Current Carrion Hockey League Standings

[Claude_Verret]

Well, as someone who appears to have been accused of being butthurt, I will point out that I don't feel entitled to McEichel. However, I do feel entitled to my opinion -- which I've been consistent on -- that the tank was the wrong approach. The odds were always heavily against getting the true prize. That left us needing to finish DFL in order to get the consolation prize -- in a year when it was obvious that there would be plenty of competition for the Shart.

 

And we should also remember that the price isn't just the past three terrible years of unwatchable hockey -- it also includes the next who-knows-how-many years of unwatchable hockey. That number might be zero, if we somehow get McD, or it might be five, if we drop to #3 and get a defenseman.

 

It was a bad plan from the get-go.

Again, only if you believe that the only path to success is via the grand slam, and that the three run double offers no benefit at all.

[Eleven]

Again, only if you believe that the only path to success is via the grand slam, and that the three run double offers no benefit at all.

 

I don't believe it's the only path to success, far from it.  But we can't pretend that this season, for the so-called "tankers," was about anything other than finishing last, either.

[bunomatic]

Not that I want to fight this battle again, but the plan was only bad if it was only about McEichel. I don't think it was. I think the hope was McEichel, but the plan was to get the elite talent that resides at the top of the draft--and regardless of what happens the rest of the way, we're still getting that.

This is where I'm at and what I've believed all along despite sometimes appearing near the ledge. Elite talent rather than pick 13 or 14. The rebuild continues regardless of the perceived tank and I couldn't be happier. Scuttling the old core was still the right thing to do.

[TrueBlueGED]

I don't believe it's the only path to success, far from it. But we can't pretend that this season, for the so-called "tankers," was about anything other than finishing last, either.

We also can't pretend the tank consists only of this season. This season may have been about finishing last, but the tank that has lasted nearly two and a half years was not only about finishing last this year. Yet people seemingly want to frame it that way so they can trumpet how much the plan sucked and how they were against it from the start. It's a disingenuous argument.

 

Getting Strome is no more a failure than getting to the Cup and losing. A disappointment? Sure. But it's not like a run to the Cup is somehow bad. And doing it two years in a row sure as hell isn't a bad run, and likely wouldn't result from a bad plan.

Edited April 2, 2015 by TrueBluePhD

[Claude_Verret]

I don't believe it's the only path to success, far from it. But we can't pretend that this season, for the so-called "tankers," was about anything other than finishing last, either.

I agree that many fans and media made it that way, but I don't for a minute believe that GMTM was ever of a McEichel or bust mindset.

[LastPommerFan]

I challenge the people who say that the tank was a bad plan to offer a scenario that puts this team anything other than finishing with 80-90 points for the past few seasons and having single middling first round picks rather than multiple first round picks including some that are in the top 10.

 

 

I don't believe it's the only path to success, far from it.  But we can't pretend that this season, for the so-called "tankers," was about anything other than finishing last, either.

 

In this case, the 1 failed season of tanking is just tacked onto the 40+ failed seasons of trying to win the cup.

[TrueBlueGED]

I agree that many fans and media made it that way, but I don't for a minute believe that GMTM was ever of a McEichel or bust mindset.

Precisely. Murray said yesterday on WGR it changes his plans this summer...I'm assuming he didn't just randomly come up with a contingency, but rather that he's been prepared for various different outcomes all along.

[Eleven]

I agree that many fans and media made it that way, but I don't for a minute believe that GMTM was ever of a McEichel or bust mindset.

 

I agree 100% on Murray.  His comments earlier in the year made that apparent.  I'm talking only about fans.

[inkman]

So the song cranking in the Sabres locker room last night was Drakes, "We Started From The Bottom" (now we're here). Brilliant you ###### idiots....you're still at the bottom. Do the players wanna ###### the fans that bad or are these players that stupid?

Whoever picked Drake as the music De jour should be waived. Wheelchair Jimmy is not good.

[Claude_Verret]

Here's an analysis from before last years draft of why tanking is a good plan in my view.  It also provides some further insight into Samson, one of our tank prizes already in the stable.

 

 

 

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.com/2014/6/10/who-should-vancouver-draft-spoilers-it-s-sam-reinhart

[Crusader1969]

I challenge the people who say that the tank was a bad plan to offer a scenario that puts this team anything other than finishing with 80-90 points for the past few seasons and having single middling first round picks rather than multiple first round picks including some that are in the top 10.

 

 

 

In this case, the 1 failed season of tanking is just tacked onto the 40+ failed seasons of trying to win the cup.

 

They can't and they won't. This was the only way to rid themselves of the rotten core. No matter if you call it a Tank or call it a Rebuild it was the only path for the Sabres to follow.

[LGR4GM]

Here's an analysis from before last years draft of why tanking is a good plan in my view.  It also provides some further insight into Samson, one of our tank prizes already in the stable.

 

 

http://canucksarmy.com/2014/6/10/who-should-vancouver-draft-spoilers-it-s-sam-reinhart

So what you are saying is... Sam Reinhart will be fine.

[Claude_Verret]

So what you are saying is... Sam Reinhart will be fine.

 

Indeed I am, and another snippet from the article..

 

 

 

Taylor Hall, John Tavares, Nathan MacKinnon, Tyler Seguin, Steven Stamkos - these are the guys who Sam Reinhart is keeping company with. Is he guaranteed to reach this level in the NHL? No, but mostly because there's no such thing as a guarantee when dealing with prospects. We can only speak in terms of probabilities and likely scenarios. And based on what we know, it's likely that Sam Reinhart is a worthy 1st overall pick and has as good a chance as anyone drafted in the past decade to become a legitimate NHL star.

[That Aud Smell]

[bob_sauve28]

Hanafin is the safe pick. 

Or maybe we can trade him to Colorado! :D

Ha ha ha!!!

[K-9]

Sucks that we get CHI on the second of back to backs after they play a huge game vs. Vancouver tonight. But I suspect there's a reason they are 46 points up on us to this point. 

 

GO SABRES!!!

[nfreeman]

Not that I want to fight this battle again, but the plan was only bad if it was only about McEichel. I don't think it was. I think the hope was McEichel, but the plan was to get the elite talent that resides at the top of the draft--and regardless of what happens the rest of the way, we're still getting that.

Again, only if you believe that the only path to success is via the grand slam, and that the three run double offers no benefit at all.

 

Not no benefit at all -- just a benefit insufficient to justify the lengthy period of horrible hockey we are enduring.

 

When a team gets this bad, it usually takes a transformative star to muscle them back to respectability.  I don't see Reinhart plus a defenseman this year getting the job done.

 

We also can't pretend the tank consists only of this season. This season may have been about finishing last, but the tank that has lasted nearly two and a half years was not only about finishing last this year. Yet people seemingly want to frame it that way so they can trumpet how much the plan sucked and how they were against it from the start. It's a disingenuous argument.

 

Getting Strome is no more a failure than getting to the Cup and losing. A disappointment? Sure. But it's not like a run to the Cup is somehow bad. And doing it two years in a row sure as hell isn't a bad run, and likely wouldn't result from a bad plan.

 

Huh?  Disingenuous how?  Have I not been complaining about 3 years of suckitude, with more to come?

 

And the second bolded part is insane.  Being bad enough to get #3 overall is much, much worse than being league runner-up.  Imagine the great hockey and the thrills that would be part of an SCF run, even if it were ultimately unsuccessful.

[Crusader1969]

Not no benefit at all -- just a benefit insufficient to justify the lengthy period of horrible hockey we are enduring.

 

 

 

are you talking the 45 years of mediocre hockey we`ve had to endure? Would love to hear your alternative course of action to get this team over the 90 points barrier.

[That Aud Smell]

And the second bolded part is insane.  Being bad enough to get #3 overall is much, much worse than being league runner-up.  Imagine the great hockey and the thrills that would be part of an SCF run, even if it were ultimately unsuccessful.

 

I took that bolded part to be more of an objective assessment of falling short of a goal, not an attempt to equate the experiential aspects of going through such disparate journeys.

 

Coller from WGR is my new favorite voice from local media. He had a couple of Twitter takes this morning that are exactly where I'm at. GM TM has done everything within the bounds of reason (e.g., beyond calling up an ECHL chump to play goal) to finish 30th. So, if Matt Ellis is going to score a goal the likes of which he hasn't scored since bantam hockey, then there's not much to be done. The team still needs to play the games, and if those AHL scrappers deliver more points than they should, then that's just the way the cookie crumbles.

[Derrico]

I took that bolded part to be more of an objective assessment of falling short of a goal, not an attempt to equate the experiential aspects of going through such disparate journeys.

 

Coller from WGR is my new favorite voice from local media. He had a couple of Twitter takes this morning that are exactly where I'm at. GM TM has done everything within the bounds of reason (e.g., beyond calling up an ECHL chump to play goal) to finish 30th. So, if Matt Ellis is going to score a goal the likes of which he hasn't scored since bantam hockey, then there's not much to be done. The team still needs to play the games, and if those AHL scrappers deliver more points than they should, then that's just the way the cookie crumbles.

Yep.  I'm as pissed as anyone but I'm not sure what else TM could have reasonably done.

[nfreeman]

I challenge the people who say that the tank was a bad plan to offer a scenario that puts this team anything other than finishing with 80-90 points for the past few seasons and having single middling first round picks rather than multiple first round picks including some that are in the top 10.

 

 

Well, the Rangers, Predators and Habs seem to be doing just fine, at #2, 3 and 4 overall, without having had to endure the nuclear winter that we are in the middle of.

 

For an alternative plan, how about:  good drafting, good, non-rushed development of young players, jumping in opportunistically when star players become available in trade, making the right hires at GM and coach, not giving losers like Roy and Stafford long-term contracts, staying in the playoff mix even in down years so losing-is-unacceptable becomes ingrained in the team culture and adding the right free agents at the right time?

 

I'm not going to get any more granular than that.  If you feel that what we're in the middle of was the only workable option after the Sabres lost to Philly in the playoffs in 2011, then we will have to agree to disagree.

are you talking the 45 years of mediocre hockey we`ve had to endure? Would love to hear your alternative course of action to get this team over the 90 points barrier.

 

If the Sabres don't get McEichel, how many years do you think it will take them to surpass 90 points?

[LastPommerFan]

Well, the Rangers, Predators and Habs seem to be doing just fine, at #2, 3 and 4 overall, without having had to endure the nuclear winter that we are in the middle of.

 

For an alternative plan, how about:  good drafting, good, non-rushed development of young players, jumping in opportunistically when star players become available in trade, making the right hires at GM and coach, not giving losers like Roy and Stafford long-term contracts, staying in the playoff mix even in down years so losing-is-unacceptable becomes ingrained in the team culture and adding the right free agents at the right time?

 

I'm not going to get any more granular than that.  If you feel that what we're in the middle of was the only workable option after the Sabres lost to Philly in the playoffs in 2011, then we will have to agree to disagree.

 

If the Sabres don't get McEichel, how many years do you think it will take them to surpass 90 points?

 

To the bolded: The entirety of the first bold was cast in stone by the time the team failed to show up in Game 7 against Philly.

 

I expect the Sabres to pass 90 points in 2016-2017 season regardless of who they draft this June. I'd even spot you a career ending injury to one of our last 5 first round draft picks.

[MattPie]

Well, the Rangers, Predators and Habs seem to be doing just fine, at #2, 3 and 4 overall, without having had to endure the nuclear winter that we are in the middle of.

 

For an alternative plan, how about:  good drafting, good, non-rushed development of young players, jumping in opportunistically when star players become available in trade, making the right hires at GM and coach, not giving losers like Roy and Stafford long-term contracts, staying in the playoff mix even in down years so losing-is-unacceptable becomes ingrained in the team culture and adding the right free agents at the right time?

 

I'm not going to get any more granular than that.  If you feel that what we're in the middle of was the only workable option after the Sabres lost to Philly in the playoffs in 2011, then we will have to agree to disagree.

 

If the Sabres don't get McEichel, how many years do you think it will take them to surpass 90 points?

 

The Habs picked Galenychuk at #3 in 2012. They had a good team in 2011 and 2013 but they stunk up the ice in 2012. Fun fact, Grigs was projected #3 in that draft (according to Wikipedia). Preds picked Seth Jones #4 in 2013 and had the 11 pick last year. The Rangers do seem to break the mold, but that team for the most part goes the way Lundvquist does (pick #205 in 2000, BTW). Let's not pretend those former two have been consistently good for a long time.

Edited April 2, 2015 by Met'yuPirog

[Claude_Verret]

Not no benefit at all -- just a benefit insufficient to justify the lengthy period of horrible hockey we are enduring.

 

When a team gets this bad, it usually takes a transformative star to muscle them back to respectability.  I don't see Reinhart plus a defenseman this year getting the job done.

 

I still think it does justify it, I just don't see other avenues that offered the same likelihood of success at getting elite talent that the number 2 and (at worst) number 3 overall picks in consecutive drafts give us.  This had to be done.  

[TrueBlueGED]

Huh? Disingenuous how? Have I not been complaining about 3 years of suckitude, with more to come?

 

And the second bolded part is insane. Being bad enough to get #3 overall is much, much worse than being league runner-up. Imagine the great hockey and the thrills that would be part of an SCF run, even if it were ultimately unsuccessful.

Unless I read your argument wrong, you were saying it was a bad plan from the start because of the uncertainty of finishing last this season. That's disingenuous because the plan (for the team, not a collection of crazy fans) wasn't about only finishing last this year--it was about amassing a large quantity of young talent, with several truly high end pieces. We're going to have a great collection of talent whether we draft 1, 2, or 3 this year. You're projecting your views onto the plan and judging it to be objectively "bad" when really you should be looking at it through the eyes of those who set it into motion. You can hate it without it being bad.

 

Now, having said that, if I've completely misread the organization and the plan really was solely to get McEichel, then I will agree that's a bad plan due to the risks and uncertainty involved. I just don't think that the organization is "McEichel or bust" the way many fans are.

 

As to the second part of what you said, others have already answered it. All I was saying is just because a plan doesn't achieve the maximum possible outcome does not mean it's a bad plan, and that's true regardless of what the objective is.

 

And now I feel like I've spent far too much time arguing about this when we're still the favorite to finish last.

The Habs picked Galenychuk at #3 in 2012. They had a good team in 2011 and 2013 but they stunk up the ice in 2012. Fun fact, Grigs was projected #3 in that draft (according to Wikipedia). Preds picked Seth Jones #4 in 2013 and had the 11 pick last year. The Rangers do seem to break the mold, but that team for the most part goes the way Lundvquist does (pick #205 in 2000, BTW). Let's not pretend those former two have been consistently good for a long time.

On the Rangers: When free agents like Brad Richards want to come to your city and Rick Nash is willing to waive his NMC to go there, it's easier to build a team without drafting high. It's not impossible without those things, but nobody should pretend Buffalo is on a level playing field when it comes to player recruitment.

Edited April 2, 2015 by TrueBluePhD