2013 NHL Entry Draft: Buffalo Sabres Select...

[TrueBlueGED]

http://www.buffalonews.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20130504/SPORTS/130509570/1004

 

More reason to want to trade up and even more reason to believe it's probably not going to happen.

[LGR4GM]

Fucale is not worth the 16th overall pick, exactly in the same way EJ Manuel wasn't. You are reaching if you take Fucale at 16. There is a long history of almost every team in the NHL having their starting GT be drafted outside the first round. There are only a handful of teams that have 1st round GT. Where as every single team has 1st round centers, wingers, defenders. Be wise, don't reach, we desperately need offensive talent and we have Hackett, Enroth, Makarov, Ullmark in the system, I am more than willing to pass on Fucale and bet we hit on one of those. As such I will say the Sabres will not draft a GT in the first round of the NHL Draft. Darcy Regier will not do it especially after trading and getting Hackett. He has a plan and burning a first on Fucale does not fit it. My guess would be look for them to draft either a defensman or a RW at 16. When I get back from vacation next week I will analyze the players around their the best I can but taking a GT in the 1st makes absolutely no sense for the Sabres.

[Trettioåtta]

Fucale is not worth the 16th overall pick, exactly in the same way EJ Manuel wasn't. You are reaching if you take Fucale at 16. There is a long history of almost every team in the NHL having their starting GT be drafted outside the first round. There are only a handful of teams that have 1st round GT. Where as every single team has 1st round centers, wingers, defenders. Be wise, don't reach, we desperately need offensive talent and we have Hackett, Enroth, Makarov, Ullmark in the system, I am more than willing to pass on Fucale and bet we hit on one of those. As such I will say the Sabres will not draft a GT in the first round of the NHL Draft. Darcy Regier will not do it especially after trading and getting Hackett. He has a plan and burning a first on Fucale does not fit it. My guess would be look for them to draft either a defensman or a RW at 16. When I get back from vacation next week I will analyze the players around their the best I can but taking a GT in the 1st makes absolutely no sense for the Sabres.

 

Goalies are tricky to develop and tricky to analyse talent-wise. However, I would say this - how many goalies who are drafted in the top 50 picks go on to make it to the NHL vs the rest. I think goalies are not drafted high because they are so random, but when you have a goalie who is a lock they go in the first 50 picks. Fucale is a lock. I'd be willing to bet that a goalie drafted in the first round is more likely to make it to the NHL than a skater picked between 6 and 30

 

So it basically comes down to risk. Drafting a known goalie costs a first/early second, but it pretty much guarantees they will work out. Whereas drafting a goalie later is anyone's guess

[LGR4GM]

Goalies are tricky to develop and tricky to analyse talent-wise. However, I would say this - how many goalies who are drafted in the top 50 picks go on to make it to the NHL vs the rest. I think goalies are not drafted high because they are so random, but when you have a goalie who is a lock they go in the first 50 picks. Fucale is a lock. I'd be willing to bet that a goalie drafted in the first round is more likely to make it to the NHL than a skater picked between 6 and 30

 

So it basically comes down to risk. Drafting a known goalie costs a first/early second, but it pretty much guarantees they will work out. Whereas drafting a goalie later is anyone's guess

okay so take one in the second.

 

Someone demonstrate we have enough offensive/defensive talent to draft a Goalie prospect in basically the 1st off of the deepest draft (supposedly) since 2003 and you may sway my mind. You will however not sway Regiers who is not taking a GT. If I turn out to be wrong I do, but it just doesn't seem to fit his mindset.

[Robviously]

Look at the good teams in the league they have plenty of scoring and solid goaltending. I wouldn't be overly concerned about drafting more goalies. This team lacks any serious scorers in the system so to me that's a priority.

The problem with stockpiling goaltending prospects is that they're probably the least liquid asset you can have in hockey. How many teams are looking for goaltending prospects when it's time to make a trade? Teams can always look to add a forward or defenseman since that's most of your roster and you play more than one at a time.

 

If the main thing you're trying to sell is goaltending prospects, you're not going to have as many teams interested (compared to if you were trying to sell forward prospects). Then there's the matter of goaltending prospects taking longer to develop. A 20 year old forward prospect can help your team a lot quicker than a 20 year old goalie, and that probably has value to other teams' GMs as well.

 

In general, I'd rather draft a couple goalies are year after the first round, and probably after the second round. At 18 years old it's tougher to tell who's going to develop anyway. Play the odds. Buy in bulk with your later picks (all of which are lottery tickets at any position) and find talent that way.

[Sabres Fan in NS]

The Sabres may not take Fucale at 16, or whatever the Wild pick turns out to be.

 

Many mockers, for all they know, which is propably as much as anyone on this board, have him going in the top 10.

 

I would be surprised if Fucale does not go in the first round. Goalies with a ceiling as high as his do not come along often. Some team will be very happy to have him and I still hope it's the Sabres.

 

The problem with stockpiling goaltending prospects is that they're probably the least liquid asset you can have in hockey. How many teams are looking for goaltending prospects when it's time to make a trade? Teams can always look to add a forward or defenseman since that's most of your roster and you play more than one at a time.

 

If the main thing you're trying to sell is goaltending prospects, you're not going to have as many teams interested (compared to if you were trying to sell forward prospects). Then there's the matter of goaltending prospects taking longer to develop. A 20 year old forward prospect can help your team a lot quicker than a 20 year old goalie, and that probably has value to other teams' GMs as well.

 

In general, I'd rather draft a couple goalies are year after the first round, and probably after the second round. At 18 years old it's tougher to tell who's going to develop anyway. Play the odds. Buy in bulk with your later picks (all of which are lottery tickets at any position) and find talent that way.

 

I agree with all that you said in this post.

 

As to the bolded and underlined. The Sabres did in making the deal to trade Pominville, just sayin'.

 

Maybe Darcy is hedging his bets that Miller will not be around much longer?

[LGR4GM]

The Sabres may not take Fucale at 16, or whatever the Wild pick turns out to be.

 

Many mockers, for all they know, which is propably as much as anyone on this board, have him going in the top 10.

 

I would be surprised if Fucale does not go in the first round. Goalies with a ceiling as high as his do not come along often. Some team will be very happy to have him and I still hope it's the Sabres.

 

 

 

I agree with all that you said in this post.

 

As to the bolded and underlined. The Sabres did in making the deal to trade Pominville, just sayin'.

 

Maybe Darcy is hedging his bets that Miller will not be around much longer?

If you think Fucale goes in the 1st than Philadelphia is a very likely candidate. Not the Sabres. I am not only arguing we shouldn't take, I am arguing Darcy will not. He doesn't fit the plan.

[Sabres Fan in NS]

If you think Fucale goes in the 1st than Philadelphia is a very likely candidate. Not the Sabres. I am not only arguing we shouldn't take, I am arguing Darcy will not. He doesn't fit the plan.

 

If the likely next Roy, or Brodeur, does not fit *the plan*, then *the plan* should be changed, IMO.

 

And, yes. I do think Fucale goes in the first round.

 

None of the Sabre goalie prospects even come close to Fucale, IMO.

[X. Benedict]

If the likely next Roy, or Brodeur, does not fit *the plan*, then *the plan* should be changed, IMO.

 

And, yes. I do think Fucale goes in the first round.

 

None of the Sabre goalie prospects even come close to Fucale, IMO.

 

He won't get past pick #33. But I think he goes higher.

[LGR4GM]

If the likely next Roy, or Brodeur, does not fit *the plan*, then *the plan* should be changed, IMO.

 

And, yes. I do think Fucale goes in the first round.

 

None of the Sabre goalie prospects even come close to Fucale, IMO.

Thats a long shot. A very long shot. And what if we pass up the next Crosby, or Lidstrom, or Stamkos or on and on and on. We built from the goal out and failed, so we changed the plan.

[TrueBlueGED]

Thats a long shot. A very long shot. And what if we pass up the next Crosby, or Lidstrom, or Stamkos or on and on and on. We built from the goal out and failed, so we changed the plan.

 

IMO the problem wasn't building from the goal out, it was the failure to properly solidify the center of the ice. If our best players were centers instead of wingers, I think the results would have been much better.

[X. Benedict]

IMO the problem wasn't building from the goal out, it was the failure to properly solidify the center of the ice. If our best players were centers instead of wingers, I think the results would have been much better.

 

Couldn't agree more. Just like in chess, If you control the middle, you control the game.

[IKnowPhysics]

http://www.buffalone.../130509570/1004

 

I also enjoyed that article. Seems like Vogl's the only one left that's trying to be a professional journalist over there.

 

As for moving (on) up, this was really telling and confirmed suspicions that I had:

 

In fact, the number of first-round players on champions and last-place finishers is similar nearly every season dating to 1999. It ultimately comes down to picking the right players.

Selecting at the top helps. During that 13-year stretch, which starts with the Sabres’ loss to Dallas in the finals, the importance of impact players is evident. Ten of the 13 winners boasted a player selected first or second overall. Two other champions had a No. 3 pick. The only exception was Colorado, which didn’t have anyone drafted higher than sixth when it won in 2001.

 

12 of 13 Cup winners have a top three pick. Incredible.

[Eleven]

I also enjoyed that article. Seems like Vogl's the only one left that's trying to be a professional journalist over there.

 

As for moving (on) up, this was really telling and confirmed suspicions that I had:

 

 

 

12 of 13 Cup winners have a top three pick. Incredible.

 

I agree with Vogl's opinion on this one, and, while I don't always agree with him, I do think he's a good hockey writer and not a print version of an Internet troll.

[Robviously]

http://www.buffalone.../130509570/1004

 

More reason to want to trade up and even more reason to believe it's probably not going to happen.

 

In fact, the number of first-round players on champions and last-place finishers is similar nearly every season dating to 1999. It ultimately comes down to picking the right players.

 

Selecting at the top helps. During that 13-year stretch, which starts with the Sabres’ loss to Dallas in the finals, the importance of impact players is evident. Ten of the 13 winners boasted a player selected first or second overall. Two other champions had a No. 3 pick. The only exception was Colorado, which didn’t have anyone drafted higher than sixth when it won in 2001.

Yeah, good thing there were people on this board arguing that this was simply not true most of this season. Way to go. :doh:

[tom webster]

[/size][/font][/color]

Yeah, good thing there were people on this board arguing that this was simply not true most of this season. Way to go. :doh:

 

Let's be accurate. Several of the winners mentioned above did not select the player and a couple of the players were strictly role players with their teams when they won the Cup, maybe important players, but not the star of the team.

[Robviously]

Let's be accurate. Several of the winners mentioned above did not select the player and a couple of the players were strictly role players with their teams when they won the Cup, maybe important players, but not the star of the team.

So? The point was that drafting at the top helps. Not that "drafting at the top helps because you get a player who will be the best on your team and guarantee that you win a Stanley Cup."

 

It helps. We don't have to pretend the jury is still out.

 

And the fact that the Sabres have just one top ten draft pick under Regier is part of the reason we're nowhere.

[deluca67]

Let's be accurate. Several of the winners mentioned above did not select the player and a couple of the players were strictly role players with their teams when they won the Cup, maybe important players, but not the star of the team.

This is an important point. When you look at 3rd and 4th liners on Championship teams, in many occasions those players were former stars or highly touted prospects that have settled into 3rd and 4th line roles. IMO, that is real depth when you have 3rd and 4th line players that could/should be getting time on the top six somewhere. I think it is more important to have players on the bottom six that are playing below their true station than having bottom six players with the 3rd/4th line being their ceiling.

[tom webster]

So? The point was that drafting at the top helps. Not that "drafting at the top helps because you get a player who will be the best on your team and guarantee that you win a Stanley Cup."

 

It helps. We don't have to pretend the jury is still out.

 

And the fact that the Sabres have just one top ten draft pick under Regier is part of the reason we're nowhere.

 

My point was that a few of those teams acquired these players without drafting them and in a couple of cases got them to play supporting roles. Its just another Darcy excuse. He had the opportunity to trade for Chicago's pick the year they drafted Kane and talked himself out of it. He acquired Dumont, then decided Kotalik was better. If he did his job better maybe they win the Cup and have two players drafted in the top 3 (Kane and Dumont) so they could have fit into the argument without bottoming out!

 

Is bottoming out a way to an end? Maybe. I'd prefer Boston's approach myself.

[Robviously]

My point was that a few of those teams acquired these players without drafting them and in a couple of cases got them to play supporting roles. Its just another Darcy excuse. He had the opportunity to trade for Chicago's pick the year they drafted Kane and talked himself out of it. He acquired Dumont, then decided Kotalik was better. If he did his job better maybe they win the Cup and have two players drafted in the top 3 (Kane and Dumont) so they could have fit into the argument without bottoming out!

 

Is bottoming out a way to an end? Maybe. I'd prefer Boston's approach myself.

It's not an excuse for Darcy. His mistakes since 2006 are well-documented. We took a step back heading into 2006-2007, and then fell completely apart after that. That didn't have to happen.

 

But there's no denying that bottoming out can be a springboard to success.

[tom webster]

It's not an excuse for Darcy. His mistakes since 2006 are well-documented. We took a step back heading into 2006-2007, and then fell completely apart after that. That didn't have to happen.

 

But there's no denying that bottoming out can be a springboard to success.

 

I have no problem with this statement as long as "can" is in there. I would argue there are better ways. I already pointed out Boston, how about hte job Murray has done with Ottawa and I think 6th was the highest they picked but with a coup piucking Karlsson 3 picks after Myers and a few huge hits later in draft.

[dudacek]

Boston hit on Lucic, Krecji and Bergeron in the second and rat-boy in the third.

Good scouting, and more than a bit of good luck.

Think Darcy will get a similar haul out of the Pominville, Regehr and Leopold trades?

[shrader]

Boston hit on Lucic, Krecji and Bergeron in the second and rat-boy in the third.

Good scouting, and more than a bit of good luck.

Think Darcy will get a similar haul out of the Pominville, Regehr and Leopold trades?

 

Looking at the rest of their drafts from around that time, I'm going to go ahead and label that Boston draft as luck. They have not drafted well over the years. That club was built from the outside.

[26CornerBlitz]

Looking at the rest of their drafts from around that time, I'm going to go ahead and label that Boston draft as luck. They have not drafted well over the years. That club was built from the outside.

 

Either way, kudos to Peter Chiarelli.

[TrueBlueGED]

I have no problem with this statement as long as "can" is in there. I would argue there are better ways. I already pointed out Boston, how about hte job Murray has done with Ottawa and I think 6th was the highest they picked but with a coup piucking Karlsson 3 picks after Myers and a few huge hits later in draft.

 

Are the chances of that happening again high enough you're willing to bank on the Sabres pulling it off? Getting a generational talent in the middle of round 1 isn't exactly probable.