GDT: 3/30/2022: Winnipeg at Buffalo 7:00PM ET MSG-B WGR

[JohnC]

5 hours ago, That Aud Smell said:

as arbitrary as this sort of thing is (or maybe not, if you have data, i guess), i feel like consistently average NHL goaltending would have yielded this team a bit more than 12 points - maybe closer to 20?

I was deliberately being conservative in my assessment. Looking back it would have made sense from a value standpoint if the GM would have signed Ullmark. Even if the contract was more and longer than he wanted, it would have been worth, especially considering the struggle to meet the cap minimum. 

[LGR4GM]

1 minute ago, JohnC said:

I was deliberately being conservative in my assessment. Looking back it would have made sense from a value standpoint if the GM would have signed Ullmark. Even if the contract was more and longer than he wanted, it would have been worth, especially considering the struggle to meet the cap minimum. 

I 100% disagree with this. Anything longer than 3-4 years would have been a major mistake by Adams when it comes to Ullmark who isn't even that good. He has a .909sv% which we can get out of UPL and we don't have to worry about blocking Levi or Portillo for years or wondering what happens when the Sabres cap situation changes in 3 years. Anything over 4 years for Ullmark would have been a massive mistake and honestly 4 years wasn't a great idea either. 

[jsb]

Ullmark is better than Tokarski, having said that he wasn’t worth that contract to the Sabres and Boston will regret it by the end of that contract

[dudacek]

Anderson has been a good guy and good enough to win.

Each of which has obscured the fact that he hasn’t been actually good.

We need better and the idea that Adams wants him back is troubling if the intention is to make UPL his running mate.

We need more.

Edited March 31, 2022 by dudacek

[JohnC]

1 minute ago, LGR4GM said:

I 100% disagree with this. Anything longer than 3-4 years would have been a major mistake by Adams when it comes to Ullmark who isn't even that good. He has a .909sv% which we can get out of UPL and we don't have to worry about blocking Levi or Portillo for years or wondering what happens when the Sabres cap situation changes in 3 years. Anything over 4 years for Ullmark would have been a massive mistake and honestly 4 years wasn't a great idea either. 

If the deal that he was going to sign was longer than the GM wanted, he could trade him before the contract expired. Reports were that Ullmark was requiring a premium in length and money compared to what he signed with Boston. If UPL or any other goalie prospect was ready sooner, then he could have dealt Ullmark and got something in return. Ullmark would have been marketable because there would be plenty of teams who due to injuries, backup or upgrade would have vied for his services. In my opinion, the Sabres would have more than a dozen points if he was on the roster this year. And it should be noted that the Sabres struggled to meet the cap minimum. In fact, it took on a contract for a player that it had no interest in bringing in. In my opinion in retrospect not signing him was a mistake.

[DarthEbriate]

GM Sheevyn could have done all manner of things to get the goaltending set for this season. Sign Ullmark long-term during last season (and protect him in the expansion draft). Retain salary on Hall to get Swayman instead of Bjork (and protect Swayman in the expansion draft while letting Ullmark test the UFA waters, and still offering Ullmark a better salary -- make Boston overpay by a bunch). Claim Nedeljkovic off waivers super-early in 2020-21 (then commit to him or Ullmark in expansion or move someone at the 2021 TDL).

Edited March 31, 2022 by DarthEbriate

[MattPie]

8 minutes ago, JohnC said:

If the deal that he was going to sign was longer than the GM wanted, he could trade him before the contract expired. Reports were that Ullmark was requiring a premium in length and money compared to what he signed with Boston. If UPL or any other goalie prospect was ready sooner, then he could have dealt Ullmark and got something in return. Ullmark would have been marketable because there would be plenty of teams who due to injuries, backup or upgrade would have vied for his services. In my opinion, the Sabres would have more than a dozen points if he was on the roster this year. And it should be noted that the Sabres struggled to meet the cap minimum. In fact, it took on a contract for a player that it had no interest in bringing in. In my opinion in retrospect not signing him was a mistake.

I'm not sure the "mediocre overpaid goalie with term" merket is as strong as you make it out to me. This seems like to road to having to pay $10M cap for the net.

[JohnC]

Just now, MattPie said:

I'm not sure the "mediocre overpaid goalie with term" merket is as strong as you make it out to me. This seems like to road to having to pay $10M cap for the net.

He wanted an extra year and not much more per year than what he signed with Boston. If you look at what our cap situation was entering the season the Sabres could have easily absorbed his contract. And even if the return on him would not be so great if dealt, it would have made up some of the difference in his contract. This average starting goaltender was affordable and an upgrade at what we currently have. Anderson was signed at a minimum contract. If you have Anderson and Ullmark in tandem working the nets this team is maybe a 12 to even 16 points better. 

[thewookie1]

4 minutes ago, DarthEbriate said:

GM Sheevyn could have done all manner of things to get the goaltending set for this season. Sign Ullmark long-term during last season (and protect him in the expansion draft). Retain salary on Hall to get Swayman instead of Bjork (and protect Swayman in the expansion draft while letting Ullmark test the UFA waters, and still offering Ullmark a better salary -- make Boston overpay by a bunch). Claim Nedeljkovic off waivers super-early in 2020-21 (then commit to him or Ullmark in expansion or move someone at the 2021 TDL).

This whole point grinds my gears because it is fully based on hindsight.

Also even if we retained on Hall I doubt they intended to trade Swayman away.

[MattPie]

5 minutes ago, JohnC said:

He wanted an extra year and not much more per year than what he signed with Boston. If you look at what our cap situation was entering the season the Sabres could have easily absorbed his contract. And even if the return on him would not be so great if dealt, it would have made up some of the difference in his contract. This average starting goaltender was affordable and an upgrade at what we currently have. Anderson was signed at a minimum contract. If you have Anderson and Ullmark in tandem working the nets this team is maybe a 12 to even 16 points better. 

I agree Ullmark would have likely been better than the Sabres 9 guys they iced this year. He's signed for 4 with Boston at $5M/yr, and has played 28 games and is ranked by stats between 20-30 in the league. If Swayman is Boston's answer, they're going to have a $5M backup for the next three years. The Sabres would have been in the same place, possibly. He'd be better than what the team has today, but he's not *good*, and I don't think you sign anything less than good to a four or five year contract.

[JohnC]

33 minutes ago, dudacek said:

Anderson has been a good guy and good enough to win.

Each of which has obscured the fact that he hasn’t been actually good.

We need better and the idea that Adams wants him back is troubling if the intention is to make UPL his running mate.

We need more.

It wouldn't be surprising if KA intends on making UPL our primary goalie next year. That would be a big gamble! This team has made some big strides this season. I would hate to see that progress placed in jeopardy. I don't know what established goalie would be available this offseason. If there was one I'm not sure that KA would be interested in pursuing another option to the position. Don't know for sure but it is what I'm sensing. 

[Doohicksie]

49 minutes ago, JohnC said:

Right now, he is by far the best goalie at our disposal.

Michael Houser would like a word....

[Doohicksie]

(and I'm only half-kidding.  In a small sample size last year and this year, he is statistically the best we've had.  The only thing holding him back is the small sample size and I think it was a mistake by the Sabres not to play him more and see what we had.)

[JohnC]

4 minutes ago, MattPie said:

I agree Ullmark would have likely been better than the Sabres 9 guys they iced this year. He's signed for 4 with Boston at $5M/yr, and has played 28 games and is ranked by stats between 20-30 in the league. If Swayman is Boston's answer, they're going to have a $5M backup for the next three years. The Sabres would have been in the same place, possibly. He'd be better than what the team has today, but he's not *good*, and I don't think you sign anything less than good to a four or five year contract.

Last year, with a less talented roster Ullmark's record with the Sabres was respectable. I'm not attempting to over-estimate his talents. But considering where this franchise was cap wise this season the contract he wanted was a contract that the organization could easily have absorbed. 

4 minutes ago, The Ghost of Yuri said:

Michael Houser would like a word....

Should I laugh or cry? 

[DarthEbriate]

7 minutes ago, thewookie1 said:

This whole point grinds my gears because it is fully based on hindsight.

Also even if we retained on Hall I doubt they intended to trade Swayman away.

Nedeljkovic then was UPL now --- fine but no sample size in the NHL and nothing spectacular in the AHL. Hutton however was a downward-trending mess with vision issues at the start of 2021. Goalie had to be addressed. The Sabres should have been going through backup goalies like plungers trying to find the one.

I agree on Swayman. Boston knew he's their heir-apparent. But that's why you sweeten the offer more and more with just Hall. See if they bite. They still had the guy they traded to CGY as a backup for the playoffs. Or you trade for that other goalie if they're dead set on Swayman. (And yes, the Hall NMC removing leverage was asinine, but that's another conversation for a time in the past.)

[woods-racer]

1 minute ago, The Ghost of Yuri said:

Michael Houser would like a word....

Not going down without a fight on that one are you?

 

[nfreeman]

2 hours ago, DarthEbriate said:

GM Sheevyn could have done all manner of things to get the goaltending set for this season. Sign Ullmark long-term during last season (and protect him in the expansion draft). Retain salary on Hall to get Swayman instead of Bjork (and protect Swayman in the expansion draft while letting Ullmark test the UFA waters, and still offering Ullmark a better salary -- make Boston overpay by a bunch). Claim Nedeljkovic off waivers super-early in 2020-21 (then commit to him or Ullmark in expansion or move someone at the 2021 TDL).

 

2 hours ago, thewookie1 said:

Also even if we retained on Hall I doubt they intended to trade Swayman away.

Beat me to it.  The Bruins never would've given up Swayman.  He is their future in goal, they knew Rask was probably done and they had the Sabres over a barrel.  There's a reason the Sabres only got Bjork and a #2.

[LGR4GM]

3 hours ago, JohnC said:

If the deal that he was going to sign was longer than the GM wanted, he could trade him before the contract expired. Reports were that Ullmark was requiring a premium in length and money compared to what he signed with Boston. If UPL or any other goalie prospect was ready sooner, then he could have dealt Ullmark and got something in return. Ullmark would have been marketable because there would be plenty of teams who due to injuries, backup or upgrade would have vied for his services. In my opinion, the Sabres would have more than a dozen points if he was on the roster this year. And it should be noted that the Sabres struggled to meet the cap minimum. In fact, it took on a contract for a player that it had no interest in bringing in. In my opinion in retrospect not signing him was a mistake.

A, you assume they could trade him

B, idc about this year's cap or next but in 3 years with Ullmark making 5 mill, that I'd care about

[JohnC]

36 minutes ago, LGR4GM said:

A, you assume they could trade him

B, idc about this year's cap or next but in 3 years with Ullmark making 5 mill, that I'd care about

Yes, I am assuming that he could be traded. He signed with Boston, a playoff team with Cup aspirations, which is an indication that he was marketable. As I said in prior posts he could be dealt prior to the expiration of his contract. 

[LGR4GM]

2 minutes ago, JohnC said:

Yes, I am assuming that he could be traded. He signed with Boston, a playoff team with Cup aspirations, which is an indication that he was marketable. As I said in prior posts he could be dealt prior to the expiration of his contract. 

Doesn't matter now

[JohnC]

4 minutes ago, LGR4GM said:

Doesn't matter now

The issue related to our goalie situation. It could have been handled better where this team would be better this year without damaging our rebuild strategy. At least in my opinion. 

[Doohicksie]

6 hours ago, woods-racer said:

Not going down without a fight on that one are you?

 

I'm just saying, I think that considering the hot garbage we've had the last couple years, he was the only unexpectedly good one.  I would have ridden him more until he failed (and he probably would have, but maybe not?)

[Doohicksie]

3 hours ago, JohnC said:

4 hours ago, LGR4GM said:

A, you assume they could trade him

B, idc about this year's cap or next but in 3 years with Ullmark making 5 mill, that I'd care about

Yes, I am assuming that he could be traded. He signed with Boston, a playoff team with Cup aspirations, which is an indication that he was marketable. As I said in prior posts he could be dealt prior to the expiration of his contract. 

To me, the mistake by KA was not in the failure to sign him.  B is the key point here.  To me the mistake was assuming he would be able to sign him and not getting something, anything, for him at the deadline.  He was tradable but I think KA was a little to cocky on that one; he was sure he could sign Ullmark.  Hopefully that was a learning experience for him.

3 hours ago, LGR4GM said:

Doesn't matter now

Well no ***** Sherlock, but we rehash all kinds of stuff on this forum we can't change, and prognosticate on future things we can't influence.  That's the point of the forum, innit?

[JohnC]

8 hours ago, The Ghost of Yuri said:

To me, the mistake by KA was not in the failure to sign him.  B is the key point here.  To me the mistake was assuming he would be able to sign him and not getting something, anything, for him at the deadline.  He was tradable but I think KA was a little to cocky on that one; he was sure he could sign Ullmark.  Hopefully that was a learning experience for him.

 

I agree that KA made a mistake in assuming that he could sign Ullmark. He should have established a deadline with the player and his agent, and then draw the line. If a deal couldn't be made, then move him. I'm not sure if there would have been much of a return for the UFA player at that point. 

There were reports that Ullmark would have signed back with Buffalo but only at a premium price of an extra year on his term and more money per year than what Boston offered. I still believe that premium would have been worth it for this team that was significantly under the cap. 

As I said in prior posts I don't want to elevate Ullmark beyond his talent level. In my mind he is a mid-tier or a little lower starting goalie. And it should be noted that as a Sabre goalie his record was more than respectable. Some people believe that his contract demands were too grand. Considering the team's cap situation, I do not. And considering the alternatives that the GM pursued after the departure, Ullmark's contract price was far from being onerous. 

Overall, I believe that the young GM has done a good job. With respect to how he handled the goalie situation I find it puzzling that he was willing to put this team in a vulnerable position by not seriously addressing the goalie position. I hope this offseason he has a different attitude toward the position.

[triumph_communes]

Signing players to contracts you don’t plan to finish is a fools game. Market dynamic changes every few years, there’s no guarantee you can move a contract and other GMs aren’t dumb.