Layout Your Offseason Plan

[JohnC]

40 minutes ago, Brawndo said:

Hellebuyck isn’t a normal rental player though. He is one of the Top Three Players at a position which has been unsettled for the Sabres going back about a decade.  Levi has a lot of promise, but it still unproven. This would allow the team to set a number of starts for Levi and lower the number of games for Hellebuyck from the mid 60s that he has played the past two seasons in Winnipeg. A number 4 defenseman is much easier to find in UFA and I believe either Novikov or Johnson will be ready for second pairing minutes by the 2024-25 season. 

UPL doesn’t appear to be in their future and Kisakov probably never makes the Sabres Roster with the depth at forward 

The Sabres Front Office has created the perfect environment to make a move like this, as the roster is ready to take the next step and has assembled a deep pool of assets. 

Okposo said the expectations for the team is the playoffs, a move like this shows the FO agrees. 
 

 

 

The Sabres improved by 16 points from the previous year. The younger players will be even better than they were last year. This team should be a playoff time even without the described trade for Helle. If he agreed to one more year on his current deal, I would be excited to make this deal. Without at least another year I would not be receptive to such a deal. I just don't see KA making the deal as it was proposed. 

[Weave]

48 minutes ago, Thorny said:

Let me break it down a little further:

we’d be trading a *draft pick*. You get a new one of those......every year! For free! The league just.. gives it to you. Our system is *loaded*. Already to the extent that it’s a *guarantee* that not all of the players in it are going to be able to play for the Buffalo Sabres. What we are doing, when trading a draft pick, is merely, essentially, trading back one year in terms of talent arrival. Adams will make another great selection next year that will merely enter our already overloaded prospect talent pool one year later than the pick THIS year, would have. Which is YEARS away. 

We’d be swapping getting a much less important talent influx at F, a few years down the line, a year sooner, for a MUCH LARGER, defined talent increase, for right now. 

It’s a no brainer. It’s 2023. The valuation of assets has changed. It’s time now. It used to be important to never miss an opportunity to add to the system because you *needed the system to reach critical mass*. Adding another pick adds much less value, now than it did when we had a barren system that NEEDED through law of averages to reconstruct the NHL roster. It’s a hack: we can totally fortify our roster for next season, that’s ready to win, by dealing that pick. That’s the opportunity granted to us because of the great situation KA has put us in.

Rebuilds take 12 years you impatient fool.

[Thorner]

6 minutes ago, Weave said:

Rebuilds take 12 years you impatient fool.

well hey now I may be impatient, and I’m certainly a fool. But I’m absolutely not a..wait,  what was the 3rd thing you said originally? 

[Marvin]

37 minutes ago, thewookie1 said:

This would be my counter

Hellebuyck & DeMelo and WPG's 2023 1st (18OA)

for 

BUF's 2023 1st (13OA), LA's 2023 3rd, Kisakov, UPL and BUF's 2024 2nd with the condition of becoming the 2024 1st if we make the playoffs.

You have to knock out Winnipeg's 1st and add to Buffalo's side.  New Jersey, among others, can and will offer slightly lesser packages for Hellebuyck alone.  DeMelo is worth a second or two on his own.  At the very least, you need the equivalent of all 3 of Buffalo's 1st and 2nd round picks this year plus Pekka-Luukkonen and future considerations (extra piece if Hellebuyck resigns) for Hellebuyck and DeMelo.  And you might need the 2024 1st to swap in for one other piece.

The keys for the price are whether the Jets will try and move Hellebuyck et al. by the draft and if they want to do a full rebuild or not.  If they want a "compete now" rebuild, then you will need more solid prospects than picks; if they want to do a full rebuild, then you need more picks.

[thewookie1]

46 minutes ago, Marvin said:

You have to knock out Winnipeg's 1st and add to Buffalo's side.  New Jersey, among others, can and will offer slightly lesser packages for Hellebuyck alone.  DeMelo is worth a second or two on his own.  At the very least, you need the equivalent of all 3 of Buffalo's 1st and 2nd round picks this year plus Pekka-Luukkonen and future considerations (extra piece if Hellebuyck resigns) for Hellebuyck and DeMelo.  And you might need the 2024 1st to swap in for one other piece.

The keys for the price are whether the Jets will try and move Hellebuyck et al. by the draft and if they want to do a full rebuild or not.  If they want a "compete now" rebuild, then you will need more solid prospects than picks; if they want to do a full rebuild, then you need more picks.

Well that's my max to be frank, if NJ wants to top it then so be it.

[Brawndo]

1 hour ago, JohnC said:

The Sabres improved by 16 points from the previous year. The younger players will be even better than they were last year. This team should be a playoff time even without the described trade for Helle. If he agreed to one more year on his current deal, I would be excited to make this deal. Without at least another year I would not be receptive to such a deal. I just don't see KA making the deal as it was proposed. 

Hellebuyck is probably the difference between just making the playoffs and winning a round or two.

GMKA has positioned the organization to make this exact type of move, especially at a position of need. This isn’t the first time that Chad has brought up the Sabres interest in Hellebuyck. 

[dudacek]

Very interesting proposal.

As a rule, trading top 20 picks for a rental is poor asset management, but @Thorny makes a very cogent argument as to why this situation dictates an exception:

• the Sabres have an excess of young “top 20” talent; trading from this pool is inevitable, and selling high (meaning flipping for an obvious roster upgrade as opposed to depth pieces or more futures) is wise
• the Sabres are on the brink of something special with a very obvious question mark in net as a potential impediment.
• Conner Hellebuyck is really ***** good, as in as good at his position as Dahlin is at his - the type of player who rarely comes on the market. I’m kinda surprised at the number of people looking past this.

My initial push would be make the deal based around the 2024 1st and up the value of the rest of the package to compensate: 1st, their choice of Leinonen or UPL, and Rosen perhaps? Adding a 4th piece?

But I suspect 13 will be necessary in order to outbid other suitors.

If I trade 13 for Hellebuyck I’m going to be trying to extend him. If the season goes the way I suspect it will, the fit here may be such for him that his cost may not be exhorbitant. 

Edited June 1, 2023 by dudacek

[thewookie1]

2 hours ago, dudacek said:

Very interesting proposal.

As a rule, trading top 20 picks for a rental is poor asset management, but @Thorny makes a very cogent argument as to why this situation dictates an exception:

• the Sabres have an excess of young “top 20” talent; trading from this pool is inevitable, and selling high (meaning flipping for an obvious roster upgrade as opposed to depth pieces or more futures) is wise
• the Sabres are on the brink of something special with a very obvious question mark in net as a potential impediment.
• Conner Hellebuyck is really ***** good, as in as good at his position as Dahlin is at his - the type of player who rarely comes on the market. I’m kinda surprised at the number of people looking past this.

My initial push would be make the deal based around the 2024 1st and up the value of the rest of the package to compensate: 1st, their choice of Leinonen or UPL, and Rosen perhaps? Adding a 4th piece?

But I suspect 13 will be necessary in order to outbid other suitors.

If I trade 13 for Hellebuyck I’m going to be trying to extend him. If the season goes the way I suspect it will, the fit here may be such for him that his cost may not be exhorbitant. 

Based on your suspicions however he wouldn't be worth the trade to begin with however.

 

In my opinion while @Thorny is correct we have the prospect depth to survive a trade; that doesn't particularly make me willing to use that depth on a 1 year hail Mary who based on your readings would suffer significant regression due to Buffalo's style versus Winnipeg's.

Additionally is the issue of a new contract. I don't want a Bob contract whereas we have a goalie who is overpaid by nearly 5mil a year and has been mediocre at best besides this year's playoff run. Plus he'll be looking for year we really have no need to give out. Even slow rolling Levi's starting role for 3 seasons would equate to a mere 2 year extension. Anything longer and we are more or less pushing Levi out of Buffalo. 

I would rather just sign a stop gap than pay a king's ransom to either have a rental for a season or a long term increasingly headache inducing contract. Goalies are just far too fickle of a resource to devote such large amounts of assets to potentially get a single year of above average goaltending.

[dudacek]

2 hours ago, thewookie1 said:

Based on your suspicions however he wouldn't be worth the trade to begin with however.

 

In my opinion while @Thorny is correct we have the prospect depth to survive a trade; that doesn't particularly make me willing to use that depth on a 1 year hail Mary who based on your readings would suffer significant regression due to Buffalo's style versus Winnipeg's.

Additionally is the issue of a new contract. I don't want a Bob contract whereas we have a goalie who is overpaid by nearly 5mil a year and has been mediocre at best besides this year's playoff run. Plus he'll be looking for year we really have no need to give out. Even slow rolling Levi's starting role for 3 seasons would equate to a mere 2 year extension. Anything longer and we are more or less pushing Levi out of Buffalo. 

I would rather just sign a stop gap than pay a king's ransom to either have a rental for a season or a long term increasingly headache inducing contract. Goalies are just far too fickle of a resource to devote such large amounts of assets to potentially get a single year of above average goaltending.

 Lot of negative assumptions here.

”Goalies”might be fickle, “Hellebuyck” has been anything but. Dude has had 7 seasons as an NHL starter and never had a year worse than .907 (his 1st year as a starter) or 24 wins (a COVID season). His career averages are 32 wins and .916. A significant regression to a career worst year is still a significant upgrade on UPL or Comrie. This is what I mean about looking past his talent.

Pick 13, UPL and Kisakov or something similar is not “a king’s ransom”. It’s the type of price one pays for a first liner but not a star player. It’s possible one or more of those pieces are good. But it is highly less likely any of those pieces are part of the Sabres core 3 years from now - or even beyond - than Hellebuyck would be.

But the biggest negative assumption is that we would sign Hellebuyck to a Bob contract. In order to earn such a contract Hellebuyck would have to have an impact season with the Sabres, the type of season that would justify the trade price. The Sabres would be in a position to either sign him to a deal that makes sense under their cap, or walk and pass the baton to Levi, who would be in a much better position to take it. Hellebuyck, coming off a bad year would be in no position to ask for such a contract. Coming off a good year, he would be more likely to take a team-friendly deal in Buffalo because things here “worked” and he has his desired  “chance to win”.

Sure there’s a chance he doesn’t provide contender -calibre goaltending next year, he walks and the Sabres give up the next Matt Savoie plus for nothing. But there’s a better chance they give up the next Drew Stafford to be a contender next year while giving Levi a buffer and exploring the potential of something longer term with Hellebuyck.

Thanks, I think you’ve convinced me that I’m on board with trading 13 for Hellebuyck. He’s the closest thing we’re going to get to a playoff guarantee at a cost we can afford.

Edited June 1, 2023 by dudacek

[French Collection]

41 minutes ago, dudacek said:

 Lot of negative assumptions here.

”Goalies”might be fickle, “Hellebuyck” has been anything but. Dude has had 7 seasons as an NHL starter and never had a year worse than .907 (his 1st year as a starter) or 24 wins (a COVID season). His career averages are 32 wins and .916. A significant regression to a career worst year is still a significant upgrade on UPL or Comrie. This is what I mean about looking past his talent.

Pick 13, UPL and Kisakov or something similar is not “a king’s ransom”. It’s the type of price one pays for a first liner but not a star player. It’s possible one or more of those pieces are good. But it is highly less likely any of those pieces are part of the Sabres core 3 years from now - or even beyond - than Hellebuyck would be.

But the biggest negative assumption is that we would sign Hellebuyck to a Bob contract. In order to earn such a contract Hellebuyck would have to have an impact season with the Sabres, the type of season that would justify the trade price. The Sabres would be in a position to either sign him to a deal that makes sense under their cap, or walk and pass the baton to Levi, who would be in a much better position to take it. Hellebuyck, coming off a bad year would be in no position to ask for such a contract. Coming off a good year, he would be more likely to take a team-friendly deal in Buffalo because things here “worked” and he has his desired  “chance to win”.

Sure there’s a chance he doesn’t provide contender -calibre goaltending next year, the walks and the Sabres give up the next Matt Savoie plus for nothing. But there’s a better chance they give up the next Drew Stafford to be a contender next year while giving Levi a buffer next year and exploring the potential of something longer term with Hellebuyck.

Thanks, I think you’ve convinced me that I’m on board with trading 13 for Hellebuyck. He’s the closest thing we’re going to get to a playoff guarantee at a cost we can afford.

The added benefit is keeping him away from NJD.

[JohnC]

10 hours ago, Brawndo said:

Hellebuyck is probably the difference between just making the playoffs and winning a round or two.

GMKA has positioned the organization to make this exact type of move, especially at a position of need. This isn’t the first time that Chad has brought up the Sabres interest in Hellebuyck. 

I'm not disputing the caliber of player that this goalie is. The sticking block for me is that he would be playing on a one-year deal. Hellebuyck's name in a trade proposal is going to frequently come up for a number of teams because Winnipeg is having a debate on whether to go through some version of rebuild or not. 

I'm also in the expanding camp of posters who believe that the Sabres are on the verge of being a serious team. However, instead of using valuable assets for a player with a one-year contract, I would rather use those dedicated assets to add a second pairing (and maybe another third pairing defenseman) to bolster our thin blueline unit. 

Anyone who has observed how KA has operated since he took over the reigns as a GM recognizes that he is very conscience of costs and benefits in every transaction he makes. The Ullmark contract saga and to a lesser extent the pursuit of Chycrun demonstrate that he is not willing to be forced to a short-term, expedient action at the expense of a longer term benefit. 

Needless to say, this is going to be an exciting offseason. 

[thewookie1]

I’d offer 13, UPL, and Kisakov for Saros because he has 2 years left

[JohnC]

26 minutes ago, thewookie1 said:

I’d offer 13, UPL, and Kisakov for Saros because he has 2 years left

This is the type of deal that I would be excited for. All the pieces fall into place and the term is long enough to suit our goalie situation with Levi on board. 

[nfreeman]

6 hours ago, dudacek said:

Very interesting proposal.

As a rule, trading top 20 picks for a rental is poor asset management, but @Thorny makes a very cogent argument as to why this situation dictates an exception:

• the Sabres have an excess of young “top 20” talent; trading from this pool is inevitable, and selling high (meaning flipping for an obvious roster upgrade as opposed to depth pieces or more futures) is wise
• the Sabres are on the brink of something special with a very obvious question mark in net as a potential impediment.
• Conner Hellebuyck is really ***** good, as in as good at his position as Dahlin is at his - the type of player who rarely comes on the market. I’m kinda surprised at the number of people looking past this.

My initial push would be make the deal based around the 2024 1st and up the value of the rest of the package to compensate: 1st, their choice of Leinonen or UPL, and Rosen perhaps? Adding a 4th piece?

But I suspect 13 will be necessary in order to outbid other suitors.

If I trade 13 for Hellebuyck I’m going to be trying to extend him. If the season goes the way I suspect it will, the fit here may be such for him that his cost may not be exhorbitant. 

 

2 hours ago, dudacek said:

 Lot of negative assumptions here.

”Goalies”might be fickle, “Hellebuyck” has been anything but. Dude has had 7 seasons as an NHL starter and never had a year worse than .907 (his 1st year as a starter) or 24 wins (a COVID season). His career averages are 32 wins and .916. A significant regression to a career worst year is still a significant upgrade on UPL or Comrie. This is what I mean about looking past his talent.

Pick 13, UPL and Kisakov or something similar is not “a king’s ransom”. It’s the type of price one pays for a first liner but not a star player. It’s possible one or more of those pieces are good. But it is highly less likely any of those pieces are part of the Sabres core 3 years from now - or even beyond - than Hellebuyck would be.

But the biggest negative assumption is that we would sign Hellebuyck to a Bob contract. In order to earn such a contract Hellebuyck would have to have an impact season with the Sabres, the type of season that would justify the trade price. The Sabres would be in a position to either sign him to a deal that makes sense under their cap, or walk and pass the baton to Levi, who would be in a much better position to take it. Hellebuyck, coming off a bad year would be in no position to ask for such a contract. Coming off a good year, he would be more likely to take a team-friendly deal in Buffalo because things here “worked” and he has his desired  “chance to win”.

Sure there’s a chance he doesn’t provide contender -calibre goaltending next year, he walks and the Sabres give up the next Matt Savoie plus for nothing. But there’s a better chance they give up the next Drew Stafford to be a contender next year while giving Levi a buffer and exploring the potential of something longer term with Hellebuyck.

Thanks, I think you’ve convinced me that I’m on board with trading 13 for Hellebuyck. He’s the closest thing we’re going to get to a playoff guarantee at a cost we can afford.

 

The contract is the biggest impediment to the trade IMHO.  I think the following are pretty much locks:

- KA will not give Helle a long-term extension this summer (because KA thinks it's pretty likely that Levi is the future, and doesn't want to box him out by committing to Helle for the long term).

- Although KA would give Helle a short-term extension this summer, Helle would not agree to this as it would be well against his economic interests.

- If Helle has a good year with the Sabres, he will not be interested in signing a short-term, team-friendly extension at the end of the season.  He turns 31 next May and will be swinging for the fences in seeking his last big contract.  While he might be inclined towards staying with the Sabres, the money and term will need to be in the ballpark of what he could get in the UFA market (i.e. $8MM x 6 years or thereabouts -- this would the 4th-highest G salary in the NHL, and his current contract is $6.2MM x 6 years), or else he's gone.

So, I think the net result of the above is that the most likely outcome is that the Sabres would be paying a high price for 1 year of Helle.  Now, it's quite possible that KA becomes convinced next year that Levi doesn't have the goods, or that Helle is so good that he's worth moving on from Levi and getting a fat extension, or both -- but the likelihood seems pretty low.

Given how often KA has mentioned the need to keep replenishing the prospect pool, I just don't think he's going to give up #13 this year for what would most likely be 1 year of Helle.

 

[French Collection]

I think I would take the risk of #13, UPL and a mid level prospect for one year of Hellebuyck.

As the year goes on KA can assess the impact of Helle, the fit with the team and how Helle feels going forward.

One wild card here is how Levi develops with Helle as a mentor. I don’t expect him to get to Helle’s level by January but there should be some improvements in his game and how he handles the NHL.

A few ifs I can live with here.

If Helle is a good fit and wants to extend, KA can get this done. He has cap space and the luxury of a backup on an ELC to keep the goalie costs reasonable. The term may reflect Levi’s progress and his projected future.

If Helle doesn’t want to extend KA can move him at the deadline and possibly recoup similar assets. Helle/Levi would probably have the team inside the playoff numbers so there would have to be a few things in place to keep them there.

If Levi has shown to be not much of a step down from Helle and is ready to handle more, they stay in the playoff race.

If Levi has progressed but needs a 1B then the trade can be structured to get a goalie back. Trade partner would upgrade with Helle and send a Cam Talbot level veteran back. This lowers the return of other assets but keeps the playoffs in view.

As I said earlier,I would hate to see Hellebuyck go to New Jersey or Ottawa and be the guy that knocks the Sabres out of the playoffs for the next 5 years.

[nfreeman]

15 minutes ago, French Collection said:

I think I would take the risk of #13, UPL and a mid level prospect for one year of Hellebuyck.

As the year goes on KA can assess the impact of Helle, the fit with the team and how Helle feels going forward.

One wild card here is how Levi develops with Helle as a mentor. I don’t expect him to get to Helle’s level by January but there should be some improvements in his game and how he handles the NHL.

A few ifs I can live with here.

If Helle is a good fit and wants to extend, KA can get this done. He has cap space and the luxury of a backup on an ELC to keep the goalie costs reasonable. The term may reflect Levi’s progress and his projected future.

If Helle doesn’t want to extend KA can move him at the deadline and possibly recoup similar assets. Helle/Levi would probably have the team inside the playoff numbers so there would have to be a few things in place to keep them there.

If Levi has shown to be not much of a step down from Helle and is ready to handle more, they stay in the playoff race.

If Levi has progressed but needs a 1B then the trade can be structured to get a goalie back. Trade partner would upgrade with Helle and send a Cam Talbot level veteran back. This lowers the return of other assets but keeps the playoffs in view.

As I said earlier,I would hate to see Hellebuyck go to New Jersey or Ottawa and be the guy that knocks the Sabres out of the playoffs for the next 5 years.

I agree with much of this but not with trading Helle at the deadline.  If Helle is good, the Sabres will most likely be well in the playoff race.  It would be nuts to trade their stud goalie at that point just to recoup some assets.  At that point, I'm pretty sure they would stick with Helle and let the chips fall where they may in the offseason.

[dudacek]

46 minutes ago, nfreeman said:

 

 

The contract is the biggest impediment to the trade IMHO.  I think the following are pretty much locks:

- KA will not give Helle a long-term extension this summer (because KA thinks it's pretty likely that Levi is the future, and doesn't want to box him out by committing to Helle for the long term).

- Although KA would give Helle a short-term extension this summer, Helle would not agree to this as it would be well against his economic interests.

- If Helle has a good year with the Sabres, he will not be interested in signing a short-term, team-friendly extension at the end of the season.  He turns 31 next May and will be swinging for the fences in seeking his last big contract.  While he might be inclined towards staying with the Sabres, the money and term will need to be in the ballpark of what he could get in the UFA market (i.e. $8MM x 6 years or thereabouts -- this would the 4th-highest G salary in the NHL, and his current contract is $6.2MM x 6 years), or else he's gone.

So, I think the net result of the above is that the most likely outcome is that the Sabres would be paying a high price for 1 year of Helle.  Now, it's quite possible that KA becomes convinced next year that Levi doesn't have the goods, or that Helle is so good that he's worth moving on from Levi and getting a fat extension, or both -- but the likelihood seems pretty low.

Given how often KA has mentioned the need to keep replenishing the prospect pool, I just don't think he's going to give up #13 this year for what would most likely be 1 year of Helle.

 

I’m not sure there is a team out there willing and able to give a goalie $8 million. At least that’s how things are trending.

Only Bobrovsky, Vasilevkiy, Murray, Gibson and Hellebuyck make more than $6, and 3 of those guys are considered bad contracts. Murray was the most recent and that was 3 years ago. Markstrom and Binnington got 6 2 years ago  and that was probably bad value too.

Would Helle take 7.5 over 6 from Chicago or Detroit over 6.5 over 5 from an emerging Buffalo  team he just took to the 2nd round? Probably, but there is a window of possibility for the Sabres.

More to the point though is whether the Sabres close enough to contention, and rich enough in prospects to “rent” him  for a year to fuel a real run at a special season and all the  development opportunities  that may bring for the core that is already here, not to mention the business and the fanbase? As opposed to the negative repercussions on same if Levi and whatever stopgap he plays with fail to deliver? 

I agree it is  counterintuitive to our perception of Adams, but that doesn’t mean it’s not a lost opportunity.

 

Edited June 1, 2023 by dudacek

[Marvin]

FYI: DeMelo is also available, so any talks with Winnipeg could involve him instead or even both him and Hellebuyck.

There are two problems with getting Hellebuyck as far as I can see it.

1. The acquisition cost will be #13 and potentially a couple of "play now" top prospects because, apparently, Winnipeg wants to be competing for a playoff spot immediately.  Which top prospects can be in the NHL next year and can be effective?   Rosen and Rousek?  For 1 guaranteed year?

2. If we keep Hellebuyck, what kind of contract will we need to sign him to?  I can't see him taking less than 5 yrs @ $7M with a complete NMC.  IMHO, everyone who thinks we could sign him for 2-3 years at a team-friendly contract is at best wish-casting and at worst needing a permanent room at Arkham.

[RochesterExpat]

2 hours ago, thewookie1 said:

I’d offer 13, UPL, and Kisakov for Saros because he has 2 years left

I was a huge advocate of trying to acquire Saros at the trade deadline this year. That being said, I was typing up a whole thing about how I don't see this happening unless GMKA sweet talks Trotz because Nashville added 8 draft picks at the deadline this year and aren't going to do a full-on rebuild. Then I looked at the roster... Yeah. Lot of expiring contracts. Lot of terrible contracts. New coach. New GM. They have Askarov in the wings and UPL could just split the pipes with Lankinen for the full next season. Are they going to really sign Saros in two years to a new contract? I doubt it if Askarov looks prime time ready. Especially if Saros wants term as he'll be 30 and it's his last big potential payday.

Saros makes sense for a mentor for Levi as they're both small goalies and Levi's even said he looks to Saros' game as a model. Saros faces a ton of shots and his advanced stats should translate well(ish) to Buffalo given the similar defensive weaknesses (to put it mildly).

19 minutes ago, Marvin said:

FYI: DeMelo is also available, so any talks with Winnipeg could involve him instead or even both him and Hellebuyck.

 

I've been pushing DeMelo. Power can be his next Morrissey. DeMelo, Saros and a defenseman-to-be-named-later should be enough to get Buffalo into the playoffs by more than a "snuck in" margin.

[nfreeman]

41 minutes ago, dudacek said:

More to the point though is whether the Sabres close enough to contention, and rich enough in prospects to “rent” him  for a year to fuel a real run at a special season and all the  development opportunities  that may bring for the core that is already here, not to mention the business and the fanbase? As opposed to the negative repercussions on same if Levi and whatever stopgap he plays with fail to deliver? 

I agree it is  counterintuitive to our perception of Adams, but that doesn’t mean it’s not a lost opportunity.

 

I agree that the bolded is what this boils down to -- is KA willing to pay this price for a rental for what could be a special season (and, for Sabrespace purposes, should he be willing to pay this price)? 

It's a very interesting question.  Among other factors, I also agree that unlike most goalies, Helle is a pretty safe bet to be a difference-maker, and he is exactly what the doctor ordered for this team.

If they pick him up this summer along with a credible defenseman, I think I and everyone else here will be over their heartburn at the acquisition cost and will be extremely excited by opening night.

[triumph_communes]

We are riding Levi do or die. Why do we waste text over another goalie?

[GASabresIUFAN]

35 minutes ago, triumph_communes said:

We are riding Levi do or die. Why do we waste text over another goalie?

I disagree.  KA realizes from his time as a player how fleeting being a Cup contender can be.  Levi is certainly part of the equation next year but KA can’t afford to allow another season to go to waste with bad goaltending. If he gets a good vet and Levi proves to be the real deal the worst that happens is we have good goaltending for 82 games.  If Levi isn’t ready to be a starter then having the good vet insures quality goaltending most of the season. 

[Marvin]

59 minutes ago, triumph_communes said:

We are riding Levi do or die. Why do we waste text over another goalie?

There is smoke out of Winnipeg about Hellebuyck to Buffalo, so I would not discount it.

Can we put together a package for Saros?  I would certainly feel better about the packages being kicked around on the Winnipeg boards for Hellebuyck bring used on Saros instead because of the extra year.

[French Collection]

24 minutes ago, Marvin said:

There is smoke out of Winnipeg about Hellebuyck to Buffalo, so I would not discount it.

Can we put together a package for Saros?  I would certainly feel better about the packages being kicked around on the Winnipeg boards for Hellebuyck bring used on Saros instead because of the extra year.

I could go for Saros as well. That extra year would cost something but it is 2 years and he is younger. His worst statically season was 2.70 GAA and .914 SV%.

For Saros I would be willing to part with a better prospect than Kisakov. The Preds have picks #15, #46 and #47 in the first two rounds. Some creative swapping to let them move up could reduce the price and/or take the sting out of losing #13.

Bonus points for KA if the deal included VO as a piece. 

[Flashsabre]

There has not been a single rumour that Saros is available. 

Hellebuyck will be, Ullmark might be.

Andersen, Korpisalo, Raanta and the like as ufas are probably best options.

Calgary want to move Vladar but he hasn’t done too much at the NHL level.