Eichel vs McDavid

[Weave]

39 minutes ago, Taro T said:

No, but they did to land Fleury & Malkin.  (And yes, the Pens moved from 3 to 1 for Fleury, but they'd already cleaned house to get down to 3.)

They were a bankrupt team, not a team that was focused on 1 oal.  I know you know that.

[Taro T]

8 minutes ago, Weave said:

They were a bankrupt team, not a team that was focused on 1 oal.  I know you know that.

The rationale was different, but the result was identical.

[Weave]

1 minute ago, Taro T said:

The rationale was different, but the result was identical.

So I guess the message is, if you are going to lose big, do it for 2 seasons, luck into a lottery in the 3rd, and draft 2 more HOFers 5 and 7 years after.

[Taro T]

1 minute ago, Weave said:

So I guess the message is, if you are going to lose big, do it for 2 seasons, luck into a lottery in the 3rd, and draft 2 more HOFers 5 and 7 years after.

Not sure what your point is.  You said they didn't tank.  They did.

There was no editorializing about whether tanking has a high probability of being successful. Would argue that it has a very low probability of being successful and also that the low probability of success makes it unlikely that it will be worth it in the end. 

[I-90 W]

Jack Eichel is one of the top 15 1C in the league. I wouldn’t compare him to McDavid that’s just not realistic. 

[Gabrielor]

McDavid will have a claim to best player ever when all is said and done.

Jack *might* be a hof'er if success and health come in Vegas and beyond.

 

Mountain of difference, but both are great.

[Weave]

16 minutes ago, Taro T said:

Not sure what your point is.  You said they didn't tank.  They did.

There was no editorializing about whether tanking has a high probability of being successful. Would argue that it has a very low probability of being successful and also that the low probability of success makes it unlikely that it will be worth it in the end. 

They did not tank.  They never lost on purpose.  They fell into bankruptcy and couldn’t afford to keep players and personnel. 

[carpandean]

19 hours ago, OrangeSeatVertigo said:

My bounce on Sabres losing Eichel is I felt years ago they lost the day the tank only got them the #2 pick and Eichel.  With Oilers/Sabres coming soon, wanted to put out there the only worthy prize for the tank season was McDavid , and they missed.

Given the rules of the lottery at the time, tanking for last got you two things:

1) The highest chance of drafting the truly generational player, McD, at 20% (i.e., 4:1 against getting him.)

2) Worst-case scenario of a likely elite-level talent center in Jack.

If the only worthwhile prize was McDavid, then they were setting yourself up for disappointment, as it was still very unlikely to happen, even finishing last.  Either player should have been a major benefit, which along with the acquired draft capital if properly managed, should have put them in a good position.  As others have said, there needed to be a patient and effective drafting and development process, later supplemented by key trades, to see that through.  They got none of that.

[Taro T]

23 minutes ago, Weave said:

They did not tank.  They never lost on purpose.  They fell into bankruptcy and couldn’t afford to keep players and personnel. 

They most certainly did tank.  They sold the bulk of the players off (other than Jagr who was jettisoned earlier than that) 4 years after declaring bankruptcy and dropped their team salary the year after drafting Fleury ~$12MM than what they'd planned when coming out of bankruptcy.

They did it to force the city & state to build them a new barn & to cut them in on soon to be arriving gambling revenues.  They knew attendance (& therefore revenues) would crash with the sell-off, but they knew they'd either be able to move to KC or Windsor or actually get the new barn in the Steel City.

You can say they lost on purpose for other reasons, but it doesn't change the fact they lost on purpose.

Edited November 12, 2021 by Taro T

[Sabres Fan in NS]

17 hours ago, woods-racer said:

Pittsburg absolutely did what buffalo did, right down to trading goalies that where playing well. It's where the whole *tanking* mentality was born.

Respectfully, disagree.

[Sabres Fan in NS]

16 hours ago, Weave said:

For Mario.  And it took a decade, Jagr, and Recchi for it to bear fruit.  Is it really a success when it takes that long AND required the drafting of two more HOF players?

I would make the arguement that they didn't for Mario either, but it was a race to the bottom against NJ, I believe.  The Penguins were a shables and the owners did not want to pay anybody.  Very close to bankruptcy then too, if not unofficially so.  You are spot on that it took almost 10 years for the Penguins to get good again.

[Taro T]

And as a follow on, the only reason the '04-'05 Pens didn't finish DFL and "earn" the rights to Crosby is because they didn't get the opportunity to do so.  They'd been DFL the prior year & 2nd to last by a single point WITH Crosby & Gonchar added to the lineup coming out of the lockout.  Had they played that year, that selection was most likely theirs.

The reason they had that 3rd lottery ball like Buffalo & IIRC the Rags (or was it the BJ's?) for Crosby is they'd been DFL the previously played season.

[Sabres Fan in NS]

14 hours ago, Weave said:

Do they win them without Jagr?  Without Recchi?  If the answer is no then I say it wasn't the tank that produced those cups.

And this is the single, best example of a tank working.  Hell, it might be the only example.  Nearly a decade and 2 more HOFers were needed to be added before it "worked".  It's a faulty plan.

I believe they won those 2 cups because they added Ronnie and Ulf at the deadline in 1991.  Super Mario was in and out of the lineup a lot in 1991 and 1992.  Jagr and Recchi were both very good players, but rookies in 1991.  I am not even sure if Recchi was not traded in 1992, if no he was soon after that.  Fact check ... he was part of the Tochett trade.

In 1992 they brought in Tochett and our Muel's uncle.

[Taro T]

6 minutes ago, The Ghost of Doohickie said:

I would make the arguement that they didn't for Mario either, but it was a race to the bottom against NJ, I believe.  The Penguins were a shables and the owners did not want to pay anybody.  Very close to bankruptcy then too, if not unofficially so.  You are spot on that it took almost 10 years for the Penguins to get good again.

The Pens decided 1/2 way through that year to race to the bottom because they only had 1 legit competitor for that title.  But race to the bottom they and Joisey definitely did.

[LGR4GM]

1 hour ago, Weave said:

So I guess the message is, if you are going to lose big, do it for 2 seasons, luck into a lottery in the 3rd, and draft 2 more HOFers 5 and 7 years after.

The message is you have to draft well. Getting Eichel was correct, but trading away picks and bringing in bad vets, drafting like trash, will result in you having a team with a good player and not much else. 

The team had to rebuild in 2014 because they had drafted bad from 2006-2012. Then they turned around and drafted bad from 2013-2016. 

Edited November 12, 2021 by LGR4GM

[Sabres Fan in NS]

5 minutes ago, Taro T said:

The Pens decided 1/2 way through that year to race to the bottom because they only had 1 legit competitor for that title.  But race to the bottom they and Joisey definitely did.

There is no question that they did race to the bottom, but they were already terrible and a shambles.  It's not the same thing, IMHO, as deliberately planning on it for 2+ years.  It's the shame of the Sabres, IMHO.  It will take a long time for that stench to wear off, if ever.

Edited November 12, 2021 by The Ghost of Doohickie
more goodly ...

[Rusty P Viaduct]

bottom line- zero cups for either team with Edmonton 2 years ahead of us each year after 6 years.  We are still a bottom 5 team and they are still a .500 team.

it's tough to build a Stanley cup winning team in the NHL- especially when your GM's are idiots and your Owner thinks he can be  the GM.

[Taro T]

5 hours ago, LGR4GM said:

The message is you have to draft well. Getting Eichel was correct, but trading away picks and bringing in bad vets, drafting like trash, will result in you having a team with a good player and not much else. 

The team had to rebuild in 2014 because they had drafted bad from 2006-2012. Then they turned around and drafted bad from 2013-2016. 

Actually, they had to rebuild in 2014 because they'd consciously decided to send away at least Kotalik, Leopold, Pominville, Regehr, and Sekara ~2013 and let Hecht walk out too.  And then traded Vanek & his replacement Moulson (who then came back as a FA) as well.

The spoils of "video scouting" just left the cupboards even barer.  But it wasn't the driver of the tank.  Impatience was the driver.  

[PerreaultForever]

Can't wait to play Vegas next season and watch Cozens shut down Eichel. 

[Curt]

13 hours ago, Taro T said:

Actually, they had to rebuild in 2014 because they'd consciously decided to send away at least Kotalik, Leopold, Pominville, Regehr, and Sekara ~2013 and let Hecht walk out too.  And then traded Vanek & his replacement Moulson (who then came back as a FA) as well.

The spoils of "video scouting" just left the cupboards even barer.  But it wasn't the driver of the tank.  Impatience was the driver.  

This is strange.  You have to realize that almost all of those players were traded away because they were pending UFAs who were not going to return, and also that most of those moves were a part of the rebuild or the tank, not a cause of it.

The reason that a rebuild was required was that the drafting was very poor from about 2006 onwards, so in 2009-13 there was not much for young guys coming up to supplement the core.

[Marvin]

7 hours ago, Curt said:

This is strange.  You have to realize that almost all of those players were traded away because they were pending UFAs who were not going to return, and also that most of those moves were a part of the rebuild or the tank, not a cause of it.

The reason that a rebuild was required was that the drafting was very poor from about 2006 onwards, so in 2009-13 there was not much for young guys coming up to supplement the core.

One thing about the 2006-2012 drafting that is forgotten: the Sabres only drafted one centre the entire time: Luke Adam.  We also often forget the numerous picks Darcy sent away to buy at the deadline for players we often did not keep.  That doubled the problem because we didn't get to draft AND we didn't have the extra roster spot being held by one more holdover.  That compounds the offence of bad drafting.

[Thorner]

4 minutes ago, Marvin, Sabres Fan said:

One thing about the 2006-2012 drafting that is forgotten: the Sabres only drafted one centre the entire time: Luke Adam.  We also often forget the numerous picks Darcy sent away to buy at the deadline for players we often did not keep.  That doubled the problem because we didn't get to draft AND we didn't have the extra roster spot being held by one more holdover.  That compounds the offence of bad drafting.

Centre that "hit", you mean? They drafted a handful of other centres in that time frame (i had to look it up), they just turned out to be nobodies. To your point, mostly lower picks, too. It's one reason I'd like to see Adams start taking a few higher Cs, actually. 

They did also take Grigorenko and Girgs in 2012. 

[Marvin]

Just now, Thorny said:

Centre that "hit", you mean? They drafted a handful of other centres in that time frame (i had to look it up), they just turned out to be nobodies. To your point, mostly lower picks, too. It's one reason I'd like to see Adams start taking a few higher Cs, actually. 

They did also take Grigorenko and Girgs in 2012. 

Whoops -- read one place too far.  But your point is correct: we need to take C's more often higher in the draft.

[Curt]

9 minutes ago, Marvin, Sabres Fan said:

One thing about the 2006-2012 drafting that is forgotten: the Sabres only drafted one centre the entire time: Luke Adam.  We also often forget the numerous picks Darcy sent away to buy at the deadline for players we often did not keep.  That doubled the problem because we didn't get to draft AND we didn't have the extra roster spot being held by one more holdover.  That compounds the offence of bad drafting.

Over that time period the Sabres drafted more than the normal 7 players on average, more than the normal number of 1st rounders, and more than the normal number of players in rounds 1-3.  It didn’t have to do with trading away too many picks.

And as Thorny said, they did draft several other centers in addition to Adam, but not many particularly high.  It’s not as if they were having success drafting players at other positions anyway though.

Overall, the drafting was quite bad until after Botterill took over.

[Thorner]

11 minutes ago, Curt said:

Over that time period the Sabres drafted more than the normal 7 players on average, more than the normal number of 1st rounders, and more than the normal number of players in rounds 1-3.  It didn’t have to do with trading away too many picks.

And as Thorny said, they did draft several other centers in addition to Adam, but not many particularly high.  It’s not as if they were having success drafting players at other positions anyway though.

Overall, the drafting was quite bad until after Botterill took over.

Ya. I really disliked Botterill's draft strategy but I think his drafts are actually looking stronger the longer time passes, at least for me 

Edited November 13, 2021 by Thorny