Mattias Samuelsson out long term, again.

[Pimlach]

When a young player makes a immediate good first impression and then stops progressing we tend to think that they were pushed too fast. Which may be true, our it could be the fact that they joined a poor team and they play to the level of the collective group.  

In the past guys like Mitts and Thompson were definitely rushed into the lineup, but they survived it.   

Recently we have seen both Muel and Quinn drop off, but both have had injuries that derailed them too.  

Levi and Benson are examples of very promising kids that got NHL games immediately upon arrival.  They may have been better than the players we had but this is not how good teams operate.  It shows a pretty low bar on the NHL roster.  

Good and established teams bring up players when they can beat out an NHL incumbent, and these younger players are in a better environment surrounded by veterans and they join a team that plays at a higher level.  

The Sabres have got to get back to that model of player development at some point.   Their recent past model of draft, develop (very quickly), and field a young Core needs to end.  

The Sabres are in a loop that is keeping this team among the younger teams in the league by average age, and its been that way for how long now?  Four or five years?  The very young teams do not win.  

 

[mjd1001]

5 minutes ago, Pimlach said:

When a young player makes a immediate good first impression and then stops progressing we tend to think that they were pushed too fast. Which may be true, our it could be the fact that they joined a poor team and they play to the level of the collective group.  

In the past guys like Mitts and Thompson were definitely rushed into the lineup, but they survived it.   

Recently we have seen both Muel and Quinn drop off, but both have had injuries that derailed them too.  

Levi and Benson are examples of very promising kids that got NHL games immediately upon arrival.  They may have been better than the players we had but this is not how good teams operate.  It shows a pretty low bar on the NHL roster.  

Good and established teams bring up players when they can beat out an NHL incumbent, and these younger players are in a better environment surrounded by veterans and they join a team that plays at a higher level.  

If I understand you correctly....I like  your point.

Many people look at a young player and say "he is better than what we have right now as our 10th forward so play him now!".  To me I'd rather not do that. Even though you might THINK you need him now, I'd rather look at a young player and say "what development path makes him the best player in 2-3 years from now".

[LTS]

6 minutes ago, mjd1001 said:

If I understand you correctly....I like  your point.

Many people look at a young player and say "he is better than what we have right now as our 10th forward so play him now!".  To me I'd rather not do that. Even though you might THINK you need him now, I'd rather look at a young player and say "what development path makes him the best player in 2-3 years from now".

Yep.. and each player is different. The key is developing the player into the role they will serve based on their skill set. You wouldn't bring in a top 6 forward to the 4th line and tell them to go play a hard checking game. This doesn't develop their skill set for where they need to go.

Some players need more time to develop and the best place is in the AHL.  Some players won't benefit from time in the AHL and need to be in the NHL. The only right answer is the one you learn when the player hits 26-28 and they've either become the player you thought they'd be or they did not.  It's not always the plan, many times its the player.

[JP51]

On 11/13/2024 at 11:57 AM, LGR4GM said:

Ruff said he will be out long term but his injury does not require surgery so should return this season. This is basically every year for this guy and we can call him what he is, injury prone. 

Time to move on from him

[spndnchz]

15 minutes ago, JP51 said:

Time to move on from him

Him. Meaning who? There’s a lot of him’s

[jad1]

On 11/14/2024 at 12:34 PM, SHAAAUGHT!!! said:

He doesn't necessarily have to get traded in the next couple seasons.  Why not weaponize that cap space the way Vegas does?  Mule goes out on LTIR after getting his 15-55 games in, allowing the Sabres to make some big moves bringing FAs in a the trade deadline, and then comes back game 1 of the playoffs if needed.  

Mule has been pretty bad this season before going out, but he's still only 24 and has time to pull it together.  I'd rather weaponize that cap space for the playoffs (or making that final push for the playoffs), and wait until he gets some games in and improves his play to increase his value before trying move him.

Kev is reading this like ....

 

[thewookie1]

3 hours ago, Pimlach said:

When a young player makes a immediate good first impression and then stops progressing we tend to think that they were pushed too fast. Which may be true, our it could be the fact that they joined a poor team and they play to the level of the collective group.  

In the past guys like Mitts and Thompson were definitely rushed into the lineup, but they survived it.   

Recently we have seen both Muel and Quinn drop off, but both have had injuries that derailed them too.  

Levi and Benson are examples of very promising kids that got NHL games immediately upon arrival.  They may have been better than the players we had but this is not how good teams operate.  It shows a pretty low bar on the NHL roster.  

Good and established teams bring up players when they can beat out an NHL incumbent, and these younger players are in a better environment surrounded by veterans and they join a team that plays at a higher level.  

The Sabres have got to get back to that model of player development at some point.   Their recent past model of draft, develop (very quickly), and field a young Core needs to end.  

The Sabres are in a loop that is keeping this team among the younger teams in the league by average age, and its been that way for how long now?  Four or five years?  The very young teams do not win.  

 

 

While I agree with the statement in general; there are a couple issues for Buffalo in particular.

Established teams tend to have approximately 17 NHL players that stick around year to year; and 6 free spots that get either re-signed, promoted, or signed UFAs. With Botts, we filled those spots with primarily JAGs or worse. Adams tends to skew far more to promotions and re-signings.

The general issue is we can't coerce solid vets, more often than not, for a number of reasons but one of them is quite frankly that their job is at risk from Day 1 and most vets signing here don't want that. We are already considered a bad team nowadays; so the mere thought of being overtaken on Buffalo would effectively equate to retirement. Why would a vet sign in Buffalo if you already know you have 5 younger guys already biting at your heels as well as the team itself kind of wanting to see those youngsters too. You only do so if the money is enough to effectively protect you from waivers.

Simultaneously, we have a plethora of prospects with high ceilings but few places to actually put them. We have 1 AHL team and fielding a roster of pure rookies isn't exactly reasonable. Juniors is great but only to a point but also creates issues with 18/19 year old's who are far better than most JR talent and you don't want them picking up bad habits because of their superior talents being unneeded for stretches. Sending players to Europe only works if they are European, 95% of the time, and the North American game is slightly different which requires further adjustment to be done. When you have the number of picks and prospects the Sabres have; you effectively end up with a log jam somewhere on the track. 

Effectively that is where we are at this time; more prospects than we have spots to put them while also not being in a great position to get max value for them via trade. When we make a trade for a more veteran player though, it puts us in a roster bind because we already have a full roster with no spots available to squeeze someone new in without potentially taking further losses via waivers or breaking consistency in line formations. Likewise, trading any existing roster players is far more likely to hurt the overall roster than help in regards to in-season moves. Plus fool-hardy moves to get immediate gratification rarely help our team's image as being a feeder club to the top teams. So a trade involving a Cozens or Quinn would almost be a certainty to be a major loss in the long run and perhaps even the nigh-immediate future.

The 3rd line has been one of our most consistent lines when composed of Zucker - McLeod - Greenway and upgrades would be highly unlikely to be available midseason. Lastly the 4th line is effectively the energy line; you don't deal high end prospects for 4th line grinders and energy players. Plus their impact is hard to properly measure since values can vary when it involves more judgement and gut based categories like grit and leadership. Theoretically you could have an analytical trainwreck on a team who also adds leadership, grit, and a plethora of behind the scenes types of attributes that no analytical gauge can measure but actually makes others on the team better and thus overtakes his own shortcomings. 

 

 

[ska-T Chitown]

1 hour ago, thewookie1 said:

 

While I agree with the statement in general; there are a couple issues for Buffalo in particular.

Established teams tend to have approximately 17 NHL players that stick around year to year; and 6 free spots that get either re-signed, promoted, or signed UFAs. With Botts, we filled those spots with primarily JAGs or worse. Adams tends to skew far more to promotions and re-signings.

The general issue is we can't coerce solid vets, more often than not, for a number of reasons but one of them is quite frankly that their job is at risk from Day 1 and most vets signing here don't want that. We are already considered a bad team nowadays; so the mere thought of being overtaken on Buffalo would effectively equate to retirement. Why would a vet sign in Buffalo if you already know you have 5 younger guys already biting at your heels as well as the team itself kind of wanting to see those youngsters too. You only do so if the money is enough to effectively protect you from waivers.

Simultaneously, we have a plethora of prospects with high ceilings but few places to actually put them. We have 1 AHL team and fielding a roster of pure rookies isn't exactly reasonable. Juniors is great but only to a point but also creates issues with 18/19 year old's who are far better than most JR talent and you don't want them picking up bad habits because of their superior talents being unneeded for stretches. Sending players to Europe only works if they are European, 95% of the time, and the North American game is slightly different which requires further adjustment to be done. When you have the number of picks and prospects the Sabres have; you effectively end up with a log jam somewhere on the track. 

Effectively that is where we are at this time; more prospects than we have spots to put them while also not being in a great position to get max value for them via trade. When we make a trade for a more veteran player though, it puts us in a roster bind because we already have a full roster with no spots available to squeeze someone new in without potentially taking further losses via waivers or breaking consistency in line formations. Likewise, trading any existing roster players is far more likely to hurt the overall roster than help in regards to in-season moves. Plus fool-hardy moves to get immediate gratification rarely help our team's image as being a feeder club to the top teams. So a trade involving a Cozens or Quinn would almost be a certainty to be a major loss in the long run and perhaps even the nigh-immediate future.

The 3rd line has been one of our most consistent lines when composed of Zucker - McLeod - Greenway and upgrades would be highly unlikely to be available midseason. Lastly the 4th line is effectively the energy line; you don't deal high end prospects for 4th line grinders and energy players. Plus their impact is hard to properly measure since values can vary when it involves more judgement and gut based categories like grit and leadership. Theoretically you could have an analytical trainwreck on a team who also adds leadership, grit, and a plethora of behind the scenes types of attributes that no analytical gauge can measure but actually makes others on the team better and thus overtakes his own shortcomings. 

 

 

<SkaTchitown patiently waits for Thornster's rebuttal about how all of that is the exact description of what GM is paid a staggering amount of money to do ...>

[LabattBlue]

Sad that a once promising 2nd pair defenseman is now a shell of his former self…probably due to changing his style in an attempt to stay more healthy. 

[thewookie1]

7 minutes ago, ska-T Chitown said:

<SkaTchitown patiently waits for Thornster's rebuttal about how all of that is the exact description of what GM is paid a staggering amount of money to do ...>

Oh I know, he'll chime in eventually. It's not necessarily even an excuse for Adams; just a matter of fact in terms of circumstances both actively and inactively created around the team.

[inkman]

I’m not sure I’ve ever cared about a more prominent player any less than I do Mattias.  He’s doesn’t move any needles. 

[JP51]

22 hours ago, spndnchz said:

Him. Meaning who? There’s a lot of him’s

Well in this instance Samuelson but I dont disagree... Starting with Adams