How many points will the Sabres finish with

[JoeSchmoe]

44 minutes ago, matter2003 said:

What really happened was we got Tuch and Krebs, Mittlestadt came back from injury around the same time and we got some other guys back as well. The goal scoring went from an abysmal 2.67 to over 3.2 goals per game since March 1st. 

Getting the injured guys back was great and all, but what REALLY helped the most is that allowed us to disband the flaming puke line of Bjork-Eakin-Hayden.

[Archie Lee]

45 minutes ago, JohnC said:

With respect to the highlighted section that is exactly what happened. The GM said that they had a value and contract number, and they weren't going to exceed it. My criticism relates not so much to any particular numbers $$$ but that there should have been more flexibility with the numbers and term. You have to consider the fact that the number that Ullmark was seeking would have had little negative influence on our cap situation and that locking him up gave him more time and room to address that position again if he wanted to. There was so much cap space that the organization had to buy a contract for a player who wasn't be added to the roster in order to meet the cap floor.  If Ullmark would have beens signed to a 5 year deal and then the organization wanted to move on in a few years you still have the option to trade him. My point is that by signing him you are not precluding other goalie options in the future. 

There is a good chance that if the GM is successful in bringing in another goalie this offseason, the contract will not be any cheaper than if he would have been signed  last year at the amount that the player wanted. It's like digging a hole and then having to refill it again. It wasn't necessary.  

I agree with you.  The frustrating part is that the only cost to retain Ullmark was the value of his contract.  To obtain an Ullmark-level goalie this off-season will cost assets (prospects / picks).  It is unlikely we get an Ullmark-level goalie in free agency.

[JohnC]

5 hours ago, Archie Lee said:

I mostly agree on Ullmark.  I thought last year that the bar was set with the Demko contract.  I would have given Ullmark 5 x 5 or 5 x 5.25 and been happy to lock up 1/2 of a 1A/1B tandem for the next half decade.  I recognize though that Ullmark has had durability issues and has yet to show he can be an effective 50+ game starter and playoff performer.

Also, I do understand that a GM needs to set a value on a player and stick to it.  Adams and his front-office team likely valued Ullmark at closer to 3 x 5 or 4 x 4.5.  With that in mind I appreciate that you can't always give a player a bit more than what you value them at; overpaying players is not a path to get a franchise to a position where they no longer need to do so. 

I personally think Adams undervalued Ullmark and that it was a mistake to let him go.  There will likely come a time where we really have no choice but to make such a commitment to a goalie whose #'s are not better than Ullmark's. That said, I respect that Adams stuck to his position on where he valued the player. 

I agree with everything you said up to the last sentence. That's where we diverge. When a decision is made there also has to be consideration of the situation i.e. time and place. Considering where this team was from a cap and roster development standpoint the GM had more than enough flexibility to expand his contract boundary with him that would have allowed the GM to retain him without any current or even distant liabilities. It should be remembered that the organization added a contract without bringing in a player for the purpose of meeting the salary cap floor. 

[matter2003]

19 hours ago, Archie Lee said:

I agree with you.  The frustrating part is that the only cost to retain Ullmark was the value of his contract.  To obtain an Ullmark-level goalie this off-season will cost assets (prospects / picks).  It is unlikely we get an Ullmark-level goalie in free agency.

Ullmark was always getting hurt for multiple weeks at a time every year, so not sure it was such a bad thing that he left.