What Do the Sabres Look Like in 2 years?

[Stoner]

39 minutes ago, nfreeman said:

This.  Their goaltending as currently constituted indicates to me that they are trying to lose.  That's a tank, and it's not acceptable.

Did you ever wonder what's really going on?

[Thorner]

15 hours ago, Andrew Amerk said:

I don’t get the sense that this is the ultimate “plan” though. This is not the same as The Tank. 

The team will likely be bad, but it’s not going to be on purpose. 

It's just the difference between "bad" being the priority, or a willing side-effect. The ultimate goal isn't to finish last but the priority is certainly not "winning" right now. That we'll finish near the bottom is an accepted, and I'd argue, based on the dearth of on ice addition we've seen so far, desired result. 

Edited August 25, 2021 by Thorny

[I-90 W]

I didn’t think KA was tanking all the way up until Ullmark left. Have said all along that we will know whether he is tanking or not by who we have in net. So yes, now I do believe he is setting up a tank year. I’m not impressed by him at all. History is going to repeat itself.

[Thorner]

14 hours ago, Andrew Amerk said:

It’s not a tank. 

It's mostly semantics. They are going to be bad and know it

[LGR4GM]

10 minutes ago, I-90 W said:

I didn’t think KA was tanking all the way up until Ullmark left. Have said all along that we will know whether he is tanking or not by who we have in net. So yes, now I do believe he is setting up a tank year. I’m not impressed by him at all. History is going to repeat itself.

lol

[Digger]

45 minutes ago, LGR4GM said:

Why did they trade Reinhart? Your argument is to tank. They traded him because he wasn't going to sign a long term deal. They didn't want to walk him to UFA and get nothing so they traded him before that. 

Why did they trade Ristolainen? Your argument is to tank. They traded him because he has 1 year left on his deal and has wanted out for a couple years. The analytics heads assuredly were comfortable moving on from him and now they have another spot for their burgeoning defensive depth. 

Why are they going to trade Eichel? Your argument is tank. This might be the closest one you can argue that with because they control him for 5 more years and he's only 24. However it is very clear they org and the player want to move in different directions. 

Why is Ullmark not on the team? Your argument is tank. The truth is they tried everything to sign him but when he wanted over 4 years of term and around 5-6mil they walked away because they didn't think he was worth that. 

So for a team that is tanking they sure have a lot of non-tank reasons for just about everything they have done. Tanking is a deliberate attempt to finish last. The Sabres just suck and finished last with all those guys anyways so yes they are resetting their timeline to be in line with the 19-22 year olds they have. They are not deliberately bad, they are simply just bad because of years of poor decision making. This is like accusing the Bills of tanking Allen's first year as opposed to recognizing the team simply hadn't been able to finish adding the talent they wanted. 

I'm not sure it will be a true Tank.  I remember GM Tim Murray kept moving out assets that were performing well throughout the season when we were hoping to get McDavid in the draft.  I hope that we don't do that this time around because I think it's really hard on the overall team culture.

I understand your points above but one thing that I will point out is that GM Adams has specifically asked and insisted on getting "all futures" in the trades he was making.  I suppose it could be argued that "futures" might provide the best value long term but I still wonder if we could have had more success in trading for young established roster players under contract.  Removing Reinhart from the roster without getting a player back that can play in his spot and role doesn't indicate to me that they want to win right away.  Ristolainen, okay is was a good deal but still removing an established D (like him or not) and replacing him with a 6D in Hagg.  Ullmark is unfortunate and I would have thought (still do) that they could find a better option in goal than (Anderson / Dell / Tokarski / UPL).  Eichel, we will see when it happens.

I think in general most of us felt (I think you did too from the posts I read) that if we had to trade Reinhart, Ristolainen, and Eichel that we would be able to get back roster players that could play for the Sabres this season.  So is the "all futures" the right move?

[Thorner]

They definitely believe that a potential top pick could be resultant from the strategy they've deemed to be correct, which Brawndo has laid out several times, I'd imagine accurately - their focus is acquiring young pieces the next two seasons, and developing, (ie rebuild, not winning) and the rest of the equation falls into place by them steadfastly adhering to their course of action. If we happen to win this coming season, they'll say "great", and they won't ditch our goalies who are playing well (hahaha) for scraps to ensure a bottom place finish. But something like that would be unlikely given the things we *are* prioritizing and Adams is taking on that strategy willingly. 

It's the difference between the strategy BEING the top pick in next year's draft, and a top pick in next year's draft seemingly being likely because of the chosen strategy. 

Edited August 25, 2021 by Thorny

[SwampD]

 

1 hour ago, LGR4GM said:

You both just want to be lazy and label everything that isn't adding talent as tanking. 

2 hours ago, LGR4GM said:

Tanking = icing the worse possible team you can by deliberately by selling off all valuable assets and playing lesser players and replacement players in key positions. 

I never labled it anything. I just asked that if this is your definition of a tank, how are you not calling it one.

1 hour ago, LGR4GM said:

Why did they trade Reinhart? Your argument is to tank. They traded him because he wasn't going to sign a long term deal. They didn't want to walk him to UFA and get nothing so they traded him before that. 

Why did they trade Ristolainen? Your argument is to tank. They traded him because he has 1 year left on his deal and has wanted out for a couple years. The analytics heads assuredly were comfortable moving on from him and now they have another spot for their burgeoning defensive depth. 

Why are they going to trade Eichel? Your argument is tank. This might be the closest one you can argue that with because they control him for 5 more years and he's only 24. However it is very clear they org and the player want to move in different directions. 

Why is Ullmark not on the team? Your argument is tank. The truth is they tried everything to sign him but when he wanted over 4 years of term and around 5-6mil they walked away because they didn't think he was worth that. 

So for a team that is tanking they sure have a lot of non-tank reasons for just about everything they have done. Tanking is a deliberate attempt to finish last. The Sabres just suck and finished last with all those guys anyways so yes they are resetting their timeline to be in line with the 19-22 year olds they have. They are not deliberately bad, they are simply just bad because of years of poor decision making. This is like accusing the Bills of tanking Allen's first year as opposed to recognizing the team simply hadn't been able to finish adding the talent they wanted. 

So, they finished last,... then every move they made has made the team worse,... but they're not trying to finish last.

They may not be tanking, but they certainly aren't trying to get better, either.

[JoeSchmoe]

2 hours ago, LGR4GM said:

Tanking = icing the worse possible team you can by deliberately by selling off all valuable assets and playing lesser players and replacement players in key positions. 

The goalies we have alone tells the story. We are trying to lose unfortunately.

I really hope Terry is not in KA's ear telling him not to spend on goaltending because he likes UPL and wants him to play. UPL's last 2 years are telling me he's more likely to be a minor league goalie that an NHL goalie. And even if he proves me wrong, I see zero recent evidence to think he'll be good in the NHL.

 

[Pimlach]

2 hours ago, inkman said:

Outside of Evandro Kane with money on the game, players don’t play to lose.  

  Keyword is players

[Sabres Fan in NS]

10 minutes ago, SwampD said:

 

I never labled it anything. I just asked that if this is your definition of a tank, how are you not calling it one.

So, they finished last,... then every move they made has made the team worse,... but they're not trying to finish last.

They may not be tanking, but they certainly aren't trying to get better, either.

They have never claimed that this year the goal was to get better.  This year is an investment in the young players that the Sabres have hitched the wagon to.

As these young players grow and mature they will be better and that is when the Sabres will be getting better.

[Thorner]

11 hours ago, pi2000 said:

They'll be so bad this year it will break the spirit of the Dahlins and Cozens... resulting in permanent brain damage.   

Granato is fired over the Olympic break, KA launched after the season.   

Dahlin demands a trade.   

Power refuses to sign after his college season ends.

They sign Okposo, Girgensons and Pysyk to one year deals.   

Eveybody else is either traded or waived.   

They finish DFL, lose the lottery, draft the russia kid Miroshinchenko, who signs with the KHL.

2022-23 will feature a new GM, new HC, and 18 new roster playes plus one Jack Eichel who is still locked in a stalemate with team doctors facing a second straight season on LTIR.

I'm not sure how much of this post is tongue in cheek but the first line and bolded is pretty much the key concern: did we draft bad attitude apples in Eichel and Riso and Reinhart or did they develop into players that "had to go" because of the losing atmosphere? How can we be sure, at all, this same fate doesn't await the young players we have now, should be indeed lose a lot the next couple years, as appears to be the plan, or inclusive within it? 

3 hours ago, Buffalonill said:

They have done nothing to improve at all ..but we're not tanking? 

We just lost 85% of our Offense and they did nothing but trade for future assets

It kinda does seem that simple, no? We finished last last season, and Adams has made the team unquestionably worse. I can't remember a season, including the tank years, where we brought IN as little as we have, thus far. I know @dudacekthinks we are still going to bring in a centre, AND a goalie...all I can say about that right now is...tick tock. 

1 hour ago, New Scotland (NS) said:

There is a big difference between then and now.

They have kept very good players.  If they were tanking I think Dahlin would have been traded, Cozens, Mitts and any other player that is decent.  They alos would have brought in a ragtag mess of veterans to make it look good, but would not end up being good.

To me this is a reset.  Missing out on Linus is a blow, but the Sabres are not going to be good this year, so why blow a slow and steady rebuild on some goalie that is not going to be here when this thing works it's way out.  They got in some cheap veterans to hold the fort as it were intil UPL is really ready.

The Sabres are likely to be terrible this year.  There is no reason to tank.  There is also no tank prize available at the end of the tank rainbow.

I do not believe that this year is a tank year.  Of course, there is a big part of me that could never view it as such because I am so opposed to tanking.

Don't really see it this way. Guys like Girgensons and Grigorenko represented key pieces of our envisioned "future" when we embarked on the last tank - we didn't trade them. They occupied places in our minds like the Cozens and Caseys do now, we are just all forgetting. 

[Weave]

I can readily justify the Sam, Risto and likely Jack trades as not being tank moves.  Contract status and stated apathy about being here means they were likely moved to create culture change, and the fact that bringing back vets that want to be here is a hard sell, I am convinced that those trades had to be about futures.  So no tanking there.

Then we get to the goalie.  Ullmark was negotiating the opposite of a home town discount, a home town premium.  OK maybe the team didn’t want to pay a premium to get him, but I find it difficult to fathom that what we did get in place of Ullmark was the best we could come up with.

Leads me to speculate that Ullmark walking away was the trigger point where the team decided to just go ahead and let last place happen.  Not actively tank, but if last place occurs they are comfortable with it.

Some day the Sabres need to hire a GM that is not comfortable with the losing.

[Sabres Fan in NS]

5 minutes ago, JoeSchmoe said:

The goalies we have alone tells the story. We are trying to lose unfortunately.

I really hope Terry is not in KA's ear telling him not to spend on goaltending because he likes UPL and wants him to play. UPL's last 2 years are telling me he's more likely to be a minor league goalie that an NHL goalie. And even if he proves me wrong, I see zero recent evidence to think he'll be good in the NHL.

 

I don't agree. 

We are not trying to lose.  We lost Linus.  When that happened the focus was on UPL and probably Levi becoming the next Sabre good goalie(s).

Why upset the long-term rebuild plan by bringing in some 'good' goalie that will not be part of any long-term plan?  Bring in some vets that can play well enough to get the Sabres through the year.  All these guys on 1 year deals are here for that ... 1 year.  If 1 year is not long enough someone will be signed for next year.  I have a good feeling that UPL does not need much more time to be NHL ready.  Maybe Levi too.

[Thorner]

20 minutes ago, Digger said:

I'm not sure it will be a true Tank.  I remember GM Tim Murray kept moving out assets that were performing well throughout the season when we were hoping to get McDavid in the draft.  I hope that we don't do that this time around because I think it's really hard on the overall team culture.

I understand your points above but one thing that I will point out is that GM Adams has specifically asked and insisted on getting "all futures" in the trades he was making.  I suppose it could be argued that "futures" might provide the best value long term but I still wonder if we could have had more success in trading for young established roster players under contract.  Removing Reinhart from the roster without getting a player back that can play in his spot and role doesn't indicate to me that they want to win right away.  Ristolainen, okay is was a good deal but still removing an established D (like him or not) and replacing him with a 6D in Hagg.  Ullmark is unfortunate and I would have thought (still do) that they could find a better option in goal than (Anderson / Dell / Tokarski / UPL).  Eichel, we will see when it happens.

I think in general most of us felt (I think you did too from the posts I read) that if we had to trade Reinhart, Ristolainen, and Eichel that we would be able to get back roster players that could play for the Sabres this season.  So is the "all futures" the right move?

This is a good post, and to my mind you are right about the bolded - most of the talk down I received when suggesting we shouldn't "tank" or "sell off" was that we could and would be moving the guys we are in hockey type trades, that we were headed for a shake up and not a tear down - that KA had plenty of room, cap, and opportunity to mold us into a team that could fight for the playoffs right away. They have chosen a different route. 

[Weave]

2 minutes ago, Thorny said:

I'm not sure how much of this post is tongue in cheek but the first line and bolded is pretty much the key concern: did we draft bad attitude apples in Eichel and Riso and Reinhart or did they develop into players that "had to go" because of the losing atmosphere? How can we be sure, at all, this same fate doesn't await the young players we have now, should be indeed lose a lot the next couple years, as appears to be the plan, or inclusive within it? 

It kinda does seem that simple, no? We finished last last season, and Adams has made the team unquestionably worse. I can't remember a season, including the tank years, where we brought IN as little as we have, thus far. I know @dudacekthinks we are still going to bring in a centre, AND a goalie...all I can say about that right now is...tick tock. 

Don't really see it this way. Guys like Girgensons and Grigorenko represented key pieces of our envisioned "future" when we embarked on the last tank - we didn't trade them. They occupied places in our minds like the Cozens and Caseys do now, we are just all forgetting. 

I 100% feel that not bringing in the players needed to start winning now is a high risk option that could readily infect Dylan, Radmus, Casey, et al the same way it infected every young player post Tank1.0.

[JoeSchmoe]

4 minutes ago, New Scotland (NS) said:

  I have a good feeling that UPL does not need much more time to be NHL ready.  Maybe Levi too.

Is it his poor play in Rochester that gives you that good feeling? 

We need more than 1 goalie. We could have signed a vet while Levi and Portillo get their 2-3 years of seasoning. When the kids are ready, trading a decent goalie with a year or two left on his contract would bring in more assets.

[Thorner]

8 minutes ago, Weave said:

I can readily justify the Sam, Risto and likely Jack trades as not being tank moves.  Contract status and stated apathy about being here means they were likely moved to create culture change, and the fact that bringing back vets that want to be here is a hard sell, I am convinced that those trades had to be about futures.  So no tanking there.

Then we get to the goalie.  Ullmark was negotiating the opposite of a home town discount, a home town premium.  OK maybe the team didn’t want to pay a premium to get him, but I find it difficult to fathom that what we did get in place of Ullmark was the best we could come up with.

Leads me to speculate that Ullmark walking away was the trigger point where the team decided to just go ahead and let last place happen.  Not actively tank, but if last place occurs they are comfortable with it.

Some day the Sabres need to hire a GM that is not comfortable with the losing.

Pretty much. None of the moves were born out of a "Oooo, this will help us be even worse" line of thinking from Adams. But the rules and parameters by which Adams wants to build this team are not going to be broken in the pursuit of fielding a team that is better on ice this year. This comes to play with the bolded bit: what we got to replace Ullmark wasn't the best KA could have gotten, no chance. But I'm guessing it was the best that could be gotten after, first, and foremost, satisfying the rules KA has chosen to operate under: no term, no commitment, no cash, no veteran that isn't bouncing for joy at the prospect of being a buffalo sabre. 

4 minutes ago, Weave said:

I 100% feel that not bringing in the players needed to start winning now is a high risk option that could readily infect Dylan, Radmus, Casey, et al the same way it infected every young player post Tank1.0.

Informs pretty much my entire stance against/in worry of what we are doing. 

[thewookie1]

11 minutes ago, Weave said:

I can readily justify the Sam, Risto and likely Jack trades as not being tank moves.  Contract status and stated apathy about being here means they were likely moved to create culture change, and the fact that bringing back vets that want to be here is a hard sell, I am convinced that those trades had to be about futures.  So no tanking there.

Then we get to the goalie.  Ullmark was negotiating the opposite of a home town discount, a home town premium.  OK maybe the team didn’t want to pay a premium to get him, but I find it difficult to fathom that what we did get in place of Ullmark was the best we could come up with.

Leads me to speculate that Ullmark walking away was the trigger point where the team decided to just go ahead and let last place happen.  Not actively tank, but if last place occurs they are comfortable with it.

Some day the Sabres need to hire a GM that is not comfortable with the losing.

There’s a serious difference between being “comfortable with losing” and being realistic.

If Ullmark was asking for 6x6mil then I’m glad we let him go. As for the lack of a replacement I partially blame the market at the time Ullmark made his decision. By the time he made his decision there was only scraps left to grab from. And while I would of personally been hunting down a backup plan from the start; how do we know they also didn’t fall through? For all we know most solid goalies wanted terms we were unwilling to give or a better team swooped in and grabbed them. 

[nfreeman]

1 hour ago, LGR4GM said:

 

Moving those goalposts. 

Did the sabres try or not try to re-sign Linus Ullmark? If you are tanking (deliberately making your team suck to get the best pick) why would you do this? 

You both just want to be lazy and label everything that isn't adding talent as tanking. 

Well, if Vogl was right in reporting that they only offered Linus a 1-year or 2-year deal, they didn't try very hard.

Either way, pretty much everyone agreed that given Ullmark's injury history, the Sabres needed not only Ullmark but a 2nd credible NHL goalie if they wanted to give a young and developing team the backstopping in net that it will surely need as they try to emerge from the basement.  That didn't happen either.

Bottom line is that about a million goalies moved around this summer, which is what happens every summer, and again the Sabres sat out the game of musical chairs and instead signed a couple of fringe guys whom no one expects to be any good.

They have chosen, at this point anyway, to go into the season with non-credible NHL goaltending.  That is a choice a GM makes when he wants his team to lose.  And a GM that makes that choice is a GM that is tanking.  It may not be as complete a tank as GMTM's tank, but it's still a tank. 

I sincerely hope KA pulls a rabbit out of his hat and brings in a real goalie between now and the start of the season, but I'm not optimistic.

As for your other post about the Reino and other trades -- not sure whether that was directed at me, but I haven't said anything about those trades in the context of whether they are tanking.  FWIW, I don't view those trades as part of a tank.

 

1 hour ago, PASabreFan said:

Did you ever wonder what's really going on?

What does this mean?

 

3 minutes ago, Weave said:

I 100% feel that not bringing in the players needed to start winning now is a high risk option that could readily infect Dylan, Radmus, Casey, et al the same way it infected every young player post Tank1.0.

Absolutely.  This is one of the key reasons why tanking is a stupid and shortsighted strategy.

[dudacek]

20 minutes ago, Thorny said:

 I know @dudacekthinks we are still going to bring in a centre, AND a goalie...all I can say about that right now is...tick tock.

I think the roster has deliberately been constructed in such a way that there is obvious cap and (non-blocking) roster room to add pieces.

I think there is reason to be seriously concerned that the current situation in goal and centre will be detrimental to the development of the young players that is the goal this season.

I think that Dell and Anderson were quick-strike signings in order to cover our butts and buy time when Plan A (Ullmark) fell through and the UFA goalie merry-go-round had run out of seats.

I think Adams is willing to go to war with his current goalie group if he has to, but his preference is to acquire a better stopgap at a reasonable price. There is a good chance that might not be available.

I think Adams doesn't want to make any more moves until the Eichel situation is resolved. That's because he doesn't want to "block" his acquisitions.

I think his inability to move Eichel may force his hand, but he will wait until the eve of the season if he has to. He probably has a few prospective trades on the table that are stopgaps for him and cap dumps for the other team. And he probably has a few Sheahan-type signings on the backburner to reach the floor if he needs to.

I think this is the plan, but I also think he will sit on the current roster before he will take a bad return for Jack or move for a pickup that may prove redundant.

Edited August 25, 2021 by dudacek

[pi2000]

2 hours ago, GASabresIUFAN said:

Are they trying to finish last.  I think they absolutely are.  If they truly wanted to support the kids and give them a chance each night they would have worked harder to get a suitable replacement for Ullmark.     

I agree with this.    

I do believe they tried to sign Ullmark.  I also believe they made the correct decision to let him go at that price tag.   The best ability is availability.  

That said, this smells like a team operating under an extremely tight budget.   

Combined with the fact that nobody willfully wants to play for the organization, it will remain an issue until they can fill the position organically. 

So, no this isn't a traditional tank... it's a cultural reset of the entire organization.

Edited August 25, 2021 by pi2000

[Thorner]

4 minutes ago, dudacek said:

I think the roster has deliberately been constructed in such a way that there is obvious cap and (non-blocking) roster room to add pieces.

I think there is reason to be seriously concerned that the current situation in goal and centre will be detrimental to the development of the young players that is the goal this season.

I think that Dell and Anderson were quick-strike signings in order to cover our butts and buy time when Plan A (Ullmark) fell through and the UFA goalie merry-go-round had run out of seats.

I think Adams is willing to go to war with his current goalie group if he has to, but his preference is to acquire a better stopgap at a reasonable price. There is a good chance that might not be available.

I think Adams doesn't want to make any more moves until the Eichel situation is resolved. That's because he doesn't want to "block" his acquisitions.

I think his inability to move Eichel may force his hand, but he will wait until the eve of the season if he has to. He probably has a few prospective trades on the table that are stopgaps for him and cap dumps for the other team. And he probably has a few Sheahan-type signings on the backburner to reach the floor if he needs to.

I think this is the plan, but I also think he will sit on the current roster before he will take a bad return for Jack or move for a pickup that may prove redundant.

So, a cap-dump C like Henrique as you've mentioned, right? 

It wouldn't do much for our on ice aptitude next season but I do think it would serve to insulate the youth in a positive way, not from losing, but perhaps from too much being asked of them too soon. 

Would Henrique not serve as a "block", in the mind of the GM?

[Digger]

22 minutes ago, Weave said:

I can readily justify the Sam, Risto and likely Jack trades as not being tank moves.  Contract status and stated apathy about being here means they were likely moved to create culture change, and the fact that bringing back vets that want to be here is a hard sell, I am convinced that those trades had to be about futures.  So no tanking there.

Why are you convinced it had to be "all futures"?  I would love to hear the deals we did not agree to or consider.

I do remember Vancouver's GM Benning making a sarcastic comment (in an unrelated interview just before the draft) about a GM asking for "all futures" being pretty crazy.  He did not mention the Sabres but it seemed reasonable that he was referring to his dealings with Adams on Reinhart.

[dudacek]

Just now, Thorny said:

So, a cap-dump C like Henrique as you've mentioned, right? 

It wouldn't do much for our on ice aptitude next season but I do think it would serve to insulate the youth in a positive way, not from losing, but perhaps from too much being asked of them too soon. 

Would Henrique not serve as a "block", in the mind of the GM?

No. Cozens and Mitts would still be top-three centres, and can be the top-two whenever it is serving the development goal.

We've already seen the model over the final month with Reinhart as the other centre. Cozens and Mitts still got to play in all those situations the organization wanted them to play, even with Sam as a clear #1. Henrique, or someone similar, would be even less of a block.