Offseason Gameplan 2022 - Solving the goaltending system wide.

[tom webster]

4 hours ago, JohnC said:

My understanding is that what @Taro T stated is accurate. The Sabres were willing to match the Boston offer but Ullmark wanted a year longer term and a higher average salary from Buffalo in order to stay with Buffalo. The GM declined. The GM candidly talked about the Ullmark negotiations on WGR. He said that the organization set a value on the player and were not willing to go beyond it. He pointed out in that radio segment that is how the organization was going to handle personnel decisions i.e. place a value on a player and have the discipline to stay with it. 

That is what good organizations do and a hallmark of the BB era with the Bills. If you are paying close attention, you can see similarities between the Bills rebuild and how KA is approaching things, especially when it comes to surrounding yourself with smart people.

[LabattBlue]

I know somewhere upthread Enroth’s name was mentioned.  Is there a goalie overseas who could be signed as a UFA and could fit in a 1A/1B scenario for 2-3 years?

Edited May 22, 2022 by LabattBlue

[JohnC]

1 hour ago, tom webster said:

That is what good organizations do and a hallmark of the BB era with the Bills. If you are paying close attention, you can see similarities between the Bills rebuild and how KA is approaching things, especially when it comes to surrounding yourself with smart people.

The criticism I have of the organization is not that it didn't re-sign him. It is that this organization didn't have an adequate fallback position for this UFA player if a deal couldn't be worked out. When you are dealing with the most important position on the ice you have to protect yourself just in case the player decides to move on. I'm confident that if the Bills had a qb who was in an UFA year, they would have made moves in advance to give them the best option that could get if the player decided to bolt. 

With respect to the Ullmark situation there is a context here that needs to be considered. Even if Ullmark required a premium in another year in term and more money compared to what Boston offered, considering our floor cap situation the Ullmark contract would have had no impingement on our current cap situation or future cap situation. 

Edited May 22, 2022 by JohnC

[thewookie1]

24 minutes ago, JohnC said:

The criticism I have of the organization is not that it didn't re-sign him. It is that this organization didn't have an adequate fallback position for this UFA player if a deal couldn't be worked out. When you are dealing with the most important position on the ice you have to protect yourself just in case the player decides to move on. I'm confident that if the Bills had a qb who was in an UFA year, they would have made moves in advance to give them the best option that could get if the player decided to bolt. 

With respect to the Ullmark situation there is a context here that needs to be considered. Even if Ullmark required a premium in another year in term and more money compared to what Boston offered, considering our floor cap situation the Ullmark contract would have had no impingement on our current cap situation or future cap situation. 

In 2 years it does make a huge difference and paying an average goalie with injury troubles 6mil for 4/5 years isn’t exactly a great move

[JohnC]

7 minutes ago, thewookie1 said:

In 2 years it does make a huge difference and paying an average goalie with injury troubles 6mil for 4/5 years isn’t exactly a great move

No it is not! It is only one additional year on the term and I believe $1 M per year more in salary. The Sabres had to essentially purchase a contract to meet the cap floor this past season. So if you factor in that contract and salary for Anderson, the Ullmark contract would have not been a financial factor this year or later years. For the sake of argument if the Sabres eventually get a better option in net than Ullmark, there is the option of trading him. Assuming he plays at a decent level there is a market for goalies. So you are not stuck for the full term if you decide to move on from the player. 

For those who consider the prospective Ullmark Buffalo contract so onerous, what do you think the cost will be for a solid goalie this offseason? In my opinion the Ullmark situation was handled with little foresight. 

[sabresparaavida]

1 minute ago, JohnC said:

No it is not! It is only one additional year on the term and I believe $1 M per year more in salary. The Sabres had to essentially purchase a contract to meet the cap floor this past season. So if you factor in that contract and salary for Anderson, the Ullmark contract would have not been a financial factor this year or later years. For the sake of argument if the Sabres eventually get a better option in net than Ullmark, there is the option of trading him. Assuming he plays at a decent level there is a market for goalies. So you are not stuck for the full term if you decide to move on from the player. 

For those who consider the prospective Ullmark Buffalo contract so onerous, what do you think the cost will be for a solid goalie this offseason? In my opinion the Ullmark situation was handled with little foresight. 

They could have given Ullmark a ridiculous contract over 3 years, and it wouldn’t have affected them much cap situation wise. 
This offseason the only significant contract to re-sign will be Oloffson. The year after that will be Tage and Cozens, as well as re-signing or replacing Asplund, Okposo and Girgs as significant contributors. The following season we will have Dahlin, Power, Jokiharju, and Mittelstadt as potentially significant contracts. On top of that, we will likely need some roll players that can contribute as we hope to compete. Throw in JJP, Krebs and Quinn potentially earning sizable deals, and we may start running into issues. Its unlikely all these players earn big contracts, but with an optimistic view on our young player’s futures (where several earn big deals), having 6 million invested in a goalie who had yet to play 40 games could be quite constricting, especially if 2 of Levi/Portillo/UPL make it to the NHL, which they would definitely be ready for before that contract is up(if they were to make it, UPL would be 28, Levi 25 and Portillo 27).

[thewookie1]

1 hour ago, sabresparaavida said:

They could have given Ullmark a ridiculous contract over 3 years, and it wouldn’t have affected them much cap situation wise. 
This offseason the only significant contract to re-sign will be Oloffson. The year after that will be Tage and Cozens, as well as re-signing or replacing Asplund, Okposo and Girgs as significant contributors. The following season we will have Dahlin, Power, Jokiharju, and Mittelstadt as potentially significant contracts. On top of that, we will likely need some roll players that can contribute as we hope to compete. Throw in JJP, Krebs and Quinn potentially earning sizable deals, and we may start running into issues. Its unlikely all these players earn big contracts, but with an optimistic view on our young player’s futures (where several earn big deals), having 6 million invested in a goalie who had yet to play 40 games could be quite constricting, especially if 2 of Levi/Portillo/UPL make it to the NHL, which they would definitely be ready for before that contract is up(if they were to make it, UPL would be 28, Levi 25 and Portillo 27).

3 years sure, 6 is a different beast altogether

[dudacek]

I think it’s time to admit that I was wrong and Adams right about the goaltending this year, at least in the context of what this year was about.

The bargain bin combo of Tokarski and Anderson wasn’t “good” but it performed adequately enough to allow a bad team beat NHL .500

And my worst fear - that bad goaltending would interfere with development - never came to pass. Quite the contrary actually.

 

 

[JohnC]

29 minutes ago, dudacek said:

I think it’s time to admit that I was wrong and Adams right about the goaltending this year, at least in the context of what this year was about.

The bargain bin combo of Tokarski and Anderson wasn’t “good” but it performed adequately enough to allow a bad team beat NHL .500

And my worst fear - that bad goaltending would interfere with development - never came to pass. Quite the contrary actually.

 

 

With respect to the goaltending position what about next season? It's universally understood that last season had little to do with contending. The primary consideration was player development. The staff was candid about what their priority was. From that standpoint the season was a resounding success. Next year, this team will be at a different stage, a higher level. It's not inconceivable that this team could be competing for a lower rung playoff spot. That's not going to happen if the goalie position isn't solidified. 

Last year, the Sabres played in an arena that was usually 2/3 empty. This franchise has to soon demonstrate to this much diminished and apathetic fan base that the owner and organization are serious in competing to assemble a serious team. I don't know what goalies the staff is going to bring in this offseason. What is very likely is that the goalie/s that they do bring in (if that is the case) will not have contracts that are substantially less than if they kept Ullmark or brought in a goalie in his strata. I'm not suggesting that the organization should act out of desperation. What I can say for sure is that if the position isn't seriously addressed the fan base will continue to fade. 

Ask yourself: What would @Thornybe advocating for regarding the goalie position? I'm confident his position would lean toward being aggressive rather than being passive. He's a voice that needs to be listened to. 

[GASabresIUFAN]

6 hours ago, dudacek said:

I think it’s time to admit that I was wrong and Adams right about the goaltending this year, at least in the context of what this year was about.

The bargain bin combo of Tokarski and Anderson wasn’t “good” but it performed adequately enough to allow a bad team beat NHL .500

And my worst fear - that bad goaltending would interfere with development - never came to pass. Quite the contrary actually.

 

 

Tokarski Anderson wasn’t the plan.  Dell Anderson was the plan and it failed miserably.  While Anderson was injured the team won 8 of 32 games. Had they had real goaltending, these kids may have turned the ship around in the first half of the year instead of March.  It probably cost the team NHL 500+ and maybe even playoff contention.  How much better off would these kids be if they played meaningful games down the stretch?

Obviously there was more to the divot than bad goaltending, such as injuries and to many JAGs, but while Anderson was out the team literally had almost no chance to win games and it nearly lead to another bottom 5 finish.

KA doesn’t get a pass for going with crap goaltending just because the kids grew up.

[JohnC]

6 hours ago, GASabresIUFAN said:

Tokarski Anderson wasn’t the plan.  Dell Anderson was the plan and it failed miserably.  While Anderson was injured the team won 8 of 32 games. Had they had real goaltending, these kids may have turned the ship around in the first half of the year instead of March.  It probably cost the team NHL 500+ and maybe even playoff contention.  How much better off would these kids be if they played meaningful games down the stretch?

Obviously there was more to the divot than bad goaltending, such as injuries and to many JAGs, but while Anderson was out the team literally had almost no chance to win games and it nearly lead to another bottom 5 finish.

KA doesn’t get a pass for going with crap goaltending just because the kids grew up.

The repercussion for not signing Ullmark or signing another capable goalie last year is that the Sabres are in the same precarious netminding situation entering the next season. The argument that many here are making is that if Ullmark would have been signed at the price that he wanted it would have straightjacketed this organization from a cap standpoint in a few years. Their cap arithmetic doesn't add up. The signing of Ullmark or any other reasonable option at position would have no negative influence on the cap last year, this year or the foreseeable future. What the money Cassandras fail to mention is the difference in pay between signing Ullmark and an Ullmark caliber of goalie would be negligible. 

As you point out the youngsters are showing that they are ready to compete in this league. Having capable goaltending is a necessity to be at that competitive level. The GM undercut their efforts by not adequately addressing the most important position in the game. The GM has stated that this offseason it is a priority to address the position. And it will also be priority for half of the teams in the league. It won't be surprising that the difference in paying an Ullmark sized contract for him or another option will not be much different. 

Considering what our cap situation is It makes no sense to quibble over pennies when you have many dollars in your wallet!

[GASabresIUFAN]

2 hours ago, JohnC said:

The repercussion for not signing Ullmark or signing another capable goalie last year is that the Sabres are in the same precarious netminding situation entering the next season. The argument that many here are making is that if Ullmark would have been signed at the price that he wanted it would have straightjacketed this organization from a cap standpoint in a few years. Their cap arithmetic doesn't add up. The signing of Ullmark or any other reasonable option at position would have no negative influence on the cap last year, this year or the foreseeable future. What the money Cassandras fail to mention is the difference in pay between signing Ullmark and an Ullmark caliber of goalie would be negligible. 

As you point out the youngsters are showing that they are ready to compete in this league. Having capable goaltending is a necessity to be at that competitive level. The GM undercut their efforts by not adequately addressing the most important position in the game. The GM has stated that this offseason it is a priority to address the position. And it will also be priority for half of the teams in the league. It won't be surprising that the difference in paying an Ullmark sized contract for him or another option will not be much different. 

Considering what our cap situation is It makes no sense to quibble over pennies when you have many dollars in your wallet!

I agree.  KA's pivot from Ullmark to Anderson/Dell never made sense and still doesn't.  Why offer a multi-year deal to your current decent goalie, replace him with garbage and then say you did it to not block prospects.  However it's past tense at this point.  KA has another bite at this apple.  Anderson/UPL won't cut it and as I pointed out up thread he is going to have to pay the same money he would have paid Ullmark for similar years to get the decent goaltending he needs.  Oh well. 

This is an important year to step up.  Bos, Pitts, and Washington all have aging cores with big changes coming.  Toronto is soul searching and will also probably make changes.  A couple of these makeovers could easily blow up, opening up opportunity for the Sabres to move up the standings with the right goaltending.

[thewookie1]

11 hours ago, GASabresIUFAN said:

Tokarski Anderson wasn’t the plan.  Dell Anderson was the plan and it failed miserably.  While Anderson was injured the team won 8 of 32 games. Had they had real goaltending, these kids may have turned the ship around in the first half of the year instead of March.  It probably cost the team NHL 500+ and maybe even playoff contention.  How much better off would these kids be if they played meaningful games down the stretch?

Obviously there was more to the divot than bad goaltending, such as injuries and to many JAGs, but while Anderson was out the team literally had almost no chance to win games and it nearly lead to another bottom 5 finish.

KA doesn’t get a pass for going with crap goaltending just because the kids grew up.

Actually the plan was originally to Anderson-UPL as the tandem.

UPL didn't do well in the preseason thus we ended up with Anderson-Tokarski 

Anderson got hurt thus leading to the abhorrent Tokarski-Dell pair

Meanwhile, UPL struggled then eventually started getting on track

Tokarski then got COVID and all hell broke loose.

[dudacek]

The plan in net this year was to let the 4 goalies under contract fight it it out.

I think ideally they wanted UPL and Anderson to emerge, but Tokarski and Anderson won the battle in camp.

The plan overall this year was to let the young talent make mistakes and develop while forging a new culture in the dressing room. I, and many others thought the goaltending was going to get in the way of that. And it felt like we were headed that way in December.

But, in the end, it did not.

[JohnC]

4 hours ago, GASabresIUFAN said:

I agree.  KA's pivot from Ullmark to Anderson/Dell never made sense and still doesn't.  Why offer a multi-year deal to your current decent goalie, replace him with garbage and then say you did it to not block prospects.  However it's past tense at this point.  KA has another bite at this apple.  Anderson/UPL won't cut it and as I pointed out up thread he is going to have to pay the same money he would have paid Ullmark for similar years to get the decent goaltending he needs.  Oh well. 

This is an important year to step up.  Bos, Pitts, and Washington all have aging cores with big changes coming.  Toronto is soul searching and will also probably make changes.  A couple of these makeovers could easily blow up, opening up opportunity for the Sabres to move up the standings with the right goaltending.

The main reason I have been harking on this goalie issue is that I strongly believe that the Sabres are in a position to move up the ranks while some higher rung teams may be soon at their down cycle. (As you noted.) The last third of the season demonstrated that this team can be a competitive and entertaining team. I don't want to over exaggerate their good play during that interlude because it was done in a less stressful environment of playing games with no playoff implications. However, for anyone who watched most of those games, it was evident that when the players who were hurt returned to play, this was a qualitatively better team. I expect that with internal improvement and with the addition of some of our AHL prospects this roster should be even better. 

As you stated, the Ullmark issue is behind us. When the milk is spilled you can't put it back in the container. You just clean up the mess and move on. This roster is starting to organically take shape with the prospects moving up the ranks. It's imperative that the GM do what he has to do to upgrade the goalie position and give this team a chance to succeed in a meaningful way. If the GM does that I expect many of the 2/3 empty seats in the dormant arena will be filled with an aroused audience. It's time.  

[thewookie1]

Would you take this deal?

https://www.capfriendly.com/armchair-gm/team/3267480

[GASabresIUFAN]

4 minutes ago, thewookie1 said:

Would you take this deal?

https://www.capfriendly.com/armchair-gm/team/3267480

Quick thoughts.  Bob at 33 is a reasonable risk if FLA retains the $4 mill you mentioned.  I'm not taking Hornqvist, a 30 pt player, for 5 mill + even for a year.  I think Fla could trade Gudas and get some assets.  Bob has a complete NMC so I doubt he'd accept a deal to Buffalo.   

[GASabresIUFAN]

I guess Husso is available now.

[Crusader1969]

2 minutes ago, GASabresIUFAN said:

I guess Husso is available now.

Beat me to it.  Future Sabres goalie season just ended.  Played well overall 

[Taro T]

19 minutes ago, GASabresIUFAN said:

I guess Husso is available now.

That would be preferable to Anderson (Fred or Craig) or Campbell.

[dudacek]

Who needs a goalie?

Definitely: Leafs, Hawks, Avalanche

Maybe: Vegas, Oilers, Devils, Coyotes

UFAs: Husso, Campbell, Kuemper, Fleury, Koskinen, Griess, Georgiev, Holtby, Jones, Halak, DeSmith, Comrie, Lankinen, Anderson.

Of the teams listed, the Avs, Yotes, Hawks and Devils have significant cap space. The Knights, Leaf’s and Oilers have very little. The Sabres have the most cap space in the league, 43 million with only one “important” RFA contract to worry about.

Of course other teams might not need a goalie, but they could still want a goalie. On the other hand, some teams may be looking to unload a goalie too.

Avs are going to get their pick of the litter. After that, looking at supply and demand, we should get someone as good as Anderson without too much difficulty. And we may have a decent shot at one of the first four if we overpay on a 2- or 3-year deal.

Personally, my first choice would be overpaying Fleury outrageously for a year or two. I don’t think we can get Kuemper without offering term. But we may be able to buy a 3-year deal with Husso or Campbell. After that, Portillo for Varlamov works well from my perspective. Finally, simultaneous 1 year, 3 million offers to DeSmith, Georgiev, Holtby, sign the first one to say yes.

[GASabresIUFAN]

Capfriendly has Goergiev listed as a RFA.

Getting an Anderson level goalie is not an acceptable outcome.  I also would doubt any goalie with some demand will accept only a 1 year deal to come here.  DeSmith, Holtby are going to want at minimum a 2 year deals, maybe three.  Truthfully we need a bridge goalie for at least 2-3 years even if UPL plays lights out and grabs the starters job.  Levi is the future and it will be a minimum of 2 years before he is knocking on the door for the Sabres.  Hellebuyck played 1.5 seasons in the AHL before making the Jets.  Miller played 3 seasons with the Amerks before becoming a full time Sabre.  

[dudacek]

1 hour ago, GASabresIUFAN said:

Capfriendly has Goergiev listed as a RFA.

Getting an Anderson level goalie is not an acceptable outcome.  I also would doubt any goalie with some demand will accept only a 1 year deal to come here.  DeSmith, Holtby are going to want at minimum a 2 year deals, maybe three.  Truthfully we need a bridge goalie for at least 2-3 years even if UPL plays lights out and grabs the starters job.  Levi is the future and it will be a minimum of 2 years before he is knocking on the door for the Sabres.  Hellebuyck played 1.5 seasons in the AHL before making the Jets.  Miller played 3 seasons with the Amerks before becoming a full time Sabre.  

I’ve read chatter that Georgiev is not signing with the Rangers and there is a good chance he won’t be qualified.

The logic with the bigger money one-year offer is opportunity: there are only going to be so many musical chairs available for a real shot at being a #1. You can sign 2x2 or 2x1.5 to back up somewhere, or take 3 or more for this year, and if you succeed in the opportunity, you’re in line for more money later as well.

My thought is that the 2nd tier guys will be battling against each other for limited spots and having a concrete offer on the table from Adams while other GMs consider their options might make someone jump.

[dudacek]

Another interesting nugget Karmanos dropped at his year-ender was a hint that UPL might not be in Buffalo next year.

He made it absolutely clear that the organization believes that developing goalies have to play. From the context, I took it to mean a: UPL has not played enough (108 games total over three pro seasons); and b: they don’t intend to have him sitting on the bench 2 out of every 3 games in Buffalo.

After listening, I believe the Sabres are considering a path where next season’s plan for Rochester is to base the team around UPL playing 60 games, with the opportunity to have the statement season he has yet to have as a pro.

Unless he clearly establishes himself as #1, or at least #1A in Buffalo.

[Taro T]

25 minutes ago, dudacek said:

Another interesting nugget Karmanos dropped at his year-ender was a hint that UPL might not be in Buffalo next year.

He made it absolutely clear that the organization believes that developing goalies have to play. From the context, I took it to mean a: UPL has not played enough (108 games total over three pro seasons); and b: they don’t intend to have him sitting on the bench 2 out of every 3 games in Buffalo.

After listening, I believe the Sabres are considering a path where next season’s plan for Rochester is to base the team around UPL playing 60 games, with the opportunity to have the statement season he has yet to have as a pro.

Unless he clearly establishes himself as #1, or at least #1A in Buffalo.

That would be excellent and would really open up the flexibility they have in looking for NHL goalies.  And could allow them to follow the Carolina model also, if that's the route they feel comfortable with.  (I.e., having 2 guys w/ huge question marks but that have high ceilings as well w/ the expectation that Bales can get at least 1 of the 2 to play near his potential.)

Although, my guess is that would probably result in Subban moving on as don't see him penciled into an NHL backup role & can't see him taking the job of UPL's backup.  Also, had expected Tokarski to move on hoping for a true NHL backup role & didn't see that as available in Buffalo.  Hoping he still moves on as really am hoping both the goalies Adams would now be bringing in are better than him.