Where do the Sabres Rank in terms of Prospect Pools post draft?

[Taro T]

16 minutes ago, SwampD said:

Simple question. Will the Sabres make the playoffs this season? That wouldn’t even mean that they are good, just not bottom half of the league.

I can’t say with any certainty and that’s kinda sad.

Hope is not a srategy.

And it's annoying that they weren't in on another goalie (that would actually move to Buffalo) and Neiderriter (expect he'd've been an even better add than Copp would've been); but provided Comrie doesn't deficate himself they should be close to playoffs (90+) without any luck & could get there with a fair helping of it.

That hasn't been true in any season since Regier spoke of suffering and since which they've somehow managed to never break an NHL 0.500 for an entire season.  Finally baby steps appear nearly inevitable.

We can all be ticked about it and blow it all off or hope & hopefully watch entertaining hockey at a minimum.  Too tired to be ticked.  YMMV.

[LGR4GM]

12 hours ago, SwampD said:

The gullibility comes from still buying the only product they have to sell, the “future” or “soon”, after 11 plus years. Eventually, the team is going to have to start selling “winning.” Maybe not.

Wait. Aren’t you one of those that keeps pointing out that it’s different this time?

It is because we're drafting better and haven't done that. Let's not reverse course now. 

[SwampD]

1 hour ago, LGR4GM said:

It is because we're drafting better and haven't done that. Let's not reverse course now. 

Well, they drafted Power, so this must be true, I guess. Until any single pick by KA has proven a single thing at the NHL level, I remain doubtful.

I think we’ll find out soon enough, like 2-4 years. Oof, The Grand Pyramids took less time to build.

[Stoner]

8 minutes ago, SwampD said:

Well, they drafted Power, so this must be true, I guess. Until any single pick by KA has proven a single thing at the NHL level, I remain doubtful.

I think we’ll find out soon enough, like 2-4 years. Oof, The Grand Pyramids took less time to build.

Exactly. You haven't drafted better until you're... better. The bar is set deliberately low by the franchise and those vested in "being right" about young players.

[LGR4GM]

21 minutes ago, SwampD said:

Well, they drafted Power, so this must be true, I guess. Until any single pick by KA has proven a single thing at the NHL level, I remain doubtful.

I think we’ll find out soon enough, like 2-4 years. Oof, The Grand Pyramids took less time to build.

 

12 minutes ago, PASabreFan said:

Exactly. You haven't drafted better until you're... better. The bar is set deliberately low by the franchise and those vested in "being right" about young players.

Lol. 

[JohnC]

1 hour ago, PASabreFan said:

Exactly. You haven't drafted better until you're... better. The bar is set deliberately low by the franchise and those vested in "being right" about young players.

Your logic is very odd. So if high end prospects/players such as Dahlin, Cozens, Quinn etc. are playing on a losing team, then you are questioning their selections even though they have individually or in time demonstrated they can play well in this league? If a team doesn't have adequate goaltending that allows it to be a competitive team does that mean that all the other players are failures? The success of a team shouldn't dictate how every player is evaluated. That makes absolutely no sense. 

[Curt]

1 hour ago, SwampD said:

Well, they drafted Power, so this must be true, I guess. Until any single pick by KA has proven a single thing at the NHL level, I remain doubtful.

I think we’ll find out soon enough, like 2-4 years. Oof, The Grand Pyramids took less time to build.

 

1 hour ago, PASabreFan said:

Exactly. You haven't drafted better until you're... better. The bar is set deliberately low by the franchise and those vested in "being right" about young players.

No ***** they haven’t proven anything at the NHL level.  That’s pretty much the definition of the word prospect.  We are comparing the Sabres’ unproven prospects against the unproven prospects of other teams.  That’s what this thread is.

Both of you:  What is your opinion of the Sabres’ prospect pool compared to other teams’ prospects pools?

[SwampD]

4 minutes ago, Curt said:

 

No ***** they haven’t proven anything at the NHL level.  That’s pretty much the definition of the word prospect.  We are comparing the Sabres’ unproven prospects against the unproven prospects of other teams.  That’s what this thread is.

Both of you:  What is your opinion of the Sabres’ prospect pool compared to other teams’ prospects pools?

I put them around 7th. 😂

[Curt]

28 minutes ago, SwampD said:

I put them around 7th. 😂

Which teams’ prospect pools would you place ahead of them?

[Flashsabre]

9 minutes ago, Curt said:

Which teams’ prospect pools would you place ahead of them?

He has no idea what he is talking about. He just wants to be negative to be negative.

[Stoner]

1 hour ago, Curt said:

 

No ***** they haven’t proven anything at the NHL level.  That’s pretty much the definition of the word prospect.  We are comparing the Sabres’ unproven prospects against the unproven prospects of other teams.  That’s what this thread is.

Both of you:  What is your opinion of the Sabres’ prospect pool compared to other teams’ prospects pools?

This would require everyone in this thread to independently study hundreds of prospects. It ain't happening.

Any ranking of prospects here is fundamentally dishonest.

[Stoner]

1 hour ago, JohnC said:

Your logic is very odd. So if high end prospects/players such as Dahlin, Cozens, Quinn etc. are playing on a losing team, then you are questioning their selections even though they have individually or in time demonstrated they can play well in this league? If a team doesn't have adequate goaltending that allows it to be a competitive team does that mean that all the other players are failures? The success of a team shouldn't dictate how every player is evaluated. That makes absolutely no sense. 

That's exactly how you evaluate players. You care about evaluating individual players bc the NHL left Buffalo in 2012.

Again, how sad.

[Stoner]

Also... "Play well in this league" is an incomplete grade without playoff context. IMHO.

[Curt]

13 minutes ago, PASabreFan said:

This would require everyone in this thread to independently study hundreds of prospects. It ain't happening.

Any ranking of prospects here is fundamentally dishonest.

No one on this forum ever knows what they they are talking about.  Truthfully.  That’s not a prerequisite to having a discussion here.

You could literally go into any thread here and tell everyone that they don’t what they are talking about.......and you would be correct!  Being a long time poster here, you must understand this!

No one on this forum needs you to tell them whether or not they are qualified to have a discussion about this or that topic.

Edited July 23, 2022 by Curt

[Stoner]

9 minutes ago, Curt said:

No one on this forum ever knows what they they are talking about.  Truthfully.  That’s not a prerequisite to having a discussion here.

You could literally go into any thread here and tell everyone that they don’t what they are talking about.......and you would be correct!  Being a long time poster here, you must understand this!

No one on this forum needs you to tell them whether or not they are qualified to have a discussion about this or that topic.

That's honest anyway.

[JohnC]

37 minutes ago, PASabreFan said:

That's exactly how you evaluate players. You care about evaluating individual players bc the NHL left Buffalo in 2012.

Again, how sad.

I say this with no hostility but I don't know what the heck you are talking about. 

[LGR4GM]

1 hour ago, PASabreFan said:

This would require everyone in this thread to independently study hundreds of prospects. It ain't happening.

Any ranking of prospects here is fundamentally dishonest.

 

1 hour ago, PASabreFan said:

That's exactly how you evaluate players. You care about evaluating individual players bc the NHL left Buffalo in 2012.

Again, how sad.

 

1 hour ago, PASabreFan said:

Also... "Play well in this league" is an incomplete grade without playoff context. IMHO.

If you don't want to talk about players who haven't played in the league, aka prospects, why are you derailing a thread about it? 

[GrassValleyGreg]

Man this thread has sucked for the last couple of pages. PA you made whatever point you’re trying to make. Let’s move on.

[Stoner]

25 minutes ago, GrassValleyGreg said:

Man this thread has sucked for the last couple of pages. PA you made whatever point you’re trying to make. Let’s move on.

Fair.

I'm not stopping anyone from talking about prospects.

[LGR4GM]

41 minutes ago, PASabreFan said:

Fair.

I'm not stopping anyone from talking about prospects.

Ahh, the Tucker Carlson defense. 

Ask a bad faith question (how do we know our prospects are even good in the nhl?), follow it up with a reinforcing statement to make your premise seem logical (they haven't been good or even played in the playoffs), follow that with a statement that no one can answer your original question which then makes your ideas seem true because they can't be questioned (no one has studied the 100s of prospects) then when the flaw in the question is exposed (prospects don't play in the playoffs) plead innocence like you're just asking a question not harming the conversation by using unrealistic nonsense to twist the conversation to your true point (you think the fans and franchise have low nhl standards "how sad" you said,  which has little to do with discussing prospects).

Textbook. And you successfully derailed the thread. Bravo.

 

Notice how the goalposts move to get you to the NHL team isn't good by constantly manipulation of what a prospect is. Just, chefs kiss, perfect manipulation of the topic. 

[Stoner]

19 minutes ago, LGR4GM said:

Ahh, the Tucker Carlson defense. 

Ask a bad faith question (how do we know our prospects are even good in the nhl?), follow it up with a reinforcing statement to make your premise seem logical (they haven't been good or even played in the playoffs), follow that with a statement that no one can answer your original question which then makes your ideas seem true because they can't be questioned (no one has studied the 100s of prospects) then when the flaw in the question is exposed (prospects don't play in the playoffs) plead innocence like you're just asking a question not harming the conversation by using unrealistic nonsense to twist the conversation to your true point (you think the fans and franchise have low nhl standards "how sad" you said,  which has little to do with discussing prospects).

Textbook. And you successfully derailed the thread. Bravo.

 

Notice how the goalposts move to get you to the NHL team isn't good by constantly manipulation of what a prospect is. Just, chefs kiss, perfect manipulation of the topic. 

Seriously, go talk about prospects.

I'll be in the GDT.

If anybody needs directions, PM me.

[Derrico]

4 hours ago, PASabreFan said:

 

Any ranking of prospects here is fundamentally dishonest.

This can’t be the term you were intending.  How is someone’s ranking of prospects ‘fundamentally dishonest’?

[JohnC]

4 hours ago, PASabreFan said:

This would require everyone in this thread to independently study hundreds of prospects. It ain't happening.

Any ranking of prospects here is fundamentally dishonest.

Quinn was voted rookie of the year in the AHL. JJ Peterka was voted on the all-AHL rookie team. They both are ranked high as prospects by people who follow the AHL. So you may consider this a dishonest ranking but I don't. 

https://buffalonews.com/sports/sabres/sabres-jack-quinn-named-ahl-rookie-of-the-year-after-dynamic-season-with-amerks/article_5d4a1bfa-c7f0-11ec-937a-5bc57bec6c24.html

[LGR4GM]

1 hour ago, PASabreFan said:

Seriously, go talk about prospects.

I'll be in the GDT.

If anybody needs directions, PM me.

If you wanna talk about how Savoie won't be as good as Kasper, I'll listen all day. Or how our prospect pool lacks X. 

Any of that. But I don't think it's dishonest of anyone to talk about this pool favorably or not. 

[Curt]

54 minutes ago, Derrico said:

This can’t be the term you were intending.  How is someone’s ranking of prospects ‘fundamentally dishonest’?

Because we aren’t educated enough to discuss it, obviously.