shrader Posted February 17, 2012 Report Posted February 17, 2012 I still go with the 10, even if he's not a center. That said, this is why I want the Sabres to stockpile draft picks at the deadline. After the very top of the draft, it's a total crapshoot. So if we could have, say, four 2nd round picks (note: we already have two this year), we could use all four on centers and hope we hit the jackpot on one or two. Lots of good/great players are drafted in the 2nd round. And they've been leaning this way with the last two drafts, moving more towards size and centers in the mid-rounds. They take time though and certain people expecting an immediate return from the draft really need to start looking elsewhere.
LGR4GM Posted February 17, 2012 Report Posted February 17, 2012 Of the top 30 scoring centers currently playing, 12 were drafted in the top 5 of the draft. That means over half of the most productive pivots in the league were drafted outside of the top 5. Just because the Sabres have been completely unable to find them, doesn't mean it's practically impossible. Edit: I should add that of those 12 which were drafted inside the top 5, I'd put good money you can go back and read pre-draft rankings and they were ranked where they got drafted based on talent, not the position they played. Talent trumps position. Yes under normal circumstances you must draft based on talent. Unfortunately the Sabres are in such bad shape up the middle that if they don't draft a center we will continue to repeat this convo. Actually I would draft a hardworking 8-9 or a super talented 10 at this point but thats irrelevant.
TrueBlueGED Posted February 17, 2012 Report Posted February 17, 2012 Also all drafted when they were the best player available.... Thank you.
shrader Posted February 17, 2012 Report Posted February 17, 2012 Also all drafted when they were the best player available.... Which tends to be what you get when picking in the top 3 like those guys were.
LGR4GM Posted February 17, 2012 Report Posted February 17, 2012 Well, you implied that *someone* isn't seeing the end game. Since it was you and me having the discussion you can see how it looks directed my way. Liger, even the highest rated prospects are crapshoots. You can't turn away from the "best available" because they are the ones with the highest probability of actually making it. The further down from best available you get, the higher the likelihood of your pick not making it. You have to collect the best talent you can and use them as assets to get what you need. Now, if you have a center and a winger that are projected to be nearly the same you go for need, but if the winger is projected to elite and the center is projected to be above average you take the projected elite talent every time. #1 he is a higher valued asset and #2 he has a higher probability of actually becoming a good NHL'er. But Darcy can not make these trades you speak of. If you had a another GM then I think i would be more apt to agree with you. Until that day, I can not.
apuszczalowski Posted February 17, 2012 Report Posted February 17, 2012 Name the last stud center the sabres have acquired in the last 5 years? through trade? We have reached critical mass when it comes to the complete and total lack of center depth within the organization. You have to draft a center this year or we will again be having this conversation. I didnt say you dont see the endgame. I am simply saying that drafting some more defense is not the way to achieve it. DARCY CANT TRADE. Thats a different sport with a position that literally dictates the entire games outcome... the closest thing in hockey would be the top center... Here is a great example from hockey... Pittsburg, Malkin, Crosby, Staal. All of them are centers and they won a cup. All drafted high in the first round. And they were all the best player available at the time that Pittsburgh drafted them. As for your first comment about the last stud Center the Sabres acquired, You can change that to who was the last stud PLAYER the Sabres acquired in the last 5 years? So Because Darcy is a horrible GM and can't trade, the Sabres should pass on a better quality player if available to select a Center, just because they are short at that position? Drafting for need very rarely ever works out. Teams win because they have talented players, wasn't all the talk around here this offseason about how a top center wasn't as important cause Boston won the cup without having superstar centers? having a competent GM thats willing and able to make trades helps more, cause prospects can be valuable assests besides just waiting on them to develop and play for your team. The league does allow them to be traded for other players, and teams looking to fully rebuild from the bottom seem to like making deals for prospects.
LGR4GM Posted February 17, 2012 Report Posted February 17, 2012 Which tends to be what you get when picking in the top 3 like those guys were. Which is getting back to the point if we draft 2nd and edmonton takes a defender first, you take gregorenko over yakupov. IMHO obviously this is a different view than most. I understand the counter point but the common theme brings us around to Regier who is a lethargic gm incapable of getting this team what it needs. With a different GM I agree you should always get best available or trade to maximize assets and needs but Darcy can't do it.
fan2456 Posted February 17, 2012 Report Posted February 17, 2012 . Liger, even the highest rated prospects are crapshoots. You can't turn away from the "best available" because they are the ones with the highest probability of actually making it. The further down from best available you get, the higher the likelihood of your pick not making it. You have to collect the best talent you can and use them as assets to get what you need. Now, if you have a center and a winger that are projected to be nearly the same you go for need, but if the winger is projected to elite and the center is projected to be above average you take the projected elite talent every time. #1 he is a higher valued asset and #2 he has a higher probability of actually becoming a good NHL'er. Couldn't of said it better. Hockey draft is the biggest crapshoot of all cuz they are so young. Football makes mistakes frequently and they 3-4 years older in general when drafted and have a bigger body of work to judge them on.
shrader Posted February 17, 2012 Report Posted February 17, 2012 Which is getting back to the point if we draft 2nd and edmonton takes a defender first, you take gregorenko over yakupov. IMHO obviously this is a different view than most. Minor nitpick, Columbus should be first (unless they get screwed out in the lottery). Anyway, that really doesn't fit the point you're trying to make here. Those two players are grading out nearly evenly on most boards. In most minds, you're not really taking a step down in quality if you choose one over the other. The scenario you've been describing sounds more like you're talking about a pick a bit later in the first round. Maybe it's just me, but that's how I'm reading it.
CallawaySabres Posted February 17, 2012 Report Posted February 17, 2012 Inconceivable! Anybody want a peanut?
Lanny Posted February 17, 2012 Report Posted February 17, 2012 Which is getting back to the point if we draft 2nd and edmonton takes a defender first, you take gregorenko over yakupov. IMHO obviously this is a different view than most. If you pick 2nd and grigorenko goes 1st, and the next highest ranked center is the 8th ranked player, you take the 8th ranked guy?
apuszczalowski Posted February 17, 2012 Report Posted February 17, 2012 Yes under normal circumstances you must draft based on talent. Unfortunately the Sabres are in such bad shape up the middle that if they don't draft a center we will continue to repeat this convo. Actually I would draft a hardworking 8-9 or a super talented 10 at this point but thats irrelevant. And the Sabres will continue to be in that same bad shape until they start bringing in more talent. if you continue to chase a position of need and pass on the more talented players, you will continue to see a lack of talent on the roster I do understand your point, you are saying that because Darcy is the GM you have to do this cause he seems unwilling to move prospects so the only way for them to get Centre prospects are to draft them.
LGR4GM Posted February 17, 2012 Report Posted February 17, 2012 If you pick 2nd and grigorenko goes 1st, and the next highest ranked center is the 8th ranked player, you take the 8th ranked guy? no you take yakupov. I understand what everyone is saying but if that is going to happen Darcy should trade up. And the Sabres will continue to be in that same bad shape until they start bringing in more talent. if you continue to chase a position of need and pass on the more talented players, you will continue to see a lack of talent on the roster I do understand your point, you are saying that because Darcy is the GM you have to do this cause he seems unwilling to move prospects so the only way for them to get Centre prospects are to draft them. correct and I completely understand what everyone else is saying but I don't believe our GM can get us what we need outside the draft In reality what should happen is the Sabres should trade the dead weight and then use our assets to trade to a position in the draft where we can get gregorenko. Sadly we will pass on centers again and the status quo will continue.
apuszczalowski Posted February 17, 2012 Report Posted February 17, 2012 Couldn't of said it better. Hockey draft is the biggest crapshoot of all cuz they are so young. Football makes mistakes frequently and they 3-4 years older in general when drafted and have a bigger body of work to judge them on. Football picks also have to make an impact quickly cause theres no developmental leagues for them. They can go to your practice squad to develop for a year or 2, but they can't spend time in the minors and get caled back and forth. They need to have an impact on your team sooner or else they are out. In Hockey, draft picks very rarely (outside of the top couple guys) have an impact on your team immediatly. Most spend seasons in the minors/juniors before getting a call up where tehy still can take time to develop and be sent up and down. no you take yakupov. I understand what everyone is saying but if that is going to happen Darcy should trade up. correct and I completely understand what everyone else is saying but I don't believe our GM can get us what we need outside the draft In reality what should happen is the Sabres should trade the dead weight and then use our assets to trade to a position in the draft where we can get gregorenko. Sadly we will pass on centers again and the status quo will continue. In reality, what should happen is that Darcy is shown the door and a competent GM is brought in to overhaul the roster as soon as the Sabres legal team has Darcys pinkslip printed up
Weave Posted February 17, 2012 Report Posted February 17, 2012 no you take yakupov. Then we agree. Good. :P
LGR4GM Posted February 17, 2012 Report Posted February 17, 2012 Football picks also have to make an impact quickly cause theres no developmental leagues for them. They can go to your practice squad to develop for a year or 2, but they can't spend time in the minors and get caled back and forth. They need to have an impact on your team sooner or else they are out. In Hockey, draft picks very rarely (outside of the top couple guys) have an impact on your team immediatly. Most spend seasons in the minors/juniors before getting a call up where tehy still can take time to develop and be sent up and down. In reality, what should happen is that Darcy is shown the door and a competent GM is brought in to overhaul the roster as soon as the Sabres legal team has Darcys pinkslip printed up I will do something monumental here. I will concede the point. The only condition is that Darcy is no longer gm. In that case I believe you must draft best available. Then we agree. Good. :P If darcy is gone yes we agree. :beer:
inkman Posted February 17, 2012 Report Posted February 17, 2012 Regardless of who they pick in the draft, the Sabres need to bring in 3 quality centers into the organ-eye-zation this offseason. Assuming Roy isn't here.
spndnchz Posted February 17, 2012 Report Posted February 17, 2012 My general draft approach: if there is clearly a guy who is the best available, you take him, regardless of position. If you already have 15 RWs in the system, you STILL take the best guy available because you can always trade the excess assets. However, if things are close and there's division as to who is the best, then you have to factor team needs into it. Yeah. But I get LGR's point also. Centers are hard to come by and even harder to draft a good one because they mostly take a while to develop. Part of the answer to me would be how much does the league as a whole value centermen? Is it worth it to take one just because of supply and demand? If you pick 2nd and grigorenko goes 1st, and the next highest ranked center is the 8th ranked player, you take the 8th ranked guy? If a center is what they want (#3 to#7 not want) and he's looking at going 8th, I trade my #2 pick for a number 8 pick and a fourth rounder.
TrueBlueGED Posted February 17, 2012 Report Posted February 17, 2012 Yeah. But I get LGR's point also. Centers are hard to come by and even harder to draft a good one because they mostly take a while to develop. Part of the answer to me would be how much does the league as a whole value centermen? Is it worth it to take one just because of supply and demand? Of course supply and demand matters, but to me that matters way more when two players are close in how they grade out. If a center is clearly a level below the winger on talent, you take the talent and draft the winger. If they're close, where the center is barely below the winger (say 4 scouts think the winger is better, 3 scouts for the center), then I would take the center based on positional value. Yes, centers are hard to draft and develop. But it's equally as hard to get truly elite talent on your team, regardless of position. At the draft I take an elite winger over a great center every time. Obviously every draft is different, but in general there's a clear dropoff in talent after the top 5 prospets, then a second tier at probably pick 6-10 or 6-15, and after that it's a complete crap shoot. In the crapshoot portion of the draft is where I would take a much larger consideration of supply and demand and (on-ice) positional value. But if you have a chance to get one of the very few elite talents in each draft, you have to do it, even if it doesn't fill an immediate need because there's only so many times you're going to be bad enough to get the elite talent.
Weave Posted February 17, 2012 Report Posted February 17, 2012 because there's only so many times you're going to be bad enough to get the elite talent. We hope. :blink:
apuszczalowski Posted February 17, 2012 Report Posted February 17, 2012 Your centres don't have to be elite, or superstars, but you have to make up for it somewhere else. When the Sabres had elite Goaltending from Hasek, they didn't need to have elite talent infront of him to win. Just like Chicago didn't need elite/great goaltending when they won the cup because they had great forwards who could score and make up for the wekness in net. If you can't get great centers, atleast try and get great players at other positions to make up for it.
Drunkard Posted February 17, 2012 Report Posted February 17, 2012 I agree that you need to draft for talent over position if there's an obvious discrepancy, but if it's anywhere close, you gotta go for need. I mostly just watch NHL hockey and aren't familiar enough with this years prospects to draw my own talent/value conclusions, but according to the mock draft linked on the first page of this thread there are 4 centers projected to go in the top 10 (Grigorenko at 3 to Carolina, Galchenyuk at 5 to Buffalo, Faksa at 6 to Montreal, and Girgensons at 9 to Phoenix). How would you guy rate these guys on talent compared to the other 6 guys in the top 10? How do you feel about Glachenyuk? Is Grigorenko that much better that we should think about trading up?
carpandean Posted February 17, 2012 Report Posted February 17, 2012 How do you feel about Glachenyuk? Is Grigorenko that much better that we should think about trading up? He would have been in the conversation with Nail and Grigorenko before this ... http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g7XWXdlzfrA He'll be good (some say that he's the most complete player of the three), but will likely need another year in juniors since he hasn't been playing.
shrader Posted February 17, 2012 Report Posted February 17, 2012 He would have been in the conversation with Nail and Grigorenko before this ... http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g7XWXdlzfrA He'll be good (some say that he's the most complete player of the three), but will likely need another year in juniors since he hasn't been playing. That lost year of development is huge. Healthwise I wouldn't have any questions, but now that he should need an extra year, it does make you wonder how early he should go.
TrueBlueGED Posted February 17, 2012 Report Posted February 17, 2012 That lost year of development is huge. Healthwise I wouldn't have any questions, but now that he should need an extra year, it does make you wonder how early he should go. If he's in the same conversation with Yakupov and Grigorenko, he should go top 5. I'd personally be willing to wait a year for him to fully rehab if he's more than trivially better than our other options available when we pick.
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.