Toggle sidebar

Player Discussion Buffalo Pickers - The Search For Serviceable Defensemen, Summer of '23 Edition

  • Xenforo Cloud has upgraded us to version 2.3.6. Please report any issues you experience.
  • We are currently aware of "log in/security error" issues that are affecting some users. We apologize and ask for your patience as we try to get these issues fixed.
Status
This thread has been closed due to inactivity. You can create a new thread to discuss this topic.
Zman5778 said:
Did Philly actually WANT Krug though? I was under the impression that he was included merely for salary cap purposes.........
Click to expand...
Yes. Philly can't keep trading their D away without getting someone back. They need someone to play that position. They want someone that can run their PP.
 
Jacob582 said:
Yes. Philly can't keep trading their D away without getting someone back. They need someone to play that position. They want someone that can run their PP.
Click to expand...
There has been talk of moving DeAngelo, but until they do, I think he is Philly's #1 PPQB.

Not sure Sanheim was getting much(or any) in the way of PP time under Torts when TDA was in the lineup.

But they probably need to add a legitimate 5-on-5 NHL defender if Sanheim is moved.
 
Anything here? Seems like he played a role that had him underwater on an awful team, but maybe he wouldn't be a bad add to our bottom pair mix to push Bryson out for good? Not sure if he crossed paths with Granato, but another NTDP guy.



1687959957699.png
 
  • Like
Reactions: elchud
HOOats said:
Anything here? Seems like he played a role that had him underwater on an awful team, but maybe he wouldn't be a bad add to our bottom pair mix to push Bryson out for good? Not sure if he crossed paths with Granato, but another NTDP guy.
Click to expand...

Caleb Jones kinda strikes me as the Tyson Jost of defensemen -- utterly average at pretty much everything. Good/exceptional at nothing, but also bad at nothing.

Would fit a 6/7 role somewhere. Not sure if he's a fit here though, given how many 6/7 types we've got.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Dingo44, BUCKSHOT and HOOats
Zman5778 said:
Bryson is more than likely better defensively than Caleb Jones.......but Jones won't throw major brain cramps once he gets past center ice though.
Click to expand...
Not sure how Bryson's D would have looked in 20 min/G on the worst team in the league. In a lesser role on our bottom pair, I'd think Jones would be an upgrade overall.
 
Decided to put this here as i think it's the most logical place & didn't want to start a new thread :

With the Benson pick yesterday - we now have even more of a need to make a forward for defence 'prospect for prospect' trade. It doesn't need to be made right now - but there is a woefully huge inbalance in the pipeline. Of course, Adams could use all remaining picks later today on D - but i doubt he will. And even if he did - the top end is still completely forward heavy.

Any obvious teams out there with an abundance of defensive prospects who stand out as a potential partner?
 
I dont think anyone is trading good d prospects, personally.

This draft is another in an endless string of lessons. Acquiring a good, young top 4 defenseman is very hard to do. You have to be in position to draft them, or be willing to give up valuable assets or scary contracts. There's very few shortcuts.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Jacob582, joshjull and Jim Bob
TheBarnIsElectric said:
I dont think anyone is trading good d prospects, personally.

This draft is another in an endless string of lessons. Acquiring a good, young top 4 defenseman is very hard to do. You have to be in position to draft them, or be willing to give up valuable assets or scary contracts. There's very few shortcuts.
Click to expand...
It is and luckily we have 3 of them.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Dingo44, Dubi Doo, Zman5778 and 3 others
TheBarnIsElectric said:
I dont think anyone is trading good d prospects, personally.

This draft is another in an endless string of lessons. Acquiring a good, young top 4 defenseman is very hard to do. You have to be in position to draft them, or be willing to give up valuable assets or scary contracts. There's very few shortcuts.
Click to expand...
Right. I'm not expecting Columbus to suddenly trade David Jiricek to us.

But a team with the opposite pipeline of what we have - ie weak at forward but deep on defence - might be interested in a 'hockey' deal to balance things out? Given that we'd likely be moving a winger, we'd probably need to give up a slightly 'better' prospect - but it still makes sense if that guy is further down on our list than he would be anywhere else.

joshjull said:
It is and luckily we have 3 of them.
Click to expand...
We're extremely fortunate to have won the lotteries for Dahlin & Power. I will say that louder than anyone.

But we comfortably have the assets to make it four instead of three & complete the set.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Jim Bob
Rowley Birkin said:
But a team with the opposite pipeline of what we have - ie weak at forward but deep on defence - might be interested in a 'hockey' deal to balance things out? Given that we'd likely be moving a winger, we'd probably need to give up a slightly 'better' prospect - but it still makes sense if that guy is further down on our list than he would be anywhere else.
Click to expand...

I think we may be underestimating the differing value between nearly NHL ready D with top 4 potential and nearly NHL ready wingers with top 6 potential here.

There is so much more development time put into D, and so many D prospects fail to develop enough to make the transition to the NHL, that the cost to acquire a nearly ready D prospect with top four potential is sky-high. Whereas wingers without size are dime a dozen. Even those with top six potential still have relatively little value until they are producing in the league- comparatively speaking.

Sabres have drafted a lot of "smallish" forwards, which are the easiest prospects to project their floors and ceilings in the draft (which is not saying it is easy, just that it is typically easier to foresee what a 5'10" winger will eventually be vs a 6'5" winger at the age of 17. D and Goalies are even harder to predict.

So the team has drafted "safe" more often than not, but that means that the value of the prospect pool is not as high as it would be had they drafted larger forwards, defensemen or goalies that were all progressing nearly as well as the current crop of small forwards.

What this means is that I think Adams will have to pay a substantial premium in assets to revamp the prospect pool from a gang of smallish forwards to a better balance of prospects that either has more size or is more positionally diverse.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Rowley Birkin
Irie said:
I think we may be underestimating the differing value between nearly NHL ready D with top 4 potential and nearly NHL ready wingers with top 6 potential here.

There is so much more development time put into D, and so many D prospects fail to develop enough to make the transition to the NHL, that the cost to acquire a nearly ready D prospect with top four potential is sky-high. Whereas wingers without size are dime a dozen. Even those with top six potential still have relatively little value until they are producing in the league- comparatively speaking.

Sabres have drafted a lot of "smallish" forwards, which are the easiest prospects to project their floors and ceilings in the draft (which is not saying it is easy, just that it is typically easier to foresee what a 5'10" winger will eventually be vs a 6'5" winger at the age of 17. D and Goalies are even harder to predict.

So the team has drafted "safe" more often than not, but that means that the value of the prospect pool is not as high as it would be had they drafted larger forwards, defensemen or goalies that were all progressing nearly as well as the current crop of small forwards.

What this means is that I think Adams will have to pay a substantial premium in assets to revamp the prospect pool from a gang of smallish forwards to a better balance of prospects that either has more size or is more positionally diverse.
Click to expand...
I think you make valid points. I don't think Adams needs to 'revamp' the prospect pool - just needs to swing one move to balance things out at the top end.

I've acknowledged that you probably have to take a 'lesser' guy because of positional value - but that's fine. We don't need a guy who projects to be an all situations #1- but someone with realistic potential to be a solid top 4 / great bottom pair player.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Status
This thread has been closed due to inactivity. You can create a new thread to discuss this topic.

Latest posts

Ad

Ad

Top Bottom