Archie Lee

How many of those players have spent that entire time playing on the team that is the worst in the NHL over that period (I didn’t check that stat, but I assume the Sabres are the worst overall in that period). Almost every player who leaves looks better when they go. At this point I am ready for Risto to go, if for no other reason than to let fans pick a different player to symbolize all that is wrong with the Sabres. My bet is on Tage Thompson assuming the mantle.

I would much rather just lose Risto in the expansion draft than take Virtanen and Holtby. Virtanen is toxic at this point and Holtby's numbers are not great. Maybe I would do Holtby and a 2nd rd pick for Risto. This would assume we are re-signing and protecting Ullmark before the draft. Holtby as the veteran back-up bridge to Luukkonen.

I think Skinner is pretty much unmovable for 3 reasons: 1.) He needs to agree to it. While I think it is possible that he would agree to be moved (regardless of how much money you make, there is no underestimating a person's desire to feel welcome and wanted in the place they call home)... 2.) The options would be quite limited. At least one team that he would waive his NMC for would have to be willing to take him...and 3.) After he agrees to waive and you find a team that would take him, you then need to determine the cost. It would be ridiculously high. Perhaps #3 comes before #1 and #2, but either way it is hard to imagine this happening any time soon. As for what it would cost to get another team to accept Skinner? Note that his buyout is terrible. If we did it this June we would get tremendous savings in year one, practically none in year two, good savings in year three and four and then 2 cap bombs in years five and six. That in itself is basically poison. THEN though, there is another 6 years where we would have a cap hit of just under $2.5 million. I think the most I would do is retain $2.5-$3.0 million for the rest of the deal. That would effectively move the 7th to 12th years of the buyout to years 1-6. The cost in assets would be far too steep though. To get another team to take on $6 - $6.5 million for 6 years on a player whose attribute is offence and who has produced 23 goals and 39 points in his last 123 games played (and who in 11 NHL seasons will not have played a single playoff game), would cost a crazy amount. I can't imagine what it would be, but if I were the GM in Seattle it would start with 3 good young prospects and/or picks. Say Johnson, Peterka and a 1st. I think we can just forget about moving or buying out Skinner. The best we can hope is that he rebounds and produces for 2-3 seasons like the $5-$6 million dollar player he once was. r

It's simple for me. If we re-sign Ullmark, then for next season we know we have one NHL-level goalie and we need to secure another. If we don't re-sign Ullmark then we need to secure two. Ullmark at something like 4 x 4.5 is pretty low risk. The team would know more about his injuries than us, but assuming for a moment they are not related to a single chronic issue then there may be no reason to be overly worried. Lot's of players have gone through stretches in the early or mid-portions of their careers where injuries were an issue and then went on to be mostly healthy through the rest of their careers. Remember also that this is an odd year with lots of games packed into a tight period. I don't have stats to back this up, but goalie (and player) injuries around the league are seemingly higher than typical. Next season we will, hopefully, return to a more normal pattern of games/practices/rest periods and this could positively impact the health of many players, including Ullmark.

Looking at the list, the only guy I would consider taking over Ullmark on a 3-5 year, 4-5 million deal is Grubauer. The player who is missing from the list is Driedger from FLA, but his NHL sample size is pretty small. If we don't get Ullmark signed by the expansion draft, then I would look for us to acquire a goalie from a team that has one too many (Montreal, Washington, Dallas, Minnesota, Pittsburgh). With regards to the back-up position, I'm certainly not advocating for going with Tokarski in that role. However, there are not many goalies on that list who would fit clearly in the back-up category who I am certain would be better than Tokarski. Almost all in that category have risks attached (age, injury, inconsistency). What we can't do next year is what we have done the past two years with Hutton. If our back-up is not getting the job done, then the goalies who are 3rd and 4th on the organizational depth chart need to get an opportunity to play and grab the position. We can't just accept sub-NHL level goaltending. In a way, it is too bad Hutton looks lost for the season. I know he is well regarded in the locker room. Though I don't think he is good enough at this point in his career, he certainly didn't get a lot of help from his teammates and coaches the past two seasons. He perhaps deserves an opportunity to play a couple of games in front of the Sabres as they are performing now to at least show other teams he might be a UFA option.

I agree with this. Sometimes you stumble into the thing that was really what you needed. Maybe the VP of Business Administration and the Assistant Coach who nobody heard talk in 2 years, are the guys we were always looking for. I also agree with Wawrow. While every NHL team makes moves every off-season and I certainly am ok with some strategic roster moves this off-season, the team needs to stay the course with its young players. Going from what will be a last place or near last place finish to leaping ahead of a team like Boston of Florida (or Toronto or Tampa) in one year is a hard thing to imagine occurring. While we should certainly have winning as our goal, making big-offseason roster moves with the goal of the playoffs would be a mistake I think. If we make the playoffs next year it won't be because of a big off-season splash, it will be because we get competent coaching, Eichel comes back healthy, we get good goaltending for an entire season instead of stretches here and there and multiple young players take steps forward in their careers. It is more realistic we get there in two years than in one.

Here's what bugs me about this trade. The Bruins are a division rival. Not just this year in the East Division, but every year. They are on the ropes a bit right now. We play them 6 times in our last 15 games. We have an opportunity to knock them out of the playoffs (if the Rangers and/or Flyers take care of their own business). I wanted to trade Hall. But if the deal was to the Bruins with Lazar and for this return, I would have kept Hall and played him and hoped to beat the Bruins 4 of 6 and send them reeling into the off-season. Instead, we are going to pay 1/2 of Hall's salary to play us 6 times. He's going to be motivated. He might re-sign with the Bruins at a reasonable rate. I know that Hall way underperformed expectations this year and nobody should be "scared of Taylor Hall". It's possible though that we just gave a breath of life to a rival. I hate that. I really, really hate that. I don't have an issue with the 2nd round pick. Hall cost nothing but the owner's money. It's a 2nd we would not have had otherwise. I just hate that the deal is with the Bruins. Hate it. As for Bjork? He's a Sabre now. I'll be rooting for him to succeed.

The combination of the pull-up, the high-pick, the top-prospect rating, being put on the NHL roster too soon and some folks jumping to conclusions about a young-man's instagram postings, resulted in conclusions being drawn prematurely, I think. Mittelstadt looks to me like he's on target to be a solid middle-six option for years to come.

I would be ok with this. At worst the Sabres lose Kulak in the expansion draft and don’t re-sign Armia or Lehkonen and they end up with a 1st and 2nd for Hall and Montour. At best Armia and Lehkonen are good middle/bottom six fits and are re-signed at reasonable rates and Kulak is a stable veteran left shot d-man for us.

Rutherford resigned from the Penguins. I heard him interviewed a few weeks ago and he implied that he would be unable to join another team until his contract was up in June. He may not be able to formally join a team yet.

We have seen what happens the last two seasons when you have one good goalie. It would be crazy to go into the off-season with Ullmark intentionally unsigned and have no good NHL goalies under contract. A 4-5 year deal in the 4-5 million range is what makes sense to me. If it were up to me, I would: - Give Ullmark 4 x $4.5 (and be prepared to go to $5 million per); and - Overpay a vet goalie for 1 year to be the back-up (as an example, Halak for one year at 4 million). This would bridge the gap to 22-23 when Luukkonen comes up and Portillo gets signed and goes to Rochester (hopefully). If Montreal can pay $13-14.5 million for two goalies for 3 years, we can pay $9-10 million for one year. A healthy Eichel, the right coach and two good goaltenders and the difference for this team would be dramatic.

This is how I see it. Of course, it hasn't happened yet, but if it does I think it is a great sign that Adams has real leadership skills. The Pegulas, Botterill and Krueger all seemed reluctant to hire people who were smarter than them. A hallmark of a good leader is the willingness to hire people who are smart and who will challenge you and who are qualified to take your job from you. Karmanos and Rutherford are both guys who are more qualified for the GM position than Adams is. If this is Adams' idea, and it seems very clear that it is, then that is ballsy.

Sorry. I wasn't trying to be smart-alec. Yeah, they would be better. They would be grittier and better defensively and from that they would produce more scoring.

I would not part with any assets to get rid or Okposo's contract. The Hurricanes just waived Jake Gardiner. Karl Alzner spent the last two years playing for the Laval Rocket. Like these players, Okposo should be waived to the taxi-squad this year and waived and assigned to Rochester the next two years. The roster spot can be filled by a better and younger player (Ruotsalainen or Asplund this and next year; Quinn or Peterka in 2 years) who make less than the $1,050,000.00 we save on the cap if Okposo is waived. With Krueger as the coach?

Fair question. Avalanche fans are down on Compher. The Avs have Landeskog, Makar and Grubauer needing new contracts. Compher's deal is seen by some as rich for what they use him for. The Avalanche are in desperate need of goalie depth this year. I know that the Sabres aren't exactly the team that you think about when it comes to goalie depth. I had though proposed Staal and Hutton with the necessary retention to the Avs for Compher and their fans were receptive. All that said, I recognize that I was not kicking around ideas with Joe Sakic. 🙂

I'll throw out two names that are frequently mentioned when the the fanbases of other teams are looking to acquire our two UFA forwards, Hall and Staal: Alex Kerfoot and J.T. Compher. Now, I'm not saying either of these guys are Briere or Drury. However, kind of like Drury, both are playing through their early years in the shadow of elite players and on contending teams. Like Briere and Drury, both can play wing or centre. Both, coincidently, have identical contracts with two years left after this year at 3.5 million. Could these guys be the type of middle-six players to play behind Eichel that we have been missing? Trade #1: Taylor Hall with retention to Toronto for Kerfoot (plus a pick or prospect) Trade #2: Eric Staal to Colorado for J.T. Compher 2021-2022 forward lines: Mittelstadt-Eichel-Reinhart Skinner-Cozens-Compher Ruotsalainen-Kerfoot-Olofsson Girgensens-Asplund-Lazar Murray-Eakin-Thompson

In March 2003 the Sabres traded Chris Gratton for Daniel Briere. Four months later in July 2003 they traded Rhett Warriner for Chris Drury. There were other pieces involved in those trades, but those were the principal pieces. Sabres' fans know what those two players came to mean to the organization. Briere and Drury were both known, quality NHL players. At the time of those trades though, nobody saw them as the sort of players who would lead the team to a President's Trophy and back to back conference finals. Have the Sabres ever truly recovered from the off-season when they both left? The Sabres need to add 2-3 players at any position who can change the complexion and direction of the team. Ryan O'Reilly was probably such a guy, but his arrival was perhaps two-three years too early. Add a Ryan O'Reilly to this team now (and a coach and a goalie) and the impact is greater I think. Let's assume the Sabres fire Krueger before the start of the 2021-22 season and replace him with an actual NHL-qualified head coach. Who are some players in the NHL, not on the Sabres, who would be realistic acquisitions for players or assets that we have? Who could be our 2021-2022 Briere and Drury. What players would you trade for and who would you be prepared to give up?

Going back to your initial posts on this, I think you are correct that had the Sabres reacted to such a thing the same way that the Bruins initially reacted (in the first period and up to the first fight) then Sabres' fans would have been screaming that the team had no guts. However, that would have quickly changed had the Sabres reacted the way the Bruins did in the 2nd and 3rd. With regards to the bolded above, this isn't about how the Tom Wilson-type players of the NHL respond to being challenged; players like Wilson love this stuff. What it is about, is how you respond as a team when a player like Wilson does something like this to your teammate.

I wouldn't blame him for the OT goal either. I thought, though, that goals 2 and especially 3 were more or less classic Hutton cases of getting himself turned around and out of position. Sure he made some good saves, but goalies are supposed to make good saves. The bottom line is he gave up 3 goals in 2 regulation periods and turned in another sub .900 save % game. There really is no excuse to not give Johansson or Tokarski an opportunity. I know that neither has shown to be an NHL goalie, but I'm not sure what you have to lose at this point. Johansson is 10 years younger than Hutton. He has turned in back to back .920+ save % seasons in Rochester the last two seasons. He did not fair so well in his few NHL games, though not worse than Hutton the past two years. It is time to give him an opportunity so we know what we have. Tokarski is 4 years younger than Hutton. He has turned in back to back .930+ save % seasons in the AHL. His career NHL #'s are not great (.904 save %) but they are better than Hutton's from the past two seasons. The likelihood that either Johansson or Tokarski get on a role and lead the team to better things as a back-up or starter is remote, to be sure. Hutton though has been a sub .900 save % NHL goalie going back two years now to January 2019. He is 35. We know what he is and he isn't good enough. There is value in being a good team guy, to buying in and being a good leader. I'm sure Hutton fits the bill with regards to these traits and that his teammates respect him and want him to be successful and a part of the team. The coach and GM though are responsible to the organization. When a player is simply not good enough, reasonable steps must be taken to replace him. If neither Johansson or Tokarski (or Luukkonen) are given the opportunity, then that is simply a failure of leadership.

The contract was an enormous mistake. That was clear from the beginning. The best comparable players to Skinner before he signed his deal were Jordan Eberle and Brendan Gallagher. Why we felt the need to sign him to a $9 mil deal when he was a $5.5 - $6.5 million dollar player is a mystery. When a $5.5 - $6.5 million dollar players demand $10 million per year in free agency, you just let him walk. That said, there is no point in trying to make him a $9 million player or in lamenting it any further. What the Sabres should be trying to do is turn him back into the $5.5 - $6.5 million dollar player that he was/is. If they can do that they the dead cap space isn't $9 million, it's $2.5 - $3.5 million. Jeff Skinner scoring 25ish goals and 45ish points on the 2nd or 3rd line is not a star player...but he is not a lost cause either. Krueger is a disaster if he can't get Skinner to be what Skinner is.

I agree with the above. No NHL team should be more than 2-3 years away from being good on the ice if they are good off the ice. The Pegulas are obviously smart and successful people who have done many good things for the community. I don't think they deserve ridicule. They have been guilty I think of trying to over-correct bad decisions. As you indicate, I think that is more in line with being misguided as owners than it is with being bad owners. My great frustration in the Eichel years is that, with the possible exception of his first year, no season has ended with the level of optimism being higher than when the season began. From the beginning of the Eichel years the organization has been unwilling to commit to simply having a plan, growing the talent and taking some additional lumps. Instead we continually take another shot at shortening the rebuild to the point where taking a step back is no longer an option (it should be an option, but it is treated as though it is not). Even this past off-season was an example. I'm not entirely down on this year's team by any means and still do have hope, but there really was no logical reason for this team at this point in its trajectory to target Taylor Hall as an off-season acquisition. This was done in an attempt to jump ahead 3 spaces when, so long as we have a solid plan and are smart in what we are doing, 1 space would due.

It's maybe outside the scope of the poll, but anytime you have this many significant mistakes you have to find the root cause. In this case the clear root cause is ownership. While the jury is still out on the current management, specifically Adams, we have seen a steady string of bad decisions when it comes to hiring. The first sign of bad things to come, which, in hindsight, was pretty glaring, was the replacement of Regier with Lafontaine and Nolan. Regardless of what anyone thinks of any of these 3 individuals, it's a pretty big red-flag when an owner fires a long-time and respected (in NHL circles) GM and replaces him with two popular figures from the team's past who have long-held grievances over their previous controversial departures that just happen to have been overseen by the newly fired GM. This was a clear indication that ownership decisions would not always be made based on rationale thought.

Watch the puck bounce.

You make great points. On the bolded, I would just say that 5v5 defensive play is different than PK. Eakin/Rieder might not be defensive improvements on Larsson/Vesey at 5v5, but still be upgrades at PK.