Robviously

I saw it this morning but I can't remember which thread or who said it. It didn't sound right to me but it also didn't seem crazy to think we might all be overestimating Brennan's value to other teams right now. Losing Finley on waivers clarifies things.

Yeah, there goes that idea.

Horrible.

Well, it depends on the market, which we can only guess at. Supposedly it's a seller's market if you have defensemen to deal and I'm thinking many teams will want to add help ASAP since it's a short season.

Much of that was out of his control. He certainly would have been up most of last year if the Sabres hadn't added Regehr and Ehrhoff as past of Uncle Terry's spending spree. And there was a logjam even before that. In another organization, he would have been in the NHL much earlier. You get drafted at 18. Most players get signed at 20 and then head to the AHL. If Brennan had joined Buffalo last year, he'd have been 22 years old. He's 23 years old right now. It's also worth pointing out that our current captain, Mr. Jason Pominville, played over 200 AHL games before joining the Sabres full-time in 2005-2006 (at roughly Brennan's current age). Some of that was also out of his control due to the last NHL lockout. You can't say it hurt his development though.

Who said "throw away"? I said trade, as in "get something in return." We're building for the future. One more year of Jordan Leopold doesn't factor into that future. Yes, he is a "capable veteran." But so what? Our team of capable veterans hasn't won a playoff series since 2007. What we have isn't good enough that I'm not willing to break it up to try to do better.

I honestly don't remember anyone saying Gragnani was going to be "our next superstar." He was always a one-dimensional player, and he pretty much made that one dimension his meal ticket. Brennan was projected to be a well-rounded player with an offensive upside (although I never heard anything about him having the shot he has now). He definitely has some grit to his game. Look at the clip of Girgensons taking a cheap shot the other night (it's in the Prospects thread and the Amerks thread) and you'll see Brennan immediately attacks the guy who did it. Hard to imagine Gragnani doing that. Actually, hard to imagine a lot of the Buffalo Sabres doing that. Again, yes, he could be the next total dud as an NHL player, but I want to find out. Give him the 48 game season.

OK, that's actually an important distinction. I've criticized Regier in the past for (possibly) holding out for very lopsided trades (i.e. only trades where he "wins") rather than settling for trades that are more even where both teams win. I'd be thrilled with an "even" trade where we move one of our (many) defensemen for an asset we can use (probably a draft pick).

Caution is fine since pro sports is always littered with players who are stars in the minors (or college) but can't do anything at the highest level. That said, this is NOT the first year T.J. Brennan has been great in the AHL. He had 30 points in 52 games last year, and 39 points in 72 games the year before. He was pretty impressive in his first year in the AHL (2009-2010) when he had 23 points in 65 games. http://www.hockeydb.com/ihdb/stats/pdisplay.php?pid=96395 He was also the 31st overall pick the year we drafted him, meaning it shouldn't be a surprise if he becomes an NHL player, or even a very good one. And while I've only seen a handful of Amerks games this year (and a bunch more highlights), his shot looks legit to me. A defenseman who can just get the puck on net is valuable. A defenseman with a hard, accurate shot is even better. Rolling the dice with Brennan and seeing what he can do is worth way more to me than keeping Leopold, or even Regehr, for one last season. Our top three centers are Hodgson, Ennis, and Hecht -- meaning we are not contenders this year and this is a good time to test out some young guys.

If true, this is a huge opportunity for Buffalo to move a veteran defenseman to give Brennan a slot on the big club -- although I'm not sure Regier would do something that gutsy. We robbed Nashville at the trade deadline because it was a seller's market. It'd be nice if we could rob someone else right now in a seller's market (for defensemen).

####. I can't tell if that was a hit to the head or not. Hope he's OK. I was really hoping these next few months in Rochester would be big for him with Foligno, Hodgson, and Brennan all moving up.

One more note on this: nowhere in this discussion have actual "analytics" been used. Matthew Coller did not use "analytics" to call Tyler Ennis "lucky." He used shooting percentage. Shooting percentage is not analytics. Shooting percentage is shooting percentage. It's sort of a hockey equivalent of a batting average, only far less useful. This is what I was talking about a few posts ago. We've swung from one extreme to another. Fans used to barely care about statistics and now anything to do with numbers is praised as "analytics." This reminds me of how consulting firms present a ridiculous amount of numbers to their clients, even after it stops adding value, just because clients feel more numbers are always better.

I also listened to the whole thing live last Sunday and I just about lost it with Coller as well. "Lucky" was an incredibly incorrect word to use there and he never budged from it. He simply kept re-asserting that Ennis was "lucky." Worse, his only explanation for why Ennis was "lucky" was to cite one statistic over and over. Was Ennis' shooting percentage high? Yes. Abnormal? Yes. But so out of the ordinary that we have to basically write his performance off? Definitely not. Other skill players have had higher shooting percentages over longer stretches and other skill players have put up more points per game with lower shooting percentages. But for some reason, shooting percentage was so important to Matthew Coller that we're supposed to ignore everything else (including how Ennis looked when he was playing last season) and make our conclusion based solely on that. Bizarre.

His choice of words was just plain wrong. A shooting percentage near 20% is an anomaly but it certainly wasn't "luck." Was anyone watching him play last year and thinking "luck" when he scored those goals? Or is it really wiser to assign it to luck months later thanks to one statistic? Coller seems to be assuming that the only way Ennis could ever maintain a point per game pace is by maintaining that same shooting percentage. Obviously that's ridiculous, especially when Coller himself was pointing out that the best point per game players of all time did not need to have 18% shooting percentages to do it. If Ennis plays the way he did at the end of last season, he's going to rack up lots of points regardless of what his shooting percentage ends up being. Coller also didn't address that Ennis is 22 years old. He could, and should, be getting better. But this is what gets lost in the shuffle when you're basing your whole analysis on one statistic. And what about that one statistic? Well, Rob Ray's career shooting percentage was 11.1 and Alex Ovechkin's is 12.0. Obviously fairly comparable players there. Ennis' shooting percentage last year (in 48 games) was 18.3 which is ridiculous except that Thomas Vanek beat it in 2008-2009 with a 19% shooting percentage and nearly tied it in 2006-2007 with 18.1% (playing 73 and 82 games in those seasons, respectively). Danny Briere's shooting percentage was 17.0% in 2006-2006 when he scored 58 points in 48 games but then the next year it plummeted to 13.7% when he only scored 95 points in 81 games. OK, I guess the drop in shooting percentage didn't hurt him too bad there. But what if Tyler Ennis really bottoms out and his shooting percentage drops all the way to 12.8% next year? Well, that was Jason Pominville's shooting percentage last year when he scored 30 goals and 73 points. Is shooting percentage useful? Yes. Does it tell you everything you need to know about a player like Matthew Coller seemed to be implying? No. I don't think Ennis' shooting percentage will be 18.3% again next year and I also know that it doesn't need to be for him to rack up points for us.

Matthew Coller said Ennis was "lucky" during his run last year because his shooting percentage was too high. Did anyone watching Ennis at the end of last season think his goals were lucky? Like they were all soft or deflecting a few times before they bounced in? They looked pretty legit to me. I like the new statistical analysis methods as much as anyone but, unfortunately, it looks like it's occasionally going to lead to some people making conclusions that aren't there. Ennis wasn't "lucky" during that run. He just played awesome. And he doesn't need to keep his shooting percentage that high to be a no.1 center or even a point a game player in the NHL. He needs to stay healthy, get a lot of minutes, and shoot the puck.

Hecht is old. And Arnott is better than Hecht.

He's 22 years old and scored 10 goals in the NHL last year (in 52 games). Why wouldn't another team want to give him a shot and see if they can straighten him out? For that matter, why wouldn't the Sabres? What helps Buffalo more long-term -- one more year of an old, injured Jochen Hecht or one more attempt to get Luke Adam on track?

Never underestimate the Sabres' ability to keep guys around way too long, especially with Regier and Ruff at the helm. Why not give Luke Adam one more shot on the third line? Regardless of what the Sabres say, we're rebuilding with Ennis and Hodgson as our top two centers this year. We're not contenders this season. Do we have anything to lose by attempting to salvage Adam's career? Is that really a worse plan than completely giving up on him? (For that matter, why aren't we trying to trade him? He's young enough that another team would probably take a chance on him for a draft pick.)

Roku boxes as well. This is definitely my pick for as something to give the fans. They can get creative and offer a discount for Center Ice as well. Keep the price the same (wink wink) but then give subscribers a rebate check or gift certificate for the NHL store or whatever. They can't be dumb enough to leave the price the same for a shortened season, can they? CAN THEY???

Maybe Linus Ullmark in a year or two. But, yeah, the Sabres have done basically nothing to get goaltending depth and there doesn't seem to be a plan in place for a post-Ryan Miller roster.

Buffalo is a teeny tiny market and they know we'll all be watching no matter who we play. I'm fine with the Devils to start. Save the rivalry games for later.

Oooooh. I didn't get what you meant by "these parts." I thought you were talking about this board. You meant NC. Sorry, I forgot all the intricacies of this board (like where everyone lives) during the lockout.

So no more games the day after Christmas? Great move, fellas. That used to be a great day to go to a game. These guys don't even want to try to compete with the NBA and NFL for funs anymore, I guess.

Really?

The original poster was talking about chemistry so I take that as the pros and cons of having a Russian buddy to hang out with Grigorenko.