Mittelstadt, Olofsson and the 3rd and 4th Lines

[nfreeman]

I'm kinda looking forward to seeing whether Krebs magically turns the Mitts-VO line into a fancystats dynamo again tomorrow night.

As a related matter, and further to @Taro T's point upthread about usage, i.e. the opposing lines that the Mitts/VO line was facing, I found a site that provides that info:  https://www.naturalstattrick.com/game.php?season=20222023&game=20365#shiftchart

(although if Taro or anyone else knows a site that provides that info in a better format, pls post it.)

It looks like Taro is mostly right, but not entirely, about Mitts' opposition vs Colorado:  the line he faced most frequently was Colorado's 3rd line, which includes Newhook and Galchenyuk, but he faced their top line (MacKinnon/Rantanen) for close to the same amount of time as he faced their 4th line, and if you include their #2 line (Compher/Cogliano), Mitts faced their #1 or #2 lines more than he faced their 4th line.

I point this out because, optimistically, it means that inserting Krebs at C and moving Mitts to wing, in a small sample size, made a big difference in that line's ability to compete and not get caved in -- and, importantly, it wasn't only in sheltered situations.

Again, I'm looking forward to seeing whether this continues.

[PerreaultForever]

1 hour ago, Hank said:

Yes, and they tore it down last year, rebuilding takes time. Personally, I'm happy with the progress I see. 

Yes, and I advocated for the tear down and agreed with it, but the rebuild I have issues with. imo they are making big mistakes. 

First step of a rebuild imo is shore up your goaltending. You go on from there. 

[PerreaultForever]

1 hour ago, Brawndo said:

Oliver Nadeau and Josh Bloom say Hi 

Remains to be seen. The cupboard was "full" before too, or so they said. Remember when everybody was pondering how they would afford to pay Mitts 10 million a year when they already would have to pay Skinner Eichel and Reinhart around 30? Remember those conversations? People here were serious. Mitts was going to need 8 figures lmfao.   Remember when Pekar was going to be our Marchand? Remember Bailey and Baptiste? So Hi back to them, now SHOW ME. 

[K-9]

1 hour ago, PerreaultForever said:

Yes, and I advocated for the tear down and agreed with it, but the rebuild I have issues with. imo they are making big mistakes. 

First step of a rebuild imo is shore up your goaltending. You go on from there. 

Building a team in any sport is never a linear process. 

[K-9]

1 hour ago, PerreaultForever said:

Remains to be seen. The cupboard was "full" before too, or so they said. Remember when everybody was pondering how they would afford to pay Mitts 10 million a year when they already would have to pay Skinner Eichel and Reinhart around 30? Remember those conversations? People here were serious. Mitts was going to need 8 figures lmfao.   Remember when Pekar was going to be our Marchand? Remember Bailey and Baptiste? So Hi back to them, now SHOW ME. 

Pekar another Marchand? Mitts getting 8 figures? Bailey and Baptiste becoming good players? I honestly don’t recall any of that. Having high hopes for prospects is simply not the same as predicting stardom for them.

[PerreaultForever]

1 hour ago, K-9 said:

Building a team in any sport is never a linear process. 

What does this mean? Better question, do you think the way the Sabres are doing it is right? Or would you prefer the way the kraken are doing it? Or a middle variant?

1 hour ago, K-9 said:

Pekar another Marchand? Mitts getting 8 figures? Bailey and Baptiste becoming good players? I honestly don’t recall any of that. Having high hopes for prospects is simply not the same as predicting stardom for them.

Oh ya, there was definitely very high hopes for Pekar. He was going to be our grit and sandpaper guy and Marchand was mentioned by a few. The how will we pay Mitts thing was real too. A lot of over zealous exuberance for sure. 

The point I'm simply making though is prospects are just prospects and one cannot assume they will be anything at the NHL level - until they are. 

[Curt]

8 hours ago, PerreaultForever said:

Yes, and I advocated for the tear down and agreed with it, but the rebuild I have issues with. imo they are making big mistakes. 

First step of a rebuild imo is shore up your goaltending. You go on from there. 

I actually disagree with this as a principle, and it’s not what successful teams have done.

More than any other position, goaltending has a short shelf life.  For example, if the Sabres had invested major assets in acquiring a high level goaltender last season, that’s far from a guarantee that they would still have a high level goaltender when they are theoretically ready to contend in 2025.

I actually think that goaltender should be one the last places to invest major assets in during a rebuild.

[LGR4GM]

We traded a 20g 60pt 200ft player for goaltending, we invested in it. 

[JohnC]

14 hours ago, PerreaultForever said:

That's very nice of them, but isn't it their job to rectify that situation or not let it even be a situation? We are a cap floor team after all. 

Quick fixes are usually temporary and often lead to future impairments. You are including the KA regime with the faltering regimes of the past. That's not a fair description of the situation when he took over the operation. There is a line of demarcation before he took over and after he took over from. Once KA was installed, he then set a change of course, and in a relatively short period of time restructured the organization, the hockey operation and laid out a blueprint to follow. I understand your impatience because I (most others) also experience it, albeit it to a lesser extent. Putting things in perspective this rebuilding timeline which is moving forward has been relatively short. 

[JohnC]

11 hours ago, K-9 said:

Pekar another Marchand? Mitts getting 8 figures? Bailey and Baptiste becoming good players? I honestly don’t recall any of that. Having high hopes for prospects is simply not the same as predicting stardom for them.

You make an interesting observation (maybe intended or not??). The one thing that KA has done well so far is identify players and project what they would be worth in the present and their worth in the future. With a couple of his identified valued players he has been able to get earlier deals that would be organization friendly than if he waited for their contracts to run out. Two obvious examples of that are Samuelsson and Tage. Both of these deals were good deals for the respective players in that it gave them immediate security while those same deals were extraordinarily good value deals for the Sabres in the short and long-run.

With respect to Mitts, as you point out, the player is going to determine his contract value to this franchise. And that is how the GM wants it to be. 

[K-9]

11 hours ago, PerreaultForever said:

What does this mean? Better question, do you think the way the Sabres are doing it is right? Or would you prefer the way the kraken are doing it? Or a middle variant?

Oh ya, there was definitely very high hopes for Pekar. He was going to be our grit and sandpaper guy and Marchand was mentioned by a few. The how will we pay Mitts thing was real too. A lot of over zealous exuberance for sure. 

The point I'm simply making though is prospects are just prospects and one cannot assume they will be anything at the NHL level - until they are. 

It means that there isn’t a specific positional order when assembling a team as it depends on what players at what positions are available when assembling it. It means acquiring talent, regardless of position. Everyone wants that HOF goalie, but you can’t just wait for his availability while better players at other positions are available to select. 

I don’t know enough about how the Kraken are doing it to comment. 

I’ll take your word for it that stardom was predicted for Pekar. I just don’t recall that hype. Then again, I took an extended break from this forum so I may have missed it.

[Pimlach]

5 hours ago, Curt said:

I actually disagree with this as a principle, and it’s not what successful teams have done.

More than any other position, goaltending has a short shelf life.  For example, if the Sabres had invested major assets in acquiring a high level goaltender last season, that’s far from a guarantee that they would still have a high level goaltender when they are theoretically ready to contend in 2025.

I actually think that goaltender should be one the last places to invest major assets in during a rebuild.

Hmmm, I would like to see some examples of the bold.  You don't find a good goalie and then quit looking for them either.  Boston went from Thomas to Tukka and won.  Most of the perennially winning teams have rolled from one good goalie to another good goalie to stay on top.  

Given how scarce high-level goalies are why do you want to wait to find?     How good will the team get with Comrie as the 1?   Can the Sabres ever get to 7-8 spot in the conference with Comrie?  If not, then get a better goalie.  If yes, then keep him but look for better to take the next step.   Waiting is for losers.  

Starting with good goaltending might sound old school, and it may have become a thing of the past as you state (again I doubt that), but it seems more critically important than ever for THIS TEAM if they want to start winning again.  

 

[Curt]

1 hour ago, Pimlach said:

Hmmm, I would like to see some examples of the bold.  You don't find a good goalie and then quit looking for them either.  Boston went from Thomas to Tukka and won.  Most of the perennially winning teams have rolled from one good goalie to another good goalie to stay on top.  

Given how scarce high-level goalies are why do you want to wait to find?     How good will the team get with Comrie as the 1?   Can the Sabres ever get to 7-8 spot in the conference with Comrie?  If not, then get a better goalie.  If yes, then keep him but look for better to take the next step.   Waiting is for losers.  

Starting with good goaltending might sound old school, and it may have become a thing of the past as you state (again I doubt that), but it seems more critically important than ever for THIS TEAM if they want to start winning again.  

 

Obviously having/finding a good goalie is always better than not.  I didn’t mean to imply otherwise and I’m not advocating for the Sabres to not bother looking for goaltending help.

What I’m saying is that the Sabres should wait before deciding to spend significant assets (large $, long term contracts, high level draft picks or prospects) on acquiring a “good” goaltender.  Why?  Because what is a good goaltender today, is actually not that likely to still be a good goaltender 3-4 years from now.

I don’t want them spreading significant assets on players who won’t be helping the team when the core group is at or near their peak.

All it takes is a quick look around the league to see the large number of goalie contracts that do not work out.  Not because the goalies got old, but because they became ineffective due to external factors.  Goalie performance much more than any other position is heavily influenced by external factors, and that’s why I’m very hesitant to invest heavily in a goalie who “earned it” somewhere else under different circumstances.

I definitely wish that they had been able to complete that Murray deal, or that Comrie had been better so far, but I’m ok with their current approach of “bargain hunting” for goalies.

Edited December 4, 2022 by Curt

[Brawndo]

On 12/2/2022 at 10:47 AM, nfreeman said:

So, as I think @Brawndo pointed out in the GDT, Mitts’ line did much, much better in the fancystats last night with the insertion of Krebs at C.  They had the vast majority of expected goals while they were on the ice.  I think that may be overstating their performance, as Mitts in particular coughed it up a bunch of times and I don’t think the line had a ton of chances, but they also didn’t get brutally caved in like they have been recently.

Cozens’ line, OTOH, didn’t do nearly as well despite scoring 2 goals.  They were well in the minority in expected goals while on the ice and Cozens had a minus-2 while JJP and Quinn had  minus-1. I think they were getting tougher matchups, and Colorado is really loaded, but they certainly had their hands full.

I’m still deeply concerned about Mitts and VO, and very high on the Cozens line, but last night provided a glimmer of hope for Mitts, VO and Krebs and a cautionary note about the Cozens line.  

One point about The Cozens Line being on the ice for Mac Kinnon Second Goal which made it 4-2.  There was a line change happening just before the goal, Cozens stepped onto the ice at 8:12 when Makar had already entered the Sabres Zone with the puck and the MacKinnon scored at 8:07.  

[Marvin]

4 minutes ago, Brawndo said:

One point about The Cozens Line being on the ice for Mac Kinnon Second Goal which made it 4-2.  There was a line change happening just before the goal, Cozens stepped onto the ice at 8:12 when Makar had already entered the Sabres Zone with the puck and the MacKinnon scored at 8:07.  

I figure there will be growing pains with a line which is younger than virtually every college's top line.

I hope that the better play with Krebs last night bodes well for Mittlestadt and Olofsson -- either in their time here or as trade pieces.

[SwampD]

22 hours ago, PerreaultForever said:

Remains to be seen. The cupboard was "full" before too, or so they said. Remember when everybody was pondering how they would afford to pay Mitts 10 million a year when they already would have to pay Skinner Eichel and Reinhart around 30? Remember those conversations? People here were serious. Mitts was going to need 8 figures lmfao.   Remember when Pekar was going to be our Marchand? Remember Bailey and Baptiste? So Hi back to them, now SHOW ME. 

Nobody ever said this.

Ever.

[PerreaultForever]

15 hours ago, Curt said:

I actually disagree with this as a principle, and it’s not what successful teams have done.

More than any other position, goaltending has a short shelf life.  For example, if the Sabres had invested major assets in acquiring a high level goaltender last season, that’s far from a guarantee that they would still have a high level goaltender when they are theoretically ready to contend in 2025.

I actually think that goaltender should be one the last places to invest major assets in during a rebuild.

No, theoretically he passes the torch to the kid you draft (like Levi) but he is the bridge between now and then so that the team can be a winning team. You always want to have a young goalie pushing for ice time against the veteran and eventually taking it. 

[PerreaultForever]

11 hours ago, JohnC said:

Quick fixes are usually temporary and often lead to future impairments. You are including the KA regime with the faltering regimes of the past. That's not a fair description of the situation when he took over the operation. There is a line of demarcation before he took over and after he took over from. Once KA was installed, he then set a change of course, and in a relatively short period of time restructured the organization, the hockey operation and laid out a blueprint to follow. I understand your impatience because I (most others) also experience it, albeit it to a lesser extent. Putting things in perspective this rebuilding timeline which is moving forward has been relatively short. 

Yes exactly, as I outlined elsewhere. Some people wipe the slate clean with KA. Some do not. I do not. Sabres have sucked for a really long time and it's all The Sabres to me. No forgiveness for that. It's the team's fault they've had a bunch of dud GMs and coaches. Draw the line at the Pegula purchase perhaps. 

[PerreaultForever]

9 hours ago, K-9 said:

It means that there isn’t a specific positional order when assembling a team as it depends on what players at what positions are available when assembling it. It means acquiring talent, regardless of position. Everyone wants that HOF goalie, but you can’t just wait for his availability while better players at other positions are available to select. 

I don’t know enough about how the Kraken are doing it to comment. 

I’ll take your word for it that stardom was predicted for Pekar. I just don’t recall that hype. Then again, I took an extended break from this forum so I may have missed it.

Nobody's suggesting you get the HOF goalie right away . Just a reliable and competent goalie to plug that hole and give you a chance to win every night until your prospect goalie(s) are ready to take over. The Vaneceks and Georgievs and so forth. 

(wasn't stardom for Pekar but many saw him as the pesky third line role player. Marchand upside or even just Gourde and so forth. That kind of guy. The team was soft (as it still is but not quite as much) and the hope was he might fill the void)

1 hour ago, SwampD said:

Nobody ever said this.

Ever.

Yes, they did. but it doesn't matter. 

[JohnC]

2 minutes ago, PerreaultForever said:

Yes exactly, as I outlined elsewhere. Some people wipe the slate clean with KA. Some do not. I do not. Sabres have sucked for a really long time and it's all The Sabres to me. No forgiveness for that. It's the team's fault they've had a bunch of dud GMs and coaches. Draw the line at the Pegula purchase perhaps. 

When you blame a GM for a problem he wasn't involved in then you are being unreasonable. He took over a struggling hockey operation and made a major change in the roster and operation. If you think that there was going to be a quick fix, then you are being unrealistic. It's called the real world, not a fantasy world. 

[JohnC]

9 hours ago, K-9 said:

It means that there isn’t a specific positional order when assembling a team as it depends on what players at what positions are available when assembling it. It means acquiring talent, regardless of position. Everyone wants that HOF goalie, but you can’t just wait for his availability while better players at other positions are available to select. 

I don’t know enough about how the Kraken are doing it to comment. 

I’ll take your word for it that stardom was predicted for Pekar. I just don’t recall that hype. Then again, I took an extended break from this forum so I may have missed it.

Don't buy @PerreaultForever's postulation that stardom was predicted for Pekar. No one who was sober projected Pekar to be a high level NHL player. Quite the contrary. The issue was whether he could ever get to the highest league. There was some noise about him because he had a Marchand nuisance style of game. It was simply a mirage.  

[SwampD]

7 minutes ago, PerreaultForever said:

Nobody's suggesting you get the HOF goalie right away . Just a reliable and competent goalie to plug that hole and give you a chance to win every night until your prospect goalie(s) are ready to take over. The Vaneceks and Georgievs and so forth. 

(wasn't stardom for Pekar but many saw him as the pesky third line role player. Marchand upside or even just Gourde and so forth. That kind of guy. The team was soft (as it still is but not quite as much) and the hope was he might fill the void)

Yes, they did. but it doesn't matter. 

No one ever said that Mitts was going to be worth 10 million dollars. Ever. 

But it doesn't mayor.

Edited December 5, 2022 by SwampD

[PerreaultForever]

2 minutes ago, JohnC said:

When you blame a GM for a problem he wasn't involved in then you are being unreasonable. He took over a struggling hockey operation and made a major change in the roster and operation. If you think that there was going to be a quick fix, then you are being unrealistic. It's called the real world, not a fantasy world. 

Oh FFS, spare me the "it's not a fantasy world" crap. I didn't blame KA for what came before, I blame him for not doing something to plug the holes created in the teardown. Like goaltending. He botched it. The next year he still didn't fix it. That's on him 100%, as is the total lack of depth. There have been players available before Jost that were upgrades on the D and bottom six. We should have never been in a situation where Clague and Pilut were the only options. 

Just now, JohnC said:

Don't buy @PerreaultForever's postulation that stardom was predicted for Pekar. No one who was sober projected Pekar to be a high level NHL player. Quite the contrary. The issue was whether he could ever get to the highest league. There was some noise about him because he had a Marchand nuisance style of game. It was simply a mirage.  

I didn't say STARDOM. I guess the like Marchand comment confused you but the talk at the time was we need our own rat. That side of Marchand, not his offensive prowess. I guess I should have said Barnaby. 

[PerreaultForever]

2 minutes ago, SwampD said:

No one ever said that Mitts was going to be worth 10 million dollars. Ever. 

But it doesn't mayor.

Yes they did, but it's not major. 

[SwampD]

Just now, PerreaultForever said:

Yes they did, but it's not major. 

I'm going to need proof, cuz that sounds like some hyperbole BS to make a point.