Archie Lee

I agree. I like Mangiapane as a target, but I don’t think he should cost #11.

That was me, I think. I apologize. Lesson learned.

Cool. A lot of hockey fans would not begin to understand how someone would get information or value or satisfaction out of posting 44,000 times on a hockey discussion forum. We all have our things we enjoy and don't enjoy.

I'm not making a prediction. Honestly, I'm about to express a rather uniformed impression that I have of Östlund. He gives me Asplund vibes (size, background, post-draft production, uncertainty if he can be a centre in the NHL, etc.).

Acknowledging I have seen very little of any of the players in this draft, from all that I have read and the little I have seen, I would be thrilled with anyone in that top 11.

Until we see otherwise, I think the post-off-season roster will be closer to this than we are hoping. Goalies will be UPL and Levi. The D looks mostly right, though I don’t think Clague will be on the team. It will be Johnson or an underwhelming UFA, like Brendan Smith. I think we do trade a prospect or #11 for a 3C and that our general reaction will be of disappointment in the return (Jenner for #11 is the ceiling, Laughton for Rosen and a lesser pick the floor). We will come in $3-5 million under the cap. For some fans it will be surprising how close to the cap we are, but the reality is there is only room for one big move or two-three moderately big moves. I don’t see this as “Sabre fan end of the world”. I think it is possible that adding a veteran 3C combined with better coaching, some bounce back years and maturation, will get us close and maybe into a WC spot. But we will not be going into training camp thinking this is a playoff team. Rather, we will be thinking this is a playoff team “IF” a lot of things go right that are far from sure-bets to go right.

I appreciate what you are saying. But it is not the case that there is little to no chance that Kulich or Savoie will beat out a veteran, established, important player (Tuch, Cirelli, Kane, Cozens) who the Sabres paid a high-price to obtain and/or pay a big salary to. There is no chance. It only happens if something unexpected goes wrong, like an injury or a veteran showing up terribly out of shape. Kulich being better in training camp than Patrick Kane as example (who would be one of the biggest offseason signings in Sabre history) is not going to get Kulich the start in game one over Kane. (queue Allen Iverson: "Training Camp? We're talking Training Camp?").

There is zero chance that Adams brings in two established top-9 players through trade/free agency and then gets to the end of camp and puts them in the press-box because Savoie and Kulich looked better in a couple of pre-season games against Columbus.

This isn't how it works though. If Adams has the sort of off-season you reference, our forwards look something like this (assuming no Skinner buyout and that Krebs is part of the trade for the 3C). Skinner/Thompson/Tuch Peterka/Cozens/Kane Benson/Cirelli/Quinn Greenway/Gritty/Gritty Barring injury, there is no space for Kulich or Savoie. As you say they aren't suited for the 4th line. The only player in the top 9 who I could even remotely imagine them benching to start the season, for reasons other than health, would be Skinner. While it could happen, it is not likely to happen, even if Kulich and Savoie look better in camp/pre-season. They aren't going to sign Kane and give up a boatload for Cirelli and then get to the end of pre-season and put those two in the press-box because Savoie and Kulich looked better in camp. Apply the same idea to Tuch/Thompson or Peterka/Cozens. It's not going to happen. I'm not trying to be a wanker here. The reason Benson made the team last year is because they left a spot open for a prospect to make the top 9. The only way Kulich or Savoie make the team out of camp this year is if they leave a spot open (ie: no Kane in this scenario) or if there is an injury.

I don’t think this is how it works in practical terms. In practical terms good teams fill holes with players whose performance is, for the most part, predictable. I disagree with the narrative that Benson busted down the door last year. I think the Sabres left a spot open for the best prospect in camp and then demanded so little from their vets in camp that Benson, a confident, tenacious, talented kid, rose above others. It should never have been an option though.

Dallas is a model for how to integrate youth into a veteran ready to win NHL line-up. In 20-21 they added 20 year old Robertson and 21 year old Oettinger. The next year Thomas Harley. The next Wyatt Johnston and Ty Dellandrea. This past year Stankovan. Next year will probably be Mavrik Bourque, who will be 23 (there should be no rush). Over the same period we added, often at a younger age: Cozens, Krebs, Samuelsson, Quinn, Power, Peterka, Luukkonen, Benson and, I would say, Levi. We may well add more youngsters this coming season as Kulich, Savoie, Rosen and Johnson are nearing readiness to be NHL players. While the situations are different, the results were predictable. We have added too many young players too quickly to a roster that did not have a base of veterans or a veteran coach (Dallas had Bowness and DeBoer) that could help them thrive. I agree that we need to add veterans this off-season who make it near impossible for our forward prospects to make the team out of camp. If one of them knocks the door down, fine. If one or two are having a strong year in Rochester and then get an injury call-up and never look back, great. If we are trading assets this off-season, my preference is that we move a prospect or two instead of #11. Move one or two kids who are nearing NHL readiness for a player who helps us over the next 2-4 years, and use our picks to keep the pipeline stocked.

I have no great issue with this. At the right price he is fine for the 4th line. Buying out Skinner would do far more for a culture change and to create space for a new type of player than moving on from Girgs. I’ve seen more than a few posts about Radek Faksa being a possible target (bottom 6 player who has a history with Ruff). I’m not sure I could come up with two players whose careers are closer to identical than Faksa and Girgs. One just had the misfortune of being drafted by the Sabres.

Completely agree on the last paragraph. Mostly because we have more prospects than will fit in the next two seasons (even accounting for a bust or two), and it would be better to move two existing high-end prospects out and bring in a new one.

I think there are times when a team needs to put off the longer term deal and take the opposite risk that it might cost more to extend a player down the road. The best teams in the league are examples. I’m certain that Dallas would have loved to lock Oettinger and Robertson up long-term. If they had done so though, then there would have been no Pavelski or no Marchment or poorer depth. Likewise, Florida could have locked up Bennett, Verhaeghe or even Reinhart, to longer term deals, but the price would have meant a reduction in overall depth and talent. Ditto Edmonton with Bouchard. At some point, a team needs to shift emphasis away from planning for the future towards icing the best possible team in the present.

Re: Joshua. I was listening to a Leafs’ podcast yesterday and the hosts briefly spoke of Joshua as a UFA candidate. They rather quickly dismissed him for the Leafs due to cost and mentioned that they heard, or think, Joshua will be looking for the Mason Marchment deal. Two years ago Marchment signed as a UFA with Dallas for 4 x $4.5. At first I thought that was a bit rich for Joshua. Then I looked deeper and saw that prior to getting his contract, Marchment had played only 91 NHL games and produced 20 goals and 58 points and 71 pms. He was 27 at the time (29 now). Joshua is 28 but has played 184 games and produced 33 goals and 64 points and 143 pms. Maybe the Marchment contract for Joshua isn’t so out of line. He is the sort of player we are missing.

The hockey scouting world is filled with brothers, sons, nephews, old teammates and buddies. Some of them turn out to be good at it. All indications are that this leaves Forton with more, not less, responsibility when it comes to amateur scouting and the draft. I think the Sabres have drafted well the last 5-6 years, so I can’t say this bothers me.

I don’t think we should proceed without foresight either. I just don’t think we should be waiting for players on ELCs to earn big raises before we prioritize being good. I think we probably agree on that. If we make moves this off-season that help us make the playoffs and Quinn and Peterka have such great years that they earn big contracts and the moves we made prevent us from keeping both players, that isn’t tragic. It’s the price of doing business. I’m not saying we should be reckless, but we should not be waiting on something that might not occur.

I wholly agree with the sentiment. I also think $8 million for Lindholm would be a mistake. We should prioritize buying out Skinner, getting UPL extended and then using the $25 million left to rework the roster into that of a playoff team. Next year is next year. I’m not saying we should be reckless, but we should not be worrying about how we are going to pay Peterka, Quinn and Byram. Best case scenario is things go well for the team and its players, and a year from now some very tough decisions need to be made.

I like Benson and Quinn a lot and would be reluctant to move them. You and and a few others see more potential than I think is there though. Both can be high-level NHL players. It is highly unlikely that either will ever be seriously considered worthy of being the center-piece of a trade for an elite player such as MacKinnon.

When you say that you have no interest in touching the top 6 players you list, do you mean that you have no interest in trading any of them or do you mean that you actually project them as our top 6? I wouldn’t be thrilled about moving any of them, but would move Quinn, Peterka or Benson in the right deal (a benefit of having those 3 AND Kulich, Rosen, Savoie, Wahlberg, Östlund, Neuchev is that it allows flexibility to trade for a better player). Still, the deal would have to be really good. As a current top 6 though, this group is weak and a lot would need to go right for it to be playoff level. Basically at least 2 of Thompson, Tuch, Cozens will need to return to 22-23 form and at least 2 of the young wingers need to take significant leaps forward. It is possible this will happen, but not something that can be counted on my view.

It would be difficult I think for us to emulate either of the current cup final teams. We just don't have the high-end forward talent (there is no emerging McDavid, Draisaitl, Barkov or Tkachuk here). We are perhaps close to a different team that just lost though, Dallas. We have a Heiskanen (maybe a couple in Dahlin and Power). We might have an Oettinger (UPL, maybe Levi). We have several candidates to be Robertson (Quinn, Peterka...). I think we have a Hintz (Cozens). We have a Stankoven (actually, a better Stankoven in Benson). Not quite the same, but we have some vets who can play high end roles like Seguin, Duschene and Pavelski did for Dallas (Thompson, Tuch, maybe Skinner still). We have a Lindell (Samuelsson). We need a Marchment, a Faksa, a Dadonov, a Tanev. Oh, and a Wyatt Johnston would be nice (maybe we get that kind of boost from the big trade everyone is hoping for, not someone as young as Johnston but perhaps as impactful over a 3-4 year period). If well managed, this is quite doable I think.

I'm not disputing this is true. But, the situation is a bit unusual in that for reasons that aren't entirely clear or obvious we decided to promote him to the NHL when we had no spot for him to play his projected natural position in the lineup. In 35 AHL games Krebs produced 36 points. We had no spot for him in the top 9 on promotion, so he ends up playing 4th line with Okposo/Girgs/Robinson. That's not a knock against those players, but Krebs's production is not out of line with what 4th liners produce. Florida's 4th line C for much of the year has been Kevin Stenlund, who had 15 points in 81 regular season games and has 1 point in 17 playoff games. It just seems to me that we want Krebs to produce at a level that warrants his place in the Eichel trade while he gets the same sort of minutes and line-mates that the Kevin Stenlunds of the NHL get. I think Krebs could have produced 40+ points had he the opportunity to play the season with two of Tuch, Quinn, Peterka, Cozens, Thompson.

While it is technically possible to add two players of this calibre without a Skinner buyout, it will not leave for great 4th line additions. Also, it would not make much sense to do this without a Skinner buyout as none of these players are 4th liners and we would run out of positions for our existing NHL forwards. Not to mention the "and it won't stop there" portion. Hopefully a Skinner buyout, or significant retention on a Skinner trade (less likely), is part of the monetary ramifications here.

Agreed. The only way this happens is if we are paying big and the Wild are looking to do a reset for after the Parise/Suter contracts are up. #11/Krebs/pick a prospect.

Never say never. but it is hard for me to see Ek being on the table. His contract is amongst the most team-friendly in the NHL. He has a 10 team no trade, which doesn't automatically mean we are a no-go, but it doesn't increase the odds. It would be great though as he would arguably be our best forward if we acquired him. He isn't a 3C, that's for certain. I don't think the Wild are in an awful spot re: the cap, though. They are in no position to make big upgrades this off-season, but they have more than enough space to fill out their roster with some bottom pairing d-men and 4th line forwards. I have to think their plan is to get through the year and then they get around $12 million in cap relief when the Parise/Suter buyouts settle into a nominal amount for the next 4 seasons. They won't get better this year or next by moving out one of their top 4 players who is on a very team-friendly deal. Also, just a little nit-pick on the Wild being in a bad cap spot "thanks to the Parise buyout". They are not in a bad spot because of the Parise, and Suter, buyouts. They are in a bad spot because those contracts were handed out to begin with. Had they not bought them out they would be in the precise bad spot re: the cap. Just like if we buy Skinner out (which we may have to in order to do the deals @tom webster is indicating), it won't be the buyout that puts us in a bad spot 2 years from now (with a $6.44 million hit). It was the contract that put us in that spot, and without a buyout we will be in an even worse spot 2 years from now (with a $9 million dollar cap hit).