Casey Mittelstadt, what should we make of him

[SwampD]

11 minutes ago, LGR4GM said:

It was not. The rebuild was bad because of poor decisions both from Murray and Botterill. 

The problem rests with over a decade of poor and stupid draft decisions ranging from trading a first for Lehner instead of getting Boeser to drafting Johnson instead of Kaliyev et al. 

If this team could find even 1 player per draft outside of round 1, they would be a much better team regardless of the tank. They. DO. NOT. DRAFT. WELL.

Right. And a Tank wasn’t going to fix any of that.

It was a mistake.

This team’s bigger Issue is that it never gets value back for the talent that leaves. Hasek, Peca, Drury, Briere, O’Reilly, hell, even Lehner.

[LGR4GM]

29 minutes ago, SwampD said:

Right. And a Tank wasn’t going to fix any of that.

It was a mistake.

This team’s bigger Issue is that it never gets value back for the talent that leaves. Hasek, Peca, Drury, Briere, O’Reilly, hell, even Lehner.

No it was not a mistake. The rebuild that would have occurred with or without the tank went badly. The tank worked perfectly or am I dreaming that Jack Eichel is a Buffalo Sabre?

The tank and the rebuild are not the same thing and never have been. The tank was to get Eichel or McDavid, it succeeded. 

[SwampD]

9 minutes ago, LGR4GM said:

No it was not a mistake. The rebuild that would have occurred with or without the tank went badly. The tank worked perfectly or am I dreaming that Jack Eichel is a Buffalo Sabre?

The tank and the rebuild are not the same thing and never have been. The tank was to get Eichel or McDavid, it succeeded. 

We’re not arguing if it worked or not. If your goal is to get one player, yes, we got Eichel. It worked.

If your goal is to make your team better,... it was still a mistake.

We didn’t have to waste 2+ years to get to a rebuild. THIS IS AN AUTOMATED RESPONSE.

[LGR4GM]

2 minutes ago, SwampD said:

We’re not arguing if it worked or not. If your goal is to get one player, yes, we got Eichel. It worked.

If your goal is to make your team better,... it was still a mistake.

We didn’t have to waste 2+ years to get to a rebuild. THIS IS AN AUTOMATED RESPONSE.

Disagree

[SwampD]

3 minutes ago, LGR4GM said:

Disagree

You’re wrong. The league is littered with good teams that didn’t have to tank to be good. 

[Wyldnwoody44]

1 minute ago, SwampD said:

You’re wrong. The league is littered with good teams that didn’t have to tank to be good. 

I'm with you on this one, many teams have "retooled" on the fly and are doing much better, we just needed some competence from up top, which we still may not have. 

[LGR4GM]

7 minutes ago, SwampD said:

You’re wrong. The league is littered with good teams that didn’t have to tank to be good. 

Okay. First you are completely changing the conversation with this, I never said anything to the contrary. Second the league is littered with teams that did massive rebuilds that are now also very good. Pitt. LA. Chicago are recent multiple cup winners that rebuilt big and LA is in the process of doing it again. 

So yes you don't have to tank to be good, I have never argued otherwise. I am specifically arguing that the Sabres tank did not fail as it did exactly what it was designed to do. As I have maintained for years, the rebuild failed because we traded away too many high end assets and got back very little. Also we would be much better off right now if the ROR had never happened which is in no way the fault of the tank. Not sure how it is the tanks fault Murray put together a dysfunctional team of alcoholics while ignoring the defense or how Botts put together a team of choir boys while only building defense. 

We fail because we draft poorly or years and because we send good players out of town for pennies because we think the Frolic's of the world will be just as good. 

[LGR4GM]

10 minutes ago, Wyldnwoody44 said:

I'm with you on this one, many teams have "retooled" on the fly and are doing much better, we just needed some competence from up top, which we still may not have. 

Carolina, Philly, Tampa, Dallas are all teams that rebuilt over multiple years. Avalanche, Canucks, Flames are more examples of teams that at one point bottomed out for a couple years. Yes to less of an extent but again look at the players leading all these teams. 

An awful lot of high first round picks in there. So yes you can retool on the fly but the Sabres couldn't because they didn't have anything to retool with in the summer of 2013 and 2014. They were a team that had drafted like ***** since 2008 and it caught up to them. 

[bob_sauve28]

What is Casey good at? Not fast, doesn’t hit..yet..not a great shooter. He’s a good passer, right? 

 

Maybe he should concentrate on being the PP guy in Rochester. Just trying to picture where he fits. Not a super forechecker. 

 

What role does anyone see him filling, assuming he improves and makes the Sabres 

[SwampD]

3 minutes ago, LGR4GM said:

Okay. First you are completely changing the conversation with this, I never said anything to the contrary. Second the league is littered with teams that did massive rebuilds that are now also very good. Pitt. LA. Chicago are recent multiple cup winners that rebuilt big and LA is in the process of doing it again. 

So yes you don't have to tank to be good, I have never argued otherwise. I am specifically arguing that the Sabres tank did not fail as it did exactly what it was designed to do. As I have maintained for years, the rebuild failed because we traded away too many high end assets and got back very little. Also we would be much better off right now if the ROR had never happened which is in no way the fault of the tank. Not sure how it is the tanks fault Murray put together a dysfunctional team of alcoholics while ignoring the defense or how Botts put together a team of choir boys while only building defense. 

We fail because we draft poorly or years and because we send good players out of town for pennies because we think the Frolic's of the world will be just as good. 

Again,... then why tank?

This is pointless. You’re never going to waiver and neither am I. 

Would your position change if we end up trading Reinhart? Cuz I might stop watching hockey if that happens.

[bob_sauve28]

15 minutes ago, LGR4GM said:

Carolina, Philly, Tampa, Dallas are all teams that rebuilt over multiple years. Avalanche, Canucks, Flames are more examples of teams that at one point bottomed out for a couple years. Yes to less of an extent but again look at the players leading all these teams. 

An awful lot of high first round picks in there. So yes you can retool on the fly but the Sabres couldn't because they didn't have anything to retool with in the summer of 2013 and 2014. They were a team that had drafted like ***** since 2008 and it caught up to them. 

We did have Brayden McNabb and just gave him away. Criminal, just criminal 

[Zamboni]

Some fans want to connect the tank with the rebuild and form only one opinion.
 

Tank = success.

looking at that roster in 2013-2014 (and they got rid of a few players before the deadline to ensure we picked well) and then the tank worthy roster continued in 2014-2015 again. To ensure we picked well again.

https://www.hockey-reference.com/teams/BUF/2014.html

2015 to 2020 ... Rebuild = failure

two separate acts.

 

it’s not tankrebuild 

[LGR4GM]

Carolina had and has traded 2 5th overall picks and a 7th overall pick and they drafted 2nd overall 2 years ago. 

Philly has a 2, 7, 8 overall pick dating back to 2011 and they are just starting to be relevant. Not very fast rebuild there. 

Tampa has a 1st and 2nd overall pick from 09 and 2010... slow build. 

Dallas has a 3rd and a bunch of 11-14 guys but this might be the closest to a rebuild on the fly we can show. Granted if Buffalo had kept ROR again, we would have been better off with a fixed defense that didn't occur until this season. I mention this because Dallas signed Pavelski which really helped them. 

Colorado has 2 4th overall, 2 10th overall, 1 first and 1 second overall going back to 2011... super fast on the fly there... 

Vancouver has a 7th, 2 5ths, a 6th overall in the last few years. This is the first time they have been good since roughly 2011 so again, not fast. 

Idk I suppose I could go on there are teams like Calgary who is probably about to start some type of retool on the fly so they might make a good case study. Islanders might be a close one but they were bad for years and finally started drafting better. Vegas doesn't count at all because they have never had to rebuild they just built, although I have major concerns for them long term as their prospect pool has been decimated by trades (which is good or bad depending how you look at it). 

 

For fun let's do the top tank team and see what that looked like... Pittsburgh. 

4 years in a row at 1st or 2nd overall and another couple years in that 4-10 range. The top players for them are still from then so idk if we can say they have retooled but I suppose you can. Regardless they had the top talent base to retool which is needed in order to do what some are suggesting. 

You don't have to like the tank, agree with it, or agree with me but the Sabres strategy in the summer of 2014 was sound, if anything they should have tanked again in 2016 before starting to add to the roster but that's a what if. The truth is that with Eichel, there is a legitimate chance every offseason they can add the other pieces needed, without him, you're the Calgary Flames, talented but without that #1 center to optimize your team. Eichel is like having a Ferrari engine and you are complaining we don't have tires for the car, don't worry tires are easier to find. 

7 minutes ago, SwampD said:

Again,... then why tank?

This is pointless. You’re never going to waiver and neither am I. 

Would your position change if we end up trading Reinhart? Cuz I might stop watching hockey if that happens.

Depends on what he was traded for. 

Edited September 7, 2020 by LGR4GM

[SwampD]

6 minutes ago, Zamboni said:

Some fans want to connect the tank with the rebuild and form only one opinion.
 

Tank = success.

looking at that roster in 2013-2014 (and they got rid of a few players before the deadline to ensure we picked well) and then the tank worthy roster continued in 2014-2015 again. To ensure we picked well again.

https://www.hockey-reference.com/teams/BUF/2014.html

2015 to 2020 ... Rebuild = failure

two separate acts.

 

it’s not tankrebuild 

One was unnecessary, the other failed.

 

And the other may have failed because it was altered to accommodate the false hope of the one.

Edited September 7, 2020 by SwampD

[LGR4GM]

19 minutes ago, SwampD said:

One was unnecessary, the other failed.

 

And the other may have failed because it was altered to accommodate the false hope of the one.

So if we had not tanked and had just continued to draft and build, you are saying we would be better off than we are right now, at this very moment in time?

[SwampD]

5 minutes ago, LGR4GM said:

So if we had not tanked and had just continued to draft and build, you are saying we would be better off than we are right now, at this very moment in time?

It’s a very real possibility.

[DarthEbriate]

6 minutes ago, LGR4GM said:

So if we had not tanked and had just continued to draft and build, you are saying we would be better off than we are right now, at this very moment in time?

We must go further back than that. Anger Drafting leads to hate prospects; hate prospects leads to suffering; suffering leads to electing to tank.

In 2011-12 we had an aging core we hadn't yet soured on. New owner and the was to build that up with overpriced free agents because we could with all this new cash. But the other reason for that is we'd been drafting poorly for years by that point and our young replacement core just wasn't up to snuff. (When Vanek, Pommers, Roy, Miller, and Stafford came up they supplemented some really good teams in 05-07 --- now in 2011-2013 seasons, the next group had a few good players but they weren't first-liners/top-pairing guys to build around.

Trading a core player (or two) for top-end prospects (not say... Steve Ott), and getting the right free agents (not Leino) would've been the way to go to avoid the tank. But once you start down the Tank Path forever will it dominate your destiny.

[inkman]

10 hours ago, SwampD said:

We had no part in Armia’s development.

He definitely improved as an Amerk.  I just think, at the time, this organization wanted nothing to do with the 5+ years it took him to make an impact.  

[Broken Ankles]

15 hours ago, PerreaultForever said:

I think it safe to say you can always name one success and one failure and so on but overall, in terms of aggregate numbers, we have either drafted poorly or developed poorly or more likely both. A decade of futility proves it. Several times we are supposed to have had a full cupboard of prospects and not many of them amounted to anything. Now, despite the failure, the cupboard is considered fairly empty.

JBot's hand was only forced (in all instances) because the team allows it, the culture allows it. The ill planned desperation rather than following a proper building plan. There are also no consequences in this organization for bad behaviour, be it fortnite playing or partying or whatever. No leadership, no accountability, it's a losing culture. Having grown up on a Sabres team in the 70s that was very different from that in all ways its very very frustrating. 

As for the successes, 2 of those blossomed outside this organization and who's to say Larsson (a very average player) wouldn't have been better developed elsewhere? Ullmark, I give you that cause they kept him in the minors so he might be ok. Not convinced he's a #1 or will ever be consistent, but it's possible. Borgen etc, well lets talk about them when they make the NHL. 

Who’s to say Larsson wouldn’t have been a bust if he stayed in Minnesota?

You’re a big Boston organization guy correct?  Tell me how they are developing players so much better than the Sabres? Not drafting well, developing well.  Their top flight players like Pasta, Hamilton, Carlo and McAvoy, had Zero to minimal time in the minors just like many of the Sabres i.e. Reinhart, Eichel, Risto and Dahlin.  I just don’t see a slew of players “developed” in Providence.  In the last 12 years they have....Spooner, Grzelcyz, and Heinen?  If we go back 12 years you can add Marcus and Pysyk to the previous list for the Sabres.   The best and most complementary thing I can say about their GMs is they convinced all those players and Donato to stay in college.  And I give less credit for that in terms of development.  I give more to the individual coaching staffs at these universities.  Bringing this back to Casey, it seems in hindsight he would have been better served staying all four years at U of M to develop physically and more so mentally.

Edited September 7, 2020 by Broken Ankles
Grammar

[Weave]

Ugh.  The Tank was a strategic decision.  The rebuild was a succession of tactical decisions.  But they are very much linked.  Tactics require strategic guidance.  The strategic decision in 1941 of a 2 front war determined the tactical decisions that followed.  They were NOT separatable events.  And neither are the Sabres tank and rebuild, for the same reason.

The Tank years of '13-14 and '14-15 required the team to to make the strategic decision to decimate the roster at all levels.  There was no way to ensure at least a top 2 pick in those years without decimating the roster.  It was absolutely required to guarantee a last place finish.  The depth of the roster destruction was such that only perfect tactical decisions and a modicum of luck would result in a successful rebuild.  It was an unrealistic task even for the absolute best GM's.  Given flawed, rookie GM's and the totality of the rebuild required, (another failed tactical decision) it was inevitable that the rebuild would fail.  And it was linked DIRECTLY to the decision to tank.

Let's not forget that Tank fanboi teams Pittsburgh and Chicago did NOT tear down their teams.  They had a base of NHL caliber players to build from, not a collection of never was.  And that is because those two teams didn't tank.  They were bad teams, for sure, but they never sold off the organization so they had a foundation to plant elite talent on top of.

[Sabres Fan in NS]

I think we can finally put the tank debate to rest.

It was the single worst decision by Sabres management ever.

[Ducky]

Roslovic for Casey?

 

[Kruppstahl]

What should we make of him?  A trade package, that's what.

Seriously, I still think the jury is officially OUT on him for a bit longer, but it doesn't look good.

If he was going to pan out, his career would not look the way it currently does.

 

 

[Sabres Fan in NS]

19 minutes ago, Ducky said:

Roslovic for Casey?

 

Absolutely.  Do you really think the Jets would do that?

[PerreaultForever]

2 hours ago, Broken Ankles said:

Who’s to say Larsson wouldn’t have been a bust if he stayed in Minnesota?

You’re a big Boston organization guy correct?  Tell me how they are developing players so much better than the Sabres? Not drafting well, developing well.  They’re top flight players like Pasta, Hamilton, Carlo and McAvoy, had Zero to minimal time in the minors just like many of the Sabres i.e. Reinhart, Eichel, Risto and Dahlin.  I just don’t see a slew of players “developed” in Providence.  In the last 12 years they have....Spooner, Grzelcyz, and Heinen?  If we go back 12 years you can add Marcus and Pysyk to the previous list for the Sabres.   The best and most complementary thing I can say about their GMs is they convinced all those players and Donato to stay in college.  And I give less credit for that in terms of development.  I give more to the individual coaching staffs at these universities.  Bringing this back to Casey, it seems in hindsight he would have been better served staying all four years at U of M to develop physically and more so mentally.

Not following them too closely I can't speak in depth on Boston other than to say they all seem to want to be there, many take hometown discounts, they all try hard, they all pull in the same direction. The culture is strong, the team is strong, they get the most out of what they have. How exactly they do it I have no idea, hence why i say we should hire a Boston guy as our guy and let him bring it here. 

Look at Vancouver. Their run and character seems to be now building the same way. Boston guy in charge. Right now, wouldn't you rather we had that other 50 year old team as ours?

I will say one thing for sure about Boston. They have nights to honour their veteran stars and they spell their alumni names right.Maybe it's that simple?