The Sabres: Drafting and Prospect Development

[Weave]

5 hours ago, GASabresIUFAN said:

 

To succeed we needed to get 3 full time players each year and have some non 1st & 2nd rd picks step up into top 6 forwards and top 4 D. So far only Olofsson this year qualifies.

Success required an unreasonable hit rate if that is the case.  No team can consistently hit on 3 players in drafts, long term or short term.  Your standard for success is not reasonable.

[LGR4GM]

7 minutes ago, Weave said:

Success required an unreasonable hit rate if that is the case.  No team can consistently hit on 3 players in drafts, long term or short term.  Your standard for success is not reasonable.

2 players every draft and 3 players every 3 drafts is my standard. We didn't even come close. That may change but we aren't there yet. 

[Weave]

4 minutes ago, LGR4GM said:

2 players every draft and 3 players every 3 drafts is my standard. We didn't even come close. That may change but we aren't there yet. 

I'd like to see what other teams do, but my gut tells me 2 players every draft isn't even reasonable anymore.

[GASabresIUFAN]

14 minutes ago, Weave said:

Success required an unreasonable hit rate if that is the case.  No team can consistently hit on 3 players in drafts, long term or short term.  Your standard for success is not reasonable.

One of things about a rebuild is supposed to be a high number of draft picks to restock the franchise.  We should hit on 3 players when we load up with picks. I’m ok with LGR standard otherwise. However, an NHL roster has 22 or so players.  For teams like ours we need to average 3 per year over a 7 year period just of fill out a roster. We didn’t come close despite a ton of extra picks.

I do agree with an early post that we did a crap job of finding players outside the 1st round, but I also think we didn’t get enough volume to create the necessary depth for the organization.

Edited January 8, 2020 by GASabresIUFAN

[LGR4GM]

1 hour ago, Weave said:

I'd like to see what other teams do, but my gut tells me 2 players every draft isn't even reasonable anymore.

Hmm. Maybe. I haven't looked at the numbers in years so that's very possible. I feel like we should strive for my "standard" though.  Calling it standard cuz no idea what to label it. 

[#freejame]

32 minutes ago, LGR4GM said:

Hmm. Maybe. I haven't looked at the numbers in years so that's very possible. I feel like we should strive for my "standard" though.  Calling it standard cuz no idea what to label it. 

I think the target should be around 1.5 per draft or 3 every 2. Should be able to draft another AHL player each year as well. That should be enough to refresh the pipeline, replace ELC on the big club, and allow the new ELC to age into big kid contracts while the elders retire/leave the team. 6 players with the potential to reach the big club every three years is a great deal of competition as no real team should have that much youth. I would think the ideal roster make-up would be something like 2-3 ELCs (approx $3m), 2-3 bridge deals (approx $11m), 5-6 long term deals (approx $50m), and then fill out the rest in FA with 2-4 year deals (approx $20). That would put right at ~$85m for next seasons cap with 2/3s being drafted. You’ll lose a long term deal every year or two being replaced by an ELC or bridge and the cycle just continues.
 

in no particular configuration:

Long term deal - Long term deal - bridge

ELC - long term deal - FA

ELC- Bridge - FA

ELC - FA - FA

long term deal - bridge

long term deal - FA

ELC - FA

long term

ELC/bridge 

Edited January 8, 2020 by #freejame
Added more

[GASabresIUFAN]

5 minutes ago, #freejame said:

I think the target should be around 1.5 per draft or 3 every 2. Should be able to draft another AHL player each year as well. That should be enough to refresh the pipeline, replace ELC on the big club, and allow the new ELC to age into big kid contracts while the elders retire/leave the team. 6 players with the potential to reach the big club every three years is a great deal of competition as no real team should have that much youth. I would think the ideal roster make-up would be something like 2-3 ELCs (approx $3m), 2-3 bridge deals (approx $11m), 5-6 long term deals (approx $50m), and then fill out the rest in FA with 2-4 year deals (approx $20). That would put right at ~$85m for next seasons cap with 2/3s being drafted. 
 

in no particular configuration:

Long term deal - Long term deal - bridge

ELC - long term deal - FA

ELC- Bridge - FA

ELC - FA - FA

long term deal - bridge

long term deal - FA

ELC - FA

long term

ELC/bridge 

Can’t build a team at 1.5 per season.  Over 7 years that gives you 10 players.  The math does work to maintain the team

[#freejame]

4 minutes ago, GASabresIUFAN said:

Can’t build a team at 1.5 per season.  Over 7 years that gives you 10 players.  The math does work to maintain the team

How many teams have 10 players under 25 though? I would think it isn’t too many. I agree you can’t build a team based off of that drafting but that’s about where most playoff teams probably have their roster configured. 

[#freejame]

I just looked at Boston’s roster from last year—12 drafted players, 5 free agents, 3 acquired in trade. 8 contacts above $5m, 6 RFA all below 1.5m, 7 contracts between 650k and 2.75m. I think that lines up pretty well with my ideal breakdown. But again, this can’t work for a rebuild, there needs to be foundation. 

[GASabresIUFAN]

31 minutes ago, #freejame said:

How many teams have 10 players under 25 though? I would think it isn’t too many. I agree you can’t build a team based off of that drafting but that’s about where most playoff teams probably have their roster configured. 

Most

[GASabresIUFAN]

21 minutes ago, #freejame said:

I just looked at Boston’s roster from last year—12 drafted players, 5 free agents, 3 acquired in trade. 8 contacts above $5m, 6 RFA all below 1.5m, 7 contracts between 650k and 2.75m. I think that lines up pretty well with my ideal breakdown. But again, this can’t work for a rebuild, there needs to be foundation. 

We are talking about rebuilding this team.  Boston has been good for a decade plus with strong goaltending, Chara, Bergeron and Krecji.  They maintained with successful drafting of Pastrnak, Carlo, McAvoy and others.  However they had a base to build on.

look at TB, the initial Pitt teams and Kane Toews lead Hawks etc.  You’ll find teams rebuilt with draft picks and then supplemented from there.  TM did it in reverse and it failed and we are still trying it fix it.

[#freejame]

7 minutes ago, GASabresIUFAN said:

Most

That B’s roster only had 5 with the youngest being 23.1

[#freejame]

2 minutes ago, GASabresIUFAN said:

We are talking about rebuilding this team.  Boston has been good for a decade plus with strong goaltending, Chara, Bergeron and Krecji.  They maintained with successful drafting of Pastrnak, Carlo, McAvoy and others.  However they had a base to build on.

look at TB, the initial Pitt teams and Kane Toews lead Hawks etc.  You’ll find teams rebuilt with draft picks and then supplemented from there.  TM did it in reverse and it failed and we are still trying it fix it.

Those gaps needed to be filled with middle six talent and instead it was a mix between AAAA players and and fourth liners. Yes, we poorly rebuilt, but I was more speaking of where we need to be moving forward and Ligers point of how a draft should turn out year after year. 

[nfreeman]

I think it’s also worth pointing out that the Sabres’ draft picks over the past 8 years have been in higher slots than average due to their consistently low finishes in the standings — so their hit rate on draft packs should be higher than average too.  

[Robviously]

Perspective is everything. 

Is the 2014 draft disappointing because so many picks didn’t pan out? Or is it a success since we found two top six forwards (23, 68) in the same draft? (If every draft landed two top six guys forwards or two top 4 defensemen, we’d be doing pretty good.)

The 2016 draft felt like a disaster last summer because of Nylander. But now Asplund looks great and all of a sudden Brett Murray is a legit NHL prospect. Who knows?

The 2017 draft feels disappointing now because Mittelstadt is struggling but all 6 guys we took still have NHL potential (as of right now anyway). And UPL and Laaksonen are 2nd/3rd round picks with high ceilings. This could be a great draft. We’ll know for sure in 2022. 

Nobody likes the 2018 draft after Dahlin because of Samuelsson but Pekar, Cronholm, and Kukkonen all seem like decent picks for where we got them. We might end up with more than Dahlin helping the Sabres down the road.

Basically, it’s hard to say what a successful draft looks like and it sometimes take a while before you even know. And honestly that’s why following the prospects is fun.

[MakeSabresGrr8Again]

Everyone here has great ideas and here is an interesting thought....let's just say that some teams draft for BPA and sometimes for specific needs. A team could pass on a player like Aho and take a D if that's what they need. Three years later people are complaining that they should've taken Aho and the D selection they made is a bust/JAG. There's no way to predict that.

Edited January 8, 2020 by MakeSabresGrr8Again

[PerreaultForever]

5 hours ago, Weave said:

I'd like to see what other teams do, but my gut tells me 2 players every draft isn't even reasonable anymore.

Not sure on the accuracy but this was assembled by some industrious soul:

https://hfboards.mandatory.com/threads/best-drafting-teams-in-the-nhl.2665533/

and a bunch of fancier stats here (that put us in the quantity without quality category):

https://medium.com/@george.mckeown1/which-nhl-teams-are-good-at-drafting-4a04fdf1dda3

and this one's kind of interesting too:

https://thehockeywriters.com/nhl-ranking-decade-draft-results/

So we're far from the worst, but I'd say given our losing we should have done much much better. 

[triumph_communes]

Who is calling the 2018 draft a bust?  

[Taro T]

13 hours ago, LGR4GM said:

2 players every draft and 3 players every 3 drafts is my standard. We didn't even come close. That may change but we aren't there yet. 

2 players every draft seems a tad high.  Probably about 1.75 is more accurate.  3 in every 3rd or 4th draft also seems about right.

But with Pegulabucks to throw around, the team should consistently hit or even exceed those #'s.  There is no reason, other than it takes time to have the best scouts around the league to be willing to have / wanting a change of their laundry.  When top guys come free, and they do sometimes, as teams s*** can GM's, the "hockey heaven" mantra and Pegulabucks need to be spread liberally.

One thing that people tend not to consider about the Murray to Botterill transition is that not only do the 2 have a different philosophy regarding pushing the timeline of a build/rebuild; but they also have a drastically different style of play in mind when looking for players.  As such, a scout that had a good eye for a Murray-guy wouldn't necessarily have an eye for a Botterill guy & vice versa.  So Botts hit rate SHOULD improve as he moves forward as he should be continually improving the FO/BO.

IF it doesn't, that would be one more mark against him.  BUT it SEEMS his 2nd and 3rd drafts have been pretty good though it is WAY too early to say because the guys that will eventually flame out haven't come close to getting to that point.

And that philosophical change you'd see from 1 GM to the next is a reason to stay the course unless there is a clearly better option in their sights as a change sets the rebuild back another year unless the next guy is on board with the philosophy though not the execution.  Without a hockey man between ownership and the GM, there is little reason to expect the philosophy to remain constant should a FO reboot occur.  Personally, am not sold on Botterill yet, but am not ready to call for his head yet either.  

Edited January 8, 2020 by Taro T

[inkman]

On 1/8/2020 at 1:22 AM, MakeSabresGrr8Again said:

Everyone here has great ideas and here is an interesting thought....let's just say that some teams draft for BPA and sometimes for specific needs. A team could pass on a player like Aho and take a D if that's what they need. Three years later people are complaining that they should've taken Aho and the D selection they made is a bust/JAG. There's no way to predict that.

No one should ever draft for need. Even if that player is good enough to make your team out of the gate (which has to be less than 10%), he won't be good enough to make a trendous implact until 3-4 years down the road.  Exception being Connor McDavid/Sydney Crosby types.  

Free agency and trades are how teams need to fill out rosters. The draft is where you get talent so take the BPA.  

[Doohickie]

On 1/7/2020 at 1:45 PM, triumph_communes said:

Botterill didn't really miss, there wasn't much there.

There error wasn't the pick.  It was putting that pick on the NHL roster too soon.  Still a JBot problem.

[MakeSabresGrr8Again]

33 minutes ago, inkman said:

No one should ever draft for need. Even if that player is good enough to make your team out of the gate (which has to be less than 10%), he won't be good enough to make a trendous implact until 3-4 years down the road.  Exception being Connor McDavid/Sydney Crosby types.  

Free agency and trades are how teams need to fill out rosters. The draft is where you get talent so take the BPA.  

This is not true. What I'm talking about is when it's your time on the clock and you have list of players you ranked for that slot as being 2F, 1D, and 1G, then which do you choose? You have them all ranked equal at that pick, then you have to decide where your biggest need is. You also may have chosen a BPA in an earlier pick that filled one of those needs. And you still need to try and project out in future years where your needs will exist.

Was Grigorenko the BPA? You never know who the real BPA is until they actually develop. If you never draft for need then you could end up drafting all forwards for years or all D.

[inkman]

21 minutes ago, MakeSabresGrr8Again said:

This is not true. What I'm talking about is when it's your time on the clock and you have list of players you ranked for that slot as being 2F, 1D, and 1G, then which do you choose? You have them all ranked equal at that pick, then you have to decide where your biggest need is. You also may have chosen a BPA in an earlier pick that filled one of those needs. And you still need to try and project out in future years where your needs will exist.

Was Grigorenko the BPA? You never know who the real BPA is until they actually develop. If you never draft for need then you could end up drafting all forwards for years or all D.

Every player should be individually ranked so there is always BPA.  Player 1, Player 2, etc.  That way you don't let short-sightedness blur your vision. 

[North Buffalo]

19 minutes ago, inkman said:

Every player should be individually ranked so there is always BPA.  Player 1, Player 2, etc.  That way you don't let short-sightedness blur your vision. 

Maybe.. theoretically sure..  but if your point system on those rankings are close, so close then drafting for need makes sense to me especially since later rounds is such a crap shoot.  What attributes make up that ranking should be more scrutinized...

[MakeSabresGrr8Again]

34 minutes ago, inkman said:

Every player should be individually ranked so there is always BPA.  Player 1, Player 2, etc.  That way you don't let short-sightedness blur your vision. 

You can rank them any way you want using whatever methods are available and you'll still never know at that time of the pick who the BPA really is. 

 

1 hour ago, inkman said:

No one should ever draft for need. Even if that player is good enough to make your team out of the gate (which has to be less than 10%), he won't be good enough to make a trendous implact until 3-4 years down the road.  Exception being Connor McDavid/Sydney Crosby types.  

Free agency and trades are how teams need to fill out rosters. The draft is where you get talent so take the BPA.  

Don't tell that to the people on here who think we should've drafted Boeser instead of trading that pick for Lehner/ Legwand, LOL.