ESPN+ Article on Prospects

[PromoTheRobot]

1 minute ago, dudacek said:

For those keeping track (sorry to the majority who won't)

From that "#1 rated prospect pool" Tim Murray traded away Girgorenko, Zadorov, McNabb, Armia, Lemieux and Luke Adam.

Personally, I would still give up that entire group for Ryan O'Reilly alone.

But hey, that's just me.

Don't forget a bunch of 1st round picks 

Edited April 16 by PromoTheRobot

[dudacek]

1 minute ago, PromoTheRobot said:

Don't forget a bunch of 1st round picks 

Two: Colin White and Jack Roslovic.

Still taking O'Reilly.

[SwampD]

24 minutes ago, PromoTheRobot said:

We had the #1 rated prospect pool when Tim Murray was GM. He promptly traded most of them away for magic beans. Now that Adams has restored that pipeline people want him to act like Tim Murray again.

I’m not sure it was #1, but that doesn’t matter anyway, and at the time, it was the right decision. We were all excited about the players he got back in those trades. Just because it didn’t work does not mean it was the wrong thing to do.

I don’t see anything special about this group of prospects that differentiates it from any other team’s prospects.

Unfortunately, I don’t think anything is going to change, so our only option is to wait and watch and hope that our core develop (ffs, we’ve been hearing that since black Sunday) and dream about a future that is never going to get here.

I really hope that the Sunshine and Kittens crew are right. I really do. I want these guys to be a playoff team before I die.

[shrader]

1 hour ago, dudacek said:

Two: Colin White and Jack Roslovic.

Still taking O'Reilly.

Hindsight is a fun thing. You wouldn’t take that stance before the trades happened. Back at that point shouldn’t all of those pieces landed you 2 or 3 Ryan O’Reillys?

[dudacek]

43 minutes ago, shrader said:

Hindsight is a fun thing. You wouldn’t take that stance before the trades happened. Back at that point shouldn’t all of those pieces landed you 2 or 3 Ryan O’Reillys?

Picks in the 20s most often are Roslovics and Whites, so no.

Look, GMTM was a ***** manager. No one in his right mind would support his tenure and I'm not aware of anyone who does.

But his biggest failing was people: the types he chose for his organization, and how he treated them.

The number of prospects he "squandered" is overrated.

[shrader]

41 minutes ago, dudacek said:

Picks in the 20s most often are Roslovics and Whites, so no.

Look, GMTM was a ***** manager. No one in his right mind would support his tenure and I'm not aware of anyone who does.

But his biggest failing was people: the types he chose for his organization, and how he treated them.

The number of prospects he "squandered" is overrated.

Im not sure why that is overrated. It looks like it is exactly what you are saying. He spent $10 for what should have cost $5, just like Botterill sold stuff for $5 that should have cost $10. 
 

I’m not sure what the point of captain hindsight game is. The value of the pieces 10 years later doesn’t not outweigh the value of the pieces at the actual time of the trade. 

[dudacek]

15 minutes ago, shrader said:

Im not sure why that is overrated. It looks like it is exactly what you are saying. He spent $10 for what should have cost $5, just like Botterill sold stuff for $5 that should have cost $10. 
 

I’m not sure what the point of captain hindsight game is. The value of the pieces 10 years later doesn’t not outweigh the value of the pieces at the actual time of the trade. 

 

My point was simply to reply to what I thought was hyperbole and I explained why.

I respect your opinion, and don't mind that you disagree.

Ask Promo what the point of Captain Hindsight game is.

 

3 hours ago, PromoTheRobot said:

We had the #1 rated prospect pool when Tim Murray was GM. He promptly traded most of them away for magic beans. Now that Adams has restored that pipeline people want him to act like Tim Murray again.

 

2 hours ago, dudacek said:

For those keeping track (sorry to the majority who won't)

From that "#1 rated prospect pool" Tim Murray traded away Girgorenko, Zadorov, McNabb, Armia, Lemieux and Luke Adam.

Personally, I would still give up that entire group for Ryan O'Reilly alone.

But hey, that's just me.

Edit: Missed JT Compher. Doesn't change my opinion.

 

[ska-T Chitown]

On 4/15/2024 at 11:01 AM, shrader said:

of course, but he much closer the the latter. 
 

I haven’t read the article since I’m not a subscriber. I’d imagine they outlined the definition of exactly what players they were ranking. All this prospect definition talk ignores that and just becomes a matter of semantics instead. Whatever their definition is (if the word prospect was even used), they think Buffalo has the best. Let’s not move the goal posts in order to debate that stance. 
 

edit: And wait a second. I know they weren’t originally your words, but multiple cups? No current NHL player has been alive long enough to see two cups in Boston. Theirs is not a legacy of winning the cup. 

not sure if someone else shared this, yet:

This was in the "free" part of the article before you hit the pay wall.

[JoeSchmoe]

4 hours ago, PromoTheRobot said:

Kulich and Levi? How many Amerks have have you watched this year?

I'm not considering Levi since he's already played a lot of NHL games.

For Kulich, look at his AHL points and then look at what our two 2nd liners Quinn and Peterka did in Roch. He's way behind them as a prospect.

[ska-T Chitown]

5 minutes ago, JoeSchmoe said:

I'm not considering Levi since he's already played a lot of NHL games.

For Kulich, look at his AHL points and then look at what our two 2nd liners Quinn and Peterka did in Roch. He's way behind them as a prospect.

In the context of the article, Levi would be a "prospect" - under 23, not full time NHL. Right or wrong - that was the parameter used for the rankings.

[#freejame]

2 hours ago, dudacek said:

Picks in the 20s most often are Roslovics and Whites, so no.

Look, GMTM was a ***** manager. No one in his right mind would support his tenure and I'm not aware of anyone who does.

But his biggest failing was people: the types he chose for his organization, and how he treated them.

The number of prospects he "squandered" is overrated.

I don’t support his tenure per se, but if he didn’t call Kim a ***** we would have made the playoffs within 5 years of his tenure. Our biggest issue was jumping from TM team building to JB team building. 

Edited April 16 by #freejame

[Thorny]

10 hours ago, PromoTheRobot said:

We had the #1 rated prospect pool when Tim Murray was GM. He promptly traded most of them away for magic beans. Now that Adams has restored that pipeline people want him to act like Tim Murray again.

Lol this never happened 

10 hours ago, PromoTheRobot said:

Don't forget a bunch of 1st round picks 

Lol this never happened 

[Thorny]

8 hours ago, dudacek said:

Picks in the 20s most often are Roslovics and Whites, so no.

Look, GMTM was a ***** manager. No one in his right mind would support his tenure and I'm not aware of anyone who does.

But his biggest failing was people: the types he chose for his organization, and how he treated them.

The number of prospects he "squandered" is overrated.

Exactly. He didn’t fail because the types of moves he was making were inherently bad and strategically flawed, he failed because he seemed almost exclusively capable of making bad moves in general

Issue of execution not theory. He’d have failed employing Adams strategy, too 

[Thorny]

7 hours ago, shrader said:

Im not sure why that is overrated. It looks like it is exactly what you are saying. He spent $10 for what should have cost $5, just like Botterill sold stuff for $5 that should have cost $10. 
 

I’m not sure what the point of captain hindsight game is. The value of the pieces 10 years later doesn’t not outweigh the value of the pieces at the actual time of the trade. 

Because IF MURRAY HAD BEEN RIGHT about the talent acquisition the price paid would have been more than fair. They only looked like overpays *because the talent analysis failed.*. Failure of execution.

You have to remember back to the narrative at the time: it wasn’t just that we weren’t getting the right guys, it’s that, even if we had, we overpaid to do it. That we were specifically trading away too many of our long term assets at a point we should not. This was mistaken relative to quantity and quality league relative, Botterill relative, and in the idea it was somehow wrong to trade from that pool.

There was a *specific* argument that Murray paid more of these assets, squandered more of these assets than normal, whether his moves proved wrong OR right.

ANY GM will have a laundry list of “overpays” and “undersells” if their execution and talent evaluation is lacking 

He traded too many simply under the principle that ONE was too many cause he couldn’t make very good trades. But the idea of using the assets he did, at the time he did to make transactions wasn’t the problem: he just made consistently poor transactions by way of talent evaluation. 

Edited April 17 by Thorny

[PromoTheRobot]

1 hour ago, Thorny said:

Lol this never happened 

Lol this never happened 

Bleacher Report rating of NHL prospect pools from 2015. You were saying?

Edited April 17 by PromoTheRobot

[Thorny]

5 minutes ago, PromoTheRobot said:

 

Who is this person? Do they have a sabrespace account? Would they like to have an argument with me? I’d be open to it

a screenshotted, random opinion online saying the same thing as you doesn’t contribute anything. It’s just a replication of your opinion. I could screenshot literally any argument I wanted to. Seriously, pick one. Pick the most absurd take you can think of and I’ll find you a screenshot. 

What you posted isn’t even a take it’s just someone trying to write interestingly for an article lol “he traded some picks but they still have a lot coming” 

you got me haha 

Edited April 17 by Thorny

[PromoTheRobot]

3 minutes ago, Thorny said:

Who is this person? Do they have a sabrespace account? Would they like to have an argument with me? I’d be open to it

a screenshotted, random opinion online saying the same thing as you doesn’t contribute anything. It’s just a replication of your opinion. I could screenshot literally any argument I wanted to. Seriously, pick one. Pick the most absurd take you can think of and I’ll find you a screenshot. 

What you posted isn’t even a take it’s just someone trying to write interestingly for an article lol “he traded some picks but they still have a lot coming” 

you got me haha 

I told you where it came from Bleacher Report's 2015 ranking of NHL prospect pools. Sabres were #2. And the first thing the article cites is Murray emptying the cupboards. This after you said "this never happened!" But when I present evidence you pitch a nutty. 

[Weave]

4 minutes ago, Thorny said:

Who is this person? Do they have a sabrespace account? Would they like to have an argument with me? I’d be open to it

a screenshotted, random opinion online saying the same thing as you doesn’t contribute anything. It’s just a replication of your opinion. I could screenshot literally any argument I wanted to. Seriously, pick one. Pick the most absurd take you can think of and I’ll find you a screenshot. 

What you posted isn’t even a take it’s just someone trying to write interestingly for an article lol “he traded some picks but they still have a lot coming” 

you got me haha 

I dunno.  There is some convincing stock draft images on that screen shot.  It screams credibility to me.

 

[Thorny]

13 minutes ago, PromoTheRobot said:

I told you where it came from Bleacher Report's 2015 ranking of NHL prospect pools. Sabres were #2. And the first thing the article cites is Murray emptying the cupboards. This after you said "this never happened!" But when I present evidence you pitch a nutty. 

You *literally* edited your post after I responded to include that (as evidenced by the fact it is absent from my post that quotes yours) and then responded by saying you already told me lol come on dude you are so anti-good faith 

You can’t even seem to grasp the argument we are having: OF COURSE the opinion that Murray “raided the cupboards” (it didn’t even say empty) is EVEYWHERE. My *entire point* is that it’s a false, oft regurgitated narrative. It’s shallow and wrong. And everywhere. That’s a key part of my stance. 

you share it, and all you are doing is quoting some random bleacher report (lol!) article that states your opinion. You aren’t adding anything to the argument! Yes, I get that person is saying what you are. It doesn’t make it true. I’ve provided the data (as have others) that illustrate why we have a different take. You can choose to do so, or you can simply continue to do nothing to actually defend your opinion 

Edited April 17 by Thorny

[Thorny]

16 minutes ago, PromoTheRobot said:

I told you where it came from Bleacher Report's 2015 ranking of NHL prospect pools. Sabres were #2. And the first thing the article cites is Murray emptying the cupboards. This after you said "this never happened!" But when I present evidence you pitch a nutty. 

Here ya go, since ya love bleacher report so much 

@LGR4GM

[Weave]

Nope.  That stock image looks much leas credible.

[Thorny]

2 minutes ago, Weave said:

Nope.  That stock image looks much leas credible.

That doesn’t look like a man with a refreshing grasp of analytics to you? 

[Weave]

2 minutes ago, Thorny said:

That doesn’t look like a man with a refreshing grasp of analytics to you? 

Hard to say.  The image is poorly framed.

[LTS]

10 hours ago, Thorny said:

That doesn’t look like a man with a refreshing grasp of analytics to you? 

He's clearly calculated how long it will take for him to get his next drink.