Archie Lee

#3 isn’t an option as he has a full NMC. There is absolute cap benefit to a buyout. $7.5 this year, $4.5 next year and $2.5 the year after that. The downside to the cap is the $2.5 hit in years 4-6.

These are all valid points. But we don’t have as much space as some might think. Give our RFA’s the extensions predicted by Evolving Hockey and promote Levi, Johnson and Rousek to back-up roles and there is about 8 million left to acquire meaningful forward additions. Of course, you can move existing players in trades (Joker as an example) and create space. But the space available to make substantive changes is hindered to a degree (not impossible by any means) with Skinner’s hit. Eight of this years playoff teams have dead cap extending past this season. Vancouver and Nashville have substantial dead cap hits extending 4 & 5 years respectively. Those are two teams whose leadership has been praised for addressing team needs and getting their franchises turned around and back in the playoffs in short order. The buyouts they committed to have played a big role in allowing them to make the changes they made.

These are all good points. Up until the end of this last season, I had never contemplated a Skinner buyout seriously. The length and cost of any buyout always seemed a bit absurd, at least until you got to year 8. Looking at it closely for the first time, I’m actually kind of convinced that it was structured to make this year the inflection point. This is the year where the debate needs to occur and management needs to weigh the value of $7.5 million in extra cap space this off-season vs the drag of an extra year’s cap hit of $2.5 million in 2029-30. There are a few points that tip me towards a buyout this June: - I think we may have reached the point where Skinner, all things considered, does not meet the value of even half his AAV. He was never worth $9 million but at his best he was maybe worth $7 million and you could swallow hard and accept that he got to UFA status and got himself paid. I think we are now at a point where what you can get with the cap space saved with a buyout is more than what you can get from Skinner at his AAV. - The cost of a buyout now vs next year is really only one year at approx $2.5 million. The approximate $500k extra cap hit the 4 years after this year is not immaterial, but it is also not a huge issue and it won’t ultimately be the difference between keeping Quinn and Peterka and losing them (if things go well, keeping both will be tough regardless). Critically to this argument is that the one year where it really hurts (the extra 6th year) is 2029-2030. I don’t want to get in a habit of throwing away future cap space, but a dead cap hit of $2.5 million 6 years from now should not be a huge concern relative to the importance of making the playoffs in 2024-2025. - Which leads to the final point. We get $7.5 million in space this off-season, one of the most critical in franchise history, with a buyout now. The question should be: are we a better hockey team this year with Jeff Skinner at $9 million or are we better with whatever players we can add using the $7.5 we save with a buyout?

A year ago, when it first looked like the Flames were possibly headed to a rebuild, people were wondering if a 33 year old Kadri with 6 years left at $7 million per, could be moved. He had a bounce back year, but I’m not sure his trade value is what you think it is. He has a full NMC though, so the point is likely moot anyway.

Serious question, what’s your logic for waiting a year? The buyout cap hits? Or do you think we still might get enough value from Skinner to make the $9 million cap hit at least somewhat palatable?

None taken. But you are not speaking for me when you conclude that Krebs, Joker and #11 (+) are unwanted.

I could be wrong, but I think Laughton is a guy who maybe gets a late 1st or early 2nd, but I don’t think he is worth #11. As for who the Sabres could move the pick for, I really don’t know. It’s hard to come up with a good one for one (pick for player) example. A lot of the ideas I come up with, seem that they might be laughable to some. Would Calgary do Andersson and Kadri (with say a $1 million retention) for Joker, Krebs and #11? Maybe we need to add something else? We would need to buyout Skinner to make it work.

I’m not trying to convince you of anything on Adams. TW posted that GMs don’t get fired that quickly and you replied that you disagree. Sorry then, what was it about his post that you were disagreeing with? I don’t think it takes 5 years for a GM to turn around a franchise and I would lose no sleep is Adams was fired today. For now though, I have more faith in Adams figuring this out than I have in Pegula getting it right on his 5th GM.

For much of my life I assumed I would one day see the Sabres win the Stanley Cup. That assumption was formed in the era of the 16-21 team NHL (75%+ of teams in the playoffs). Setting aside the team's ineptitude for the past 13 years, I've come to accept that it is now less than likely that they will win a Cup in my lifetime. This does not cause me any stress or frustration. In a 32 team (50% in the playoffs) NHL, I do think it is time that we see winning a Conference Championship as the great achievement that it is. Winning a Conference Championship in the NHL today is a greater feat than winning the Cup was at anytime prior to this century (in my view). It's time for teams to pick up the Prince of Wales and Clarence Campbell trophies and skate them around the ice and pose for photos. Nothing about celebrating that level of achievement has to mean that they have lost focus on the biggest prize (the Cup).

I don't think he was expressing an opinion on Adams level of success. He was pointing out that GM's don't get fired as often as people think (certainly not at the same rate as head coaches). I've lost a lot of faith in Adams going back to July 1, 2023. I can't understand, though, how anyone would think the best option is for Pegula to pick another GM. The best option for now is to hope that Adams, who I think is clearly a bright guy, has learned from his mistakes and properly course corrects this off-season. I'm skeptical, but I prefer to see what Adams does in partnership with Ruff over having Pegula making a change.

I looked back at the last decade for trades that fit our current scenario (trading a top 15 pick from this year's draft, after the season and prior to or at the draft). I excluded from the list: trades that occurred prior to the end of the year where the pick occurred trades related to an expansion draft trades where more than one first was traded such as the Seth Jones trade the Vancouver / Arizona trade from 2021, which had as much or more to do with cap space as the players involved (if you want to include it, Van did get Connor Garland and Oliver Ekman-Larsson in that deal) Here is the list: 2015 LA traded #13 (Zboril) to Boston along with Martin Jones and Colin Miller for Milan Lucic 2015 Cal traded #15 (Senyshyn) and two 2nd rd picks to Boston for Dougie Hamilton 2017 Ari trades #7 (Lias Andersson) and Tony DeAngelo to NYR for Derek Stepan and Antti Raanta 2020 Pit trades #15 (Amirov) and Evan Rodriguez (and 2 prospects) to Tor for Kaspari Kapanen (and 2 prospects) 2021 Phi trades #14 (Rosen) and a 2nd and Robert Hagg to Buf for Rasmus Ristolainen 2022 Ott trades #7 (Korchinski) and a 2nd and a 3rd for Alex Debrincat 2022 NYI trade #13 (Nazar) to Mtl for Alexander Romanov and a 4th rd pick 2022 Mtl then trades the above pick (Nazar) and a 3rd to Chicago for Kirby Dach With the benefit of hindsight, only two of the acquired players would be in the category of worth getting excited about, those being Hamilton and Debrincat (add Garland if you want to include that trade). Hamilton had 3 good years in Calgary and then returned Lindholm in a trade with Carolina. We know how the Debrincat situation turned out. LA fans were no doubt excited about Lucic in the moment, but they (fortunately for them) lost him as a UFA a year later. Also, the players drafted either did not take the league by storm (sadly, Amirov has since passed away), or are still in development. Not sure what this all means, except that perhaps (on balance) it isn't likely that trading #11 would turn into a franchise altering move one way or the other.

Are you suggesting we trade #11 for Laughton? Or that he is the quality of player we could get for #11? I would hope we could do better than that. I would prefer to give Laughton's $3 million salary to Teddy Blueger or Kevin Stenlund in free agency and keep the pick.

One thing to remember about Briere, his first good NHL season was the year he turned 24.

When it comes to prospects there should be no rush. I don't mean that we should be absolute in not trading any. I also don't mean we should just patiently wait for this batch of prospects to be ready. The Sabre roster has many good pieces, but also some holes and some structural deficiencies. Serious NHL teams that have cap space and assets address their holes and deficiencies, they don't leave spots open for the prospect who shows best in camp. Adams failed in not recognizing that a shift in perception had occurred by the end of 22-23 and that it was no longer going to be good enough to miss the playoffs with some young guys doing some good things. By not taking advantage of the assets he had and moving the process forward last off-season, he ultimately took the team backwards. That failure cost him his plan, and likely some agency (and a coach his job). I think it would be a mistake though, to now over-correct and trade away their 1st rd pick and half their top prospects. The Sabres have lots of assets at their disposal and don't need to move their 1st rd pick or top prospects to enhance the roster (I'm not absolute on this, I just think if they do things correctly then holding these assets will ultimately pay-off). The lesson from the Amerk's loss is that there need be no hurry to rush any of these kids to the NHL. They can all be back in Rochester, get a year older, a year stronger, a year more mature, support them with a bit of a different style of coach and veteran player (much like should happen in the NHL this year) and let them take a run. If things go as planned with the Sabres, there will be difficult cap decisions to make before 25-26. Then there should be 2-3 of these young guys absolutely ready to step in and help and thrive at the NHL level.

I’m not down on Levi. I urge you though to have a look at the list of young AHL goalies in the last decade who have had seasons with a 920 save %. and higher. The list is pretty long. Some ended up being very good NHL goalies. Most didn’t.

I think this is a succinct way of putting it. We have picks, prospects, some young roster players and cap space. I’m not too hung up on what pieces we move or don’t move. Just take advantage of the assets we have to make the team better.

The alternative is probably a one year Swayman deal ($3.5 ish). A two year deal takes UPL to UFA status. If we want some of his UFA years, then I think we will need to approach $5 million per. Lots of risk either way.

Keep the pick. Keep all the top prospects* in Rochester (or wherever they are required to play) for another year. Buy out Skinner. Bolster the roster with veterans acquired through free agency or by trading lesser assets (Joker, 2nd rd picks or later). Make the playoffs in the NHL and compete for the Calder in the AHL. Promote 2-3 Top prospects on ELC’s to the NHL roster in 25/26 when the cap crunch comes. *I’m ok with trading one or two top prospects, but think the roster can be effectively remade without doing so.

I’m not defending Adams with this comment, but for the past 3 seasons he has not been seriously trying to bring in veteran centres (there is a valid criticism regarding it not being a priority). Since the Krueger firing, Adams has, more or less, executed his plan. We have just come to the 1st point in his process where the plan did not render the results he anticipated. This off-season we will learn a lot.

It’s not that the ownership group could not afford to buy him out but rather that there would be no point. There are virtually no cap savings. He is 33. He had 65 points in 80 games.

I’ll be a bit surprised if Keefe is not fired. I think he is a good coach, but the easiest change for the Leafs to make is to fire him and bring in any one of the veteran coaches available. I think their brass will look at how they played games 5-7 and target a coach who they perceive will have them play like that from the start (Berube). There will be calls for Marner and/or Tavares to be traded, but they both have full no moves. I suppose there are ways to convince a player to accept a trade. Both are UFAs after next season, so change is coming one way or another.

It’s all message board fodder, Dude.

In my view Ruff has largely been a coach who gets as much out of his team as could reasonably be expected. That’s good. He is not a coach whose system or intellect or force of determination will push a team to be more than the sum of its parts. I don’t think that changes for the better at this point of his career. The 23-24 Sabres are maybe marginally better with Ruff than Granato, but they are not a playoff team. I would argue that the outlier from the Granato era is that he somehow dragged the 22-23 team to within a point of the playoffs; that was a greater coaching achievement than the 23-24 season was a failure. We will be as good as the team that Ruff is provided to coach. Great roster improvement is needed for us to be in playoff contention.

I could not disagree more. Post-pandemic, 90% of NHL fan-bases would be so lucky to have such a fraudulent team to root for. Just looking at their roster and at who is producing for them night after night and it seems to me they have reached that point of critical mass where they have a high # of players who are either in, approaching, or just coming out of their prime performance years. Once you get down to 8 NHL teams, the road is tough (this is not the NHL I grew up watching where 12/16 or 16/21 teams were in the playoffs). Watching the Oilers and watching all the former Sabres who are in the playoffs, just reinforces how terribly the Sabres managed the post-tank years. It is really just the past couple of years that we should be a top 5-6 contender.

I think it is possible that the double-digit number of people who he spoke to, were people he spoke to about the idea of hiring Ruff. In other words: he did due diligence on Ruff by having many discussions with many people about Ruff before he hired him. Adams got a lot of praise for how he handled the press conference where he addressed firing Donnie. I’ve read that some think his demeanour on that day and on the day of the Ruff press conference was the most confident he has been since he became GM. I see the opposite. I see a guy whose plan failed and who is now scrambling. I see a guy who knows his options to move this forward with the speed needed to save his job are extremely limited.