Archie Lee

Well, that's why I included the sentence re: the intent of the question. I'm not interested in being the "semantics cop" on this, but I don't consider McLeod to be a 2/3C.

I agree with this. And, what makes it frustrating to me (and what some might interpret as arrogance) is that had Adams acted to address the structural imbalance and forward depth last off-season, it would not have required him to disrupt or dramatically alter the script/roadmap. If we had made the equivalent moves last off-season, we still would have been one of the league's youngest teams (younger actually) and kept one of the top 3-5 prospect pools, as remains the case on both points at the moment.

If the initial intent of the questions were not to be specific about a top 6 forward or a 2/3C, but rather to just ask "will Adams do anything else?", then I guess the no's were wrong. But, looking at the actual question ("Will Adams add a 2/3C...?"), I would say that the "no's" were correct. Adams did not add a 2/3C, he added a 3/4C. Also, a lot of (most of?) McLeod's offensive production last year came when he was playing wing on a line with Draisatl. Barring a quite significant and unexpected surge offensively, McLeod is closer to a 4C or bottom-6 winger, who can play-up if needed, than he is to a 2C. My opinion, on reflection, is that depending on who thrives in camp and how the season goes, we could see our current bottom-6 level centres (McLeod, Krebs and Lafferty), move up and down the line-up and from centre to wing based on need. That is a bit of an obvious statement. But it wouldn't surprise me if McLeod was targeted as much with that in mind (roster flexibility), as it was with the idea of him being cemented as our 3C. On the topic of whether we will add a top 6 forward, my answer on this is still "no". I acknowledge that I could be completely off-base, but until proven otherwise I think the evidence supports we are operating under an internal cap of around 90% of the cap ceiling. We were one of the lowest spending teams each of the last 3 seasons and coming out of the biggest spending period of the off-season we are still one of the lowest spending teams. Based on UPL opting for arbitration, I think it is clear that the Sabres are not offering anything like a 5x5, which is not an unreasonable position for them to take, but I think shows we are not throwing around money. I suspect our 3 RFA's will come in under $7 million total and that will take us to around $80 million. I maintain that Zucker was a Canada Day pivot when it became clear an Ehlers deal was not going to get done; had we made the Ehlers deal we would not have signed Zucker. Of course, I could be very wrong.

I don't doubt this and am not of the view that Ruff has no input into the roster build that is occurring. There is a pretty clear narrative forming though, that if this is successful the credit will go to Ruff and if it fails the blame will go to Adams.

I’m sceptical. Indications seem to be that these moves have been analytics driven (speed, speed, speed). I’m not saying Ruff hasn’t had input, but I don’t see these as Ruff moves. Put another way, if these roster moves fail, I doubt many will be blaming Ruff.

I don’t think it is necessary to poke holes in Savoie’s game and progress to be good with this trade. We have a lot of prospects and can’t play them all. We have a need for a bottom six centre who can win draws and kill penalties and we got one who is young and can fly and has playoff experience. If Savoie turns into a stud, the trade is still easily justified. Also, I have no idea what this means for Krebs, but provided he is not traded I don’t think this automatically relegates him to the 4th line or bench. I think Krebs’s upside is being way undersold. We aren’t getting through the year with 12 forwards. If he is here, he will be an important part of what we do.

I can’t say I have ever viewed a player opting for arbitration as a negative as it relates to team’s reputation.

Very happy with this trade. Likely slots Krebs to line 4 and now we have 13 NHL forwards. Not earth shattering, but a solid move.

I assume it is the Ullmark addition that has people high on a big jump for Ottawa. I don't think Perron, Amadio and Jenson (less Chychrun), is more impressive than what we did with our forward group. I like Ullmark. I don't like Travis Green all that much.

There is an argument that the Sabres should have been in on Monahan. It isn’t being cute though to point out that the major difference between the Monahan and Zucker deals is not the $500K in AAV but the 4 extra years of term. In my view, you have it backwards and it is being cute to ignore the term and focus on the AAV.

In fairness, I do think his hands are tied. When asked over the past 2-3 months about the unused cap space, he has said things like “I don’t think about the cap” or “I don’t worry about spending to the cap”, as though this is his choice. The one time a reporter pressed a little on this at a year-end presser, Adams got a little frustrated and said (I’m paraphrasing): “I’ve been given the resources I need to be successful”. To me he was clearly towing the company position (the three E’s). Adams knows who pays his salary. If the owner wanted him to spend more and give up the assets necessary to make a splash, it would be done.

Roslovic: 1x$2.8 to a team that may be the most data-driven in the league. The Hurricanes think he can help them win hockey games.

The more I think on this the more convinced I am that Zucker is the replacement for the Ehlers/Necas/top-6 forward trade. Had we made a trade before noon on July 1, we would not have signed Zucker. He was the pivot.

I admire your optimism. I think the plan was always to still come in $6-8 million under the cap. The Skinner buyout was partially to save money and partially to change the make-up a bit. When the draft ended and free agency hit, Adams pivoted from trying to trade for a player like Ehlers to filling the hole by signing a veteran middle-six player who would accept a one year deal. My view is that Zucker became the off-season mid-top-6 forward add. If we had traded for Ehlers we would not have signed Zucker. Adams couldn’t be left with nothing so he acted quickly on July 1st to add someone who could plausibly fill that role. When Adams says he is still open to acquiring a top 6 forward, I think he means: “ I am not actively pursuing this, but if something falls in my lap I will look at it “. This would be the trade equivalent to the Taylor Hall signing. A “ we didn’t plan for this, but we can’t pass it up” scenario. We have our 4 goalies. We have our top six D and four options for roles 7-8. We have 12 forwards slotted into 12 available forward roles and 3-4 AHL tweener candidates for the 13th forward. We can bump a Krebs or Greenway down if one of our prospects lights up camp. We are done for the off-season. The only miss from Adams perspective is he didn’t get a top 6 forward in trade and had to settle for Zucker in free agency.

I’m not sure what we are trying to do. Let’s say we did make the trade for Ehlers and we did get him extended. He makes $6 now. I assume any extension would be at $7 million+. CapFriendly still works. Extend Ehlers at $7+ and assume short-term bridges next year of $4-4.5 for Peterka and Quinn and a little better for Byram and the money is gone. If any of our big RFAs next year have huge breakouts and warrants a long-term big money deal, then someone would have to go. My point is that whether we trade for someone or sign them as a UFA, once we start handing out long-term money to new players, cap space gets tight and the likely outcome is that a Quinn, Peterka or Byram (or Tuch, or Samuelsson) has to go. I don’t know why we weren’t in on more guys in free agency then. There is no truer test of “wanting to be here” than actually making a conscious decision to sign a contract that binds you to being here. We could have added a couple of additional players, kept our prospects and then next year made difficult decisions on who to move and started to promote the kids on ELCs. Trading for a player like Ehlers puts us in the same spot cap-wise that a UFA signing would, but also costs us some of the prospect and draft capital that we could use to replace players who price out. We lost another opportunity by not diving in to free-agency harder.

Thinking crazy thoughts. Would never happen, but Adams did say offer sheets are an option (😃). Is Lucas Raymond going to be a Panarin or Kiprazov level star? Is he already? The Red Wings need to sign Raymond and Seider. Would they match an $11.5 million offer sheet or take the 4 firsts. Would Sabre fans do this? We would want to get UPL locked up for 3x$3.75 first as that might be a retaliation option and it would be hard for us to match anything more than that. Even if Detroit matched on Raymond, it kinda messes with them. I think I might regret posting this.

You make a valid point. Maybe a better way to put it from my perspective would be that if we are going to overpay, I would rather we trade a 1st, Savoie, Kulich and the 4th piece for a better player than Ehlers or for a player who brings an element that we don't already have. I like Ehlers, I just don't think he moves the needle on the coming season much more than adding Tarasenko would.

The Blackhawks gave term to Bertuzzi (4 x $5.5) and Teravainan (3 x $5.4). I doubt we offered a 3-4 year term to anyone in free agency and I'm unconvinced that "Buffalo" would have been a factor had we been willing to offer similar or slightly better term or AAV to certain well-targeted players.

By my assessment we have space for two NHL level veterans still. Could be two forwards or one forward and one D. Atkinson has signed with Tampa and I'll rule out Pavelski as retired even if not yet official. Of the other 13 on the list I would have zero interest in Hoffman, Zadina (maybe on a two-way), Okposo, and Wheeler. The rest I would be ok with, specific to a role. Schultz or Shattenkirk with Bryson on the 4th pair? Take a low-risk chance on Pacioretty on the wing with Thompson/Tuch or Cozens/Zucker? Sure. As for Roslovic and Tarasenko, I don't know why we wouldn't pursue those two unless: 1.) We are still thinking we will get a bigger fish; or 2.) We have actually reached our internal cap projection (once we get our RFAs signed).

Having just made a point that we may need to overpay and make an offer another GM can't refuse, I now state that I don't think I make that trade even with an Ehlers extension. Ehlers is a good player who I would take on the Sabres to be sure, but I think he is too much of what we already have in Quinn and Peterka to warrant paying that high of a price. Iafallo is good also, but at his salary and production I think he was worth next to nothing in the trade market pre-draft and free-agency. Had we made that trade we likely don't sign Zucker, who we got for nothing and is at least as good as Iafallo. I think it was one piece to many. Take one of the 1st, Savoie or Rosen out and assume the 4th piece was a mid-round pick for Iafallo and it would have been reasonable.

I was looking at that and wondering if they have another vet, specifically Wilson, Carlson, or Oshie, who they know is headed to LTIR. Other than those three, and assuming Ovie isn't injured, the only player they have that they can move to get under is Strome.

I can’t say I entirely disagree. But I’ll come back to an earlier point I made, if Quinn and Peterka are worth that and are bordering on untouchable in trade (barring, say, Draisaitl wanting to come to Buffalo), then do we need another top-6 forward?

Maybe the answer is that we have to make an offer that a team like Vegas would be negligent to refuse? Krebs may be a perfectly fine 3C, but we don’t know for certain and there is the added issue of us not being entirely sure we have truly role-appropriate 1 & 2 centres. In Vegas, Krebs would just be absorbed in the line-up with Eichel, Karlsson, Hertl and Howden. If we really want to get this done, offer Krebs a protected 1st and Kulich for Roy and a 4th or something like that. It’s an overpay that Vegas might not be able to say no to. And we would still have 6 potential mid to top-six forward prospects, not to mention the 4 forwards on our NHL roster not yet 24. There are commentators around the NHL with experience who will say that there are trades to be made all over the place if you are willing to pay the price.

I would say there is an obvious type of player who has more or less written Buffalo off. These are players who have agency: they have positioned themselves where they have movement clauses and/or where they have multiple suitors. There are lots of players who aren’t in that position though. Players like Clifton, Zucker, Lafferty all would have had some, likely minimal, other options but chose Buffalo because we offered some combination of opportunity and $$$ that wasn’t available elsewhere. I fear Adams has pursued “the perfect” this off-season (a big swing trade acquisition) and has passed-up opportunities that might have been good enough (Henrique, Foegele, Wennberg), and is passing up some that might still be an option (Roslovic, Tarasenko).

I would have to know what the pieces are to comment. Ehlers would be a nice add. I’ve heard him say nice things about the Sabres over the last couple of years. Maybe that’s just how he is when it comes to speaking about opponents. I’m not sure he moves the needle much though. Obviously he is a veteran player who has played in the top 6 for an NHL playoff team, but it would not shock me if Peterka, Quinn, Benson (in some combination, if not all 3), played at his level or better as early as this year. I would just as soon: - Sign Roslovic to something that resembles the Clifton deal. He is a winger who can slide to centre if needed. Gives us middle six depth. Someone is getting injured sooner or later, so no need to agonize over where he fits from a line-make-up perspective. He would simply improve our depth and would make it 5 forwards added who played playoff games 2-3 months ago: and - Trade for Rasmus Andersson. Not the perfect fit. He has a 6 team no trade so we might not be an option. He has two years left though not one. Joker, protected 1st in 2024, one of our right shot D prospects and one of our forward prospects for Andersson, Rooney and a 3rd. Gives us a playoff calibre D (arguably our 3 worst D would have playoff experience) and more depth and grit up front