2019-20 Sabres Prospects

[LGR4GM]

1 minute ago, GASabresIUFAN said:

You never read the entire post.

I said:

And then enumerated all the bad drafting, poor trade decisions and poor development decisions that destroyed our prospect pool

I did read the entire post. Twice actually. Hence why I only quoted the part of your post I wanted to talk about and left off the rest, because I had read it all. 

Botterill did a terrible job drafting. I can evaluate him on that right now. He might have 1 goalie and 2 defenders coming but everything else is bad. 

2019: Cozens, everything else is either a project goalie (they all are) or a project defender (Johnson)

2018: Dahlin was a duh, Samuelsson may be an NHL defender some day. 

2017: Mitts? Davidson, doubt it highly. UPL, hopefully but we will see. Bryson, got a shot. Laaksonen, got a shot. 

It is interesting that the best year of Botterill drafting is the last year that Murray's influence on drafting was visible. 

[dudacek]

Well, I guess we can all agree it was a good thing we fired most of our scouts and revamped our method of evaluation, then right?

[GASabresIUFAN]

1 minute ago, LGR4GM said:

I did read the entire post. Twice actually. Hence why I only quoted the part of your post I wanted to talk about and left off the rest, because I had read it all. 

Botterill did a terrible job drafting. I can evaluate him on that right now. He might have 1 goalie and 2 defenders coming but everything else is bad. 

2019: Cozens, everything else is either a project goalie (they all are) or a project defender (Johnson)

2018: Dahlin was a duh, Samuelsson may be an NHL defender some day. 

2017: Mitts? Davidson, doubt it highly. UPL, hopefully but we will see. Bryson, got a shot. Laaksonen, got a shot. 

It is interesting that the best year of Botterill drafting is the last year that Murray's influence on drafting was visible. 

Jbot drafted 18 players.  You could have as many as 5 players from year 1, 3 from year 2 including Pekar, 4 or 5 from year 3 depending if Huglen develops.  I think 8 of the 12 have a very good shot at being NHL players or are already NHLers including Dahlin, Cozens, Mitts, Samuelsson, Johnson, Pekar, Bryson and Laaksonnen.  Add at least one of the 2 goalies and that's averaging 3 players per draft.  TM and DR didn't come close.  However, it will be years before we know for sure.  

[tom webster]

3 minutes ago, GASabresIUFAN said:

Jbot drafted 18 players.  You could have as many as 5 players from year 1, 3 from year 2 including Pekar, 4 or 5 from year 3 depending if Huglen develops.  I think 8 of the 12 have a very good shot at being NHL players or are already NHLers including Dahlin, Cozens, Mitts, Samuelsson, Johnson, Pekar, Bryson and Laaksonnen.  Add at least one of the 2 goalies and that's averaging 3 players per draft.  TM and DR didn't come close.  However, it will be years before we know for sure.  

This is a post I have been wanting to make for awhile. I keep hearing how bad JBOT drafted but there are still a lot of unknowns.

As far as prospects in general, all that really matters is how they end up impacting the franchise and I for one could care less how they are rated before that’s determined.

[WildCard]

48 minutes ago, dudacek said:

Well, I guess we can all agree it was a good thing we fired most of our scouts and revamped our method of evaluation, then right?

Doesn't seem to have improved anything

[Curt]

5 minutes ago, WildCard said:

Doesn't seem to have improved anything

Yeah, I know!  0 NHL games played from the 2020 draft is unacceptable!

[dudacek]

Profile of Ryan Jones, an under-the-radar college free agent we signed this summer.

https://www.nwitimes.com/sports/hockey/professional/crown-point-native-ryan-jones-takes-unorthodox-journey-to-ahls-rochester-americans/article_bdd5e5bb-e6a6-559c-a28e-d10125fb31b2.html

 

Edited October 20, 2020 by dudacek

[DarthEbriate]

1 hour ago, LGR4GM said:

Sorry but these are both excuses.

It's not my fault! I trusted them to fix it!

The other excuse I’ll make for our prospect pool is that we’ve traded away a lot of picks and we haven’t returned a lot of prospects in our trades. We’ve traded to improve the NHL roster --- which sounds odd when you consider we’ve been in a tear-down and rebuild for the last 7 seasons. And no, it doesn’t mean we would’ve drafted better, just more volume and the chance for more hits.

On the one hand, it’s OK to trade picks to rebuild the NHL roster because “you can’t sign them all” and you want to “Win now!”. On the other dismembered-by-lightsaber hand, it impacts the prospect pool. It’s especially glaring for JBott who vowed to rebuild the pipeline and Rochester, and then traded away high picks several times.

Examples: Traded a 1st for Lehner ; Traded a 1st for Montour ; Traded two 2nds for Skinner. Edit: The ROR trade only brought back Tage as a prospect along with two NHL roster players; the Kane trade (admittedly a rental so we weren't getting a top prospect, only brought back O'Regan with the 1st and not some 19 year-old "reach" prospect in SJ's pipeline.)

Edited October 20, 2020 by DarthEbriate

[dudacek]

Hot take: Next year the Sabres prospect pool takes a big leap in the eyes of prospect watchers because nobody graduates, Peterka and Quinn chew up the WJCs and Lukkonnen is in the conversation for the AHL's best goalie.

Also, players that are either being discounted or ignored as top prospects around the league (Kubalik, Olofsson) will emerge, while others that are being highly-touted (Tolvanen, Mittelstadt) will flop. Guaranteed.

These things are cyclical and these lists rarely correspond to reality.

Edited October 20, 2020 by dudacek

[GASabresIUFAN]

1 hour ago, dudacek said:

Hot take: Next year the Sabres prospect pool takes a big leap in the eyes of prospect watchers because nobody graduates, Peterka and Quinn chew up the WJCs and Lukkonnen is in the conversation for the AHL's best goalie.

Also, players that are either being discounted or ignored as top prospects around the league (Kubalik, Olofsson) will emerge, while others that are being highly-touted (Tolvanen, Mittelstadt) will flop. Guaranteed.

These things are cyclical and these lists rarely correspond to reality.

Well said, except I don't think Mitts is going to fail.  I think he'll be one of the big surprises this winter and spring.  I know people gave Jbot much crap for drafting D, but isn't it nice to gave 6 decent to very good D prospects in our system right now?  I wonder if Murray will build on last season and how Pekar will fare in his first pro season.  If those two do well, we are looking at what you predicted.

Edited October 20, 2020 by GASabresIUFAN

[dudacek]

2 minutes ago, GASabresIUFAN said:

Well said, except I don't think Mitts is going to fail.  I think he'll be one of the big surprises this winter and spring.

Yeah, I didn't even mean flop in terms of his career, just in terms of how the listers rate them.

[GASabresIUFAN]

Just now, dudacek said:

Yeah, I didn't even mean flop in terms of his career, just in terms of how the listers rate them.

Sadly they don't list him anymore because he has played 100 NHL games.  

[dudacek]

Another list. This one rates the Sabres #7 despite disagreeing with the Quinn pick. For the record, Quinn is ranked as our #5 guy here, between Casey and Tage. Dahlin, Cozens and Jokiharju are 1,2,3

https://theathletic.com/2135405/2020/10/20/nhl-org-rankings-2-0-pronmans-post-draft-rating-of-every-teams-young-talent/

Sabres got passed by the Hurricanes, Kings and Senators, and jumped ahead of the Canucks on the strength of this draft.

Edited October 20, 2020 by dudacek

[GASabresIUFAN]

1 minute ago, dudacek said:

Another list. This one rates the Sabres #7 despite disagreeing with the Quinn pick.

https://theathletic.com/2135405/2020/10/20/nhl-org-rankings-2-0-pronmans-post-draft-rating-of-every-teams-young-talent/

Quote

The criteria for players considered in this ranking changed this year. All players in an organization who were 22 years old or younger as of Sept. 15, 2020, regardless of how many NHL games they’ve played, along with the rest of the players in the pipeline, were included. 

I really like this definition and is something I've argued for a long time.  It's a more accurate view of the pipeline then eliminating a player not in the NHL simply on games played.  

Not a surprise we are ranked high when Dahlin, Jokiharju, Thompson and Mitts are added back in.

 

[LGR4GM]

3 hours ago, GASabresIUFAN said:

Jbot drafted 18 players.  You could have as many as 5 players from year 1, 3 from year 2 including Pekar, 4 or 5 from year 3 depending if Huglen develops.  I think 8 of the 12 have a very good shot at being NHL players or are already NHLers including Dahlin, Cozens, Mitts, Samuelsson, Johnson, Pekar, Bryson and Laaksonnen.  Add at least one of the 2 goalies and that's averaging 3 players per draft.  TM and DR didn't come close.  However, it will be years before we know for sure.  

You can believe that if you want. Dahlin, Cozens, 1 maybe 2 defenders and 1 of the goalies will be the NHL players that matter from Botterill's time here. 

[GASabresIUFAN]

12 minutes ago, LGR4GM said:

You can believe that if you want. Dahlin, Cozens, 1 maybe 2 defenders and 1 of the goalies will be the NHL players that matter from Botterill's time here. 

"That matter"  What does that mean?  Top 6, Top 9, plays 100+ games? plays 300+ games, is traded like Nylander for a great asset?  What does "that matter" mean if anything? Is Girgensons a pick that matters?  He has played 489 games for the Sabres but mostly in a bottom 6 role.  Were Mike Weber or Andrew Peters picks that matter?

Building a team is not only drafting top 6 forwards or top 4 D, is about building depth in your organization so that you can have next man up like Pitt had and Carolina has created now so that as players move on you have someone ready to step in.

If Bryson becomes a 3rd pairing D that ends up playing for us for 3-4 seasons, that is a pick that matters.  If UPL develops into a starter and Portillo becomes his backup, both those picks matter.  If Rousek and Pekar become our energy line for a few years or more, like Girgensons and Larsson, they matter also.

[JohnC]

1 hour ago, GASabresIUFAN said:

Well said, except I don't think Mitts is going to fail.  I think he'll be one of the big surprises this winter and spring.  I know people gave Jbot much crap for drafting D, but isn't it nice to gave 6 decent to very good D prospects in our system right now?  I wonder if Murray will build on last season and how Pekar will fare in his first pro season.  If those two do well, we are looking at what you predicted.

I'm not giving up on Mitts but I'm not counting on him. It is going to be interesting to see if he comes into training camp in peak condition and plays beyond expectations. He is a player that the organization glaringly mishandled. He should have been playing full time in the the AHL right from the start and allowed to develop at his own pace and earn his move up the ranks. Based on his comments the GM still believes that he can become a player that was worthy of his draft status. My primary concern about Mitts is not his talent level but his compete level. He reminds me too much of Nylander where intermittently he will show you some tantalizing ability and then mostly fade away as an invisible player. If he surprises and earn his spot on the roster it would be an unexpected bonus. 

[tom webster]

44 minutes ago, LGR4GM said:

You can believe that if you want. Dahlin, Cozens, 1 maybe 2 defenders and 1 of the goalies will be the NHL players that matter from Botterill's time here. 

So, if they owe JBOT a number one defenseman, a second line center, two other top six defenders and a goalie you don’t think that will rank as one of the best hauls for 2017-2019? I’d like to take that bet.

[LGR4GM]

27 minutes ago, GASabresIUFAN said:

"That matter"  What does that mean?  Top 6, Top 9, plays 100+ games? plays 300+ games, is traded like Nylander for a great asset?  What does "that matter" mean if anything? Is Girgensons a pick that matters?  He has played 489 games for the Sabres but mostly in a bottom 6 role.  Were Mike Weber or Andrew Peters picks that matter?

Building a team is not only drafting top 6 forwards or top 4 D, is about building depth in your organization so that you can have next man up like Pitt had and Carolina has created now so that as players move on you have someone ready to step in.

If Bryson becomes a 3rd pairing D that ends up playing for us for 3-4 seasons, that is a pick that matters.  If UPL develops into a starter and Portillo becomes his backup, both those picks matter.  If Rousek and Pekar become our energy line for a few years or more, like Girgensons and Larsson, they matter also.

Matters, can I replace the player or let them go with little or no consequence. 

So no, Zemgus really didn't matter. I think he's easily replaceable. Olofsson matters. Ullmark matters. Cozens will hopefully matter. Mitts hasn't mattered and may never. 

Zemgus and Larson weren't an energy line. They were a shutdown line but I still think they were replaceable, we'll find out about larson shortly. That doesn't mean I want to or have to but when it comes to draft picks, getting players that matter is what matters. 

Pekar, might be a 4th line pest. That's replaceable. Rousek, maybe makes the 3rd line, but still he's easily replaceable. Bryson, I have hopes he matters and your third pair can. 

Again, you view all these players as players that will impact the team. Most aren't good enough and are easily replaceable. 

Finally to the Nylander trade, idc. I don't care because we're talking about drafting. The Sabres traded 7th for 20th, they failed at drafting. That's the point. It's about drafting players that actually do something you can't sign john doe to do in free agency. 

10 minutes ago, tom webster said:

So, if they owe JBOT a number one defenseman, a second line center, two other top six defenders and a goalie you don’t think that will rank as one of the best hauls for 2017-2019? I’d like to take that bet.

No. He was gifted 1 of those. I'd expect any GM to be able to get a second line player at 8 overall. 

What top 2 defenders? We're already not counting Dahlin. 

Goalies might pan out. I'd be surprised if both did though. 

[dudacek]

6 minutes ago, LGR4GM said:

Matters, can I replace the player or let them go with little or no consequence. 

So no, Zemgus really didn't matter. I think he's easily replaceable. Olofsson matters. Ullmark matters. Cozens will hopefully matter. Mitts hasn't mattered and may never. 

Zemgus and Larson weren't an energy line. They were a shutdown line but I still think they were replaceable, we'll find out about larson shortly. That doesn't mean I want to or have to but when it comes to draft picks, getting players that matter is what matters. 

Pekar, might be a 4th line pest. That's replaceable. Rousek, maybe makes the 3rd line, but still he's easily replaceable. Bryson, I have hopes he matters and your third pair can.

All NHL-calibre players matter to some degree under a salary cap system. They allow you to cycle in cheap talent as other talent outgrows your budget, provide depth to fill in the gaps during the course of a season and they can be flipped to acquire more draft capital.

[JohnC]

4 hours ago, DarthEbriate said:

It's not my fault! I trusted them to fix it!

The other excuse I’ll make for our prospect pool is that we’ve traded away a lot of picks and we haven’t returned a lot of prospects in our trades. We’ve traded to improve the NHL roster --- which sounds odd when you consider we’ve been in a tear-down and rebuild for the last 7 seasons. And no, it doesn’t mean we would’ve drafted better, just more volume and the chance for more hits.

On the one hand, it’s OK to trade picks to rebuild the NHL roster because “you can’t sign them all” and you want to “Win now!”. On the other dismembered-by-lightsaber hand, it impacts the prospect pool. It’s especially glaring for JBott who vowed to rebuild the pipeline and Rochester, and then traded away high picks several times.

Examples: Traded a 1st for Lehner ; Traded a 1st for Montour ; Traded two 2nds for Skinner. Edit: The ROR trade only brought back Tage as a prospect along with two NHL roster players; the Kane trade (admittedly a rental so we weren't getting a top prospect, only brought back O'Regan with the 1st and not some 19 year-old "reach" prospect in SJ's pipeline.)

If I'm not mistaken wasn't Murray the GM who traded a first round pick for Lehner?

[tom webster]

1 hour ago, LGR4GM said:

Matters, can I replace the player or let them go with little or no consequence. 

So no, Zemgus really didn't matter. I think he's easily replaceable. Olofsson matters. Ullmark matters. Cozens will hopefully matter. Mitts hasn't mattered and may never. 

Zemgus and Larson weren't an energy line. They were a shutdown line but I still think they were replaceable, we'll find out about larson shortly. That doesn't mean I want to or have to but when it comes to draft picks, getting players that matter is what matters. 

Pekar, might be a 4th line pest. That's replaceable. Rousek, maybe makes the 3rd line, but still he's easily replaceable. Bryson, I have hopes he matters and your third pair can. 

Again, you view all these players as players that will impact the team. Most aren't good enough and are easily replaceable. 

Finally to the Nylander trade, idc. I don't care because we're talking about drafting. The Sabres traded 7th for 20th, they failed at drafting. That's the point. It's about drafting players that actually do something you can't sign john doe to do in free agency. 

No. He was gifted 1 of those. I'd expect any GM to be able to get a second line player at 8 overall. 

What top 2 defenders? We're already not counting Dahlin. 

Goalies might pan out. I'd be surprised if both did though. 

You can’t complain about qualifying picks and then do it yourself. Dahlin was his pick. Also, you know better then most that you can’t make a blanket statement about number 8. Some years yes, most years no.

Still believe three years out, we MIGHT, have a different view of JBOT’s draft. Making a judgement based on prospect list, while good conversation, especially with nothing else going around, is in my opinion, of little value.

[Curt]

1 hour ago, LGR4GM said:

Matters, can I replace the player or let them go with little or no consequence. 

So no, Zemgus really didn't matter. I think he's easily replaceable. Olofsson matters. Ullmark matters. Cozens will hopefully matter. Mitts hasn't mattered and may never. 

Zemgus and Larson weren't an energy line. They were a shutdown line but I still think they were replaceable, we'll find out about larson shortly. That doesn't mean I want to or have to but when it comes to draft picks, getting players that matter is what matters. 

Pekar, might be a 4th line pest. That's replaceable. Rousek, maybe makes the 3rd line, but still he's easily replaceable. Bryson, I have hopes he matters and your third pair can. 

Again, you view all these players as players that will impact the team. Most aren't good enough and are easily replaceable. 

Finally to the Nylander trade, idc. I don't care because we're talking about drafting. The Sabres traded 7th for 20th, they failed at drafting. That's the point. It's about drafting players that actually do something you can't sign john doe to do in free agency. 

Outside of the first round, any NHL player is a successful draft pick, and it matters.  You need cheap young NHL players.

That easily replaceable bottom 6 guy who doesn’t matter, wouldn’t it be great if he was making $850K instead of $2.5M?  That 3rd pair D who doesn’t matter, wouldn’t it be great if he made  $1.2M instead of $3M?

This is not a support of the Sabres drafting, but in opposition to your apparent claim that only drafting top 6 level guys matter.

[DarthEbriate]

1 hour ago, JohnC said:

If I'm not mistaken wasn't Murray the GM who traded a first round pick for Lehner?

Yes -- I had listed the 7 years we've been rebuilding and figured I should include something of Murray's as well to show it's not just JBott handing out high picks in an effort to improve the current roster.

[JohnC]

33 minutes ago, DarthEbriate said:

Yes -- I had listed the 7 years we've been rebuilding and figured I should include something of Murray's as well to show it's not just JBott handing out high picks in an effort to improve the current roster.

It's fair to criticize Botts for deals he made on his watch. It's not fair to include him for criticism for transactions made on someone else's watch. What's fair is fair.