So #8

[Zamboni]

So ... Some fans would possibly be upset if we took D at #8. Even though that pick may not see NHL action for 3-4 years. And in 3-4 years the Sabres may need Dmen more than they do Forwards.

Because year to year, clubs needs change depending on who is traded and acquired. Hell, KA could trade away a few players and get forward prospects that fill out Amerks nicely and create depth at the future forward position. It’s not beyond the realm of possibility.

BPA at #8. Or trade it away for immediate 2C help on the Sabres.

[LGR4GM]

23 minutes ago, Zamboni said:

So ... Some fans would possibly be upset if we took D at #8. Even though that pick may not see NHL action for 3-4 years. And in 3-4 years the Sabres may need Dmen more than they do Forwards.

Because year to year, clubs needs change depending on who is traded and acquired. Hell, KA could trade away a few players and get forward prospects that fill out Amerks nicely and create depth at the future forward position. It’s not beyond the realm of possibility.

BPA at #8. Or trade it away for immediate 2C help on the Sabres.

Personally, he's not the 8th best player in this draft. With that in mind, I would be disappointed. 

[Curt]

10 minutes ago, Zamboni said:

So ... Some fans would possibly be upset if we took D at #8. Even though that pick may not see NHL action for 3-4 years. And in 3-4 years the Sabres may need Dmen more than they do Forwards.

Because year to year, clubs needs change depending on who is traded and acquired. Hell, KA could trade away a few players and get forward prospects that fill out Amerks nicely and create depth at the future forward position. It’s not beyond the realm of possibility.

BPA at #8. Or trade it away for immediate 2C help on the Sabres.

While it’s true that a team’s needs change over the course of a few years, all teams need young (cheap) players to come in and help the team.  Otherwise you you will be forever relying upon older (expensive) players  acquired via trade or FA.  This is doubly true with the cap stalling over the next couple years.

Apart from Cozens, the Sabres have a severe lack of any forward prospects who may be able to come in a contribute above their price point.  On the other hand, on defense there are many more potential contributors.  That’s why the Sabres organization may want to lean towards a forward at #8.  Not because they need a 2C in 2021, but because they will need some sort of young contributing forwards in 2023, and right now it looks like there are none.

[Zamboni]

10 minutes ago, LGR4GM said:

Personally, he's not the 8th best player in this draft. With that in mind, I would be disappointed. 

I’m not saying he’s the 8th best. Frankly I don’t have an opinion on who is the 8th best. 

11 minutes ago, Curt said:

While it’s true that a team’s needs change over the course of a few years, all teams need young (cheap) players to come in and help the team.  Otherwise you you will be forever relying upon older (expensive) players  acquired via trade or FA.  This is doubly true with the cap stalling over the next couple years.

Apart from Cozens, the Sabres have a severe lack of any forward prospects who may be able to come in a contribute above their price point.  On the other hand, on defense there are many more potential contributors.  That’s why the Sabres organization may want to lean towards a forward at #8.  Not because they need a 2C in 2021, but because they will need some sort of young contributing forwards in 2023, and right now it looks like there are none.

I hear what you’re saying… And I will agree with a lot of what you said. It still doesn’t eliminate from the possibility of the scenario I laid out. Every team is different… Every year they are different… And their needs are different every year. And it all depends on what the GM does or doesn’t do throughout the course of a calendar year. Hey this is just my opinion… Nobody else’s.

[LGR4GM]

I will put this out there. Jake Sanderson is a LHD and the Sabres took 2 in the top 31 picks of the last 2 drafts and now they are going to spend another asset on another LHD. Keep in mind that they also drafted Rasmus Dahlin who is also a lefty. So with the last 4 picks in the top 31 of the draft, the Buffalo Sabres have taken 3 left handed defenders and Dylan Cozens. Sanderson shouldn't even be in consideration not only because of what I laid out but because he's not better than the forwards who would be available. Even if you somehow come to the conclusion he is slightly better, you have so much young depth on the left you need to take a forward. 

[dudacek]

59 minutes ago, LGR4GM said:

I will put this out there. Jake Sanderson is a LHD and the Sabres took 2 in the top 31 picks of the last 2 drafts and now they are going to spend another asset on another LHD. Keep in mind that they also drafted Rasmus Dahlin who is also a lefty. So with the last 4 picks in the top 31 of the draft, the Buffalo Sabres have taken 3 left handed defenders and Dylan Cozens. Sanderson shouldn't even be in consideration not only because of what I laid out but because he's not better than the forwards who would be available. Even if you somehow come to the conclusion he is slightly better, you have so much young depth on the left you need to take a forward. 

No to the bold, yes to the italicized.

If you think Sanderson is a Heiskanen in the making, you gotta take him. Even more so if you think Lundell is a 3C, Holtz is a 2nd-liner and Jarvis is Ennis.

Pick 8 has to be BPA.

[LGR4GM]

16 minutes ago, dudacek said:

No to the bold, yes to the italicized.

If you think Sanderson is a Heiskanen in the making, you gotta take him. Even more so if you think Lundell is a 3C, Holtz is a 2nd-liner and Jarvis is Ennis.

Pick 8 has to be BPA.

Define BPA.

 

Also if a scouting department thinks Sanderson is the next Heiskanen, they should be fired and replaced with a better scouting department. 

[DarthEbriate]

RE: Sanderson at 8. We could take him if we're moving Montour/Risto, or if Johnson being the previous GM's guy and is therefore being moved in a package deal as he'd be made  redundant.

But more appropriately, you consider Sanderson for the leverage of a draft-day trade. Sanderson wouldn't get past Winnipeg is my guess. There are teams who would look to trade up to get one of the top two D-men in the draft. You look for the team that believes Sanderson is the next Heiskanen and if the offer is right, you entertain them and push for more.

And if Winnipeg really likes Sanderson and fears the Wild also likes him, maybe it's a simple swap of 8 for 10 + whatever. Unlimited power! (of possibilities.)

[DarthEbriate]

21 hours ago, Ducky said:

Minny will definitely take Lundell if he is available...assuming none of the higher ranked centers are available.

That's my thought as well. Koivu and Staal are both going in the next couple years (if Koivu doesn't retire outright before next season, he'd be staying on on 1-year offers from here on out). Steady all around center? That screams Wild. Well, no, not wild exactly. But it absolutely reeks of Minnesota.

[dudacek]

27 minutes ago, LGR4GM said:

Define BPA.

Clearly better than your next choice.

Not "I like Willie Nylander's game more than Nikolai Ehlers' game 'better,'" but "Jacob Trouba is going to have a better career than Mikhail Girgorenko, book it 'better.'"

Edited August 24, 2020 by dudacek

[LGR4GM]

12 minutes ago, dudacek said:

Clearly better than your next choice.

Not "I like Willie Nylander's game more than Nikolai Ehlers' game 'better,'" but "Jacob Trouba is going to have a better career than Mikhail Girgorenko, book it 'better.'"

again, define better. It is the problem with anyone, myself included, using the phrase BPA. It doesn't mean anything without a definition and we can't define it because we aren't drafting. 

[In The Buff]

How soon is Sanderson to starting in the NHL? Is he committed to playing another year in North Dakota or is he ready to play this year?

If it was the latter, i could see a scenario where we drafted him being more likely. If he's another year or 2 away than i'd think we'd lean forward, because our needs are more pressing there.

[LGR4GM]

1 minute ago, In The Buff said:

How soon is Sanderson to starting in the NHL? Is he committed to playing another year in North Dakota or is he ready to play this year?

If it was the latter, i could see a scenario where we drafted him being more likely. If he's another year or 2 away than i'd think we'd lean forward, because our needs are more pressing there.

He is at least 1 if not 2 years away. 

This is his first year at N Dakota

Edited August 24, 2020 by LGR4GM

[Eleven]

16 minutes ago, LGR4GM said:

again, define better. It is the problem with anyone, myself included, using the phrase BPA. It doesn't mean anything without a definition and we can't define it because we aren't drafting. 

It might be like Potter Stewart's "definition" of hard-core pornography.

[dudacek]

50 minutes ago, LGR4GM said:

again, define better. It is the problem with anyone, myself included, using the phrase BPA. It doesn't mean anything without a definition and we can't define it because we aren't drafting. 

Are you being rhetorical? Because I thought I did. "BPA" (for me) = most likely to have a productive, successful NHL career in a significant role.

If Holtz, Lundell and Sanderson are there and I think Holtz is Ehlers, Lundell is Kadri and Sanderson is Nurse, I'm probably going to take the one who best fits my team needs.

But if I think Holtz is Pouliot, Lundell is Brassard and Sanderson is Dougie Hamilton, I'm taking Sanderson, regardless of positional needs.

34 minutes ago, Eleven said:

It might be like Potter Stewart's "definition" of hard-core pornography.

This.

[LGR4GM]

42 minutes ago, dudacek said:

Are you being rhetorical? Because I thought I did. "BPA" (for me) = most likely to have a productive, successful NHL career in a significant role.

If Holtz, Lundell and Sanderson are there and I think Holtz is Ehlers, Lundell is Kadri and Sanderson is Nurse, I'm probably going to take the one who best fits my team needs.

But if I think Holtz is Pouliot, Lundell is Brassard and Sanderson is Dougie Hamilton, I'm taking Sanderson, regardless of positional needs.

This.

... and what if Seth Jarvis is... better Boeser

[Zamboni]

And what if you draft a 18 year old 2020 prospect knowing he won’t see NHL time for 18-24 months at best. And by that time you know (if you are the GM) that a couple players in his position will most likely not be on the team at that point. So if he’s good enough by then, he’ll make the team to fill in where a player left. Is that an impossible scenario?

I don’t feel GM’s Draft for what they need at that very moment in time. Because most know It’s gonna take time for most prospects (who aren’t top 5-6) to develop and fill a need effectively. So they usually draft for future. Not for present. (Most of the time). Meh. Whatever.

[Curt]

17 minutes ago, Zamboni said:

And what if you draft a 18 year old 2020 prospect knowing he won’t see NHL time for 18-24 months at best. And by that time you know (if you are the GM) that a couple players in his position will most likely not be on the team at that point. So if he’s good enough by then, he’ll make the team to fill in where a player left. Is that an impossible scenario?

I don’t feel GM’s Draft for what they need at that very moment in time. Because most know It’s gonna take time for most prospects (who aren’t top 5-6) to develop and fill a need effectively. So they usually draft for future. Not for present. (Most of the time). Meh. Whatever.

I’m sure GMs vary a fair bit in how much they take into account need and their current prospect pool.  I would think most weight it at least a little.

I think it’s useful to think about it in terms of tiers (draft prospects who you feel are close in value).  If you already have several good LD prospects, not many good forward prospects and the #8 pick, you should probably only draft a LD if he is clearly better than the forward prospects available (in a tier above them).  If there is a LD and a couple forwards in the same tier available, then it’s probably best to go with a forward.

Thats my philosophy.  Take need (prospect pool need, not necessarily NHL roster need) into account when choosing between players within the same tier (players rated very close in value).

[inkman]

3 hours ago, LGR4GM said:

Define BPA.

The best player.  Who they think will be the best.  The player who will have the best future. The player that is the best.  

I've seen you jump through these mental gymnastics about BPA and quite frankly, I couldn't take it anymore.  Isn't every player a teams drafts at any given spot, the best player available.  Are they drafting worse players hoping they take a lot of steroids to get better?  I just don't understand the hemming and hawing over BPA.  It's the player the scouts think will be the best.  Don't make it more complicated. 

[LGR4GM]

19 minutes ago, inkman said:

The best player.  Who they think will be the best.  The player who will have the best future. The player that is the best.  

I've seen you jump through these mental gymnastics about BPA and quite frankly, I couldn't take it anymore.  Isn't every player a teams drafts at any given spot, the best player available.  Are they drafting worse players hoping they take a lot of steroids to get better?  I just don't understand the hemming and hawing over BPA.  It's the player the scouts think will be the best.  Don't make it more complicated. 

No that's not what it is, that's what it should be. If you don't think teams consider position, i've got bad news. 

Jason Botterill told us they valued development time b4 first contract over your definition of BPA. Someone up thread mentioned tiers and positions of need. It all plays a role. 

So it's not mental gymnastics, it's trying to understand how ppl define something. 

42 minutes ago, Curt said:

I’m sure GMs vary a fair bit in how much they take into account need and their current prospect pool.  I would think most weight it at least a little.

I think it’s useful to think about it in terms of tiers (draft prospects who you feel are close in value).  If you already have several good LD prospects, not many good forward prospects and the #8 pick, you should probably only draft a LD if he is clearly better than the forward prospects available (in a tier above them).  If there is a LD and a couple forwards in the same tier available, then it’s probably best to go with a forward.

Thats my philosophy.  Take need (prospect pool need, not necessarily NHL roster need) into account when choosing between players within the same tier (players rated very close in value).

I've heard scouts and teams talk about doing this. I think it's prevalent in the NHL 

Edited August 24, 2020 by LGR4GM

[inkman]

5 minutes ago, LGR4GM said:

No that's not what it is, that's what it should be. If you don't think teams consider position, i've got bad news. 

Jason Botterill told us they valued development time b4 first contract over your definition of BPA. Someone up thread mentioned tiers and positions of need. It all plays a role. 

So it's not mental gymnastics, it's trying to understand how ppl define something. 

I've heard scouts and teams talk about doing this. I think it's prevalent in the NHL 

I can't compensate for NHL buffoonery.  If they draft for other reasons, the wrong people are in charge.  

[LGR4GM]

3 minutes ago, inkman said:

I can't compensate for NHL buffoonery.  If they draft for other reasons, the wrong people are in charge.  

Let me tell ya about the last 3 years under botterill...

[DarthEbriate]

I don't think we take Sanderson because his name, to quote myself from the Sabres Picking 8th thread, is:

On 7/3/2020 at 1:44 PM, DarthEbriate said:

Sanderson - nope! Not Star Warsy.

 

18 minutes ago, LGR4GM said:

Let me tell ya about the last 3 years under botterill...

Yes, and now that we have all those JBotted defensemen within the pipeline and all will need development time (and ice time). If Sanderson isn't well above a forward in the draft board rankings, I think the forward has the advantage. We've got near-empty pipelines of forwards.

Edited August 24, 2020 by DarthEbriate

[Eleven]

Everything I have read in this argument over the last two or three days confirms my view that the Sabres need to trade the pick for an NHL-ready player.  

[tom webster]

2 hours ago, inkman said:

I can't compensate for NHL buffoonery.  If they draft for other reasons, the wrong people are in charge.  

It seems simple, draft the best player but as is being discussed ad nauseum, even the best of them over analyze the situation. One of Darcy Regier’s few admissions of error was acknowledging that he drafted Tyler Ennis over John Carlson because he had already drafted Tyler Myers.