Jump to content

The Sabres Draft Like Garbage: Here are the Receipts


Recommended Posts

3 hours ago, RangerDave said:

It could just be my imagination, but it seems to me like our draft number was usually later than what our record compared to other teams would indicate.  Am I remembering incorrectly?  If we did not have the lottery, and went solely on record, would we have drafted earlier?

That’s how it is for every team who does win #1/2/3 though.  If the Sabres finished 6th worst for example, their most likely draft position would be 7th or 8th, because someone is likely to leapfrog them.  So, yes, they have often dropped 1-2 spots, but that’s the most likely thing to happen.  It may be a little counterintuitive that the team finishing in 6th worst place is most likely to draft 7th, but that’s the way it’s been.

When they won the lottery in 2018 that was massively lucky.  There was only about a 20% chance of them getting #1 and they hit on it.

  • Thanks (+1) 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, LGR4GM said:

It's about a cumulative total not a single game changer

Mitts and Ssrgachev weren't the same draft

Oh I butchered that, it was the Nylander pick.  

For me anyway, swapping Reinhart for Draisaital and Nylander for Sergachev woulda put this team on a much different course.

Link to post
Share on other sites
19 hours ago, thewookie1 said:

The biggest problem with anything like this is there are far too many variables not being taken into account.

Was Tom Wilson seen as far better than Grigorenko or Girgensons at the time? 

Hindsight is 20/20 and judging their drafting based on what we know 4 years or more after the point is rather pointless. 

Nylander over Sergachev, McAvoy, or Chychrun is a solid criticism because even at the time it was deemed a risky/disliked pick.

Reinhart was ranked higher than Draisital in most scouting lists. 

Grigorenko was considered by central scouting to be better than all but about 5 players overall.

 

While this does mean their scouting failed; it isn't as if they drafted random players that a large number of other teams wouldn't of taken. We have an average to below average track record. But that's it.

 

 

They are consistently wrong though.  And it seems like when they're right on an outside the 1st prospect, they trade him.  

Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, pi2000 said:

Oh I butchered that, it was the Nylander pick.  

For me anyway, swapping Reinhart for Draisaital and Nylander for Sergachev woulda put this team on a much different course.

Absolutely. I 100% agree. I think the Nylander pick is more egregious. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, LGR4GM said:

Absolutely. I 100% agree. I think the Nylander pick is more egregious. 

Reinhart was 1000% the safer pick.  No one knew what the hell the “German Gretzky” was going to be.  People act like he was demonstrably better than the other prospects.  Let’s just be glad we didn’t draft Bennett, who I was a fan of at the time. 

  • Like (+1) 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
15 minutes ago, inkman said:

Reinhart was 1000% the safer pick.  No one knew what the hell the “German Gretzky” was going to be.  People act like he was demonstrably better than the other prospects.  Let’s just be glad we didn’t draft Bennett, who I was a fan of at the time. 

Yup. Draisaitl had major skating concerns and he fixed those to his credit and it allowed him to be awesome. Thank god we didn't take Bennett. 

  • Like (+1) 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Reinhart pick was over which Sam to pick. And we picked at least the better one. Just a disappointing draft overall that year after #1

Nylander pick was out of left field and totally whiffed. Again a Murray overlooked all the soft factors and chose the guy with drive issues. As if going into harder and harder leagues is somehow going to fix that?

  • Like (+1) 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, LGR4GM said:

Absolutely. I 100% agree. I think the Nylander pick is more egregious. 

Here's an update (from FEB 2021) on him. I didn't even realize he was out for this entire shortened season. Even though BUF flipped him for The Joker, it was a terrible pick!

https://www.bleachernation.com/blackhawks/2021/02/17/alex-nylander-progressing-after-knee-surgery/

Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, dudacek said:

Seriously? It's that bad?

Hide your post before PA starts stuffing tennis balls into his dryer vent again.

Do you think it’s a coincidence they do not have a Russian Scout? That Sergachev was passed over? That Arthur Kaliyev (despite growing up on Staten Island from the Age of Two) was not interviewed at the Combine? 

How GMTM ever got Antipin signed is a miracle, despite the disaster it was.

  • Like (+1) 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
20 hours ago, GASabresIUFAN said:

....and now you know why I despise former GM TM.  

@LGR4GM I'm going to disagree on your assessment of the Jbot's drafts and not sure why you're avoiding discussing 2017 where we have two players already with 3 more possible (2 of which are probable).  2018 wasn't great, but Samuelsson is a good player and will be a good NHLer.  You like Borgen yet dismiss the better version named Samuelsson.  2019 has 1 NHLer already with 3 more possible, including Portillo who had a 1.67 gaa and 935 save % in his first college season.  

2017 - Casey (NHL), UPL (AHL/Taxi Squad), Laaksonen (AHL and thriving), Bryson (NHL) and Weissbach (now signed and similar skill set to R2)

2018 - Dahlin (NHL), Samuelsson (AHL and thriving).  Pekar (AHL, has much work to do to become an NHL depth player) Kukkonen (Liiga - jumped to Liiga full time this season with good results)

2019 - Cozens (NHL), Johnson (college and thriving), Portillo (college and thriving), Rousek (vastly improved in the Czech league)

2020 - Quinn (AHL), JJP (Germany)  

The most valid complaint about the drafts is no high impact later picks which is a fair assessment.  However there is good depth here especially with 2 really really good goaltending prospects.  Quinn is a pick just like Reinhart.  Solid safe choice, but others will probably be better.  You argue that they should have picked someone else for Johnson, Laaksonen, Samuelsson and Quinn.  Sure maybe if you were GM, but it's not like they didn't get solid players.  Johnson, Samuelsson, Laaksonen and Quinn will all be solid to very good NHL players and Quinn could end up being a star.  Johnson and Samuelsson both had late 1st rd grades according to most of the rankings I track.  Quinn was supposed to be a top 10 choice.  Laaksonen was only out of left field choice and he seems to be on track.  Considering the last time we had a 3rd rd pick make an impact in the NHL was Brayden McNabb (2009) who TM promptly traded for some magic beans just as he was blossoming into an NHL player, Laaksonen was an excellent pick.

Yes we'd be better off with more star power, but our pipeline is better and deeper then when TM left town as we are seeing with the Sabres playing better with the influx of kids.

 

Quinn wasn't a "solid safe choice" at all. 

They are banking on 1 standout season from an older prospect, it's not a safe selection, and most of the lists and consensus ranks we saw had him a few picks below that spot.

Regardless of his rank, though, the biggest thing is sample size, and Quinn was a late bloomer - the opposite of Reinhart, and not an inherently safe pick 

Link to post
Share on other sites
25 minutes ago, Brawndo said:

Do you think it’s a coincidence they do not have a Russian Scout? That Sergachev was passed over? That Arthur Kaliyev (despite growing up on Staten Island from the Age of Two) was not interviewed at the Combine? 

How GMTM ever got Antipin signed is a miracle, despite the disaster it was.

I view the MHL similar to the CHL (below OHL and WHL and on par with the Q in some ways) and so far that looks about right. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
19 hours ago, rakish said:

There's a book out there called the Genius of Crowds by Charles Bukowski. Though I've been drinking, I will try to make my argument coherent. Bukowski argued that if you poll the voters, you will get a better prediction of the results than any particular analyst. So for example, if you poll movie watchers as to who is going to win the award for best film, they will come up with a better prediction than you. The problem here is that they are talking about prediction of who is going to be voted best movie, which doesn't interest us. What we are looking for is what the actual best movie is, which, if you look at the history of the Academy awards, does an embarrassing job of valuing the actual best film. So what Genius of Crowds predicts is who will be selected, not the value of the selection.

Hiring a bunch of scouts to come up with a composite list, works very poorly.  They do tell you the order they will be selected (like in the Genius of Crowds), but they have no ability to tell you the quality of those picks (like the Academy Award results). You can go to thedraftanalyst.com and look at the last 20 years of Central Scouting and see how terrible Central Scouting is.  I would love to hear your argument that Central Scouting has value because... I like changing my mind.

I call my project of comparing Sabres drafting to other pundits Mom's Basement Stakes. My conclusion, so far, is that analyst that use group valuations, like McKenzie, are losing about 1/2 player per year to those not, like Pronman. For me, Pronman, Liger, Me, and Button are about a half player per year ahead of McKenzie and the Sabres.  I believe that if you understand what Charles Bukowski is telling you, that wouldn't be a surprise.

https://hfboards.mandatory.com/threads/2020-moms-basement-stakes.2769630/

The academy votes on what they think is the best film, not what they think is going to win best film

And the "embarrassing job" bit seems an incredibly subjective statement to make. Can you point me to the definitive "Actual Best Film" list? 

This comparison doesn't really work with the NHL draft imo. Of course there's subjectivity in hockey analysis too, but hockey obviously to a much greater degree lends itself towards statistically quantifying. If you ask 10 people who the best player in the world is currently you'll get a lot of McDavids but ask what the greatest movie of all time is, there will be little if any agreement. 

Edited by Thorny
Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, inkman said:

Reinhart was 1000% the safer pick.  No one knew what the hell the “German Gretzky” was going to be.  People act like he was demonstrably better than the other prospects.  Let’s just be glad we didn’t draft Bennett, who I was a fan of at the time. 

At the time, I agreed with this regarding Draisaitl, but I'll make a couple podcasts in June as to why I have changed my mind

Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, Brawndo said:

I think you mean Nylander over Sergachev. 
 

And that final decision does not fall on the GM or scouting staff 

Terry made the pick?

36 minutes ago, Brawndo said:

Do you think it’s a coincidence they do not have a Russian Scout? That Sergachev was passed over? That Arthur Kaliyev (despite growing up on Staten Island from the Age of Two) was not interviewed at the Combine? 

How GMTM ever got Antipin signed is a miracle, despite the disaster it was.

Doesn't bode well for CHL picks either for the same reasons 

Link to post
Share on other sites
42 minutes ago, Brawndo said:

Do you think it’s a coincidence they do not have a Russian Scout? That Sergachev was passed over? That Arthur Kaliyev (despite growing up on Staten Island from the Age of Two) was not interviewed at the Combine? 

How GMTM ever got Antipin signed is a miracle, despite the disaster it was.

I read your initial post as Terry wanted Nylander, but this is almost as troubling.

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, dudacek said:

I’m reading this as Sergachev, was vetoed for xenophobic reasons, so Nylander was next up.

By Terry. I'd argue the reason is irrelevant as I don't think Terry would have better decision making aptitude depending on the perspective had upon entering the fray. When it comes to player selection. 

Edited by Thorny
Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, Thorny said:

By Terry. I'd argue the reason is irrelevant as I don't think Terry would have better decision making aptitude depending on the perspective had upon entering the fray. When it comes to player selection. 

It’s like arguing if you’d rather have Meszaros or Benoit, but I’d rather have a general resistance to Russians than have a fracker arbitrarily deciding who we should draft with our first pick every year.

Please, please let Rutherford get his promise.

Edited by dudacek
Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, dudacek said:

It’s like arguing if you’d rather have Meszaros or Benoit, but I’d rather have a general resistance to Russians than have a fracker arbitrarily deciding who we should draft with our first pick every year.

Please, please let Rutherford get his promise.

Agree on the bold but.. 

If Terry has a general resistance to something that can factor heavily into something as important as our 1st, it would be....let's say pretty unlikely there weren't other forms of "resistance" or "influence" rearing there heads in other areas

Or, maybe that one ant we found in the house is the only one. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, Thorny said:

Agree on the bold but.. 

If Terry has a general resistance to something that can factor heavily into something as important as our 1st, it would be....let's say pretty unlikely there weren't other forms of "resistance" or "influence" rearing there heads in other areas

Or, maybe that one ant we found in the house is the only one. 

Oh don’t kid yourself, the ants have been marching for a long time.

  • Haha (+1) 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, Brawndo said:

Do you think it’s a coincidence they do not have a Russian Scout? That Sergachev was passed over? That Arthur Kaliyev (despite growing up on Staten Island from the Age of Two) was not interviewed at the Combine? 

How GMTM ever got Antipin signed is a miracle, despite the disaster it was.

Is this something you've deduced from what has happened? Or something you've been told?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Restore formatting

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
×
×
  • Create New...