Thorner

I was on that track from the start Agree. VO also generally tallies more assists than we’ve seen this year so far

Mitts might and probably will improve but he’s not going to undergo development like Tage and I fear, like Allen (who actually doesn’t even compare to Tage for the unlikelihood of rise) that one player like Tage going through a truly unprecedented swing and rise to prominence will have people thinking it’ll happen with other players failing to establish. Most times, the players don’t. Sometimes they do, though, and Tage is a good lesson to not give up too early. But players don’t rocket like he did: that’s a Tage thing He’s an insane exception to the standard. A truly odds-defying case. If that sort of development is projected onto other players, the uniqueness of it isn’t being appreciated enough. I understand the OP mentioned Mitts as a potential 3C still, and that is still possible.

The biggest thing is just the acceptance that it’ll never again be as good

Weirdly Marek went on a rant today to start his show, about how Sabres fans should be livid that Granato so limited Tage’s ice time in the third because he had a shot at tying the record. Honsstly, this didn’t cross my mind at all, seems kinda irrelevant and I don’t think it would rub the players the wrong way. Admittedly, I can’t go in the GDTs so I may have missed discussion on it yesterday. Seemed a nothingburger to me, though. Did this come up at all? - - - Another tidbit on the show I really found telling was that analyst Mike Rupp was on and he says he can basically judge whether a team is a “contender” based on looking at purely the 3rd line. I liked that and think it makes sense: our team for example, starting to look much better, but the traditional 3rd line is still a massive weak spot. Perhaps once that line resolved itself or rather, we resolve it, we’d take a further step.

He might win the Art Ross

It must be the visual because Lehner wasn’t just bad in shootouts, it was literally impossible to do a worse job

Ya I mean they are reasonable examples that kinda fit the “exceptions to the rule” thing I mentioned above, but even then, Comrie still represents a definitively different case ie riskier bet: Comrie had *played in* 28 nhl games prior to this season, in 9 years Markstrom played in 107 games before the year you say he became a starter. Including a season of 32 games Kuemper played in 131 games. A season with 30+. Campbell played 30+ in 2018 but I’ll definitely give you that one as that’s 8 years after draft anyways. He had 86 games before becoming a “starter” but like I said the bulk are after 8 years so that’s a good example Ullmark had played 127 games in a Sabre uniform sharing stater loads at times while putting up very good numbers before he became a “starter” in the year you said, come on on now Husso took 7 years, pretty good example Sorokin couldn’t get out of the Khl until 2020 - - - Comrie COULD be that guy. And you are right, it wasn’t really about discussing Comrie specifically anyways. In the end the disagreement in this case may yet again come down to timeline ie i expected improvement documented in net by now and you are still in the “waiting” phase. I think in light of other aspects of the team excelling it makes the inadequacy to SO FAR garner results in net less agreeable - be it by ineptitude, or, maybe more importantly, by design.

edit - I don’t think your take is “laughably wrong” at all - like I said, we may have to just disagree. I think it’s possible Comrie improves. The haha was just for the tactic - regardless of who Comrie played behind, the fact he wasn’t able to amount to more in 9 years isn’t wholly discountable. I’m not saying it’s definitive, he wouldn’t be the first to find later success by any means, merely that it’s doesn’t have “zero” negative connotation

I still don’t understand why they refused to go to Ullmark in shootouts over Lehner I don’t care if he was coming in cold. Lehner could simply not stop them

Yes, but I think those factors are all built-in to the principle, though, right? The record is reflective. If we’ve played difficult teams within the 25 games, it’s fitting we have 13 losses. I don’t think the roster we’ve assembled deserves a better fate. This is accounting for said context. It’s reflective, for example, of a young team. If we truly are undergoing the development we seek, if strength of schedule truly is a factor, here - our record will presumably also be reflective of the easier schedule, once it arrives. And assuming our record improves, it doesn’t then mean that, looking back, our record at this time wasn’t actually reflective: it still was/is. The curve would indicate the growth/schedule/system improvement/etc. Good young team getting better wouldn’t mean young team was “(THIS) good all along.” It means it achieved varying results tantamount to what might be expected, given context, at varying points along the way. The heart of the cliche, and that’s what it is, is fundamentally positive, in essence. The idea that you have the ability to control your own destiny. You make you own record. If you control what you can, and manage it well, the record will come to reflect it. The results aren’t potentially being hidden from you based on bad luck. This doesn’t mean we ignore all context for WHY a record is what it is - ie a young team’s struggles meaning that our record could be seen as both deserved yet likely to improve there are lots of indicators others have mentioned that point to us soon improving a LOT

Also, is your contention @nfreemanthat, so far, his work at goalie overall should be judged in your option as “Incomplete”? Is that a correct reading on my part? If so, does that evaluation shift if Comrie comes back and continues to play poorly? Do you then judge the results at the position so far? And if so, does the grade change back to incomplete if he brings in a new guy this offseason? When is the “so far” sample size big enough to say that “SO FAR” he hasn’t adequately addressed goaltending, is I guess my question

The fact he did not establish as a starter as of now undoubtedly IS evidence, though. If you don’t think the fact he hasn’t established as a starter, yet, 9 years after being drafted, has any bearing at all as evidence on the likelihood of him becoming a starter going forward.... ie, that we’d be perceiving the same likelihood from, say, the perspective of a touted prospect, fresh off being drafted, BEFORE said prospect committed 9 years to record of documented inability to seize the position.. we just won’t be able to agree on this one. The fact *I* haven’t seized the starter position is also, an extreme example, of why the “lack of evidence” argument doesn’t hold up on its own. Lack of evidence certainly can be evidence in and of itself - of course it can. The absence of evidence is important if the burden of proof is on Comrie - and it is. He’s not a Starter-Until-Proven-Otherwise. He’s not a starter, until he proves otherwise. If not, you are just asking to prove a negative, “prove he won’t THIS time”. I can’t. He might. But the fact he hasn’t, yet, in the past - over a reasonably large sample of years where he could theoretically have been GRANTED more games had he EARNED them, does in fact work against the likelihood he does in future.

It’s interesting. Wyshynski on the show mentioned that the Devils were much the same last season in many ways but were undone by atrocious GT. It really does sound like we COULD be that team. They found a G though - imperative we do the same

Jeff Marek today mentioned Dahlin as one of the league’s best hitters, and skaters

Is scoring still going up league wide?

position grade forwards A defence B goalie D overall - B OR forwards incomplete defence incomplete goalie incomplete

You logic comparison is poor because, in the case you mentioned, you’d be extrapolating “ good starter” numbers of a very small sample size going forward, over an amount of games he has no history of ever coming close to completing. It can happen, but it’s much less logically sound than comparing a period of time where he failed to establish as a starter in combination with a further, large period of time where the exact same results were achieved again, the burden of proof is on Comrie. Coming in and playing very poorly doesn’t gain benefit of the doubt in light of a career of failing to establish as a starter, for one reason, or another. That can even be for opportunity reasons. My argument isn’t that he’s bad. My argument is that he hasn’t shown the ability to establish as a starter. Until he does, the odds are against it, it’s not fairly classified as an unknown.

I just disagree with you on Comrie. The burden of proof is on him. He’s a 27 year old who’s never established, for one reason or another, as a starter, on multiple teams. Until he proves he’s a starter, he’s NOT a starter. Based on putting up bottom 5 analytics in the league in his games this year, you want me to consider him an “unknown”? that would imo be ridiculous you are just conveniently removing the vast supply of evidence before this season because it doesn’t fit your argument haha

Im always careful to use words like: We talk a lot, deservedly, about what he has had success at. I see no reason to shy away from pointing out the few things at which he so far, has not. Why? By the same token by which you might say the quality of the goaltending could perhaps drastically change over time, by the same principle some of the facets working can go in the opposite direction. I’m not interested in doing that though - I believe in calling it how it looks so far, and in some ways the ranks are looking very good. I look at GT through the same lens. I don’t switch for one with a different tint based on a desired result. The same markers that lead me to torpedo his efforts at GT have me touting his praises for our centre depth. So turns the varying Philosophies of the Rebuild, I suppose.

More data is not needed to say that, thus far, he has failed to adequately address the position. He has not. The results speak for themselves. If we are seriously judging his work thus far at goalie as “incomplete”, there’s no arguing any of it, I’m sorry. Yes, everything he’s done great he’s done great and everything he hasn’t had success at fixing, despite trying, is simply incomplete: no negative inference can be drawn from the fact he hasn’t succeeded in that area, no, reason to think his failure there won’t flip to success in time just because. - - - * I do not need to nor am I trying to formulate an argument as to whether he can, or cannot, choose good goalies, as some sort of definitive rule* Whether or not he can, or not, isn’t relevant to me when my interest in this case is evaluating what *has* or *has not* been done: not merely on the plane of the hypothetical. The entire point of my post in the end was that I believe Adams COULD have likely done better considering how well he has done in other areas. Which is what I said.

This is good to see. It’ll be interesting to see how Rochester does without 2/3rds of that kid line they are forming for their next game (should Kulich get the invite). Clearly development-as-priority remains consistent throughout organization RN.

Adams’ admirable proficiency at righting the ship in so many areas thus far allows us the luxury of not needing to tap dance around admitting the simple fact of what the data is clearly pointing to: he’s bungled GT thus far.

Yes. There’s no rule that says we need only judge a gm based on attempted transactions that were consummated. A bad pass dropped by the D-lineman is still a bad pass and perhaps statistically relevant re: performance analysis Would either of Gibson or Murray represent a good talent / value analysis by Adams? (Actually asking*) He wanted those to happen, right? *ive heard Gibson has been poor at best and Murray doesn’t seem to have played a ton yet Comrie and UPL have so far come in below expectations If they are hanging their hat on knowing Anderson, too old, is a stop gap... I mean ok? Haha. Even then, maybe they thought he’d stay healthy last year. Who knows. If we allow for the possibility that the fact Ullmark was literally negotiating for months means he was actually realistically a signing option within the realm of reasonable possibility - there’s room there to suggest a mis-evaluation. Especially when viewed in context with the other moves or lack there-of at the position, no? I think it paints a pretty compelling argument for a documented lack of aptitude, at the specific act of reasonably addressing the goaltending position. OR He’s just waiting for Levi. Would that be better? Actually asking. The rub is that Kevyn’s lack of aptitude, thus far, at meaningfully addressing the goaltending position is made most glaring by the ringing success he’s had at other areas of the roster. That’s the rub - I don’t buy he can’t do between in net b/c I’ve seen him do better elsewhere.

Pretty much the difference between us and the Jets right now, ya

The assumption might allow for the dismissal of an altogether more frightening potential explanation: KA didn’t think the sub par stop gaps to Levi were... stop gaps at all.