Confirmed with Link: Ryan McLeod & Ty Tullio traded to Buffalo for Matthew Savoie

[toddkaz]

View attachment 893311

 

[Dubi Doo]

It's truly amazing how quickly a fans narrative can change after something we do. They'll justify it, even if it goes against what they've thought all along.

Im a bit confused here. The consensus 'round these parts is we should use our wealth of unproven assets to acquire a top-9 C even if we have to overpay as a 'buyer'. It's been talked about a ton in the roster thread.

I feel like people like to create arguments in their heads that aren't really there.

View attachment 893307

This post is just wreaking hyperbole. There are better ways to discuss this trade.

 

[toddkaz]

Im a bit confused here. The consensus 'round these parts is we should use our wealth of unproven assets to acquire a top-9 C even if we have to overpay as a 'buyer'. It's been talked about a ton in the roster thread.

I feel like people like to create arguments in their heads that aren't really there.

This post is just wreaking hyperbole. There are better ways to discuss this trade.

You are welcome to not respond or hit the ignore button.

As for your post the consensus was a top 6 player. Also if its a 3C then someone the same caliber we just traded away. Not downgrading.

Mitts = Byram
Savoie = McLeod

We downgraded from Mitts to McLeod and we don't even know what we have in Byam.

Awful asset management.

I like McLeod but does it mean I want to trade away a top 25 prospect for him? NO. Do other GMs give up a top 25 prospect for him? Hell nah.

 

[RefsIdeas]

Im a bit confused here. The consensus 'round these parts is we should use our wealth of unproven assets to acquire a top-9 C even if we have to overpay as a 'buyer'. It's been talked about a ton in the roster thread.

I feel like people like to create arguments in their heads that aren't really there.

This post is just wreaking hyperbole. There are better ways to discuss this trade.

Lol, this is just revisionist history. If you had asked anybody on the Sabres board pre-trade if they'd trade Savoie for McLeod - they'd laugh you off. If you truly think otherwise, you're delusional.

That's what I mean about narratives shifting. The trade happens, and people try and justify it. I like to stay consistent to what I think, regardless of what the Sabres do.

 

[TageGod]

I had dinner with a bunch of Power Edge Pro coaches last year in Toronto. One of them was Bruins scout Parker McKay. Bruins top three, non-negotiable traits a player must have for a Bruins scout to recommend them:

1. Character
2. Work ethic
3. Hockey IQ

What decisions the Bruins GM and scouting director make, their scouts are not allowed to recommend a player without high grades in those three areas.

When you get focused on size, speed, shot, you end up missing good hockey players. McKay wouldn't tell me exactly, but the Bruins had Benson high on their draft list. A lot higher than 13. That's from an organization that loses Chara, Bergeron, and Krecji and basically doesn't miss a beat over the course of multiple seasons. Maybe they're onto something?

Unfortunately, all three of those are Krebs, so doesn't always work out.

 

[Mattilaus]

I've had more time to stew, listened to a few more podcasts and read a few more posts. I've decided I like the trade. Is it an overpay? In terms of potential, yes, but we were always going to need to make a couple deals like this. I think our team is more well rounded.

I hope there is still a move for a top 6 winger in the pipe, but I like this one despite my initial sticker shock. Surprisingly most of the Buffalo centric podcasts also seem to like it. Regardless of whether it is a podcast that usually hates on the Sabres or one that favours them.

 

[toddkaz]

Are sabres fans trading away
Quentin Musty or Oliver Moore for McLeod?

The NHL's Top 100 Prospects - Preseason Rankings - The Hockey Writers Latest News, Analysis & More

Every team has articles ranking their top prospects. But how do they all compare together? This list takes a look at the top-100 prospects.

thehockeywriters.com

 

[Dreakon13]

No, dont put words in my mouth.

Maybe don't make crappy meme's trying to generalize (and insult) like 5 years of fan opinions and you won't risk people misinterpreting you.

 

[Gras]

You are welcome to not respond or hit the ignore button.

As for your post the consensus was a top 6 player. Also if its a 3C then someone the same caliber we just traded away. Not downgrading.

Mitts = Byram
Savoie = McLeod

We downgraded from Mitts to McLeod and we don't even know what we have in Byam.

Awful asset management.

I like McLeod but does it mean I want to trade away a top 25 prospect for him? NO. Do other GMs give up a top 25 prospect for him? Hell nah.

Mitts and McLeod are two entirely different types of players.

Mitts better offensively
McLeod better at faceoffs, defense, speed

 

[TageGod]

I've had more time to stew, listened to a few more podcasts and read a few more posts. I've decided I like the trade. Is it an overpay? In terms of potential, yes, but we were always going to need to make a couple deals like this. I think our team is more well rounded.

I hope there is still a move for a top 6 winger in the pipe, but I like this one despite my initial sticker shock. Surprisingly most of the Buffalo centric podcasts also seem to like it. Regardless of whether it is a podcast that usually hates on the Sabres or one that favours them.

I think it's all looked at from two biases:

1) Adams job security.
2) 13-year drought.

In terms of a vacuum Sabres lost the trade badly. This isn't a 5-year hindsight, Savoie is currently a high-end prospect. There isn't really discussion right now, that potential is worth something even if he doesn't work out, and it is worth more than Mcleod. Sabres lose the trade in value.

Yes, they can still "win the trade" and he can help them make the playoffs, but this is a present value conversation.

 

[Dubi Doo]

You are welcome to not respond or hit the ignore button.

As for your post the consensus was a top 6 player. Also if its a 3C then someone the same caliber we just traded away. Not downgrading.

Mitts = Byram
Savoie = McLeod

We downgraded from Mitts to McLeod and we don't even know what we have in Byam.

Awful asset management.

I like McLeod but does it mean I want to trade away a top 25 prospect for him? NO. Do other GMs give up a top 25 prospect for him? Hell nah.

I only ignore arrogant, aggressive posters. I thought your post was full of hyperbole, but you don't appear to be aggressively arrogant. i always have my trigger finger ready, though! So watch, partner!

Lol, this is just revisionist history. If you had asked anybody on the Sabres board pre-trade if they'd trade Savoie for McLeod - they'd laugh you off. If you truly think otherwise, you're delusional.

That's what I mean about narratives shifting. The trade happens, and people try and justify it. I like to stay consistent to what I think, regardless of what the Sabres do.

Take a breath, my man. It's not that serious.

That's not what the meme you responded to showed. It was full of hyperbole.

Posters agree it was an overpay. Posters also were pounding the table for Adams to make a move for a 3C even if it was an overypay. You're free to travel back through the thread to see the conversation. I had a discussion with Zman or Jim Bob (for some reason I always get them confused) a week prior to the trade regarding Adams being a buyer and paying more than he's comfortable with for a player he targeted. They pointed out he has never done that before. I pointed to the Byram trade in which they, correctly, told me that wasn't the same as being a buyer since Mitts wasn't going to be re-signed.

 

[Panthaz89]

Im a bit confused here. The consensus 'round these parts is we should use our wealth of unproven assets to acquire a top-9 C even if we have to overpay as a 'buyer'. It's been talked about a ton in the roster thread.

I feel like people like to create arguments in their heads that aren't really there.

This post is just wreaking hyperbole. There are better ways to discuss this trade.

It would have been a lot nice to see Savoie play in the AHL at the very least for one season before giving up on him. Its just annoying to hear how he was so "low" on the depth chart of prospects that he wasn't even allowed to compete against because he was in juniors pretty much doing all he possibly could just because he didn't make the NHL right away and the injury didn't help but he bounced back pretty nicely and had a great season and won a championship as a big acquisition but for some reason he gets put under this big microscope for every little minor detail like injuries that he clearly didn't get effected by much in the long run.

 

[Mattilaus]

I think it's all looked at from two biases:

1) Adams job security.
2) 13-year drought.

In terms of a vacuum Sabres lost the trade badly. This isn't a 5-year hindsight, Savoie is currently a high-end prospect. There isn't really discussion right now, that potential is worth something even if he doesn't work out, and it is worth more than Mcleod. Sabres lose the trade in value.

Yes, they can still "win the trade" and he can help them make the playoffs, but this is a present value conversation.

Sorry but why is this a "present value conversation" only? Are we not allowed to take circumstances and speculate about the future on these boards anymore?

 

[RefsIdeas]

I only ignore arrogant, aggressive posters. I thought your post was full of hyperbole, but you don't appear to be aggressively arrogant. i always have my trigger finger ready, though! So watch, partner!




Take a breath, my man. It's not that serious.

That's not what the meme you responded to showed. It was full of hyperbole.

Posters agree it was an overpay. Posters also were pounding the table for Adams to make a move for a 3C even if it was an overypay. You're free to travel back through the thread to see the conversation. I had a discussion with Zman or Jim Bob (for some reason I always get them confused) a week prior to the trade regarding Adams being a buyer and paying more than he's comfortable with for a player he targeted. They pointed out he has never done that before. I pointed to the Byram trade in which they, correctly, told me that wasn't the same as being a buyer since Mitts wasn't going to be re-signed.

I was fine with them overpaying for a 3C as well. I just didn't think it would be to this magnitude.

I think if you were to look at the top 50-75 NHL prospects and ask each fanbase of their team if they'd trade that prospect for Ryan McLeod, the answers would be close to 100% no.

I'm not sure if there's something else going on with Savoie (injury? did he request a trade? was there an off-ice issue?) or if Adams just really did a poor job negotiating this trade.

I once attended a week-long seminar about negotiating (not for hockey trades of course, but negotiating settlements) and the two things they hammer you about is 1) don't throw out the first number and 2) start high, negotiate down from there (or vice-versa if you're on the other side of the table). I know, I'm not a master at negotiating. But I have at least a little bit of a basis to know where people should start.

If I had to guess, Adams did a poor job negotiating this trade. Either he shouldn't have offered Savoie to begin with, or he should've tried harder to negotiate down from there. I truly believe McLeod could've been had for less. If Adams backed out of this trade, the Oilers likely would not have received similar value. Of course, I could be wrong. That's just what I'm choosing to believe though.

 

[Tsyolin]

McLeod had a below average QoC for this past season. I don't have Krebs data handy.

On the contrary, Micah's data says McCleod's qoc distribution was pretty much standard and that it was actually his qot that was quite low. Makes sense since he wasn't on the PP and rarely saw any icetime outside the bottom 6.

 

[RefsIdeas]

On the contrary, Micah's data says McCleod's qoc distribution was pretty much standard and that it was actually his qot that was quite low. Makes sense since he wasn't on the PP and rarely saw any icetime outside the bottom 6.

I just used what I saw from JFresh's card where his QoC was 48%. I've found QoC stats to be a bit wonky though, especially on Evolving Hockey.

 

[Rowley Birkin]

They should be very happy... they'll get a young guy on elc for 3 yrs which is huge for cap strapped team.

I don't think it's an amazing trade... Adams put himself in this position. It's bad value sure.. but we'll be better next year for this and that's all I care about right now

In Adams' defence - he also put himself in the position of having an abundance of highly rated prospects to trade...

 

[toddkaz]

Mitts and McLeod are two entirely different types of players.

Mitts better offensively
McLeod better at faceoffs, defense, speed

Ok, and does that mean you are incapable of comparing the two?

You trading Mitts away for McLeod?

 

[Gras]

Mitts and McLeod are two entirely different types of players.

Mitts better offensively
McLeod better at faceoffs, defense, speed

Ok, and does that mean you are incapable of comparing the two?

You trading Mitts away for McLeod?

McLeod + Tullio is certainly fair value for Mitts

 

[Tatanka]

Unfortunately, all three of those are Krebs, so doesn't always work out.

Missing hockey IQ. 2 out of three.

 

[Gras]

 

[RefsIdeas]

View attachment 893349
View attachment 893350
View attachment 893351
View attachment 893352

Do you think this is showing fair value?

 

[KrakenSabresMike]

View attachment 893349
View attachment 893350
View attachment 893351
View attachment 893352

So for all of that mitts is + 3 expected goals for vs against and McLeod is +11.5.

There’s more to it than that obviously but in the end isn’t that representative of what counts most?!

 

[toddkaz]

View attachment 893349
View attachment 893350
View attachment 893351
View attachment 893352

So then since Mitts got 5.75m a season you are all for giving McLeod the same deal.

Thats crazy.

 

[GameMisconduct]

Are sabres fans trading away
Quentin Musty or Oliver Moore for McLeod?

The NHL's Top 100 Prospects - Preseason Rankings - The Hockey Writers Latest News, Analysis & More

Every team has articles ranking their top prospects. But how do they all compare together? This list takes a look at the top-100 prospects.

thehockeywriters.com

You could also look at that ranking and notice plenty of counterpoints that others have brought up:

1) How many Sabres forward prospects are in a similar tiers - Kulich is at 8, Savoie at 21, Ostlund at 30, Rosen at 47. Losing Savoie doesn't hurt us as much as it would most other teams entirely because we have built up a pipeline of prospects with at least roughly similar potential. There are downsides to building our pool as we have but this is a clear benefit

2) In this group of Sabres prospects who are are similar in size and, Savoie can be said to be the smallest among them at 5-9. If you include Benson who is on the NHL roster at 5-10, that's another added to that peer size group, and someone who at this point is clearly ahead of him.

3) Savoie, through no fault of his own (shafted by Covid, birthday, etc) has had less success playing against men than the rest of those players (caveat: I could be wrong about Ostlund here, as I don't know enough about the leagues he played in).

Kulich has proven goal scoring ability that distinguishes him from that group. Ostlund has center positional value which separates him a bit. To me if you're losing someone from the pool, Rosen/Savoie/Ostlund are pretty equivalent in that they each have their pros and cons.

I don't think there is nearly as much hand-wringing if Rosen or Ostlund goes out for McLeod. I think what we see here is mostly just individual preference on who to lose or retain, not some inarguably wrong choice and people are looking at this more through the individual lens, not the organizational one. A moderate overpay for a need doesn't hurt us much organizationally because we have multiple other have assests that profile similarly.

I get not loving losing Savoie, but while he has the highest ceiling he is also is the smallest, has the injury concerns, and is less proven at higher levels of competion. He also has a less clear path to center with Helenius and Ostlund in the pool, and we have other players/prospects that slot in above him (Kulich, Benson) or aren't vastly inferior (Rosen, Ostlund, Helenius) in competition for the same limited slots that might come open on the NHL roster.

Discounting specific individual comparisons between Savoie and similar Sabres prospects, we traded something we had a lot of for something we needed and lacked. The fit for Savoie is better in Edmonton than it would be here and the fit for McLeod (who did good thing in Edmonton, but now has Henrique coming back) is better here.