Risto said it's time for him to go?

[Trettioåtta]

This forum endlessly pitches addition by subtraction, and all it ever leads to is a worse product.

Ignoring cap space, Risto will be a solid second pairing D man on any team. People describe him as though he is barely an NHL player, yet for some reason about 8 different NHL coaches have seen fit to use him as their go to D-man

 

[Taro T]

3 hours ago, dudacek said:

I know it ain’t going to happen, but I’d like to see a consensus definition of some hockey terms.

For example, what does “1st pairing defenceman” mean?

Does it mean a guy who is capable of playing regularly against the top players in the league, and Shut them down?

A guy who can anchor a PP, push transition and score 40-plus points?

A guy who is arguably one of the best 62 (soon to be 64) blue liners in hockey?

A guy who can play in all situations?

An elite, franchise defenceman?

It would certainly make some of these conversations easier.

To me, a "true" top pairing guy will be able to at minimum hold his own consistently facing the other team's top line & will consistently outplay the other team's 2nd & lesser lines.  He will be minimally adequate in all 3 zones and should excel in 2 of them.  If he isn't on the top PK pairing, he will be 1 of the 2 getting PP time & likely on the 2nd PK unit.  He should be on the ice at the end of the game regardless of the score, but a specialist that doesn't have the fully rounded game could supplant him at 1 end or the other.

There aren't 62 of them.  Probably only 40-45 leaguewide.  (Think Keith & Seabrook in their primes.)

And would estimate that there are only 15-20 "true" #1's leaguewide.  (Think Keith)

 

True 2nd pairing guys will be able to hold their own for a time against the other team's top line but can't do it for 20+ minutes anywhere close to 82 times per year.  They will either be adequate+ in all 3 zones, or be GOOD In 1 zone & lacking in one of the others.  Especially if not getting the "toughest" minutes.  Probably on 1 of the special teams, but not both.  (Think Leddy or Hjalmarsson during their prime.)  Including top pairing guys, there probably are at least about 100 and maybe even 120 or so.

My 2 cents.  YMMV.

[dudacek]

14 minutes ago, Taro T said:

To me, a "true" top pairing guy will be able to at minimum hold his own consistently facing the other team's top line & will consistently outplay the other team's 2nd & lesser lines.  He will be minimally adequate in all 3 zones and should excel in 2 of them.  If he isn't on the top PK pairing, he will be 1 of the 2 getting PP time & likely on the 2nd PK unit.  He should be on the ice at the end of the game regardless of the score, but a specialist that doesn't have the fully rounded game could supplant him at 1 end or the other.

There aren't 62 of them.  Probably only 40-45 leaguewide.  (Think Keith & Seabrook in their primes.)

And would estimate that there are only 15-20 "true" #1's leaguewide.  (Think Keith)

 

True 2nd pairing guys will be able to hold their own for a time against the other team's top line but can't do it for 20+ minutes anywhere close to 82 times per year.  They will either be adequate+ in all 3 zones, or be GOOD In 1 zone & lacking in one of the others.  Especially if not getting the "toughest" minutes.  Probably on 1 of the special teams, but not both.  (Think Leddy or Hjalmarsson during their prime.)  Including top pairing guys, there probably are at least about 100 and maybe even 120 or so.

My 2 cents.  YMMV.

I like your definitions, with a slight twist.

I also like Liger’s idea of there not being enough of each tier to go around.

Depending on how well they fit the Taro descriptions, I see there being 15-20ish “1s” (complete, franchise guys) and 30-50ish “2-3s” (guys who can hold their own on a first pair or anchor a second), 50-80 4-5s and a whole bunch of 6-7s.

A best-case scenario for the Sabres is Dahlin becomes a one, Montour and Risto play to their potential as 2/3s, Scandella, Bogosian and McCabe play to their ceilings as 4/5s and Nelson and Pilut fill in as competent 6/7s.

Last year Dahlin and Risto wavered between 2/3 and 4/5, Bogo and McCabe mostly did what was expected of them, including getting hurt, Scandella was a 6/7 and Montour was a late arrival.

There’s potential, but even with Risto, there’s a lot of question marks too.

[TrueBlueGED]

2 hours ago, Thorny said:

Maybe so, but the overall aptitude of the D takes a hit if Risto is moved, I don't buy into the notion it's "addition by subtraction" with Nelson slotting into pair 2. 

Montour is our first pair RHD right now, isn't he? 

 

1 hour ago, Trettioåtta said:

This forum endlessly pitches addition by subtraction, and all it ever leads to is a worse product.

Ignoring cap space, Risto will be a solid second pairing D man on any team. People describe him as though he is barely an NHL player, yet for some reason about 8 different NHL coaches have seen fit to use him as their go to D-man

 

I want to be as clear as humanly possible: I'm not interested in trading Risto as any kind of addition by subtraction. I don't believe in that nonsense. It might not be in defense, but if I can net more roster value than Risto provides (obviously, in my assessment), I'm doing it. I'll worry about positionality later. 

And seriously, nobody describes him as barely an NHLer. 

18 minutes ago, dudacek said:

I like your definitions, with a slight twist.

I also like Liger’s idea of there not being enough of each tier to go around.

Depending on how well they fit the Taro descriptions, I see there being 15-20ish “1s” (complete, franchise guys) and 30-50ish “2-3s” (guys who can hold their own on a first pair or anchor a second), 50-80 4-5s and a whole bunch of 6-7s.

A best-case scenario for the Sabres is Dahlin becomes a one, Montour and Risto play to their potential as 2/3s, Scandella, Bogosian and McCabe play to their ceilings as 4/5s and Nelson and Pilut fill in as competent 6/7s.

Last year Dahlin and Risto wavered between 2/3 and 4/5, Bogo and McCabe mostly did what was expected of them, including getting hurt, Scandella was a 6/7 and Montour was a late arrival.

There’s potential, but even with Risto, there’s a lot of question marks too.

Pretty much what you and Taro said. From the most basic perspective possible, there are 31 #1 Dmen and 62 top pairing Dmen. But just because they skate there on bad teams doesn't mean they could do it on a good team. And that's my threshold. Not do they skate as a #1 or 1st pair, but do you think they could do it on a contending team. 

[Thorner]

^Right, should clarify I was speaking more generally as it's a common opinion out in twitterland. 

I believe you've stated previous you'd want him replaced with someone on D if moved, unless I am much mistaken. 

Edited June 12, 2019 by Thorny

[Broken Ankles]

3 hours ago, Drunkard said:

He's not expendable until you have someone better to replace him. If you don't have a good first line center, you don't just get rid of the guy you have playing first line center because he's struggling. You try to find an upgrade so you can bump that guy down to the second line. 

Disagree.  Not a good complimentary fit with the other Rasmus, and to be clear our Defense begins and ends with Dahlin.   As stated, Montour is a RD, and therefore not a need there.  We cannot pay $5.4m AAV to a third line D, especially when guys like Nelson or Bogo can fill that hole.   These facts coupled with the expected return lead me to believe he is expendable.  His cap figure will be replaced by a top six forward we desperately need.  Yes the compliment to Dahlin is missing but I expect that in a trade or Free agency.  

[North Buffalo]

Still think Dhalin and Montour may work well together and McCabe always played well with Risto. Bring up Borgen and pair him Pilut and trade Scandella,  Bogosian can replace the above if no market for him or keep when younger guys need teaching. Nelson is expendable use a trade and is a good soldier until Bogo comes back. 

I am against a Risto trade till new coach gets a hold of this D group.  Laaksonen will be here following year so imo D is deep though not perfect.  Dont make trade unless return is worth it, especially for Risto. Too much demand for high end D that appeared to be mishandled. His game when on imo is worth keeping in the right system.

Edited June 12, 2019 by North Buffalo

[Curt]

47 minutes ago, North Buffalo said:

Still think Dhalin and Montour may work well together and McCabe always played well with Risto. Bring up Borgen and pair him Pilut and trade Scandella,  Bogosian can replace the above if no market for him or keep when younger guys need teaching. Nelson is expendable use a trade and is a good soldier until Bogo comes back. 

I am against a Risto trade till new coach gets a hold of this D group.  Laaksonen will be here following year so imo D is deep though not perfect.  Dont make trade unless return is worth it, especially for Risto. Too much demand for high end D that appeared to be mishandled. His game when on imo is worth keeping in the right system.

I like him, but I wouldn’t count on Laaksonen being in Buffalo for the 2020-21 season.  Maybe in Rochester though.

[North Buffalo]

28 minutes ago, Curtisp5286 said:

I like him, but I wouldn’t count on Laaksonen being in Buffalo for the 2020-21 season.  Maybe in Rochester though.

All the more reason to wait on Risto till at least trade deadline and maybe not at all.

[Drunkard]

3 hours ago, Broken Ankles said:

Disagree.  Not a good complimentary fit with the other Rasmus, and to be clear our Defense begins and ends with Dahlin.   As stated, Montour is a RD, and therefore not a need there.  We cannot pay $5.4m AAV to a third line D, especially when guys like Nelson or Bogo can fill that hole.   These facts coupled with the expected return lead me to believe he is expendable.  His cap figure will be replaced by a top six forward we desperately need.  Yes the compliment to Dahlin is missing but I expect that in a trade or Free agency.  

Just because he earns $5.4 million AAV doesn't mean he has to play on the top pair. Hell, Bogosian earns $5 million a year to be hurt half the year. Why does he get to stay? He's never on the top pair even when he is healthy. 

I hope Montour works well with Dahlin on the top pair and I hope Ristolainen gets a chance to succeed in an easier role. If Botterill trades him for more magic beans I hope they can him before he can screw up the team further.

[TrueBlueGED]

24 minutes ago, Drunkard said:

Just because he earns $5.4 million AAV doesn't mean he has to play on the top pair. Hell, Bogosian earns $5 million a year to be hurt half the year. Why does he get to stay? He's never on the top pair even when he is healthy. 

I hope Montour works well with Dahlin on the top pair and I hope Ristolainen gets a chance to succeed in an easier role. If Botterill trades him for more magic beans I hope they can him before he can screw up the team further.

I wish he wouldn't, but that's besides the point. Nobody is giving us a sack of potatoes for Bogosian. Risto (presumably) has trade value. 

[Drunkard]

23 minutes ago, TrueBlueGED said:

I wish he wouldn't, but that's besides the point. Nobody is giving us a sack of potatoes for Bogosian. Risto (presumably) has trade value. 

And you trust Botterill to not only get fair value for him, but get enough value to actually improve the team? I don't so I prefer to see if Kreuger can put him in a position to succeed.

[Broken Ankles]

1 hour ago, Drunkard said:

Just because he earns $5.4 million AAV doesn't mean he has to play on the top pair. Hell, Bogosian earns $5 million a year to be hurt half the year. Why does he get to stay? He's never on the top pair even when he is healthy. 

 I hope Montour works well with Dahlin on the top pair and I hope Ristolainen gets a chance to succeed in an easier role. If Botterill trades him for more magic beans I hope they can him before he can screw up the team further.

As soon as I wrote this, I knew I opened up to criticism.   Agreed.   The fact we have a 3 line D in Bogo and 4th line forward in KO earning $6M AAV is one of many reasons why we  are not in great cap shape.  However there is a light at the end of the tunnel (at least with Hunwick, Bogo, Vlad and Scandella).    I have no reason to expect a Ryan O'Reillyesque return, but I think Risto brings back something something useful to the top six.   And like Liger said, Montour slots in as Second line Right pair, so I expect another move to find a dance partner for Dahlin. 

[Curt]

5 hours ago, Drunkard said:

And you trust Botterill to not only get fair value for him, but get enough value to actually improve the team? I don't so I prefer to see if Kreuger can put him in a position to succeed.

I would personally.  I know you are thinking of the O’Reilly trade, but honestly I have been fine with every other trade made by this GM.

[LGR4GM]

14 hours ago, Trettioåtta said:

This forum endlessly pitches addition by subtraction, and all it ever leads to is a worse product.

Ignoring cap space, Risto will be a solid second pairing D man on any team. People describe him as though he is barely an NHL player, yet for some reason about 8 different NHL coaches have seen fit to use him as their go to D-man

 

That's not what anyone is saying. We could give Risto to get bolster the top 6. It's addition by addition. 

[TrueBlueGED]

7 hours ago, Drunkard said:

And you trust Botterill to not only get fair value for him, but get enough value to actually improve the team? I don't so I prefer to see if Kreuger can put him in a position to succeed.

Meh. I don't trust Krueger any more than I trust Botterill.

Besides, I have no interest in talking about moves to improve the team if I can't get beyond "well I don't trust the GM, so don't make moves." That's just pretty boring to me from a conversational perspective. 

[TrueBlueGED]

1 minute ago, Drunkard said:

If you trade Ristolainen though, how is Montour going to slot in on the second pair? Won't he then be needed for the top pair at that point? That's what I don't understand about the argument.

 Who replaces Ristolainen on the top pair? Bogosian? Nelson? Borgen? Are we just going to throw Dahlin out there by himself and go with 6 forwards? Moving Ristolainen requires somebody else to take those minutes and I've yet to see a good argument for where they should go because both you and LGR seem to think Montour belongs on the second pair, which is fine, but that means we need someone new for the top pair and since everyone who wants to trade Ristolainen seems to want to move him for forward help I can only imagine that means you either think he'll be replaced internally or you guys think Erik Karlsson is signing here or something.

Conceptually, I just don't think you need to put your best two defenseman on the top pair. I also don't think the minutes that Risto plays have to exist. Balance things across the top-4 rather than saddling one pair with it. That would be my approach. 

[Drunkard]

8 hours ago, Broken Ankles said:

As soon as I wrote this, I knew I opened up to criticism.   Agreed.   The fact we have a 3 line D in Bogo and 4th line forward in KO earning $6M AAV is one of many reasons why we  are not in great cap shape.  However there is a light at the end of the tunnel (at least with Hunwick, Bogo, Vlad and Scandella).    I have no reason to expect a Ryan O'Reillyesque return, but I think Risto brings back something something useful to the top six.   And like Liger said, Montour slots in as Second line Right pair, so I expect another move to find a dance partner for Dahlin. 

So you want Botterill to trade Ristolainen to fix the forward depth. And the solution to replace Ristolainen is that you think Botterill can then just make another move to acquire a top pairing defenseman to play with our franchise defenseman? How is that going to happen? It's not like GMs just make those guy readily available and even when they do, trading for them requires a king's ransom. Using your logic Ristolainen is bad but somehow good enough to return some help for the top 6. So what are you willing to give up to return this top pairing partner for Dahlin? Is it going to be all futures or is it just going to continue the cycle or trying to fix a hole by creating a bigger hole elsewhere? 

Edited June 13, 2019 by Drunkard

[Drunkard]

4 minutes ago, TrueBlueGED said:

Conceptually, I just don't think you need to put your best two defenseman on the top pair. I also don't think the minutes that Risto plays have to exist. Balance things across the top-4 rather than saddling one pair with it. That would be my approach. 

Fair enough. I deleted that post and re-typed it out to hopefully make my position clearer. I think splitting up the tough minutes would be wise whether Ristolainen stays or not, so I don't disagree with that position I just don't see how losing him will make the defense better. Ristolainen despite his flaws still holds value yet some people seem to think we can trade for an upgrade to him without gutting the team. It may be possible but that guy will either be an older guy well past his prime that will only help for a season or two or we'd have to get lucky and strike gold on a younger guy some other team lost faith in.

[Drunkard]

1 hour ago, TrueBlueGED said:

Meh. I don't trust Krueger any more than I trust Botterill.

Besides, I have no interest in talking about moves to improve the team if I can't get beyond "well I don't trust the GM, so don't make moves." That's just pretty boring to me from a conversational perspective. 

I don't trust Botterill at all but he's still the GM so I understand he'll continue to make decisions and I enjoy discussing it regardless. I'd rather see him make moves as a "buyer" the way he went after Skinner, Sheary, and Montour than to see him try to make moves as a "seller" the way he sold off O'Reilly and Kane. He seems to have more aptitude as a buyer, regardless of the fact that I'd like to see his head on a metaphorical stick.

[TrueBlueGED]

2 minutes ago, Drunkard said:

I don't trust Botterill at all but he's still the GM so I understand he'll continue to make decisions and I enjoy discussing it regardless. I'd rather see him make moves as a "buyer" the way he went after Skinner, Sheary, and Montour than to see him try to make moves as a "seller" the way he sold off O'Reilly and Kane. He seems to have more aptitude as a buyer, regardless of the fact that I'd like to see his head on a metaphorical stick.

I think this is a fair assessment given what he's done so far. I think he was seriously constrained by market forces with respect to the Kane trade, but it's not like we have a lot to go on other than that and O'Reilly. 

[Broken Ankles]

1 hour ago, Drunkard said:

So you want Botterill to trade Ristolainen to fix the forward depth. And the solution to replace Ristolainen is that you think Botterill can then just make another move to acquire a top pairing defenseman to play with our franchise defenseman? How is that going to happen? It's not like GMs just make those guy readily available and even when they do, trading for them requires a king's ransom. Using your logic Ristolainen is bad but somehow good enough to return some help for the top 6. So what are you willing to give up to return this top pairing partner for Dahlin? Is it going to be all futures or is it just going to continue the cycle or trying to fix a hole by creating a bigger hole elsewhere? 

   Did we demand a "kings ransom" for Brayden McNabb?  I believe it was Hudson Fashing (who was a wash out - and TM gave up 2 #2's to LA to boot).   McNabb went on to play top pairing minutes with Drew Doughty.   What I'm suggesting is that Ristolainen's upside (scoring, power play minutes) is already replaced by a younger, better skating defender.  His strength and D-zone will continue to grow.   What we need is a compliment to Dahlin's game.  Not necessarily another teams #1 D-man.  I don't buy into the idea that your two best defensemen always have to be on the same pairing.   

My argument is not that Risto is bad.  I think some elements of his game are desperately needed by other teams.  I just happen to think that we have two players on the roster that can fill those voids, and IF the return from another team  can bolster another area of need, then it's something you must consider.  

What am I willing to give up?  See McNabb trade above, or Nick Leddy, or Boychuck as other comps.  Nothing significant.  I would even suggest Dan Giaradi as a UFA as an option.   If you go down the path of Trouba it will be a good prospect, a first and a player.   I'm advocating the former.  

 

[Drunkard]

7 minutes ago, Broken Ankles said:

   Did we demand a "kings ransom" for Brayden McNabb?  I believe it was Hudson Fashing (who was a wash out - and TM gave up 2 #2's to LA to boot).   McNabb went on to play top pairing minutes with Drew Doughty.   What I'm suggesting is that Ristolainen's upside (scoring, power play minutes) is already replaced by a younger, better skating defender.  His strength and D-zone will continue to grow.   What we need is a compliment to Dahlin's game.  Not necessarily another teams #1 D-man.  I don't buy into the idea that your two best defensemen always have to be on the same pairing.   

My argument is not that Risto is bad.  I think some elements of his game are desperately needed by other teams.  I just happen to think that we have two players on the roster that can fill those voids, and IF the return from another team  can bolster another area of need, then it's something you must consider.  

What am I willing to give up?  See McNabb trade above, or Nick Leddy, or Boychuck as other comps.  Nothing significant.  I would even suggest Dan Giaradi as a UFA as an option.   If you go down the path of Trouba it will be a good prospect, a first and a player.   I'm advocating the former.  

 

Ok. I still disagree but at least now I feel like I understand your pov so thanks for the clarification. In that sense I agree, it shouldn't be too hard to find a middle of the pack type of dman who happens to have skills that compliment Dahlin's game. The guy is going to be a stud and he's definitely talented enough to cover up for deficiencies in a defensive partner with flaws or at least he'll be at that level soon enough.

I just happen to think that's asking too much from him this early in his career and I was under the impression that Botterill was going with the slow and steady, methodical approach to development. Whether he can handle it or not next season is almost irrelevant for me. If throwing him in the deep end this early into his career has even a 1% chance of stunting his growth or messing up his development, I wouldn't want to risk it, because he's too important to the franchise.

[Broken Ankles]

7 minutes ago, Drunkard said:

Ok. I still disagree but at least now I feel like I understand your pov so thanks for the clarification. In that sense I agree, it shouldn't be too hard to find a middle of the pack type of dman who happens to have skills that compliment Dahlin's game. The guy is going to be a stud and he's definitely talented enough to cover up for deficiencies in a defensive partner with flaws or at least he'll be at that level soon enough.

 I just happen to think that's asking too much from him this early in his career and I was under the impression that Botterill was going with the slow and steady, methodical approach to development. Whether he can handle it or not next season is almost irrelevant for me. If throwing him in the deep end this early into his career has even a 1% chance of stunting his growth or messing up his development, I wouldn't want to risk it, because he's too important to the franchise.

I agree with this too.   Just as you convinced me on how wrong I was on O'Reilly, I hope I can convince you that a Risto trade will actually benefit this team in the long run. 

[Drunkard]

1 minute ago, Broken Ankles said:

I agree with this too.   Just as you convinced me on how wrong I was on O'Reilly, I hope I can convince you that a Risto trade will actually benefit this team in the long run. 

I'm afraid trading Ristolainen will be O'Reilly part two. Botterill is the volume shooter type and instead of trading Ristolainen for one good player who can fix our center depth and improve the team next season, he's going to trade him for a basket of lesser pieces in hopes he can hit a bullseye or two with his multiple dart approach. I've said it before, but I fear he trades Ristolainen to Tampa for a package of something like:

Miller (to try to fix his O'Reilly mistake)

Callahan (pure cap dump)

Mediocre prospect (no way they give us a top prospect, when St. Louis only gave up Thompson for O'Reilly)

Late 1st round pick (very late given how good Tampa is, plus we'll be helping them out further by gifting them cap space since Callahan and Miller combined take up a lot more cap space than Ristolainen)

I think that leaves Dahlin exposed to having to carry the defense way too early and with most of the actual value in the Ristolainen trade being futures, the team is worse in the short run. The ironic part is that if any of his long term darts ever actually pan out, it will be the next GM who reaps the benefits instead of Botterill.