Philosophy on the rebuild

[Weave]

24 minutes ago, Brawndo said:

The rumored offer for John Gibson was the Sabres 2023 1st with lottery protection on it. 
Based on Gibson’s Play I’m happy He said no to waiving 

Levi has fallen back a little, Northeastern has lost 4 out of His Last Five Starts. 
I think they make a move to shore up the goalie position.

It was always a bit nuts that KA had focused so hard on Levi as THE solution long term.  Crazy to put so many eggs in the basket of a prospect.

[Thorner]

8 minutes ago, Weave said:

It was always a bit nuts that KA had focused so hard on Levi as THE solution long term.  Crazy to put so many eggs in the basket of a prospect.

Especially a basket as relatively-for-the-NHL small as Levi‘s. Have faith in the kid but the current landscape re:NHL starters for desired landing ground for a G of that size currently begins and ends at Juuse Saros - who is indeed my hope for Levi’s upside 

Even a quick perusal of the goalie ranks again this season shows only 1 goalie among the top 20 in wins, below 6’1: Saros, of course. There’s a handful at ~6’2 and the majority are 6’3 or larger. 

Edited December 7, 2022 by Thorny

[French Collection]

18 minutes ago, Thorny said:

Especially a basket as relatively-for-the-NHL small as Levi‘s. Have faith in the kid but the current landscape re:NHL starters for desired landing ground for a G of that size currently begins and ends at Juuse Saros - who is indeed my hope for Levi’s upside 

Even a quick perusal of the goalie ranks again this season shows only 1 goalie among the top 20 in wins, below 6’1: Saros, of course. There’s a handful at ~6’2 and the majority are 6’3 or larger. 

I hope they are working hard on Portillo for this reason. 
I want Levi to be the guy that is next in line as the Sabres true #1 but they need to have a plan B,C,D and E.

[nfreeman]

1 hour ago, Weave said:

It was always a bit nuts that KA had focused so hard on Levi as THE solution long term.  Crazy to put so many eggs in the basket of a prospect.

Well, many people here might think that this was KA's plan, but we really have no idea -- and there is evidence to the contrary in KA's pursuit of Murray and Gibson.

[Thorner]

1 minute ago, nfreeman said:

Well, many people here might think that this was KA's plan, but we really have no idea -- and there is evidence to the contrary in KA's pursuit of Murray and Gibson.

The assumption might allow for the dismissal of an altogether more frightening potential explanation: KA didn’t think the sub par stop gaps to Levi were... stop gaps at all.

[Curt]

2 minutes ago, Thorny said:

The assumption might allow for the dismissal of an altogether more frightening potential explanation: KA didn’t think the sub par stop gaps to Levi were... stop gaps at all.

Who are we talking about here?

Anderson- due to age can’t be considered anything other than a stop gap

Comrie- I’m sure they had/have high hopes but based on their pursuit of Murray (and Gibson I guess) I’d say he wasn’t their first choice, so I’m not sure if they had a strong belief that he’s more than a stop gap.

UPL- I think they hoped/hope that UPL could show something in the NHL this season, and take on a larger role (split starts w/Comrie) next season.

[Thorner]

5 minutes ago, Curt said:

Who are we talking about here?

Anderson- due to age can’t be considered anything other than a stop gap

Comrie- I’m sure they had/have high hopes but based on their pursuit of Murray (and Gibson I guess) I’d say he wasn’t their first choice, so I’m not sure if they had a strong belief that he’s more than a stop gap.

UPL- I think they hoped/hope that UPL could show something in the NHL this season, and take on a larger role (split starts w/Comrie) next season.

Yes. 
 

There’s no rule that says we need only judge a gm based on attempted transactions that were consummated. A bad pass dropped by the D-lineman is still a bad pass and perhaps statistically relevant re: performance analysis 

Would either of Gibson or Murray represent a good talent / value analysis by Adams? (Actually asking*) He wanted those to happen, right?

*ive heard Gibson has been poor at best and Murray doesn’t seem to have played a ton yet 

Comrie and UPL have so far come in below expectations 
 

If they are hanging their hat on knowing Anderson, too old, is a stop gap... I mean ok? Haha. Even then, maybe they thought he’d stay healthy last year. Who knows. 
 

If we allow for the possibility that the fact Ullmark was literally negotiating for months means he was actually realistically a signing option within the realm of reasonable possibility - there’s room there to suggest a mis-evaluation. Especially when viewed in context with the other moves or lack there-of at the position, no? 

I think it paints a pretty compelling argument for a documented lack of aptitude, at the specific act of reasonably addressing the goaltending position. 

OR

He’s just waiting for Levi.
 

Would that be better? Actually asking. 

The rub is that Kevyn’s lack of aptitude, thus far, at meaningfully addressing the goaltending position is made most glaring by the ringing success he’s had at other areas of the roster. That’s the rub - I don’t buy he can’t do between in net b/c I’ve seen him do better elsewhere.
 

[Thorner]

Adams’ admirable proficiency at righting the ship in so many areas thus far allows us the luxury of not needing to tap dance around admitting the simple fact of what the data is clearly pointing to: he’s bungled GT thus far. 

[nfreeman]

27 minutes ago, Thorny said:

Yes. 
 

There’s no rule that says we need only judge a gm based on attempted transactions that were consummated. A bad pass dropped by the D-lineman is still a bad pass and perhaps statistically relevant re: performance analysis 

Would either of Gibson or Murray represent a good talent / value analysis by Adams? (Actually asking*) He wanted those to happen, right?

*ive heard Gibson has been poor at best and Murray doesn’t seem to have played a ton yet 

Comrie and UPL have so far come in below expectations 
 

If they are hanging their hat on knowing Anderson, too old, is a stop gap... I mean ok? Haha. Even then, maybe they thought he’d stay healthy last year. Who knows. 
 

If we allow for the possibility that the fact Ullmark was literally negotiating for months means he was actually realistically a signing option within the realm of reasonable possibility - there’s room there to suggest a mis-evaluation. Especially when viewed in context with the other moves or lack there-of at the position, no? 

I think it paints a pretty compelling argument for a documented lack of aptitude, at the specific act of reasonably addressing the goaltending position. 

OR

He’s just waiting for Levi.
 

Would that be better? Actually asking. 

The rub is that Kevyn’s lack of aptitude, thus far, at meaningfully addressing the goaltending position is made most glaring by the ringing success he’s had at other areas of the roster. That’s the rub - I don’t buy he can’t do between in net b/c I’ve seen him do better elsewhere.
 

I'm not sure where you're going with all of this.

I think we can be pretty confident that KA tried to sign Ullmark, Murray and Gibson.  Of those 3, 2 of them are looking quite good this year, while one is not. 

When those 3 rejected the Sabres (despite certain posters' certitude that bringing players to Buffalo who have other options isn't difficult), he brought in Comrie on a show-me deal.  Comrie looked pretty good to start the season, then had a few shaky outings, which coincided with the team overall playing poorly during their lengthy losing streak, then got hurt.  He's played a total of 11 games in Buffalo -- hardly enough of a sample size to arrive at any conclusions.

As for UPL, he's 23 and has played a total of 18 NHL games, including 5 this year.  The plan was for him to develop and play 50-60 games in Rochester this year, with perhaps a few in Buffalo.  He hasn't looked good in Buffalo this year but again -- very early and very small sample size.

So, if your point is "KA's ability to choose good goalies is uncertain" -- I'll say OK, that's fair enough.  But I don't think it's fair to say "KA has shown that he's unable to evaluate goalies," if that was your point.

More data is needed.

[Thorner]

9 minutes ago, nfreeman said:

I'm not sure where you're going with all of this.

I think we can be pretty confident that KA tried to sign Ullmark, Murray and Gibson.  Of those 3, 2 of them are looking quite good this year, while one is not. 

When those 3 rejected the Sabres (despite certain posters' certitude that bringing players to Buffalo who have other options isn't difficult), he brought in Comrie on a show-me deal.  Comrie looked pretty good to start the season, then had a few shaky outings, which coincided with the team overall playing poorly during their lengthy losing streak, then got hurt.  He's played a total of 11 games in Buffalo -- hardly enough of a sample size to arrive at any conclusions.

As for UPL, he's 23 and has played a total of 18 NHL games, including 5 this year.  The plan was for him to develop and play 50-60 games in Rochester this year, with perhaps a few in Buffalo.  He hasn't looked good in Buffalo this year but again -- very early and very small sample size.

So, if your point is "KA's ability to choose good goalies is uncertain" -- I'll say OK, that's fair enough.  But I don't think it's fair to say "KA has shown that he's unable to evaluate goalies," if that was your point.

More data is needed.

More data is not needed to say that, thus far, he has failed to adequately address the position. He has not. The results speak for themselves. 

If we are seriously judging his work thus far at goalie as “incomplete”, there’s no arguing any of it, I’m sorry. 

Yes, everything he’s done great he’s done great and everything he hasn’t had success at fixing, despite trying, is simply incomplete: no negative inference can be drawn from the fact he hasn’t succeeded in that area, no, reason to think his failure there won’t flip to success in time just because.

- - -

* I do not need to nor am I trying to formulate an argument as to whether he can, or cannot, choose good goalies, as some sort of definitive rule* Whether or not he can, or not, isn’t relevant to me when my interest in this case is evaluating what *has* or *has not* been done: not merely on the plane of the hypothetical. The entire point of my post in the end was that I believe Adams COULD have likely done better considering how well he has done in other areas.  Which is what I said. 

Edited December 7, 2022 by Thorny

[nfreeman]

14 minutes ago, Thorny said:

More data is not needed to say that, thus far, he has failed to adequately address the position. He has not. The results speak for themselves. 

If we are seriously judging his work thus far at goalie as “incomplete”, there’s no arguing any of it, I’m sorry. 

Yes, everything he’s done great he’s done great and everything he hasn’t had success at fixing, despite trying, is simply incomplete: no negative inference can be drawn from the fact he hasn’t succeeded in that area, no, reason to think his failure there won’t flip to success in time just because.

- - -

* I do not need to nor am I trying to formulate an argument as to whether he can, or cannot, choose good goalies, as some sort of definitive rule* Whether or not he can, or not, isn’t relevant to me when my interest in this case is evaluating what *has* or *has not* been done: not merely on the plane of the hypothetical. The entire point of my post in the end was that I believe Adams COULD have likely done better considering how well he has done in other areas.  Which is what I said. 

Well, yes.  Similarly, you could also say that thus far he has failed to build a playoff team -- but since we are 25 games into this season, one could also argue that the results are incomplete.

Again, Comrie was brought in to be the #1 this season.  He played 11 games and got hurt.  If you still want to say that KA failed to adequately address the position, without waiting to see how Comrie does over the course of the season -- presumably by failing to bring in a 2nd starter-quality goalie who could pick up the reins when Comrie went down -- I suppose that is technically true, but also kinda unrealistic and jumping to conclusions IMHO.

[Thorner]

2 minutes ago, nfreeman said:

Well, yes.  Similarly, you could also say that thus far he has failed to build a playoff team -- but since we are 25 games into this season, one could also argue that the results are incomplete.

Again, Comrie was brought in to be the #1 this season.  He played 11 games and got hurt.  If you still want to say that KA failed to adequately address the position, without waiting to see how Comrie does over the course of the season -- presumably by failing to bring in a 2nd starter-quality goalie who could pick up the reins when Comrie went down -- I suppose that is technically true, but also kinda unrealistic and jumping to conclusions IMHO.

Im always careful to use words like:

22 minutes ago, Thorny said:

More data is not needed to say that, thus far, he has failed to adequately address the position. He has not. The results speak for themselves. 

If we are seriously judging his work thus far at goalie as “incomplete”, there’s no arguing any of it, I’m sorry. 

Yes, everything he’s done great he’s done great and everything he hasn’t had success at fixing, despite trying, is simply incomplete: no negative inference can be drawn from the fact he hasn’t succeeded in that area, no, reason to think his failure there won’t flip to success in time just because.

- - -

* I do not need to nor am I trying to formulate an argument as to whether he can, or cannot, choose good goalies, as some sort of definitive rule* Whether or not he can, or not, isn’t relevant to me when my interest in this case is evaluating what *has* or *has not* been done: not merely on the plane of the hypothetical. The entire point of my post in the end was that I believe Adams COULD have likely done better considering how well he has done in other areas.  Which is what I said. 

We talk a lot, deservedly, about what he has had success at. I see no reason to shy away from pointing out the few things at which he so far, has not. Why? By the same token by which you might say the quality of the goaltending could perhaps drastically change over time, by the same principle some of the facets working can go in the opposite direction. I’m not interested in doing that though - I believe in calling it how it looks so far, and in some ways the ranks are looking very good. I look at GT through the same lens. I don’t switch for one with a different tint based on a desired result. 

The same markers that lead me to torpedo his efforts at GT have me touting his praises for our centre depth.

So turns the varying Philosophies of the Rebuild, I suppose. 

[nfreeman]

3 minutes ago, Thorny said:

Im always careful to use words like:

We talk a lot, deservedly, about what he has had success at. I see no reason to shy away from pointing out the few things at which he so far, has not. Why? By the same token by which you might say the quality of the goaltending could perhaps drastically change over time, by the same principle some of the facets working can go in the opposite direction. I’m not interested in doing that though - I believe in calling it how it looks so far, and in some ways the ranks are looking very good. I look at GT through the same lens. I don’t switch for one with a different tint based on a desired result. 

The same markers that lead me to torpedo his efforts at GT have me touting his praises for our centre depth.

So turns the varying Philosophies of the Rebuild, I suppose. 

Yes -- I noted the use of "thus far" in my post, as part of my comment on how its usage, and the analysis it implies, is logically a bit lightweight IMHO when applied in this context.

That logic would've similarly been lacking if, after Comrie's 1st 3 starts of the season, when he was 2-1 with a .930 SV% against 3 good teams, posters had been claiming that "thus far, it looks like KA has a good eye for goalies."

(Although I'm fairly confident that posters did express similar thoughts.)

[Thorner]

4 minutes ago, nfreeman said:

Yes -- I noted the use of "thus far" in my post, as part of my comment on how its usage, and the analysis it implies, is logically a bit lightweight IMHO when applied in this context.

That logic would've similarly been lacking if, after Comrie's 1st 3 starts of the season, when he was 2-1 with a .930 SV% against 3 good teams, posters had been claiming that "thus far, it looks like KA has a good eye for goalies."

(Although I'm fairly confident that posters did express similar thoughts.)

I just disagree with you on Comrie. The burden of proof is on him. He’s a 27 year old who’s never established, for one reason or another, as a starter, on multiple teams. Until he proves he’s a starter, he’s NOT a starter. Based on putting up bottom 5 analytics in the league in his games this year, you want me to consider him an “unknown”?

that would imo be ridiculous 

you are just conveniently removing the vast supply of evidence before this season because it doesn’t fit your argument haha 

Edited December 7, 2022 by Thorny

[Thorner]

You logic comparison is poor because, in the case you mentioned, you’d be extrapolating “ good starter” numbers of a very small sample size going forward, over an amount of games he has no history of ever coming close to completing. It can happen, but it’s much less logically sound than comparing a period of time where he failed to establish as a starter in combination with a further, large period of time where the exact same results were achieved 

again, the burden of proof is on Comrie. Coming in and playing very poorly doesn’t gain benefit of the doubt in light of a career of failing to establish as a starter, for one reason, or another. That can even be for opportunity reasons. My argument isn’t that he’s bad. My argument is that he hasn’t shown the ability to establish as a starter. Until he does, the odds are against it, it’s not fairly classified as an unknown. 

[Weave]

1 hour ago, nfreeman said:

Well, many people here might think that this was KA's plan, but we really have no idea -- and there is evidence to the contrary in KA's pursuit of Murray and Gibson.

1. The plan may be forced upon him due to circumstances beyond his control, but the plan is his nonetheless.

2. He could recognize the hazard of putting all his eggs in the Levi basket and force someone’s hand by making a trade for a goalie that doesn’t have a NMC and show them what absolute fun times there are in Buffalo playing fast break, who cares about defence hockey.

3. Three years, man.

[Curt]

1 hour ago, Thorny said:

More data is not needed to say that, thus far, he has failed to adequately address the position. He has not. The results speak for themselves. 

If we are seriously judging his work thus far at goalie as “incomplete”, there’s no arguing any of it, I’m sorry. 

I agree with this, but I think the same could be said for other areas as well, such as the bottom 6 and the defensive depth.

So far, Adams has not built a successful team.  I’ve seen steps in the right direction, and I hope to see more before the start of next season.

[Thorner]

position          grade

 

forwards         A

defence          B

goalie              D

 

overall - B 

OR

 

forwards         incomplete

defence          incomplete

goalie              incomplete

[GASabresIUFAN]

On 7/30/2022 at 3:32 PM, GASabresIUFAN said:

Ullmark’s last year in Buffalo was a 2.63 with a .917.

Anderson last season was a 3.12 with a .897.

That’s making the goaltending worse, and unless Comrie comes through the goaltending is still worse.  
 

I agree with @PerreaultForever, without good goaltending, there is no way to become a contending squad and I don’t understand a rebuild philosophy that downgrades the goaltending in a vain hope that a prospect will save the day.  Secure good goaltending and if the prospect wrestles away the starting job all the better.

 

On 7/30/2022 at 10:13 PM, GASabresIUFAN said:

 

Until we actually have goaltending as good as Ullmark, failing to re-sign Ullmark will remain KA’s biggest error and goaltending will remain this team’s Achilles’ Heel. I have hope for Comrie, but hope and a prayer isn’t enough.

 

On 7/30/2022 at 10:42 PM, Doohickie said:

Maybe it is enough.  Wait and see.

I wrote back in July that the biggest issue with this rebuild was the continued failure to address the goaltending.  I was told by many that I was wrong, that Comrie was the answer and to wait and see.  I’ve also said for well over a year that UPL is a bust.  

Well here are 25 games into the season and the goaltending, as hard as it is to believe, if actually worse than last year when we gave up 290 GA.  We are on pace to allow over 300 goals.  Yes defense is part of the problem, yes the forwards failing to back check is part of the problem, but the goalies are also terrible.  This rebuild plan can’t succeed until the goaltending is fixed.  The sad part is that he probably can’t address the issue until the off-season. 

 

[Thorner]

Is scoring still going up league wide? 

[sabresparaavida]

3 minutes ago, Thorny said:

Is scoring still going up league wide? 

This season so far the average is 3.2 as compared to last seasons 3.14, and the year before’s 2.94. The Sabres are currently averaging 3.84 goals per game, well above average.

[GASabresIUFAN]

6 minutes ago, sabresparaavida said:

This season so far the average is 3.2 as compared to last seasons 3.14, and the year before’s 2.94. The Sabres are currently averaging 3.84 goals per game, well above average.

….and the Sabres are allowing 3.68 GA per game.

[nfreeman]

55 minutes ago, Thorny said:

I just disagree with you on Comrie. The burden of proof is on him. He’s a 27 year old who’s never established, for one reason or another, as a starter, on multiple teams. Until he proves he’s a starter, he’s NOT a starter. Based on putting up bottom 5 analytics in the league in his games this year, you want me to consider him an “unknown”?

that would imo be ridiculous 

you are just conveniently removing the vast supply of evidence before this season because it doesn’t fit your argument haha 

Except that no such evidence exists.  Before this season he started a total of 28 games, and the bulk of his career was spent behind a no-BS elite goalie in Hellebuyck.

Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.

Also, if we're going to start "haha"ing at each others' posts, the quality of the dialogue here will be greatly diminished.  There are very few opinions here that are laughably wrong or illogical, and I'm pretty confident that you've contributed your share, just like the rest of us.

[Doohicksie]

21 minutes ago, GASabresIUFAN said:

I wrote back in July that the biggest issue with this rebuild was the continued failure to address the goaltending.  I was told by many that I was wrong, that Comrie was the answer and to wait and see.  I’ve also said for well over a year that UPL is a bust.  

Well here are 25 games into the season and the goaltending, as hard as it is to believe, if actually worse than last year when we gave up 290 GA.  We are on pace to allow over 300 goals.  Yes defense is part of the problem, yes the forwards failing to back check is part of the problem, but the goalies are also terrible.  This rebuild plan can’t succeed until the goaltending is fixed.  The sad part is that he probably can’t address the issue until the off-season. 

You must be a wizard to see so well into the future.

[Thorner]

20 minutes ago, nfreeman said:

Except that no such evidence exists.  Before this season he started a total of 28 games, and the bulk of his career was spent behind a no-BS elite goalie in Hellebuyck.

Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.

Also, if we're going to start "haha"ing at each others' posts, the quality of the dialogue here will be greatly diminished.  There are very few opinions here that are laughably wrong or illogical, and I'm pretty confident that you've contributed your share, just like the rest of us.

The fact he did not establish as a starter as of now undoubtedly IS evidence, though. If you don’t think the fact he hasn’t established as a starter, yet, 9 years after being drafted, has any bearing at all as evidence on the likelihood of him becoming a starter going forward.... ie, that we’d be perceiving the same likelihood from, say, the perspective of a touted prospect, fresh off being drafted, BEFORE said prospect committed 9 years to record of documented inability to seize the position.. we just won’t be able to agree on this one. 
 

The fact *I* haven’t seized the starter position is also, an extreme example, of why the “lack of evidence” argument doesn’t hold up on its own. Lack of evidence certainly can be evidence in and of itself - of course it can. The absence of evidence is important if the burden of proof is on Comrie - and it is. He’s not a Starter-Until-Proven-Otherwise. He’s not a starter, until he proves otherwise. If not, you are just asking to prove a negative, “prove he won’t THIS time”.  I can’t. He might. But the fact he hasn’t, yet, in the past - over a reasonably large sample of years where he could theoretically have been GRANTED more games had he EARNED them, does in fact work against the likelihood he does in future. 

Edited December 7, 2022 by Thorny