dudacek

Yes it will. Hopefully, it will be a positive impact, in that they either either acquire a better option, or a similar option on a better contract. If they can’t your angst may become warranted. Right now, it’s hyperbole. The team improved about 20 pro-rated points last year with goalies they had, indicating they were moving up the ranks and better positioning themselves for the future. Hopefully it continues to breed more success and better attendance like it seemed to last year.

Another entertaining mock from the Athletic, this time from the beat writers. The Sabres take Savoie at 9 for the skill and are delighted to watch Anaheim, Winnipeg, and Vancouver seriously consider Nazar, then go elsewhere. Then they too pass on Nazar at 16, in favour of the top 10 upside of Danila Yurov. Nazar falls all the way to 20 where the Canadiens trade up for him. The Sabres finish it off with raw, big and toolsy high school defenceman Sam Rinzel. A scout’s audit criticizes the pick as too high. Snuggerud, Miroshnichenko, Schaefer and Mesar were the next 4 picks, so he might be on to something. But overall, I like this one much better than the Korchinski Lambert Del Bel Belluz clunker. https://theathletic.com/3374958/2022/06/22/nhl-staff-mock-draft/

Who said anything about a better goalie stifling development? 10 points more and the Sabres are still 5th in the division and 15 points out of a playoff spot. Not signing Ullmark hasn’t hurt Adams long-term plan one iota. Yet.

Yeah, the post I was responding to was saying Kane should wait before okaying a trade, not the Sabres so the above are the only points that matter in that context. And the premise of the thread is that Kane has already decided he wants to go to Buffalo. Not “if they can sell him they’re really on the upswing,” or “after he takes another shot at the cup.” So those things may or may not be true, but that’s a different thought exercise. As for the rest, I’m not interested in trading #16 or any other asset I see as playing a significant role in the Sabres future either. Basically, it would be an offer the Hawks would only take if forced to by Kane’s NMC, just like Hall forced the trade to the Bruins.

Why does it have to be either/or? Also, the Kane thread is predicated on Webster hearing that Kane wants to come to Buffalo and some of us jumping to the conclusion that means he could use his No-trade clause to get here. Have we had any indication Fleury wants to be here?

Except it didn’t hurt the team. The goal of this season was to build culture and give the kids an opportunity to develop. Both these things happened, probably about as well as they could have.

I have no idea what Patrick Kane wants now or moving forward or why. But the premise of this thread is that Kane wants to finish his career in Buffalo. If that’s the case, why wait? To the bold, I don’t think Kevyn Adams’ blueprint is exactly what you think it is. Please show me where he has said “I won’t be spending any more money this year than I have to.” Or “I won’t be adding good players at below-market value prices because it goes against the plan.” The entire underlying tenet of Adams’ plan is investing and building around “people that want to be here.” And the entire hypothesis of the thread is “Patrick Kane - top-10 scorer and multiple Stanley Cup winner - wants to be here.” I hope you’re wrong, and not because I am opposed to building from within with a young core that grows together. It’s because anyone who is as rigid as you seem to think he is, is bound to fail.

The ask won’t be anywhere near as low. The market, however… It’s a case of Kane deciding if he will go and where. If it’s only to one team, then the ask is meaningless. It’s about the offer and about how long are you willing to wait for it to improve, or for Kane to change his mind. In that situation, there’s no reason for the Sabres not to make their best offer in the summer and stick with it.

I strongly disagree with the bolded. Adams said he would not not make a move to make the team better today if it meant making the team worse in the future. He meant getting handcuffed by long-term salaries. Kane would not do that. He meant blocking young players from opportunities. As an upgrade replacement for Vinnie Hinostroza or (dare I suggest) Victor Olofsson, Kane would not do that. He meant sacrificing important pieces of the Sabres future. At the right price (like my Olofsson/Portillo trade) Kane would not do that. I don’t expect the Sabres to trade for Kane unless Kane himself manoeuvres the Hawks into that position. But that does not mean the Sabres are philosophically not interested in adding Kane or a similar player to the team at should the right circumstances present themselves. Further, but perhaps more importantly, even if he was philosophically opposed, Kevyn Adams does not own the Sabres.

Not yet 😜

Found the original piece. It’s from Lance answering reader questions. Jay Irving asks: Do you expect the Sabres to add an established goalie in free agency that is still in their prime? Are there legitimate trade options? There aren’t established goalies in their prime in free agency. There rarely are. Teams sign those guys because there aren’t many in the NHL. Ville Husso, Darcy Kuemper, Marc-Andre Fleury and Jack Campbell are among the top options available next month. The Sabres are going to pursue Husso and Campbell – they went after top goalies last summer – but both have their blemishes and it’s unlikely either will pick Buffalo. Campbell, according to Evolving-Hockey.com, is projected to receive a six-year contract with a $5.7 million annual cap hit. Husso isn’t much less at $4.96 million over four years. They'll have other suitors, including playoff contenders. And is Adams willing to give a long-term contract to a backup such as Husso after he wouldn’t give a similar deal to Linus Ullmark a year ago? Also, signing a starting goalie to a long-term contract could be enough to discourage Devon Levi and/or Erik Portillo from signing. In free agency, the Sabres are more likely to target bargain options such as Casey DeSmith, Mikko Koskinen, Eric Comrie and Kevin Lankinen. There are ample trade options. Will the Bruins make Ullmark available if they’re rebuilding? Jonathan Quick, John Gibson, Semyon Varlamov, James Reimer and Adin Hill are a few names to watch.

Wasn't that article just Lance's opinion?

And I think one of the reasons why you probably aren't going to see Adams make many big moves with long-term contracts or trades is he hasn't yet identified who's in his core, or in what place.

This is demonstrably false. As Brawndo pointed out, Johnson is worth a late 2nd compensatory pick at minimum. The coyotes acquired the rights to soon-to-be college UFA Jack McBain for the 47th pick in this year’s draft just a few months ago.

The thing about Kane is very few teams are going to be able to absorb his $10.5 million contract. Hell, 13 teams can’t fit it under the cap right now in the dead of summer with multiple roster spots to fill and all their own free agents unsigned. The Rangers have $11 million available. They can fit him, but will have to ice a roster of 15 players. Sure there is retention and taking cap back, but those things lessen Kane’s value. The Venn diagram of teams willing and able to absorb that contract, teams willing to give up something of significant value, and teams where Kane wants to go will almost certainly be very small.

Loves my boy Yurov. My boys Kasper, Ohgren and Gauthier, not so much. But yeah, I’ll take it 😄

Is that the summer WJC to make up for one that was postponed, or the one set for the coming Christmas season? Or both?

It does work. I don’t like it as much, but I don’t think it’s that big a deal either way. You trade #28 in the 22 draft and keep VO for 2 years, then, when the cap crunch arrives, trade him for a late first in 24, who will help you in 2028. Or you trade VO now, keep your late 1st who will help you in 2026 and acquire a good short-term 3C to help this year. My logic is Peterka might be a more useful 5-on-5 middle six winger than VO, and should a better contract than the $5 million Re-signed VO. A team that adds Quinn and Kane isn’t going to need a PP specialist nearly as much as we did this year. It’s just asset allocation.

Trading VO is more about cap and roster space moving forward than it is about the player: Skinner and Tuch are in the top 6 for a while. Peterka and Quinn are challenging. One of our young centres is going to switch to the wing. Rosen and more might be coming. Kane and Olofsson is cap expense that is probably better allocated elsewhere. I see Kane more as an Olofsson upgrade that better fits our cap. You can wait, but one of them will have to get moved.

Not arguing your point, but are we still undersized? I mean we aren't a rugged team, and I'd like to get stronger. But I think we've taken some steps away from being a team that gets pushed around. Guys like Cozens and Mitts aren't small. Skinner is fire hydrant, Okposo is a brick, Girgs is a train. And our two best forwards average like 6'5, 220 pounds — that's pretty rare.

When you think about from the Hawks perspective, moving pending UFAs Kane and or Toews right now does make some sense. The team is a disaster on and off the ice and is clearly planning to tank next year. I'm not sure those two are going to embrace the ends of their careers as being the guys who keep the ship steady as the team goes through that. And on the ice their presence still has the power to get in the way of that. Why not clear the decks now, as opposed to waiting until the deadline?

It's contract related. He's an RFA and a lot of analysts say the Sabres are reluctant to make a top 6 commitment to him with Skinner already on the books and Quinn, Peterka, Rosen and others coming behind him. I'm not entirely in that camp, but I do see how he has value as a trade chip and how his contract demands and the pipeline could influence the Sabres thinking.

This 100 %. The issue comes less from the individual team and more misplaced faith that consensus means something. Brad Lambert at 10ish on some lists and 30ish on other doesn't make him a consensus 20ish pick, it means he could go anywhere from the early teens to into the 2nd depending on who else was available when the teams that like him pick. Same with guys who are perceived to be on the other end of that scale like, say, a Chesley or an McGroarty. I think there is a good chance Yurov is probably going to be the best player available at 9 and teams will regret passing on him if he goes in the late teens or 20s.

Best recent comparable would be Claude Giroux, who was also a pending UFA with a big ticket, and a full no-move clause. He got a (presumably late) 1st and a 23-year-old former 10th overall pick yet to fully make the NHL #16 is better than either of those assets. #28 and Ryan Johnson seems very much in the ballpark. I stand by my Olofsson and Portillo offer as reasonable under the circumstances. The key would be Kane wanting to be here and having a full-no trade. He can pretty much dictate his destination, giving Adams tremendous control over the price. The only lever the Hawks have is timing and Adams can afford to wait. After fiascos like Hasek and Hall, it would be nice to be on the other side of one of those situations. This situation and whether it proceeds is entirely in Patrick Kane's hands.

It wasn’t that long ago that Donnie Granato was an assistant coach with the Blackhawks. Any concerns about fit should be easily addressed there. Conversely questions Kane would have about our direction would also have to be influenced by that.