Archie Lee

We currently have one player on our roster over the age of 30 and indications are he will be gone in the next week. We are going to be one of the youngest teams in the NHL again next year. If the Sabres have a 90+ point season and miss by a point or two, it will mean that multiple young players have had really good seasons. There is no question that if they come that close and many of their young players have strong years, that the Sabres will still be viewed as a team on the rise. I'm not offering a "hot take" here. Your well-earned cynicism aside, really young teams that come really close are viewed positively. Nobody, or almost nobody, is saying it would be wrong to fire Adams if they miss. All some of us are saying is that there is pretty clearly a scenario where the Sabres miss again and Adams isn't fired and where him and Ruff together will get the two years on their contracts.

I think Pronman has a network of NHL scouts who he speaks with regularly to get feedback on his evaluations and rankings and who do share their opinions with him on such things as this. I also think that the assessment in that article that our prospects (specifically Savoie, Östlund and Rosen) have not held their draft value is correct. That doesn't mean they hold no value, though.

Sure, but again, who is collecting the data? I'm assuming it isn't A.I.. The person who is charting the outcome of puck battles in Spokane will be different than the person who is doing it in Oshawa who is different from the person doing it in Stockholm. Some of these data points seem subjective to me. I'm not suggesting analytics are not valuable or that they are fake or anything of the sore, but I can't personally fathom how data for all these leagues/teams/players can be consistently reliable.

The off-season is time for optimism. The Skinner buyout talks have given my optimism level a bit of a boost. The buyout in itself won't improve the team in my view, but if the plan is to spend the savings then there is great opportunity for improvement. I also think it sends a message to players around the league that the Sabres are serious about getting this turned around, which might have a small impact on the willingness of some to consider Buffalo as a destination. What I didn't like about Adams's comments in the press conference is the continued "We are open to anything" narrative. I don't expect him to layout his plan and nothing that he said indicates that there is no plan, but being open to anything is really not the positive thing that he seems to think it is. He said (as with every time he speaks) that he has spoken to every team. He goes on to say we are willing to trade #11 and/or prospects to get better and also that we are willing to move down in the draft and even that we are willing to move up in the draft. That doesn't sound like a man with a plan to me. It sounds like a man who went to every team in the league and said he is open for business and who is hoping someone makes him an offer that will make his team better. What we really want is a man who has a clear plan to make the team better and is aggressively pursuing the actions that will make the plan come to fruition. Again, nothing he said means he isn't the latter guy, but he continues to come across, to me, like the former guy.

The part that I struggle with is: where is the data coming from on 32,000 draft eligible players? The article references puck management, puck battles, back checking, defensive commitment as measurable data points. Some of these seem a bit subjective to me. Unless I'm missing something, an actual human being (or many human beings) would need to watch games and focus on individual players in order to track such data points? Asking because I don't know the answer, not out of skepticism: How is this done? Who does it? How can it be certain that the data is reliable? With a prospect like Benson who has eyes on him all the time, I get it. But when you get deeper into the pool, it's hard for me to fathom that this level of data exists or can be considered consistently reliable. Again, I'm not really doubting so much as I'm struggling to comprehend.

I would be surprised (not shocked) if the Sabres buyout Skinner and then don't spend at least 50% of the saved space, taking them to within $2-4 million of the cap. I can't imagine a more disastrous outcome to the season than using a Skinner buyout to scrimp, only to miss again while Skinner goes on to playoff games. The Sabers missing and Skinner being in the playoffs could easily happen (I might argue that it could be likely to happen), but for the organization to not even try to capitalize on the cap savings to better the team would be bordering on scandalous, I think. Also, I think you and some others are drawing some conclusions that aren't really there to be drawn. 1.) The "Ruff won't stand for it" and "Ruff is running the show" view that I read quite often is wishful thinking I think. Ruff put up with a lot of junk from cheap Sabre owners before. Maybe he is now in a spot in life where he is demanding things of ownership and management, but I doubt it. I'm sure his opinion is valued and that he will be involved in the off-season roster moves, but I don't see any reason to think Adams isn't the GM in the sense that every other team has a GM who ultimately is responsible for the roster. Ruff will coach the team he is given, I think. 2.) A lot of people have concluded that this is a playoffs or bust year for Adams. I have not seen or heard anything from Pegula or Adams that indicates that to be the case. I can certainly imagine a scenario where things go so badly that a change practically is forced on Pegula. I can also easily imagine, though, a scenario where we finish somewhere between where we did in the last two seasons, miss by a few points, and the general consensus in the hockey world is that the Sabres remain a young team pointed in the right direction and an Adams firing is not even a consideration. I agree that time starting to run out on the Adams tenure, but I don't think it is close to being a playoffs or bust year.

The latest Athletic Mock (podcast) has Iginla falling to us. They think Calgary will go defence.

That's logical to me when you look at the background's of the two players; Demko up to his signing date on that deal and UPL to today. They have quite similar trajectories. With a Swayman signing by Boston, a $5 million cap hit would put UPL tied for 15th among goalies with Demko, Saros, Ullmark (who will all likely surpass $5 million on their next contracts), Lehner and Cal Peterson. Oettinger and now Skinner, will get more on their next deals. It's a risk, but something around 5x5 is not crazy to lock UPL up.

I can't remember if it was before the Krueger hiring or before Granato was made permanent, but Knoblach was mentioned as a candidate for the Sabres at one point. Not sure if it was just a media-type running a list of potential candidates or if he actually was on a short-list.

I’m not saying you are wrong on the culture piece or on Ruff wanting him gone, though I don’t have reason to think Skinner is horrible for team culture or that Ruff refuses to work with him (Ruff has coached many one-dimensional forwards in his career). I do think that to focus on culture is to also overlook some cold hard facts that just support it is time to move on from Skinner: - Skinner is currently tied with Kaprizov as the 25th highest paid forward in the league - Of the 24 forwards who make more than Skinner, last season only one produced less (Backstrom, who was limited to 8 games by injury) - Skinner was 107th among forwards in points - He is at an age where there can be diminishing returns. - A buyout before the end of his contract might now be inevitable - The short-term buyout cost does not get appreciably better if you wait until next season and if you proceed now you gain $7.55 million in space to remake the line-up in a critical year As fans, we are actually remarkably easy on Skinner. Players who make what he makes are expected to be the difference for their teams. We don’t expect this from him. In a year where we needed our $9 million player to produce 35 goals / 70 points and pull us towards the playoffs, he was really bad. He is just nowhere close to being a $9 million player and if they act now they have a real opportunity to make major change.

It does seem that this is a real possibility now. Not that I expect Adams to shut down every crazy rumour, but if there was talk of a Dahlin or Power trade I think he would put that to rest in a hurry. That he didn’t just say “we aren’t buying out Jeff Skinner” suggests to me it is at least an option if things fall a certain way.

I’m not sure I follow. I don’t necessarily think Adams can or will pull of a big trade for a top 6 forward. If he does though and the outcome is we need to buy out Skinner to make it all work, that is a positive While not a sure thing by any means, buying out Skinner could actually represent an end of the dysfunction. Teams who are eating millions of dollars in dead cap space because of bad contracts, were well represented in the playoffs (and cup final).

The Sabres will be taking an enormous risk to their already bad reputation, if they buy him out and don’t utilize the cap space to improve their team. If they go cheap, don’t make the playoffs and Skinner signs on and thrives with a playoff team, I can only imagine the reaction of fans and media. If they are worried about the future cap implications of a buyout followed by taking on new long-term contracts, then there is a long-list of veteran players who are one-two years from UFA status, who teams might be looking to move, who don’t all have trade protection, and who could help remake our line-up. There have been rumblings about Adams trying to acquire a top 6 winger. My best guess is that Skinner will only be bought out if this happens. The additions Adams has commonly spoken of, would not require a Skinner buyout to make work. Add a $6-8 million winger and it will get tight to add a (good) 3c and upgrades to the bottom of the line-up. The buyout window starts 48 hours after the last playoff game and then ends on June 30. If we don’t see a big Sabre acquisition before free agency, then I don’t think there will be a buyout.

It could be both. It could be that the Hurricane's GM thought it was time to move Skinner for something rather than lose him for nothing and that the head coach thought Skinner wasn't a great fit for what he wanted to do. The part of all this that I reject is that Carolina could not have turned it around, and that we can't now turn it around, with Skinner. Of course, Skinner has been a factor in the performances of every team he has been on. But he is not the reason the Sabres have missed the playoffs the last 6 years. That said, if Pegula is willing to spend the cap savings that would be gained with a buyout next week, then there is without question a better team that could be built without Skinner.

Is this the beginning of a full sell-off for Calgary?

Added to the one or two good players we can add with the cap space available before a buyout? Absolutely it is enough for a major overhaul (top 6 forward, 2-3 bottom 6 forwards, top 4 D and even a b/u goalie if you want to go crazy).

If the Sabres buyout Skinner and don’t utilize the cap space saved to remake the roster, then it will reinforce my current view that we don’t operate like a typical NHL team that has the primary goal of winning. My preference for a buyout is directly linked to the opportunity that exists for a major roster overhaul; the sort of overhaul where when it is done nobody would say: “what this team could really use is a one-dimensional goal scorer who makes 30-60% more than he is worth (depending on his year to year production levels)”. As with everything, we’ll see.

I’m all on board for a buyout. I still don’t think it happens, but I am 100%. But I don’t buy the Carolina got better because they dumped Skinner thing. Skinner was a year from UFA and Carolina’s options for a move were limited due to his NMC. They got what they could for him before losing him for nothing. I’m not saying he is a fit with a Brind’Amour team (he isn’t), but if I was going to weight the impact of Brind’Amour becoming head coach and Skinner’s departure on Carolina’s ascension, it would be 100% on Brind’Amour becoming coach.

It all depends on what they do with the roster. Make the right moves and a buyout can make us a better team.

I’m not an expert on this, but the Sabres are not able to waive Skinner because of his NMC. Yet, they can buy him out. So I don’t think you need to waive a player first. I suspect this is just the Rangers hoping he will be claimed or that a team will reach out about a trade that works better for them than a buyout.

Maybe I am overstating his negative value a bit. In a world where he has no NMC, yeah, maybe a team takes him for nothing and maybe even returns something. As is though, the trade partners will be few, if any, and I think we would need to give up an asset to make the deal, even at 50%.

In response to your reasons: 1.) I am trying to understand, but can't begin to see how it is "far" more tolerable waiting a year. "Ever so slightly" more tolerable? Sure. "Far" more. I just don't see where people are getting this. The math does not lie. The difference between a buyout this year and next is $444K per year from 2025/26 through 2028/29 and then only in year-six, 2029/30, do we have one year with a significant difference ($2.44 million). 2.) I don't think the Sabres should worry about what other teams do and should just worry about icing the best possible team we can this year. 3.) It would be wrong, in my opinion, post- buy-out, to look at any particular contract or contracts and say "this is what we bought with the Skinner buyout". If we buyout Skinner it opens up a multitude of options that just don't exist without a buyout. We could add a player like Necas in a trade and upgrade the bottom 6 with players who will earn more than your average 4th line player and pursue an upgrade to the top 4 D (DeMelo, Roy, Tanev). No single upgrade would be directly because of a buyout, but rather the upgrades in total are possible, in part, because of a buyout. My 1st choice would be a trade also. The barriers to this are too significant to overcome though.

I suspect Skinner's trade value is negative. We would need to attach a substantial asset to get a team to take him, even at 50% retention. I am no more down on Skinner than I ever was. I have no reason to think he is a locker room cancer, I don't think he is a significant contributory factor to his teams always missing the playoffs (on balance, he has been a net-positive for his teams over his career, I think), it would not be at all shocking if he signed with another team, posted 30 goals and 60 points and made it to the playoffs. He just isn't worth $9 million and since we may well need the $4.5 - $5.0 million in cap space next season, that comes with a buyout this year or next, I think the time is right to strike and take advantage of the extra $7.5 million that you can use this year with a buy out before month-end. I do not understand how people can compare buyout numbers for this season and next season and continue to conclude that there is benefit to waiting. The only substantive benefit to waiting comes 6 seasons from now in 2029-30. By then the cap could be $100 million; the $2.44 million in dead cap in 2029-30 should just not be a factor in this.

I realize that what Adams has laid out in this article has not exactly been given "the universal stamp of approval" by Sabres fans, but I'm a bit surprised that this is what some fans wanted to hear. All we need is a bottom 6 upgrade (including a C), some grit and D depth? That's what people wanted to hear? It might be enough. If the still unproven goaltending holds up. If multiple players have significant bounce-back years or take big steps forward production-wise. It would be nice, in my view, to add at least one catalyst-type player to the top-6. Not that I expect Adams to telegraph his plans for a player trade or UFA acquisition, by any means. I was kind of hoping though, if not expecting, that we would do more than tinker with the edges of the line-up, which is what it sounds like he is planning to do.

I can’t access the article. Without having read it, sounds like he thinks the core group is ready and does not need to be upgraded and that changes in head coach and to the “make-up” of the bottom of the line-up are what was and is needed. Is that a fair assessment or am I being too simplistic in my interpretation.