So #8

[LGR4GM]

43 minutes ago, MakeSabresGrr8Again said:

So , we don't want/need another ROR, a Bergeron, or Couturier? Then why all the talk about Cirelli?

Or don't you think Lundell will meet those standards in a couple years?

I always hate this. "You don't want this because you said this" it's just false equivalence. 

Bergeron is 1c just so we're clear. He's got multiple 30 goal and 70 point seasons. 

ROR might be the best 2c in the entire league and the only person close to Bergeron. 

Cirelli I think has shown he could reach the ROR level. 

Lundell as I've stated repeatedly could be a 2c, and yea that's in the mold of ROR. However he's not a great skater, his production somewhat stagnated this season, and his puck skills are solid but not elite. Hence why there's a very real chance he's a 40ish point 3c at the nhl level and no I'd rather not take that and instead go for a guy with a higher ceiling and lower floor. 

[Thorner]

36 minutes ago, Reino23 said:

I don't have the numbers for Barkov but Lundell averaged 16 minutes a game. He also averages above 3 shots a game. Besides his defensive awareness and high hockey IQ, the other nice asset Lundell brings is he has a very nice shot. However, as it's been mentioned here, he is not a playmaker. He's a shooter first mentality type player.

I like him more then Rossi.

He's not? This scouting report lists playmaking as one of his greatest strengths - https://lastwordonhockey.com/2020/04/22/anton-lundell-scouting-report/

[MakeSabresGrr8Again]

22 minutes ago, LGR4GM said:

I always hate this. "You don't want this because you said this" it's just false equivalence. 

Bergeron is 1c just so we're clear. He's got multiple 30 goal and 70 point seasons. 

ROR might be the best 2c in the entire league and the only person close to Bergeron. 

Cirelli I think has shown he could reach the ROR level. 

Lundell as I've stated repeatedly could be a 2c, and yea that's in the mold of ROR. However he's not a great skater, his production somewhat stagnated this season, and his puck skills are solid but not elite. Hence why there's a very real chance he's a 40ish point 3c at the nhl level and no I'd rather not take that and instead go for a guy with a higher ceiling and lower floor. 

I notice you said nothing of Couturier.

Seems to me Lundell could very well be just what we need. We might make a move for a 2C and have Cozens as our 3C or temporarily on the wing in developing him for that 2C spot down the road. In that sense, Lundell would fit perfectly into the 3C slot. He could help out on PK and be an upgrade to Larry or Lazar. 

Even if you're looking to go to the 3 scoring lines, then Lundell would be a good 4th liner who could play way up the line-up during injuries. Sounds like a win/ win situation.

I sure your point is there is more talent at that pick, but where do they fit in if our guys develop properly? Cozens, Tage, Mitts? 

Edited August 16, 2020 by MakeSabresGrr8Again

[dudacek]

Lundell should be a good NHL player, but he doesn't have the skill level, and therefore ceiling, of other players available at 8.

There will almost certainly be players with far greater NHL upside available.

If you think Lundell has a far greater chance of being Bo Horvat than he does of being Brandon Sutter, then by all means pick him, but you are passing surer things like Ryan Ellis (Drysdale) or Thomas Vanek (Holtz) to do so, or a boom or bust Alex or Willie Nylander type in Raymond.

Edited August 16, 2020 by dudacek

[Marvin]

22 minutes ago, LGR4GM said:

I always hate this. "You don't want this because you said this" it's just false equivalence. 

Bergeron is 1c just so we're clear. He's got multiple 30 goal and 70 point seasons. 

ROR might be the best 2c in the entire league and the only person close to Bergeron. 

Cirelli I think has shown he could reach the ROR level. 

Lundell as I've stated repeatedly could be a 2c, and yea that's in the mold of ROR. However he's not a great skater, his production somewhat stagnated this season, and his puck skills are solid but not elite. Hence why there's a very real chance he's a 40ish point 3c at the nhl level and no I'd rather not take that and instead go for a guy with a higher ceiling and lower floor. 

Lundell to me is the classic "Jason Botterill" pick: low ceiling but high floor.  If we don't have a 2C by the draft and if he is the top C at #8, I want the pick traded for a real 2C who has a few years of team control.

Unfortunately, the screw-ups of Murray with the defence and goaltending and Botterill with the forwards and goaltending have made me impatient.

[Curt]

1 hour ago, MakeSabresGrr8Again said:

So , we don't want/need another ROR, a Bergeron, or Couturier? Then why all the talk about Cirelli?

Or don't you think Lundell will meet those standards in a couple years?

Just playing the odds, it is actually unlikely that Lundell does develop into a player of that caliber.  Those guys are 1C’s (except Cirelli, who may be on pace to get there).

And I like him.

[Thorner]

27 minutes ago, MakeSabresGrr8Again said:

I notice you said nothing of Couturier.

Seems to me Lundell could very well be just what we need. We might make a move for a 2C and have Cozens as our 3C or temporarily on the wing in developing him for that 2C spot down the road. In that sense, Lundell would fit perfectly into the 3C slot. He could help out on PK and be an upgrade to Larry or Lazar. 

Even if you're looking to go to the 3 scoring lines, then Lundell would be a good 4th liner who could play way up the line-up during injuries. Sounds like a win/ win situation.

I sure your point is there is more talent at that pick, but where do they fit in if our guys develop properly? Cozens, Tage, Mitts? 

Even the low end Lundell projection would have him as a capable C on a 3rd scoring line. 

He'll range from an elite 2C to an elite 3C (or somewhere in between). I have it pegged that tiny. That's the allure of Lundell. Due to our NEEDS, Lundell provides a legitimate basis to factor in need to BPA due to his certainty. 

To me, I'll take the near certainty he'll solidify a middle 6 C spot at a good price for a long time over the allure of having an, often elusive, top line ceiling. 

The floor bares more consideration for me than the ceiling in this case. 

Edited August 16, 2020 by Thorny

[Thorner]

11 minutes ago, Marvin, Sabres Fan said:

Lundell to me is the classic "Jason Botterill" pick: low ceiling but high floor.  If we don't have a 2C by the draft and if he is the top C at #8, I want the pick traded for a real 2C who has a few years of team control.

Unfortunately, the screw-ups of Murray with the defence and goaltending and Botterill with the forwards and goaltending have made me impatient.

Low ceiling, high floor picks like straight outa high school Casey Mittelstadt? 

Edited August 16, 2020 by Thorny

[Gabrielor]

Just now, Thorny said:

Low floor picks like straight outa high school Casey Mittelstadt? 

That was my first thought too.

Then I thought about Samuelsson and Johnson, and yeah, they fit that low ceiling high floor model to a tee, and are often cited for that criticism.

[Thorner]

Just now, Gabrielor said:

That was my first thought too.

Then I thought about Samuelsson and Johnson, and yeah, they fit that low ceiling high floor model to a tee, and are often cited for that criticism.

Ya, to me I didn't personally see a strong specific trend for Botterill re: ceiling and floor type strategy.

To me his draft philosophy was dominated and largely dictated by his League bias. 

[Gabrielor]

Just now, Thorny said:

Ya, to me I didn't personally see a strong specific trend for Botterill re: ceiling and floor type strategy.

To me his draft philosophy was dominated and largely dictated by his League bias. 

For sure. Botterill’s draft strategy was basically:

top 10 pick: take the guy you think is the best.

rounds 2-7: take euros or college guys, because 4 years...

[LGR4GM]

37 minutes ago, MakeSabresGrr8Again said:

I notice you said nothing of Couturier.

Seems to me Lundell could very well be just what we need. We might make a move for a 2C and have Cozens as our 3C or temporarily on the wing in developing him for that 2C spot down the road. In that sense, Lundell would fit perfectly into the 3C slot. He could help out on PK and be an upgrade to Larry or Lazar. 

Even if you're looking to go to the 3 scoring lines, then Lundell would be a good 4th liner who could play way up the line-up during injuries. Sounds like a win/ win situation.

I sure your point is there is more talent at that pick, but where do they fit in if our guys develop properly? Cozens, Tage, Mitts? 

I forgot about him so what's your point? Not sure what your point is but your original point was faulty. If I could trade the 8th overall pick for Bergeron right now, I would. You are equating what I am saying to not wanting to do that and it is just a false equivalency. Lundell might, maybe, could, in 3-5 years be those guys (Couturier included) but that isn't the same is him being those guys or your premise that I don't want any of the 4 you mentioned.  

If you draft 8th overall and all you have to show for it is a 4th line center you should be fired and your entire scouting staff should be fired. Lundell might be a 2c but I am not convinced of that. Also stick to 1 argument, are you arguing he is going to be good like ROR or that he can be a 4th line center so take him anyways?

What an amazing problem to have. Too much talent that you can't figure out where to fit everyone. If only this team were that lucky. 

[LGR4GM]

I am not arguing for or against Lundell at 8, I am laying out what he most likely is. If you are comfortable knowing you might only be getting a 40point 3c out of that pick, take Lundell but if you want to try and get a 1st line player, there will be other options available. 

Who would ppl rather draft

Lundell 6'1" 187lb center

Rossi 5'9" 179lb center

[SwampD]

6’1”

[Thorner]

8 minutes ago, LGR4GM said:

I am not arguing for or against Lundell at 8, I am laying out what he most likely is. If you are comfortable knowing you might only be getting a 40point 3c out of that pick, take Lundell but if you want to try and get a 1st line player, there will be other options available. 

Who would ppl rather draft

Lundell 6'1" 187lb center

Rossi 5'9" 179lb center

My understanding (and correct me if I am wrong) is the only reason really that Lundell is in the conversion here at 7 is because the level of certainty he provides. That must mean he's less likely to only amount to a 4th line player than someone like, say, Holtz is to bust/fall woefully short of expectations entirely. If Holtz in this example was as likely to be at least a 3rd line player, what would the allure of Lundell be at all? 

This to say, I'm not really factoring in the "could be a 4th liner" thing with Lundell as if he's in the conversion at all it's because that is easier and sooner dismissed that the "these other guys could Mittelstadt" argument. 

- - - 

Rossi I think is my top choice. He's not unsafe, either. Lundell would be my second. 

 

Edited August 16, 2020 by Thorny

[Gabrielor]

14 minutes ago, LGR4GM said:

I am not arguing for or against Lundell at 8, I am laying out what he most likely is. If you are comfortable knowing you might only be getting a 40point 3c out of that pick, take Lundell but if you want to try and get a 1st line player, there will be other options available. 

Who would ppl rather draft

Lundell 6'1" 187lb center

Rossi 5'9" 179lb center

I’m a massive Lundell supporter, but you take Rossi all day. (However if that argument was Lundell vs Perfetti, I’d take Lundell.)

[MakeSabresGrr8Again]

1 hour ago, LGR4GM said:

I forgot about him so what's your point? Not sure what your point is but your original point was faulty. If I could trade the 8th overall pick for Bergeron right now, I would. You are equating what I am saying to not wanting to do that and it is just a false equivalency. Lundell might, maybe, could, in 3-5 years be those guys (Couturier included) but that isn't the same is him being those guys or your premise that I don't want any of the 4 you mentioned.  

If you draft 8th overall and all you have to show for it is a 4th line center you should be fired and your entire scouting staff should be fired. Lundell might be a 2c but I am not convinced of that. Also stick to 1 argument, are you arguing he is going to be good like ROR or that he can be a 4th line center so take him anyways?

What an amazing problem to have. Too much talent that you can't figure out where to fit everyone. If only this team were that lucky. 

CHILL OUT....once in awhile I'd like to have a convo where you actually discuss and not take your usually liberties to get all fired up over nothing.

My intentions were not to "equate" anything whatsoever.

My argument would be if everyone developed and you had a spine of Jack, Cozens, Mitts and Lundell that you would be a contender (likely even if injuries evolved). That wouldn't be a firing offense.

[Thorner]

Trade Mitts 

[LGR4GM]

48 minutes ago, MakeSabresGrr8Again said:

CHILL OUT....once in awhile I'd like to have a convo where you actually discuss and not take your usually liberties to get all fired up over nothing.

My intentions were not to "equate" anything whatsoever.

My argument would be if everyone developed and you had a spine of Jack, Cozens, Mitts and Lundell that you would be a contender (likely even if injuries evolved). That wouldn't be a firing offense.

I feel very calm. Not sure how I can chill anymore. 

If you need a first round draft pick to fill out your 4th line center spot you are a failure of a GM. 

23 minutes ago, Thorny said:

Trade Mitts 

I think we should explore it. In that case you have Lundell at 3c which might work but again, we should be aiming on getting a top line player with the 8th pick. Lundell becoming that is possible but I doubt it. 

4 hours ago, MakeSabresGrr8Again said:

So , we don't want/need another ROR, a Bergeron, or Couturier? Then why all the talk about Cirelli?

Or don't you think Lundell will meet those standards in a couple years?

 

50 minutes ago, MakeSabresGrr8Again said:

CHILL OUT....once in awhile I'd like to have a convo where you actually discuss and not take your usually liberties to get all fired up over nothing.

My intentions were not to "equate" anything whatsoever.

My argument would be if everyone developed and you had a spine of Jack, Cozens, Mitts and Lundell that you would be a contender (likely even if injuries evolved). That wouldn't be a firing offense.

You suggested something and I responded. Maybe you are the one who should "CHILL OUT". 

[Thorner]

6 minutes ago, LGR4GM said:

I feel very calm. Not sure how I can chill anymore. 

If you need a first round draft pick to fill out your 4th line center spot you are a failure of a GM. 

I think we should explore it. In that case you have Lundell at 3c which might work but again, we should be aiming on getting a top line player with the 8th pick. Lundell becoming that is possible but I doubt it. 

 

You suggested something and I responded. Maybe you are the one who should "CHILL OUT". 

Is it philosophically "bad" to aim for a second line player with that pick? 

What does the average 8th overall pick turn into? Is the average of all the players taken there a top line player? If it's not, and it's second liner, or below, would there not be value in aiming for a more realistically achievable, yet still successful, (re: average outcome) result? 

Edited August 16, 2020 by Thorny

[Curt]

4 hours ago, Reino23 said:

I don't have the numbers for Barkov but Lundell averaged 16 minutes a game. He also averages above 3 shots a game. Besides his defensive awareness and high hockey IQ, the other nice asset Lundell brings is he has a very nice shot. However, as it's been mentioned here, he is not a playmaker. He's a shooter first mentality type player.

I like him more then Rossi.

What, in your opinion, does Lundell do better than Rossi?

For me, I think that Lundell has better size and maybe a better shot.

They both have great hockey IQ and defensive game.  Both should definitely be able to stay at C.

Rossi is a better skater, better playmaker, and has better puck skills in general.

I think that they both have a pretty high floor, but Rossi has a higher ceiling.  For me, Rossi is the 3rd best prospect in this draft and I think it would be borderline crazy to draft Lundell ahead of him.

[MakeSabresGrr8Again]

34 minutes ago, LGR4GM said:

I feel very calm. Not sure how I can chill anymore. 

If you need a first round draft pick to fill out your 4th line center spot you are a failure of a GM. 

I think we should explore it. In that case you have Lundell at 3c which might work but again, we should be aiming on getting a top line player with the 8th pick. Lundell becoming that is possible but I doubt it. 

 

You suggested something and I responded. Maybe you are the one who should "CHILL OUT". 

Just forget I even said anything and I won't bother again....you are impossible.

Oh, and it wasn't a matter of a GM having to use an 8th pick to "fill out" his 4th line. It was a GM having a great roster and only having room on the 4th line for said player.

Call it an elite team, you know, something we Sabre fans don't much about. A dynasty so to speak.

[Weave]

2 hours ago, Thorny said:

Is it philosophically "bad" to aim for a second line player with that pick? 

What does the average 8th overall pick turn into? Is the average of all the players taken there a top line player? If it's not, and it's second liner, or below, would there not be value in aiming for a more realistically achievable, yet still successful, (re: average outcome) result? 

There is alot of 2nd line talent at #8 overall.  And a fair number of busts as well.  There is no shame in a safe pick at 8 for a team with no prospect pool to speak of.

[LGR4GM]

1 hour ago, Weave said:

There is alot of 2nd line talent at #8 overall.  And a fair number of busts as well.  There is no shame in a safe pick at 8 for a team with no prospect pool to speak of.

There's 100 times the shame. Your only job as a scout is to get this pick right. This is the type of attitude that gets you Johnson instead of Kaliyev.

You should all demand more from the Sabres drafts.

3 hours ago, MakeSabresGrr8Again said:

Just forget I even said anything and I won't bother again....you are impossible.

Oh, and it wasn't a matter of a GM having to use an 8th pick to "fill out" his 4th line. It was a GM having a great roster and only having room on the 4th line for said player.

Call it an elite team, you know, something we Sabre fans don't much about. A dynasty so to speak.

You don't just magically get an elite team because your 4th line center could play 3rd line center. You should take the most talented player, not the safest. 

Edited August 17, 2020 by LGR4GM

[dudacek]

6 hours ago, Thorny said:

My understanding (and correct me if I am wrong) is the only reason really that Lundell is in the conversion here at 7 is because the level of certainty he provides. That must mean he's less likely to only amount to a 4th line player than someone like, say, Holtz is to bust/fall woefully short of expectations entirely. If Holtz in this example was as likely to be at least a 3rd line player, what would the allure of Lundell be at all? 

This to say, I'm not really factoring in the "could be a 4th liner" thing with Lundell as if he's in the conversion at all it's because that is easier and sooner dismissed that the "these other guys could Mittelstadt" argument. 

- - - 

Rossi I think is my top choice. He's not unsafe, either. Lundell would be my second. 

 

Sorry for sidestepping the current debate, but Holtz is a safer pick than Lundell. 

He will score goals in the NHL. The question is will he be a 25/20 man or a 40/70.