TheMistyStranger
ミスト
- May 21, 2005
- 31,772
- 7,630
Also keep in mind that one potential reason for McL's offensive numbers is that it wasn't his job. His job was to get the puck from his end and generate an offensive faceoff, then get off the ice.
Confirmed with Link: Ryan McLeod & Ty Tullio traded to Buffalo for Matthew Savoie
- Thread starter Jim Bob
- Start date
I think the trade was pretty bad value, but everybody on these boards have been saying for at least 2 off seasons that there is no way all these top-6 prospects will be able to make the NHL team and moves would have to be made one way or another.
That is still true IMO. I doubt all of Rosen, Kulich, Ostlund, Helenius, etc will be able to play on the Sabres considering the youth and long contracts we already have. Some will have to be dealt either to kick the can down the road, or a 4 quarters for a dollar type deal to consolidate assets.
That’s half true.
McLeod had an offensive zone start 48.8% of the time.
While that’s more defensive than offensive, it’s a far cry from somebody like Malenstyn who had a 9.9% for offensive zone starts.
Zman5778
Moderator
I don't really think I've seen anyone here even try to argue that the value was good. A trade can make sense on both sides but the value be a bit skewed one way or another.
And that's what happened here. Buffalo and Edmonton traded strengths for weaknesses. Buffalo got a defensive-minded 3C with still some potential for more, while Edmonton got a high-ish end offensive prospect.
Those that are seeing only value will see this as a loss and nothing more. But there's a bigger picture here.
Push Dr Tracksuit
Gerstmann 3:16
- Jun 9, 2012
- 13,535
- 3,720
The legendary McLeod for Savoie thread will go down in hf Sabres history.
Malenstyn had outlandish d-zone deployment. It was far from normal.
NotABadPeriod
ForFriendshipDikembe
- Oct 28, 2006
- 53,589
- 10,709
It has potential to be the new O'Reilly to St. Louis thread.
old kummelweck
Registered User
- Nov 10, 2003
- 25,868
- 5,935
I can't remember when I finally ignore that thread, but it wasn't all that long ago.
HaNotsri
Regstred User
- Dec 29, 2013
- 8,909
- 6,769
Not really. ROR was essentially traded for 0 value. Two cap dumps were covered by pick+Thompson but zero payment for ROR.
This trade is miles better. Trading Savoie for Pageau would have been closer to ROR-level.
Selanne00008
Registered User
It's like;
"We don't have to pay Giambi (Cirelli) because he (mcLeod) can get on base.
WeDislikeEich
Registered User
- Jun 22, 2015
- 6,064
- 4,520
Thanks for admitting it. You are bashing every move he makes no matter what. We get it, keep it up
jc17
Registered User
- Jun 14, 2013
- 11,669
- 8,513
Woahhhh lets back it up here. Feels like we're just going along with a verifiably false statement because it makes us feel better about the deal.
If you tell me I'm wrong here I'll listen because I generally appreciate posts from both of you, but Misty that seems like a huge generalization based on the fact that he's fast and has high defensive impacts and Chain, kind of a deflection of the main point. Judging by the likes on all of these posts I can tell what people want to believe. Is that really an accurate description of his role?
Hyman and Mcdavid are the only players that got fewer D zone faceoffs/60 with the oilers for context. I know he had defensive responsibilities, but describing his role like that, and people going along with it, feels like there's a bit too much homerism happening.
How many top 10 picks (that weren’t in the top-2) do well in the NHL in their D+2 season? Almost none. In Savoie’s draft there has been Cooley and that’s basically it, and he went #3, so a bit different pedigree. I call B.S. on that talking point.
NotABadPeriod
ForFriendshipDikembe
- Oct 28, 2006
- 53,589
- 10,709
Yeah that premise is pretty stupid.
Picked in top 10? Need a strong D+2 season in the NHL, otherwise bust.
Picked 11? You get more time to prove yourself.
Doug Prishpreed
Registered User
Yeah the guy is really showing his ass on that one. I agree with his point but I’m guessing his model is garbage if that’s what he thinks happens.
jc17
Registered User
- Jun 14, 2013
- 11,669
- 8,513
Ahh this feels like even more nonsense.
How is it that the guy that came up with the model can't figure out that A) if there's nothing a prospect can do in D+2 to make the model happy, it might not be good at evaluating that situation lol, or B) the fact that many poorly rated players in their draft year can make a big jump by d+2, skewing the results of the whole group.
Top 10 picks from the CHL in d+2. These guys' high end forecasts also disproven by d+2? Obviously busts as well here, but it seems like maybe a slightly below average outcome based on draft position overall.
Again, I'm not hating on the trade, but seems like we're just latching onto anything that supports the outcome we want.
i mean how many of these guys are 5’8 or 5’9”? I’ve been beating the drum to trade Savoie for a bit now so I’m not as hurt by the trade as some. Which I get.
He’s saying true stars usually hit the nhl by d+2 and show something- otherwise a prospects chance of being a star diminishes significantly.
That’s the whole point of his model… It says his likelihood of becoming an nhler it still quite high but his chance of being a star is less than 20%… Out of that list near here , seems like that’s pretty spot on.
Based on history, reported league value, injury, history, performance at major tournaments, size, etc.… This assessment seems pretty spot on. I would say it’s much more likely that he does not become a star than he does but will probably be a useful Middle six forward of some type.
80% chance Ennis, 20% chance Barzal
jc17
Registered User
- Jun 14, 2013
- 11,669
- 8,513
size is already included in the model, so it shouldn't be a reason for his rating reducing, unless he shrunk over the past two years..
Anyway, the 2 biggest disappointments here are Dal Colle and Glennie at 6'3 and 6'1.
Savoie's injuries along with his size also gave me pause, so if the team doesn't want that gamble it's their choice, and I get it, but I just think its ridiculous for anyone to act like he's some lost cause or something
I was pointing out that comp'ing him to Malenstyn isn't fair to Malenstyn - Beck was one of the most skewed d-zone deployments in the league and that wasn't what McLeod drew. The Malenstyn thread goes into it more but it is Housley using Larsson only harder, more on par with how the Preds used Gaustad honestly.
Royal Thunder
Frolunda Mode
- Feb 21, 2012
- 4,425
- 3,472
Yes the value on paper is advantage Edmonton but that doesn’t automatically make it a bad trade.
Assuming both guys get near their ceiling - Which young player archetype is more valuable long term, a fast defensively responsible 3C or a skilled quick top 6 winger? I know which one is funner and which one gets paid more, but which is more important to team building? It’s pretty close, no? I think a lot of it comes down to what Savoie’s realistic ceiling is. Some are talking like he could be a Gaudreau/Briere/Kyrou-level player but I think his realistic ceiling is a Fiala/Ehlers/Skinner type of guy. Very effective player but with some clear deficiencies and not someone who is going to drive the bus for you.
We have Quinn Benson and Peterka who I think all have higher upside playing for the Sabres. Behind them we still have Kulich and Rosen. You can only have so many of the same type of player - Edmonton has no one who fits the profile of a young scoring winger (unless you are a Holloway believer) so it makes a lot of sense for them to acquire one for someone who is deemed expendable as they go all-in with the Henrique move.
If McLeod becomes a long term above average 3C who can play up and down the lineup and tilt the ice, that’s probably going to end up more valuable to us then Savoie would’ve unless you genuinely believe Savoie had consistent 80+ point potential playing for the Sabres. Is Savoie that good? I don’t know, the hype on him has kind of simmered down since the draft and the eye test has never really matched the production… but it’s possible and if that happens then the Sabres absolutely miscalculated here.
Assuming both guys get near their ceiling - Which young player archetype is more valuable long term, a fast defensively responsible 3C or a skilled quick top 6 winger? I know which one is funner and which one gets paid more, but which is more important to team building? It’s pretty close, no? I think a lot of it comes down to what Savoie’s realistic ceiling is. Some are talking like he could be a Gaudreau/Briere/Kyrou-level player but I think his realistic ceiling is a Fiala/Ehlers/Skinner type of guy. Very effective player but with some clear deficiencies and not someone who is going to drive the bus for you.
We have Quinn Benson and Peterka who I think all have higher upside playing for the Sabres. Behind them we still have Kulich and Rosen. You can only have so many of the same type of player - Edmonton has no one who fits the profile of a young scoring winger (unless you are a Holloway believer) so it makes a lot of sense for them to acquire one for someone who is deemed expendable as they go all-in with the Henrique move.
If McLeod becomes a long term above average 3C who can play up and down the lineup and tilt the ice, that’s probably going to end up more valuable to us then Savoie would’ve unless you genuinely believe Savoie had consistent 80+ point potential playing for the Sabres. Is Savoie that good? I don’t know, the hype on him has kind of simmered down since the draft and the eye test has never really matched the production… but it’s possible and if that happens then the Sabres absolutely miscalculated here.
WeDislikeEich
Registered User
- Jun 22, 2015
- 6,064
- 4,520
Inside the Sabres' pre-Draft analytics process | Buffalo Sabres
Sam Ventura, Domenic Galamini Jr., and Matt Barlowe explain how the organization uses statistics to inform decision making leading up to the draft.
www.nhl.com
Interesting quote in hindsight
