Sabres open goalie protection slot

[JohnC]

10 hours ago, GASabresIUFAN said:

Actually had Buffalo acquired his rights they could have re-signed him.  That said hopefully this would clarify things.  The Sabres enter the entry draft with no goalie to protect.  Tokarski is our exposed goaltender.  UPL and Portillo are exempt and Ullmark is a UFA who doesn't need protection.

13 trades were made in the last week or so as teams unloaded exposed players to teams that wanted them.  KA should have acquired a goalie (or re-signed Ullmark) to fill our open protection slot.  He didn't.  Just another wasted opportunity.  

I don't understand your intensity on this issue. After the expansion draft the free agent market will be flooded with goalies that we can choose from. And then there is the option of trading for a goalie. With respect to signing Ullmark the issue isn't so much what the organization wants to do as it is what does the player want to do? Does he want to sign here, and if so, at what price? If he doesn't want to be here then you move on to the next best options. 

I believe that the Sabres are handling this situation as well as it can be expected. If you can't influence the market then you adjust to it. Be patient and don't force things.  

[GASabresIUFAN]

6 hours ago, dudacek said:

You would have traded 33 for him?

Not sure.  I would have sent the Bruins pick.  The Yotes also received a player back in the deal and a 7th.  Thus it wasn’t just the 39th pick value wise.

[GASabresIUFAN]

10 minutes ago, JohnC said:

I don't understand your intensity on this issue. After the expansion draft the free agent market will be flooded with goalies that we can choose from. And then there is the option of trading for a goalie. With respect to signing Ullmark the issue isn't so much what the organization wants to do as it is what does the player want to do? Does he want to sign here, and if so, at what price? If he doesn't want to be here then you move on to the next best options. 

I believe that the Sabres are handling this situation as well as it can be expected. If you can't influence the market then you adjust to it. Be patient and don't force things.  

You tell me the UFAs lining up to sign here that would give us 2 goalies capable of giving us Ullmark level goaltending?  Good luck that isn’t happening.

Trades are our best and possibly only option to get the goaltending we need unless Ullmark is a glutton for punishment.  

[JohnC]

13 minutes ago, GASabresIUFAN said:

You tell me the UFAs lining up to sign here that would give us 2 goalies capable of giving us Ullmark level goaltending?  Good luck that isn’t happening.

Trades are our best and possibly only option to get the goaltending we need unless Ullmark is a glutton for punishment.  

I have listened to Marty Biron talk about this issue on a more than a few occasions. Each time he has emphasized that there will be plenty of mid-level goalies who will competing with each other on the market. He has also emphasized that although he wants Ullmark back he feels that the Sabres shouldn't over spend for him.  I like Ullmark a lot. He has steadily improved in his development. But let's be fair-minded in our evaluation of him. He is at best a mid-tier starting goalie who has concerning durability issues. 

I'm confident that when the market opens up or through trades the Sabres will have more than enough goalie options to choose from. I'm just not as exercised by this issue as you are. My biggest concern is the return on our traded assets.

[freester]

9 hours ago, GASabresIUFAN said:

Adding two goaltenders is a necessity, but the Sabres never miss an opportunity to miss an opportunity.  After all why utilize an opportunity to improve the club?  It so much better to watch competent GMs swing deal to improve their teams.

I think it’s possible that a goalie is coming back from an Eichel, Risto or Reinhart trade. This potential starting goalie (John Gibson) will share the net with UPL. 

[Archie Lee]

The Avalanche did the same thing.  Protected Grubauer.  Like the Sabres they are going into the expansion draft without an NHL calibre starting goalie under contract.

[dudacek]

Checking the available lists this morning, the only goalie that moved the needle for me was Vanicek and he apparently only plays well against the Sabres.

[Archie Lee]

3 minutes ago, dudacek said:

Checking the available lists this morning, the only goalie that moved the needle for me was Vanicek and he apparently only plays well against the Sabres.

Maybe DeSmith too.

The thing that is being overlooked on this, I think, is that a team like Washington might either:

1.) Prefer to lose Vanicek over other exposed players. So, if they trade Vanicek they are increasing the likelihood they then lose a player they value more; or

2.) Feel certain that Seattle is not going to take Vanicek; so, trading him would mean giving up goalie depth for no good reason.

 

[Marvin]

15 minutes ago, Archie Lee said:

Maybe DeSmith too.

The thing that is being overlooked on this, I think, is that a team like Washington might either:

1.) Prefer to lose Vanicek over other exposed players. So, if they trade Vanicek they are increasing the likelihood they then lose a player they value more; or

2.) Feel certain that Seattle is not going to take Vanicek; so, trading him would mean giving up goalie depth for no good reason.

This ^^^^^.  I can't emphasise this enough.  It was like trying to get an extra goalie before last season -- no one had to move one, so the price was exorbitantly high and GMKA, for better or worse, chose not to pay it.  This is time, the logic is as @Archie Lee gives it.

[Taro T]

4 minutes ago, Marvin, Sabres Fan said:

This ^^^^^.  I can't emphasise this enough.  It was like trying to get an extra goalie before last season -- no one had to move one, so the price was exorbitantly high and GMKA, for better or worse, chose not to pay it.  This is time, the logic is as @Archie Lee gives it.

Well, in fairness to Adams, prior to the taxi squad introduction, he nearly had a deal worked out w/ IIRC 3 different teams.  And that's where having a Rutherford who's in tight in the league inner circle would help.  He'd know before it happened that the league was strongly leaning that way and could've persuaded Adams to up his offers and get the trigger pulled before all the deals went off the table.

Of course, Adams didn't put a claim in on any of the waivedbin-season goalies either.  So maybe it wouldn't have mattered.

[Curt]

1 hour ago, Archie Lee said:

The Avalanche did the same thing.  Protected Grubauer.  Like the Sabres they are going into the expansion draft without an NHL calibre starting goalie under contract.

Well they are obviously incompetent idiots with a naive neophyte GM.  Their fan base should be going berserk.

Am I doing this right?

[Sabres Fan in NS]

Seems like this really doesn't matter anymore, eh?

[Thorner]

2 hours ago, Marvin, Sabres Fan said:

This ^^^^^.  I can't emphasise this enough.  It was like trying to get an extra goalie before last season -- no one had to move one, so the price was exorbitantly high and GMKA, for better or worse, chose not to pay it.  This is time, the logic is as @Archie Lee gives it.

For the worse. 

[kas23]

2 hours ago, New Scotland (NS) said:

Seems like this really doesn't matter anymore, eh?

/thread

[Eleven]

@GASabresIUFANAre you ok now?

I promise, the team will have two goalies on the roster when the preseason starts.

[GASabresIUFAN]

32 minutes ago, Eleven said:

@GASabresIUFANAre you ok now?

I promise, the team will have two goalies on the roster when the preseason starts.

I'm sure they will.  After all we had Johannson, Hutton, Tokarski to back up the injury prone Ullmark last season.  Can't wait to see a similar Murders Row next season. 

When are people here going to get really pissed off by the continued failures of this organization to make smart decisions.  

[Radar]

2 minutes ago, GASabresIUFAN said:

I'm sure they will.  After all we had Johannson, Hutton, Tokarski to back up the injury prone Ullmark last season.  Can't wait to see a similar Murders Row next season. 

When are people here going to get really pissed off by the continued failures of this organization to make smart decisions.  

Let's wait until at least this off season and see.

[PromoTheRobot]

29 minutes ago, GASabresIUFAN said:

I'm sure they will.  After all we had Johannson, Hutton, Tokarski to back up the injury prone Ullmark last season.  Can't wait to see a similar Murders Row next season. 

When are people here going to get really pissed off by the continued failures of this organization to make smart decisions.  

This reminds me of the "franchise QB" angst the Bills board went though. I mean management simply refused to go out and get one. 

[Weave]

2 hours ago, GASabresIUFAN said:

I'm sure they will.  After all we had Johannson, Hutton, Tokarski to back up the injury prone Ullmark last season.  Can't wait to see a similar Murders Row next season. 

When are people here going to get really pissed off by the continued failures of this organization to make smart decisions.  

When the offseason is over and they haven’t picked up decent goaltending.

FFS they have time and options.  Let’s judge them when we have the results in hand.

[Eleven]

2 hours ago, GASabresIUFAN said:

I'm sure they will.  After all we had Johannson, Hutton, Tokarski to back up the injury prone Ullmark last season.  Can't wait to see a similar Murders Row next season. 

When are people here going to get really pissed off by the continued failures of this organization to make smart decisions.  

Ullmark isn't the answer anyway.

2 hours ago, PromoTheRobot said:

This reminds me of the "franchise QB" angst the Bills board went though. I mean management simply refused to go out and get one. 

Not for lack of trying, though.  It takes a lot of misses to hit on a good franchise QB, which is why so many teams wander in the desert for so long.  Miami, Washington, Dallas (I refuse to pretend that Prescott isn't overrated), Raiders, etc., all proud franchises who went longer than the Bills without one.  Frankly, I am not sure the Raiders have had one in my lifetime.

10 minutes ago, Weave said:

When the offseason is over and they haven’t picked up decent goaltending.

FFS they have time and options.  Let’s judge them when we have the results in hand.

Amen.  My fear is that no good goalie is both willing and available.

[PromoTheRobot]

1 minute ago, Eleven said:

 

Not for lack of trying, though.  It takes a lot of misses to hit on a good franchise QB, which is why so many teams wander in the desert for so long.  Miami, Washington, Dallas (I refuse to pretend that Prescott isn't overrated), Raiders, etc., all proud franchises who went longer than the Bills without one.  Frankly, I am not sure the Raiders have had one in my lifetime.

 

Which was my sarcastic point. You just don't go out and get a franchise player because you decide you need one.

[Taro T]

5 minutes ago, Eleven said:

Ullmark isn't the answer anyway.

Not for lack of trying, though.  It takes a lot of misses to hit on a good franchise QB, which is why so many teams wander in the desert for so long.  Miami, Washington, Dallas (I refuse to pretend that Prescott isn't overrated), Raiders, etc., all proud franchises who went longer than the Bills without one.  Frankly, I am not sure the Raiders have had one in my lifetime.

Amen.  My fear is that no good goalie is both willing and available.

They did.  The original "Snake."  Stabler.

[Eleven]

26 minutes ago, PromoTheRobot said:

Which was my sarcastic point. You just don't go out and get a franchise player because you decide you need one.

I thought you were driving at that, just wasn't sure.

22 minutes ago, Taro T said:

They did.  The original "Snake."  Stabler.

Stabler wasn't great.  He really wasn't.  Neither was Plunkett.  If Stabler's teams would have had a better QB, the Raiders would have won more SBs.

Edited July 18, 2021 by Eleven

[The Jokeman]

9 hours ago, freester said:

I think it’s possible that a goalie is coming back from an Eichel, Risto or Reinhart trade. This potential starting goalie (John Gibson) will share the net with UPL. 

UPL needs time in Rochester. 

[Taro T]

1 hour ago, Eleven said:

I thought you were driving at that, just wasn't sure.

Stabler wasn't great.  He really wasn't.  Neither was Plunkett.  If Stabler's teams would have had a better QB, the Raiders would have won more SBs.

Plunkett was very talented when he came into the league but playing for the Patsies beat that out of him.  He had a very strong team around him and got lucky to go against a Vermeil led team.

But Stabler was the real deal.   Very few guys in the 70's had great #'s but that was because of the era.  He led that team on the field & in the bar.