Sabres Do Not Qualify Kahun

[Taro T]

1 hour ago, Thorny said:

I agree. 

Ullmark's sv% numbers last season look pretty good. I'm fine with him as the starter but we need an upgrade on Hutton. Hutton was actually 46th overall for sv% last season, so maybe mid-pack for backup goaltenders? On the surface I'd have imagined he'd be lower ranked. Maybe that's because he seemed to tail off as the season went on. I could see someone looking at things and saying with an improved PK, maybe it'd be enough. 

Can't get there myself though. There were too many times I can remember Hutton letting in back-breaker goals. He bares his fair share of blame in why the PK was bad. I don't think we'll see the quality shot suppression we saw last season if we move to a more run-and-gun style to complement our high end forwards and cover up the decreased defensive acumen in the bottom 6 at even strength, as losing Larsson is going to hurt, there. No change to the actual defenseman, either. As of now it'd pretty much be a roll-back of the bottom 8.

We can point to Hutton's eye problems last year as a potential avenue of improvement, but I wouldn't be close to comfortable betting on it. Not when he'll be 35 for next season - just as likely he gets further age-related drop off.

I wouldn't argue that the current tandem is unacceptable on it's face, but considering the short-term construction we've seen this offseason, I think relative to that it's still far too much of a weak link. Status quo on this front would perhaps be palatable in a growth/evaluation year with lower expecations, but it risks torpedoing what should be a playoff roster. If the goal is playoffs, it should be a 50 percent or better proposition heading into the season and the current tandem leaves the projection below that, IMO. I don't think we'll be able to lean on the starter to the extent we'd want in a condensed season, making a quality back-up even more important. 

Fully expect Hutton will be GOOD in January.  But also elect some sort of injury to limit him shortly after that if he is playing starter minutes (even as a tandem starter) in the NHL.  They NEED to bring in another NHL proven NHL goalie.  Let Hutton start the year in Ra-cha-cha (if they can afford the cap hit) so they have a capable backup should 1 of the top 2 guys get hurt or ineffective. 

As long as the cap works, have no problem w/ having him buried in Ra-cha-cha.

Really expect them to trade for a goalie & 1 of the RHD to be part of the package (directly or indirectly).  Am expecting the trade to happen after the arbitration hearings when teams know exactly where they stand.  Could possibly see a 2nd D outbound if they need the cap space.

Interesting off-season & arbitration seems to be the next holdup prior to seeing the logjam of unsigned players & unbalanced rosters clear.

[Rasmus_]

On 10/23/2020 at 10:18 PM, Taro T said:

Took 15 years & a pandemic, but the predictions that the middle 6 guys would get squeezed hard in a salary cap world finally seem to be coming to fruition.

This is very true, I would love to get AA on this roster for the right deal for free.  Whatever is left in cap space after Ullmark and Olofsson sign, give it to him. 

[DarthEbriate]

1 hour ago, TheCerebral1 said:

This is very true, I would love to get AA on this roster for the right deal for free.  Whatever is left in cap space after Ullmark and Olofsson sign, give it to him. 

Free would be a pretty good deal for Athanasiou. 🍺

I'm not sure where he'd play unless we moved out someone. Would you overpay him a touch (the Tage 1.5M route; so maybe like a 1.9 or such) to entice other teams to lay off him if you need to send him through waivers? I'm not sure Athanasiou is yet ready to go for a 2-way contract to rebuild himself.

[Rasmus_]

1 minute ago, DarthEbriate said:

Free would be a pretty good deal for Athanasiou. 🍺

I'm not sure where he'd play unless we moved out someone. Would you overpay him a touch (the Tage 1.5M route; so maybe like a 1.9 or such) to entice other teams to lay off him if you need to send him through waivers? I'm not sure Athanasiou is yet ready to go for a 2-way contract to rebuild himself.

In the sense that he wouldn't cost assets to attain.  That's what I meant 😄

[MattPie]

On 10/24/2020 at 3:10 PM, Thorny said:

It's true, I've scratched my head at a couple of the signings - doesn't matter if Girgs is Krueger's man, really, as he could have been had for less, regardless. It's a pretty odd overpay. I understand in theory the desire to keep him over the guys you listed, but it should have been at a discount. 

Only think about Girgs I haven't seen mentioned is that the contract makes him less desirable in Expansion, but other threads seem like the Sabres won't have an issue protecting him anyway.

[DarthEbriate]

56 minutes ago, MattPie said:

Only think about Girgs I haven't seen mentioned is that the contract makes him less desirable in Expansion, but other threads seem like the Sabres won't have an issue protecting him anyway.

Unless Girgensons has a statistical anomaly of a season akin to his 15-15-30 sophomore season, there's no way we're protecting him. And, given what he provides, unless we give Seattle a sweetener to take him, there's no reason they take him in the expansion draft when they could take whoever of Tage, Mitts, Eakin, or Borgen, whomever we decide of that group to not protect.

[Broken Ankles]

43 minutes ago, DarthEbriate said:

Unless Girgensons has a statistical anomaly of a season akin to his 15-15-30 sophomore season, there's no way we're protecting him. And, given what he provides, unless we give Seattle a sweetener to take him, there's no reason they take him in the expansion draft when they could take whoever of Tage, Mitts, Eakin, or Borgen, whomever we decide of that group to not protect.

Agree with fact they are not protecting Z.  Why would Eakin be protected?  With seven forwards to protect its both Tage and Mitts and possibly someone else at the trade deadline, if GMs are looking to move players before the season ends. Also note Borgen May/may not require protection based on games played this season. 

[DarthEbriate]

4 hours ago, Broken Ankles said:

Agree with fact they are not protecting Z.  Why would Eakin be protected?  With seven forwards to protect its both Tage and Mitts and possibly someone else at the trade deadline, if GMs are looking to move players before the season ends. Also note Borgen May/may not require protection based on games played this season. 

Yeah, I'm just throwing in the names of various tweeners who could be protected or not depending on how the year plays out, and who have RFA or multiyear deals remaining. If Mitts bombs in the AHL or Tage blows out his shoulder again -- we might not need to protect them. Similarly, if Cozens and Eakin form some amazing chemistry and you want to keep that rocking next year as Cozens plays center more and more in increased minutes, maybe Eakin is protected.

As to Borgen, it all depends on if we move a RHD or if there's a lengthy injury. I'm still penciling in Montour on the left and Borgen as my first call-up on the right side until Krueger shows otherwise.