Getting to know Devon Levi

[thewookie1]

1 hour ago, JohnC said:

Many people are arguing that Adams needs to be aggressive in bringing in another goalie to upgrade the position. (That's where I stand.) But it is more likely that the GM is going to stay the course and go with UPL as his primary goalie, and continue with his low cost and short term options as backups. If Levi is going to turn pro as many people expect, he'll end up in Rochester and be the main goalie there so he can be fast tracked to the NHL. This approach will fit in with the building from within approach and will be the cheaper approach to take. 

There was a discussion on another thread that discussed the usage of cap space. My sense is that for the near future (another year or two) from a cap standpoint this organization is going to be at or near the bottom pay scale in the league. The course of this rebuild has been set; I don't see much deviation from it. I would like to see more urgency but I wouldn't count on it. 

Not much to pick from in the UFA market to begin with.

Husso and Kuemper are likely the only interesting candidates

Campbell has had 1 good year and will be looking for a payday, Fleury is likely to retire and there isn't anyone else worth bothering with. 

[JohnC]

1 hour ago, thewookie1 said:

Not much to pick from in the UFA market to begin with.

Husso and Kuemper are likely the only interesting candidates

Campbell has had 1 good year and will be looking for a payday, Fleury is likely to retire and there isn't anyone else worth bothering with. 

I'm not just looking at the UFA market. Trades can be made without giving up high draft picks. 

[Thorner]

3 minutes ago, JohnC said:

I'm not just looking at the UFA market. Trades can be made without giving up high draft picks. 

Making trades to improve the roster would get in the way of having zero expectations though, no? 

[LGR4GM]

19 minutes ago, JohnC said:

I'm not just looking at the UFA market. Trades can be made without giving up high draft picks. 

https://www.nhl.com/news/2021-22-nhl-trades/c-289968698

here you go, slim pickings of good or even decent players traded for something short of a 1st rounder. 

16 minutes ago, Thorny said:

Making trades to improve the roster would get in the way of having zero expectations though, no? 

What a strawman

[JohnC]

On 1/28/2022 at 12:49 PM, LGR4GM said:

https://www.nhl.com/news/2021-22-nhl-trades/c-289968698

here you go, slim pickings of good or even decent players traded for something short of a 1st rounder. 

What a strawman

A couple of judicious trades with cash strapped teams can be made without giving up much in the way of assets other than taking on some salary. The Sabres have a lot of cap space than can be smartly used on a couple to three players that would not only improve the roster but provide better support for our young players. What I'm suggesting is not taking dramatic action that will in the long-run set back the rebuild. I'm suggesting the opposite. If you have an opportunity to improve the team within the confines of the planned rebuild, then it should be done. 

The Sabres are currently playing in front of mostly an empty building inhabited by listless fans. Taking a passive approach to improving the team is taking a longer road to continuing irrelevancy. It need not be that way. 

Edited January 30, 2022 by JohnC

[Thorner]

14 minutes ago, LGR4GM said:

https://www.nhl.com/news/2021-22-nhl-trades/c-289968698

here you go, slim pickings of good or even decent players traded for something short of a 1st rounder. 

What a strawman

In the context of an actual debate? Of course. I was just taking the mickey.

John is doing fine on his own

Edited January 28, 2022 by Thorny

[K-9]

26 minutes ago, JohnC said:

I'm not just looking at the UFA market. Trades can be made without giving up high draft picks. 

What quality of player, goaltender or otherwise, do you reasonably expect to obtain in a trade without high draft picks? 

[JohnC]

16 minutes ago, K-9 said:

What quality of player, goaltender or otherwise, do you reasonably expect to obtain in a trade without high draft picks? 

I'm not giving up a first for any netminder. But I would consider a third, or if the player was good enough, I would consider a second round pick. As an example I would trade a second round pick for Washington's Vanacek or a player like him. Draft picks (not first round picks) can be used as currency, especially if combined with taking on a salary that another team wants to ship out. And that same line of thinking applies to other positions. Even if you don't make dramatic improvements you still can make improvements that make your team better. 

[K-9]

31 minutes ago, JohnC said:

I'm not giving up a first for any netminder. But I would consider a third, or if the player was good enough, I would consider a second round pick. As an example I would trade a second round pick for Washington's Vanacek or a player like him. Draft picks (not first round picks) can be used as currency, especially if combined with taking on a salary that another team wants to ship out. And that same line of thinking applies to other positions. Even if you don't make dramatic improvements you still can make improvements that make your team better. 

My point is that paying a mediocre price usually fetches a mediocre talent and we already have enough mediocrity on the roster. KA’s inability to land a replacement for Ullmark aside, the problem with our goaltending more than anything this year has been having to go six deep at the position. That’s an anomaly of the first order and is impossible to predict. 

[dudacek]

15 minutes ago, K-9 said:

My point is that paying a mediocre price usually fetches a mediocre talent and we already have enough mediocrity on the roster. KA’s inability to land a replacement for Ullmark aside, the problem with our goaltending more than anything this year has been having to go six deep at the position. That’s an anomaly of the first order and is impossible to predict. 

Most team’s 3-4-5-6 are no better than Luukkonen/Dell/Subban/Houser.

Nearly every team (thanks Arizona) has a more reliable 1-2 than Anderson/Tokarski.

Edited January 28, 2022 by dudacek

[GASabresIUFAN]

1 minute ago, dudacek said:

Most team’s 3-4-5-6 are no better than Luukkonen/Dell/Subban/Houser.

Nearly every team (thanks Arizona) has a more reliable 1-2 than Anderson/Tokarski.

Geez I wonder why?  

[K-9]

3 minutes ago, dudacek said:

Most team’s 3-4-5-6 are no better than Luukkonen/Dell/Subban/Houser.

Nearly every team (thanks Arizona) has a more reliable 1-2 than Anderson/Tokarski.

Right and so my question remains: what #1 or #2 goalies are available for a mediocre price? I doubt any #1 goalies are and I’m not convinced that UPL isn’t a decent number 2 given how he was trending before getting hurt.

[dudacek]

7 minutes ago, K-9 said:

Right and so my question remains: what #1 or #2 goalies are available for a mediocre price? I doubt any #1 goalies are and I’m not convinced that UPL isn’t a decent number 2 given how he was trending before getting hurt.

Don’t know and it’s hard to judge Adams without knowing.

Im glad he didn’t beat Timmons, 1st, 3rd for Kuemper.

A 2nd for Vanecek? A 3rd for Vladar? A 3rd and Bernier for Nedjelkovic? I can see Adams thinking Lukkonnen, Anderson and keeping the picks might be a better option, given his goals.

I do know our goaltending has been bad this year and that is on him.

[thewookie1]

3 minutes ago, dudacek said:

Don’t know and it’s hard to judge Adams without knowing.

Im glad he didn’t beat Timmons, 1st, 3rd for Kuemper.

A 2nd for Vanecek? A 3rd for Vladar? A 3rd and Bernier for Nedjelkovic? I can see Adams thinking Lukkonnen, Anderson and keeping the picks might be a better option, given his goals.

I do know our goaltending has been bad this year and that is on him.

2nd for Vanecek, I'm guessing Seattle had intended to send him back if they got Grubauer. He may of never been even on "the market" 

Vladar, I can't see Boston trading him in the division.

3rd + Bernier for Nedjelkovic is the only legitimate question mark. Perhaps it was as simple as Yzerman happened to ask and Carolina just said sure; and no actual shopping occurred. 

I also feel the COVID situation with Seattle's existence has further strained the goalie market. Players with spotty play history are going to want to cash in/secure their future and we have no reason to tie ourselves to mediocre goalies for multi-year contracts. To be honest I think the term was a bigger deal than the overall money. 

[JohnC]

1 hour ago, K-9 said:

My point is that paying a mediocre price usually fetches a mediocre talent and we already have enough mediocrity on the roster. KA’s inability to land a replacement for Ullmark aside, the problem with our goaltending more than anything this year has been having to go six deep at the position. That’s an anomaly of the first order and is impossible to predict. 

There are opportunities for players who are underperforming where they are at and who need a change of scenery. Sam Bennett has been a tremendous pickup for Florida. Although the deal was not costly it turned out to be impactful. I don't expect such a deal to turn out as auspiciously as this one but there are deals that could be made that would improve the roster. 

The Sabres have cap space and they have draft assets. An enterprising GM would be able to judiciously use them. Again, I want to make it clear that I am not advocating for a major depletion of our resources/assets to upgrade the team simply for a short-term benefit at the expense of the longer term. 

 https://www.nhl.com/news/florida-acquires-sam-bennett-from-calgary/c-323572260

[LGR4GM]

1 hour ago, JohnC said:

There are opportunities for players who are underperforming where they are at and who need a change of scenery. Sam Bennett has been a tremendous pickup for Florida. Although the deal was not costly it turned out to be impactful. I don't expect such a deal to turn out as auspiciously as this one but there are deals that could be made that would improve the roster. 

The Sabres have cap space and they have draft assets. An enterprising GM would be able to judiciously use them. Again, I want to make it clear that I am not advocating for a major depletion of our resources/assets to upgrade the team simply for a short-term benefit at the expense of the longer term. 

 https://www.nhl.com/news/florida-acquires-sam-bennett-from-calgary/c-323572260

For every Bennett there's 10 Frolics.

[JohnC]

4 hours ago, K-9 said:

My point is that paying a mediocre price usually fetches a mediocre talent and we already have enough mediocrity on the roster. KA’s inability to land a replacement for Ullmark aside, the problem with our goaltending more than anything this year has been having to go six deep at the position. That’s an anomaly of the first order and is impossible to predict. 

The Ullmark issue has a number of aspects to it. One is that the GM declined to sign Ullmark to the contract that he was willing to sign in order to stay. And the other side of it is that Boston signed him for a reasonable contract. What it came down to is that Ullmark wanted the Sabres to pay a premium price for him to stay with a struggling and rebuilding team as opposed to signing a lesser contract with a more complete and playoff contending team. As an UFA Ullmark was looking out for his best interest. There was nothing unreasonable about Ullmark's stance. The GM who had plenty of cap space and an acknowledged major void at the position could have easily kept the player at the price the player was demanding and still continue on with his rebuild without hindering it at all in the short or long term. 

The point I'm making here irrespective to this particular example is that there are ways to accelerate the upgrade of this team if there is a little more creativity and desire to do so. I'm not talking about fanciful blockbuster deals as I'm talking about being a little more aggressive in improving this incomplete team. When you are walking and increase your pace just a little you will get to your destination quicker than if you continue at an ambling pace. 

 

[LGR4GM]

10 hours ago, JohnC said:

The Ullmark issue has a number of aspects to it. One is that the GM declined to sign Ullmark to the contract that he was willing to sign in order to stay. And the other side of it is that Boston signed him for a reasonable contract. What it came down to is that Ullmark wanted the Sabres to pay a premium price for him to stay with a struggling and rebuilding team as opposed to signing a lesser contract with a more complete and playoff contending team. As an UFA Ullmark was looking out for his best interest. There was nothing unreasonable about Ullmark's stance. The GM who had plenty of cap space and an acknowledged major void at the position could have easily kept the player at the price the player was demanding and still continue on with his rebuild without hindering it at all in the short or long term. 

The point I'm making here irrespective to this particular example is that there are ways to accelerate the upgrade of this team if there is a little more creativity and desire to do so. I'm not talking about fanciful blockbuster deals as I'm talking about being a little more aggressive in improving this incomplete team. When you are walking and increase your pace just a little you will get to your destination quicker than if you continue at an ambling pace. 

 

You think Ullmark for 4 years at 5 million is reasonable? And if he was demanded more from the Sabres would 4 years 6mil be worth it?

Ullmark, who plays for Boston: .916sv% 21gp 

UPL, who plays for Buffalo: .917sv% 9gp

I actually think Adams was correct to walk away from Ullmark. We're gonna want that 5 mill in cap in July of 2023. 

 

[JohnC]

3 hours ago, LGR4GM said:

You think Ullmark for 4 years at 5 million is reasonable? And if he was demanded more from the Sabres would 4 years 6mil be worth it?

Ullmark, who plays for Boston: .916sv% 21gp 

UPL, who plays for Buffalo: .917sv% 9gp

I actually think Adams was correct to walk away from Ullmark. We're gonna want that 5 mill in cap in July of 2023. 

 

Walking away from Ullmark was not the problem. The problem was that the GM didn't have an adequate fallback position if he couldn't sign the UFA goalie at the price he deemed acceptable. That's the indictable offense. 

However, I absolutely agree that paying Ullmark a million dollars more on a four year term (your example) would be worth it. That extra million would have had a negligible impact for a franchise that is at the bottom of cap spending. The combination of Ullmark and UPL (now injured) would have made more sense than bringing in Anderson and pairing him up with anyone else. 

The Sabres have had bad luck with injuries at the goalie position this year. But when the season started the position was thin to begin with. I'm not getting carried away and proclaiming Ullmark to be an upper tier player. But as a Sabre he played well for us, and his record was starkly better than other goalies in the net. 

The past is the past. The lesson to be learned is to be better prepared to respond to contingencies such as having options for a player who is an UFA. That was the failure with in this situation. 

[Archie Lee]

4 hours ago, LGR4GM said:

You think Ullmark for 4 years at 5 million is reasonable? And if he was demanded more from the Sabres would 4 years 6mil be worth it?

Ullmark, who plays for Boston: .916sv% 21gp 

UPL, who plays for Buffalo: .917sv% 9gp

I actually think Adams was correct to walk away from Ullmark. We're gonna want that 5 mill in cap in July of 2023. 

 

I think it is entirely reasonable that Adams and his management team placed a value on Ullmark and stuck with it.  Giving a player an extra year or an extra million in AAV or a NMC (or all 3) is how you get in trouble.  That the Sabres don't have cap issues this year and won't next year doesn't mean they won't have issues in 2-3 years.  Giving a player more than his determined value just sets a precedent for other players to demand the same. It might be a pipe dream that we will eventually be a team like the Bruins or the Lightning where players will want to be here and will accept slightly below market value in order to stay with or come to the Sabres; I don't think you get there though by setting the precedent that you will overpay.

That said, I personally valued Ullmark at the same level as Demko, 5x5, and would have tried to get him at that before free agency. I don't like the NMC he got from the Bruins, but would have given him some trade protection. Also, I don't think the above references to the respective save %'s of Ullmark and UPL this season make an argument for not signing Ullmark.  Unless you have a Vasilevskiy, you need 2 goalies.  Having Ullmark at a .916 save % as a 1A who transitions to a 1B or 2A over the course of a 5 year contract would have been a solid use of $5 million in cap space in my view. Losing Ullmark has left us needing two goalies instead of one. 

[DarthEbriate]

4 hours ago, LGR4GM said:

You think Ullmark for 4 years at 5 million is reasonable? And if he was demanded more from the Sabres would 4 years 6mil be worth it?

Ullmark, who plays for Boston: .916sv% 21gp 

UPL, who plays for Buffalo: .917sv% 9gp

I actually think Adams was correct to walk away from Ullmark. We're gonna want that 5 mill in cap in July of 2023. 

We will want that $5M in 2023 to spend, but I hope it's on a goalie that warrants the salary. What I want is in July 2023 for us to have enough information on UPL to either give him 5x5 (probably higher by then if the cap starts moving up) to be the starter or to move him or to do a 2x$2.5M as the backup to... Levi... because it's the Levi thread.

The going rate in 2021 for a starting caliber goalie is $4.5M-$6M.  https://www.capfriendly.com/signings/all/standard/goalies/2-15/0-15000000/0-0/1-way  (Filtered for 1-way, standard contracts, and I got rid of all the 1-year deals that would have a variance (but were mostly oddities and cheap: Martin Jones to PHI, Rask returning to BOS at an insane discount).

Ullmark at $5M was reasonable because he's an average starting goalie (when healthy) and that salary right in line with what starting goalies were getting on the open market in the summer of 2021. If we didn't want to pay Ullmark, we should have signed him during the season last year to try to keep the cost down or traded him at the 2021 deadline as a rental (health permitting). And that decision could have been more easily determined after claiming Nedeljkovic off waivers at the beginning of the season and sliding Hutton into the nearest garbage chute.

[Thorner]

17 hours ago, JohnC said:

The Ullmark issue has a number of aspects to it. One is that the GM declined to sign Ullmark to the contract that he was willing to sign in order to stay. And the other side of it is that Boston signed him for a reasonable contract. What it came down to is that Ullmark wanted the Sabres to pay a premium price for him to stay with a struggling and rebuilding team as opposed to signing a lesser contract with a more complete and playoff contending team. As an UFA Ullmark was looking out for his best interest. There was nothing unreasonable about Ullmark's stance. The GM who had plenty of cap space and an acknowledged major void at the position could have easily kept the player at the price the player was demanding and still continue on with his rebuild without hindering it at all in the short or long term. 

The point I'm making here irrespective to this particular example is that there are ways to accelerate the upgrade of this team if there is a little more creativity and desire to do so. I'm not talking about fanciful blockbuster deals as I'm talking about being a little more aggressive in improving this incomplete team. When you are walking and increase your pace just a little you will get to your destination quicker than if you continue at an ambling pace. 

 

This is a really good post. 

I don’t think Tim Murray’s attempts to speed up a rebuild should be taken as a referendum on whether or not a rebuild can be accelerated, or helped along. IMO people are now so gun-shy they feel like the only way to do things is to do...nothing. Construct your draft list and have at it. Just make Liger GM then, lord knows he’d do a great job drafting. 

There’s more to the GM position. There’s no rule saying the future needs to be torpedoed to improve the present. IMO *Adams* seems to have been operating under those terms for this season. I understand it. But I do not believe steps shouldn’t be taken to improve the “now”, next season, and I don’t think it needs to substantially weaken the future.

Indeed, I believe that improving the “now”, to a reasonable extent, for the young players we have here, would go a long way towards ensuring that future does indeed come about.

Edited January 29, 2022 by Thorny

[JohnC]

28 minutes ago, Thorny said:

This is a really good post. 

I don’t think Tim Murray’s attempts to speed up a rebuild should be taken as a referendum on whether or not a rebuild can be accelerated, or helped along. IMO people are now so gun-shy they feel like the only way to do things is to do...nothing. Construct your draft list and have at it. Just make Liger GM then, lord knows he’d do a great job drafting. 

There’s more to the GM position. There’s no rule saying the future needs to be torpedoed to improve the present. IMO *Adams* seems to have been operating under those terms for this season. I understand it. But I do not believe steps shouldn’t be taken to improve the “now”, next season, and I don’t think it needs to substantially weaken the future.

Indeed, I believe that improving the “now”, to a reasonable extent, for the young players we have here, would go a long way towards ensuring that future does indeed come about.

Potently stated! The  Murray mistakes of the past that are reflexively brought up whenever someone brings up options to improve this team. That hesitancy due to fear of past failure in the long run is more franchise crippling than taking some actions that don't work. 

Few people here are advocating for a dramatic change in the draft and develop rebuild process. Without question that is the core of the rebuild strategy. However, when one has an excess in draft capital that includes a number of second and third round picks on top of a low cap figure, then those are assets that can be parlayed into contributing players. Anyone who believes that this team has enough contributing players isn't watching the same games that I am watching.

 

[Marvin]

1 hour ago, JohnC said:

Potently stated! The  Murray mistakes of the past that are reflexively brought up whenever someone brings up options to improve this team. That hesitancy due to fear of past failure in the long run is more franchise crippling than taking some actions that don't work. 

Few people here are advocating for a dramatic change in the draft and develop rebuild process. Without question that is the core of the rebuild strategy. However, when one has an excess in draft capital that includes a number of second and third round picks on top of a low cap figure, then those are assets that can be parlayed into contributing players. Anyone who believes that this team has enough contributing players isn't watching the same games that I am watching.

 

I think those of us who are more gun-shy about expending assets to accelerate a rebuild merely had it reinforced because of XGMTM.  I have that bias and look at him as a cautionary note.

Having said that, I personally would keep looking for hockey trades, especially 2nd and 3rd rounders and prospects for better veteran RHD's with some term plus maybe a lesser asset.  I also would be planning on what other depth I could add by using the cap space of this year and next wisely.  In this vein, I think there likely had been a goalie to be had over the summer, but people were asking for the moon because of COVID.

[JohnC]

18 hours ago, Marvin, Sabres Fan said:

I think those of us who are more gun-shy about expending assets to accelerate a rebuild merely had it reinforced because of XGMTM.  I have that bias and look at him as a cautionary note.

Having said that, I personally would keep looking for hockey trades, especially 2nd and 3rd rounders and prospects for better veteran RHD's with some term plus maybe a lesser asset.  I also would be planning on what other depth I could add by using the cap space of this year and next wisely.  In this vein, I think there likely had been a goalie to be had over the summer, but people were asking for the moon because of COVID.

The lesson to be learned by the TM tenure is to be judicious with your assets and wisely utilize them. That wasn't a trademark of his tenure that looked for a quick fix. There are a number of avenues to upgrade a roster. Foreclosing or limiting any one of them due to fear of previous failings is the wrong lesson to be learned. What is evident with this regime under KA is that this franchise is not going to act out of desperation or expediency. That was evident by the way KA handled the Jack Eichel situation. He bided his time and waited until a reasonable deal materialized, and then he made the transaction. Taking steps to move forward is better than standing in place when the destination is still some distance away.