Sabres Picking 8th

[Weave]

1 hour ago, Curt said:

Detroit this year wasn’t tanking.  They are just bad and have restrictive cap problems.

Rebuilding is trading current assets for future assets.  Tanking is trading 3 goalies in a season when they start to play too well and you are afraid you won’t finish last, and your home crowd is actively cheering for the other team to win so you can clinch last place.  That’s the kind of embarrassing that I’m talking about.  That’s what the league doesn’t want to see.

And its only happened a handful of times in the modern era, and after each instance the rules were tweaked to further disincentivize it.

If it takes a #8 team getting the 1st overall pick to end tanking I’m all for it.

Edited July 1, 2020 by Weave

[Thorner]

4 hours ago, Curt said:

Detroit this year wasn’t tanking.  They are just bad and have restrictive cap problems.

Rebuilding is trading current assets for future assets.  Tanking is trading 3 goalies in a season when they start to play too well and you are afraid you won’t finish last, and your home crowd is actively cheering for the other team to win so you can clinch last place.  That’s the kind of embarrassing that I’m talking about.  That’s what the league doesn’t want to see.

Which is the case 99% of the time a team is bad, yet the NHL created a system that screws those teams over in an effort to police the 1%

Textbook cutting off the nose to spite the face. The rule probably accomplishes it's goal, but that doesn't make it a good rule when the side effects are substantially worse than the disease. 

Edited July 1, 2020 by Thorny

[Curt]

1 minute ago, Thorny said:

Which is the case 99% of the time a team is bad, yet the NHL created a system that screws those teams over in an effort to police the 1%

I don’t have a lot of sympathy.  I’m not  big on rewarding failure.  If you are bad, you are still going to get a high pick.  If it’s not #1 too bad.  Draft well and you’ll get better.  Deal with it.  I like the randomness.

[Thorner]

5 minutes ago, Curt said:

I don’t have a lot of sympathy.  I’m not  big on rewarding failure.  If you are bad, you are still going to get a high pick.  If it’s not #1 too bad.  Draft well and you’ll get better.  Deal with it.  I like the randomness.

Philosophical differences, then. 

Might as well give the pick to the champ if you don't want to reward failure. Or give every team equal odds. The arbitrary drawing of lines is not logical, it's just a bad system.

Basically it, most of the time, gives the best pick to the team less in need of said pick. If the idea of the draft order is to maximize parity, that doesn't make sense. In your case, that's not what you are looking for in the draft, so I can at least understand that particular point of view. 

One is generally just punishing the fan base if the goal is to not reward failure, as those bad teams are often the ones next in line for new GMs looking for a fresh start. 

Edited July 1, 2020 by Thorny

[Curt]

5 minutes ago, Thorny said:

Philosophical differences, then. 

Might as well give the pick to the champ if you don't want to reward failure. Or give every team equal odds. The arbitrary drawing of lines is not logical, it's just a bad system.

What is the arbitrary drawing of lines that you speak of?

Theoretically, I would be ok with equal odds, or maybe all non playoff teams having equal odds.

But from the perspective of what’s good for the league, I think the sweet spot between maintaining talent balance and discouraging hard tanking is something similar to what they have now.

[Thorner]

4 minutes ago, Curt said:

What is the arbitrary drawing of lines that you speak of?

Theoretically, I would be ok with equal odds, or maybe all non playoff teams having equal odds.

But from the perspective of what’s good for the league, I think the sweet spot between maintaining talent balance and discouraging hard tanking is something similar to what they have now.

I guess it comes down to how much you think actual tanking, like the Sabres in '15, happens. It's so few and far between to me that I don't see that balance at all. The system far more often actively harms truly bad teams then it does succeed in preventing a dastardly tank. 

I'm pretty sure the RESULTS of teams that choose to tank is, frankly, often enough of a deterrent. 

Edited July 1, 2020 by Thorny
sorry, your question - the entire system itself is arbitrary. from how many picks are drawn to the odds of each team to where they draw the line for who can win

[Curt]

36 minutes ago, Thorny said:

I guess it comes down to how much you think actual tanking, like the Sabres in '15, happens. It's so few and far between to me that I don't see that balance at all. The system far more often actively harms truly bad teams then it does succeed in preventing a dastardly tank. 

I'm pretty sure the RESULTS of teams that choose to tank is, frankly, often enough of a deterrent. 

I think the biggest difference between our points of view is the extent to which we view the worst team in the league drafting at #4 to be a problem.

You seem to think it’s grossly unfair.  I  think it’s not a big deal.

Edited July 1, 2020 by Curt

[Thorner]

16 minutes ago, Curt said:

I think the biggest difference between our points of view is the extent to which we view the worst team in the league drafting at #4 to be a problem.

You seem to think it’s grossly unfair.  I  think it’s not a big deal.

More so than grossly unfair, I'd just term it needlessly stupid. Needlessly being the key part - even if it's only a slight injustice, it's completely avoidable and time and time again will cause the slight injustices in an effort to minimize something that isn't even an issue. I think the biggest difference in our points of view is the degree to which we think tanking itself is an issue league wide. 

The league agrees with you, clearly. Myself, I don't care an iota about tanking - what we saw the Sabres do is really very rare. And I feel it's success rate serves as it's own detractor and warning sign. 

Edited July 1, 2020 by Thorny

[kas23]

The current system is unfair and unlikely to discourage tanking. If they want to discourage tanking, have the bottom 8-10 have equal odds for every draft pick in the 8-10 range, not just the #1-3. Above all, no matter what though, don’t have any “playoff” or “postseason” team (however they want to define this) win rights to a top 8-10 pick. This is disgusting and only hurts the league. 

[Marvin]

They won't do that.  They saw what a fiasco that made the NBA draft back in the day.

[Rasmus_]

Anton Lundell, draft him, develop him.  He's the right way to go in this turbulent time that the Sabres are going to be in.  The playoffs are important, and we need to end this drought, but the idea of trading more major draft capital and subsequently draining it on someone who might not even fit further's the chances of missing for a 10th into an 11th season.  To me I look at Lundell and a I see a superior Asplund.  He plays the game hard, and he's efficient in both zones.  He's my favorite pick in the draft, and he can be as safe a pick as you want, but he's a good quality pick.  I've seen mock drafts with Sanderson, and I just gag.  You can draft that in the second round. 

[PerreaultForever]

9 hours ago, Curt said:

I don’t have a lot of sympathy.  I’m not  big on rewarding failure.  If you are bad, you are still going to get a high pick.  If it’s not #1 too bad.  Draft well and you’ll get better.  Deal with it.  I like the randomness.

I'm ok with the randomness and a bit of a drop if unlucky but in no way shape or form should the playoff round teams have been in the lottery. If Toronto or Pittsburgh get knocked off in an upset (both highly possible) and one of them gets the pick the league looks like a joke. 

[Curt]

2 hours ago, PerreaultForever said:

I'm ok with the randomness and a bit of a drop if unlucky but in no way shape or form should the playoff round teams have been in the lottery. If Toronto or Pittsburgh get knocked off in an upset (both highly possible) and one of them gets the pick the league looks like a joke. 

Certainly fair to criticize this 2020 lottery format.  They probably should have just waited until playoffs 1st round was complete.

We were speaking on the current lottery format used over the past few years, special 2020 Covid conditions excluded.

[LGR4GM]

8 hours ago, TheCerebral1 said:

Anton Lundell, draft him, develop him.  He's the right way to go in this turbulent time that the Sabres are going to be in.  The playoffs are important, and we need to end this drought, but the idea of trading more major draft capital and subsequently draining it on someone who might not even fit further's the chances of missing for a 10th into an 11th season.  To me I look at Lundell and a I see a superior Asplund.  He plays the game hard, and he's efficient in both zones.  He's my favorite pick in the draft, and he can be as safe a pick as you want, but he's a good quality pick.  I've seen mock drafts with Sanderson, and I just gag.  You can draft that in the second round. 

I suppose it is time to discuss Lundell. 

Lundell is really divisive because he can be viewed as sure fire grade A 2nd line center or be viewed as a bottom 6 2-way center. First there is not a safer pick you could make. Lundell will be an NHL center. He is old for his draft much like Rossi with an early October bday. He was I think in the top 1 or 2 for Liiga in corsi for. His defensive game is very well refined and he always knows where to be (every scouting report mentions this I feel like). The concern is 2 things. First, how much more is there? He's probably about 90% developed at this point because he is almost fully physically matured and his skillset is well refined for what it is. He needs some work on his skating (agility) and I wish he was producing more offense. The second concern is that offensive part. He does produce but it isn't anything that really screams high skill. It is more about him being in the right place or working hard to get somewhere. I think his passing is decent. His shot is good. Could there be more there, yes but I am unsure if there is. Again I think you are looking at a player that is roughly 90% who they will be. 

My general feeling is that if you take Lundell at 8, you are 100% leaving better talent on the board. To me his absolute ceiling is a mediocre 2nd line center who is great defensively (a poor mans ROR and what I think he becomes). His floor is nice though because he projects out to be a better Larsson so you are talking 3/4th line 2-way center that can play in all situations. Again, definitely and NHL player with his skillset but he is a safer pick. 

 

Edited July 2, 2020 by LGR4GM

[SwampD]

15 minutes ago, LGR4GM said:

I suppose it is time to discuss Lundell. 

Lundell is really divisive because he can be viewed as sure fire grade A 2nd line center or be viewed as a bottom 6 2-way center. First there is not a safer pick you could make. Lundell will be an NHL center. He is old for his draft much like Rossi with an early October bday. He was I think in the top 1 or 2 for Liiga in corsi for. His defensive game is very well refined and he always knows where to be (every scouting report mentions this I feel like). The concern is 2 things. First, how much more is there? He's probably about 90% developed at this point because he is almost fully physically matured and his skillset is well refined for what it is. He needs some work on his skating (agility) and I wish he was producing more offense. The second concern is that offensive part. He does produce but it isn't anything that really screams high skill. It is more about him being in the right place or working hard to get somewhere. I think his passing is decent. His shot is good. Could there be more there, yes but I am unsure if there is. Again I think you are looking at a player that is roughly 90% who they will be. 

My general feeling is that if you take Lundell at 8, you are 100% leaving better talent on the board. To me his absolute ceiling is a mediocre 2nd line center who is great defensively (a poor mans ROR and what I think he becomes). His floor is nice though because he projects out to be a better Larsson so you are talking 3/4th line 2-way center that can play in all situations. Again, definitely and NHL player with his skillset but he is a safer pick. 

 

I know what you are saying, but this kind of a take has always bothered me. I think that that is a skill that isn’t valued enough. I’ll take that guy over a skill guy any day. He’s more likely to be better for longer.

We’ve all played with many “high skill” guys who were just terrible hockey players.

 

[LGR4GM]

2 minutes ago, SwampD said:

I know what you are saying, but this kind of a take has always bothered me. I think that that is a skill that isn’t valued enough. I’ll take that guy over a skill guy any day. He’s more likely to be better for longer.

We’ve all played with many “high skill” guys who were just terrible hockey players.

 

I did word it poorly. It is 100% a skill and something that is very important. Holtz does it too sometimes in the offensive zone. Lundell should be a good NHL player but is he a 2c or a 3c/4c?

[GASabresIUFAN]

Lundell 28 pts in the Liiga at 18

Barkov 48 pts in the Liiga at 18

Unfair comparison?  Maybe, but if we are going after the next ROR/Barkov type player from Finland, it would be nice if he produced closer to Barkov.

Lundell projects to be a very good 2 way 3c on a good team and a mediocre 2c on a mediocre or bad team.  Cozens has a much higher ceiling and is responsible and is already here.  Rossi and Perfetti also have much higher ceilings and that is what we need.  If I’m drafting 12-14 I’m thrilled to get a Lundell, but not at 8. 
 

His downside is Larsson 

Edited July 2, 2020 by GASabresIUFAN

[LGR4GM]

Speaking of Seth Jarvis...

Quote

...likely due to a sub-par first half where he posted 35 points in 32 games.

He came back after Christmas a completely different player and dominated competition. He posted 63 points in 26 games and finished second in WHL scoring with 42 goals and 98 points.

Jarvis’ production as a first-year draft-eligible player stacks up as one of the best in recent memory in the WHL. Only Sam Reinhart and Nic Petan had a better point-per-game rate than Jarvis’ 1.69.

https://thehockeywriters.com/seth-jarvis-2020-nhl-draft-prospect-profile/

[GASabresIUFAN]

I’m also interested in Jarvis, but I can see why some scouts are worried.  His numbers this past season just booked over his 39 pts the season before.  It almost feels fluky.  
 

 

[Thorner]

@LGR4GMnice write-up on Lundell. 

Surely his ceiling is higher than "mediocre" 2nd line C, tho?

[LGR4GM]

37 minutes ago, Thorny said:

@LGR4GMnice write-up on Lundell. 

Surely his ceiling is higher than "mediocre" 2nd line C, tho?

How about, average second line center?

[DarthEbriate]

9 hours ago, LGR4GM said:

Speaking of Seth Jarvis...

https://thehockeywriters.com/seth-jarvis-2020-nhl-draft-prospect-profile/

I do like the word greasy to describe a player. Particularly since the current roster and pipeline have very few firestarters at forward.

[Andrew Amerk]

On 7/1/2020 at 6:32 PM, kas23 said:

The current system is unfair and unlikely to discourage tanking. If they want to discourage tanking, have the bottom 8-10 have equal odds for every draft pick in the 8-10 range, not just the #1-3. Above all, no matter what though, don’t have any “playoff” or “postseason” team (however they want to define this) win rights to a top 8-10 pick. This is disgusting and only hurts the league. 

What about a playoff team that traded a player two years ago, and got a first rounder in return, and ends up sitting in one of the top draft slots?

[French Collection]

I feel that upsets always happen and some really good teams will be in the mix for Lafreniere.

Using 2019 as an example, Tampa, the President’s trophy winner would have had a shot at the #1 pick.

[sabresparaavida]

13 hours ago, French Collection said:

I feel that upsets always happen and some really good teams will be in the mix for Lafreniere.

Using 2019 as an example, Tampa, the President’s trophy winner would have had a shot at the #1 pick.

Incorrect- Tampa was the number 1 team last year, they would not have had a chance, as only teams 9-24 have a chance here. There is an additional round, a normal first round loss is about equivalent to a second round out this year.