Archie Lee

My view is the top 6 isn’t solved or adequate and that we should not be limiting ourselves to only moving prospects and picks.

It is a fact, but what is the point? What does it matter if you get your top 6 forwards from the draft or free agency or waivers or in a trade for picks and prospects or in a trade for an actual NHL player? Look around the league. There are good teams who don’t have a player in their top 6 who was acquired in a trade “for picks and prospects”. How did this become a talking point? It’s not a thing. GM’s aren’t judged by how many top 6 forwards they pick up in trades for picks and prospects. Again, not defending Adams. I just don’t care how he improves the team. If we can get better by trading an actual young NHL player like Quinn or Benson, instead of picks and prospects, then do it.

I’m not defending the sum of what Adams has done to this point, but I do find the “Adams has never traded picks and prospects for a top 6 forward” argument to be a bit of a red herring. Most of us accept Thompson, Tuch, Cozens and Peterka as top 6 forwards. We also are willing to pencil one of Quinn/Benson into a top 6 role and for many of us that seems Interchangeable. Adams did draft Peterka, Quinn, Benson. I wonder if Adams could land a top 6, under 30, winger (Ehlers, Konecny, Necas, all needing extensions of course), if he was willing to part with Benson or Quinn? Would fans want this? Depth-wise we could trade Benson or Quinn and still have Zucker and Greenway as 3rd line wingers and we also have prospects who might be ready before the year is out if not from the start. If the answer to the question is “no way would I trade Benson or Quinn for one of those players”, then maybe we don’t really need to add a top 6 winger. Also, at this point I’m unconvinced Adams even has the option/authority to add such a player. Until we spend over $81 million, I am of the opinion that we have an internal cap and that Adams is mandated to not take on long-term deals in free agency. I don’t think there is a blanket view around the league that the Sabres aren’t worth the time to deal with, but there could be a kernel of truth in that maybe teams have come to realize we aren’t really serious about trading for the big fish.

I think this is accurate. I don’t see a team out there that needs to move the kind of player we are talking about, though.

Two way or one way is kinda meaningless to me as it is Pegula’s money. If Reimer gets waived and clears, his salary won’t count against the cap. That said, this is the first move that I would say has Ruff written on it for sure. Ruff doesn’t want to risk having to rely on Levi as a back-up for 25-30 games and certainly not to carry the mail if UPL flames out entirely or gets injured. I think this means, barring injury, that Levi starts in Rochester.

Tarasenko is available for free. Would have been our 4th leading scorer a year ago. Has 119 career playoff games and 2 cup rings. Would likely take a 1x5ish deal. Would push Greenway to line 4 and Aube-Kubel to13th forward. Still not great centre depth, but better overall forward depth.

If this is our team, no further additions of consequence, then we will be projected as a bottom 10 finisher and it will be impossible for me to argue otherwise. I'm fine with the changes made to line 4, but in my view we changed the make-up and style of the 4th line more than we did the likely game to game results (goals for and against). Add in that Krebs is now our 3C and that Benson is moving up in the line-up to replace Skinner, and it is hard to argue we made the bottom 6 better. We added a physical element the team needs, to be sure, but if we have a better bottom-six today than we did going into last season, I would say it is marginally so. I was very much near the lead in arguing for a Skinner buyout, but that was always on the assumption that we would spend most of the saved money on improving our depth. We didn't do that today. Barring substantial turnaround seasons from one of our top 3 forwards, we don't have a bonafide and indisputable 1st line player, we don't have a 3rd line player who can be expected to effectively move into the top 6 for a lengthy stretch, and we don't have a 4th line player who you would want playing higher in the line-up for an extended period. We might have a prospect or two who is ready for promotion to the NHL, but that is not a certainty. We missed an opportunity today to push players down in the line-up (Greenway/Krebs) that would help prevent us from floundering when injuries hit and our depth is tested. We are not good enough in our top 6 to have no upward mobility in the bottom half of our forward group. Adams is betting that Ruff is a better coach than Granato (over the last 3 season, the Sabres averaged 83 points per season, the Devils 85), that there are major bounce back seasons coming for several players (Thompson, Tuch, Cozens, Dahlin, Samuelsson), that others are going to further emerge (Quinn, Benson, Krebs, Power, Bryson, Levi), and that there won't be significant regression in others (Peterka, Luukkonen). There is not much tangible here. I'm an optimist. From here I hope for the best. I am open to the possibility and hopeful that most of the things that have to happen for this team to take a big step forward, will indeed happen. Nobody, outside of the most optimistic Sabre fan, could reasonably predict that today though.

Barring an unexpected signing like Henrique or Wennberg, or a trade, we are going to come in $7-8 million below the cap. Still things that can happen.

Lafferty is not a great answer as 4C in my view. Better as a 4th line winger who can play C if needed (ie: a tougher/grittier Girgs). Unless Malenstyn is the C? I still think we are a C short.

I get my Aube-Kubel's mixed up with my Aston-Reese's.

Wanted Stephenson, but not at that. Seattle making some desperate deals today.

Foegele to LA at 3x3.5 is a steal. Unless he just wanted to live in California, we missed out here.

As 12th/13th forward? Sure.

Maybe. We'll see what he ends up signing for elsewhere. Hard for me to imagine he wouldn't take a 5x5 to sign here. That would be an overpay, but he would make us better now than Zucker will make us, and you can figure out next year...next year.

The 3rd line isn't the issue here in my view. That's not the 2nd line of a playoff team unless at least 2 of those three take huge steps forward.

Don't really like this deal. No real issue with adding Zucker, per se, but it seems like they are worried about committing to this type of player on this AAV beyond a year, out of concern it will impact future deals for Quinn, Peterka, Byram, Levi, etc. We could have a player like Foegele in the same role, who is younger and better, if we would commit to term. Can always make moves down the road to find space or trade a good young player for picks/prospects and promote your own prospects who are ready.

At least they are in the West.

I'm missing something. Is this assuming Benson is on line 3?

Good signing. Can Play centre. Malenstyn/Krebs/Lafferty is fine as a 4th line to me.

Tanev will be on permanent LTIR no later than year 4 of that deal.

Stephenson comes with risk to be sure. I want him as an overpaid 3rd line centre without a NMC. In Vegas this year I think he was miscast as a 1st line player for much of the year due to Eichel, Karlsson and Stone missing a combined 50+ games.

A big signing (Stamkos) would be exciting. I think a better strategy is strength through depth. Give me Stephenson, Foegele and Duhaime (or something comparable), and I’m happy.

I'm torn. I watched his entire junior career and think he is great kid. I think he has some untapped offensive potential and he's pretty good defensively, kill penalties, would be good centre depth. He is not a physical or gritty player though.

I think they will add at least one more gritty forward. If they add a gritty D-man I think it will be a 7th-8th D, and I still think they will bring Brendan Smith in for that role. I don't think we will add a top-4 D.

This is likely where the concern about you misrepresenting Adams's comments comes from. Your earlier post implied that Adams said the acquisition of Malenstyn alone addressed the issue of team toughness. Maybe that isn't what you meant. Adams didn't say he is done addressing this issue, only that this player checked the boxes of what they are looking for. So, yes, if this is all they do to address team toughness it is woefully inadequate. But, Adams did not say this is all they need to do or that it is all that they plan to do.