Doesn't sound like losing is accepted

[Curt]

11 minutes ago, DarthEbriate said:

I wanted to check the 4-5 years because with the exception of VO they're all still under 25 years old so I was intrigued. With COVID shortening one season and crashing another, plus injuries, they're a bit under 4-5 years of experience in terms of games played. For normal seasons, the low end 4*76gp AHL = 304 games, and the top end would be 5*82 (NHL) = 410 games.

Career AHL/NHL = total gp:

• Krebs 25/78 = 103 gp
• Asplund 111/155 = 266 gp
• Mitts 36/218 = 254 gp
• VO 66/211 = 277 gp (1/3 of the way into his 4th season by available games to play)

I agree they're being evaluated in exactly the manner you've stated, but they're more between 2-4 years of experience in NA pro games played vs. their how their contracts have played out (Mitts burned a year, etc.).

I understand what you are saying, but I don’t count seasons or years in number of games.

Olofsson is 27 and in his 5th season of NA pro hockey.

Mittelstadt is 24 and in his 5th season of NA pro hockey.

Asplund turns 25 on Saturday and is in his 5th season of NA pro hockey.

Krebs is only 21 and it’s only his 2nd season of NA pro hockey.  I believe he has a good amount of rope left.

Regarding the other 3, how long do we need to wait to evaluate them?  Do we need to wait until they are 28 years old before we make a decision on whether or not they are any good?  I think I’ve seen enough to decide.

Edited December 1, 2022 by Curt

[LGR4GM]

11 minutes ago, Curt said:

 

Regarding the other 3, how long do we need to wait to evaluate them?  Do we need to wait until they are 28 years old before we make a decision on whether or not they are any good?  I think I’ve seen enough to decide.

That's what many did with Risto. It was always "oh this year he will do it, he's still young" 

[DarthEbriate]

36 minutes ago, Curt said:

I understand what you are saying, but I don’t count seasons or years in number of games.

Olofsson is 27 and in his 5th season of NA pro hockey.

Mittelstadt is 24 and in his 5th season of NA pro hockey.

Asplund turns 25 on Saturday and is in his 5th season of NA pro hockey.

Krebs is only 21 and it’s only his 2nd season of NA pro hockey.  I believe he has a good amount of rope left.

Regarding the other 3, how long do we need to wait to evaluate them?  Do we need to wait until they are 28 years old before we make a decision on whether or not they are any good?  I think I’ve seen enough to decide.

Not at all. Exempting the McDavids/Makars of the world, you probably know all you need to know after 150 games played regardless of age (to account for adjustments to sophomore slumps and adjusting to opponents who have fully scouted you and are attacking you in specific ways) + 1 round of playoff games. This is where Tage is unique because of the position switch + filling out his frame. I still think he'll get much better defensively as a center and he'll also learn to use his strength in faceoffs with another year or two honing that craft. But 2 years ago, he was a joke of a winger with only a curl-and-drag that didn't go on net and the inability to win a board battle.

For the 4-5 years, I think this is league-wide. All those players who missed much of 2 seasons' worth of development are behind where they could have been. (Bonus: the elder trio also got the bonus of being Kruegered.)

And I agree, I think we all know what each of those players is already: a complimentary one-dimensional piece that can contribute in a meaningful way if they're on a line with two players who excel at their deficiencies. The NHL is filled with them. The trouble is when you put them all on a line together and none of them happen to the be "other two who excel at their deficiencies", which is what we're seeing. The good news out of that is we have 3 good lines at the moment (again, too soon to judge Jost who may finally get it after being found expendable by Colorado, then outright dumped by Minnesota).

35 minutes ago, LGR4GM said:

That's what many did with Risto. It was always "oh this year he will do it, he's still young" 

Holy crap! Ristolainen is still only 28 years old. One of these days... when that light goes on...  😇

[K-9]

1 hour ago, Taro T said:

Acceptable or tolerated really seems to be getting deep into nuance IMHO.

The timing of the Comrie injury really stinks because he broke right before the D (temporarily) got healthy.  He looked OK before the D went MASH unit.  He wasn't good enough in front of a bad team.  But right now the team in front of him is playing better than what he backstopped.  3 lines are giving what we expected/hoped & the top pairing is playing well too generally though they're taking too many penalties.  Would really like to see what he can do when most of the guys in front of him are on their game before writing him off.  But he's listed as "week to week."

And knowing what we have in Comrie might go a ways towards parsing which side of the nuance Adams is on.

Well imo, acceptable is a direct indictment on the entire organization whereas tolerate means exactly that. Sometimes a deeper nuance is called for when separating the two concepts. Especially when the former suggests that losing is just fine with everyone associated with the team.

Losing has been the result, but never the desired outcome. 

[matter2003]

Just frustrating they are essentially on the same points pace as last year even tho by almost every advanced metric they are significantly better.

 

[nfreeman]

54 minutes ago, Curt said:

I understand what you are saying, but I don’t count seasons or years in number of games.

Olofsson is 27 and in his 5th season of NA pro hockey.

Mittelstadt is 24 and in his 5th season of NA pro hockey.

Asplund turns 25 on Saturday and is in his 5th season of NA pro hockey.

Krebs is only 21 and it’s only his 2nd season of NA pro hockey.  I believe he has a good amount of rope left.

Regarding the other 3, how long do we need to wait to evaluate them?  Do we need to wait until they are 28 years old before we make a decision on whether or not they are any good?  I think I’ve seen enough to decide.

I generally agree, but in the curious case of Casey Mittelstadt, even though I'm pretty down on him at present, I'm also willing to go the rest of this season before making up my mind.  His NHL career has been spent in a deeply dysfunctional environment.  The franchise changed direction multiple times and he got bad coaching and a revolving door of JAG teammates.  When you add injury (he was hurt most of last year and pretty clearly not at 100% when he returned), Covid, the Eichel saga, poor conditioning and immaturity early in his career, an unhappy fan base, etc., the net result is an environment where a young talented player is pretty unlikely to develop well.

As I've said elsewhere, Mitts has good size and very good hands and is a decent skater.  The big question is whether he has what is needed between the ears.  Right now it looks like the answer is no, but the Sabres don't need to decide right now.  He's under contract this year and next year for $2.5MM per year.

If DG can turn TT into a franchise #1C, which he appears to have done, he might be able to turn Mitts into a solid NHL 3C.  I wouldn't bet on it, and I'd include Mitts in a trade that brings back a good player, but if that trade doesn't happen I want to see what happens with him for the rest of this season.

[TampaSabresFan]

1 hour ago, matter2003 said:

Just frustrating they are essentially on the same points pace as last year even tho by almost every advanced metric they are significantly better.

 

Except the elephant in the room--- GOALIE... We are one good goalie away from contention. Add Ullmark with Anderson and it's +4-5 wins right now. 

[Thwomp!]

Why did it take so many words to say it then?  That word salad could be interpreted many different ways.

[Marvin]

27 minutes ago, TampaSabresFan said:

Except the elephant in the room--- GOALIE... We are one good goalie away from contention. Add Ullmark with Anderson and it's +4-5 wins right now. 

Welcome to the board!

[Zamboni]

I’m finally STARTING to come around to the idea that Mitts may be better off in a new environment. BUT BUT not until February. I would like to see if  3 more months with DG improves his play or not. God I hope he comes around…

[Curt]

2 hours ago, nfreeman said:

I generally agree, but in the curious case of Casey Mittelstadt, even though I'm pretty down on him at present, I'm also willing to go the rest of this season before making up my mind.  His NHL career has been spent in a deeply dysfunctional environment.  The franchise changed direction multiple times and he got bad coaching and a revolving door of JAG teammates.  When you add injury (he was hurt most of last year and pretty clearly not at 100% when he returned), Covid, the Eichel saga, poor conditioning and immaturity early in his career, an unhappy fan base, etc., the net result is an environment where a young talented player is pretty unlikely to develop well.

As I've said elsewhere, Mitts has good size and very good hands and is a decent skater.  The big question is whether he has what is needed between the ears.  Right now it looks like the answer is no, but the Sabres don't need to decide right now.  He's under contract this year and next year for $2.5MM per year.

If DG can turn TT into a franchise #1C, which he appears to have done, he might be able to turn Mitts into a solid NHL 3C.  I wouldn't bet on it, and I'd include Mitts in a trade that brings back a good player, but if that trade doesn't happen I want to see what happens with him for the rest of this season.

I’m kind of already looking at what they will need to do beyond this season.

I’m pretty confident that Mitts will be here for the rest of the season, unless he is part of a Chychrun deal or something like that, which I think is pretty unlikely anyway.  I’m basically assuming that they will keep everyone around until the trade deadline at least.

But if things continue as they have so far and we finish with roughly the following: Tage 75+ points, Tuch/Skinner/Cozens all 60+ points, Peterka/Quinn both 40+ points, Dahlin 70+ points, Power 35+, Samuelsson playing well, maybe Jokiharju playing decent too; then I don’t think it is justifiably to go into next season with Mitts, Olofsson, Krebs, Asplund, and Savoie all penciled into the bottom 6.  They will need some players who fill those roles more appropriately.

If the top half of the forward and defense groups look ready to rock, it would be very disappointing to let the bottom half sink them.

Edited December 1, 2022 by Curt

[JohnC]

3 hours ago, Curt said:

I understand what you are saying, but I don’t count seasons or years in number of games.

Olofsson is 27 and in his 5th season of NA pro hockey.

Mittelstadt is 24 and in his 5th season of NA pro hockey.

Asplund turns 25 on Saturday and is in his 5th season of NA pro hockey.

Krebs is only 21 and it’s only his 2nd season of NA pro hockey.  I believe he has a good amount of rope left.

Regarding the other 3, how long do we need to wait to evaluate them?  Do we need to wait until they are 28 years old before we make a decision on whether or not they are any good?  I think I’ve seen enough to decide.

The bigger issue about question mark players such as Mitts as it is what are the better options? Maybe for the present Krebbs should be back at center with Mitts  playing on the wing? I simply don't know???

[Curt]

2 hours ago, DarthEbriate said:

Not at all. Exempting the McDavids/Makars of the world, you probably know all you need to know after 150 games played regardless of age (to account for adjustments to sophomore slumps and adjusting to opponents who have fully scouted you and are attacking you in specific ways) + 1 round of playoff games. This is where Tage is unique because of the position switch + filling out his frame. I still think he'll get much better defensively as a center and he'll also learn to use his strength in faceoffs with another year or two honing that craft. But 2 years ago, he was a joke of a winger with only a curl-and-drag that didn't go on net and the inability to win a board battle.

For the 4-5 years, I think this is league-wide. All those players who missed much of 2 seasons' worth of development are behind where they could have been. (Bonus: the elder trio also got the bonus of being Kruegered.)

And I agree, I think we all know what each of those players is already: a complimentary one-dimensional piece that can contribute in a meaningful way if they're on a line with two players who excel at their deficiencies. The NHL is filled with them. The trouble is when you put them all on a line together and none of them happen to the be "other two who excel at their deficiencies", which is what we're seeing. The good news out of that is we have 3 good lines at the moment (again, too soon to judge Jost who may finally get it after being found expendable by Colorado, then outright dumped by Minnesota).

Holy crap! Ristolainen is still only 28 years old. One of these days... when that light goes on...  😇

Yeah, my point was just that I think we’ve seen enough of some of these guys to know.

I don’t fully agree with your assessment but that’s kind of a different matter.

1 minute ago, JohnC said:

The bigger issue about question mark players such as Mitts as it is what are the better options? Maybe for the present Krebbs should be back at center with Mitts  playing on the wing? I simply don't know???

Yeah, they have the rest of the season (or at least until trade deadline) to play with things and see if they can get any of those guys going.

[PerreaultForever]

4 hours ago, Curt said:

Yeah, the change in player usage is definitely something to monitor.

I think that they are determined to find out/decide what they have in a few of their players (Mitts, Asplund, Olofsson, maybe Krebs etc).  These guys have 4-5 years of NA pro experience and Sabres are going to need to decide whether they are going to be part of the team going forward or if they will be moved out in favor of either younger players coming up, or role player/s coming in from outside.

I think the thing people here always end up arguing over comes from a difference in perspective. There are optimists like you who kind of forget and forgive and tend to have wiped the slate clean and view this as a new plan starting with Adams and the removal of the old plan/Eichel et. al.  So you look at the progression from there and have faith in the draft picks and you believe and assume it'll all progress step by step with that plan. 

Then there are the "show me" pessimists like myself and @Buffalonill who view this as a long decade of false promises, failed plans, and utter disasters. We are sort of fed up and we won't believe anything until we see it on the ice.  We don't have faith any more. We've been fooled too many times. 

There's no reconciliation of those positions until they win regularly and often, and/or make the playoffs again. We tend to focus more on the missed opportunities and things not done (like goaltending for example) rather than the just wait until (fill in name of prospect here) develops or comes along view. 

The comment to me isn't a big deal but it doesn't really tell me anything's really changed either. There aren't any players who publicly say they are okay with losing. Eichel said similar things in the past when he was here (and then he'd quit on a shift the next night). The sentence is open to interpretation but it does come across like a big excuse. It's a big BUT sentence. It's not that different from something like telling your wife "yes, I did sleep with your sister but I still love you". It is an excuse sentence.  

On the positive side it does mention putting in the work, which is really good, but I'd still like to see it on the ice. A lot of times the team still seems flat when they are losing. Effort level doesn't change. It's just next shift and on we go the same rather than rally and dig down. The emotions show when things go well and they are winning, we should see that when they're losing too. A lot of players on this team still don't seem willing to dig down and do that extra needed to turn a game around. When I see that, it comes across to me as still being okay with losing, or at least accepting it, and that has to change. 

[Curt]

10 minutes ago, PerreaultForever said:

I think the thing people here always end up arguing over comes from a difference in perspective. There are optimists like you who kind of forget and forgive and tend to have wiped the slate clean and view this as a new plan starting with Adams and the removal of the old plan/Eichel et. al.  So you look at the progression from there and have faith in the draft picks and you believe and assume it'll all progress step by step with that plan. 

Then there are the "show me" pessimists like myself and @Buffalonill who view this as a long decade of false promises, failed plans, and utter disasters. We are sort of fed up and we won't believe anything until we see it on the ice.  We don't have faith any more. We've been fooled too many times. 

There's no reconciliation of those positions until they win regularly and often, and/or make the playoffs again. We tend to focus more on the missed opportunities and things not done (like goaltending for example) rather than the just wait until (fill in name of prospect here) develops or comes along view. 

The comment to me isn't a big deal but it doesn't really tell me anything's really changed either. There aren't any players who publicly say they are okay with losing. Eichel said similar things in the past when he was here (and then he'd quit on a shift the next night). The sentence is open to interpretation but it does come across like a big excuse. It's a big BUT sentence. It's not that different from something like telling your wife "yes, I did sleep with your sister but I still love you". It is an excuse sentence.  

On the positive side it does mention putting in the work, which is really good, but I'd still like to see it on the ice. A lot of times the team still seems flat when they are losing. Effort level doesn't change. It's just next shift and on we go the same rather than rally and dig down. The emotions show when things go well and they are winning, we should see that when they're losing too. A lot of players on this team still don't seem willing to dig down and do that extra needed to turn a game around. When I see that, it comes across to me as still being okay with losing, or at least accepting it, and that has to change. 

I don’t see how anything that you wrote here is in response to my post that you quoted.

Did you quote the right post that you intended to?

Edited December 1, 2022 by Curt

[triumph_communes]

The skid streak was without half their defense. They are fine as long as they can shore up some weaknesses like Krebs/Mittelstadt and 7D.   Jost was a step in the right direction. 

[grinreaper]

34 minutes ago, Curt said:

Yeah, my point was just that I think we’ve seen enough of some of these guys to know.

I don’t fully agree with your assessment but that’s kind of a different matter.

Yeah, they have the rest of the season (or at least until trade deadline) to play with things and see if they can get any of those guys going.

When making a fans judgement regarding a player like Mitts it is important to remember what many here thought of Tage two years ago. The guy was widely considered as a big failure that we ended up with by trading away a super #2 center who was tops in the NHL in faceoffs, a great two way player and worthy of the "C" he ended up getting with the Blues. Hell, O'Reilly was their final piece to the Cup and Tage looked like he just graduated from the old double bladed skates that he was given by his grandmother when he was 5 years old. I'm not saying that Mitts is going to really make it but the Sabres have a lot invested in him and I'd hate to see him be devalued prematurely. Obviously there is a problem with him but only he and the team knows what if anything can be done to fix it. Of course he's "on the clock" but I would hope that the Sabres don't give up on him too soon. 

[grinreaper]

12 minutes ago, triumph_communes said:

The skid streak was without half their defense. They are fine as long as they can shore up some weaknesses like Krebs/Mittelstadt and 7D.   Jost was a step in the right direction. 

I think Jost has looked better than most here expected. He fits in really well on the "4th line" and seems to have some grit. 

[Sidc3000]

36 minutes ago, PerreaultForever said:

I think the thing people here always end up arguing over comes from a difference in perspective. There are optimists like you who kind of forget and forgive and tend to have wiped the slate clean and view this as a new plan starting with Adams and the removal of the old plan/Eichel et. al.  So you look at the progression from there and have faith in the draft picks and you believe and assume it'll all progress step by step with that plan. 

Then there are the "show me" pessimists like myself and @Buffalonill who view this as a long decade of false promises, failed plans, and utter disasters. We are sort of fed up and we won't believe anything until we see it on the ice.  We don't have faith any more. We've been fooled too many times. 

There's no reconciliation of those positions until they win regularly and often, and/or make the playoffs again. We tend to focus more on the missed opportunities and things not done (like goaltending for example) rather than the just wait until (fill in name of prospect here) develops or comes along view. 

The comment to me isn't a big deal but it doesn't really tell me anything's really changed either. There aren't any players who publicly say they are okay with losing. Eichel said similar things in the past when he was here (and then he'd quit on a shift the next night). The sentence is open to interpretation but it does come across like a big excuse. It's a big BUT sentence. It's not that different from something like telling your wife "yes, I did sleep with your sister but I still love you". It is an excuse sentence.  

On the positive side it does mention putting in the work, which is really good, but I'd still like to see it on the ice. A lot of times the team still seems flat when they are losing. Effort level doesn't change. It's just next shift and on we go the same rather than rally and dig down. The emotions show when things go well and they are winning, we should see that when they're losing too. A lot of players on this team still don't seem willing to dig down and do that extra needed to turn a game around. When I see that, it comes across to me as still being okay with losing, or at least accepting it, and that has to change. 

 

i couldn’t say this better myself! I’m also one who won’t let this organization pull the wool over my eyes again. 

[K-9]

11 minutes ago, triumph_communes said:

The skid streak was without half their defense. They are fine as long as they can shore up some weaknesses like Krebs/Mittelstadt and 7D.   Jost was a step in the right direction. 

Now they’re down to only missing a third of their D. Not that missing Bryson is any great loss. I like Fitz at times, but Pilut leaves a ton to be desired imo. Adequate physical skills, but very slow processing. 

6 minutes ago, grinreaper said:

When making a fans judgement regarding a player like Mitts it is important to remember what many here thought of Tage two years ago. The guy was widely considered as a big failure that we ended up with by trading away a super #2 center who was tops in the NHL in faceoffs, a great two way player and worthy of the "C" he ended up getting with the Blues. Hell, O'Reilly was their final piece to the Cup and Tage looked like he just graduated from the old double bladed skates that he was given by his grandmother when he was 5 years old. I'm not saying that Mitts is going to really make it but the Sabres have a lot invested in him and I'd hate to see him be devalued prematurely. Obviously there is a problem with him but only he and the team knows what if anything can be done to fix it. Of course he's "on the clock" but I would hope that the Sabres don't give up on him too soon. 

That’s more than a fair point. 

[Radar]

8 hours ago, Buffalonill said:

We have been gathering draft picks for what 12 years ?

And what was accomplished? 

Whats another 3 more + years of waiting. 

I'll probably be in a nursing home 

You and toilet_mop seem to be on the same page

[nfreeman]

1 hour ago, PerreaultForever said:

-snip-

On the positive side it does mention putting in the work, which is really good, but I'd still like to see it on the ice. A lot of times the team still seems flat when they are losing. Effort level doesn't change. It's just next shift and on we go the same rather than rally and dig down. The emotions show when things go well and they are winning, we should see that when they're losing too. A lot of players on this team still don't seem willing to dig down and do that extra needed to turn a game around. When I see that, it comes across to me as still being okay with losing, or at least accepting it, and that has to change. 

Well, they fell behind 2-0 to TB and 1-0 to Detroit and came back and had the better of the play in both games (until the late-game chokes, of course).  And they didn't go to pieces after blowing the lead on the road in Detroit, either -- they dug deep, killed off a long 5-on-3 Detroit PP, controlled the play in OT and then won in the SO on an extremely sweet play by a prized rookie who is reputed to be a good leader/attitude guy.

I get the pessimism and the "I'll believe it when I see it" perspective -- this franchise has earned that and then some.  But I don't think they are quitters.

[Curt]

1 hour ago, grinreaper said:

When making a fans judgement regarding a player like Mitts it is important to remember what many here thought of Tage two years ago. The guy was widely considered as a big failure that we ended up with by trading away a super #2 center who was tops in the NHL in faceoffs, a great two way player and worthy of the "C" he ended up getting with the Blues. Hell, O'Reilly was their final piece to the Cup and Tage looked like he just graduated from the old double bladed skates that he was given by his grandmother when he was 5 years old. I'm not saying that Mitts is going to really make it but the Sabres have a lot invested in him and I'd hate to see him be devalued prematurely. Obviously there is a problem with him but only he and the team knows what if anything can be done to fix it. Of course he's "on the clock" but I would hope that the Sabres don't give up on him too soon. 

How soon is “too soon” to give up on Mitts?

He is the same age now that Thompson was when he broke out, and there are unique reasons that Thompson broke out so late. That’s an outlier.  Most forwards are at or near their peak at 24.

I think he’ll get the rest of this season, but I’m personally not optimistic.

[LGR4GM]

16 minutes ago, Curt said:

How soon is “too soon” to give up on Mitts?

He is the same age now that Thompson was when he broke out, and there are unique reasons that Thompson broke out so late. That’s an outlier.  Most forwards are at or near their peak at 24.

I think he’ll get the rest of this season, but I’m personally not optimistic.

It's like the concept of Ristolainen. 

[klos1963]

9 hours ago, Marvin said:

Just a bit of pushback on collecting picks:

Recall that XGMTM squandered picks getting Bogosian, Kane, Lehner, and O'Reilly.

Recall that XGMJB drafted fewer than 1 player per round and wasted a 1st trading away Brendan Guhle.

At least GMKA actually has been collecting and using his picks.  Is his process excruciatingly slow given our current drought?  God, yes.  But as of now, it does seem to be working.  It is clear that he needs to get some defencive depth and better goaltending.  I do fear that he is willing to go the 6-headed monster route and expect someone to get hot in the playoffs like Cam Ward did.

Is it really working? Or working enough. You point out our needs and the goaltending one is huge. We seem to be waiting on a college goalie to save the day. All eggs in one basket. That's pretty scary.

Obviously the skill positions are looking really positive and we have some solid D, but it's probably time to make a couple significant trades.