GDT Islanders at Buffalo 2/8/18 7pm MSG, GR

[TrueBlueGED]

As with most things, there are multiple contributing factors. Nuclear bombing the roster reduced the margin for error, but if we could hit on a draft pick outside the top-10 more than zero times a decade, that'd help too. People who were abhorred by the tank will focus on the shedding of talent, people for the tank will focus on drafting and/or trades. But really, it's all part of where we are and really shouldn't be viewed as an either/or proposition.

[That Aud Smell]

I'll abide your wishes and end my contributions with the fact that I disagree with this, because I think our lack of depth still has a lot to do with the nuclear-bombing of our roster to do so. 

 

What's said below is in line with what I think of this contention.

 

The nuclear bombing AND the get good fast sale of draft picks/prospects by GMTM for players that didn't fit today's game.

 

I think this is as big a contributing factor as any. FGMTM was charting a course toward LA Kings 2.0 at a time when every other successful team had players that were cutting weight and getting faster.

 

I think it's more true to say that "the tank did what it was supposed to do; the rebuild failed" than it is to say "what we are seeing now is the inevitable result of a tank -- tanks are bad per se".

 

As with most things, there are multiple contributing factors. Nuclear bombing the roster reduced the margin for error, but if we could hit on a draft pick outside the top-10 more than zero times a decade, that'd help too. People who were abhorred by the tank will focus on the shedding of talent, people for the tank will focus on drafting and/or trades. But really, it's all part of where we are and really shouldn't be viewed as an either/or proposition.

 

Yep.

Edited February 9, 2018 by That Aud Smell

[dudacek]

Last night was our worst game of the homestand even though it was the only one we won.

Hockey is funny like that.

[sabills]

A follow-up: I count Darcy as having drafted Vanek, Miller, Campbell, and Pominville.

 

Wait - Campbell was Muckler, I believe.

 

Anyhoo - here's a rough list of notable Bruin draft picks during the same period of time (1998-2013 -- I am not sure if they were all all-stars at some point, also I realize the Bruins likely had different GMs during this time):

 

Nick Boynton

Bergeron

Krejci

Versteeg

Kessel

Lucic

Marchand

Seguin

Hamilton

 

Not a murderer's row, but there's enough there. Also, this list omits Thornton (1997) and Pastrnak (2014).

You're right, Pommers did go to an All-Star game; he didn't have the mark next to his name on the Wiki list I was looking at.

 

Campbell was 1997, and it looks like Darcy officially started about a week after the draft so I wasn't counting that one, but I was also 11 so I don't really remember how that all went down.

 

Also, that 1997 draft was pretty good.. Max,Tallinder, Campbell, and Noronen.

I don't think you tank for Jack Eichel. They tanked for McDavid. Terry brought the Otters to Buffalo for a game! Murray's disappointment at not getting him was palpable.

 

Jack is a very nice player who's probably in the middle of a second tier of the best players in the league, with the forecast of climbing those ranks as we head into the meat of his career.

 

Whether or not you think they should have tanked for Eichel (I'd do it all over again; this team was so devoid of actual talent for so long, well before Jack was even on my radar, that he is a shining star in a pit of darkness), he was certainly a MAJOR reason for them doing it. Obviously they wanted McDavid, but Murray fought hard for them to not change the rules for the top of a draft that year; they were going to implement the top three pick lotto rules that year and Murray made them push it off one more season. That was a reasonable request anyways, but Eichel is absolutely the reason he did it.

Edited February 9, 2018 by sabelvilhelm

[apuszczalowski]

You're right, Pommers did go to an All-Star game; he didn't have the mark next to his name on the Wiki list I was looking at.

 

Campbell was 1997, and it looks like Darcy officially started about a week after the draft so I wasn't counting that one, but I was also 11 so I don't really remember how that all went down.

 

Also, that 1997 draft was pretty good.. Max,Tallinder, Campbell, and Noronen.

 

 

Whether or not you think they should have tanked for Eichel (I'd do it all over again; this team was so devoid of actual talent for so long, well before Jack was even on my radar, that he is a shining star in a pit of darkness), he was certainly a MAJOR reason for them doing it. Obviously they wanted McDavid, but Murray fought hard for them to not change the rules for the top of a draft that year; they were going to implement the top three pick lotto rules that year and Murray made them push it off one more season. That was a reasonable request anyways, but Eichel is absolutely the reason he did it.

I think it had more to do with not wanting to drop as far as 4th in a year where they were almost guaranteed 1st or 2nd. I think Eichel will end up in the Tavares level of players, which is the rung below McDavid & Crosby. A #1 overall pick in most drafts but not a generational talent that you should gut your roster and throw games in order to obtain.

[Stoner]

Dumping on Darcy: he may have drafted two All Stars. He could easily have matching Cups to go alongside them. Alas, they were... wait for it... Cusps.

[SwampD]

Last night was our worst game of the homestand even though it was the only one we won.

Hockey is funny like that.

That's a great take.

 

I liked the ERR line. It will be interesting to see if they can score against teams that aren't the worst in the league at keeping the puck out of their own net.

[Weave]

I think it had more to do with not wanting to drop as far as 4th in a year where they were almost guaranteed 1st or 2nd. I think Eichel will end up in the Tavares level of players, which is the rung below McDavid & Crosby. A #1 overall pick in most drafts but not a generational talent that you should gut your roster and throw games in order to obtain.

Yup.

[Wyldnwoody44]

Just saw highlights of that game,

 

I like that we're scoring goals from in front, a LA Erod and Sam, and to a lesser extent the ROR tip.

 

Is lehner slow? How many goals have gone in because of his inability to hug a post, the other ones I guess you can blame TOO much.

 

I saw some toughness in the clips as well, it's very welcomed.

[Drunkard]

I took a look at Darcy's drafts the other day. I realise this is an incredibly flawed metric, but in his 14 years in Buffalo Darcy drafted 2 All-Stars. 2.

 

Only 2? That's surprising. Especially when you consider that one of the two was Zemgus Girgensons who only got in because half the population of Latvia was flooding the ballot box.

[Randall Flagg]

What's said below is in line with what I think of this contention.

 

 

I think this is as big a contributing factor as any. FGMTM was charting a course toward LA Kings 2.0 at a time when every other successful team had players that were cutting weight and getting faster.

 

I think it's more true to say that "the tank did what it was supposed to do; the rebuild failed" than it is to say "what we are seeing now is the inevitable result of a tank -- tanks are bad per se".

 

 

Yep.

And we had no idea at the time. We were positively DROOLING going into the 15-16 season, and super pumped about Okposo. It wasn't clear, because when you rebuild from nothing, there is an incredibly high likelihood that the things you do to get really good again don't work out, and you have literally no base to fall back on and try again the way a Rangers team does when Richards doesn't work out, or the Blues do when signing a Stastny doesn't work. It is a point often brought up by We've/nfreeman/NS at the time which I never thought about, but that is what they meant when they said that rebuilds usually didn't work. "Those examples are just stupid GMs, look at those stupid moves." At the time, everyone and their mother was happy with them. 

 

But unless you do the incredibly improbable, and knock every single move out of the park in the right direction which no one knows where it actually is yet, you have nothing to fall back on except your Larssons an Girgensons, even if you drafted more Guhles than Karabaceks. 

Edited February 9, 2018 by Randall Flagg

[That Aud Smell]

And we had no idea at the time. We were positively DROOLING going into the 15-16 season, and super pumped about Okposo. It wasn't clear, because when you rebuild from nothing, there is an incredibly high likelihood that the things you do to get really good again don't work out, and you have literally no base to fall back on and try again the way a Rangers team does when Richards doesn't work out, or the Blues do when signing a Stastny doesn't work. It is a point often brought up by We've/nfreeman/NS at the time which I never thought about, but that is what they meant when they said that rebuilds usually didn't work. "Those examples are just stupid GMs, look at those stupid moves." At the time, everyone and their mother was happy with them. 

 

But unless you do the incredibly improbable, and knock every single move out of the park in the right direction which no one knows where it actually is yet, you have nothing to fall back on except your Larssons an Girgensons, even if you drafted more Guhles than Karabaceks. 

 

I dunno. Super pumped? Speaking only for myself, I was hopeful and optimistic, but skeptical and guarded as well until I saw good outcomes.

 

Incredibly high likelihood that rebuilds don't work? There again, I just don't know if that's true. I'd love to see a deep dive of data on the subject (and, of course, can't create one myself), but I'm not sure what sort of sample size we'd be dealing with.

 

It had occurred to me that, like a lot of situations and scenarios in the world, people tend to cherry pick information to support how they instinctively feel about something. For those who were/are averse to the idea of a manager engineering non-competitive conduct on a pro sports team, there's plenty of examples out there about how those kinds of bottoming out efforts don't work. And for those who support the idea of grabbing as much indisputably elite talent as you can before building your battle-bot (and will abide tanking to do that), there are examples out there of how it can work.

 

I'm just not sold (yet) on the theory that, say, 4 out of 5 (or 9 out of 10) tear-downs fail.

Edited February 9, 2018 by That Aud Smell

[woods-racer]

I don't think you tank for Jack Eichel. They tanked for McDavid. Terry brought the Otters to Buffalo for a game! Murray's disappointment at not getting him was palpable.

 

Jack is a very nice player who's probably in the middle of a second tier of the best players in the league, with the forecast of climbing those ranks as we head into the meat of his career.

 

I was texting with an Islander friend of mine who at first thought Lehner was playing so well he might be an option for them. By the end of the evening, not so much. Lehner is the human goalie ink blot test. Last night was classic Lehner. I will repeat: he simply cannot be between the pipes when the games get important.

 

Nice to have a more unbiased opinion on Lehner. I feel the same as you. 

[sabills]

Only 2? That's surprising. Especially when you consider that one of the two was Zemgus Girgensons who only got in because half the population of Latvia was flooding the ballot box.

I forgot Gus got in, he wasn't on that list either, and they missed pommers as well. Maybe that list is just borked up.

[Drunkard]

I forgot Gus got in, he wasn't on that list either, and they missed pommers as well. Maybe that list is just borked up.

 

Oh ok. So, was it actually 4? I guess that's twice as good as horrible. Maybe Darcy gets moved up to just really bad now.

[sabills]

Dumping on Darcy: he may have drafted two All Stars. He could easily have matching Cups to go alongside them. Alas, they were... wait for it... Cusps.

 

Well that first one, '99, that was Hasek. I mean, there were other players too, but that run was Hasek. The second one I'll give him credit for, assuming we're talking one of the '05/'06 or '06/'07 seasons. 

 

Darcy had some real rough drafts though. '05,'06,'07 especially was a tough run. This teams drafting and ability to nurture talent is my number one reason for why we are where we are right now. There's just not that much in the pipeline, and hasn't been for a while.

Oh ok. So, was it actually 4? I guess that's twice as good as horrible. Maybe Darcy gets moved up to just really bad now.

 

Yeah, and maybe more, I didn't go through and check each guy. The Wiki article I looked at had a symbol for "Made the All-star team" and it only had Vanek and Miller checked.

[That Aud Smell]

Well that first one, '99, that was Hasek. I mean, there were other players too, but that run was Hasek. The second one I'll give him credit for, assuming we're talking one of the '05/'06 or '06/'07 seasons. 

 

Darcy had some real rough drafts though. '05,'06,'07 especially was a tough run. This teams drafting and ability to nurture talent is my number one reason for why we are where we are right now. There's just not that much in the pipeline, and hasn't been for a while.

 

Hasek, and Muckler? I think so. Mostly Dom, though. Yeah.

 

Good call on that terrible run -- of course, that was mostly when the team was finishing at the top of the league. Easier to miss there.

[Sabres Fan in NS]

Dumping on Darcy: he may have drafted two All Stars. He could easily have matching Cups to go alongside them. Alas, they were... wait for it... Cusps.

 

Post of the year, so far.

 

:w00t:

[Thorner]

For the ire that PA's comment drew, his point is correct

Jack's 17th in league scoring is not worth being historically bad 4 years ago so that we could still be historically bad today

People practically guaranteed a deep playoff run by 2019 and we've had 5 seasons ranging from historically bad to bad

Well, not really. Because he said Barzal was “at Jack’s level”. He’s not. If he would have said “producing similar numbers” this season, then sure.

 

You can certainly argue the tank wasn’t worth it, but the Barzal example holds no weight to me. Is there a single GM who takes Barzal over Eichel? No.

 

And attempting finality on the “was Jack worth it?” point is folly at this stage of the game. He’s 17th at age 21, on a crap team. What happens when he’s top 5 in a couple seasons? Or winning playoff rounds?

 

We’ll have to wait and see.

 

As with most things, there are multiple contributing factors. Nuclear bombing the roster reduced the margin for error, but if we could hit on a draft pick outside the top-10 more than zero times a decade, that'd help too. People who were abhorred by the tank will focus on the shedding of talent, people for the tank will focus on drafting and/or trades. But really, it's all part of where we are and really shouldn't be viewed as an either/or proposition.

So much this.

 

I’m tired of all the endless twitter debates about what the Cause of the team’s failings is. As if it can be diluted down into a single all-encompassing reason. This is hardly a scientific experiment with isolated variables and control groups.

 

We suck. It’s cause we don’t have many good players. There’s a myriad of reasons why that happened.

[Randall Flagg]

Well, not really. Because he said Barzal was “at Jack’s level”. He’s not. If he would have said “producing similar numbers” this season, then sure.

 

You can certainly argue the tank wasn’t worth it, but the Barzal example holds no weight to me. Is there a single GM who takes Barzal over Eichel? No.

 

And attempting finality on the “was Jack worth it?” point is folly at this stage of the game. He’s 17th at age 21, on a crap team. What happens when he’s top 5 in a couple seasons? Or winning playoff rounds?

 

We’ll have to wait and see.

 

 

So much this.

 

I’m tired of all the endless twitter debates about what the Cause of the team’s failings is. As if it can be diluted down into a single all-encompassing reason. This is hardly a scientific experiment with isolated variables and control groups.

 

We suck. It’s cause we don’t have many good players. There’s a myriad of reasons why that happened.

But PA's point was that they got equivalent production this season without doing what we did to get it, which is valid, like I said, his point wasn't that Eichel = Barzal. That is what I said was correct, because it literally is, practically down to a single integer. 

Edited February 9, 2018 by Randall Flagg

[Thorner]

But PA's point was that they got equivalent production this season without doing what we did to get it, which is valid, like I said, his point wasn't that Eichel = Barzal. That is what I said was correct, because it literally is, practically down to a single integer.

 

Well ya, I guess. But the point rather loses its meaning if Barzal isn’t close to the player Eichel is.

 

If it boils down to: a team can draft a player with equal production for a season to a guy drafted higher...we are getting into captain obvious territory.

[Stoner]

Well that first one, '99, that was Hasek. I mean, there were other players too, but that run was Hasek. The second one I'll give him credit for, assuming we're talking one of the '05/'06 or '06/'07 seasons. 

 

Darcy had some real rough drafts though. '05,'06,'07 especially was a tough run. This teams drafting and ability to nurture talent is my number one reason for why we are where we are right now. There's just not that much in the pipeline, and hasn't been for a while.

 

Yeah, and maybe more, I didn't go through and check each guy. The Wiki article I looked at had a symbol for "Made the All-star team" and it only had Vanek and Miller checked.

99 as "all Hasek" is a bit of an oversimplification. I know it rubs Rob Ray the wrong way. Darcy made some terrific trades to get that team close. Up until the final, that team scored three goals a game for Dom. Darcy got the rug pulled out from under him by ownership -- twice. If the Rigases had been willing (more likely able) to deliver those tools to finish the job after 99, including resigning Peca when the Sabres were very good again in 2001, we might have that Cup banner up there. Instead of a... no, I won't say it twice in one day.

[Thorner]

99 as "all Hasek" is a bit of an oversimplification. I know it rubs Rob Ray the wrong way. Darcy made some terrific trades to get that team close. Up until the final, that team scored three goals a game for Dom. Darcy got the rug pulled out from under him by ownership -- twice. If the Rigases had been willing (more likely able) to deliver those tools to finish the job after 99, including resigning Peca when the Sabres were very good again in 2001, we might have that Cup banner up there. Instead of a... no, I won't say it twice in one day.

Yup.

 

I remember even as a kid getting fed up with all the media spin about it being “all Hasek”. The team scored goals in ways not dissimilar to the Golden Knights.

[dudacek]

I’d be very interested in seeing the advanced stats on that team.

I’m betting not very good, but I’d love to see you guys proven right.

[That Aud Smell]

Oooh - a fancy stats analysis of the 1999-2001 era teams.

 

I would love to see it.