Archie Lee

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).

I’m not quite ready to commit to this conclusion yet. Tuch is legit. In this scenario, the player acquisition who pushes Greenway to line 4 is likely at least a legit solid veteran player with some offence. After that we have question marks. Skinner is an uncertainty. I love Quinn, Peterka, and Benson, but they will be 23, 22 and 19 to start next season. All have shown signs they can be top 6 wingers in the NHL. I think there is still risk in expecting them to be this next season.

The Oilers were a pre-season cup favourite. Only the Panthers have won more playoff rounds in the last 3 playoffs (7-6) than the Oilers. They have two of the top five players in the world, an elite offensive d-man and a deep bench of players in their prime. I don’t get the Cinderella-Team narrative that is popping up here and there.

Individual games can take on a life of their own. The Oilers have outshot their opponents in 13 of 18 games in the playoffs. They aren’t a “score a couple PP goals and hang on” team.

I think what you are referring to as the headline was actually just his tweet. Also, I don’t think his tweet is all that misleading, if at all. We will almost certainly be spending in the top 5-7 when it comes to money spent on D.

With regards to Skinner, I think it will almost certainly be a combo of C&D. We won't get through the year with the same 4 wingers in the top 6, so Skinner will see some time on the 1st two lines and if he plays well and produces he may stay there. I don't think we will ever see 22/23 Skinner again, but I think a return to 21/22 Skinner is possible, if a bit unlikely. On the actual $$$ cost of a buyout, I think on principle alone Pegula might refuse to pay Skinner to play for someone else. However, from a practical standpoint (and someone who understands the cap, and math better than me can correct this if it's wrong), I don't think a buyout costs more money. The actual buyout cost (not cap hit) is $2.44 million per season x 6, or $14.67 total, as you state. But this is more than offset by the cap-penalty over 6 seasons (dead cap, or money that can't be spent). If we intend to spend to the cap ceiling, a buyout would not cost more actual $$$ (there are other factors that could come into play down the line with bonuses, LTIR, etc.). In my view, the only reason to not buy him out now is if you actually think you can get 3 useful seasons out of him relative to a $9 million cap hit. If that isn't realistic, and in my view it isn't, then the best thing to do is take advantage of the $7.55 million in savings with a buyout in 2024 and chart an entire new course for your forwards. Re: Joker, I think it will be 3 years at under $4 million, likely in the $3.5 million range. I can live with this. Next year, when Byram needs a new deal they can choose between: 1.) Trading Byram for a pick/prospect to keep the pipeline stocked, and promote Johnson/Novikov: or 2.) Trade Clifton or Joker for (much) less, promote Johnson/Novikov, and use the savings to re-sign Byram.

I agree with your assessment of Greenway. I don't think he will be on the 4th line. I think the reason fans move him to the 4th line in projections (I've done it) is less about him being a 4th line player than it is with us having nobody else who remotely fits a 4th line wing profile. Fans are expecting that we will either upgrade the forward roster or add one of the prospects. If that happens on the wing, then the house is full. Barring a buyout or trade of a roster player, then Skinner, Tuch, Peterka, Quinn and Benson are locks for top 9 roles on the wing. It's a bit of wish fulfillment. If Greenway is on line 4, then it means we have brought in an upgrade.

On Iginla, I have heard the sentiment (in an Athletic Pod) that Calgary might not see him in their top 10 and might not wish to put the sort of additional pressure on a kid that would come with drafting him into that situation (Dad’s a legend here). It seems they may draw fire whichever direction they choose. I’m more than fine with trading #11. As @JohnC has said, there is certainly a minimum that we should expect back (3C min or top 6 wing, with some term or certainty we can extend; we might need to add). But 2 things: - I would really prefer to deal one or two of our prospects. We don’t have space for them to begin with. Adding a top 9 forward with term is important, but further diminishes the space for our existing prospects. Trading a prospect or two and keeping #11 allows for a better integration of prospects to our NHL lineup over the next few seasons. It is hard for me to imagine that Adams does not see this. - I would feel a little better if there were more rumours about young vets being shopped who fit the general mold of what we are looking for. Obviously there could be discussions on players that we aren’t aware are available.

The one player I’ve watched a tonne is Tanner Howe in Regina. Late birthday C/W. likely a W in pro. Some doubts the prior two years because he played a lot with Bedard. Had a solid season as by far the best player on a bad team. Does it all and plays with some attitude. I think a prototypical safe 2nd rd pick. If we take a D in rd one and trade a forward prospect or two, I think Howe would be a good add to replenish the forward prospect ranks. He reminds me, stylistically, of Curtis Brown.

There is a lot that is good in that line-up. There are 9 players though, who would be 23 or under to start the season. 5 in the top 9 forwards. That’s really young.

I’m not familiar with the Bee connection with Utah? How about Stingers? I suck at this though.

Your first paragraph is the argument for keeping Skinner and it is fair. He has bounced back from down years before and it would not be at all shocking if he scored 30 again this year. I don’t dismiss Skinner as a potentially useful player and I actually reject that he is an active barrier to us being a playoff team. If though, you think his value has diminished and that it is likely to diminish further and that a buyout is likely anyway in a year or two, then it is important to remember that the the cap space downside in 2025-2026 and 2026-2027 does not get appreciably better by waiting (and, of course, is only worse if you don’t buy him out at all). Not to mention, with waiting or not buying him out, you never get the benefit of the flexibility to remake your roster as you can with the $7.55 million saved through a buyout this year.

Love it. The only part of your post I would quibble with is having Savoie in the lineup. Put Quinn in that spot (3rd line with Bennett and Greenway; great 3rd line) and use the 10 million in space to add a top 6 forward to play with Peterka and Cozens. If worried about the cap in future years, keep some flexibility by making it Mangiapane or Ehlers who are a year away from UFA status. If you are more willing to be ruthless though (ie: Quinn and Peterka are great, but we are not married to them and one of them could be traded next off-season), trade for Necas or sign Stephenson. This is what good teams do all the time. The Rangers can’t keep all their RFA’s and quality UFA’s. That’s just reality. We want to be in a spot a year from now where it hurts to say goodbye to a good player.

Buy him out next year and you save $444k over what the cost is if you buy him out now; less than 1/2 an ELC. There is virtually no benefit to waiting a year until you get to 2029/30; if you wait a year the buyout cost ends after 28/29. If, however, you do it now, you get $7.55 million to use this year on roster upgrades. There’s a lot we could do with $7.55 million that would do more to enhance the roster than Skinner at $9 million. And I’m not really that down on Skinner. I just think the fundamental question should be: can we ice a better roster using the $7.55 in savings that come with a buyout? The answer is, without question, yes. No team has a more critical need to utilize every tool at its disposal to win this year than the Sabres. They won’t buyout Skinner because they are not committed to winning at the same level as the Knights, Panthers, Oilers, Canucks, etc.

What would you do if you had an extra $7.55 million to spend after a Skinner buyout?

I'm not sure Utah has any interest in Joker, but maybe. Are we just replacing him with Johnson? I doubt Krebs signs for under $1.4. I doubt we move on from Bryson, though I think he will accept less than his QO (something around $1.2 or $1.3). I'm not trying to be argumentative about your proposal. It's good. I'm just pointing out that we don't have a tremendous amount of space once we start making upgrades...and the upgrades require us to do something that I'm not sure we are committed to: spend to, or near to, the cap.

I would be ok with this and think it is probably about a best case scenario type of offseason. Note that, using AFP contract projections, if we make these 3 acquisitions and re-sign our 4 NHL RFA's, and promote Levi, Johnson and Rousek to back-up roles, we come in right around $500k under the cap. So even an offseason like this, which is ok, but a bit underwhelming, requires us to commit to becoming a cap team.

I half-agree with your post. It is true that nobody here is arguing for the team to do nothing. It is perplexing to me that a question could come up about a trade involving our 1st rd pick and a few of us not agreeing that the value is enough is then interpreted to mean we are prioritizing winning a trade over winning hockey games. As though any of us can actually do anything to influence the Sabres making or not making a trade or winning or not winning hockey games. Also, I agree that it is too soon for hand-wringing (for me anyway). If we get to July 3rd and we have not made substantive moves, then conclusions can fairly be drawn. Where we perhaps differ is in our faith or optimism that moves are coming. When asked in the recent Seravelli interview if he regretted not doing more last off-season, Adams confidently said “no” and pointed out he did bring in Clifton and Johnson and then doubled-down on his position that bringing in a forward or two only would have taken ice-time away from Peterka, Quinn and Benson. I have not heard him say anything about a change in roster construction, other than wanting a different style of 4th line player, that gives me any sense we will make the sort of changes that in themselves give fans a higher degree of confidence. It could be that they are planning these sort of moves, but until they happen my assumption is that the plan is to come in $5-7 million under the cap and to bring in some lower-cost 4th liners that will mostly have us scratching our head a bit. Hope I am wrong.

Go Oilers. They have very few players I dislike (maybe none). I can’t stand Bennett and Tkachuk and Lomberg (would take them on the Sabres, but can’t stand them on a div rival). My complete indifference to the success or failure of Okposo, Reinhart, Mitts in these playoffs has just confirmed that, while I rooted hard for them as Sabres and have no ill will for them, my allegiance is entirely to the uniform.

The thing that we seem to generally want the most is, I think, the most unlikely to happen. That is, Joker is moved out in a trade and a more gritty veteran R shot defender (experience, size, truculence) is brought in to pair with one of the big 3 offensive lefties. I see little chance this will happen. I do think it is possible Joker is traded for a pick and/or a 4C type, but if he is moved I think it is likely with the intent for Samuelsson to play in that 4th top-four spot (so, four lefties) and we will see Johnson/Bryson/Clifton on the 3rd pair. Though not my first choice, I would not shudder at Joker being re-signed. I do think there is a chance we see Dahlin/Power on pair one this year. A not oft mentioned combo for the 2nd and 3rd pair could be Sammy/Joker and Byram/Clifton. Label them pair 2 or 3 as you see fit. I think with another year experience, better structure, average to good goaltending and improved offence, this D would be more than good enough.

Go Oilers. Absolutely can’t stand the Panthers.