Archie Lee

I went with Power at #1 and Beniers if he is available in the "if we have another top 5 pick" spot. I'm not a prospect expert by any means, though I love the draft and am very interested. My knowledge comes from what I read and video clips, so I would not pretend to have anything above the minimal level of knowledge about any of these players. If we end up with two top 8 picks and get Power, Beniers or Eklund at #1 and then any one of Beniers, Eklund, McTavish, Guenther, Johnson, Hughes or Clarke with the 2nd pick (assuming Power isn't available for our 2nd pick and that we don't take two D-men), then I am happy.

That seems high to me. Maybe there’s a team that rolls the dice for 1-2 years on him at that. Longer term would be high risk though. I do think he will have playoff teams kicking the tires on him. Edm, Tor, Col, Pitt and others could all have interest. Unless you mean 5.5 is what it will take for us to keep him over teams that will offer less but give him a better chance to win? If so, that could be true.

Agree on Ullmark. The 4 teams still playing either needed two goalies to get here (Mtl, Veg, NYI) or one that is all world (TB). Mtl doesn’t make the playoffs without Allen. I want Ullmark back and am prepared to give him 4-5 years at 4-5 million. This is not because I think he should be our clear #1 for the full term of the contract. It’s because in today’s NHL most teams need a 1A and a 1B. We have half of that for 4-5 years if we keep Ullmark.

I agree with this. I don't fault Eichel, Reinhart and Risto for wanting to move on. It is not their fault that the organization failed to build a team around them that had both sufficient talent to help them succeed and the sort of veteran leadership needed to assist them with their short-comings. My view is that the Sabres have more than sufficient assets (veteran players, including the 3 likely to be traded, young players and prospects, draft capital, likely cap space) to be successful on the ice. I think this is regardless of the path they chose. A good hockey-man could get the Sabres pointed in the right direction whether he chooses to keep the big 3 or trade them for futures and start a new re-build or trade them while making hockey moves intended to get the team to competitive hockey more quickly. I don't know that Adams is that hockey-man. If I have hope it comes from seeing that Adams has done some things right, in my view. He didn't sign anyone to a bad long-term contract last off-season. He did a decent job getting the team some draft capital back. He recognized how bad Krueger was and had the stones to go to the Pegulas and sell them on his vision (I'm speculating on that one a bit). We are going to get new data on Adams soon.

A few thoughts on this: Trading Eichel and/or Reinhart is no reason to draft a centre 1st OA. Best player available is always the right call in that draft spot (all draft spots?). That aside, if we trade Eichel we are, almost certainly, getting back a top prospect centre. Heck, maybe Beniers falls to Anaheim and that allows them to include the pick or Zegras in an Eichel trade. Power will create a bit of a left side log jam with Dahlin, Samuelson, Bryson, Johnson and potentially re-signing McCabe. Maybe Johnson becomes a trade option. It’s early to draw conclusions about what next year’s team will look like. But, if they draft Power and he is signed and in Buffalo, it is hard to imagine it being anything but a rebuilding year. I’m excited about Dahlin and Joker and about our other young D-men, but that is a lot of inexperienced D on one team with there not currently being any guys I would really put in the “solid-vet” category (maybe McCabe?).

I think the Eakin/Larsson issue highlights how out of his league Krueger was as an NHL head coach and as a pseudo - flat mgmt - GM. I assumed the intent was to let Lazar take over for Larsson as a 4th line C and let Eakin play 3C with offensively skilled players. Lazar has clearly shown he was up for the role. Say a bottom 6 of: Skinner/Eakin/Cozens Girgs/Lazar/Okposo Setting aside that Eakin is just not very good right now, if one believed that Eakin had more offensive upside than Larsson and wanted to strengthen the offensive prowess of the top 9, then adding Staal and Eakin down the middle could have been considered logical. I was, therefore, quite dismayed when I saw the lines for camp and Eakin was inserted between Girgs and Okposo. That was just bizarre and put Eakin in a spot that he just is not suited for. I'm hoping we give Seattle something to take Eakin.

When big ticket players become available, teams line up for a shot. Typically this is in free agency. Stamkos, Tavares, Pietrangelo (I have no idea if I spelled that correctly) all did tours I think. The difference in Eichel’s case is that teams would not be competing against a destination. They would not need to convince a player to leave the Gulf of Mexico or pass on signing with the team he dreamed of playing for as a boy. They just need to be the highest bidder. That will scare some teams away I think. Others it might encourage.

Players like Eichel just don’t become available very often. I think there are multiple contending teams who will be interested if he is available. If Vegas loses out in their division then I think they will consider if the missing element is a true #1 centre. Vegas would need to make room. Although it is hard to know if we are on the no trade list of players, we need to assume we are. Tuch, Stephenson, McNabb would balance the cap. Krebs and a first would address the need for futures. It’s a weird trade as it seems to be simultaneously too much and too little. Maybe from that perspective it actually works. If Reinhart returns, him Stephenson, Mitts would be a decent top 3 and we would be adding Tuch, Cozens and maybe Krebs to the wing. This opens up options to deal a winger or two for a different type of player. Olofsson for Wood +\- picks, as an example. Re-sign McCabe and Ullmark, acquire a solid b/u goalie and properly address the head coach position (whether Granato or someone else) and it looks like a roster that could compete and would be tough to play against. For discussion let’s just say we lose Asplund in the expansion draft, R2 ends up back in Rochester and we trade Risto for a pick (just for discussion): Skinner/Reinhart/Tuch Wood/Stephenson/Cozens Krebs/Mittelstadt/Thompson Bjork/Girgensens/Okposo/Eakin Dahlin/Joker McCabe/Miller McNabb/Borgen Bryson/Fitzgerald Ullmark Rittich Rochester has R2,Quinn, Samuelsson, 6K and we have Peterka, this year’s first, Johnson and multiple other picks/prospects in the system

Nice work. I agree that we are breaking new ground. Eichel at his best is better than any of those players. The injury might be the thing that either messes this up completely (if he does not recover) or takes his value to another level (if he comes back as good as he was in 2019-20). Patience is going to be key here, unless some team decides to blow our socks off in order to beat the rush.

I know that Johansson had not shown much in his NHL time prior to him being traded to the Avalanche. Also, I understand he is possibly a UFA at season end due to games played (?). He did struggle in games played behind a bad Sabres team. Still, he was a 3rd round pick, is only 25, had progressed through our system while having success in the minors. To trade him in a pandemic year when teams like Colorado were desperate for warm-bodied goalies, for only a 6th round pick was not a strong move. I don't think this is the case, but there is something about the Johansson deal that feels like it was a "favour". Colorado is a team that will need to expose multiple legitimate NHL players in the expansion draft. I'm not saying that Johansson is worth a Donskoi or a Graves, but maybe it gives us 1st shot at picking up an asset for a reasonable price.

If Eichel is traded in a Lafontaine / Turgeon style trade, then Eichel is likely the Lafontaine in the trade and the Sabres are the team getting Turgeon, Hogue, Krupp and McLlwain. It is a near universal opinion among Sabre fans, maybe all hockey fans and people, that the Sabres won the Turgeon/Lafontaine trade. I recognize that Lafontaine's career was cut-short due to injury and that he was the best player in the deal. But, it is worth noting that Lafontaine (385), Randy Wood (117) and Randy Hiller (1) combined for 503 points as Sabres. Lafontaine and Wood then added 118 points between the two of them after they left Buffalo. In total these players had 621 NHL points after they were traded to the Sabres. On the other side, Turgeon, Benoit Hogue, Uwe Krupp and Dave McLlwain combined for 1697 points after they were traded from the Sabres. Turgeon had over 1000 NHL points AFTER he left Buffalo. Krupp won the Stanley Cup with Colorado. Eichel has had some injury issues...

Really speaks to the difference in the two sports when it comes to the draft and prospects. Doyle and Mitts were born the same year. Mitts was drafted in round 1 in 2017 and was considered by many to be worthy of the trash-heap because he wasn't a fully formed star by age 20-21. Doyle is drafted 4 years later and will still, likely, get some time to develop his game.

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.