2013 NHL Entry Draft: Buffalo Sabres Select...

[X. Benedict]

I disagree with some of those rankings but I could see Fucale going at 6 to Calgary if they really like him. It is an interesting talent rank for sure. I noticed that Santini made the list and is a guy who has been getting a little bit more press of late. I need to mull these over for a bit.

 

 

Yes I think the Ristolainen ranking is a little :huh:

 

I really think Button has a bit of a CHL bias.

Europeans and USNDT players are under-ranked.

[TrueBlueGED]

Roger that.

 

So, no way in hell we're moving up, then, eh?

 

I mean, not unless, as someone had suggested in another thread, we were to trade both of our 1st rounders, and possibly something else?

 

IMO it's borderline impossible to move up. For one, I don't think any team drafting that high is interested in one of our big roster assets such as Vanek or MIller, for financial reasons, and team building reasons regarding age and organizational control (crappy teams are unlikely to be attracted to expensive, 30 year old pending UFAs at the expense of young, cheap, and sky is the limit talent they have control over for 7 years). Secondly, the package would have to be so great that a team was willing to do it. The odds say mid-late 1sts are going to be 3rd line players. I know we have the 8th pick, but the odds of a top-6 forward actually drop more between 3-8 than 8-16 (again, the non-linear nature of pick value). Is two 3rd liners and a good roster player as valuable as a franchise-caliber player? I think the answer is a clear no.

 

In order for a legitimate conversation to take place, I think you'd be looking at something like Hodgson (young, team-controlled asset for several more seasons with proven top-6 ability and first line potential), Ennis (cheap top-6 winger for a few more seasons), plus both 1sts and maybe another good prospect or 1st next year. And that might not even be enough, but I don't think you get a dial tone. It's a price I think just about every GM balks at. Franchise players are so much harder to get your hands on than run of the mill top-6 forwards or top-4 D that the price ends up being incredible.

 

Put another way, if moving up into the top-3 to get a probably all-star player only cost a couple of 2nd round picks, don't you think we would have seen these moves more than zero times since the last lockout?

[That Aud Smell]

IMO it's borderline impossible to move up.

 

Franchise players are so much harder to get your hands on than run of the mill top-6 forwards or top-4 D that the price ends up being incredible.

 

Put another way, if moving up into the top-3 to get a probably all-star player only cost a couple of 2nd round picks, don't you think we would have seen these moves more than zero times since the last lockout?

 

Makes sense.**

 

Which leads me to wonder why Darcy's been shouting from the rooftops that the Sabres want to move up. My inference: Possibly a PR move more than anything else.

 

**I am fully familiar with the posters who will present an all-star team of non-top-15 picks. That's not what's at issue here. This is all about the odds and where your chances of ringing the bell are the highest.

[chileanseabass]

Maybe the Oilers don't go "d" first now?

 

http://sports.yahoo.com/blogs/nhl-puck-daddy/anton-belov-khl-top-defenseman-big-future-edmonton-193311931.html

[dudacek]

What Blue and Aud said above is all correct and very relevant, but it misses one salient point:

It's really about what GMs think about the actual players, and the range of talent between the picks.

If Carolina is confident their guy will be there at eight, they will consider trading down.

If Tampa is convinced Drouin is a future Art Ross winner and he's third on their board, they won't trade with us for anything.

If Nashville's board has four to nine as virtually pick-'em, they will be eager to talk.

[LGR4GM]

Maybe the Oilers don't go "d" first now?

 

http://sports.yahoo....-193311931.html

He signed a 1yr 2-way deal with them. I would guess they are still eager to draft a defender. This however could open them to the idea of Drafting a certain Goaltender. If my research is correct they are thinnest at GT. All an all this is not a good signing for Buffalo because it shores up a crappy defense and allows Edmonton to take a forward, my guess being Elias Lindholm or Sean Monahan or Maybe even Nichushkin if he is there (it gives them 3 Russians then)

 

I should add this is the type of move i would want the "new" buffalo sabres to make but alas, Darcy's fax machine remains in critical condition and unable to receive.

[TrueBlueGED]

What Blue and Aud said above is all correct and very relevant, but it misses one salient point:

It's really about what GMs think about the actual players, and the range of talent between the picks.

If Carolina is confident their guy will be there at eight, they will consider trading down.

If Tampa is convinced Drouin is a future Art Ross winner and he's third on their board, they won't trade with us for anything.

If Nashville's board has four to nine as virtually pick-'em, they will be eager to talk.

 

Obviously we don't know for sure, but what do you think the likelihood of those scenarios are? Basically everything I've read points to a clear drop off in talent after Barkov/Nichushkin, which means outside the top-5. I know the tiering can vary by team, but I don't know if I can picture the variance being a full 3-4 slots.

[26CornerBlitz]

Interesting Interview:

‏@BuffaloSabres

WATCH: @NHL.com’s Mike Morreale discusses some of #Buffalo’s Entry Draft options --> http://ow.ly/lIa74

 

#Sabres #NHLDraft

[dudacek]

 

 

Obviously we don't know for sure, but what do you think the likelihood of those scenarios are? Basically everything I've read points to a clear drop off in talent after Barkov/Nichushkin, which means outside the top-5. I know the tiering can vary by team, but I don't know if I can picture the variance being a full 3-4 slots.

 

It's unlikely, but not impossible, any of Nashville, Carolina, Calgary, and Edmonton

A) wants, and really likes a defenceman (Nurse, or maybe Ristolainen or Zadorov) like, in their top four.

B) prefers a second tier forward (Horvat, Domi, Shinkaruk) to the consensus lower-ranked top-tier guys.

 

I also think it is wrong to think of the six above as maxing out as second-liners. Its probably a stretch to see Horvat as a first-liner, but the rest all have that kind of ceiling. They have more questions than the guys above them, but they aren't so far behind they can't catch them in a trade given a good enough sweetener in a trade.

 

Would you trade 10 and 12 for three?

In 2008 that was Hodgson and Myers for Bogosian. Eleven and 13 were Beach and Teubert.

In 2003 you'd have dumped Kotstysin and Jessiman for Horton, but 11 and 13 were Jeff Carter and Dustin Brown.

Ten spots in the top 15 is a crapshoot.

 

Every year someone goes higher than expected. All it takes is one team to be enamoured with one player.

 

All of which suggests the Sabres should just sit tight and let the draft come to them.

[X. Benedict]

It's unlikely, but not impossible, any of Nashville, Carolina, Calgary, and Edmonton

A) wants, and really likes a defenceman (Nurse, or maybe Ristolainen or Zadorov) like, in their top four.

B) prefers a second tier forward (Horvat, Domi, Shinkaruk) to the consensus lower-ranked top-tier guys.

 

I also think it is wrong to think of the six above as maxing out as second-liners. Its probably a stretch to see Horvat as a first-liner, but the rest all have that kind of ceiling. They have more questions than the guys above them, but they aren't so far behind they can't catch them in a trade given a good enough sweetener in a trade.

 

Would you trade 10 and 12 for three?

In 2008 that was Hodgson and Myers for Bogosian. Eleven and 13 were Beach and Teubert.

In 2003 you'd have dumped Kotstysin and Jessiman for Horton, but 11 and 13 were Jeff Carter and Dustin Brown.

Ten spots in the top 15 is a crapshoot.

 

Every year someone goes higher than expected. All it takes is one team to be enamoured with one player.

 

All of which suggests the Sabres should just sit tight and let the draft come to them.

 

Generally the lower the pick, the less risk. The #1 pick is almost always an NHL player. #11 might turn into an NHL player but the risk he won't is greater, #21 you might get a great player in a few years and you might get nothing.

 

Chances are they will get an NHL player at 8, less likely at 16, much less likely 38, at 52, well......now people are making the best guesses with limited information.

 

This is a solid first round. I think there are drops in talent after 5, between 7 - 9, between 19--21, and somewhere around 35.

Every year is a bit different, but this looks pretty deep.

[tom webster]

 

 

 

Seems to me that Darcy might be able to get into the top-3 this year if he were to move our 8 and 38 this year together with 1 of our 3 (I think it's 3) 2nd rounders in 2014.

 

I will give you my season tickets this year if Sarcy could get into the top 3 moving 8,16,38 and a 1st next year.

[TrueBlueGED]

It's unlikely, but not impossible, any of Nashville, Carolina, Calgary, and Edmonton

A) wants, and really likes a defenceman (Nurse, or maybe Ristolainen or Zadorov) like, in their top four.

B) prefers a second tier forward (Horvat, Domi, Shinkaruk) to the consensus lower-ranked top-tier guys.

 

I also think it is wrong to think of the six above as maxing out as second-liners. Its probably a stretch to see Horvat as a first-liner, but the rest all have that kind of ceiling. They have more questions than the guys above them, but they aren't so far behind they can't catch them in a trade given a good enough sweetener in a trade.

 

Would you trade 10 and 12 for three?

In 2008 that was Hodgson and Myers for Bogosian. Eleven and 13 were Beach and Teubert.

In 2003 you'd have dumped Kotstysin and Jessiman for Horton, but 11 and 13 were Jeff Carter and Dustin Brown.

Ten spots in the top 15 is a crapshoot.

 

Every year someone goes higher than expected. All it takes is one team to be enamoured with one player.

 

All of which suggests the Sabres should just sit tight and let the draft come to them.

 

Not sure why you're using 10 and 12 as the example picks other than to make stylized examples. Why not take a look at 8 and 16 and see how things end up? BTW I'd do either trade every time.

 

Year-3rd - 8th/16th

2012: Galchenyuk - Pouliot/Wilson

2011: Huberdeau - Couturier/Armia

2010: Gudbranson - Burmistrov/Tarasenko

2009: Duchene - Glennie/Leddy

2008: Bogosian - Boedker/Colborne

2007: Turris - Hamill/Gillies

2006: Toews - Mueller/Wishart

2005: J. Johnson - Setoguchi/Bourret

2004: Barker - Picard/Nokelainen

2003: Horton - Coburn/Bernier

2002: Bouwmeester - Bouchard/Kepis

2001: Svitov - Pascal Leclaire / Umberger

2000: Gaborik - Alexeev/Hossa (Marcel)

1999: Sedin - Pyatt/Tanabe

1998: Bard Stuart - Bell/Chouinard

1997: Olli Jokinen - Samsonov / Ty Jones

1996: Dumont - Aitken/Larocque

1995: Berg - Terry Ryan / Biron

1994: Bonk - Wiemer/Fichaud

1993: Gratton - Niklas Sundstrom / Stajduhar

 

I don't have the fortitude to keep going. It's of questionable validity to go back that far anyway, due to what Shrader pointed out about development.

 

So we have 20 total drafts (17 if we eliminate the most recent three since it's unreasonable to judge those yet). I'd say the 8/16 strategy was clearly superior in one (2001) and a push in four (2005, 2004, 2003, 1995). That means in 12/17, or 70.5%, you'd clearly be better off dealing both lower 1st rounders to get the #3. If I really wanted to massage the statistics, you're at least as well off 94% of the time moving up to #3.

 

In conclusion, trading up won't always be the right move, but it will be right more than it's wrong (and with a non-trivial probability). And in the world of uncertain projections, that's the best you can hope for, right?

[dudacek]

Nice work. But, again, what you've demonstrated is statistical probability.

What I was trying to do with the Brown/Carter/Kostitsyn/Jessiman example was show it really is about picking the right players.

 

(And you'd really rather have Bogosian than Myers and Hodgson?)

[TrueBlueGED]

Nice work. But, again, what you've demonstrated is statistical probability.

What I was trying to do with the Brown/Carter/Kostitsyn/Jessiman example was show it really is about picking the right players.

 

(And you'd really rather have Bogosian than Myers and Hodgson?)

 

Definitely not in hindsight. At the time I'd have done it, and I would have been wrong...but being wrong making that move is not the norm. And of course it's about picking the right players, but the right players at the time and the right players 5 years down the road aren't the same thing. It's so easy to look back and say X is better than Y, why was Y picked first? So many variables are involved and so much uncertainty (particularly the further into the draft you get) that I don't think "just pick the right players" is a viable approach at the time the decision needs to be made. I suppose you could look at the scouts who influenced those choices as geniuses, but they've probably made plenty of bad calls as well. It's not like NHL scouts knew how good Brown would be at the time, or he'd have gone higher.

[dudacek]

To take this a little further, let's add the Sabres sweetener of the moment, Thomas Vanek, to your exercise.

The tables turn dramatically.

1999, and 2006 are the only years where the team giving up three probably loses the deal.

In fact, forget about eight, in most cases Vanek and just the player picked at 16 is better than three.

And that is because Vanek is a better player than most who get drafted at three.

Contract status and franchise situation are obvious mitigating factors. Still Vanek is only 29.

And from a purely statistical position, if you think you can sign him, Vanek and 16 is better than three.

[TrueBlueGED]

To take this a little further, let's add the Sabres sweetener of the moment, Thomas Vanek, to your exercise.

The tables turn dramatically.

1999, and 2006 are the only years where the team giving up three probably loses the deal.

In fact, forget about eight, in most cases Vanek and just the player picked at 16 is better than three.

And that is because Vanek is a better player than most who get drafted at three.

Contract status and franchise situation are obvious mitigating factors. Still Vanek is only 29.

And from a purely statistical position, if you think you can sign him, Vanek and 16 is better than three.

 

Depends how long you think Vanek can produce at a level worthy of a "max" contract (I'm guess he gets close to $8MM per for 8 years) and how soon the team can compete. If those windows coincide, then I absolutely want to re-sign him. But if you don't think the team can compete until he's 33, there's no way I'm investing that kind of a contract in him. There's also a non-trivial chance that he's already peaked (average forward has peak offensive production by age 26, and most sooner than that, with a several year plateau, and then a decline) which should be considered. If Vanek is entering his decline stage, which I think is likely to be within the first year or two of his extension, I'd be much less enthusiastic about the extension particularly if the team won't be competitive by then. It really comes down to the plan and general timeline for competition.

[dudacek]

So a team with its key players in their prime, needing offence would be in a position to do this kind of deal.

I've suddenly convinced myself that Vanek and eight to Nashville for four might have some credibility.

Or what about Vanek, Grigorenko and 16 for four and a second?

[TrueBlueGED]

So a team with its key players in their prime, needing offence would be in a position to do this kind of deal.

I've suddenly convinced myself that Vanek and eight to Nashville for four might have some credibility.

Or what about Vanek, Grigorenko and 16 for four and a second?

 

I think it all depends on where Poile thinks the team is at. Does he think they have enough talent and vets to be competitive in the near-term where a deal for Vanek makes sense (and whether management will agree to give Vanek the kind of contract he'll require)? If I'm running the Preds, I look at the center position and the general lack of top-6 talent, and don't think I'm a Vanek away from being a legit contender. I know I have Weber and Rinne locked up long-term, Forsberg as a top-6 prospect who will be hitting his stride in a few years, and I'm planning on a couple year retool which I'd want Barkov to be a big part of to solidify the middle of the ice with a legit #1. Also, to what you said earlier about relative value and availability, if Poile judges that Barkov and Lindolm are really close talent-wise and Lindolm will be there at 8, then Vanek+8 makes a bunch of sense (again, assuming the contract thing can be worked out). Personally I think Barkov is a clear step above Lindolm and I'm not at all confident Lindolm lasts until 8. I wouldn't make the move, but I'm not Poile--he could easily see things as basically the opposite of my view.

[JJFIVEOH]

Depends how long you think Vanek can produce at a level worthy of a "max" contract (I'm guess he gets close to $8MM per for 8 years) and how soon the team can compete. If those windows coincide, then I absolutely want to re-sign him. But if you don't think the team can compete until he's 33, there's no way I'm investing that kind of a contract in him. There's also a non-trivial chance that he's already peaked (average forward has peak offensive production by age 26, and most sooner than that, with a several year plateau, and then a decline) which should be considered. If Vanek is entering his decline stage, which I think is likely to be within the first year or two of his extension, I'd be much less enthusiastic about the extension particularly if the team won't be competitive by then. It really comes down to the plan and general timeline for competition.

 

Then again, some players do perfectly well into their mid to late 30's. Not a lot, but some do. Either way, a question to ponder (I think Vanek is still a 40 goal scorer) is Vanek in decline in 3-4 years still better than most? I think by the time he's 35 he'll still be a top 5 scorer on the team, if not better.

[That Aud Smell]

 

 

I will give you my season tickets this year if Sarcy could get into the top 3 moving 8,16,38 and a 1st next year.

 

that's no way to treat a friend.

 

i posted that before i got better edumacated on nonlinear relative values of 1st round picks.

[tom webster]

 

 

that's no way to treat a friend.

 

i posted that before i got better edumacated on nonlinear relative values of 1st round picks.

 

You are right. I hope you know I meant " with all due respect."

[LGR4GM]

Here is my question to add to the "trade up" conversation. If we could take 8 and 16 and get to say 5 (Carolina), in which spot we draft Monahan/Lindholm/Nichuskin whichever one the Sabres believe to be the best, is that better at this moment in time than taking Nurse/Ristolainen at 8 and then say Wennberg at 16. If those were the outcomes (both very plausible) which would rather have?

 

#5 overall = Monahan/Lindholm/Nichushkin

OR

#8 + #16 = Ristolainen/Nurse + Alexander Wennberg

[sicknfla]

One thing that has to be considered as well is next year's draft. If we are truly in a rebuild then I am sure management is figuring on picking at best no later than 8 again next year. If this draft is deep then maybe you get as many as you can this year and attempt to get that franchise player next year.

 

I will be honest and tell you straight up I have no clue how next year's draft looks. I would think though that after we get all the pieces in place that we acquire for Vanek and Miller that we will have plenty of assets to move into top 5 next year - if we are not already there on our own.

 

So if I am GM I can't let myself fall in love to much with one particular player this year. I have to get as many solid players in here as possible.

 

Now if next year's draft is lacking top end talent then I may change my approach to this year's draft. Again, I think they have to look at this as a 2 year draft approach.

[LGR4GM]

Also I should add all it takes for Lindholm/Monahan/Nichuskin to fall to us at 8 is this plausible scenario

#5 Carolina - takes Nurse (D)

#6 Calgary - takes Fucale (G)

#7 Edmonton - takes Zadarov (D)

 

a completely plausible scenario considering what those teams lack and that Calgary will need a new franchise GT.

[chileanseabass]

Here is my question to add to the "trade up" conversation. If we could take 8 and 16 and get to say 5 (Carolina), in which spot we draft Monahan/Lindholm/Nichuskin whichever one the Sabres believe to be the best, is that better at this moment in time than taking Nurse/Ristolainen at 8 and then say Wennberg at 16. If those were the outcomes (both very plausible) which would rather have?

 

#5 overall = Monahan/Lindholm/Nichushkin

OR

#8 + #16 = Ristolainen/Nurse + Alexander Wennberg

 

I'd go with 8 & 16.