Sabres have made it a Top Priority to Re-Sign Linus Ullmark per Friedman

[Curt]

2 minutes ago, Brawndo said:

If this is true, you have to move him 

Sadly, I agree.  That sucks.

[LGR4GM]

1 minute ago, Curt said:

Sadly, I agree.  That sucks.

[darksabre]

I'm about to be upset 

[Scottysabres]

Tough choice. But If the report is accurate on him testing UFA, you have to move him by tomorrow. The needs of the franchise outweigh the needs of the other franchises or the player.

[thewookie1]

Just now, Scottysabres said:

Tough choice. But If the report is accurate on him testing UFA, you have to move him by tomorrow. The needs of the franchise outweigh the needs of the other franchises or the player.

Problem being we have zero capable players to replace him with and I refuse to send him to Toronto.

I'd rather just keep him until he walks.

[Taro T]

5 minutes ago, Brawndo said:

If this is true, you have to move him 

With all due respect, don't believe they can do that.

IMHO, going ~0.500 the rest of the way while still holding exclusive rights to speak w/ him until the league year ends will be more valuable than a late 1st that won't help on the ice for 2-4 more years & a middling prospect and only winning 3 more games this season.

They have to show the hockey world they are an NHL team to maintain any credibility, and minus Ullmark IMHO they simply can't do that.

For the most part, yes, have the most assets possible heading into next season, but the return on Linus won't make up for all the intangibles that will go out the door with him.

[Randall Flagg]

When the words "testing free agency" get uttered, I always see the stipulation that the player hasn't closed the door on returning. How often does the team wind up keeping the player when this word gets out? 

[Scottysabres]

Just now, thewookie1 said:

Problem being we have zero capable players to replace him with and I refuse to send him to Toronto.

I'd rather just keep him until he walks.

Ya, I wouldn't send him there either, but, there are other organizations looking to upgrade their goalie tandems. It would not be wise to let him round out the season and then walk for nothing, but, after years of asset mismanagement, that's just my take on it.

[Claude Balls]

 

[Taro T]

2 minutes ago, Claude Balls said:

 

Do 2 hedging words "could" "possibly" make this as useful a statement as "you could save up to x or more" or even less useful?

Would throwing "maybe" in there before or after "possibly" sell it better, or would that be too much?

[Norcal]

What about a goalie swap? If Ullmark goes, somebody is coming in I'm betting. 

[Taro T]

2 minutes ago, Norcal said:

What about a goalie swap? If Ullmark goes, somebody is coming in I'm betting. 

Well, logistically, with Hutton currently broken, they almost definitely have to bring in a goalie should Ullmark leave tomorrow.  But, logic also implies that if that guy was worth anything real, he wouldn't be coming back.

Trading Ullmark means the guy that couldn't bring in 1 good goalie now needs to find 2 of them.  Oh, please sign all of us up for that. <_<  

[steveoath]

Is Hutton's contract done this summer?

[Weave]

Play to win the rest of the season, even if it means we don't get a return for Ullmark.  We cannot afford to continue to allow losing to be acceptable to yet another generation of young players.

Yet another price to be paid for the decisions that led us here.

[Taro T]

5 minutes ago, steveoath said:

Is Hutton's contract done this summer?

Mercifully, yes.

His deal was designed to have him the #1 while Ullmark acclimated & then get picked by Seattle.  Seattle sliding a year messed that up.

[Flashsabre]

Classic Buffalo reporter reporting. You would think some of these guys would be plugged in a little but nope, always just posting links to other people reporting on the Sabres.

Edited April 12, 2021 by Flashsabre

[Curt]

21 minutes ago, Taro T said:

Do 2 hedging words "could" "possibly" make this as useful a statement as "you could save up to x or more" or even less useful?

Would throwing "maybe" in there before or after "possibly" sell it better, or would that be too much?

Hamilton has no information.  He just read the same tweet that we did.

[Taro T]

Just now, Curt said:

Hamilton has no information.  He just read the same tweet that we did.

Very likely that's a very accurate take.

[Norcal]

15 minutes ago, Taro T said:

Well, logistically, with Hutton currently broken, they almost definitely have to bring in a goalie should Ullmark leave tomorrow.  But, logic also implies that if that guy was worth anything real, he wouldn't be coming back.

Trading Ullmark means the guy that couldn't bring in 1 good goalie now needs to find 2 of them.  Oh, please sign all of us up for that. <_<  

Rutherford has a good record with goaltenders, Adams has been in contact with him, perhaps that has been discussed? 

[PromoTheRobot]

24 minutes ago, Taro T said:

Do 2 hedging words "could" "possibly" make this as useful a statement as "you could save up to x or more" or even less useful?

Would throwing "maybe" in there before or after "possibly" sell it better, or would that be too much?

Some real crackerjack reporting there, Jimmy Olsen.

[Curt]

2 minutes ago, Taro T said:

Mercifully, yes.

His deal was designed to have him the #1 while Ullmark acclimated & then get picked by Seattle.  Seattle sliding a year messed that up.

Technically I would say that Hutton being awful messed that up.  No way Seattle was going to pick him as bad as he was last season.

[Claude Balls]

29 minutes ago, Taro T said:

Do 2 hedging words "could" "possibly" make this as useful a statement as "you could save up to x or more" or even less useful?

Would throwing "maybe" in there before or after "possibly" sell it better, or would that be too much?

Hamilton has terrible grammar and spelling. I don't know how is employed as a reporter. I just posted that for the Pagnotta story in the link.

[Taro T]

3 minutes ago, Curt said:

Technically I would say that Hutton being awful messed that up.  No way Seattle was going to pick him as bad as he was last season.

There is that.  But Seattle screwed it up before Hutton's vision problem did.  And even with the vision problem he still might have been the Sabre selected.  They had to expose literally no one of any value.  7 Fs. 3D, & Ullmark.  Anyone that couldn't squeeze into that was too young (Mittelstadt, Dahlin, Cozens, etc.) or a UFA (Montour, etc.). 

[Curt]

8 minutes ago, Taro T said:

Very likely that's a very accurate take.

I think you mean, Could be very likely that’s a possibly very accurate take.

[Taro T]

8 minutes ago, Norcal said:

Rutherford has a good record with goaltenders, Adams has been in contact with him, perhaps that has been discussed? 

Even if it has, that still won't happen before this team is looking (unreservedly IMHO) like they belong in the '75 Caps, '80 Jets, '92 (?) Otters, etc.  Tough to sell any FA's on joining that mess, IMHO.

Whereas finishing the year at ~0.500 (after starting that way prior to the Covid shutdown) gives people optimism that they may be that missing piece rather than being 1 of 6-7 missing pieces.  Again, just MHO.