Jbot Do Something Already - 4 Saving the Playoffs Edition

[...]

OMG.  Here we are: the case for Tank III.

[Sabres Fan in NS]

NEVER AGAIN!!

[MakeSabresGrr8Again]

50 minutes ago, erickompositör72 said:

How do you advocate Housley and Botterill make this happen? Tell the players to lose? Find the worst line combinations possible?

Is this the only post you read.....I thought so, LOL

EDIT: they are already in a position for a TOP 3 player....you can win any of the 3  lotteries from any position outside the playoffs.

Edited January 13, 2019 by MakeSabresGrr8Again

[MakeSabresGrr8Again]

35 minutes ago, ... said:

OMG.  Here we are: the case for Tank III.

Easy buddy...nobody is asking anyone to tank. Don't forget that you can finish 1pt out of the playoffs and still win one of the lottery picks.

[TrueBlueGED]

1 hour ago, tom webster said:

 

Tampa also not afraid to trade first round picks and a lot of their cheap talent comes in form of undrafted free agents and lower picks.

Sure. I just don't think it's as simple as "we should trade 1sts because ????? 3 years from now." If I've understood your series of posts in this thread correctly, you essentially think teams should always "go for it" for a couple years, spend a couple more retooling as the fix their cap, and repeat the cycle. I don't think that cycle is as inevitable as you do, even though there will eventually be an aging out for teams. For instance, I don't think Chicago had to be in the spot they're in now--smarter personnel moves and I think they're still right in the mix. 

All that said, I'm fine with moving one of the 1sts to get a center so long as they can help now and over the next several years. I just don't think we should be undervaluing the pick, which in my view, I think you're doing. 

47 minutes ago, ... said:

OMG.  Here we are: the case for Tank III.

We don't need to tank if St. Louis does it for us ?

[Carmel Corn]

8 minutes ago, TrueBlueGED said:

Sure. I just don't think it's as simple as "we should trade 1sts because ????? 3 years from now." If I've understood your series of posts in this thread correctly, you essentially think teams should always "go for it" for a couple years, spend a couple more retooling as the fix their cap, and repeat the cycle. I don't think that cycle is as inevitable as you do, even though there will eventually be an aging out for teams. For instance, I don't think Chicago had to be in the spot they're in now--smarter personnel moves and I think they're still right in the mix. 

All that said, I'm fine with moving one of the 1sts to get a center so long as they can help now and over the next several years. I just don't think we should be undervaluing the pick, which in my view, I think you're doing. 

We don't need to tank if St. Louis does it for us ?

We're not going to get their 1st round pick this next draft.  They have ROR on their team = lottery.

[TrueBlueGED]

Just now, Carmel Corn said:

We're not going to get their 1st round pick this next draft.  They have ROR on their team = lottery.

I know. I fully expect (also hope for) them to do something stupid and remain bad for another year ?

[Thorner]

4 hours ago, LGR4GM said:

Nah let's do it your way... gut the prospect pool add 2 players, screw up our cap, and compete for 2 whole years! Wow! Or better yet let's trade firsts and get robin Lehner, he's amazing. 

We tried it the way you've advocated. It was dumb then and it's dumb now. The Sabres aren't going anywhere until they fix their prospect pool. They had all the picks in 2015 to do it right and they traded them. Doing the same thing over is foolish. Especially when our drafting department seems slightly smarter than most. 

Yea it might be another year but better then screwing it up again. 

This is so tired. You don't need to gut the prospect pool to add a player, or even 2. The loss of Cliff Pu sure gutted us! 

I keep coming back to Berglund. If he's as big of a loss as some are speculating, replace him. It wouldn't be hard to do, he wasn't that good. We have his cap space to use. It wouldn't even be against "the plan", as he was in the cards at season's start. 

Edited January 13, 2019 by Thorny

[PalmTreeMafia]

5 minutes ago, MakeSabresGrr8Again said:

Don't forget that you can finish 1pt out of the playoffs and still win one of the lottery picks.

The chance of winning any of the 2019 top 3 lottery picks is 3.3% for the 15th worst regular season team. Professional Vegas gamblers would say that the Sabres have significantly better odds of winning a first round playoff series versus any of the Caps, Lightning, Leaves, or Bruins.

[Thorner]

3 hours ago, Marchand'sNose said:

Careful there, pal...

"My way" isn't the Tim Murray way either. I don't advocate reckless trading and incoherent roster construction.

In fact, I don't advocate touching any of our first round draft picks unless the return includes a long-term top-6 forward.

We don't have to sell the farm to get what this roster needs to make the playoffs this season: at minimum, 1-2 forward/center rentals who can help slot the rest of our forwards into their more appropriate lineup positions.

I think it's very important that our young team gets playoff experience and establishes a winning culture ASAP, and I also find it deeply disturbing how so many of you don't think this is important.

Truthiness. 

[Thorner]

29 minutes ago, TrueBlueGED said:

We don't need to tank if St. Louis does it for us ?

Unfortunately for us, the Blues are 5 points out of a playoff spot. Our pick this season could end up better than theirs. 

21 minutes ago, Carmel Corn said:

We're not going to get their 1st round pick this next draft.  They have ROR on their team = lottery.

 

19 minutes ago, TrueBlueGED said:

I know. I fully expect (also hope for) them to do something stupid and remain bad for another year ?

The Blues are 3 points away from being out of the bottom 10. They are 8th worst right now. There is half a season left. We may very well get the pick this year. 

[MakeSabresGrr8Again]

6 minutes ago, Marchand'sNose said:

The chance of winning any of the 2019 top 3 lottery picks is 3.3% for the 15th worst regular season team. Professional Vegas gamblers would say that the Sabres have significantly better odds of winning a first round playoff series versus any of the Caps, Lightning, Leaves, or Bruins.

Vegas wouldn't give you odds of beating any of those teams....if you didn't make the playoffs. 

[TrueBlueGED]

21 minutes ago, Thorny said:

Unfortunately for us, the Blues are 5 points out of a playoff spot. Our pick this season could end up better than theirs. 

 

The Blues are 3 points away from being out of the bottom 10. They are 8th worst right now. There is half a season left. We may very well get the pick this year. 

Sure, but they're also 3 points out of last place in the West. 

[Thorner]

3 minutes ago, TrueBlueGED said:

Sure, but they're also 3 points out of last place in the West. 

And trending up. 

[MakeSabresGrr8Again]

1 hour ago, Thorny said:

This is so tired. You don't need to gut the prospect pool to add a player, or even 2. The loss of Cliff Pu sure gutted us! 

I keep coming back to Berglund. If he's as big of a loss as some are speculating, replace him. It wouldn't be hard to do, he wasn't that good. We have his cap space to use. It wouldn't even be against "the plan", as he was in the cards at season's start. 

This also gets tiring, when people omit  parts of trades. We didn't just give them Pu...we gave them 3 picks also.

Now, multiply that by 2x = 2 prospects and 6 picks if you make two similar trades for 2 players. That's 8 pieces to the "pool" you no longer have. Granted, the 2 6th rd picks aren't likely to amount to anything but remember that Olofsson was a 7th rd pick.

[Scottysabres]

4 hours ago, French Collection said:

I'm not in favour of mortgaging the future to "maybe" make the playoffs.

We may make the playoffs with what we have. 

Something we could use may shake loose at the trade deadline. HNIC was reporting a buyer's market this year as teams do not want to overpay.

I like the Buyers market info.

But the deadline is well over a month away, even with the all star break, given this teams inability to halt the slide, the deadline may be a bridge to the playoffs to far.

I an cautious to though. We are deeper at LHD and RW, Scandella and a small add like Bailey should be able to get a forward that may help a bit. Not a top 6'er, but our 3rd line isn't exactly stellar either.

Just kick'en some thoughts around.

[Gatorman0519]

I bet JBot was betting on an 80 point type season and the win streak was a big surprise and now there is unforeseen pressure.  He has been pretty adamant about keeping those picks.  Could be after last years evaluation season, he has a 3 year plan.  This being year one... just guessing.  

[Weave]

4 minutes ago, Gatorman0519 said:

I bet JBot was betting on an 80 point type season and the win streak was a big surprise and now there is unforeseen pressure.  He has been pretty adamant about keeping those picks.  Could be after last years evaluation season, he has a 3 year plan.  This being year one... just guessing.  

This is his second season.  This better be year frickin 2.

 

And no good manager goes into a plan expecting to not alter the plan as conditions change.

[Gatorman0519]

4 minutes ago, Weave said:

This is his second season.  This better be year frickin 2.

 

And no good manager goes into a plan expecting to not alter the plan as conditions change.

He said his first year was evaluation... so I guess this year is year one of the plan.  

[Thorner]

1 hour ago, Gatorman0519 said:

I bet JBot was betting on an 80 point type season and the win streak was a big surprise and now there is unforeseen pressure.  He has been pretty adamant about keeping those picks.  Could be after last years evaluation season, he has a 3 year plan.  This being year one... just guessing.  

 

57 minutes ago, Gatorman0519 said:

He said his first year was evaluation... so I guess this year is year one of the plan.  

If Botterill seriously didn't intend to even contend for the playoffs until his THIRD season as GM...just SMH.

[Broken Ankles]

5 hours ago, MakeSabresGrr8Again said:

This also gets tiring, when people omit  parts of trades. We didn't just give them Pu...we gave them 3 picks also.

Now, multiply that by 2x = 2 prospects and 6 picks if you make two similar trades for 2 players. That's 8 pieces to the "pool" you no longer have. Granted, the 2 6th rd picks aren't likely to amount to anything but remember that Olofsson was a 7th rd pick.

This is an excellent point.  Largely overlooked when you review the history of trades at the deadline.  Either a prospect that becomes something, or an additional lower round draft selection in addition to the player that eventually becomes something.  

I'm also confused by the discussion that it's a buyers’ market.  It’s always been a sellers’ market.  Last year saw trades of Nash, Brassard, McDonough and JT Miller, Tatar, Kane, Stastny and Hartman all yield a first round pick plus more.  Every year some GM get stupid.   

If we agree we are not going “all in” on a top-flight UFA rental that will cost at least a first round plus, then let’s look at the secondary rentals from last year.  Michael Grabner, Ian Cole, Tomas Plekanec, Vanek, Maroon, Brandon Davidson, Frank Vatrano, Nick Holden, Petr Mrazek, Michal Kempny are all 2^nd or 3^rd round (or equal value).  Outside of Thomas Vanek having a very strong finish to 2018, how did the others perform?  Spoiler alert.  Not well. 

Then you get down to the low-end market. These hockey trades/rentals returned a fourth round or lower.  Joe Morrow, Nick Shore, Mike Reilly, Ryan Graves, Mark Letestu, Eric Fehr, Nikita Soshnikov, and Scott Wilson.   Reality check time -  no one is getting any immediate value trading or 4-7^th round pick.   These guys are 4^th liners who grind or a seventh D man that serves as a just in case.  

Looking at this year’s UFA’s/Trade bait, and excluding those like Duchene, Steen, Simmonds, Carter, Hayes, Panarin and Nyquist as they would appear to require a First round +,  who on this secondary market are you willing to part with Guehle or Pecar and a 3^rd, 4^{th or} 5^th ?  Ferland, Silverberg, Nemestnikov, Zuccarello, Coyle? 

For my money, I would rather us try to bundle a player (Scandella, Beaulieu), prospect (Guhele) and a First round pick for a younger player under our control for at least three more years that is considered bottom six but could grow into a top six.   If at all.   As I’m convinced that a call up from Rochester for Bailey, Olofsson, or Nylander might deliver the same results. 

[MakeSabresGrr8Again]

8 hours ago, Broken Ankles said:

This is an excellent point.  Largely overlooked when you review the history of trades at the deadline.  Either a prospect that becomes something, or an additional lower round draft selection in addition to the player that eventually becomes something.  

I'm also confused by the discussion that it's a buyers’ market.  It’s always been a sellers’ market.  Last year saw trades of Nash, Brassard, McDonough and JT Miller, Tatar, Kane, Stastny and Hartman all yield a first round pick plus more.  Every year some GM get stupid.   

If we agree we are not going “all in” on a top-flight UFA rental that will cost at least a first round plus, then let’s look at the secondary rentals from last year.  Michael Grabner, Ian Cole, Tomas Plekanec, Vanek, Maroon, Brandon Davidson, Frank Vatrano, Nick Holden, Petr Mrazek, Michal Kempny are all 2^nd or 3^rd round (or equal value).  Outside of Thomas Vanek having a very strong finish to 2018, how did the others perform?  Spoiler alert.  Not well. 

Then you get down to the low-end market. These hockey trades/rentals returned a fourth round or lower.  Joe Morrow, Nick Shore, Mike Reilly, Ryan Graves, Mark Letestu, Eric Fehr, Nikita Soshnikov, and Scott Wilson.   Reality check time -  no one is getting any immediate value trading or 4-7^th round pick.   These guys are 4^th liners who grind or a seventh D man that serves as a just in case.  

Looking at this year’s UFA’s/Trade bait, and excluding those like Duchene, Steen, Simmonds, Carter, Hayes, Panarin and Nyquist as they would appear to require a First round +,  who on this secondary market are you willing to part with Guehle or Pecar and a 3^rd, 4^{th or} 5^th ?  Ferland, Silverberg, Nemestnikov, Zuccarello, Coyle? 

For my money, I would rather us try to bundle a player (Scandella, Beaulieu), prospect (Guhele) and a First round pick for a younger player under our control for at least three more years that is considered bottom six but could grow into a top six.   If at all.   As I’m convinced that a call up from Rochester for Bailey, Olofsson, or Nylander might deliver the same results. 

Very well done....and you're right, a good number of those trades don't work out as expected. That goes for the UFA's that are the center of bidding wars too.

[LGR4GM]

16 hours ago, Thorny said:

This is so tired. You don't need to gut the prospect pool to add a player, or even 2. The loss of Cliff Pu sure gutted us! 

I keep coming back to Berglund. If he's as big of a loss as some are speculating, replace him. It wouldn't be hard to do, he wasn't that good. We have his cap space to use. It wouldn't even be against "the plan", as he was in the cards at season's start. 

Then go to sleep if you are tired. Our prospect pool is still bad. It is bad because all of our first round picks with the exception of Nylander are in the NHL. We need to keep drafting and filling our pool with young cheap talent. 

Also thanks for throwing out a red herring with cliff pu, what a TIRED take that is. No one has mentioned him but here you are. So let's talk about the Skinner trade, I will indulge you. We got Jeff Skinner because he had a NTC and Buffalo was one of probably a short list of teams he was willing to move to. That meant that the Canes GM was tied and had to make the best deal he could. He got a prospect that looked like he might be something and a few picks. So if you can find a 26yr old guy with a NTC that will waive that for Buffalo so we can fleece another team, be my guest. I would note in that trade, no first round pick was exchanged. 

When people start talking about trading a 1st and Guhle Or Nylander, and maybe something else for 1 guy who is 26 or 27 or 28 with 1 or 2 years left, that is a terrible idea. We don't have the talent in our prospects for such a luxury and aren't close enough to competing for a cup to do that. It is short sighted. Thankfully Botterill is on the same page as I am thus far and won't trade a first unless it is for a younger player with term left on a deal. 

[LGR4GM]

15 hours ago, MakeSabresGrr8Again said:

This also gets tiring, when people omit  parts of trades. We didn't just give them Pu...we gave them 3 picks also.

Now, multiply that by 2x = 2 prospects and 6 picks if you make two similar trades for 2 players. That's 8 pieces to the "pool" you no longer have. Granted, the 2 6th rd picks aren't likely to amount to anything but remember that Olofsson was a 7th rd pick.

Exactly. At some point you have to draft and develop talent. Botterill has traded picks. We currently only have 5 picks in the 2019 draft and 2 of those our first round picks. We can't just assume that every pick we make only has a 25% chance of being an NHL player so why bother. 

2019:

1st - Sabres

1st - San Jose

1st - (St Louis if they finish outside the top 10)

2nd - GONE (Traded to Carolina)

3rd - Sabres (Could transfer to Penguins but seems unlikely)

4th - GONE (Traded to Penguins)

5th - GONE (Traded to Detroit)

6th - Toronto's we traded for last year

7th - Sabres

So we have 2 Firsts, 1 Third, 1 Sixth, and 1 Seventh round pick in the upcoming 2019 draft. 

Edited January 14, 2019 by LGR4GM

[Thorner]

7 hours ago, LGR4GM said:

Then go to sleep if you are tired. Our prospect pool is still bad. It is bad because all of our first round picks with the exception of Nylander are in the NHL. We need to keep drafting and filling our pool with young cheap talent. 

Also thanks for throwing out a red herring with cliff pu, what a TIRED take that is. No one has mentioned him but here you are. So let's talk about the Skinner trade, I will indulge you. We got Jeff Skinner because he had a NTC and Buffalo was one of probably a short list of teams he was willing to move to. That meant that the Canes GM was tied and had to make the best deal he could. He got a prospect that looked like he might be something and a few picks. So if you can find a 26yr old guy with a NTC that will waive that for Buffalo so we can fleece another team, be my guest. I would note in that trade, no first round pick was exchanged. 

When people start talking about trading a 1st and Guhle Or Nylander, and maybe something else for 1 guy who is 26 or 27 or 28 with 1 or 2 years left, that is a terrible idea. We don't have the talent in our prospects for such a luxury and aren't close enough to competing for a cup to do that. It is short sighted. Thankfully Botterill is on the same page as I am thus far and won't trade a first unless it is for a younger player with term left on a deal. 

Talk about red herrings...aside from labeling the prospect pool "bad", which is objectively not true, there's little in this post I disagree with. 

The point in referencing Skinner is that we got one of the best goal scorers in the league for very little, relatively. No one is saying that trade can be replicated necessarily, but if conditions can fall into place for a player that good to be moved for that little, it stands to reason that lesser players (which would still be huge upgrades to this team) could be had for less. 

As for the second bolded, if that is the crux of your argument, I don't disagree with that at all, and never said I did. What is tired, is the idea that the prospect pool must be gutted to make a trade. That's all I was saying. 

So we can stop going in circles here, once and for all: is there anyone on this board advocating for trading a 1st round pick for a rental? As far as I know, NO ONE is suggesting this. Everyone is on that page. 

Edited January 14, 2019 by Thorny