Official Sam Ventura Hired as VP of Hockey Strategy and Research

[carpandean]

2 hours ago, Thorny said:

I‘m honestly a bit surprised to see this type of flawed logic still exist, as the majority opinion i’d say, to boot  (anecdotally), after what we literally just lived through with Eichel.  It doesn’t matter *how* good the centre is, if the rest of the team isn’t up to snuff. It would be significantly more beneficial, I’d argue exponentially more beneficial that we made the playoffs next year on the backs of our younger players than it would be to finish significantly worse, and get Wright. 

In the former scenario, the WHOLE TEAM IS BETTER 

To clarify, I was assuming Sam/Jack are gone (my ideal outcome if they stay is very different), and trying to project realistic expectations on what comes out of the dust from their trades.  Looking back before the two COVID seasons, the 10th and 11th worst teams (since we'll have one more team in the league) were over 20 points better than the last-place team, but 7-10 points out of the playoffs. 

The young kids took big steps in the second half of last season, looking like a much more competitive team, but still lost a lot (19 out of 28, if I remember correctly.)  I expect the first half of the season to build off of that, so we'd like what we're seeing, but the points wouldn't be playoff pace.  Then, as things gelled and improved, they start to pick up more wins/points.  They'd rise up to 83 points or so by producing above a playoff place.  Then, they'd luck into adding Wright to the youth movement.  All-in-all, they'd be a truly competitive playoff team the following year and for a long-time after. 

That's a whole lot different than selling everything to finish at the very bottom and coming out with just that star center surrounded by crap.  Besides, the above isn't something that a team could actually try for, unlike what we went through for Jack.  I was simply saying that with reasonable expectations in the wake of losing those two players, this would be the ideal result to luck into (note the very, very small chance of them winning the lottery at 11th worst.)

[Thorner]

5 minutes ago, carpandean said:

To clarify, I was assuming Sam/Jack are gone (my ideal outcome if they stay is very different), and trying to project realistic expectations on what comes out of the dust from their trades.  Looking back before the two COVID seasons, the 10th and 11th worst teams (since we'll have one more team in the league) were over 20 points better than the last-place team, but 7-10 points out of the playoffs. 

The young kids took big steps in the second half of last season, looking like a much more competitive team, but still lost a lot (19 out of 28, if I remember correctly.)  I expect the first half of the season to build off of that, so we'd like what we're seeing, but the points wouldn't be playoff pace.  Then, as things gelled and improved, they start to pick up more wins/points.  They'd rise up to 83 points or so by producing above a playoff place.  Then, they'd luck into adding Wright to the youth movement.  All-in-all, they'd be a truly competitive playoff team the following year and for a long-time after. 

That's a whole lot different than selling everything to finish at the very bottom and coming out with just that star center surrounded by crap.  Besides, the above isn't something that a team could actually try for, unlike what we went through for Jack.  I was simply saying that with reasonable expectations in the wake of losing those two players, this would be the ideal result to luck into (note the very, very small chance of them winning the lottery at 11th worst.)

To me making the playoffs falls under reasonable expectations. Are we supposed to give Kevyn Adams 3 years just to make it? And people doubt it when I say a long build is the end game lol. 

Half the league makes the playoffs. Go make the playoffs. I believe we could be a playoff team with Eichel and Reinhart - if KA wants to willingly give that route up, fine - but I’m not being sold a step backwards. That’s the line in the sand for me.

[LGR4GM]

Columbus just picked up one of the cast offs from Florida who is also a data an analytics guy

 

[inkman]

2 hours ago, Curt said:

1st overall. 

Why not just use that term?

[Thorner]

Chad’s right hand man, could be interesting  

I do think “highest pick possible = best result possible” mentality is taking hold 

[SDS]

6 minutes ago, Thorny said:

Chad’s right hand man, could be interesting  

I do think “highest pick possible = best result possible” mentality is taking hold 

I think what you are seeing is that fans want more talent added until that potential actually turns into NHL talent. We want more high draft picks because the ones we made already aren’t dominating yet (save pre-injury Eichel). 

[LGR4GM]

 

[Curt]

35 minutes ago, Thorny said:

Chad’s right hand man, could be interesting  

I do think “highest pick possible = best result possible” mentality is taking hold 

Listening to this now.  Expected Buffalo podcast.

[SDS]

51 minutes ago, LGR4GM said:

 

Do you think Toronto goes into bars and whips out their analytics list?

[Brawndo]

https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/31-thoughts-the-podcast/id1332150124?i=1000527963179

 

Start at the 20:00 Minute Mark, talks about the High Price for Eichel and that if it does not happen soon one team is out. 
 

Right after there is good conversation about Sam Ventura and how well respected He is in the analytics community.

[LGR4GM]

More Sam Ventura praise. 

Quote

"He's an extremely smart guy," said one NHL analytics expert. "A really good thinker, strategically. With Karmanos there and his long relationship with Sam, he clearly has demonstrated his worth to have that primary role that Karmanos has brought in to fit Buffalo."

 

[Thorner]

^That’s a horribly worded last sentence. Gist is promising, though 

[LGR4GM]

3 minutes ago, Thorny said:

^That’s a horribly worded last sentence. Gist is promising, though 

The analytics person they talked to called Ventura one of the best in the field. 

[Taro T]

5 minutes ago, Thorny said:

^That’s a horribly worded last sentence. Gist is promising, though 

The guy is (apparently) good at math.

If he was good at English as well he probably wouldn't be buried in a back room somewhere. 😉

[LGR4GM]

 

[Thorner]

8 hours ago, SDS said:

I think what you are seeing is that fans want more talent added until that potential actually turns into NHL talent. We want more high draft picks because the ones we made already aren’t dominating yet (save pre-injury Eichel). 

My bad, 2 seasons from now is the “incremental improvement” year - first year is outright losing for a high pick - so two more years of poor hockey overall. What’s two more bad years, right? Take your time guys. THREE years from now is the new endgame 

That’ll be Dahlin’s 6th year, just in time for a new tear down (and accompanying long-game) 

By then I see no reason the refrain won’t be “haven’t won with him, have we?”

Edited July 7, 2021 by Thorny

[Curt]

2 minutes ago, Thorny said:

My bad, 2 seasons from now is the “incremental improvement” year - first year is outright losing for a high pick - so two more years of poor hockey overall. What’s two more bad years, right? Take your time guys. THREE years from now is the new endgame 

I know that your beef is also with fans acceptance of losing, as much as the Sabres’ acceptance of it, but Anthony’s opinions don’t necessarily reflect what the Sabres will do.

[Thorner]

1 minute ago, Curt said:

I know that your beef is also with fans acceptance of losing, as much as the Sabres’ acceptance of it, but Anthony’s opinions don’t necessarily reflect what the Sabres will do.

Oh definitely not. Just trying to paint a canvas of what the prevailing sentiment is becoming: “strap in for a long build” becoming the preferred consensus. 

I think KA and the Sabres did a fine job of their sales pitch this summer 

[LGR4GM]

6 minutes ago, Thorny said:

My bad, 2 seasons from now is the “incremental improvement” year - first year is outright losing for a high pick - so two more years of poor hockey overall. What’s two more bad years, right? Take your time guys. THREE years from now is the new endgame 

That’ll be Dahlin’s 6th year, just in time for a new tear down (and accompanying long-game) 

By then I see no reason the refrain won’t be “haven’t won with him, have we?”

Almost universally across this board in 2015, ppl were big fans of "speeding up the rebuild". We need to do this correctly and if it takes 3 years to stockpile the talent needed, so be it. I think it will only take 1. 

[Thorner]

3 minutes ago, LGR4GM said:

Almost universally across this board in 2015, ppl were big fans of "speeding up the rebuild". We need to do this correctly and if it takes 3 years to stockpile the talent needed, so be it. I think it will only take 1. 

Surrounding the youth with capable veteran talent was always the preferred method, even if the wrong vets were chosen. That failure shouldn’t torpedo the entire concept of the strategy: if that’s the case we shouldn’t “rebuild” either as we’ve failed in the past at that, too. 

[Curt]

1 minute ago, Thorny said:

Oh definitely not. Just trying to paint a canvas of what the prevailing sentiment is becoming: “strap in for a long build” becoming the preferred consensus. 

I think KA and the Sabres did a fine job of their sales pitch this summer 

I don’t want to see losing hockey, but I think the Sabres are a bit low on options right now.  The younger guys aren’t ready to carry the team, a couple key players are finishing up their contracts, and the captain/best player wants out(?). I think things have been building towards this point since before Adams came aboard.

I think they can rebuild with youth without being terrible.  If they do it right, it shouldn’t take 3 years to be in the playoff hunt.

[Thorner]

2 minutes ago, Curt said:

I don’t want to see losing hockey, but I think the Sabres are a bit low on options right now.  The younger guys aren’t ready to carry the team, a couple key players are finishing up their contracts, and the captain/best player wants out(?). I think things have been building towards this point since before Adams came aboard.

I think they can rebuild with youth without being terrible.  If they do it right, it shouldn’t take 3 years to be in the playoff hunt.

The talk of Adams targeting solely futures with Eichel gives me a lot of pause, though, re: “rebuild without being terrible”. 

The “low on options” framing only makes sense imo if you think the deal is Eichel instigated and I don’t believe that to be the case 

Edited July 7, 2021 by Thorny

[LGR4GM]

7 minutes ago, Thorny said:

Surrounding the youth with capable veteran talent was always the preferred method, even if the wrong vets were chosen. That failure shouldn’t torpedo the entire concept of the strategy: if that’s the case we shouldn’t “rebuild” either as we’ve failed in the past at that, too. 

I would rather get 4 high end 20 year old kids then 1 high end 20 year old and 2 mid 20's 2/3 line guys because vets. I will wait the extra year or two for the kids. 

This isn't anywhere near what I was saying. 

[Thorner]

8 minutes ago, LGR4GM said:

I would rather get 4 high end 20 year old kids then 1 high end 20 year old and 2 mid 20's 2/3 line guys because vets. I will wait the extra year or two for the kids. 

This isn't anywhere near what I was saying. 

I would say, “because win”, but it’s a small distinction I suppose 😆

You’re right - I’m pretty certain they agree with you. I have to keep reminding myself it is what it is at this point. 

We’ll see how it turns out 

[Taro T]

1 hour ago, Curt said:

I don’t want to see losing hockey, but I think the Sabres are a bit low on options right now.  The younger guys aren’t ready to carry the team, a couple key players are finishing up their contracts, and the captain/best player wants out(?). I think things have been building towards this point since before Adams came aboard.

I think they can rebuild with youth without being terrible.  If they do it right, it shouldn’t take 3 years to be in the playoff hunt.

They're only low on options because management appears to have chosen to follow a path that will see the departure of 2 key forwards and a solid, though whipping boy, D-man.  And following that path may further leave them without their best, though injured, stay at home D-man & their only current NHL caliber goalie.

That road is NOT the only one available to them.

And, yes, they MAY rebuild with youth and be in the hunt sooner than the 3 years many are expecting & Karmanos & Ventura seem to be encouraging hires, but there has been NO reason to believe based on the past decade that the road chosen IS the correct one.

We FINALLY have good supporting pieces available to support the "tank fruit" and they seem to be preparing to throw that away to reset once again.  This flat out stinks.