Draft hot takes: let's hear them

[PerreaultForever]

5 years from now the redraft will have Sanderson in the top 2 or 3. Byfield will be better than LaFreniere. 

[Marvin]

My hot takes:

1. #8 will not help the team this coming year.  If the Sabres do not acquire enough talent, keep 8, and miss the playoffs, then Jack Eichel asks for a trade.  Thus, much as I hate to trade the long-term for the short-term, this implies that the Sabres must trade #8, even somewhat devalued, for clear help NOW.

2. Serves 8...

1C AP flour

1T C12H22O11

2t baking powder

1/2 t NaCl

1 large egg

3/4 C milk

1/4 C melted butter

 

[Radar]

53 minutes ago, Marvin, Sabres Fan said:

My hot takes:

1. #8 will not help the team this coming year.  If the Sabres do not acquire enough talent, keep 8, and miss the playoffs, then Jack Eichel asks for a trade.  Thus, much as I hate to trade the long-term for the short-term, this implies that the Sabres must trade #8, even somewhat devalued, for clear help NOW.

2. Serves 8...

1C AP flour

1T C12H22O11

2t baking powder

1/2 t NaCl

1 large egg

3/4 C milk

1/4 C melted butter

 

Eichel can ask but he is under contract. I believe with a few smart moves we can accomplish the improvements without trading #8. I'm not against trading it but not sure who's out there to make it worth #8. The cost constraints we're under now will dictate a lot about how we work this.

[Eleven]

1 hour ago, Marvin, Sabres Fan said:

My hot takes:

1. #8 will not help the team this coming year.  If the Sabres do not acquire enough talent, keep 8, and miss the playoffs, then Jack Eichel asks for a trade.  Thus, much as I hate to trade the long-term for the short-term, this implies that the Sabres must trade #8, even somewhat devalued, for clear help NOW.

2. Serves 8...

1C AP flour

1T C12H22O11

2t baking powder

1/2 t NaCl

1 large egg

3/4 C milk

1/4 C melted butter

 

Are we supposed to eat that raw?

[jsb]

Perfetti, Raymond, Holtz, Drysdale, Rossi, whomever is left at 8 take them, Nobody else should be considered. All the others are a smokescreen that happens every draft. You don't trade the pick, if Jack doesn't like it tough, You don't get traded because your having a hissy fit about losing. You shouldn't have taken the 10M a year and the C if you don't like it. 

[The Jokeman]

22 hours ago, dudacek said:

Here's my draft hot take: Cole Perfetti is this year's Elias Petterson.

His skill level and hockey sense are being underrated, while size and skating issues are being overrated. A few years from now, people will be saying he should have gone higher.

 

Got any to share?

Elias is a little bigger than Cole yet if that comes out true and the Sabres can get Cole it be a great add. 

[The Jokeman]

1 hour ago, Marvin, Sabres Fan said:

My hot takes:

1. #8 will not help the team this coming year.  If the Sabres do not acquire enough talent, keep 8, and miss the playoffs, then Jack Eichel asks for a trade.  Thus, much as I hate to trade the long-term for the short-term, this implies that the Sabres must trade #8, even somewhat devalued, for clear help NOW.

2. Serves 8...

1C AP flour

1T C12H22O11

2t baking powder

1/2 t NaCl

1 large egg

3/4 C milk

1/4 C melted butter

 

#8 typically shouldn't help their rookie year. The Sabres are still in a rebuild mold but with the addition of Staal we might have two lines assuming someone steps up on at RW on line 2. Yet we still need help on lines 3 and 4. Yet the biggest issue is we need a good goalie that can split time with time with UPL. As I'm done with Hutton unless want him to play 20 games at most. 

[MakeSabresGrr8Again]

1 hour ago, Radar said:

Eichel can ask but he is under contract. I believe with a few smart moves we can accomplish the improvements without trading #8. I'm not against trading it but not sure who's out there to make it worth #8. The cost constraints we're under now will dictate a lot about how we work this.

I tend to agree, don't trade the pick. There is going to be someone available that should help soon enough. I know people don't like to wait but I'll state my concern.

If we trade #8, add a few players and make the playoffs, then Jack and fans are happy. We lose in the first round then what? We still have the same pipeline without that pick. Now we're picking in the area of #20 and that pick is even less likely to be immediate help. Do we keep trading to better the team because we have no pipeline? Groundhog day.

[Huckleberry]

we need that 8th pick, even if he doesn't play in the NHL this year, we need him as a cost controlled asset while paying Dhalin and Eichel 🙂

[Thorny]

I honestly do not for the life of me get being concerned over needing to supplement the roster with cheap ELC talent, as a priority, when we don't even have a roster, yet. Is that a hot take? I dunno.

But said argument is putting cart before horse, I do know that at least. Trading the pick should definitely still be an option. And yes, I know it's not. 

Edited October 6, 2020 by Thorny

[pi2000]

trading away the 8th pick will set this franchise back a few years

[Thorny]

42 minutes ago, pi2000 said:

trading away the 8th pick will set this franchise back a few years

you're right, this is a hot take. It would literally bump the timeline *forward* if it's a reasonable trade. 

As always, it depends on who's on the board, too. If, say, Quinn is their man, I fail to see how failing to select a player who isn't going to even help for a few years...sets us back a few years. 

The selection itself in that case would be a few years away and thus a self-fulfilling prophecy. 

Edited October 6, 2020 by Thorny

[DarthEbriate]

48 minutes ago, pi2000 said:

trading away the 8th pick will set this franchise back a few years

Ooh. I like that one.

Here's another of my rose-color mask lens views:   This will be the only top-10 pick the Sabres make (that isn't a lottery win or acquired via trade) for the next 8 seasons. Wait, what the hell... for the next decade.

This is fun!

[nfreeman]

Not-so-hot take:  I'm going to be pretty disappointed if they don't make a real trade today.

[pi2000]

51 minutes ago, Thorny said:

you're right, this is a hot take. It would literally bump the timeline *forward* if it's a reasonable trade. 

As always, it depends on who's on the board, too. If, say, Quinn is their man, I fail to see how failing to select a player who isn't going to even help for a few years...sets us back a few years. 

The selection itself in that case would be a few years away and thus a self-fulfilling prophecy. 

If this team was 1 or 2 pieces away from contending, then yes, put the 8th overall on the table.   However, fact is, they're more than 1 or 2 or 3 pieces away... also consider their prospect cupboard isn't exactly overflowing with talent.   

Their immediate needs (goaltending/top 6 W) can be filled without sacrificing picks considering many teams are facing a cap crunch.

[Thorny]

2 minutes ago, pi2000 said:

If this team was 1 or 2 pieces away from contending, then yes, put the 8th overall on the table.   However, fact is, they're more than 1 or 2 or 3 pieces away... also consider their prospect cupboard isn't exactly overflowing with talent.   

Their immediate needs (goaltending/top 6 W) can be filled without sacrificing picks considering many teams are facing a cap crunch.

I agree the needs are potentially filled without the use of the pick, but that's not the same thing as saying we couldn't improve the team by trading the pick. 

The first bit is a good point - if you think we are still a bunch of work away, then ya. For myself I've maintained we are only a few tweaks away - indeed, this is where much of my frustration with Botterill arose from. 

[Thorny]

I'm never going to get on board with any absolute statement like "we need to make the pick" or "we need to trade the pick". Either could be a potential avenue for improvement and either option depends on the offers/players available. 

Neither strategy is the inherently correct one. I personally lean towards dealing the pick (unless we can get Rossi) because I value the certainty of acquisition, and it's timeline for arrival, given our current make-up, at a premium. 

[pi2000]

9 minutes ago, Thorny said:

I'm never going to get on board with any absolute statement like "we need to make the pick" or "we need to trade the pick". Either could be a potential avenue for improvement and either option depends on the offers/players available. 

Neither strategy is the inherently correct one. I personally lean towards dealing the pick (unless we can get Rossi) because I value the certainty of acquisition, and it's timeline for arrival, given our current make-up, at a premium. 

IMO this draft is deep into picks 12-14... also consider the last few years have seen guys like Werenski, Couturier,  W. Nylander,  etc.. go 8th overall.    All things considered I wouldn't move the pick unless a deal comes along that absolutely knocks your socks off. 

[Thorny]

1 minute ago, pi2000 said:

IMO this draft is deep into picks 12-14... also consider the last few years have seen guys like Werenski, Couturier,  W. Nylander,  etc.. go 8th overall.    All things considered I wouldn't move the pick unless a deal comes along that absolutely knocks your socks off. 

Completely fair. If someone like Rossi is going to be on the board, I'm needing a whale of an offer to move the pick and it shouldn't be any other way. If we are picking between guys like Quinn and Holtz, I'm needing a good offer but honestly, I don't think sacrificing the-idea-of-Jack-Quinn-in-3-years is massive block on finding a good deal for us. I need a good offer in that case, not a great one. 

[Thorny]

I'm also pretty convinced they should trade down in that case and pick up an asset or two in the process. If Rossi or Lundell is on the board, Minnesota or Winnipeg are going to be calling if they think that C is going to Buffalo. If they don't intend on picking the C, trade down and get your man anyways. 

Edited October 6, 2020 by Thorny

[Thorny]

Another hot take - I prefer day 2

[Curt]

Anton Lundell has a pretty good chance (25%+) to be the best C in this draft class.

[Thorny]

5 minutes ago, Curt said:

Anton Lundell has a pretty good chance (25%+) to be the best C in this draft class.

I think he has a chance too but I'm not sure I'd have it quite that high. I'd have to say Byfield 50%, then Rossi and Lundell would split the majority of the rest, but Rossi would have more. 

[Curt]

11 minutes ago, Thorny said:

I think he has a chance too but I'm not sure I'd have it quite that high. I'd have to say Byfield 50%, then Rossi and Lundell would split the majority of the rest, but Rossi would have more. 

Yeah, it’s a hot take.

Byfield certainly has the best chance and highest upside, but requires a good amount of projection to get there.  Rossi may  never even get a chance to play C in the NHL.

I feel Ike if no one becomes a superstar, 80-100 point C, Lundell could end up the best as a 50-60 point, 200 ft C.

[Thorny]

1 minute ago, Curt said:

Yeah, it’s a hot take.

Byfield certainly has the best chance and highest upside, but requires a good amount of projection to get there.  Rossi may  never even get a chance to play C in the NHL.

I feel Ike if no one becomes a superstar, 80-100 point C, Lundell could end up the best as a 50-60 point, 200 ft C.

Fair enough - I expect Rossi to remain at C, though, honestly I haven't heard much suggestion he'd move to the wing. Have heard that with Jarvis and to a lesser extent Perfetti.