Claude_Verret Posted July 7, 2014 Report Posted July 7, 2014 I just think that karma will have a way of getting back at us if we try to game the system. ...or maybe I've watched the movie Major League a few too many times. ;) Given the ass reamings we've taken over the years from the hockey gods, I think GMTM is borrowing a line from Pedro Cerrano... "###### you Jobu, I do it myself!"
TrueBlueGED Posted July 7, 2014 Report Posted July 7, 2014 Right, I've complained about teams that abuse the system, I'm certainly not going to be a hypocrite and support the Sabres doing it. So you're not going to cheer when Reinhart scores? Got it ;) :P
JJFIVEOH Posted July 7, 2014 Report Posted July 7, 2014 I can certainly understand (despite my disagreement) not wanting to tank, and certainly get not wanting to rely on random top-5 pick to carry us to the promised. But to say you'd rather have multiple firsts than a generational talent? That's where you lose me. I just don't like the risk. What if he turns out to be a bust? What if he busts his leg early in the first year? What if he get a couple concussions early on in his career and never recovers? I just think there is way too much risk involved in tanking, blowing another year when it might not work out in the first place. I don't think there is a correlation between teams with a legitimate elite superstar, and teams that have several great players. With the draft the Sabres have had over the last 3 years I would be happy to compliment them with three great 1st rounders (two of those are bound to be quality players) than one potential superstar and all the media hype that goes with it. But, that's just my opinion. For what it's worth, I thoroughly enjoyed watching the Spurs demolish the Heat in the finals. So you're not going to cheer when Reinhart scores? Got it ;) :P Haha, I've got no problem with teams doing what the Sabres did the past year. I've got a problem purposely doing it again. B-) Given the ass reamings we've taken over the years from the hockey gods, I think GMTM is borrowing a line from Pedro Cerrano... "###### you Jobu, I do it myself!" "How about a series of fines for good play? Maybe a $30,000 bonus to the guy voted Least Valuable Player" :lol:
LabattBlue Posted July 7, 2014 Author Report Posted July 7, 2014 ...With the draft the Sabres have had over the last 3 years I would be happy to compliment them with three great 1st rounders (two of those are bound to be quality players) than one potential superstar and all the media hype that goes with it. But, that's just my opinion. I'd take my chances with #1 overall. Three "great" 1st rounders? How do you come to this conclusion?
Claude_Verret Posted July 7, 2014 Report Posted July 7, 2014 I just don't like the risk. What if he turns out to be a bust? What if he busts his leg early in the first year? What if he get a couple concussions early on in his career and never recovers? Every single player who plays in the NHL has those risks. Including the exponentially worse prospect the Sabres would select at 12 if we don't tank.
JJFIVEOH Posted July 7, 2014 Report Posted July 7, 2014 (edited) I'd take my chances with #1 overall. Three "great" 1st rounders? How do you come to this conclusion? 'Great', as in one step down from 'elite'. Very good? Well above average? Suppposedly it is a stacked draft class, the Sabres can get three __________ players in the first round to make them a great all-around team. Every single player who plays in the NHL has those risks. Including the exponentially worse prospect the Sabres would select at 12 if we don't tank. Of course they do. And I'm not going to cry if my Geo Metro gets T-boned as opposed to my Bentley. Actually, a first round pick isn't a Geo Metro......... but you get my point. Edited July 7, 2014 by JJFIVEOH
... Posted July 7, 2014 Report Posted July 7, 2014 Haha! What if Murray, upon winning the no. 1 for the 2015, decides to announce he's willing to trade up for a couple of picks in the 2-6 range?
LabattBlue Posted July 7, 2014 Author Report Posted July 7, 2014 'Great', as in one step down from 'elite'. Very good? Well above average? Suppposedly it is a stacked draft class, the Sabres can get three __________ players in the first round to make them a great all-around team. If their last 3 drafts are as good as you say, wouldn't the better compliment be the superstar? They will also have the Islanders and Blues picks either way to further complement the prospect pool.
Claude_Verret Posted July 7, 2014 Report Posted July 7, 2014 The first round talent dropoff isn't linear. As often as the Sabres have selected in first round purgatory over the years we should all be very familiar with this concept. The thing about the entry draft is that talent is not distributed in a linear fashion. That is to say that each prospect is not just a little worse than the guy before him. Instead, talent tends to decline exponentially from the 1st overall pick onwards, and draft picks in the 5-10 range tend to be closer in value to 3rd round picks than they are to guys taken just 2 or 3 picks ahead of them: http://canucksarmy.c...-s-sam-reinhart
JJFIVEOH Posted July 7, 2014 Report Posted July 7, 2014 Teams have been dominant throughout the years without having to tank. Teams have picked up superstars without having to tank. Teams have been successful without having a generational (how a team can even think about planning ahead based on a player that is still a child, I don't know) superstar. I don't have a losing attitude, I don't like losing, I don't like watching my teams purposely doing so. I follow sports for the entertainment, anything less than my favorite team doing what it takes to win is unacceptable. 'Tanking' and professional sports should NEVER be two terms that are even mentioned in the same book much less the same sentence. Looking over the list of #1 overall picks, the odds of one turning out to be a 'game-changer' is far from absolute.
LastPommerFan Posted July 7, 2014 Report Posted July 7, 2014 One solution to tanking, while maintaining the reverse order draft, would be relegation. Impossible to conceive of in the current league ownership setup, but EPL style relegation would completely eliminate any attempt at tanking.
Taro T Posted July 7, 2014 Report Posted July 7, 2014 Teams have been dominant throughout the years without having to tank. Teams have picked up superstars without having to tank. Teams have been successful without having a generational (how a team can even think about planning ahead based on a player that is still a child, I don't know) superstar. I don't have a losing attitude, I don't like losing, I don't like watching my teams purposely doing so. I follow sports for the entertainment, anything less than my favorite team doing what it takes to win is unacceptable. 'Tanking' and professional sports should NEVER be two terms that are even mentioned in the same book much less the same sentence. Looking over the list of #1 overall picks, the odds of one turning out to be a 'game-changer' is far from absolute. Looking over the full list of #1's won't tell you the story of this coming draft. Look over the list of 'generational' talents. Though they aren't all superstars, they pretty much all end up 1st line guys typically w/ some ASG participation. Ottomh, Lemieux, Turgeon, Lindros, Daigle, Thornton, Lecavalier, Kovalchuk, Stamkos, Ovechkin, Malkin, Crosby, MacKinnon were all supposed to be absolute no-brainers and except for Daigle they all were legit 1st liners (giving MacKinnon benefit of the doubt that he'll be there pretty quick). Jovo should probably be on the list as well. Yeah, you can find Sakic's at pick 15, but it's the exception not the rule. I'll take my chances w/ 1 of the 2 'generational' guys rather than picks 9, 12, & 27.
Guest Sloth Posted July 7, 2014 Report Posted July 7, 2014 I really like your posts in this thread. I don't like putting all my eggs into one basket. I'd almost rather have multiple 1st round picks in 2015 rather than the one 1st overall. I'd rather not have all the hype that goes along with McDavid either. Even if the Sabres land McDavid, they'll still have two other first round picks. Unless Murray makes some type of move, Buffalo is guaranteed three first round picks. So let the tank continue.
Taro T Posted July 7, 2014 Report Posted July 7, 2014 One solution to tanking, while maintaining the reverse order draft, would be relegation. Impossible to conceive of in the current league ownership setup, but EPL style relegation would completely eliminate any attempt at tanking. When dropping $100MM (last expansion was in that neighborhood) gets you an expansion franchise in a monopoly, relegation isn't even a word these guys know how to spell.
LastPommerFan Posted July 7, 2014 Report Posted July 7, 2014 When dropping $100MM (last expansion was in that neighborhood) gets you an expansion franchise in a monopoly, relegation isn't even a word these guys know how to spell. Yup.
JJFIVEOH Posted July 7, 2014 Report Posted July 7, 2014 Why are you guys spending so much time trying to convince me otherwise?
TrueBlueGED Posted July 7, 2014 Report Posted July 7, 2014 Why are you guys spending so much time trying to convince me otherwise? What else is there to do on a hockey forum in July? At least dev camp is next week.
Taro T Posted July 7, 2014 Report Posted July 7, 2014 Why are you guys spending so much time trying to convince me otherwise? :lol: Good question.
JJFIVEOH Posted July 7, 2014 Report Posted July 7, 2014 Even if the Sabres land McDavid, they'll still have two other first round picks. Unless Murray makes some type of move, Buffalo is guaranteed three first round picks. So let the tank continue. They do. And I don't think they should purposely lose to make one of those picks a #1. 1) I don't like the media circus (i.e. Sidney Crosby, Lebron James) 2) I'm a staunch supporter of well balanced teams instead of teams with a legitimate superstar. How is that working our for Ovechkin and Crosby? I'd rather be the Sabres right now than the Pens or Caps. What else is there to do on a hockey forum in July? At least dev camp is next week. Fair enough. By the way, I don't have a Geo or a Bentley. :rolleyes:
... Posted July 7, 2014 Report Posted July 7, 2014 (edited) 2) I'm a staunch supporter of well balanced teams instead of teams with a legitimate superstar. How is that working our for Ovechkin and Crosby? I'd rather be the Sabres right now than the Pens or Caps. While I tend to agree with your POV on this topic, I think the point you're making regarding the superstar depends, a lot, on the superstar themselves. For example, if the dude is a team player, and is humble, I think having that kind of superstar far outweighs the superstar status. This is where the player interviews are incredibly important, and we'll probably have a better handle by then on whether or not Murray's character judgment is solid (or not). If Murray is capable of getting the right kind of character in here, and if he takes a potential superstar, I would expect that person NOT to be an Ovechkin or Crosby type. Kane and Toews are examples of the "right" kind of superstar. On the flip side, what if Murray determines through interviews McDavid could be caustic in the locker room? IMHO, he should pass. Edited July 7, 2014 by sizzlemeister
JJFIVEOH Posted July 7, 2014 Report Posted July 7, 2014 While I tend to agree with your POV on this topic, I think the point you're making regarding the superstar depends, a lot, on the superstar themselves. For example, if the dude is a team player, and is humble, I think having that kind of superstar far outweighs the superstar status. This is where the player interviews are incredibly important, and we'll probably have a better handle by then on whether or not Murray's character judgment is solid (or not). If Murray is capable of getting the right kind of character in here, and if he takes a potential superstar, I would expect that person NOT to be an Ovechkin or Crosby type. Kane and Toews are examples of the "right" kind of superstar. On the flip side, what if Murray determines through interviews McDavid could be caustic in the locker room? IMHO, he should pass. Very true. Murray gives me the impression that he won't tolerate players with egos/attitudes. I've got nothing against drafting McDavid especially since they have two more picks in the 1st. I just don't want to waste another year in order to do it. I think Murray has made some great additions, I really would like to see Ott come back. Nolan is a great coach and gets the most out of his players. If this combination puts them in a position to draft first overall, so be it.
Taro T Posted July 7, 2014 Report Posted July 7, 2014 While I tend to agree with your POV on this topic, I think the point you're making regarding the superstar depends, a lot, on the superstar themselves. For example, if the dude is a team player, and is humble, I think having that kind of superstar far outweighs the superstar status. This is where the player interviews are incredibly important, and we'll probably have a better handle by then on whether or not Murray's character judgment is solid (or not). If Murray is capable of getting the right kind of character in here, and if he takes a potential superstar, I would expect that person NOT to be an Ovechkin or Crosby type. Kane and Toews are examples of the "right" kind of superstar. On the flip side, what if Murray determines through interviews McDavid could be caustic in the locker room? IMHO, he should pass. At that point, he trades into 2, gets a nice return on the 1 slot bump, and gets the guy he wants. Haven't seen any reports of McDavid having any issues off ice so I'm not sure why the focus is on that hypothetical when it should be on landing 1 & 2. :lol: (We are talking hypotheticals here after all. :P)
X. Benedict Posted July 7, 2014 Report Posted July 7, 2014 Very true. Murray gives me the impression that he won't tolerate players with egos/attitudes. I've got nothing against drafting McDavid especially since they have two more picks in the 1st. I just don't want to waste another year in order to do it. I think Murray has made some great additions, I really would like to see Ott come back. Nolan is a great coach and gets the most out of his players. If this combination puts them in a position to draft first overall, so be it. I want to see a team on the ice trying as hard as they can to win. Holding their heads up. Do I expect the Front office to go all in on a season that is most likely a lottery pick no matter what they do? - hell no.
LGR4GM Posted July 7, 2014 Report Posted July 7, 2014 (edited) We could come out of the 2015 draft with Eichel, Strome, and Pavel Zacha Edited July 7, 2014 by LGR4GM
shrader Posted July 7, 2014 Report Posted July 7, 2014 McDavid (our pick) AND Eichel (Isles' pick) That way all our eggs aren't in one basket. If the miracle happens and we wind up with #1 and #2, we should mess with everyone's head and take Eichel first. We might as well pad USA Hockey's stats a bit all while having some fun.
Recommended Posts