Are We Now Buyers At the Trade Deadline?

[Weave]

2 minutes ago, GASabresIUFAN said:

The 2nd rd is closer to 30 to 35% of a guy playing 100 games, but 85% of 2nd rd picks are 4th liners or worse even if they get to 100 games.  Those are long odds.  Our record is below average.

according to the site I linked over the last 13 seasons the hit rate barely over 25%.

[Weave]

4 minutes ago, GASabresIUFAN said:

The 2nd rd is closer to 30 to 35% of a guy playing 100 games, but 85% of 2nd rd picks are 4th liners or worse even if they get to 100 games.  Those are long odds.  Our record is below average.

Scott Cullen, formerly of TSN and now the Athletic has done excellent research on this subject.

https://www.tsn.ca/statistically-speaking-nhl-draft-pick-values-1.1119528

Our 3rd rd effort is even worse.

 

There is a ton of data that backs the point up.  2nd round plus picks are bargains to use for trade bait.

[GASabresIUFAN]

1 minute ago, Weave said:

according to the site I linked over the last 13 seasons the hit rate barely over 25%.

I use Cullen's 100 game standard.  The research you sited uses 2 full seasons (164 games) as their standard and the research was from 2014.  That may account for the difference.

[Weave]

Just now, GASabresIUFAN said:

I use Cullen's 100 game standard.  The research you sited uses 2 full seasons (164 games) as their standard and the research was from 2014.  That may account for the difference.

Yeah, I caught that.  I think we're both hitting the same point pretty thoroughly.

[LGR4GM]

Which is exactly why you keep those 1st round picks. They are worth taking a player. 

[GASabresIUFAN]

3 minutes ago, LGR4GM said:

Which is exactly why you keep those 1st round picks. They are worth taking a player. 

and exactly why I dislike TM.

[Hoss]

23 minutes ago, MakeSabresGrr8Again said:

2nd rd and later picks (or any pick) can have value and an impact on you club, they don't have to be an NHL top 6 to do it. What about the ones that are career AHL that are call ups for injuries? they're still valuable picks regardless.

But the value of those guys is the equivalent of a plastic fork. Useful. Disposable. You’d rather have a more long-term fork solution. Environmentally irresponsible. Errr forget that last part.

You can find useless, useful, good and great players outside of the top ten. But the percentages are incredibly low that you find anything above useful. I want more first round picks generally but I will absolutely flip late firsts when I can add to a possible playoff team.

And I don’t believe in any thinking that tells me you need to be patient because you’re young and will contend for a while. Everything changes in sports way too fast to consider five/six/seven years from now. Eichel could get hurt. Dahlin could get hurt. The guys who are developing could hit a wall. You never know.

I think it’s great to make the playoffs and would be happy with the season if they made it and were eliminated early. But the Cup is always the goal when you’re in contention so adding at the deadline inches you closer to that reality sooner.

[Weave]

3 minutes ago, LGR4GM said:

Which is exactly why you keep those 1st round picks. They are worth taking a player. 

If you use Cullen's 100 game standard you are still looking at draft picks between 15 and 30 having a 61% chance at 100 games with an average expected role of a bottom 6 forward / 3rd pairing defenceman.

You can make a very valid argument for trading those at the deadline.

[MakeSabresGrr8Again]

4 hours ago, Weave said:

I just went back and looked at Darcy's deadline trade history.  There is a handful of 2nd and 3rd round picks that he's moved to upgrade the team for the playoffs.  Of those picks, only Clayton Stoner ever became anything.  Darcy's history was not doing enough at the deadline, not giving away the farm.

We didn't make those picks so we don't know what could have become of them. Saying Stoner was the only one who became anything means nothing.

Between Darcy and TM they ruined our pipeline and "not doing enough" can only mean giving away higher picks and/ or players which some don't believe we should do right now. If your opinion differs then so be it and we'll agree to disagree.

But like i said in another post, there are just to many variables to decide the deadline moves and just have to trust everyone will make the proper decisions. Sure we can all have our incoherent babbles as to what we would like to see happen. I like to think about more than one side of an action and hope you do too. We all have our moments both genius and flying off at a moments notice. Once we all settle in we usually are pretty good at knowing what's best.

Gotta get ready to go , so have a good night all.

[Weave]

7 minutes ago, MakeSabresGrr8Again said:

We didn't make those picks so we don't know what could have become of them. Saying Stoner was the only one who became anything means nothing.

 

We know who was drafted around those picks, so we kinda do.

Edited November 19, 2018 by Weave

[MattPie]

A note on the "it's too early to seriously have this discussion" front: 5 games ago, the Sabres were on a solidly not making the playoffs pace of 88 points. They're only a 3-game skid away from being on outside looking in again (92 points). Let's hold our horses until they get to a point where they didn't need to reel off 5 straight wins to get to a place where a couple losses doesn't drop them out of the wildcard.

[dejeanneret]

It’s early but if they keep this up they’ll be buyers.  Bots is too Shrewd to trade away 1st rd picks for rentals.  If he does trade, it will be for veterans with playoff experience.  

Edited November 19, 2018 by dejeanneret

[Weave]

There used to be a stat tossed around this forum about teams in the playoff picture at the 1/4 mark (IIRC) and their odds of being in the playoffs at the end of the season.  The odds were pretty overwhelming IIRC.  good teams almost always established that they were good teams by this point in the season.  Who remembers what that stat was?

[Brawndo]

11 minutes ago, Weave said:

There used to be a stat tossed around this forum about teams in the playoff picture at the 1/4 mark (IIRC) and their odds of being in the playoffs at the end of the season.  The odds were pretty overwhelming IIRC.  good teams almost always established that they were good teams by this point in the season.  Who remembers what that stat was?

It’s Elliott Friedman who said that 80% of the teams in a playoff position or are within 4 points of a playoff spot by American Thanksgiving qualify for the playoffs 

[klos1963]

I was looking back at 1999, the Finals season. We picked up Rhett Warrener and Stu Barnes at the deadline or near it, didn't give up much and picked up key players for the playoff run. These are more like the trades most teams would make, not superstars but players that fill a need. Gave up Barnaby and Mike Wilson.  Good deals.

[Andrew Amerk]

1 hour ago, Brawndo said:

It’s Elliott Friedman who said that 80% of the teams in a playoff position or are within 4 points of a playoff spot by American Thanksgiving qualify for the playoffs 

 

[dudacek]

We are too far away from the cup and too firmly in the playoff race to throw away a first on a rental this year.

I have zero issue with parlaying a first on a player with a future here, and am firmly in favour of trading current players for better players.

 

Edited November 19, 2018 by dudacek

[Wyldnwoody44]

14 hours ago, klos1963 said:

Why aren't we? We traded for Skinner in the offseason, that would seem to be an effort to help win now, since he only has  a year left on his deal. Just because the 'process' may have sped up a bit more than expected , no reason to not try to win.

I wouldn't expect a block buster but there are many high end RFA's that may be on the block this season.

I don't believe the trade for Skinner was for a rental, I have to assume that Jbot foresaw that Skinner would work with Jack, give him some time and let him flourish and then resign him, that's where I stand, I think Skinner will be here long term. 

It's been years since we've had depth, and as much as winning now would be awesome, it's not the plan, if we win now, it also raises the prices of now "cup winning" players, and that can mess with our cap and player retention. 

If we're legitimately a contender in solid place at the deadline, I'd be OK with moving some lesser pieces to get deeper, but we're not there yet. We beat some good teams, but I'm confident that an elite team  would crush us in a playoff series, we may squeak out a series, but that's not good enough, take the year, build on what we have and then dominate the league for a while. 

[Hoss]

Someone noted it somewhere here but we do have some draft pick trades outside of the first round to consider, as well.

Our second is Carolina’s for Jeff Skinner.

Our third or fourth (third if Sheary gets 40 points or we trade Hunwick, fourth if not) will go to Pittsburgh.

Our fifth is Detroit’s for Scott Wilson.

We have an extra sixth front Toronto for giving them our sixth last year.

We may have an extra third - San Jose has to give us their fourth this year or third next year for Kane.

We also sent Carolina our 2020 third and sixth. Picked up a seventh in 2020 from the Stars.

Some reporters have been saying picks NEXT year (2020) will be hard to come by because of the incredible RFA class and offer sheets but we know how afraid GMs are of actually doing those.

[nucci]

18 hours ago, Wyldnwoody44 said:

We're not in win now mode, we haven't been all off season, and I'm not sure, if the management expected where we are now. I think we will play with house money now and see how far we go, keep the picks so we keep our cupboards stocked so we aren't lightning in a bottle. We will have some aging peeps on D and pommers leaving and will need replacements as well as clear upgrades to the "middle six" I think selling the farm to win now is a mistake. 

why not? what are we then.....win in a few years? 

3 hours ago, Wyldnwoody44 said:

I don't believe the trade for Skinner was for a rental, I have to assume that Jbot foresaw that Skinner would work with Jack, give him some time and let him flourish and then resign him, that's where I stand, I think Skinner will be here long term. 

It's been years since we've had depth, and as much as winning now would be awesome, it's not the plan, if we win now, it also raises the prices of now "cup winning" players, and that can mess with our cap and player retention. 

If we're legitimately a contender in solid place at the deadline, I'd be OK with moving some lesser pieces to get deeper, but we're not there yet. We beat some good teams, but I'm confident that an elite team  would crush us in a playoff series, we may squeak out a series, but that's not good enough, take the year, build on what we have and then dominate the league for a while. 

So you don't want to improve and try to keep winning? What is it with Buffalo fans that don't seem to want to win anymore...same with the Bills board

[Hoss]

If you’re actively improving and the goal is to win is there ever a “win-later mode?” You’re ALWAYS in win-now mode if you’re not tanking. That doesn’t mean giving up futures for current assets but I don’t think you’ll find a person in the organization who would say anything other than a cup is the goal.

You also probably don’t trade for an expiring Jeff Skinner if you’re not trying to win right now.

[bob_sauve28]

9 hours ago, SabresFanInRochester said:

You're picking one player off a list of 12+ and even then your case is weak. Florida was going to claim Pominville but didn't because they didn't want to tarnish their new relationship with the Sabres, which was when both teams shared the Amerks. Florida saw Pominville and wanted him. Other teams may have dismissed him because he wasn't a glorified 1st rounder. I can only speculate for the other teams. To call non-first rounders is rubbish. That would make both Miller and Hasek garbage, right?

I was pointing out a fact, but was not making a point one way or the other. 

[LGR4GM]

11 hours ago, Weave said:

If you use Cullen's 100 game standard you are still looking at draft picks between 15 and 30 having a 61% chance at 100 games with an average expected role of a bottom 6 forward / 3rd pairing defenceman.

You can make a very valid argument for trading those at the deadline.

You could but you shouldn't. What are you getting in a trade, what level of player. What could you get in the draft. I would rather gamble on something than better than a mid level player I get via trade who is not cost controlled and who I have had no influence over their development. 

8 hours ago, klos1963 said:

I was looking back at 1999, the Finals season. We picked up Rhett Warrener and Stu Barnes at the deadline or near it, didn't give up much and picked up key players for the playoff run. These are more like the trades most teams would make, not superstars but players that fill a need. Gave up Barnaby and Mike Wilson.  Good deals.

This is not 1999. There is a hard cap and these deals simply do not happen anymore without giving up multiple prospects and/or picks. 

[nfreeman]

8 hours ago, dudacek said:

We are too far away from the cup and too firmly in the playoff race to throw away a first on a rental this year.

 

But Panarin?!?!  Who has 15 pts in 17 career playoff games?!?!

If the Sabres are solidly in the playoffs and probably not playing Tampa in the first round, and if they can get Panarin for a #1 not in the top 20?

I want him.  

We have to live.  

[nucci]

3 minutes ago, nfreeman said:

But Panarin?!?!  Who has 15 pts in 17 career playoff games?!?!

If the Sabres are solidly in the playoffs and probably not playing Tampa in the first round, and if they can get Panarin for a #1 not in the top 20?

I want him.  

We have to live.  

but don't we want more picks and cap space......who wants to win now? I feel like I'm on the Bills board