD, you plan accordingly.  Maybe you don't squander your picks/prospects like a drunken sailor.  Maybe you bring in better leaders.  Maybe you don't tank to begin with.  Maybe a bunch of other things, but what is certain is that you know you most likely aren't getting him, so don't put yourself into a situation where you are screwed if you don't get him.

 

As for the Nylander draft:  yes, they needed scoring.  They also needed D -- and many observers at the time felt that they needed D more than they needed scoring.  Moreover, a good all-around defenseman -- like MacAvoy -- can help team scoring as much as a good winger -- like Nylander may or may not become. 

 

Again:  XGMTM was paid millions of dollars to make the right calls in these situations.  He failed to do so.

I’ve been saying this for years. There was no excuse for taking Nylnder with Sergachev sitting there. From 2012 to 2017, between 3 GM’s and 19 1st and 2nd rd picks we have drafted 4 D but only Guhle in the last 4 drafts. Of these 4, one was traded away (Zadorov). During TM’s tenure, 8 F and 1 D with 1st and 2nd rd picks. Is it any wonder we have a lousy D group?

[The Dominator]

I’ve been saying this for years. There was no excuse for taking Nylnder with Sergachev sitting there. From 2012 to 2017, between 3 GM’s and 19 1st and 2nd rd picks we have drafted 4 D but only Guhle in the last 4 drafts. Of these 4, one was traded away (Zadorov). During TM’s tenure, 8 F and 1 D with 1st and 2nd rd picks. Is it any wonder we have a lousy D group?

 

Can't even score, either!

[LTS]

Well, we might be mincing words here, but while I agree that every GM would've hoped to get McD, I don't think any competent GM's plan would've relied on getting McD.

 

If your plan relies on a 5-to-1 longshot paying off -- it's a stupid plan. 

 

What does the hope/rely distinction mean in practice?  It means that since you know you probably won't get McD, you plan accordingly.  Maybe you don't squander your picks/prospects like a drunken sailor.  Maybe you bring in better leaders.  Maybe you don't tank to begin with.  Maybe a bunch of other things, but what is certain is that you know you most likely aren't getting him, so don't put yourself into a situation where you are screwed if you don't get him.

 

As for the Nylander draft:  yes, they needed scoring.  They also needed D -- and many observers at the time felt that they needed D more than they needed scoring.  Moreover, a good all-around defenseman -- like MacAvoy -- can help team scoring as much as a good winger -- like Nylander may or may not become. 

 

Again:  XGMTM was paid millions of dollars to make the right calls in these situations.  He failed to do so.

 

In the aspect of furthering the conversation:

 

Remove "Maybe you don't tank to begin with."  - this was started prior to Murray and should not be put on his shoulders.

 

The picks discussion I addressed.  The "squandering" of picks in the 2015 draft is largely overblown.  An argument can be made for Boeser, but at this point he'll need to sustain his output for it to be legitimate.  After all, we've proven on this forum that if a player performs well in their 1st year that we believe the league may have passed you by in your 3rd year if you are slumping.  (see: Reinhart, Samson).

 

If you are talking about the 2nd and 3rd round picks that largely do NOT make up your top talent on a team then it's really not a big deal is it?

 

As far as the plan.  No one said Murray's plan relied only on getting McDavid.  The plan would have been, what to do with McDavid, or what to do with Eichel. The point is, you can ONLY get Eichel then there's not much you can do about it.  He did get Moulson to try and teach Eichel and help acclimate him to the league. 

 

The right calls have not played out yet so it's premature to say he failed to do anything.  We may never know exactly because the team will be shaped by what Botterill can do with what Murray did.  Just how it goes.

 

 

This isn't "Who would you rather rebuild with - Eichel or McDavid?".  This is "You have an 80% chance of Eichel and a 20% chance of McDavid" and you know that, and you just found out it's Eichel.  Why would you be visibly upset to reporters at that lottery and make an ass of yourself?  If his plan "relied on" getting McDavid with his 20% shot, he never should have been allowed to be an NHL GM.  Betting your future on a 1 in 5 chance of success is completely stupid.

 

Even if he *knew* from scouting that Eichel wasn't going to be nearly as good as McDavid (which completely buys into the myth that he was some amazing scout, but sure), you still need to be an adult and plan for the 80% chance that you're getting Eichel after the draft lottery takes place.  So don't freak out when it doesn't happen and actually plan for the less-appealing but far more likely outcome that you're getting Eichel.

 

This discussion is making me remember what a complete buffoon GMTM was.

 

Why should Murray try and hide it? McDavid didn't try and hide it either.  There are plenty of emotional people in this world.  We blast people for not showing emotion or getting upset and now blast him for doing it.  Whatever fits the argument I suppose. Murray was a no-nonsense guy.  So be it. 

As I said before, the plan was not a single player plan.  It's a what if plan.  Given his preference, he would have liked McDavid.

[Robviously]

Why should Murray try and hide it? McDavid didn't try and hide it either.  There are plenty of emotional people in this world.  We blast people for not showing emotion or getting upset and now blast him for doing it.  Whatever fits the argument I suppose. Murray was a no-nonsense guy.  So be it. 

As I said before, the plan was not a single player plan.  It's a what if plan.  Given his preference, he would have liked McDavid.

Well, for starters, because he's talking to reporters and the guy he's going to draft (Eichel) is right there.  Also because we expect adults in a professional setting to maintain a professional demeanor.  I've never felt like I needed a GM that shows emotion.  I would prefer one that didn't even have emotions, honestly.

 

Why do you need a "What if" plan for a low-probability outcome that will definitely benefit you?  Why even waste your time working on one?  I don't want the Bills thinking about a plan for "What if Tyrod Taylor suddenly becomes Tom Brady?"  Make your plans for the worst case scenario outcomes and if things turn out better, that's gravy. 

 

Murray should have planned to get Eichel after the lottery and been ready for that.  He didn't, and he wasn't.  Maybe that's why he failed or, more likely, he wasn't good enough to succeed anyway.  He was terrible.

[nfreeman]

I’ve been saying this for years. There was no excuse for taking Nylnder with Sergachev sitting there. From 2012 to 2017, between 3 GM’s and 19 1st and 2nd rd picks we have drafted 4 D but only Guhle in the last 4 drafts. Of these 4, one was traded away (Zadorov). During TM’s tenure, 8 F and 1 D with 1st and 2nd rd picks. Is it any wonder we have a lousy D group?

 

Well, the excuse would've been that Nylander was a substantially better player than Sergachev -- but only if it actually works out that way.  If Nylander were in the NHL this year, flying around the ice making nifty Swedish moves and on track to score 30 goals, no one would be complaining.  I think this is what XGMTM thought would happen.  It still might, but if it doesn't, XGMTM is accountable. 

 

In the aspect of furthering the conversation:

 

Remove "Maybe you don't tank to begin with."  - this was started prior to Murray and should not be put on his shoulders.

 

The picks discussion I addressed.  The "squandering" of picks in the 2015 draft is largely overblown.  An argument can be made for Boeser, but at this point he'll need to sustain his output for it to be legitimate.  After all, we've proven on this forum that if a player performs well in their 1st year that we believe the league may have passed you by in your 3rd year if you are slumping.  (see: Reinhart, Samson).

 

If you are talking about the 2nd and 3rd round picks that largely do NOT make up your top talent on a team then it's really not a big deal is it?

 

As far as the plan.  No one said Murray's plan relied only on getting McDavid.  The plan would have been, what to do with McDavid, or what to do with Eichel. The point is, you can ONLY get Eichel then there's not much you can do about it.  He did get Moulson to try and teach Eichel and help acclimate him to the league. 

 

The right calls have not played out yet so it's premature to say he failed to do anything.  We may never know exactly because the team will be shaped by what Botterill can do with what Murray did.  Just how it goes.

 

 

Murray took over a few months before they drafted Reino, and was 100% responsible for maintaining the tank to get Eichel.

 

And you said "Every GM's plan would have relied upon getting McDavid."

 

As for the squandering of picks -- the more you have, the better your chances of hitting on one.  I am fine with trading picks, but the trades need to work out.  Again, the GM is accountable for the results.

[LTS]

Well, for starters, because he's talking to reporters and the guy he's going to draft (Eichel) is right there.  Also because we expect adults in a professional setting to maintain a professional demeanor.  I've never felt like I needed a GM that shows emotion.  I would prefer one that didn't even have emotions, honestly.

 

Why do you need a "What if" plan for a low-probability outcome that will definitely benefit you?  Why even waste your time working on one?  I don't want the Bills thinking about a plan for "What if Tyrod Taylor suddenly becomes Tom Brady?"  Make your plans for the worst case scenario outcomes and if things turn out better, that's gravy. 

 

Murray should have planned to get Eichel after the lottery and been ready for that.  He didn't, and he wasn't.  Maybe that's why he failed or, more likely, he wasn't good enough to succeed anyway.  He was terrible.

 

Bolded 1: That's your perspective but it doesn't make it true for everyone.

Bolded 2: Not even close to the same thing.

Bolded 3: To insinuate that the man was not intelligent enough to understand the difference between 20% and 80% is ridiculous.  He clearly knew what odds he had of each. It doesn't mean he can't be disappointed in the outcome.

 

Well, the excuse would've been that Nylander was a substantially better player than Sergachev -- but only if it actually works out that way.  If Nylander were in the NHL this year, flying around the ice making nifty Swedish moves and on track to score 30 goals, no one would be complaining.  I think this is what XGMTM thought would happen.  It still might, but if it doesn't, XGMTM is accountable.

 

 

Murray took over a few months before they drafted Reino, and was 100% responsible for maintaining the tank to get Eichel.

 

And you said "Every GM's plan would have relied upon getting McDavid."

 

As for the squandering of picks -- the more you have, the better your chances of hitting on one.  I am fine with trading picks, but the trades need to work out.  Again, the GM is accountable for the results.

 

Bolded 1: 100% in agreement.  Then again, Sergachev might drop off the face of the Earth when the Lightning stop being the behemoth they are.  That's why it's a wait and see situation.

 

Bolded 2: So, you draft in a low talent draft year and the next year features two top talents both of which will help your team immensely.  You maintain the "tank" to get one of McDavid or Eichel.  They had the best chance to get McDavid and unfortunately did not.  (See my address to Bolded 4 about having more chances).

 

Bolded 3: Yes, correct. A misspeak on my part. I did not mean to express that a GM would have only 1 plan.  I meant to say that every GM would have wanted to have McDavid.

 

Bolded 4: Yes, you can't hit on a pick if you don't have the pick.  However, the assumption that a pick was given up for nothing is incorrect.  A pick has a % chance of achieving a certain level in the NHL.  The prospect/NHL player that is obtained also has a % chance of achieving a certain level in the NHL. Having more picks is only useful if your picks can be used to obtain an asset that has a greater chance of succeeding in the NHL.  While 2015 was a nice draft, the picks that Murray, assuming no ability to package them and move, could have only netted so many players for the team.  Brock Boeser is the highlight of those potential picks.  Boeser is lighting it up right now, there is no debating that. He has a lot of potential.  At the time, I am sure Murray hoped Nylander would be doing the same thing.  So, if it turns out that drafting McAvoy instead of Nylander and then keeping the pick and obtaining Boeser would have been better for the Sabres then he clearly missed.  There's certainly a good chance of it.

 

Interesting to note that Boeser was drafted by Jim Benning who, if I am recalling correctly, has been lambasted on here as well.

[Robviously]

Bolded 1: That's your perspective but it doesn't make it true for everyone.

Bolded 2: Not even close to the same thing.

Bolded 3: To insinuate that the man was not intelligent enough to understand the difference between 20% and 80% is ridiculous.  He clearly knew what odds he had of each. It doesn't mean he can't be disappointed in the outcome.

 

1. Well, yeah.  I mean, I prefaced that with "I've never felt like..." so it's pretty clearly just my opinion.  But while we're on it, what is the benefit to having a really emotional GM?  I actually think TM was probably way too emotional and willing to overpay for players he had some attachment to.  And here we are.

 

2. It's not?  I think the Bills have probably spent a lot of their drought years with the mindset of "Let's see if [insert QB here] can take a step forward for us."  It'd be nice to strike gold like that but I'd rather they just kept drafting until they know for sure they have a guy.  Don't plan around a low-probability best case scenario.

 

3. If he knew the odds, why was he so visibly upset?  It doesn't make any sense at all (unless we go back to point #1 and we're talking about having a guy so emotional he can't handle it when a 20% shot doesn't go his way).  He knew the odds, which means either (1) he only had a plan for the 20% good outcome or (2) was so emotional that he couldn't handle the 20% shot going his way even if he did think he had a plan for the 80% probability.  The whole thing was bizarre.

[Thorny]

I've often wondered about this. You might be exaggerating a bit in your description, but XGMTM was unquestionably more overtly disappointed and PO'd that night than was logically justified, given that the Sabres had only a 1-in-5 shot at McD. Did he really think the Sabres were going to get him?

 

And of course the more alarming question: did his plan rely on getting McD?

 

If he did, and his plan did, then it should've been clear immediately that he was the wrong guy for the job.

This is correct. Hoping for McDavid is fine. Even the disappointment, whatever.

 

But the PLAN cannot have been McDavid. If it was, curse them. It was always unlikely they'd be able to achieve that goal.

 

The tank only makes sense if the plan was a top 2 pick, as there's actually logic there: last guaranteed a top 2 pick. Those involved had to have felt that the plan could succeed with Eichel for the plan itself to have merit, or the whole thing was completely bogus from the beginning.

 

---

 

On the disappointment of Murray, I distinctly remember thinking much of the apparent disappointment from Murray stemmed from the whole circus that was the Lottery reveal show itself. Getting dragged out to the studio to wait around during that long, drawn out, trumped up for TV process. Knowing what we know of Murray, that seems to make sense.

 

He mentioned as much. He compared it to the WJC process where the kids are woken up at the crack of dawn to be told if they made the team. I think his main beef was with the process.

 

And let's be honest, that Lottery show is a joke.

 

This is nothing he could control and now he has to deal with it. Every GM's plan would have relied upon getting McDavid. Every GM would have had to take Eichel with the #2 pick. If you can make a credible argument against that I am listening.

No, if the plan (to tank) was relying on McDavid solely, it was a bad plan. Obviously Murray didn't start the tank, so he shouldn't get criticism for the initial decision. But he needed to plan accordingly from the moment he came on board.

 

The plan had to have a workable, viable contingency strategy if the pick was Eichel, as that was always the most likely result anyways.

 

(I see you clarified in later posts, however, so I don't think we're far apart, here.)

 

Also, on Nylander, GMs should be drafting BPA, as is so often said. I don't buy for a second that his "hands were tied" and he had to make that pick. In the hypothetical situation where Sergachev ends up the better player, it was Murray's job (what he's being paid to do) to see that and draft him.

 

If one doesn't want to hold him accountable for that for whatever reason, or wants to take more time before they make a judgement, I get it, but it's definitely not fair to say the Nylander pick was one Murray had to make.

Edited December 21, 2017 by Bjorn Borg

[Wyldnwoody44]

I read a book called "The subtle way of not giving a F*ck" it was great when talking about extraordinary vs "normal" and how if everyone was extraordinary then there would be extraordinary.

 

Idk if I have a total point but in reading the millennial debate and the Sam debate and etc, it brought me back to the book.

 

It touched on how those that are great are so not because they think that, but because they keep thinking they aren't good enough and obsess over their craft until it's perfect, and even then they keep working.

 

Now as I recall, Sam was staying after with ROR last year and this year not so much, has Sam not so subtly stopped giving a F. Has ROR. Do we have the type of players that obsess that they're not good enough, because that is a team that is built to win.

[MattPie]

3. If he knew the odds, why was he so visibly upset?  It doesn't make any sense at all (unless we go back to point #1 and we're talking about having a guy so emotional he can't handle it when a 20% shot doesn't go his way).  He knew the odds, which means either (1) he only had a plan for the 20% good outcome or (2) was so emotional that he couldn't handle the 20% shot going his way even if he did think he had a plan for the 80% probability.  The whole thing was bizarre.

 

FWIW, this logic means that as an NHL fan you cannot be disappointed in any season that doesn't result in making the conference finals. 87% of teams don't make the finals, yet people are visibly upset if they lose in the second round.

[LTS]

1. Well, yeah.  I mean, I prefaced that with "I've never felt like..." so it's pretty clearly just my opinion.  But while we're on it, what is the benefit to having a really emotional GM?  I actually think TM was probably way too emotional and willing to overpay for players he had some attachment to.  And here we are.

 

2. It's not?  I think the Bills have probably spent a lot of their drought years with the mindset of "Let's see if [insert QB here] can take a step forward for us."  It'd be nice to strike gold like that but I'd rather they just kept drafting until they know for sure they have a guy.  Don't plan around a low-probability best case scenario.

 

3. If he knew the odds, why was he so visibly upset?  It doesn't make any sense at all (unless we go back to point #1 and we're talking about having a guy so emotional he can't handle it when a 20% shot doesn't go his way).  He knew the odds, which means either (1) he only had a plan for the 20% good outcome or (2) was so emotional that he couldn't handle the 20% shot going his way even if he did think he had a plan for the 80% probability.  The whole thing was bizarre.

 

It's not a question of what is the benefit of having an emotional GM.  It's who he is and you live with it.  The question of being attached to players is not unique to Murray.  I don't know any GM that isn't attached to certain players.  This is no different than business where you watch executives make the rounds.  When one guy moves to a new company he starts bringing in his own people because he wants those that HE has vetted and worked with and trusts.  A GM is the same way.  It's natural.

 

In a 53 man roster, you look at Taylor and say he's good enough and we have bigger needs.  We draft a QB when we can.  Perhaps they had a shot at a top QB once and it was at the time they had just acquired Taylor (I don't follow the Bills that closely) but it would make sense.  You obtained a guy who you thought would be good so to use a high draft pick on another QB would be questionable.  Also, the former GM for the Bills was not good.  Whether it was entirely of his own doing or because of ownership interference is up for debate.

 

Right, I have a 20% shot at obtaining a player I know will turn the franchise around and an 80% chance of obtaining the player that may turn it around.  One of those is going to make my job easier and one will not.  I will not be happy even if the odds are against me.  Let's put this another way.  The Sabres currently are winning 23% of their games.  They are losing 77% of the time.  Why does everyone get so upset in the GDTs?  Murray is a human too.

[Robviously]

It's not a question of what is the benefit of having an emotional GM.  It's who he is and you live with it.  The question of being attached to players is not unique to Murray.  I don't know any GM that isn't attached to certain players.  This is no different than business where you watch executives make the rounds.  When one guy moves to a new company he starts bringing in his own people because he wants those that HE has vetted and worked with and trusts.  A GM is the same way.  It's natural.

 

In a 53 man roster, you look at Taylor and say he's good enough and we have bigger needs.  We draft a QB when we can.  Perhaps they had a shot at a top QB once and it was at the time they had just acquired Taylor (I don't follow the Bills that closely) but it would make sense.  You obtained a guy who you thought would be good so to use a high draft pick on another QB would be questionable.  Also, the former GM for the Bills was not good.  Whether it was entirely of his own doing or because of ownership interference is up for debate.

 

Right, I have a 20% shot at obtaining a player I know will turn the franchise around and an 80% chance of obtaining the player that may turn it around.  One of those is going to make my job easier and one will not.  I will not be happy even if the odds are against me.  Let's put this another way.  The Sabres currently are winning 23% of their games.  They are losing 77% of the time.  Why does everyone get so upset in the GDTs?  Murray is a human too.

The Sabres didn't "live with it."  They fired him.  And, yes, I'd really love to know what the benefit is of having a really emotional person determining the future of the organization.  I can't think of any important job where I'd want an emotional person at the helm, honestly.

 

And to answer both you and Mattipaj, there's a major difference between asking for professionalism from a Sabres employee in charge of the team and asking for it from *fans*, people that watch these games for entertainment and for a chance to spend time with friends and family away from work.  Fans are supposed to get emotional.  It's part of the fun (although people often go way too far).  Team management isn't, especially not at a media event tied to which players you're going to draft.  You're supposed to be professional at work and this applies to pretty much every job.

 

There's also the difference between getting emotional watching a sporting event (with ups and downs, incredible athleticism, surprises, emotional attachment to players, etc.) and waiting for guys to open an envelope to show if you're drafting first or second in a month.  Good grief.

[LTS]

The Sabres didn't "live with it."  They fired him.  And, yes, I'd really love to know what the benefit is of having a really emotional person determining the future of the organization.  I can't think of any important job where I'd want an emotional person at the helm, honestly.

 

And to answer both you and Mattipaj, there's a major difference between asking for professionalism from a Sabres employee in charge of the team and asking for it from *fans*, people that watch these games for entertainment and for a chance to spend time with friends and family away from work.  Fans are supposed to get emotional.  It's part of the fun (although people often go way too far).  Team management isn't, especially not at a media event tied to which players you're going to draft.  You're supposed to be professional at work and this applies to pretty much every job.

 

There's also the difference between getting emotional watching a sporting event (with ups and downs, incredible athleticism, surprises, emotional attachment to players, etc.) and waiting for guys to open an envelope to show if you're drafting first or second in a month.  Good grief.

 

They fired him because the star player and coach did not get along and the GM backed the wrong horse.  It's not as though he frowned on national TV and they let him go.  There was a wee bit of gap in there. 

 

There are plenty of emotional leaders in important positions.  Just because your preference is not to have one does not make it wrong.  What you call professional is not an absolute definition, plain and simple.

 

Good grief?  Okay.  A 20% chance is a 20% chance is a 20% chance.  Ups and downs can be had anywhere.  There's a list of teams whose cards are shown on TV by Bill Daly that is supposed to lead to the tension.  There are ups and downs.  Just because those ups and downs are not important to you does not mean they weren't important to him.  People have hope, and when that hope is defeated they will be upset.

 

Even if it's only a 1% chance to win.  This is who most of us are.

 

I don't define Murray by my standards.  I accept that he is his own person and acted accordingly.  The only question was whether he was able to fulfill the role of GM and to what level.  At the very surface, he failed as a GM.  Clearly. Whether he was incompetent is another story that can be debated and how his face contorted and how he reacted to a flip of a card is not really in my criteria for what makes a good GM. 

 

I am sure we won't agree and that's fine.