dudacek

And people are taking my initial post far more seriously than it was intended. I was just having a random chuckle about how even when we seem to agree on some things some times, we never completely agree on anything.

To me, it's about Skinner not being a player they want getting prime ice time any more and him being a net negative player if he's in a lesser role. It's kinda like the Diggs trade. He can still play, but the team feels its better off big picture making the move. The Sabres don't necessarily have to spend up to the cap, but they have to make follow-up moves that show a top 9 that looks more effective than it did before they cut him. I think Skinner's likability to the marketing department far outweighs his likability to his coaches.

Or multiple useful players. There's no point doing it if they aren't going to spend the money.

Trusted source: "It's not done yet and maybe there's a chance it may not happen, but the sabres look like they're going to buy out Skinner. I know (guy who should know) says Skinner's agency has been warned. They're trying to keep this quiet while the agency looks for an alternative, so you definitely cannot report this as done or in any way tie it to me." Friedman: "But, you know, I always try to be careful with what I say unless I 100% know. So I can't say 100% it's going to happen, but it's definitely out there."

Sabrespace: We need to get bigger and better defensively. Also Sabrespace: not Greenway! Sabrespace: We need to add a top 4 defenceman. Also Sabrespace: not Byram! Sabrespace: We need to trade one of the young guys to shake up the core. Also Sabrespace: not Mittelstadt! Sabrespace: We need to be more accountable and start playing the right way. Also Sabrespace: not Skinner! There is no such thing as a hive mind around here. 😄

Forgive the self-quoting, but we were talking about this earlier.

It does not make sense if: A) you believe Skinner is a good fit within the type of roster/system the Sabres want to run this year under Ruff B) you believe the Sabres have no intention of using the cap savings this creates over the next two seasons. It makes sense if they are filling the cap and roster vacuum with a better fit. If the league’s longest playoff drought continues while the league’s longest playoff player drought ends in a Stanley Cup, you know the curse is real.

The gist of the post remains the ongoing willful blindness to a big part of Dahlin's game. I remain thankful.

Effectively trading Kane for Skinner is a big win in my books. As is Skinner playing a regular shift in Toronto.

The tea leaves don’t always point to where you think, but I’ve certainly noticed numerous signs that point to Skinner not being in their plans. Not so much a cancer as a symbol of the change that they think is needed. At the very least you move Quinn/Peterka/Benson up the depth chart and create roster space for “an addition who plays the right way”. Do you want Skinner on the top line or PP and if he’s not do you want him moping the way he has in Buffalo any time he’s been removed from that role? But the cap space could be huge if they actually have plans to spend it. Theoretically, it allows you to replace Skinner with a $7M player without affecting your plans elsewhere on your roster. To me - someone who’s not a Skinner fan - that’s big. Also fits with @tom webster’s report of Pegula needing to sign off on a big spend. @Flashsabre @nfreeman I think the Skinner tweet is worthy of its own thread and this conversation should be moved there.

Mostly fair? He says this: "And when I look at our forward group, I get excited because I think we have a core of guys that are at good ages. Now they’ve got some experience." But also this: "We’re spending a lot of time looking at (center) when you make a trade. As excited as you are about acquiring Bo, you lose a player like (Casey Mittelstadt), so how do you fill those positions?" I agree that Adams is very aware of the message he sends to the fan base and read his statements through that filter. But i have never considered him to be deceptive. When he's laid out his plans in the past, he's generally followed through: "not going to block", "we like our goalies" "we'd like to add some experience and PK to the blue line" "It's no secret we've been looking for a top 4 defenceman" "we want players who want to be here". So when he says he's trying to make the bottom 6 harder to play against, yes, I do take that at face value, and feel pretty comfortable about doing so. What are you skeptical of and why?

Not sure how much of this is new, but if you want an idea of the game plan, I don’t think Kevyn can spell it out any more plainly: Upgrade the bottom 6, add a centre, make sure there’s depth on D, give Lindy the situational tools he needs. https://buffalonews.com/sports/professional/nhl/sabres/buffalo-sabres-kevyn-adams-q-and-a-zemgus-girgensons-ukko-pekka-luukkonen/article_523767c2-2cac-11ef-9f0b-a31a30eb32c8.html Girgensons, Jokiharju, pick 11, it’s all touched on.

And this was very much the context of what he said. Interviewer asks what the priorities are over the next month, Lindy brings up toughness, interviewer follows up with question about tough guys, Lindy says it’s a tool he likes to have. Starts just after 23 minutes. Interesting interview overall.

Not sure who caught Lindy’s recent lengthy Buffalo TV interview, but he pretty much said he wants to add somebody who can chuck ‘em. Not in so many words, but in response to a question about it, he acknowledged he’s a coach who likes to have “tools” and said a young team can use somebody who makes them feel brave. Said he’s had many, many conversations with Kevyn about what the team needs.

Agree with this too. And the other variable of course is the youth of new group. How it matures (or get flipped as assets) matters. I really need to know how good a lot of the current players actually are.

I know this thread is about trades, but as @Thorny does a good job reminding us, it not really about winning trades and making great picks, as much as it's about the roster. This is what Adams has done in terms of transforming the roster Kept: Thompson, Skinner, Cozens, Dahlin, Jokiharju (Bryson?) Out: Eichel, Reinhart, Mittelstadt, Hall, Staal, Eakin, Asplund, Lazar, Sheahan, Reider, McCabe, Montour, Ristolainen, Miller, Ullmark, Hutton (Okposo, Girgensons, Olofsson?) In: Tuch, Quinn, Peterka, Benson, Greenway, Krebs, Power, Byram, Samuelsson, Clifton, Johnson, Luukkonen, Levi (???) I don't think there's any question the five or six best players who left are better right now than the 5 or 6 best players he replaced them with.

All I was really getting at was that I don't know if publicly available numbers reflect my perceptions or not but I'm not sure they'd have to because I expect the Sabres to be using different (and better) resources to collect data. But I think your last sentence reflects my perception of Yakemchuk's game too. And I think likely the Sabres priorities. Entries and exits are a far more important part of an NHL defenceman's game than goals and hits.

Flash got the nut of it. I think NHL teams don’t use the same analytics that we see widely quoted, but Yakemchuk strikes me as a “charges at windmills” type whose flawed details wouldn’t stand up well under that lens.

The difference is Cozens had a track record leading up to his breakout, which happened the year he turned 22. Joshua has no track record and his breakout happened at 27.

Agreed. He’s where type and need might intersect for the Sabres. I just don’t know if he’s skilled enough to be in play at 11.

Yakemchuk seems a needs fit, doesn't seem a type fit. I'm not being all "he's big and gets PMs and the the Sabres only take small offensive guys" here. The Sabres "type" under Adams/Forton/Ventura is better described as "plays fast, self-starter, hockey IQ, growth curve" with a good analytics base. Measurables and tools matter, but they aren't the first thing this group looks at. I'm no expert on his game, but Yakemchuk comes across as more uneven than the type I'd expect this executive team to hone in on with such a high pick, given some of the others around him. Out of Sliayev, Levshunov, Yakemchuk, Buium, Parekh, Dickinson, Iginla, Lidstrom, Sennecke, Helenius, Catton, I'm betting our war room is praying Iginla or Buium drop as two guys they rate higher than the average team. I also think Sennecke's rapid rise has caught their eye and I wonder what their analytics team has to say about Eiserman, who I suspect has been the subject of a deep dive. Helenius and Catton scream Sabre picks to me.

Last year’s team had 84 points, the team prior to the Eichel trade-off had a prorated 54. Hope we’re slightly better next season too.

Again, they play very different styles, but I see the similarities; smallish, smart, hard-working Swedish centres. Asplund played the game the right way in my opinion. He didn’t make it simply because he wasn’t talented enough to carry his strengths over at the NHL level. Östlund has the same diligent approach, but appears to be more talented than Asplund: better skater, better passer, harder shot. If he doesn’t make it it will be because he isn’t strong enough to carry his strengths over. Asplund wasn’t tall, but he was solid. Östlund is thicker than he was when we drafted him but he’s still pretty slight.

To me, “absolutely disagree” means you think the Sabres can be fixed by just a couple of prime free agents, but that’s not what the rest of your post talks about. You clearly think the Sabres need to make additions, which I clearly think and wrote as well. What exactly are we disagreeing about?

They’re both quick, but Noah Östlund plays a considerably different game to Ennis. Ennis was a one-on-one player who made plays stickhandling. Östlund is a give-and-go player who generally moves the puck as quickly as he gets it.