Fixing the Sabres Long-Term - Can it be done?

[Thorny]

On 2/4/2021 at 11:38 AM, dudacek said:

I think I'm becoming exhausted by the "regulation wins" and the "Deluca .500" and the "underlying stats" discussions.

I'm not dismissing their worth and I am certainly guilty of indulging in them myself. But all I really want to care about is goals for, goals against, exciting plays, and where we stand in the playoff race. That's actually what matters.

I want to be happy when we pull out a 4-3 win or that Victor Olofsson is putting up a point-a-game, or that Risto destroyed some guy who ran at him in the corner, or that we moved ahead of the Devils in the playoff race.

I don't know if these things make this place happy. It feels like they don't.

I understand the sentiment re: regulation wins and the advanced metrics to a large extent, as you can field a playoff team in spite of those things. 

Deluca 500 is supremely relevant however - it’s borne out statistically that teams below that mark simply don’t compete for the playoffs. 

As for the bold, I think we can all agree fielding a winning hockey team trumps all that stuff, and when we haven’t had one for a decade, it’s not hard to understand why those things can’t be enough. People will take joy in the simple things as soon as we establish a winning team for the first time in a long time. 

 

Edited February 12, 2021 by Thorny

[PASabreFan]

As a longtime wannabe Canadian, for me it's about the red cup with the maple leaf. I recognize that the coffee and food are not good, not so good. 

[OhMyDahlin]

On 1/23/2021 at 3:30 PM, GASabresIUFAN said:

We all know the Sabres are a swimmer in the ocean holding on to a life raft and trying to stay afloat.  TP got lucky that the Bills have become excellent because they got the right guys in charge.  I just finished an Athletic article on McDermott and what a great hire.

However building a football organization is much easier then building a hockey one.  No guaranteed contracts, drafting mature players who you expect to step right in etc....

The question right now is whether this "rebuild" of the Sabres 3.0 is salvageable?  I think it is, but I'm not sure KA is up to the task, but he is so raw who knows.  He certainly is no Beane experience wise.  That doesn't mean he can't succeed, but it makes it that much harder.  The team just doesn't have enough talent up front and in goal to win on talent alone.  They also don't have a coaching staff or enough experienced players steeped in winning to help them all buy in.

Short-term we need playoff caliber goaltending for the next 3 years.  UPL maybe the future or even Portillo, but that is years away.  Ullmark is a solid NHL goalie, but his terrible save % on the PK gives me serious pause.  I actually want MAF.  He is a proven winner and leader.  Right now Staal is the only one we have.

We also need to hope that the kids come in and make a difference over the next 2 years.  Samuelsson, Johnson, Bryson, Cozens, Quinn, JJP and others step up quicker then expected helping to salvage this mess.

However internal prospects won't be enough.  We need the guys to stop being soft and I have the first part of the solution.  I'm bucking RK upstairs.  His D system has done a great job of suppressing the opponents opportunities, but his special teams and offense are awful.  He also has them playing soft.  He also is killing Dahlin by to much structure and not enough creativity.  As a team, to much perimeter and not enough forechecking.  The solution is easy.  Hire Mike Grier to coach this team.  He isn't soft, has received excellent reviews as an Ast Coach, is part of the Sabres family, and understands how to build a winning environment. If he coaches as he played, relentless, this team will change in a hurry for the positive.  

I'm also trading Hall at the deadline to get more depth in the organization up front.  I'm not investing another long-term deal in a 30 ish player.  Outside Jack, Cozens and maybe Reinhart, are their any true core pieces in our forward group?  I'm also taking a page out of the McDermott playbook and deciding to trade away any guys who aren't committed to winning.  DR let Ruff and Drury set that new tone.  MAF and Grier can change the tone here.  So far I've seen only 3 Sabres who have put forth real effort all 5 games; Lazar, McCabe and Risto.  That's it.

Identifying who to keep and who to let go is hard and this is where KA's inexperience hurts us.  IMHO there are only 4-7 players on this team that I want long-term and a couple I'd be fine with keeping.  They are Dahlin, Risto (really), Cozens and Jack.  I'm fine with Reinhart and Jokiharju, if he makes progress also, and possibly McCabe. I want to get faster and more physical.  

The first step is playing the kids as soon as we are truly out of the playoff picture, which should be soon.  R2 and Mitts need a long look see this season to see if we have anything there.  I might even throw Quinn in for 6 games or so to see how he does.  I'm probably also recalling Bryson and Samuelsson to give them a taste of the NHL and see how they react.  

Other then the core guys mentioned earlier, I'm done with most everyone else including VO.  I'm buying out KO after this season.  I'm trading Hall as I mentioned earlier, unless I can find a taker for Skinner.  I'm hoping (giving them an incentive) Seattle takes Miller off our hands.  I'm extending Risto because we need a physical presence and his improvement over the last season plus is remarkable.  I may extend McCabe, because we have no else like him and he meshes well with Risto.  I'm keeping Ullmark for now to learn from MAF and also to balance PT.  Everyone else, trade or let walk.  I'm also only taking FAs if I can from winning organizations.  I know this doesn't guarantee anything (see Conor Sheary), but at least they understand the buy in to succeed.  

The truth is this season is probably no longer about a playoff birth.  It's about KA evaluating the organization top to bottom, from RK down to the 4th liners in Rochester.  If he is honest with himself, he'll probably see what I see, a few good pieces that need to be kept and taught to win and the rest that can be flushed away.

There is a reason that there are no Bills drafted players on the Bills that weren't drafted by McDermott, that there are 12 ex Panthers on this team and that Jerry Hughes is the only holdover from the previous administration.

You said so yourself, it's A LOT easier to build a good football team than it is to build a good hockey team.

[dudacek]

4 hours ago, PASabreFan said:

As a longtime wannabe Canadian, for me it's about the red cup with the maple leaf. I recognize that the coffee and food are not good, not so good. 

Burger King is to Timmy's as Terry is to the Sabres

[GASabresIUFAN]

16 hours ago, OhMyDahlin said:

You said so yourself, it's A LOT easier to build a good football team than it is to build a good hockey team.

Yes it is, but the Sabres management team blew it from the start.  Had they keep their tank assets and allowed a group of kids to develop together, we'd already be a playoff team.  When you are trying to build a deep organization you don't trade away 1st and 2nd rd picks like they are meaningless.  

Edited February 13, 2021 by GASabresIUFAN

[Taro T]

12 minutes ago, GASabresIUFAN said:

Yes it is, but the Sabres management team blew it from the start.  Had they keep their tank assets and allowed a group of kids to develop together, we'd already be a playoff team.  When you are trying to build a deep organization you don't trade away 1st and 2nd rd picks like their meaningless.  

Well, yes & no to that as well.

If they'd used those picks properly & developed the prospects properly, they would almost assuredly be a playoff quality team today.

Of course, if they still had O'Reilly & Lehner, the likelihood of them being a playoff quality team today would be even higher than that.

The problem wasn't strictly overpaying for more readily available assets to speed the rebuild.  The problem was overpaying for those assets and then selling them for nickels on the $.  And even with all that, this team could be a playoff squad this season if the goaltending improves even fractionally &/or the top 2 lines start to produce at ES.

[pi2000]

On 2/4/2021 at 7:05 PM, Curt said:

This is a good point.  @pi2000 can we get a TRPM sans EN goals?  Then TRPM would reign as the fanciest of stats.

hahahaa

no

they're a net -2 with the goalie pulled.  it won't move the needle enough to make a difference.

likewise, would you also eliminate any plus gained if a goal is scored with the goalie pulled? 

[PerreaultForever]

On 2/3/2021 at 9:23 PM, Gatorman0519 said:

10 games in and we have 2 regulation wins. Not looking promising.  

In fairness, we're a .500 hockey team and if we win the next 2 games to even us at 12 games (same as most of the division) we'd be the 4th place playoff team. 

The weird thing, and I think it shows a flaw in the NHL system, is despite the 8 teams only playing each other only one team (Rangers) is below .500 in win percentage. That just seems intrinsically wrong, even though I know why it is. 

I think what will likely sink us in a compressed schedule (assuming we get to play) is the goaltending. Ullmark will burn out. 

[nfreeman]

42 minutes ago, PerreaultForever said:

In fairness, we're a .500 hockey team and if we win the next 2 games to even us at 12 games (same as most of the division) we'd be the 4th place playoff team. 

The weird thing, and I think it shows a flaw in the NHL system, is despite the 8 teams only playing each other only one team (Rangers) is below .500 in win percentage. That just seems intrinsically wrong, even though I know why it is. 

I think what will likely sink us in a compressed schedule (assuming we get to play) is the goaltending. Ullmark will burn out. 

The Sabres are not a .500 team.  They have won 40% of their games.  If they end up the season having won 40% of their games, they will miss the playoffs by a country mile.

This is a similar terminology item, but I also don't think "win percentage" is used correctly here.  The Sabres, Rangers, Devils and Isles have all won less than 50% of their games (and the Caps and Pens have won exactly 50% of their games) -- so I would say 4 teams are below .500 in win percentage and only 2 teams are above .500 in win percentage.

This goes back to DeLuca .500 -- i.e. a team needs to win at least 50% of its games to have a shot at the playoffs. 

It may seem like a silly argument over nomenclature, but the key point is that "NHL .500" -- e.g. where the Sabres are at 4-4-2 -- is a useless mirage that doesn't get you to the playoffs.

[Taro T]

5 minutes ago, nfreeman said:

The Sabres are not a .500 team.  They have won 40% of their games.  If they end up the season having won 40% of their games, they will miss the playoffs by a country mile.

This is a similar terminology item, but I also don't think "win percentage" is used correctly here.  The Sabres, Rangers, Devils and Isles have all won less than 50% of their games (and the Caps and Pens have won exactly 50% of their games) -- so I would say 4 teams are below .500 in win percentage and only 2 teams are above .500 in win percentage.

This goes back to DeLuca .500 -- i.e. a team needs to win at least 50% of its games to have a shot at the playoffs. 

It may seem like a silly argument over nomenclature, but the key point is that "NHL .500" -- e.g. where the Sabres are at 4-4-2 -- is a useless mirage that doesn't get you to the playoffs.

It is.  But the NHL 0.600 is darn near infallible to get it done.  12 points every 10 games & your coaches now have to game plan for at least 4 more games and maybe as many as 28.  😉

And, BTW, several teams have hit the DeLuca 0.500 and still missed the playoffs.  Moe-ray-all in '19, Fla, Dallas, & St. Louis in '18; Tampa & the Aisles in '17.  That's 6 teams hitting his magical mark in a 3 year span but missing the playoffs (~11% playoff miss rate).  But, you hit 0.600, you're always (almost? have to go back through to guarantee there's no exceptions, there could be 1 or 2 since the loser point t was introduced) in the playoffs.

[Curt]

1 hour ago, pi2000 said:

hahahaa

no

they're a net -2 with the goalie pulled.  it won't move the needle enough to make a difference.

likewise, would you also eliminate any plus gained if a goal is scored with the goalie pulled? 

Yes.  TrPM with all EN goals removed would be more representative.

[Weave]

3 hours ago, GASabresIUFAN said:

Yes it is, but the Sabres management team blew it from the start.  Had they keep their tank assets and allowed a group of kids to develop together, we'd already be a playoff team.  When you are trying to build a deep organization you don't trade away 1st and 2nd rd picks like their meaningless.  

With no veteran leaders to show them the way... no, that collection of picks would not be a playoff team today. 

The team absolutely needed to blow assets to get vets.  It was a necessary part of basic team building.  It was necessitated because of the decision to thoroughly gut the team to ensure Jack was picked.  You can't have a team all of the same age group.  You need a mix of vets and kids.  GMTM did the right thing.  Did he pick the right vets?  You can surely make the case that he didn't.  But the vets were needed to ensure that the kids were in the right roles and had the right pressure on them.  And as Taro mentioned, when you've maybe picked the wrong vets you can't let them go for pennies on the dollar.  You have to get the proper value back or you might as well have just stuck with the kids.

[nfreeman]

5 hours ago, Taro T said:

It is.  But the NHL 0.600 is darn near infallible to get it done.  12 points every 10 games & your coaches now have to game plan for at least 4 more games and maybe as many as 28.  😉

And, BTW, several teams have hit the DeLuca 0.500 and still missed the playoffs.  Moe-ray-all in '19, Fla, Dallas, & St. Louis in '18; Tampa & the Aisles in '17.  That's 6 teams hitting his magical mark in a 3 year span but missing the playoffs (~11% playoff miss rate).  But, you hit 0.600, you're always (almost? have to go back through to guarantee there's no exceptions, there could be 1 or 2 since the loser point t was introduced) in the playoffs.

Well, in the last 3 years, 3 teams have finished "NHL .600" or better and not made the playoffs so you, sir, are equally guilty of propounding a less-than-infallible formula.

May God have mercy on your soul.

[nfreeman]

More to the point, I think the more critical idea here is not that you are probably going to make the playoffs if you finish at DeLuca .500 -- it's that if you don't get to DeLuca .500, you are not going to make the playoffs.  The key is to stay at or very close to DeLuca .500 during the season and then finish strong so you end up at least a couple of games over -- and not to delude oneself that one's team is doing fine because they are at "NHL .500".

[Taro T]

35 minutes ago, nfreeman said:

Well, in the last 3 years, 3 teams have finished "NHL .600" or better and not made the playoffs so you, sir, are equally guilty of propounding a less-than-infallible formula.

May God have mercy on your soul.

Bullsquat.  Nobody had 98 and missed the playoffs.  (The NHL plays 82 games.  To be at 0.600, you have to have 98.4 points.)

EDIT: Went back through to 2000.  It has NEVER happened that a team was at 0.600 and missed the playoffs.

Edited February 13, 2021 by Taro T

[Taro T]

14 minutes ago, nfreeman said:

More to the point, I think the more critical idea here is not that you are probably going to make the playoffs if you finish at DeLuca .500 -- it's that if you don't get to DeLuca .500, you are not going to make the playoffs.  The key is to stay at or very close to DeLuca .500 during the season and then finish strong so you end up at least a couple of games over -- and not to delude oneself that one's team is doing fine because they are at "NHL .500".

Again, calling bull squat.   In '19 Colorado was under and made the playoffs.  You were correct in '18.  But Toronto in '17 was under but made the playoffs.  In '16 Minny was below but in.  It worked in '15, but in '14 Detroit & Dallas were in.

And, who is deluding themselves about teams being fine at an NHL 0.500.  They need to be at an NHL 0.600.  If they're below that, they need to pick up the pace to guarantee they'll be in.  

NHL 0.600 puts teams in.  DeLuca 0.500 means Jack as teams below it sometimes get in & sometimes miss above it.  In '16 Boston made the hurdle but missed the dance.  In '15 Boston, Dallas, & Columbus reached the hurdle but didn't make the dance.  In '14, nobody cleared the hurdle but missed the dance, but 2 teams did.

NHL 0.600 isn't a "maybe they will, maybe they won't" milestone.  It always gets them in.

[nfreeman]

Let the record reflect that @Taro T is right — I had forgotten about games 81 and 82 and was using 96 pts as the cutoff.

Having said that, this all came up in response to a different poster up thread citing NHL .500 as a meaningful status, which it simply ain’t.  Certainly a 98-pt pace is meaningful.  

[GASabresIUFAN]

5 hours ago, Weave said:

With no veteran leaders to show them the way... no, that collection of picks would not be a playoff team today. 

The team absolutely needed to blow assets to get vets.  It was a necessary part of basic team building.  It was necessitated because of the decision to thoroughly gut the team to ensure Jack was picked.  You can't have a team all of the same age group.  You need a mix of vets and kids.  GMTM did the right thing.  Did he pick the right vets?  You can surely make the case that he didn't.  But the vets were needed to ensure that the kids were in the right roles and had the right pressure on them.  And as Taro mentioned, when you've maybe picked the wrong vets you can't let them go for pennies on the dollar.  You have to get the proper value back or you might as well have just stuck with the kids.

We have been trying to add vet leaders for a decade without success.  A proper rebuild starts with building a pipeline and then adding with vets to fill holes in the lineup.  TM did it backwards.

[PerreaultForever]

8 hours ago, nfreeman said:

The Sabres are not a .500 team.  They have won 40% of their games.  If they end up the season having won 40% of their games, they will miss the playoffs by a country mile.

This is a similar terminology item, but I also don't think "win percentage" is used correctly here.  The Sabres, Rangers, Devils and Isles have all won less than 50% of their games (and the Caps and Pens have won exactly 50% of their games) -- so I would say 4 teams are below .500 in win percentage and only 2 teams are above .500 in win percentage.

This goes back to DeLuca .500 -- i.e. a team needs to win at least 50% of its games to have a shot at the playoffs. 

It may seem like a silly argument over nomenclature, but the key point is that "NHL .500" -- e.g. where the Sabres are at 4-4-2 -- is a useless mirage that doesn't get you to the playoffs.

First off, we ARE a .500 hockey team. 4 wins, 4 losses, 2 OT losses = 10 points in 10 games that is the definition of .500 and that's what the NHL % has us as:

https://www.nhl.com/standings/2020/division

As for missing the playoffs with that, yes, probably, as the OT system creates bad math, as I was suggesting, with almost all teams above .500 despite playing each other. .500 should put us in the middle but it obviously doesn't because of the OT situation. The percentage matters, as the NHL has already said if the schedule can't be evened out they might resort to win percentage to determine standings and playoff births. 

So ya, I guess we are agreeing on the "mirage" part just looking at the math slightly differently.

Fact remains though, we currently have 2-3 games in hand and if we win them we are in a playoff spot. Will we? I doubt it, but technically that's all it takes. 

[Weave]

7 hours ago, GASabresIUFAN said:

We have been trying to add vet leaders for a decade without success.  A proper rebuild starts with building a pipeline and then adding with vets to fill holes in the lineup.  TM did it backwards.

You have to have vets when the kids are there, especially high end kids.  Pittsburgh was loaded with vets when Gino and Sid arrived.  They showed them the way.  Chicago was a vet laden team when their core was drafted. 
 

Granted, the vets you need to make your playoff push may be different than the ones you need when your kids first arrive, so you might have to swap them out.  But the idea that you can ice a team with 6-7-8 kids and expect them to figure out how to win is madness.  That was the Oilers model and it bombed badly.

TM chose poorly but them move was the correct one.

Edit- Don't forget how different the Sabres situation was.  The team was absolutely gutted of useful vets and consisted of nobodies and AAAA players.  I cannot think of a single instance in the league where a team was so thoroughly dismantled.  They needed good vets and good leaders to prop up the kids.  What they didn't need on the ice at that time was more kids surrounded by nobodies and AAAA players.

Edited February 13, 2021 by Weave

[Taro T]

10 hours ago, nfreeman said:

Let the record reflect that @Taro T is right — I had forgotten about games 81 and 82 and was using 96 pts as the cutoff.

Having said that, this all came up in response to a different poster up thread citing NHL .500 as a meaningful status, which it simply ain’t.  Certainly a 98-pt pace is meaningful.  

NHL 0.500 hasn't been meaningful since the loser point was added.  Before that, it was almost as reliable as using 0.600 has been; though there were a handful of occasions where it failed; notably in '86 with the Sabres finishing 5th in the Adams with a 0.500 80 points.

IF 0.600 is ever going to fail to guarantee a playoff spot, it'll be this season that it does as all games are in division and theoretically we could see more 3 point games than typical.  (Not positive that theory will hold water as though teams that are trailing would be more desperate to at least get the loser point, we should also see teams that are leading be more desperate to not surrender it, and it might all wash out in the end.)  Personally, hoping nobody misses with 0.600, because it's cool that a nice easy to calculate rate of production guarantees a playoff spot. 

Edited February 13, 2021 by Taro T

[GASabresIUFAN]

3 hours ago, Weave said:

You have to have vets when the kids are there, especially high end kids.  Pittsburgh was loaded with vets when Gino and Sid arrived.  They showed them the way.  Chicago was a vet laden team when their core was drafted. 
 

Granted, the vets you need to make your playoff push may be different than the ones you need when your kids first arrive, so you might have to swap them out.  But the idea that you can ice a team with 6-7-8 kids and expect them to figure out how to win is madness.  That was the Oilers model and it bombed badly.

TM chose poorly but them move was the correct one.

Edit- Don't forget how different the Sabres situation was.  The team was absolutely gutted of useful vets and consisted of nobodies and AAAA players.  I cannot think of a single instance in the league where a team was so thoroughly dismantled.  They needed good vets and good leaders to prop up the kids.  What they didn't need on the ice at that time was more kids surrounded by nobodies and AAAA players.

While it is somewhat true that the team was completely gutted, much of that was by TM himself.  Moulson, Myers, Miller, Ott, and Halak, and Neuvirth were all useful vets traded away (Moulson then re-signed) by TM to gain more assets.  He also traded away many of the near ready prospects like McNabb, Armia, and Zadorov.  Don’t forget good vets can be acquired through free agency (Gionta) and smaller deals (Gorges). Blockbusters aren’t necessary to shepherd the kids.

His whole strategy never made any sense.  The only one of his big moves that made sense was ROR.  The rest were simply dumb.  Why acquire Lehner, when you could have rolled with Neuvirth and or Halak and received equal play?  Why do a blockbuster for Kane, when Wpg would have likely given him away to get him off the team? Bogo wasn’t a step up from Myers. Why trade McNabb at all?  None of this is hindsight.  I said these things then (I didn’t want Kane or Bogo at all because I’d seen them in the ATL). 

Still the ultimate bad decisions were hiring Patty as President who hired TM as GM.  If your rebuilding an organization get experienced hands to run the asylum.

 

 

[Taro T]

3 minutes ago, GASabresIUFAN said:

While it is somewhat true that the team was completely gutted, much of that was by TM himself.  Moulson, Myers, Miller, Ott, and Halak, and Neuvirth were all useful vets traded away (Moulson then re-signed) by TM to gain more assets.  He also traded away many of the near ready prospects like McNabb, Armia, and Zadorov.  Don’t forget good vets can be acquired through free agency (Gionta) and smaller deals (Gorges). Blockbusters aren’t necessary to shepherd the kids.

His whole strategy never made any sense.  The only one of his big moves that made sense was ROR.  The rest were simply dumb.  Why acquire Lehner, when you could have rolled with Neuvirth and or Halak and received equal play?  Why do a blockbuster for Kane, when Wpg would have likely given him away to get him off the team? Bogo wasn’t a step up from Myers. Why trade McNabb at all?  None of this is hindsight.  I said these things then (I didn’t want Kane or Bogo at all because I’d seen them in the ATL). 

Still the ultimate bad decisions were hiring Patty as President who hired TM as GM.  If your rebuilding an organization get experienced hands to run the asylum.

 

 

Halak was never an option. He refused to play for the Sabres which is why he was flipped for Neuvirth.

[Weave]

18 minutes ago, GASabresIUFAN said:

 

 If your rebuilding an organization get experienced hands to run the asylum.

 

 

This I’ll agree with.  The rest is undeserved optimism at best.

[Ducky]

If you're re-building, have the patience to know you won't win a cup in 2 years and it takes a lot of pain before building a contender.