GDT: 11/17/19 Buffalo @ Chicago, 7 p.m. EST, MSG, WGR550

[Neo]

45 minutes ago, Kruppstahl said:

Great Tweet on Jack's consistently lazy/bad defensive play, and a big  part of why we find ourselves in the same place year after year despite the coaching changes.  

 

I don’t want Jack traded.  However, that was the same opponent doing the same thing!  I don’t get it.  You don’t get to the NHL without being an all in effort guy.  I trust he knows what he should be doing and I trust he’s done just that for 15 years.  

[Carmel Corn]

1 minute ago, Neo said:

I don’t want Jack traded.  However, that was the same opponent doing the same thing!  I don’t get it.  You don’t get to the NHL without being an all in effort guy.  I trust he knows what he should be doing and I trust he’s done just that for 15 years.  

I am not so sure.  My guess is that Jack's offensive talents have been so exceptional growing up, that his coaches have continually asked him to just go out and "score another goal" time and time again.  At lower levels, his defensive liabilities are less obvious because there is not enough talent to exploit his deficiencies.  At lower levels, it does not require as much of a constant motor to be exceptional.

[Randall Flagg]

Thought experiment: Let's replace Jack Eichel with Patrice Bergeron, a borderline-elite offensive talent with arguably the best two-way game of any forward since Datsyuk/Zetterberg's prime. 

We'll take last season as an example, and then do this season too. There's no perfect way to quantitatively analyze the effect of a player on a new team of course, but it's better than doing nothing and throwing out claims to see what sticks. 

If you take Patrice Bergeron's 5v5 production last season and map it into the number of minutes Jack played, he would have produced 52 points, or contributed to 52 goals, for us. This is in contrast to 47 for Eichel. If you then measure the goals scored on Boston with him on the ice and map them the same way to Jack's ice time here, you get 48 goals against. Jack's was 63. That is a net difference in 20 goals. Keep in mind that this is assuming that Patrice Bergeron 
a.) stays healthy enough to play a full season, which hasn't happened for a few years
b.) suffers ZERO offensive depletion due to moving from Marchand & Pastrnak as wingers to Skinner/Sheary and Pominville/Reinhart as wingers as Eichel had last year
c.) suffers ZERO in the defensive zone from team defense and goaltending drop off between Boston and Buffalo, and Rask/Halak vs Ullmark/Hutton.

So if this wildly perfect scenario (which would obviously not play out this perfectly in real life) happened, we'd have a net team improvement of 20 goals.

We'd still be more than two dozen goals below breaking even as a team, at a team goal differential of -25 even AFTER this switch. This is if EVERYTHING went perfectly with the switch, including our wingers suddenly being Pasta AND Marchand level, our team defense around Patrice suddenly matching that of Cassidy's Bruins, our goalies suddenly playing to the level of Rask/Halak.

And getting rid of Jack certainly doesn't guarantee you putting the best two way player of his generation in his place. Why on earth would it? This is the best case two-way scenario possible in the entire world. And even if you somehow got that, EVEN IF it guaranteed that you get the same line-level results from Bergeron as he puts out in Boston, which you almost certainly wouldn't, since he plays with two legit superstar top 5 wingers in the entire league, TWO,  EVEN IF all of that still happened, the team is still more than two dozen goals from breaking even, much less going above that to fight for a mere playoff birth. 

This is why I post so fervently against blowing ***** up just to blow it up, and to make lateral moves for the sake of lateral moves. 

If we do the same mapping for this year, the Sabres would have allowed the same number of goals with Bergeron on the ice as they have with Eichel, and Bergeron has fewer 5v5 goals contributed to than Eichel in fewer minutes played. 

This analysis is obviously not perfect, but the Sabres wouldn't be capable of trading Eichel for the best two way player on the planet and they so clearly have problems that are a lot easier to fix than acquiring said player, problems that wouldn't go away with this swap. 

Edited November 18, 2019 by Randall Flagg

[Stoner]

Turgeon for LaFontaine was a lateral move. It came at the beginning of Pierre's fifth season after he'd already been a 100-point player. The Sabres' playoff drought (quaintly defined as not winning a playoff series) was in its ninth year. It was an admirable move by a franchise that knew it had to do something big. The franchise's first Cup wasn't all that far off less than two years later, and LaFontaine went down as one of the most beloved players in team history. Nobody would go back in time and kill baby Meehan for that move.

The debate is fun, but this is one trade that would never, ever get past Terry's flip phone.

[Randall Flagg]

58 minutes ago, PASabreFan said:

Turgeon for LaFontaine was a lateral move. It came at the beginning of Pierre's fifth season after he'd already been a 100-point player. The Sabres' playoff drought (quaintly defined as not winning a playoff series) was in its ninth year. It was an admirable move by a franchise that knew it had to do something big. The franchise's first Cup wasn't all that far off less than two years later, and LaFontaine went down as one of the most beloved players in team history. Nobody would go back in time and kill baby Meehan for that move.

The debate is fun, but this is one trade that would never, ever get past Terry's flip phone.

I only have a flip phone. Should I be insulted by this 

[Stoner]

22 minutes ago, Randall Flagg said:

I only have a flip phone. Should I be insulted by this 

No. Mine is still the one with the earpiece that you crank.

[Doohicksie]

19 minutes ago, PASabreFan said:

Mine is still the one with the earpiece that you crank.

Party line, amirite?

[Pimlach]

21 hours ago, Broken Ankles said:

  It has been said that “adversity does not build character it reveals it.”  It does not get any easier for this team.   Only three winnable games in the next 15.   If we see a collapse like last year, God help us.  Massive changes like GM, Coach and most likely Jack for Tank 3.0.  

Three in next 15.  Nah.  They can win 5 or more just by end of November, or not. 

[Claude Balls]

6 hours ago, apuszczalowski said:

I don't think they will go out and try for a #1 unless it's an older vet on a short term deal. They have UPL who will probably be coming up in the next couple years so I doubt they want to use alot of resources for someone else who's young. 

Well Crawford is 34, so he's no spring chicken. And I think he would be easier to pry away from Chicago than Lehner.

[Pimlach]

4 hours ago, Randall Flagg said:

Thought experiment: Let's replace Jack Eichel with Patrice Bergeron, a borderline-elite offensive talent with arguably the best two-way game of any forward since Datsyuk/Zetterberg's prime. 

We'll take last season as an example, and then do this season too. There's no perfect way to quantitatively analyze the effect of a player on a new team of course, but it's better than doing nothing and throwing out claims to see what sticks. 

If you take Patrice Bergeron's 5v5 production last season and map it into the number of minutes Jack played, he would have produced 52 points, or contributed to 52 goals, for us. This is in contrast to 47 for Eichel. If you then measure the goals scored on Boston with him on the ice and map them the same way to Jack's ice time here, you get 48 goals against. Jack's was 63. That is a net difference in 20 goals. Keep in mind that this is assuming that Patrice Bergeron 
a.) stays healthy enough to play a full season, which hasn't happened for a few years
b.) suffers ZERO offensive depletion due to moving from Marchand & Pastrnak as wingers to Skinner/Sheary and Pominville/Reinhart as wingers as Eichel had last year
c.) suffers ZERO in the defensive zone from team defense and goaltending drop off between Boston and Buffalo, and Rask/Halak vs Ullmark/Hutton.

So if this wildly perfect scenario (which would obviously not play out this perfectly in real life) happened, we'd have a net team improvement of 20 goals.

We'd still be more than two dozen goals below breaking even as a team, at a team goal differential of -25 even AFTER this switch. This is if EVERYTHING went perfectly with the switch, including our wingers suddenly being Pasta AND Marchand level, our team defense around Patrice suddenly matching that of Cassidy's Bruins, our goalies suddenly playing to the level of Rask/Halak.

And getting rid of Jack certainly doesn't guarantee you putting the best two way player of his generation in his place. Why on earth would it? This is the best case two-way scenario possible in the entire world. And even if you somehow got that, EVEN IF it guaranteed that you get the same line-level results from Bergeron as he puts out in Boston, which you almost certainly wouldn't, since he plays with two legit superstar top 5 wingers in the entire league, TWO,  EVEN IF all of that still happened, the team is still more than two dozen goals from breaking even, much less going above that to fight for a mere playoff birth. 

This is why I post so fervently against blowing ***** up just to blow it up, and to make lateral moves for the sake of lateral moves. 

If we do the same mapping for this year, the Sabres would have allowed the same number of goals with Bergeron on the ice as they have with Eichel, and Bergeron has fewer 5v5 goals contributed to than Eichel in fewer minutes played. 

This analysis is obviously not perfect, but the Sabres wouldn't be capable of trading Eichel for the best two way player on the planet and they so clearly have problems that are a lot easier to fix than acquiring said player, problems that wouldn't go away with this swap. 

I think Boston makes that trade immediately and Bergeron while good, is not the same Bergeron without Pastrnak and Marchand. 

 

 

[Curt]

6 hours ago, PASabreFan said:

The franchise's first Cup wasn't all that far off less than two years later,

They were not among the best teams in the league, won one playoff round, and were swept in the 2nd round.

Im sure it was exciting at the time, but it doesn’t look like a near cup win from here.

Edited November 19, 2019 by Curt

[LTS]

It's not necessarily that Eichel wasn't playing D.  It's also the message it sends to the rest of the team.  I'm not saying it was that case against Chicago, frankly the whole team looked lost in that game.  Overall though, if your $10M leader isn't leading there are players who won't want to follow.

The first goal is almost forgivable.  It happens.  In fact, if Eichel doesn't hit the puck that's probably not a goal.

The second goal has been a problem for the Sabres this year.  They are far too focused on the puck and not enough on the space where the puck is going to go.  He's guilty of puck watching, perhaps looking for a turnover so he can jump on it and head back up the ice.  He's not the only Sabre who has missed backdoor passes this season.  The team is lost on their D zone coverage far too often.

 

[LGR4GM]

11 minutes ago, LTS said:

It's not necessarily that Eichel wasn't playing D.  It's also the message it sends to the rest of the team.  I'm not saying it was that case against Chicago, frankly the whole team looked lost in that game.  Overall though, if your $10M leader isn't leading there are players who won't want to follow.

The first goal is almost forgivable.  It happens.  In fact, if Eichel doesn't hit the puck that's probably not a goal.

The second goal has been a problem for the Sabres this year.  They are far too focused on the puck and not enough on the space where the puck is going to go.  He's guilty of puck watching, perhaps looking for a turnover so he can jump on it and head back up the ice.  He's not the only Sabre who has missed backdoor passes this season.  The team is lost on their D zone coverage far too often.

 

And the one constant from last year is in the Defensive Coach. Interesting. 

[LTS]

On 11/19/2019 at 8:30 AM, LGR4GM said:

And the one constant from last year is in the Defensive Coach. Interesting. 

Perhaps a problem... I'm really curious how a coach gets players to not pay attention to the ice though.  I'm not saying it's not possible, but it seems like you continually hear coaches from youth on up preaching that you have to be looking for the guy without the puck, he's the most dangerous guy on the ice.