2019-20 Sabres Prospects

[shrader]

1 minute ago, sabremike said:

If you can't see how the trade was like a Monty Python skit I can't help you. It's like something Karl Pilklington would do if you made him an NHL GM.

And we've already gone over why those trades were nowhere near as dumb as the one Botts made. 

Right, this one is bad because it was made by Jason Botterill.  The Montreal ones are probably bad because they were made my Marc Bergevin.  The Nashville one?  Who cares how early it is, David Poille made the deal so it must be ok.  How can anyone argue with this logic?

[sabremike]

3 minutes ago, shrader said:

Right, this one is bad because it was made by Jason Botterill.  The Montreal ones are probably bad because they were made my Marc Bergevin.  The Nashville one?  Who cares how early it is, David Poille made the deal so it must be ok.  How can anyone argue with this logic?

If you made a list of the bottom 5 GMs in the league Botts and Bergevin are both on it. And why Poille wasn't stupid: Nashville is a perennial contender, the Panthers: not so much. Therefore the odds were in fact good that Florida would not be good the following season and they would end up with a pick higher than the one they gave up. So they stood to gain value whereas the Botts pick had no chance of doing so. 

[shrader]

23 minutes ago, sabremike said:

If you made a list of the bottom 5 GMs in the league Botts and Bergevin are both on it. And why Poille wasn't stupid: Nashville is a perennial contender, the Panthers: not so much. Therefore the odds were in fact good that Florida would not be good the following season and they would end up with a pick higher than the one they gave up. So they stood to gain value whereas the Botts pick had no chance of doing so. 

Sure, if you continue to stick to the false assumption that draft pick #x has completely identical value each year.  One doesn't exactly have to jump through hoops to show that isn't the case.  If only we had players two players on this team who were drafted in consecutive years using the same pick.  Oh well, we'll never know for sure...

[dudacek]

6 minutes ago, shrader said:

Sure, if you continue to stick to the false assumption that draft pick #x has completely identical value each year.  One doesn't exactly have to jump through hoops to show that isn't the case.  If only we had players two players on this team who were drafted in consecutive years using the same pick.  Oh well, we'll never know for sure...

Not exactly, but it is interesting how often that happens.

Cozens/this year’s pick?

Samuelsson/Johnson

Mittelstadt/Nylander

Eichel/Reinhart

 

[shrader]

9 minutes ago, dudacek said:

Not exactly, but it is interesting how often that happens.

Cozens/this year’s pick?

Samuelsson/Johnson

Mittelstadt/Nylander

Eichel/Reinhart

 

Yeah, I know.  But anyway, sure, they're all first round examples, but if the difference can be seen that early, it can very easily snowball from there.  I really like the Eichel/Reinhart example though because we're not just looking at that one in hindsight.  Everyone knew years in advance how much stronger that draft was.  Some years it may just be a first round thing.  Other years, the top end may be softer but then there's a lot more of the middle tier talent.  The morale of the story is that each draft is a very different animal.

[GASabresIUFAN]

One note of trading pick x in 2021 for pick y in 2022.  There is more to it then just moving a pick.  Occasionally teams butt up against organizational player limits.  Other factors could also include a lack of picks the following year etc.  

[dudacek]

kris Baker’s top 10 in the Athleticm

10 davidsson

9 Pekar

8 Bryson

7 Asplund

6 Ruotsalainen 

5 Borgen

4 Johnson

3 Samuelsson

2 Lukkonnen

1 Cozens
 

Cozens is the only impact guy and his best bet to play in Buffalo next year. The others project as bottom-half players, but can all be NHLers. He seems to like Johnson a lot more than most.

[LGR4GM]

Now that someone else has said it do ppl understand why I keep mentioning our bone dry cupboards at forward? 

[dudacek]

1 hour ago, LGR4GM said:

Now that someone else has said it do ppl understand why I keep mentioning our bone dry cupboards at forward? 

It really comes down to the development of Mittelstadt and Thompson, doesn’t it?

[GASabresIUFAN]

1 hour ago, LGR4GM said:

Now that someone else has said it do ppl understand why I keep mentioning our bone dry cupboards at forward? 

 

5 minutes ago, dudacek said:

It really comes down to the development of Mittelstadt and Thompson, doesn’t it?

You keep saying bone dry but you don't define it.  Baker has 5 forwards in his top 10.  In addition to those 5 we have Mitts, Thompson, and Weissbach who are legit NHL prospects/players 23 and under.  That's 8 forwards, two, maybe 3 who have top 6 potential.  While this isn't the top forward group of prospects in the NHL, it is certainly not bone dry.

Odds are that we add another forward with top 6 potential in the next couple few weeks.    

 

[DarthEbriate]

49 minutes ago, GASabresIUFAN said:

You keep saying bone dry but you don't define it.  Baker has 5 forwards in his top 10.  In addition to those 5 we have Mitts, Thompson, and Weissbach who are legit NHL prospects/players 23 and under.  That's 8 forwards, two, maybe 3 who have top 6 potential.  While this isn't the top forward group of prospects in the NHL, it is certainly not bone dry.

Odds are that we add another forward with top 6 potential in the next couple few weeks.   

5 in the top 10, yes. But the highest after Cozens is #6, and Ruotsalainen was in Dev Camp last year and he was ... forgettable?

Agreed: Mitts has potential. By golly, I'm gonna play my Downtown auf Deutsch when he scores in a Sabres playoff game some day, darngummet.

Unknown: Thompson, injuries will determine his future. Weissbach, maybe, but he had the opportunity to lead/carry a young Badgers squad and was good but not great.

[LGR4GM]

1 hour ago, GASabresIUFAN said:

 

1) You keep saying bone dry but you don't define it.  2) Baker has 5 forwards in his top 10.  In addition to those 5 we have Mitts, Thompson, and Weissbach who are legit NHL prospects/players 23 and under.  That's 8 forwards, two, maybe 3 who have top 6 potential.  While this isn't the top forward group of prospects in the NHL, it is certainly not bone dry.

Odds are that we add another forward with top 6 potential in the next couple few weeks.    

 

1) Actually I have defined it over and over again for you. Bone dry means an impact player. Frolic, not an impact player. Reinhart, impact player. 

2) Lol we have 1 forward in the top 5 but sure he has 5 in the top 10, and Baker says the only impact forward is Cozens. As I have said repeatedly, bare means no impact players. Our forward depth is non existent and if either Tage or Mitts fail, it is a major problem because there is no backup plan. 

The only 3 forwards with top 6 potential are Mitts, Cozens and Thompson. Mitts and Thompson are what? 22 and 21 now. Casey will be 22 in Nov. and Thompson will be 23 in Oct. So that means in the 3 years since Botterill has been drafting he has added 1, count it, 1 top 6 potential forward via the draft. It is bone dry. You can define it as under 23 but the fact of the matter is if any of the 3 I mentioned fail, there's nothing coming. We might add another in a couple weeks but the problem is we should have been adding them since 2015 and instead we have drafted like hot garbage. This team is going nowhere as long as this trend continues. We are going nowhere as long as we value the Johnsons of the world over the Robertsons and Hoglanders.

[Weave]

2 hours ago, dudacek said:

 He seems to like Johnson a lot more than most.

Inkman.  Clean up in aisle 4!

[inkman]

10 minutes ago, Weave said:

Inkman.  Clean up in aisle 4!

It's just a little too easy. 

But if Baker met Johnson at Wegmans, cleanup may be required.

Edited May 14, 2020 by inkman

[North Buffalo]

2 hours ago, dudacek said:

It really comes down to the development of Mittelstadt and Thompson, doesn’t it?

Sabres interview with Mitts on website sounds like a guy on downers... got wonder about fire in his belly.

[GASabresIUFAN]

3 hours ago, LGR4GM said:

1) Actually I have defined it over and over again for you. Bone dry means an impact player. Frolic, not an impact player. Reinhart, impact player. 

2) Lol we have 1 forward in the top 5 but sure he has 5 in the top 10, and Baker says the only impact forward is Cozens. As I have said repeatedly, bare means no impact players. Our forward depth is non existent and if either Tage or Mitts fail, it is a major problem because there is no backup plan. 

The only 3 forwards with top 6 potential are Mitts, Cozens and Thompson. Mitts and Thompson are what? 22 and 21 now. Casey will be 22 in Nov. and Thompson will be 23 in Oct. So that means in the 3 years since Botterill has been drafting he has added 1, count it, 1 top 6 potential forward via the draft. It is bone dry. You can define it as under 23 but the fact of the matter is if any of the 3 I mentioned fail, there's nothing coming. We might add another in a couple weeks but the problem is we should have been adding them since 2015 and instead we have drafted like hot garbage. This team is going nowhere as long as this trend continues. We are going nowhere as long as we value the Johnsons of the world over the Robertsons and Hoglanders.

1) Actually I have defined it over and over again for you. Bone dry means an impact player. Frolic, not an impact player. Reinhart, impact player.   So your definition of an impact player is a top 6 forward.  That is a very overly limited version of an impact player.  Last I looked guys like Hecht, Grier, Larsson and Gaustad have been impact player for us and not top 6 forwards.  Aren't you leading the charge to keep Larsson because he is an impact player for us?  Cozens may be the only surefire top 6 forward in the group, but I suggest reading Wheeler's comments on our prospect pool again. He is not the only potential impact player in our group. Routsalainen and Weissbach have top 6-9 potential as playmakers.  Pekar has bottom 6 potential as a crap disturber who also can score.  These are also potentially impact prospects and skills that we need.

 

[tom webster]

4 hours ago, LGR4GM said:

1) Actually I have defined it over and over again for you. Bone dry means an impact player. Frolic, not an impact player. Reinhart, impact player. 

2) Lol we have 1 forward in the top 5 but sure he has 5 in the top 10, and Baker says the only impact forward is Cozens. As I have said repeatedly, bare means no impact players. Our forward depth is non existent and if either Tage or Mitts fail, it is a major problem because there is no backup plan. 

The only 3 forwards with top 6 potential are Mitts, Cozens and Thompson. Mitts and Thompson are what? 22 and 21 now. Casey will be 22 in Nov. and Thompson will be 23 in Oct. So that means in the 3 years since Botterill has been drafting he has added 1, count it, 1 top 6 potential forward via the draft. It is bone dry. You can define it as under 23 but the fact of the matter is if any of the 3 I mentioned fail, there's nothing coming. We might add another in a couple weeks but the problem is we should have been adding them since 2015 and instead we have drafted like hot garbage. This team is going nowhere as long as this trend continues. We are going nowhere as long as we value the Johnsons of the world over the Robertsons and Hoglanders.

You know how I feel about this but they already have four top 6 forwards that should be here for the next five years at least. Cozens should make five. So then you need two of Casey, this years pick, a trade acquisition or another VO and suddenly you have 7 top six forwards in your system for at least five years and you get five years to groom another one or two. Prospect depth is overrated. Every team has a shelf life and them you start over.

Time will tell whether they made the right choice with Johnson but the odds are strong that he, nor anyone drafted after him will develop into more then a spare part. You are an analytics guy, you know the odds and the continuous telling us how you were right before any of them play a minute is kind of amusing. 
Like I said before, I respect your opinion and the work you put in but in the end, you are either drafted before that years cutoff of premium talent ends, usually 5 through 8, or you are an outlier.

[GASabresIUFAN]

http://www.buffalohockeybeat.com/sabres-shouldve-sent-casey-mittelstadt-to-amerks-earlier-he-got-rushed/

Sounds like a good developing prospect with a bright future.  @tom webster says that most prospects must develop physically to make it in the NHL.  In Casey's case that looks to be a central issue.

 

[LGR4GM]

12 hours ago, tom webster said:

You know how I feel about this but they already have four top 6 forwards that should be here for the next five years at least. Cozens should make five. So then you need two of Casey, this years pick, a trade acquisition or another VO and suddenly you have 7 top six forwards in your system for at least five years and you get five years to groom another one or two. Prospect depth is overrated. Every team has a shelf life and them you start over.

Time will tell whether they made the right choice with Johnson but the odds are strong that he, nor anyone drafted after him will develop into more then a spare part. You are an analytics guy, you know the odds and the continuous telling us how you were right before any of them play a minute is kind of amusing. 
Like I said before, I respect your opinion and the work you put in but in the end, you are either drafted before that years cutoff of premium talent ends, usually 5 through 8, or you are an outlier.

What if, and stay with me, we were forced to play guys who could be top 6 players in bottom 6 roles because we actually had talent? Or what if we had a guy to take over for Skinner if he got hurt? Crazy I know. This notion that you only need 6 or 7 top forwards is fraught with issues. Further, well then we only need 4 top defenders why the hell then do we keep drafting defenders high when we have by my count somewhere between 6-8 potential top 4 defenders? 

I wrote a long reponse which I deleted because this argument is getting boring. You and GA aren't going to believe me until either Johnson turns into the pp specialist, 4/5 defender he looks like and Hoglander or Robertson or Kaliyev, or Pinto blossom into an impact NHL forward. 

[LGR4GM]

13 hours ago, GASabresIUFAN said:

1) Actually I have defined it over and over again for you. Bone dry means an impact player. Frolic, not an impact player. Reinhart, impact player.   So your definition of an impact player is a top 6 forward.  That is a very overly limited version of an impact player.  Last I looked guys like Hecht, Grier, Larsson and Gaustad have been impact player for us and not top 6 forwards.  Aren't you leading the charge to keep Larsson because he is an impact player for us?  Cozens may be the only surefire top 6 forward in the group, but I suggest reading Wheeler's comments on our prospect pool again. He is not the only potential impact player in our group. Routsalainen and Weissbach have top 6-9 potential as playmakers.  Pekar has bottom 6 potential as a crap disturber who also can score.  These are also potentially impact prospects and skills that we need.

 

I can find Hecht's, Griers, Guastads. You only get very limited shots to add true top 6 talent and the draft is one of them

Johan Larsson should have spent last year playing with Skinner in a top 6 role. Also out of all the players you listed, Larsson is a true impact player outside of the top 6, the rest, maybe for a season in their prime. Now imagine if Larsson didn't have to play with Zemgus but had a linemate with hands. Can't have that because we lack so much talent we are still trying to plug holes in the top of the lineup. 

I read wheeler. I don't agree with him. That is the other problem. This board sometimes falls into this group think conundrum. "Well our prospect pool isn't bad because the national writer said so." It is. Ruotsalainen and Weissbach are depth players at best. Which goes back to what I asked TW, what if, and stay with me... we had young players that were really good playing in our bottom 6? What if when Olofsson gets hurt we have someone who at least can fill that spot? Instead we are left begging for scraps because WE DRAFT LIKE GARBAGE. 

I am starting to get to the point where I want Buffalo to take a defender in the first this year. I am hoping for it just so I can see it explained away some more. The math doesn't work. Baker named 4 defenders in the top 5. There are 6 defense spots and 12 forward spots but keep telling me about those 4 forwards that might fill in those bottom 6 roles while our defense has something like 6 potential LHD and 7 RHD. for 6 spots, our offense has something line 8 actual NHL players and 4-5 potential players for 12 spots. That math checks out... right... sure... I'll believe that when my s#!t turns purple and smells like rainbow sherbert. 

[Taro T]

7 minutes ago, LGR4GM said:

I can find Hecht's, Griers, Guastads. You only get very limited shots to add true top 6 talent and the draft is one of them

Johan Larsson should have spent last year playing with Skinner in a top 6 role. Also out of all the players you listed, Larsson is a true impact player outside of the top 6, the rest, maybe for a season in their prime. Now imagine if Larsson didn't have to play with Zemgus but had a linemate with hands. Can't have that because we lack so much talent we are still trying to plug holes in the top of the lineup. 

I read wheeler. I don't agree with him. That is the other problem. This board sometimes falls into this group think conundrum. "Well our prospect pool isn't bad because the national writer said so." It is. Ruotsalainen and Weissbach are depth players at best. Which goes back to what I asked TW, what if, and stay with me... we had young players that were really good playing in our bottom 6? What if when Olofsson gets hurt we have someone who at least can fill that spot? Instead we are left begging for scraps because WE DRAFT LIKE GARBAGE.

I am starting to get to the point where I want Buffalo to take a defender in the first this year. I am hoping for it just so I can see it explained away some more. The math doesn't work. Baker named 4 defenders in the top 5. There are 6 defense spots and 12 forward spots but keep telling me about those 4 forwards that might fill in those bottom 6 roles while our defense has something like 6 potential LHD and 7 RHD. for 6 spots, our offense has something line 8 actual NHL players and 4-5 potential players for 12 spots. That math checks out... right... sure... I'll believe that when my s#!t turns purple and smells like rainbow sherbert. 

In fairness, there is likely a D slot opening up this off-season so a 2C arrives and there is also likely another D slot open after Seattle chooses a player.

If the 2C brought in is young (Cirelli-ish)  They'll have in the top 6: Eichel, new guy, Reinhart, Olofsson, & Skinner definitely for several years, barring injuries plus Kahun, Cozens, Mittelstadt, & Thompson all also around for several years if the Sabres want them that long.  That's likely 7-9 "top 6" players locked in for the foreseeable future.  That doesn't put strain on the pipeline.

Whereas on 2, there will likely be 2 of 6 guys gone, so (for simplicity, let's say Montour & McCabe are the 2 gone) they have Ristolainen, Dahlin, Jokiharju, & Miller.  With Pilut likely on the big squad too.  Leaves at least 1 ST opening & probably at least 2 moving towards 2-3 seasons from now as Miller probably isn't here LT.  There also is the matter of needing a 7th D up on the parent club.

So, Cozens moves off that prospect chart as he moves up & 3 D move up (1 now, 1 soon, & 1 as a spare).

Is F really that lacking relative to D in the prospect pool when those moves are considered? 

[Curt]

57 minutes ago, Taro T said:

In fairness, there is likely a D slot opening up this off-season so a 2C arrives and there is also likely another D slot open after Seattle chooses a player.

If the 2C brought in is young (Cirelli-ish)  They'll have in the top 6: Eichel, new guy, Reinhart, Olofsson, & Skinner definitely for several years, barring injuries plus Kahun, Cozens, Mittelstadt, & Thompson all also around for several years if the Sabres want them that long.  That's likely 7-9 "top 6" players locked in for the foreseeable future.  That doesn't put strain on the pipeline.

Whereas on 2, there will likely be 2 of 6 guys gone, so (for simplicity, let's say Montour & McCabe are the 2 gone) they have Ristolainen, Dahlin, Jokiharju, & Miller.  With Pilut likely on the big squad too.  Leaves at least 1 ST opening & probably at least 2 moving towards 2-3 seasons from now as Miller probably isn't here LT.  There also is the matter of needing a 7th D up on the parent club.

So, Cozens moves off that prospect chart as he moves up & 3 D move up (1 now, 1 soon, & 1 as a spare).

Is F really that lacking relative to D in the prospect pool when those moves are considered? 

To the bolded - Is it really likely though???  I have doubts.

[tom webster]

2 hours ago, LGR4GM said:

What if, and stay with me, we were forced to play guys who could be top 6 players in bottom 6 roles because we actually had talent? Or what if we had a guy to take over for Skinner if he got hurt? Crazy I know. This notion that you only need 6 or 7 top forwards is fraught with issues. Further, well then we only need 4 top defenders why the hell then do we keep drafting defenders high when we have by my count somewhere between 6-8 potential top 4 defenders? 

I wrote a long reponse which I deleted because this argument is getting boring. You and GA aren't going to believe me until either Johnson turns into the pp specialist, 4/5 defender he looks like and Hoglander or Robertson or Kaliyev, or Pinto blossom into an impact NHL forward. 

It’s not about belief, it’s about your absolute conviction when there are no absolutes. And yes, obviously you would like 9 top 6 forwards but I would argue Buffalo is in better shape going forward then most teams.

The difference between us, I could envision you being right, doesn’t change the fact that if you are, your guys will be outliers.

[Taro T]

1 hour ago, Curt said:

To the bolded - Is it really likely though???  I have doubts.

Whether the position gets addressed adequately or not is in question.  But that a move for a 2C gets made doesn't seem to be as much of one.  And with what's available, the only way to attempt to adequately address 2C is via trade.  If this was 1 year from now, that 2C could possibly come from the prospect pool (Cozens, Mittelstadt, or even possibly Kahun).  This season, none is a high enough probability to address it adequately to be an option.  There isn't a viable UFA and doubt they'd go the offer sheet route.

Botterill knows he has to address this.  The only remaining course of action is trade.  There's no 100% chance it happens (thus the term likely being used), but would expect it to be at least 80% likely.  We'll know reasonably soon 1 way or the other.

[sabremike]

2 minutes ago, Taro T said:

Whether the position gets addressed adequately or not is in question.  But that a move for a 2C gets made doesn't seem to be as much of one.  And with what's available, the only way to attempt to adequately address 2C is via trade.  If this was 1 year from now, that 2C could possibly come from the prospect pool (Cozens, Mittelstadt, or even possibly Kahun).  This season, none is a high enough probability to address it adequately to be an option.  There isn't a viable UFA and doubt they'd go the offer sheet route.

Botterill knows he has to address this.  The only remaining course of action is trade.  There's no 100% chance it happens (thus the term likely being used), but would expect it to be at least 80% likely.  We'll know reasonably soon 1 way or the other.

Here is the problem: Teams that have really good #2 centers (even teams with depth to where the player is playing on the 3rd or even 4th line) don't give them away. The only way you can acquire one via trade is to find a GM who you can take advantage of because they are so inept and in over their head (like Botts). So we need the guy who is the mark other teams go to when they want to sucker someone to find someone who is an even bigger sucker than he is. Those aren't good odds.