Archie Lee

The initial proposal wasn’t laid out as a scenario where this was the one and only option for the Sabres to upgrade their roster this off-season. As I said, in a mythical world where there is no other option, then sure I would do the trade. Im not sure who our 4th line centre is in this mythical world, or who is going to play up if Cozens or Thompson are injured, but sure, if this is the one and only deal that could be made, let’s do it. In the real world where there are other and better options which are, frankly, far more realistic, I would pass.

If this is a scenario where no other deal is possible and there is no negotiation on the price, then sure. I don’t agree that it makes us a playoff team though. These 3 players are replacing Mitts, Okposo and Joker from last year. I don’t think these three players out perform Mitts, Okposo and Joker to the degree that it puts us in the playoffs.

I fully agree with the bolded. No question that Gourde, Tanev and Larsson would be good acquisitions. Of the 3, in my view Gourde is the only needle mover. I think we can sign a bottom 6 winger in free-agency who is as good as Tanev and who is also a bit younger and cheaper and get an extra year or two of term. I just don't think we need to give up a valuable trade asset to obtain that piece of the puzzle (though, I understand that the current trade value of Krebs and Joker is debatable). If we are including #11 in a deal with other assets, then we should get a player who is better and/or younger and/or has more term, than any of these 3.

In 2021, McKenzie had Rosen at #18 in final rankings and we took him at 13. In 2022, McKenzie had Savoie at #9 in final rankings and we took him exactly there. In 2023, McKenzie had Benson at #9 in final rankings and he fell to us at 13. Will somebody fall to us, like last year? Or will we stretch a little like in 2021? I'm a bit guilty of looking at the top 10 and wondering who will fall and not paying enough attention to the players ranked 5-6 slots lower than where we will pick.

I think it works as a stand-in for a conceptual roster that includes newly acquired veterans in the following roles: match-up 3C, gritty/banger 4th line winger, and 2nd pair R-shot D (in place of Joker). I don't think Seattle is looking to make such a trade at this point though (as someone else said, more likely at the deadline), and all 3 have trade protection. I think you could acquire a combination of similar players through trade and free agency, without sacrificing #11.

It could be. I do think Dallas is more banged up. They miss Hakanpaa on D and now Tanev has a bad wheel. Hintz hasn't been himself. They aren't getting nearly enough from Marchment, Duchene and Pavelski, who have 5 goals combined in the playoffs. The Oilers reported weaknesses (D, team D, forward depth, grit) are overrated though. They are better in those areas than they are largely credited for. Janmark, Henrique, Holloway have combined for more goals (7 ) than the 3 Dallas players I reference. I don't think they will be intimidated physically. Skinner is a wildcard from game to game, so there is always that risk. That said, Dallas could easily bounce back with something as simple as a great performance by Oettinger in game 6.

Looking at players picked in the 10-21 range in 2021, Rosen’s performance and development is either better than, equal to or in the neighborhood of all of them. He suffers when compared to Wyatt Johnston, but then so does almost everyone in the draft. Everyone missed on Wyatt.

I’ve become a bit more cynical in the last year, but I’m not nearly this cynical (yet). Also, I didn’t say we were the Stars in making, but rather that they should be our model and that we have many pieces that align or potentially align with that type of team. The Stars missed the playoffs just 4 seasons ago when Hintz, Robertson, Heiskanen and Oettinger were babies. Whether our owner and GM have the commitment and courage to make the necessary moves to become a team like the Stars (starting with a Skinner buyout this June, which some fans oppose out of concern over $2.44 million in dead cap 5-6 years from now), is another thing. I’m skeptical that there is anyone in the organization with the vision to get it done, but it is most definitely attainable.

Dallas is the model we should follow. They have an elite young goalie and a couple of elite young defenders. Up front they have great depth, without having an elite #1C. There are some obvious roster parallels (UPL, Dahlin, Power, Cozens, Benson and Quinn or Peterka could be our Oettinger, Heiskanen, Harley, Hintz, Stankoven and Robertson). Tuch is “nice” Benn. There is development to occur and there are depth pieces missing, but I don’t need to squint too hard to see how we could be a team like the Stars with the right approach to player acquisition and usage.

Not saying the article is accurate, and maybe you just have Chatfield as a stand-in for 4th pairing right shot D, but the Athletic big board UFA rankings has Chatfield projected at 5 x $4.1 million.

Tampa thought they were getting another Hagel. That’s not what Jeannot turned out to be. $2.65 million for a 4th line pugilist who can play a bit is steep but it is a bit of what we need, isn’t it? And there is always a chance he gets back some of the scoring touch he showed with the Preds. I don’t think it matters though. Until it happens, I don’t think we will outbid other teams for an asset. There will be Western Conference teams who will pay as much or more. If traded, Tampa will send him west.

This does leave about 3 - 3.5 million in space, but spots 21-23 aren't accounted for. If filled with entry level-type deals, it leaves $1 million or less in space. The thing I don't get about these roster projections is, if we are living in a the find of fantasy world where the Sabres make these kind of major acquisitions in trade and are spending to the cap, then why not go full-fantasy-mode and buyout Skinner? Then you can add a more line appropriate winger for Roy and a veteran right-shot D to pair with Power.

I suspect Pegula will see a difference between missing by a point or two and missing by 15. If we are in it until the end but miss, then I don’t see a scenario where the Adams/Ruff combo doesn’t get a 2nd year. If they are out of it by the deadline then I think changes might occur. Personally, with the exception of hypothetical extreme outcomes, I will need to see how the year plays out before I opine on whether Adams should be fired

I think he will get that and would be thrilled if it was from us.

In 2016-17 when Stephenson was the age that Krebs was last season, he was putting up 38 points in 72 games as a Hershey Bear. It wasn’t until 2021-22, when he was age 27, that he had a breakout 64 point offensive season in the NHL. I get moving on from Krebs if the time for patience is over. But Stephenson wasn’t the Stephenson who you want, until he was a few years older than Krebs is now.

Conceptually, I like the idea of bringing in a centre who can play wing (or moving Thompson or Cozens to wing) and giving Krebs a shot at 3rd C. If we signed Stephenson, as an example, he could play LW to start and if Krebs flounders or a C is injured, you have a 3rd C available to slide over. I don't see us acquiring anyone who is above the level of 4th C who can play 3C in a pinch though.

There is an enormous gap that exists between giving no grace to a franchise that has floundered for 13 seasons (quite reasonable) and beating up on the character of a 23 year old because he dared to post a photo of himself relaxing with a cocktail (quite unreasonable). Carry on as you wish though.

I think we offer Bryson a 2-3 year deal at around $1.2 million that clearly establishes his role as being an organizational 6-9 d-man. His future likely hinges on whether he will accept something like this in order to stay or whether he prefers to test the waters to see if he can get a larger role elsewhere. If we qualify Bryson, and I will be very surprised if we do, it will be a clear sign that Adams has not learned lessons from last offseason.

I like the idea. Seattle, I suspect though, has every interest in getting back to the playoffs this year. I don’t think they trade those 3 made for playoffs vets for our about to become overpaid d-man who doesn’t fit, the top prospect that Sabre fans value the least and a 2nd. It’s not a deal that makes them better. You can make it work value-wise, but I don’t see it as practical from Seattle’s perspective.

I think that is more than the initial poster is suggesting. It was two assets: 1.) Quinn or Power, and 2). 11 OA or one of our top prospects. Power and Quinn are not in the same category in my view. Power's value as a recent #1 OA who has the potential to be a #1 d-man, is orders of magnitude greater than Quinn's. Power for Tkachuk straight up is likely fair. Power probably has longer term value, but Tkachuk simply brings elements to a team that it seems every team wants (and that we don't have). I would trade one of our young wingers (Quinn, Peterka or Benson) and #11, for Tkachuk. I think it would take more though. I think if you went to every team in the league and said you can have either Tkachuk or #11 in this draft plus Quinn AND Savoie, that the vast majority of teams take Tkachuk without the slightest hesitation. One point though, without a Skinner buyout, any such trade for a high-priced player leaves us pretty much scraping the bottom of the barrel for an entire 4th line.

You are correct that if they can convince Kane to take such a deal then they could fit him and a bigger contract under the cap.

My sense is that it is tied to Adams’s extension and the 2 years left on Granato’s deal. If Ruff is successful and wants to keep coaching, he will get extended. Pegula likely did not want to commit any money past two years. Which is also why Ruff was likely the best/only vet coach option. No other veteran successful coach (maybe Boudreau) would have accepted a two year deal.

To your 2nd paragraph, I encourage you not to take anyone’s word (including mine) for how much cap space we have. Go to capfriendly and utilize their armchair GM tool. Once you sign UPL, Krebs, Joker and Bryson to even conservative deals and promote a few ELCs to backup roles, there is not enough space left to add two 5-6 million $ contracts. There isn’t. Even if you move Joker and replace him with a low level contract, there isn’t space for two bigger $$ additions. To your 3rd paragraph, I don’t think that having an internal cap that comes in at, say, $81.5, dooms the season. It does make it tougher to upgrade the roster though and thus lowers the chances of success. I do think though that people are underestimating Ruff’s willingness to accept less than ideal circumstances while overestimating the influence he will have. He is the league’s 2nd oldest coach. A year out of the league would likely render him irrelevant to future coaching competitions. He wanted to coach in the NHL this year and coaching the Sabres again is likely viewed by him as a good way to cap a great career. I’m sure he thinks there are good pieces here that might allow for success (and he would be right), but I don’t think current evidence supports that he set a number of conditions that relate to him having a high degree of influence on anything other than coaching.

I hate to keep coming back to the same thing, but Kane+Cirelli (or the equivalent) is not possible without both a Skinner buyout and a commitment to being a cap team (neither of which is likely). Kane took a bit of a prove it deal with the Wings last season and then went out and proved it. He was a legitimate difference making winger. He is going to get $6 million plus unless he prioritizes a Cup and opts to sign with a contender for less. Assuming conservative extensions for our RFA's, the $12 million it would cost for Kane + Cirelli eats the rest of the cap and still leaves us with 2/3 of a 4th line to find. I would love it if this were a possibility (ie: we buyout Skinner, commit to being a cap team and make Kane/Cirelli type deals), but I can't see it happening.

I think Mittelstadt's deal will come in at 5-6 years and between $5-$6 million per, and I think that is what he would have gotten whether he was here or in Colorado. Cozens and Thompson got their deals after having more impressive seasons than any that Mitts has had, specifically when it comes to goals scored. Mitts's performance and value when compared to the seasons that led to the Cozens and Thompson contracts, brings Mitts in at a lower AAV. I don't have any great issue with starting next season with Krebs getting a shot at 3C. The problem though is we are very thin at C and it will be tough to find a 4C that is good enough to move up for an extended period in the event of either an injury or Krebs not working out. Not to mention, we have no clear option for moving someone into a top 6 role if Thompson or Cozens are out of the line-up. Not to mention, it would be good to have a 5th C also. What I struggle with is why Adams seemed so willing to discard what was a near perfect situation that he had with Thompson, Cozens, Mitts. At least, near perfect for a team without a true #1C. The best option, in my view, going into next season would have been to move Mitts or Cozens to the wing in the top 6 with Krebs at 3C. Then if you have an injury or if Krebs is just not getting it done, you have a 3rd middle-to-top-six C available to slide in to a centre role. Why Adams did not see the value of this, or thought that it was less valuable than adding Byram to the D corps, I don't understand. (Note: I'm not down on Byram at all, and think he makes our D better. I don't see his skillset as redundant. Injuries happen on D also, and with Byram we are set-up with 3 strong puck-moving D who can QB a PP; that's not nothing. Also, there are still 3 back-end positions to fill with more defence focused players. That Clifton and Joker aren't ideal defenders does not make it wrong to acquire Byram. There are options that other teams would exercise to upgrade on Joker/Clifton.) Now, if the plan is to go out and get a centre/LW in free agency such as Chandler Stephenson, or to trade for a Cirelli or a Colton, and to replace Joker with a more more physically-imposing and defensive-focused player, then it all comes together for me. Though this should be the plan it is highly unlikely to occur. For one, it would require a Skinner buyout, which should happen but won't (a Skinner buyout would allow us to spend on both a 3C in the Stephenson/Cirelli range and a 2nd pairing R shot D upgrade to Joker). For two, until proven otherwise I suspect we still have an internal cap that will come in closer to $80 million than $87.7 million. And third, many acquisitions and attempted acquisitions of the Adams era were rumored in advance (it was known we were in on Chychrun, Greenway had been rumored, the Byram for Mitts swap was discussed in the media weeks before it happened). The two centres linked to the Sabres last year were Cates and Laughton from the Flyers. A potential deal with the Flyers might be dead, but it is that quality of C that we are likely to add.