Proposal: Revisited: Buffalo + Ottawa

[Neutrinos]

And if they give out an award for not trying at all to be clever, you'd have a dynastic hold on it based on your past week of posts alone.

Also, for someone who is pedantic about grammar/word choice when people rightfully criticize their half-baked ideas:



This is not a particularly good look.

I never claimed to know the difference between "their" and "there"

I'm not an English professor!

 

[since92]

That is exactly my approach

The old vets would supply the complimentary support

This a flawed approach. Despite how well it worked in your NHL20 dynasty mode.

In real life you need young cost controlled proven players to ice a proper team and build a winning culture. Prospects need to earn their spot on the team by displacing other proven assets. Ice a team of rookies and watch them all bust. No chance to work on their game in the minor. A few vets are required as well. But they shouldn’t be relied on to carry the lions share of minutes.

Also I find it hilarious that you validate your own arguments. Lol. I guess when nobody else does what else can you do.

 

[since92]

edit: double post

 

[TS Quint]

Even if those picks were relevant (hint: they're not) I'd still take the pick.

Gimme that high end player.

That's what they always say "history is no indication of the future". Just close your eyes and hope for the best, like the Sabres when they draft.

 

[GOALOFSSON]

That's what they always say "history is no indication of the future". Just close your eyes and hope for the best, like the Sabres when they draft.

You've listed players from 3 different GMs/scouting staffs, your argument quite literally was irrelevant. Two of the players weren't even top 10 picks either (12, 16).

Only Mitts from the current regime and he isn't even a bust yet so don't know why you would include him.

Mitts/Dahlin/Cozens is what you should go by. The "worst" player there still has decent upside, one is a beast (and was an obvious choice), then Cozens who looks pretty good.

Gimme that pick.

 

[TS Quint]

You've listed players from 3 different GMs/scouting staffs, your argument quite literally was irrelevant. Two of the players weren't even top 10 picks either (12, 16).

Only Mitts from the current regime and he isn't even a bust yet so don't know why you would include him.

Mitts/Dahlin/Cozens is what you should go by. The "worst" player there still has decent upside, one is a beast (and was an obvious choice), then Cozens who looks pretty good.

Gimme that pick.

True, it's been a long history of regimes who drafted poorly in Buffalo. The current regime hasn't proven anything in that regard either.

Mitts isn't a high end player. You re just hoping for a NHLer at this point.

If you are giving them credit for picking the consensus #1 overall pick for what? 3 years before the draft? you sure are easy to please.

Mitts looked pretty damn good at Cozens age as well. You should let that chicken hatch before claiming him to be a shoe in for a high end player.

You just randomly pick top 10 as a line. Plenty of good players available at 12-16 for a good scouting staff: Wilson, Hertl, Teravainen, Vasilevski, Klefbom, Rackell.

 

[GOALOFSSON]

True, it's been a long history of regimes who drafted poorly in Buffalo. The current regime hasn't proven anything in that regard either.

Mitts isn't a high end player. You re just hoping for a NHLer at this point.

If you are giving them credit for picking the consensus #1 overall pick for what? 3 years before the draft? you sure are easy to please.

Mitts looked pretty damn good at Cozens age as well. You should let that chicken hatch before claiming him to be a shoe in for a high end player.

You just randomly pick top 10 as a line. Plenty of good players available at 12-16 for a good scouting staff: Wilson, Hertl, Teravainen, Vasilevski, Klefbom, Rackell.

Don't remember giving them credit for Dahlin, might want to double check these things before posting.

Mitts isn't a good comparable to Cozens either.

I unfortunately didn't randomly use the point where most of the best players of a draft are taken. This should be obvious.

Since you didn't get it the first time:

Pick 1/3 could still be a good player
2/3 was an obvious choice
3/3 looks pretty good

So again, nothing there to believe they're going to automatically not hit on the pick (and again even if there was, it's a top 10 pick)

 

[CreeksideStrangler]

Sabres < White, Duclair, Brown, Tierney

Sens < #7, Mittelstadt, Okposo


Buffalo get some needed depth at center with White and Tierney, and a pair of win-now wingers just entering their prime while also dumping Okposo's contract

Ottawa land another top 10 pick, and get a reclamation project with some upside in Mittelstadt

are these guys value ">" or "<" the value of a whole organization?? is this the proposal??

im confused

 

[branch]

Stop

 

[branch]

are these guys value ">" or "<" the value of a whole organization?? is this the proposal??

im confused

The formatting is awful and it makes it very hard to understand what's going on.

 

[Shnooks]

Just stop. You're not even close on any of these.