Offseason Gameplan 2022 - Solving the goaltending system wide.

[LGR4GM]

44 minutes ago, JohnC said:

Not signing Ullmark to the contract he wanted from us was a major blunder. It would have bought the organization time for the organization to figure out if UPL was ready for NHL play. Even if UPL demonstrates that he can play in the league that is far from assuming that he could currently handle the responsibility of being a primary goalie. Considering that the organization had a gargantuan amount of cap space and that it had to buy a contract just to be able to meet the cap floor requirement, KA's decision at the time and in hindsight made no sense to me.  

It wasn't, but you're going to tell us all it was every time someone mentions Ullmark. 

[LGR4GM]

Screwing up your salary structure and player evaluation just because you have cap room to do it, isn't wise impo. Set your values and be flexible but don't just abandon your systems out of panic. 

Really quick john c before you write a long winded response, I don't agree with you. You're not going to convince me otherwise. I also understand you don't agree with me.  Hopefully that saves a little time. 

Edited June 6, 2022 by LGR4GM

[LGR4GM]

On 4/11/2022 at 12:51 PM, GASabresIUFAN said:

As of this writing, the Sabres have zero goaltenders under contract for next season. Zero!, Nada! 

College prospects Levi and Portillo are returning to school.

Anderson, Tokarski, Houser, Subban and Dell are UFAs and UPL is an RFA.

Talk about a clean slate. 

Our fearless leader, has stated that UPL’s play is better then his AHL numbers indicate.  He has also indicated that UPL is slated for a role in Buffalo net season.  There are also reports that he has discussed with Anderson returning next season.  While a nice story, I don’t want Anderson or any of the UFA goalies back next season unless they are willing to play in minors.  

Step 1 - UPL’s status - AHL or NHL?  I personally don’t think UPL is ready and he should start in Rochester hopefully behind a better group of D.  That said, If KA think’s he’s NHL ready so be it, but he better get a legit NHL starter and get someone who can step up for the Amerks.   

Step 2 - NHL starter - UFA, RFA or Trade?  From an availability point of view, there seem to be more UFA’s available then quality trade targets.  Husso, MAF, Holtby, Kuemper, Koskinen, Jones, and Korpisalo lead the UFAs with Georgiev and Samaonov the RFAs.  The veteran trade market is thin.  Most that I am interested in have trade protection like Varlomov and Quick.  Talbot is probably off the market.  How KA solves this issue may be the key to the off-season.

Step 3 - Young organizational depth.  To put it bluntly, we need to sign two kids, one each for Rochester and Cinn. Hobey winner Dryden McKay and US Olympic starter Strauss Mann would two I’d certainly call.

Step 4 - AAAA veteran.  We need an AHL/NHL veteran willing to tutor in the AHL and who can give us reasonable NHL play if called upon. We got that from Tokarski.  Would he be willing to reprise that role or will be have better options elsewhere?  

So how does KA get this done.  We have cap space to take on any UFA and the trade assets (and cap space) to make a deal if KA can find another GM to dance with.  Of course, after missing the playoffs an NHL record 11 years, can KA entice a UFA or A player with trade protection to come here?  Hopefully the availability of an NHL starting job on an up and coming team  should entice someone, but who? (Getting a proven top 4 RHD to shore up the defense would probably help in the goaltender sweepstakes).

I can't answer your poll because I think UPL will be in Rochester and we'll have 2 new Sabres goalies like Campbell and MAF.

[thewookie1]

5 minutes ago, LGR4GM said:

I can't answer your poll because I think UPL will be in Rochester and we'll have 2 new Sabres goalies like Campbell and MAF.

Karmanos’s comments lead me to agree UPL will start in Rochester barring an incredible preseason

[Flashsabre]

36 minutes ago, thewookie1 said:

Karmanos’s comments lead me to agree UPL will start in Rochester barring an incredible preseason

And that is great news if they have realized that UPL hasn’t earned a spot and that they truly need to upgrade the position at the NHL level. 

[dudacek]

Whether not signing Ullmark was a blunder or not will depend largely on what happens in the crease next year.

Last year, Ullmark’s play did not match his contract. Last year, the Sabres goaltending might have cost us 10 point, but it did not hinder Adams rebuild plan in the slightest.

[Taro T]

1 minute ago, dudacek said:

Whether not signing Ullmark was a blunder or not will depend largely on what happens in the crease next year.

Last year, Ullmark’s play did not match his contract. Last year, the Sabres goaltending might have cost us 10 point, but it did not hinder Adams rebuild plan in the slightest.

And that's where he might have the character of the skaters so well nailed down that providing last year's goaltending again this year lucking into a top 2 selection might actually work out better in the long run than fixing the goaltending and letting the kids start competing this year rather than in 2 years.  (Personally don't believe it would be better, but last year the team showed it had way more character than anybody that didn't work for the Sabres besides @Doohickie expected either.  So, wtf knows.)

Hoping we don't have to watch that & instead do get real goaltending, because the possibility of him managing to break these kids after what they went through last year is too depressing for words, regardless as to however unlikely it might be.

[JohnC]

1 hour ago, LGR4GM said:

It wasn't, but you're going to tell us all it was every time someone mentions Ullmark. 

You are dam right that I am. The Sabres are in a vulnerable situation with their goaltending staffing. If the GM was not going to sign Ullmark for the contract he wanted, he should have had a reasonable option to fall back on. He didn't have it. This roster is starting to take shape. Unless a reasonable option is found in net this offseason it will undercut the progress that this team has made by adding and developing its talent. 

When you shoot yourself in the foot you shouldn't expect to do well in a race. We are in a bad situation because we put ourselves there. The gruesome irony will be if the GM signs an Ullmark caliber goalie for the approximate amount of money that he wasn't willing to give to Ullmark. What makes this situation even more hideous is that the GM bought a contract in order to get to the cap floor. That money could have been directed toward signing Ullmark or another acceptable option for the most important position in the game. Stupid is stupid! 

[Taro T]

7 minutes ago, JohnC said:

You are dam right that I am. The Sabres are in a vulnerable situation with their goaltending staffing. If the GM was not going to sign Ullmark for the contract he wanted, he should have had a reasonable option to fall back on. He didn't have it. This roster is starting to take shape. Unless a reasonable option is found in net this offseason it will undercut the progress that this team has made by adding and developing its talent. 

When you shoot yourself in the foot you shouldn't expect to do well in a race. We are in a bad situation because we put ourselves there. The gruesome irony will be if the GM signs an Ullmark caliber goalie for the approximate amount of money that he wasn't willing to give to Ullmark. What makes this situation even more hideous is that the GM bought a contract in order to get to the cap floor. That money could have been directed toward signing Ullmark or another acceptable option for the most important position in the game. Stupid is stupid! 

 

Darn shame there isn't a "bravo/ hands clapping" reaction here.

[JohnC]

48 minutes ago, dudacek said:

Whether not signing Ullmark was a blunder or not will depend largely on what happens in the crease next year.

Last year, Ullmark’s play did not match his contract. Last year, the Sabres goaltending might have cost us 10 point, but it did not hinder Adams rebuild plan in the slightest.

No one will claim that Ullmark is a top tier goalie. Clearly, he isn't. Acknowledging that (the obvious) he would have been our best goalie who gave us the best chance to win. At best he is a mid-tier starter. We didn't have that caliber of goalie last year and currently we don't have that caliber of goalie on our roster. Now the Sabres are in a situation that it will be competing with nearly half the teams in the league for a goalie who is likely to be an Ullmark caliber of player. And it is likely that the cost to acquire that level of player will be in the same range that Ullmark could have been signed for. 

[dudacek]

Not sure it’s half the teams in the league. I’m thinking more like a half-dozen?

Sabres have more cap space than their competition and are a much more attractive destination than they were a year ago.

We’ll see what happens.

[LGR4GM]

18 minutes ago, JohnC said:

You are dam right that I am. The Sabres are in a vulnerable situation with their goaltending staffing. If the GM was not going to sign Ullmark for the contract he wanted, he should have had a reasonable option to fall back on. He didn't have it. This roster is starting to take shape. Unless a reasonable option is found in net this offseason it will undercut the progress that this team has made by adding and developing its talent. 

When you shoot yourself in the foot you shouldn't expect to do well in a race. We are in a bad situation because we put ourselves there. The gruesome irony will be if the GM signs an Ullmark caliber goalie for the approximate amount of money that he wasn't willing to give to Ullmark. What makes this situation even more hideous is that the GM bought a contract in order to get to the cap floor. That money could have been directed toward signing Ullmark or another acceptable option for the most important position in the game. Stupid is stupid! 

That's not what happened. 

They could have signed a better goalie with or without the boychuk contract. 

You think it's stupid and I don't. If Adams does nothing for offseason, then I'll reconsider but I don't think having better goaltending last year mattered much. Anderson was good enough for what we were doing. 

[JohnC]

1 minute ago, Taro T said:

 

Darn shame there isn't a "bravo/ hands clapping" reaction here.

What infuriates me is the argument made by some that his asking price was too high and his term was too long. That makes absolutely no sense. He was asking for $1M more per year and an extra year term from the Sabres. That extra million per year for a team that had to be enterprising to get to the cap floor is like arguing over a penny for an item that you need when you have a $100 in your pocket. The difference between what he and the GM wanted was inconsequential. And I get doubly infuriated over the argument that the term was too long. It was one year longer than what the GM wanted to give. The solution for the GM was simple. If he didn't want to keep him for the full length of the term then trade him after two or three years. There is market for a goalie of his caliber. 

This goalie issue goes beyond Ullmark. The GM allowed to put himself and team in a vulnerable position because he didn't have a reasonable option if he couldn't get a deal done with the goalie. That's the major and inexcusable mistake he made in this affair. 

[LGR4GM]

13 minutes ago, JohnC said:

No one will claim that Ullmark is a top tier goalie. Clearly, he isn't. Acknowledging that (the obvious) he would have been our best goalie who gave us the best chance to win. At best he is a mid-tier starter. We didn't have that caliber of goalie last year and currently we don't have that caliber of goalie on our roster. Now the Sabres are in a situation that it will be competing with nearly half the teams in the league for a goalie who is likely to be an Ullmark caliber of player. And it is likely that the cost to acquire that level of player will be in the same range that Ullmark could have been signed for. 

They were competing with teams for Ullmark too. It's the same situation except the team looks better now. 

Just now, JohnC said:

What infuriates me is the argument made by some that his asking price was too high and his term was too long. That makes absolutely no sense. He was asking for $1M more per year and an extra year term from the Sabres. That extra million per year for a team that had to be enterprising to get to the cap floor is like arguing over a penny for an item that you need when you have a $100 in your pocket. The difference between what he and the GM wanted was inconsequential. And I get doubly infuriated over the argument that the term was too long. It was one year longer than what the GM wanted to give. The solution for the GM was simple. If he didn't want to keep him for the full length of the term then trade him after two or three years. There is market for a goalie of his caliber. 

This goalie issue goes beyond Ullmark. The GM allowed to put himself and team in a vulnerable position because he didn't have a reasonable option if he couldn't get a deal done with the goalie. That's the major and inexcusable mistake he made in this affair. 

Do you have a source for that?

Also Ullmark for 5 years... pass. 

[JohnC]

Just now, LGR4GM said:

That's not what happened. 

They could have signed a better goalie with or without the boychuk contract. 

You think it's stupid and I don't. If Adams does nothing for offseason, then I'll reconsider but I don't think having better goaltending last year mattered much. Anderson was good enough for what we were doing. 

Responding to the highlighted sentence: They didn't sign a better or even comparable goalie. That's the point of contention!

[dudacek]

1 minute ago, JohnC said:

What infuriates me is the argument made by some that his asking price was too high and his term was too long. That makes absolutely no sense. He was asking for $1M more per year and an extra year term from the Sabres. That extra million per year for a team that had to be enterprising to get to the cap floor is like arguing over a penny for an item that you need when you have a $100 in your pocket. The difference between what he and the GM wanted was inconsequential. And I get doubly infuriated over the argument that the term was too long. It was one year longer than what the GM wanted to give. The solution for the GM was simple. If he didn't want to keep him for the full length of the term then trade him after two or three years. There is market for a goalie of his caliber. 

This goalie issue goes beyond Ullmark. The GM allowed to put himself and team in a vulnerable position because he didn't have a reasonable option if he couldn't get a deal done with the goalie. That's the major and inexcusable mistake he made in this affair. 

Hyperbole.

I largely felt this way 10 months ago. What happened since proved me wrong.

As I said, this case largely depends on what happens next.

[LGR4GM]

Just now, JohnC said:

Responding to the highlighted sentence: They didn't sign a better or even comparable goalie. That's the point of contention!

Okay but you claim that prevented them. It's the same bad argument GA put forth. Boychuk prevented them from nothing. Idk why ppl even bring it up. 

[Weave]

30 minutes ago, Taro T said:

 

Darn shame there isn't a "bravo/ hands clapping" reaction here.

 

Of course there is.

[JohnC]

9 minutes ago, LGR4GM said:

They were competing with teams for Ullmark too. It's the same situation except the team looks better now. 

Do you have a source for that?

Also Ullmark for 5 years... pass. 

This link gives the sequence but doesn't give the amount that Ullmark was willing to sign with Buffalo after getting an offer from Buffalo. At the time I recall from WGR reporting (multiple accounts) that the term was for an extra year compared to Boston's offer and an extra$1 M higher per year. The GM was on WGR and said that he set a price and he wasn't going beyond it. I'll repeat again that the hideous mistake the GM made was not that he didn't sign Ullmark as it was not having an adequate fallback position when he was dealing with an UFA player. 

https://buffalonews.com/sports/sabres/sabres-sign-goalies-craig-anderson-aaron-dell-after-linus-ullmark-bolts-for-boston/article_d471b83c-efe2-11eb-b6fd-df810ca74d14.html

[JohnC]

14 minutes ago, LGR4GM said:

Okay but you claim that prevented them. It's the same bad argument GA put forth. Boychuk prevented them from nothing. Idk why ppl even bring it up. 

You are missing the point about the Boychuk contract. The money in the contract for the phantom player could have been applied to Ullmark. That's why it is brought up. 

[JohnC]

16 minutes ago, dudacek said:

Hyperbole.

I largely felt this way 10 months ago. What happened since proved me wrong.

As I said, this case largely depends on what happens next.

That's the point. We are in a situation that we need not have been in if some foresight was used. Are we going to get a significant better goalie than Ullmark or sign a similar type player for much less than what we could have signed Ullmark for? 

[DarthEbriate]

1 hour ago, dudacek said:

Whether not signing Ullmark was a blunder or not will depend largely on what happens in the crease next year.

Last year, Ullmark’s play did not match his contract. Last year, the Sabres goaltending might have cost us 10 point, but it did not hinder Adams rebuild plan in the slightest.

But in the end, his play did match his contract. Ullmark started the season cold and we all rightfully chortled. But he warmed up and played really solidly. Ullmark also had 2 garbage playoff starts and then Swayman (who started hot, then cooled dramatically, then finished hot) carried them to the next round, so that's some recency bias. [Edit: My bad, Carolina closed out Boston in 7. So Swayman won his home starts.]

Here are the regular season numbers:

Ullmark 41 GP, .917sv%;   Swayman 41 GP, .914sv%   It can be argued as a bad contract for the Bruins, but Swayman has one more season and then RFA (where he can be bridged), so is Ullmark really blocking him? If Swayman improves and outplays Ullmark, it's win-win for the Bruins.

Ullmark also finished T-9th in the NHL with that .917, where overall goaltending save percentages were lower than normal. 6th .919 Jarry, Husso; 8th .918 Saros; 9th: Ullmark, Forsberg, Stolarz; 12th .916 Vasilevskiy. Ullmark's a good and adequately compensated goalie.

By comparison:

Anderson 31 GP, .897sv%; Tokarski 29 GP, .899sv%

We all loved Anderson and how the team played well better with him. In particular you could see (and hear, depending the broadcast) how well he communicated and directed his young defensemen. But if Anderson had saved .917 instead of .897, he'd have given up 18 fewer goals in his 31 games. That's worth several points in the standings and we're likely drafting 12th-13th right with the Isles/BJs. [Yes, yes, Boston is more solid defensively. But Ullmark rocked a steadily-improving career .912 in Buffalo, regardless of the different coaches/systems and poorer talent/possession in place before him.] The danger was always his injury-history with the 2 previous seasons being shortened by his knees. 

Any veteran starter in his prime is going to make $5M/year or more -- that was the going rate last summer. Whichever quality veteran starter (not Anderson, not an RFA on a trade/bridge, not a backup's contract) that GM Sheevyn signs this summer is going to make at least $5. We (and Adams) might want less term than the 5 years Ullmark signed, but who exactly would he be blocking? UPL hasn't proven anything and there's no one signed in the pipeline.

Edited June 6, 2022 by DarthEbriate

[LGR4GM]

10 minutes ago, JohnC said:

You are missing the point about the Boychuk contract. The money in the contract for the phantom player could have been applied to Ullmark. That's why it is brought up. 

Actually you're missing the point. Boychuks contract only mattered on paper.  It prevented the Sabres nothing. Adams also didn't "buy" it as you have stated. 

Edited June 6, 2022 by LGR4GM

[LGR4GM]

13 minutes ago, JohnC said:

This link gives the sequence but doesn't give the amount that Ullmark was willing to sign with Buffalo after getting an offer from Buffalo. At the time I recall from WGR reporting (multiple accounts) that the term was for an extra year compared to Boston's offer and an extra$1 M higher per year. The GM was on WGR and said that he set a price and he wasn't going beyond it. I'll repeat again that the hideous mistake the GM made was not that he didn't sign Ullmark as it was not having an adequate fallback position when he was dealing with an UFA player. 

https://buffalonews.com/sports/sabres/sabres-sign-goalies-craig-anderson-aaron-dell-after-linus-ullmark-bolts-for-boston/article_d471b83c-efe2-11eb-b6fd-df810ca74d14.html

So the answer is no. We're just speculating it was only 1 mil. Why should the Sabres GM pay 6mil and an additional year for Ullmark? 

Love Ullmark but if I'm gm and that's the deal, I walk away. I'm not paying a premium to convince a guy he wants to be here. 

[dudacek]

12 minutes ago, JohnC said:

That's the point. We are in a situation that we need not have been in if some foresight was used. Are we going to get a significant better goalie than Ullmark or sign a similar type player for much less than what we could have signed Ullmark for? 

That largely depends on what happens next: who we sign, for how long, how well he plays, how well Ullmark plays, and how much cap space the Sabres have to sign their core guys in 3 years.

What Adams foresees is clearly different than you.