HFBoards

Go Back   HFBoards > NHL Eastern Conference > Atlantic Division > Buffalo Sabres
Mobile Hockey's Future Become a Sponsor Site Rules Support Forum vBookie Page 2
Notices

Your Official 2012 / 2013 "Lose out for draft position / staff change!" Thread

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old
02-27-2013, 08:21 PM
  #126
Chainshot
Global Moderator
Give 'em Enough Rope
 
Chainshot's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Costa Rica
Country: Costa Rica
Posts: 57,205
vCash: 500
Awards:
Quote:
Originally Posted by joshjull View Post
Actually a few posters are. That you don't want to accept that is not my problem.



It incredible how divorced from reality yourself and others are on this issues. Do you even remember why the Pens teams in the years leading to the lockout were so bad? Its because the Pens were bleeding money and it eventually led to a bankruptcy. The Pens didn't ice good teams because the couldn't afford to not because they had some plan in place to rebuild the franchise. They were struggling to keep the team in existence and in Pittsburgh.

The Hawks sucked due to a crappy owner ("Dollar" Bill Wirtz). They were named the worst franchise in pro sports in 2004 by ESPN.



And he knows that what the Pens did back then has ZERO relevance to the current Sabres.


No team tries to be unsuccessful for several seasons like the Pens did. When a team is crappy for that long its usually due to crappy ownership or financial hardship. Neither being the case here.
True. And the Sabres are already at unsuccessful for this season.

__________________
It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it. - Aristotle
Chainshot is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
02-27-2013, 08:26 PM
  #127
Jame
Dream '16
 
Jame's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Florida
Country: Pitcairn Islands
Posts: 36,815
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dubi Doo View Post
I did some research on this, because it was interesting to me:

The last 10 years had 22 teams with a top 5 pick:

Edmonton with 3 picks
Columbus with 1 pick
Montreal with 2
NYI with 3
Toronto with 2
Colorado with 5
Florida with 4
NJD with 1
Bos with 2
Tampa with 3
Atlanta with 3
LA with 3
St Loius with 2
Chi with 3
PHI with 2
PHX with 2
Wash with 3
Pit with 5
Ana with one
Car with 3
Min with 1
Buffalo with 1

We'll only include Stanley cup winners from the lock out to present, because of the addition of the salary cap.

Carolina won in 05-06: They had 3 top 5 picks in 2003(2), 2004 (4), 2005 (3)
Anaheim won in 06-07: They had one top 5 pick in 2005 (2)
Detriot won in 07-08: They had no top 5 picks
Pittsburgh won in 2008-2009: They had 5 top 5 picks all before they won the cup
Chicago won in 2009-2010: They had 3 top 5 picks
Boston won in 2010-2011: They had two top 5 picks, but they traded Kessel for Seguin, so in reality it's one top 5 pick, because they wouldn't have the seguin pick if they didn't have Kessel (Another top 5 pick)
LA won last year: They had 3 top 5 picks

Anaheim, Detriot, and Boston are teams who probably would've won the cup without a top 5 pick. Seguin didn't produce much for Boston, Ryan played 2 games for Anaheim, and Detriot had no recent top 5 picks.

Carolina, Pittsburgh, Chicago, and LA are prime examples of tank teams, but they all had at least 3 top 5 picks. That'd mean Buffalo would have to be crappy for 3 consecutive years for our tank to be worth while. According to the stats.

But with these success stories like Carolina, Pittsburgh, Chicago, and LA there are plenty of teams who haven't even played in the finals like NYI, Colorado, FLA, Tampa Bay, Atlanta (WIN), and Wash. All of these teams have had at least 3 top 5 picks in the last 10 years.

So lets do the math

22 teams with a top 5 pick
6 have won the cup since the lockout, but two of those teams top 5 picks had limited or no impact at all on their teams success
One team won the cup with no top 5 picks
4 of those teams tank jobs correlates with them winning the cup
All 4 have had at least 3 top 5 picks
6 other teams with at least 3 top 5 picks haven't even made the cup finals


There's a ton of variables that are impossible to measure like how good a teams coaching, development, drafting, and management are, but it seems you'll need at least a few top 5 picks to have a great benefit. I'm not sure the cost is worth the reward.

This season is an exception, because Buffalo is already down and out, but consistent tanking is not necessary.
I think it would be interesting to account for players on a team, that were top 5 picks as well (Pronger as an example), even if they werent drafted by that team

Jame is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
02-27-2013, 08:30 PM
  #128
Dubi Doo
Registered User
 
Dubi Doo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: Rochester, NY
Country: United States
Posts: 7,074
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jame View Post
I think it would be interesting to account for players on a team, that were top 5 picks as well (Pronger as an example), even if they werent drafted by that team
I understand your point, but you have to give up assets to get players like that. The beauty about getting a top 5 pick is the player comes with minimal cost (ELC).

Plus...it would take a lot more research to figure that out...haha

Dubi Doo is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
02-27-2013, 09:03 PM
  #129
littletonhockeycoach
Registered User
 
littletonhockeycoach's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: Littleton, Co
Country: United States
Posts: 2,330
vCash: 500
Play the best possible hockey possible. And let the chips fall where they may.

Nothing less is expected from true professionals.

Frankly, I can't support a team that doesn't give a rat's *** about how they are playing. (Or tanks.)

Which is why my respect for Ryan Miller, Pat Kaleta & Thomas Vanek continues to grow....

And leave all of the Machiavellian intrigue to HF Boards posters

littletonhockeycoach is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
02-27-2013, 10:14 PM
  #130
Ness
Your favorite thing?
 
Ness's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: Denver
Country: United States
Posts: 2,190
vCash: 500
I look at this the same way I look at the Buffalo Bills. When they were 0-8 (or whatever) a couple years ago, I wanted them to keep losing, because the idea of having Cam Newton as a Bill was far more exciting to me than watching Ryan Fitzpatrick at QB. In the same way, I'd prefer short-term failure for the Sabres if it means long-term success. I don't see anything wrong with this mentality. It was nice to see them beat the Lightning last night, and it will always be nice to see them win games this season. But if it means at the expense of missing out on one of the elite prospects in this year's draft? Not sure if that is ultimately for the best of this franchise.

Ness is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
02-27-2013, 10:33 PM
  #131
aceface33
Registered User
 
aceface33's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Herkimer, NY
Country: United States
Posts: 8,051
vCash: 500
I think that Ruff getting fired adds a new element to this discussion. Without him around, I want to see some improvement in the team as evidence that his coaching was holding them back. If the roster makes some strides it will give me some hope for next year under a new coach.

Or they could just lose out and get a high pick, I'd be ok with that too.

Edit: Let me put this another way. It seems to me that the "Fire Ruff" crowd and the "lose for a pick" crowd are roughly the same people. However, if you think Ruff was holding the team back through bad coaching, it would logically follow that if you want to lose for a high pick he should be kept. Correct me if I'm wrong, but with firing Ruff and bringing in a new coach, the expectation is that the team will play better and thus win more games. Thereby hurting the chance at a high pick.

What I'm saying is that I wanted Ruff gone. And, I'm hoping that by him being gone we will see evidence of the team's play improving. I was glad to see them turn it around a bit vs. Tampa and I was happy about the win. I realize this will hurt the team's chance at a high pick but overall I think firing Ruff was for the good of the team.


Last edited by aceface33: 02-27-2013 at 10:41 PM.
aceface33 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
02-28-2013, 08:06 AM
  #132
vcv
Moderator
Deal with it
 
vcv's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Williamsville, NY
Country: United States
Posts: 14,136
vCash: 50
Send a message via AIM to vcv
Quote:
Originally Posted by aceface33 View Post
Edit: Let me put this another way. It seems to me that the "Fire Ruff" crowd and the "lose for a pick" crowd are roughly the same people. However, if you think Ruff was holding the team back through bad coaching, it would logically follow that if you want to lose for a high pick he should be kept. Correct me if I'm wrong, but with firing Ruff and bringing in a new coach, the expectation is that the team will play better and thus win more games. Thereby hurting the chance at a high pick.

What I'm saying is that I wanted Ruff gone. And, I'm hoping that by him being gone we will see evidence of the team's play improving. I was glad to see them turn it around a bit vs. Tampa and I was happy about the win. I realize this will hurt the team's chance at a high pick but overall I think firing Ruff was for the good of the team.
What most people will tell you is that while Ruff was "holding" the team back, he would inevitably lead them to make a run and fall short. He IS a good coach, so I would agree he'd probably coach them out of a top-3 pick.

vcv is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
02-28-2013, 09:44 AM
  #133
Chainshot
Global Moderator
Give 'em Enough Rope
 
Chainshot's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Costa Rica
Country: Costa Rica
Posts: 57,205
vCash: 500
Awards:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jame View Post
I think it would be interesting to account for players on a team, that were top 5 picks as well (Pronger as an example), even if they werent drafted by that team
Or what players were acquired with top-5 or top-10 picks (again, Pronger for Lupul, 7th overall in '02). It can be directly the players on the team (see the Penguins) or those traded for with the talent acquired (Richards for 5th overall Schenn, using previously acquired 3rd overall Jack Johnson to get Carter). Both have an impact on the overall talent level of a team for years to come.

Chainshot is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
02-28-2013, 09:52 AM
  #134
BuzzKillington90
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2011
Location: Albion, Ny
Country: United States
Posts: 563
vCash: 500
Heres my opinion:

I will root like hell for them to win, I will cheer when they score...swear when they screw up and laugh when Gerbe takes on someone like Dion Phaneuf...

But if they lose, I just don't care as much as I normally would. I prefer an overhaul and a top 3 pick.

It's a short season. Drouin/MacKinnon/Jones are franchise players. Ruff is gone, and if we miss the playoffs I doubt Regier will be here afterwards. If there is a season to tank, this is the most oppurtune and could change the franchise.

:

BuzzKillington90 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
02-28-2013, 09:55 AM
  #135
RazielMoshman
Ever hopeful
 
RazielMoshman's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Location: Kent, England
Country: United Kingdom
Posts: 845
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Der Jaeger View Post
You don't think adding MacKinnon, Drouin, or Jones helps?

Are acquiring a two-way 2C and tanking mutually exclusive? If Buffalo tanks and gets MacKinnon, does that mean Regier can't work a deal for O'Reilly anymore?

See, I see getting an elite talent in this year's draft as the key to improving. Especially if it's MacKinnon. He would give Regier the option to trade center depth for other needs.
I do not think tanking will be a net gain for the Buffalo Sabres, as a fan I disagree with the concept completely and find it idiotic. Trading for players than can help us I like but O'Reilly is a 22 year old holding out for $4.5mill odd. Stuff him, let him rot. I'd rather go after Iginla, Chimera or even just replace the assistants and see how our current team do.

RazielMoshman is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
02-28-2013, 09:57 AM
  #136
RazielMoshman
Ever hopeful
 
RazielMoshman's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Location: Kent, England
Country: United Kingdom
Posts: 845
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by BuzzKillington90 View Post
Heres my opinion:

I will root like hell for them to win, I will cheer when they score...swear when they screw up and laugh when Gerbe takes on someone like Dion Phaneuf...

But if they lose, I just don't care as much as I normally would. I prefer an overhaul and a top 3 pick.

It's a short season. Drouin/MacKinnon/Jones are franchise players. Ruff is gone, and if we miss the playoffs I doubt Regier will be here afterwards. If there is a season to tank, this is the most oppurtune and could change the franchise.

:
That did make me laugh. Despite what I say this probably closer reflects the truth. I want to see my Sabres win, but losing won't hurt as much as usual.

RazielMoshman is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
02-28-2013, 11:42 AM
  #137
JPurp26
Registered User
 
JPurp26's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2003
Country: United States
Posts: 5,554
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chainshot View Post
Or what players were acquired with top-5 or top-10 picks (again, Pronger for Lupul, 7th overall in '02). It can be directly the players on the team (see the Penguins) or those traded for with the talent acquired (Richards for 5th overall Schenn, using previously acquired 3rd overall Jack Johnson to get Carter). Both have an impact on the overall talent level of a team for years to come.
That Ducks team had 6 top 13 picks on its roster including a few top 5 picks

JPurp26 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
02-28-2013, 02:03 PM
  #138
Dutchess
HFB Partner
 
Dutchess's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2013
Location: Cleveland, OH
Country: United States
Posts: 706
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by aceface33 View Post
Edit: Let me put this another way. It seems to me that the "Fire Ruff" crowd and the "lose for a pick" crowd are roughly the same people. However, if you think Ruff was holding the team back through bad coaching, it would logically follow that if you want to lose for a high pick he should be kept. Correct me if I'm wrong, but with firing Ruff and bringing in a new coach, the expectation is that the team will play better and thus win more games. Thereby hurting the chance at a high pick.

What I'm saying is that I wanted Ruff gone. And, I'm hoping that by him being gone we will see evidence of the team's play improving. I was glad to see them turn it around a bit vs. Tampa and I was happy about the win. I realize this will hurt the team's chance at a high pick but overall I think firing Ruff was for the good of the team.
I may have been one of the few who didn't expect the change to do anything. Ruff's voice had clearly faded and he needed to move on but at the same time, the team needs to be pulled apart. It's just not working, regardless of the coach.

Dutchess is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
02-28-2013, 02:49 PM
  #139
RazielMoshman
Ever hopeful
 
RazielMoshman's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Location: Kent, England
Country: United Kingdom
Posts: 845
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by JohnnyDrama21 View Post
I may have been one of the few who didn't expect the change to do anything. Ruff's voice had clearly faded and he needed to move on but at the same time, the team needs to be pulled apart. It's just not working, regardless of the coach.
That statement makes no sense.

RazielMoshman is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
02-28-2013, 02:53 PM
  #140
vcv
Moderator
Deal with it
 
vcv's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Williamsville, NY
Country: United States
Posts: 14,136
vCash: 50
Send a message via AIM to vcv
Quote:
Originally Posted by RazielMoshman View Post
That statement makes no sense.
It makes perfect sense.

The Coach had no effect on the team anymore. They weren't listening.

Even with a coaching change, they're still not good enough and need to be blown up.

What's hard to understand?

vcv is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
02-28-2013, 03:05 PM
  #141
RazielMoshman
Ever hopeful
 
RazielMoshman's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Location: Kent, England
Country: United Kingdom
Posts: 845
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by vcv View Post
It makes perfect sense.

The Coach had no effect on the team anymore. They weren't listening.

Even with a coaching change, they're still not good enough and need to be blown up.

What's hard to understand?
3 Games is not enough to tell what this team is capable under a new coach. We are going to have to wait for a full season, especially if Rolston isn't the permanent coach. We do have to make chanages (Stafford, Hecht, Leopold to name a few).

I feel optimistic about our future now.

RazielMoshman is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
02-28-2013, 04:41 PM
  #142
joshjull
Moderator
 
joshjull's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Hamburg,NY
Country: United States
Posts: 36,691
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Der Jaeger View Post
Does it really matter the circumstances for how each team got to their poor record(s)? How exactly is good/poor ownership related to talent acquisition? The Kings bottomed out with the AEG ownership group, who didn't have the Kings in the same situation as Chicago or Pittsburgh.
I'm talking about two different things.

Wanting to bottom out this year makes perfect sense and that is something teams will do once they realize they're out of it. As in its a planned thing where the team takes their lumps to close out the year and look to the future. Usually by dumping vets at the deadline that don't figure into the future and stock up on picks.

Sucking for multiple years, like the Pens and Hawks did, is NOT something any team does intentionally. Its the product of either financial issues with the franchise or inept/terrible ownership. The few posters that think the Sabres should use the Pens/Hawks "rebuilding model" are not grasping that its not an actual rebuilding plan. So to advocate its use is beyond daft.

joshjull is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
02-28-2013, 04:47 PM
  #143
Jame
Dream '16
 
Jame's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Florida
Country: Pitcairn Islands
Posts: 36,815
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by joshjull View Post
I'm talking about two different things.

Wanting to bottom out this year makes perfect sense and that is something teams will do once they realize they're out of it. As in its a planned thing where the team takes their lumps to wound out the year and looks to the future.

Sucking for multiple years, like the Pens and Hawks did, is NOT something any team does intentionally. Its the product of either financial issues with the franchise or inept/terrible ownership. The few posters that think the Sabres should use the Pens/Hawks "rebuilding model" are not grasping that its not an actual rebuilding plan. So to advocate its use is beyond daft.
So, if the Sabres moved Miller for a 1st round pick... and made no spectacular signings or trades for high end talent in the offseason. They continued to develop Hodgson, Ennis, Foligno, Myers... and brought in the next group of young talent (Armia, Girgensons, Pysyk, etc)... Would that be considered "intentionally" sucking?

You are defining things in hindsight.

Choosing to rebuild via a youth movement is likely to lead to a poorer season... but it's not synonmous with "intentionally sucking".

Jame is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
02-28-2013, 04:47 PM
  #144
vcv
Moderator
Deal with it
 
vcv's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Williamsville, NY
Country: United States
Posts: 14,136
vCash: 50
Send a message via AIM to vcv
Quote:
Originally Posted by RazielMoshman View Post
3 Games is not enough to tell what this team is capable under a new coach. We are going to have to wait for a full season, especially if Rolston isn't the permanent coach. We do have to make chanages (Stafford, Hecht, Leopold to name a few).

I feel optimistic about our future now.
He didn't state it as fact, it's his opinion. Had nothing to do with "making sense".

vcv is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
02-28-2013, 05:16 PM
  #145
joshjull
Moderator
 
joshjull's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Hamburg,NY
Country: United States
Posts: 36,691
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jame View Post
So, if the Sabres moved Miller for a 1st round pick... and made no spectacular signings or trades for high end talent in the offseason. They continued to develop Hodgson, Ennis, Foligno, Myers... and brought in the next group of young talent (Armia, Girgensons, Pysyk, etc)... Would that be considered "intentionally" sucking?

Choosing to rebuild via a youth movement is likely to lead to a poorer season... but it's not synonmous with "intentionally sucking".
Couple of flaws with this scenario.

1. Trading Miller as part of a youth movement would imply there is young goalie in the system ready to take his place. No such goalie exists.

2. Why would any team arbitrarily rush a bunch of kids into the NHL if they didn't have to? Particularly one with the financial resources of the Sabres. Its a nonsense scenario. I do find it incredibly ironic that you would want to rush a bunch of kids into the NHL in hope it leads to more high picks. Rushing them is something that could potentially hurting their development. That makes sense to you?


Quote:
You are defining things in hindsight.

I'm defining them as they are.


Last edited by joshjull: 02-28-2013 at 06:15 PM.
joshjull is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
02-28-2013, 06:40 PM
  #146
Jame
Dream '16
 
Jame's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Florida
Country: Pitcairn Islands
Posts: 36,815
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by joshjull View Post
Couple of flaws with this scenario.

1. Trading Miller as part of a youth movement would imply there is young goalie in the system ready to take his place. No such goalie exists.

2. Why would any team arbitrarily rush a bunch of kids into the NHL if they didn't have to? Particularly one with the financial resources of the Sabres. Its a nonsense scenario. I do find it incredibly ironic that you would want to rush a bunch of kids into the NHL in hope it leads to more high picks. Rushing them is something that could potentially hurting their development. That makes sense to you?
Kopitar and Brown and Doughty were "rushed"

oh right, examples are only relevant when you are using them


Quote:
I'm defining them as they are.

Jame is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
02-28-2013, 06:41 PM
  #147
Jame
Dream '16
 
Jame's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Florida
Country: Pitcairn Islands
Posts: 36,815
vCash: 500
nice job avoiding the question though...

Jame is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
02-28-2013, 08:22 PM
  #148
kenfury
Registered User
 
kenfury's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Posts: 1,316
vCash: 500
For what it's worth I really think the Sabres should trade the pick. Get the young player who can help the team in 2016. Make a core for 2008-2012. Alas, I cant find a partner to make a deal.

kenfury is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-01-2013, 08:38 AM
  #149
RazielMoshman
Ever hopeful
 
RazielMoshman's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Location: Kent, England
Country: United Kingdom
Posts: 845
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by vcv View Post
He didn't state it as fact, it's his opinion. Had nothing to do with "making sense".
The bit that didn't make sense was saying the teams failure was Ruff had been tuned out but then also saying the team needed pulling apart, if one is true then we have no evidence to even suspect the other.

My best assumption was that it was meant not a logical statement with forethought and reason but as a whine, but I wanted to clarify before running with that. Looks like my hand has been forced now though.

As a reply to you I stated my opinion, well part of it. Obviously my full opinion is far more complicated, as no doubt you'd expect.

RazielMoshman is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-01-2013, 08:43 AM
  #150
RazielMoshman
Ever hopeful
 
RazielMoshman's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Location: Kent, England
Country: United Kingdom
Posts: 845
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jame View Post
Kopitar and Brown and Doughty were "rushed"

oh right, examples are only relevant when you are using them




Florida ran a similar system for years, it never paid off for them. Pitts and Edmonton are exceptions, as you'd expect when your dealing Malkin, Crosby and EDM's 3 no.1 overall picks. Thats once in a generation stuff. You don't manufacture luck like that.

RazielMoshman is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Forum Jump


Bookmarks

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 07:57 AM.

monitoring_string = "e4251c93e2ba248d29da988d93bf5144"
Contact Us - HFBoards - Archive - Privacy Statement - Terms of Use - Advertise - Top - AdChoices

vBulletin Copyright ©2000 - 2015, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
HFBoards.com is a property of CraveOnline Media, LLC, an Evolve Media, LLC company. 2015 All Rights Reserved.