Sidebar: Jiri Kulich and his 18yr old AHL season

[JohnC]

39 minutes ago, Pimlach said:

No and no. 

Saros is probably worth one first round equivalent, not two.   Nashville would have to accept a protected first pick in 2024

Someone posted information on what starting goalies have fetched in recent trades.  Most do not even get one first rounder. 

I agree with you that most goalies don't garner a first round pick or high end prospect. That is not to say that a goalie who is in the upper echelon category wouldn't be worth it for a team where his addition would be the difference of being a playoff team or not. 

42 minutes ago, kas23 said:

No way would I be giving them our 1st rounder AND Kulich or Savoie. I would only give them any one those single pieces for Soros. 

Then the question would be which prospect would you give up if that is what the other team wanted? 

[French Collection]

44 minutes ago, JohnC said:

I agree with you that most goalies don't garner a first round pick or high end prospect. That is not to say that a goalie who is in the upper echelon category wouldn't be worth it for a team where his addition would be the difference of being a playoff team or not. 

Then the question would be which prospect would you give up if that is what the other team wanted? 

I’ll give up either one plus a 2nd rounder for Saros.

I really like these prospects but Saros is what they need.

[JohnC]

4 minutes ago, French Collection said:

I’ll give up either one plus a 2nd rounder for Saros.

I really like these prospects but Saros is what they need.

This is simply speculation on my: If the Sabres had Saros they would be in the playoffs this year. 

[Pimlach]

1 hour ago, JohnC said:

I agree with you that most goalies don't garner a first round pick or high end prospect. That is not to say that a goalie who is in the upper echelon category wouldn't be worth it for a team where his addition would be the difference of being a playoff team or not. 

True.  I would pay 1 first, we have a lot of prospects and you can only develop so many. 

[pi2000]

7 hours ago, DarthEbriate said:

Kulich in 2024-25 (with a 4-game cup of coffee next season). Savoie with 8 games early centering Girgs and/or Okposo or equivalent (the Krebs treatment) before heading back to juniors or WJC or even Europe to keep bulking when he's deemed not quite ready.

We've seen this season what having too many rookies at once looks like. I've always believed you can safely manage 1 rookie at each position at a time. Any more and you start getting wonky (even if they're great, they'll be inconsistent, get knocked off pucks and off their skates too easily, and be prone to lapses/rookie walls).

The Red Wings were the model for years because when it was time to fill a hole in their roster, they had a 23 year-old in Grand Rapids (or overseas in the case of Datsyuk) ready to go -- not a kid. Even just a regular guy like Jiri Hudler had 12 games at age 20, 4 games at age 22, and then was ready to go at age 23.
The Sabres need to let the kids stew and become dominant AHL vets on their ELCs. The best thing about this phase of the Sabres rebuild is there aren't endless NHL spots to rush them up to fill; yes, the Sabres are thin in depth, but they do have legit NHL talent (except at the 6-7 D spot and that's only glaring because the top 4 are all still kids). Starting this season, all the "blocks" for the kids are other talented kids.

They have to earn it, but next season I'd roll Sabres rookies, part-time Savoie (12F) or Rousek (12/13F) and Johnson (6D). And at goalie it's either UPL (still under 40 career NHL starts) or Levi, but not both.

And I'm still shocked Kulich fell as much as he did. I had him as my top forward when the Sabres picked Östlund. 

I would agree, but the league is changing.    It's less physical, kids don't need to weigh 190-200lbs and learn how to muck and grind in the corners.    It's more a skills contest than anything.    If Kulich is racking up points in Roch he'll have every opportunity to make the Sabres next season without hesitation.   

[PerreaultForever]

9 hours ago, JKB1646 said:

Devon Levi and Juri for Sam Rienhardt.......hold my beer while I laugh my ass off, bahahahha. Like I said it will go down as KA second fleecing. Heck other teams might not want to deal with this stealth Ninja!

Well Arizona didn't 🙂

Kulich is my favourite current prospect as well, as I've said before. I have high hopes for him but I also hope he gets most of another year in Rochester. 

I am hoping next year we have enough of a defined lineup that he becomes a call up for a similar slot and is not a Vinnie type move everyone around kind of thing. We shall see what happens. I have my hopes and my fears and my fears are tipping the scales at the moment. 

[GASabresIUFAN]

4 hours ago, JohnC said:

It Nashville proposed a trade of Saros for Kulich and our first round pick, would you make the deal? Or if Nashville proposed a trade of Saros for Savoie and our first round pick would you make the trade. If you had to choose between either of the options, which one would you make? 

It depends on my other options.  I'd might do one of the top prospects and a 2nd for Saros, but not a top prospect and a first.  I'd consider a first (2024) and Rosen however.

Edited March 24, 2023 by GASabresIUFAN

[JohnC]

8 hours ago, GASabresIUFAN said:

It depends on my other options.  I'd might do one of the top prospects and a 2nd for Saros, but not a top prospect and a first.  I'd consider a first (2024) and Rosen however.

I'm in sync with you. I would be very reluctant to include one of our top two prospects. Your Rosen and draft pick deal is where I would like to be at. However, there is a realization that acquiring an upper tier goalie immediately changes the dynamic of this team. I have little doubt that if the the Sabres had Saros this year, we would already be talking playoff matchups. I would also go so far to say that if we had an Ullmark caliber goalie, not necessarily him, the Sabres would be participating in post season games. 

[Carmel Corn]

8 hours ago, GASabresIUFAN said:

It depends on my other options.  I'd might do one of the top prospects and a 2nd for Saros, but not a top prospect and a first.  I'd consider a first (2024) and Rosen however.

Part of the challenge of our situation is that we have multiple top prospects now, that other teams zero in on Savoie or Kulich, etc.  If we offer someone like Rosen instead, the other team will scoff at this and walk away because they will only accept one of our blue chippers.  On the other hand, if our pipeline was so weak that Rosen was truly our top prospect would some deals like Saros or maybe even Chychrun may have had a better chance of happening?

Edited March 24, 2023 by Carmel Corn

[kas23]

11 minutes ago, Carmel Corn said:

Part of the challenge of our situation is that we have multiple top prospects now, that other teams zero in on Savoie or Kulich, etc.  If we offer someone like Rosen instead, the other team will scoff at this and walk away because they will only accept one of our blue chippers.  On the other hand, if our pipeline was so weak that Rosen was truly our top prospect would some deals like Saros or maybe even Chychrun may have had a better chance of happening?

That’s fine. They can have one of Savoie or Kulich, but nothing else should be going back to them. If they really twisted my arm, I would throw in a 3rd rounder in addition. Preferably, I would be sending Savoie over Kulich. 

[GASabresIUFAN]

20 minutes ago, Carmel Corn said:

Part of the challenge of our situation is that we have multiple top prospects now, that other teams zero in on Savoie or Kulich, etc.  If we offer someone like Rosen instead, the other team will scoff at this and walk away because they will only accept one of our blue chippers.  On the other hand, if our pipeline was so weak that Rosen was truly our top prospect would some deals like Saros or maybe even Chychrun may have had a better chance of happening?

I don’t agree.  We took Thompson when Stl balked at Thomas or Kyrou.  

We have Savoie, Kulich, Östlund or Rosen.  Giving them Östlund or Rosen should satisfy any team. 

[Contempt]

5 minutes ago, GASabresIUFAN said:

We have Savoie, Kulich, Östlund or Rosen.  Giving them Östlund or Rosen should satisfy any team. 

"You'd like to make a deal today? Let me show you what we got in stock from Sweden. Those others? No, those wouldn't interest you, you're a man of taste and culture. Scandinavia is perfect for you. Hell, you drove up here in a Volvo! Betty, get this gentleman a coffee while we talk about the nice new Swedish forward were going to get him today. We're offering some great deals on trade-ins and I can't wait to introduce you to Terry in financing "

[GASabresIUFAN]

6 minutes ago, Contempt said:

"You'd like to make a deal today? Let me show you what we got in stock from Sweden. Those others? No, those wouldn't interest you, you're a man of taste and culture. Scandinavia is perfect for you. Hell, you drove up here in a Volvo! Betty, get this gentleman a coffee while we talk about the nice new Swedish forward were going to get him today. We're offering some great deals on trade-ins and I can't wait to introduce you to Terry in financing "

Those others you ask? Well if you have to ask the price you really can’t afford it.

However, we have these two Swedish imports that are very much in your price range.  In fact, we are running a special.  But one Swedish import and get a lottery ticket or a Russian import free.

[Crusader1969]

11 hours ago, French Collection said:

I’ll give up either one plus a 2nd rounder for Saros.

I really like these prospects but Saros is what they need.

Not sure how many times I have to say this.   IF the Predators are willing to trade Saros - can get him without trading away one of your top 2 or 3 prospects!!!!      
 

[Crusader1969]

13 hours ago, Pimlach said:

No and no. 

Saros is probably worth one first round equivalent, not two.   Nashville would have to accept a protected first pick in 2024

Someone posted information on what starting goalies have fetched in recent trades.  Most do not even get one first rounder. 

Thank god for providing a little bit of sanity here!! 

[Crusader1969]

As for what is best for Savoie and Kulich next year 

as yourself this.  
 

going into the 23/24 season, are Quinn and JJP better off playing with the Sabres this past season or would they have been better off in the AHL?

if you say they will be better for having to play against NHL competition all season, then why wouldn’t this be true of Kulich? If he proves in training camp that he deserves a roster spot , he should get a roster spot 

[Pimlach]

14 minutes ago, Crusader1969 said:

As for what is best for Savoie and Kulich next year 

as yourself this.  
 

going into the 23/24 season, are Quinn and JJP better off playing with the Sabres this past season or would they have been better off in the AHL?

if you say they will be better for having to play against NHL competition all season, then why wouldn’t this be true of Kulich? If he proves in training camp that he deserves a roster spot , he should get a roster spot 

 

If the goal is playoffs and long term success then I vote to add a few vets with favorable contracts and move on from some of the vets we have.  After that we will just have to see how Savioe and Kulich look.  

[Night Train]

12 hours ago, JohnC said:

This is simply speculation on my: If the Sabres had Saros they would be in the playoffs this year. 

Disagree. This team doesn't play D and has multiple issues to solve in order to be a 95-100 point team.  It's not one or two players solves all. 

[mjd1001]

1 hour ago, Pimlach said:

 

If the goal is playoffs and long term success then I vote to add a few vets with favorable contracts and move on from some of the vets we have.  After that we will just have to see how Savioe and Kulich look.  

That kinda ties into what was the true goal of the team this year.  Peterka and Quinn may have been up here because it was indeed good for their development, but overall they may not have helped the team as much as a couple of mid-priced Vets on 1 or 2 year deals would have (at least not early in the year).  This year managment may have thought of as 'we WANT to make the playoffs but it still is a development year', allows for that.  Next year, however, if they truly make moves in the offseason to push for the playoffs, you may see the young guys in Rochester....and had the Sabres made those moves last offseason, Quinn or Peterka (or both) may have been in Rochester.

[Taro T]

1 hour ago, Crusader1969 said:

As for what is best for Savoie and Kulich next year 

as yourself this.  
 

going into the 23/24 season, are Quinn and JJP better off playing with the Sabres this past season or would they have been better off in the AHL?

if you say they will be better for having to play against NHL competition all season, then why wouldn’t this be true of Kulich? If he proves in training camp that he deserves a roster spot , he should get a roster spot 

It might be true for Kulich but not be in the best interest of the team.  Had Quinn and Peterka been in the AHL this year, Bjork would've been a spare forward and Sheahan is getting into some games.  Asplund is a regular fixture in the top 12.  While there were moments that those 2 and Krebs as well weren't better than those guys and Hinostroza too, there was enough times that they were better than them so the team was better off with them in the lineup.

They also were in their D+3 seasons and their contracts wouldn't slide any further.  Contracts for 20 year olds in NA don't slide.

Kulich is only going to be 19 next year and his contract can slide again if he plays less than 10 games as a Sabre.  He'll have tougher competition to beat out to be 1 of the 12 best F's on a consistent basis.  If he flat out makes the team better, then bring him up.  But if he doesn't, having him on a cost controlled deal from 20-22 is better for the Sabres than having him cost controlled from 19-21.  Regardless of whether he'll be a slightly better player as a 20 year old playing against NHLers as a 19 yo or not.  Sliding that contract a year gets him locked in as a Sabre through 1 more year of his early peak than if he shows up on the roster come October.

[JohnC]

58 minutes ago, mjd1001 said:

That kinda ties into what was the true goal of the team this year.  Peterka and Quinn may have been up here because it was indeed good for their development, but overall they may not have helped the team as much as a couple of mid-priced Vets on 1 or 2 year deals would have (at least not early in the year).  This year managment may have thought of as 'we WANT to make the playoffs but it still is a development year', allows for that.  Next year, however, if they truly make moves in the offseason to push for the playoffs, you may see the young guys in Rochester....and had the Sabres made those moves last offseason, Quinn or Peterka (or both) may have been in Rochester.

I agree with your general view and big picture perspective. The reason why Quinn and Peterka were playing with the Sabres rather down in Rochester is that a determination was made by the staff that both of these prospects' development would be better served playing with the big club. There was a conversation on the radio with their Rochester coach who said in effect that they both got to the point where both players outgrew the level of competition in this lower league. There isn't any surprise to the staff that moving up was going to be a major adjustment for each player. So it shouldn't be a surprise that although they have intermittently sparkled this season, there were interludes where they struggled, especially Peterka. In the longer view (as you are astutely making), playing in the NHL this year will serve them well next year compared to playing them in Rochester this year and moving them up next year. 

[Thorner]

21 hours ago, JohnC said:

It Nashville proposed a trade of Saros for Kulich and our first round pick, would you make the deal? Or if Nashville proposed a trade of Saros for Savoie and our first round pick would you make the trade. If you had to choose between either of the options, which one would you make? 

If that’s what it takes to get the deal done, and the fall back is UPL, my answer is Yes

20 hours ago, Pimlach said:

No and no. 

Saros is probably worth one first round equivalent, not two.   Nashville would have to accept a protected first pick in 2024

Someone posted information on what starting goalies have fetched in recent trades.  Most do not even get one first rounder. 

In terms of measuring worth by the market, you are absolutely right 

measuring this deal by way of the market rather than the exponential value it would provide *for our specific team* is the error people keep making 

We need not be held hostage by the market, not if following it to a T presents an obstacle to the goal it’s subservient to: winning 

Edited March 24, 2023 by Thorny

[Thorner]

20 hours ago, Pimlach said:

No and no. 

Saros is probably worth one first round equivalent, not two.   Nashville would have to accept a protected first pick in 2024

Someone posted information on what starting goalies have fetched in recent trades.  Most do not even get one first rounder. 

That’s right, most don’t go for even a 1st rounder

...and most don’t go to Buffalo, either. Thats the point. This is why you need to bypass the market 

Edited March 24, 2023 by Thorny

[GASabresIUFAN]

31 minutes ago, Thorny said:

That’s right, most don’t go for even a 1st rounder

...and most don’t go to Buffalo, either. Thats the point. This is why you need to bypass the market 

None of Demko, Hart or Saros have any trade protection.  If Buffalo trades for one, they are coming here.

[JohnC]

17 hours ago, GASabresIUFAN said:

It depends on my other options.  I'd might do one of the top prospects and a 2nd for Saros, but not a top prospect and a first.  I'd consider a first (2024) and Rosen however.

Saros isn't the only option who would represent a significant upgrade on net for us. If Vancouver decides to go the rebuild route, then a goalie such as Demko might be available. And the price should be more reasonable.