Analyzing the results of Sabres' 2016-2020 drafts

[Tatanka]

I also think the calculus should include equivalents, bith good and bad. For example jokers gp should be included as an equivalent for Nylander while we got bumpkus for Hagel.

 

[DJN21]

Id take all these drafts over the ones prior highlighted by the likes of Cornell and karabacek etc. We bled middle round picks for years on busts. Even guys like Bailey and Baptiste have nhl games but little to no impact.

 

[Chainshot]

Id take all these drafts over the ones prior highlighted by the likes of Cornell and karabacek etc. We bled middle round picks for years on busts. Even guys like Bailey and Baptiste have nhl games but little to no impact.

The issue with the Karabacek draft year is also something to consider - not every draft year is this same. Fifteen guys in the 2nd round of that 2014 draft didn’t play at least five NHL games. Twelve didn’t even play one NHL game.

 

[Tatanka]

The entire thread is illustrative of why draft and develop is not how good teams are built. You need acquisition and acquisition in important spots to have enough talent to compete and to ensure those homegrown hits are in a place to succeed while the value of other draft assets are determined. Jmho.

 

[DJN21]

The issue with the Karabacek draft year is also something to consider - not every draft year is this same. Fifteen guys in the 2nd round of that 2014 draft didn’t play at least five NHL games. Twelve didn’t even play one NHL game.

Trade your draft capital then lol. (Ik ik easy to say looking back haha)

 

[jc17]

Jarvis is the only player on that list that I'd even entertain the conversation for.

Lundell should be entertained


And back to the OP boldy would have been a slight reach but not absurd. Lot of people here wanted him. Cozens only beat him out by 3 votes in a draft poll thread that year

 

[Chainshot]

Trade your draft capital then lol. (Ik ik easy to say looking back haha)

As teams build their book, they start to assign value to those pics. It was part of the reason why Murray was willing to trade a couple of second round draft picks. He even said at the time if they use them all, where will people play? Which is the problem Adams is having now where he has legitimate prospects who can grow aren’t even seeing the ice in his primary minor-league team because he’s jammed at so full with all of his recent high drafts. There’s no opportunity for anybody to work their way up and into the lineup who isn’t one of those pics Because they straight up good preferential treatment. They’re not going to find a Hagel of their own simply because there’s no room to take a chance on anyone but their own top fortyish draft picks.

 

[joshjull]

Jack Quinn is not a B. For his spot id call him a D. The dude has barely played, barely had any impact and a handful of consistent and good players were picked after him: Mercer, Perfetti, Rossi, Askarov, Lundell, Jarvis

Quinn has played 108gms. One more than Rossi (107gms) and only 35 fewer than Perfetti (143gms). Thats not quite “barely playing” even if he has missed a decent amount of time.

His goals per game (.22) is on par with Rossi (.21), Perfetti (.20) and Lundell (.21). Mercer (.26) is better as is Jarvis (.28)

His points per game (.55) is on par with Mercer (.53), Lundell (.53), Perfetti (.52) and better than Rossi (.42). Jarvis is better than all of them (.63)



Seems pretty harsh to call that a D grade.

 

[Gras]

he was actually the top center from the end of 22-23 until his trade

Anytime Tage and Cozens were both healthy Mitts was deployed as the 3C on this time.

 

[tsujimoto74]

I don’t see why guys we traded for value should be Fs just because they wound up playing somewhere else. Heck, even guys who did nothing after being traded shouldn’t be Fs if we got value out of them (eg, Cliff Pu).

 

[Matt Ress]

It's probably my harshest grade. I frankly am not happy with trading Portillo for another pick 4 years later - I think that's bad asset management.

That's fair. Maybe I'm remembering incorrectly but that was Portillo's choice to move and not the FO's

 

[CowbellConray]

That's fair. Maybe I'm remembering incorrectly but that was Portillo's choice to move and not the FO's

Yea, Portillo wanted out because Levi came in and was crowned the future. I think Adams could have managed that relationship a bit better, but regardless, here we are, hoping that Mccarthey can develop into something valuable over the next 3-4 years.

 

[Djp]

To address some of the questions:

1) I weigh the ability to find AHL talent in rounds 4-7. If I'm a GM, my GOAL is to find a guy who deserves an ELC or AHL deal. Will every guy achieve that? No. But if I'm a GM I wouldn't want to hear anyone in my org tell me "well if we draft this guy and don't give him a contract it's ok". Even though we all know that is the result.

Many Gzms usually draft college bound or eu tg o players mesningvthrh likelyy wont be in AHL for 3-4 yrs ot more.

Many guns dont drsft for AHL. With sd n AzhL roster you might look for 4'5 new ELCs each year. Somr of th these can be sliding 28/19 yr old, some could start ELC st 23. 15 of a 23 nsn roster are ELCd as nd then you have 8'10 veteran AHLers or post ELC players

2) Regarding players who were traded before playing with the org (Portillo/Pu), I took that into consideration and measured against the quality of the selections around them and how they may have impacted the org if they were selected instead. Pu with an F is probably my harshest grade, but when 10 of the next 20 picks play NHL games, and our guy was a throw in for Skinner (again, I'm probably overly harsh here) that's not the value I'd look for. Comparable to Josh Bloom, who gets dealt for ultimately a few games of a player. In the 3rd round, I'd want a guy who at least looks to be a solid AHL talent with NHL upside.

Portillo is s GOALIE....let me say that sgsin... GOALIE...he went to college for 4 full years and is playing in AHL where they get an extra ELC yr usually. Goalies develop later on around 6-7 yrs post draft

3) Portillo is a harsh grade because 60% of the next 14 players selected after him have played NHL games for their clubs. Portillo is not a bad pick in pure value, but the organization didn't manage that relationship well, and the impact to the org is taking a pick in 2019 and turning it into a pick in 2023. Pure value, probably a C grade. Organizational impacts? F.

They gota 3rd for a player who could walk.....who was a 4rd RD player is a penalty WTF

4) Also, to be fair - I dont rate each round equally. I didnt want to make the post too long, but for any picks in rounds 4-7, if they played any organizational games (AHL) it couldn't be an F. If they were a consistent AHL contributor, they were a C (my goal of what I would want from a late round pick). If they were a strong AHL guy, a B. And an NHL player - an A.

Making the nhl is far fifferrnt than regularly playing. With 5th or later round picks I would never upgrade a pick because a gm was nice inv as done sesson and let the 3rd yr ELC player an nhl game or 3 who they may have no intentions on resigning due to depth.

5) I am about as staunch of a supporter of front offices as anyone on this board. I dont think a B- grade in a draft is a bad thing. That's above expectations. Maybe I could make small adjustments to 2019 to bump our overall drafting from a C to a C+, but it plays to a larger point - from 2016-2020 we simply did not do a good enough job finding organizational talent outside of the first round. Fortunately, we've seemed to improve on this for 2021 and 2022

The draft scoring for 2019 is not a C. You drafted a strong p ln ayer in Cozens. Ryjo is a strong prospect in A. And Portillo is a decent g prosprct with the kings now. Therr are two others in Rousek and thr one still in college.

I tried to focus on players who were selected generally after our pick. Say within the next 5-15 picks. I understand that boards for teams are all different, but without knowing the Sabres board in each draft the overall selections are all I have to go by.

Organizational development is a huge variable, I thought it would be quite hard to standardize so I removed it altogether. With that said, especially for the later rounds, I gave a fair grade to players who simply showed positive development in any capacity while they weren't with the Sabres or Amerks.

EDIT: To add to this - I agree with your last point - we are a very average team when it comes to drafting. We have pros and cons, but overall we are average (hence the C grade)

Within 5 picks is s better judge...but...you nerd to factor in team needs st the time, not currrntly.

An example is NJ they drafted a RD st around 20. The next 3 yrs they draft Hughes and nrmic making that 2o Oza a tradable item. He became a trsde pawn. I hsbr mo idea what he will become in 5 yrs but at the time of the trade he was a onr of the best prospects to get in a trade

Yes nylander has done nothing. But at the time of trade he still had value and they moved him for needs elsewhere.

Prospect development is so situationally based from being rushed to being caught behind added depth and not given a chance to develop

 

[CowbellConray]

Many Gzms usually draft college bound or eu tg o players mesningvthrh likelyy wont be in AHL for 3-4 yrs ot more.

That's a strategy of course - I know Adams has specifically called this out in his management of the draft

Many guns dont drsft for AHL. With sd n AzhL roster you might look for 4'5 new ELCs each year. Somr of th these can be sliding 28/19 yr old, some could start ELC st 23. 15 of a 23 nsn roster are ELCd as nd then you have 8'10 veteran AHLers or post ELC players

I think you may be typing on your phone, so it's a bit hard to understand. But if what you are saying is that a team is expecting 4-5 ELCs to be added each year, I think that's fair. AHL deals are another component as well.

Portillo is s GOALIE....let me say that sgsin... GOALIE...he went to college for 4 full years and is playing in AHL where they get an extra ELC yr usually. Goalies develop later on around 6-7 yrs post draft



They gota 3rd for a player who could walk.....who was a 4rd RD player is a penalty WTF

I'm aware that Portillo is a goalie - I think I've even mentioned that in previous points. Goalies do develop later, which I took into consideration against their grade (UPL for example).

Trading Portillo for a pick 4 years later who will not impact the team for another 3-4 years (effectively turning a 2019 pick into a POTENTIAL NHL impact 8 years from that point) is not an effective utilization of resources. In a vacuum, sure, we moved a guy who wasn't going to sign into a 3rd round pick. However, when I consider from the perspective of what you would have told me in 2019 sitting at the draft table (this pick wont turn into anything of value until maybe 2027), I would consider that an F

Making the nhl is far fifferrnt than regularly playing. With 5th or later round picks I would never upgrade a pick because a gm was nice inv as done sesson and let the 3rd yr ELC player an nhl game or 3 who they may have no intentions on resigning due to depth.

Ok - I also considered organizational games in this, if a 5th round pick was signed and played 3-4 years for the AHL team, that's better than a 5th round pick who was never signed

The draft scoring for 2019 is not a C. You drafted a strong p ln ayer in Cozens. Ryjo is a strong prospect in A. And Portillo is a decent g prosprct with the kings now. Therr are two others in Rousek and thr one still in college.

And I gave Cozens an A, Ryjo looks to be a safe bottom pairing type guy, and some selections after him are similar - hence the C. Portillo I already explained, and Rousek I gave a B because he is a 14th forward who frankly is going to Europe after this season barring something unexpected

Within 5 picks is s better judge...but...you nerd to factor in team needs st the time, not currrntly.

An example is NJ they drafted a RD st around 20. The next 3 yrs they draft Hughes and nrmic making that 2o Oza a tradable item. He became a trsde pawn. I hsbr mo idea what he will become in 5 yrs but at the time of the trade he was a onr of the best prospects to get in a trade

Yes nylander has done nothing. But at the time of trade he still had value and they moved him for needs elsewhere.

Prospect development is so situationally based from being rushed to being caught behind added depth and not given a chance to develop

That's fair to consider team needs at time of the draft, however team needs really only play in during the first round or two. Once you hit that 3rd round and on, I think BPA plays a much larger role than player type or org fit. However, I did consider this lightly when comparing players drafted after our guys at the same position or player type

 

[Djp]

Yea, Portillo wanted out because Levi came in and was crowned the future. I think Adams could have managed that relationship a +1bit better, but regardless, here we are, hoping that Mccarthey can develop into something valuable over the next 3-4 years.

Problem when Levi was acquired Portillo had done nothing yet. Portillo was a goalie prospect and he wanted more depth.

This idea Portillo was already a top prospect when Levi was acquired is fools gold

Portillo
19/20 D+1 was USHL
20/21 D+2 Michigan backup with not many games. Still unproven
-Levi acquired at 21 draft
UPL was 22 to start 21/22 season and had hip surgery
21/22 both at college
22/23 both at college. Levi signed.
Portillo traded at deadline where he could turn pro on june 1.

He saw UPL and Levi and wanted a better chance to be an nhl goalie.

 

[Chainshot]

Part of Portillo's departure was Levi's arrival. So too was the loss of relationship - the group that drafted him was removed and there were two years without development camps to build relationships. He went to the 2019 one - my son talked with him in the elevator at the Harbor Center and got his autograph, gave him some advice that he was good, he should get used to the attention too. But Portillo's departure could be traced to the lack of relationship with Adams and his front office, including Adams' acquisition of Levi.