Layout Your Offseason Plan

[Hank]

40 minutes ago, Rasmus_ said:

This is a goalie I'd trade #13 and someone not named Savoie, Kulich or Levi for. 

Look at the roster that played in front of Saros the last month of the season when they almost snuck into the playoffs, he may be the best goalie in the league. I'd offer 13OA, 6K, Savoie and VO, for Saros, Parssinen  and Carrier. 

[French Collection]

On 4/12/2023 at 7:02 PM, Eleven said:

Gentlemen's bet on an over/under for Graves at 5.5?

Here it is. I took the under.

[Norcal]

9 minutes ago, RochesterExpat said:

Considering the rumor that GMKA is currently negotiating with Jost's camp, I think the current mantra is to keep the forward group intact until the trade deadline. At that point, they'll know the weaknesses of the forward group, what (if any) Rochester players are now full-time NHL roster players, and the Sabres can adjust the roster accordingly. Based on last season, there's no reason to believe this forward group isn't capable of being in a playoff spot come March. I suspect any adjustments to the forward group will be in the bottom 6 as well (barring injury). Bottom 6 additions are the types of trades which are usually pretty easy at the deadline assuming you have the appropriate cap space (which Buffalo should). If Buffalo had a glaring need at present in the Top 6, waiting until the deadline would be stupid, but I don't think we do.

I think that's GMKA's approach and, assuming it is, I'm comfortable with it. I care that we upgrade the defense first and foremost and every indication we have from every "insider" is that GMKA is trying to do exactly that. While I'd like to see the goalie situation improved, I'm starting to think we won't see a change. If the goaltending situation is a train wreck next season and no changes are made this offseason, I'll officially jump off the GMKA train. Not that I think he cares though.

Would you rather add a veteran forward in the offseason or add a true top 4D and a second 4/5D? That's my preference. Goalie aside (we're in agreement there, but I don't see it happening), I think I'd rather leave the forward group alone until the deadline and add at least one veteran with playoff experience bottom six on an expiring contract based on whatever role the Sabres need filled. I guess my assumption is this team already has the forward group to be in playoff contention come March and, considering the age of the group, I'd rather wait to plug holes when we have more data available from the first 2/3rds of the season.

I don't see much of an upgrade over Z if we're strictly looking at him as a 4th line defensive forward. In the thread about his contract, I even joked it saved us the trouble of trading for him at the deadline. He is a genuinely solid defensive forward and good at that role--plenty of stats nerds support this. KO is the one who has lost a step and I see being replaced at the deadline. I honestly think he's going to go on LTIR at some point this season if/when his speed becomes an issue. I don't really have any concerns about Z next season. I have concerns about KO.

Kyle, I think may see a few healthy scrathes this season and should.

A forward who's been through the battles, and won his share during a playoff run, would be a welcome addition to this lineup. 

If I have to wait till the deadline to get one, I will. I just hope it's not too late.

 

7 minutes ago, Hank said:

Look at the roster that played in front of Saros the last month of the season when they almost snuck into the playoffs, he may be the best goalie in the league. I'd offer 13OA, 6K, Savoie and VO, for Saros, Parssinen  and Carrier. 

That's a monster trade. I wish GMs had the balls for it. 

[Rasmus_]

4 minutes ago, Hank said:

40 minutes ago, Hank said:

Look at the roster that played in front of Saros the last month of the season when they almost snuck into the playoffs, he may be the best goalie in the league. I'd offer 13OA, 6K, Savoie and VO, for Saros, Parssinen  and Carrier. 

 

 

Interesting.  I might consider Savoie in that deal.  Possibly.  I'd still rather hold onto him.

 

[dudacek]

2 hours ago, French Collection said:

GMs don’t want to tip their hands and show much emotion, especially as the silly season is firing up. I can’t believe that he feels that the three headed goalie is the way to go.

Adams has become in incredibly adept at these things in talking philosophy without talking meat.

"We've told Tyson Jost we want him back" for one year and at a pay cut

"For Russians, it's about specific situations and the information that's available" for example Michkov only wants to play for Washington or us so we are desperately trying to move up ahead of the Caps.

"We're comfortable with three goalies" but only until I can flip Comrie or UPL for fair value.

[Broken Ankles]

1 hour ago, dudacek said:

Adams has become in incredibly adept at these things in talking philosophy without talking meat.

"We've told Tyson Jost we want him back" for one year and at a pay cut

"For Russians, it's about specific situations and the information that's available" for example Michkov only wants to play for Washington or us so we are desperately trying to move up ahead of the Caps.

"We're comfortable with three goalies" but only until I can flip Comrie or UPL for fair value.

Kevyn and are a lot alike.  I use this language all the time.

“Honey, I can’t make it to dinner on Thursday, I have a lot on my plate at work”, because your friends are cray-cray and I’d rather have my eyes lids removed than suffer through an evening with them.
 

“Julie, I have no idea where your husband is”… unless maybe he went home with Cindi, the smoking hot blonde bartender we were talking to last night. 
 

“I just fixed the leaky faucet”, that you mentioned like 75 times the last two weeks, but not today, so do you think that’s worthy of sex tonight? 

Edited June 21, 2023 by Broken Ankles

[thewookie1]

Definitely feels like Adams is tying up the offense so he can fully focus his on acquiring that 3/4D partner for Power. In a sense that’s a sound strategy seeing as our offense wasn’t really an issue very often last year and we have at least 2 players in Rochester with Top 6 upsides, Savoie and Östlund in the pipeline.

I doubt he tenders Jost but will have an offer for him. 
 

As for goalie my guess is he’s far more cautious due to the absurd prices that seem to be floating around. Hellebuyck isn’t worth 8x9.5mil for his 31 through 39 year old seasons. Nashville May just want too much for Saros. Meanwhile Hart and Demko would be somewhat akin to refurbished products you hope keep their shinier form.
 

Presently Levi is the golden calf and is safe. He is presently at minimum going to get a shot at the 1A spot in camp.

UPL and Comrie are in less safe waters. UPL will either back up in Buffalo or be traded; I see no circumstance in which KA lets him go on waivers to get claimed. Essentially Comrie only has two shots at playing in Buffalo next year to start. Either Levi falls on his face or a team offers an absurd price for UPL. Essentially Comrie can’t be the backup based on merit or performance due to UPL’s waiver issue. 

[dudacek]

7 minutes ago, thewookie1 said:

Definitely feels like Adams is tying up the offense so he can fully focus his on acquiring that 3/4D partner for Power. In a sense that’s a sound strategy seeing as our offense wasn’t really an issue very often last year and we have at least 2 players in Rochester with Top 6 upsides, Savoie and Östlund in the pipeline.

I doubt he tenders Jost but will have an offer for him. 
 

As for goalie my guess is he’s far more cautious due to the absurd prices that seem to be floating around. Hellebuyck isn’t worth 8x9.5mil for his 31 through 39 year old seasons. Nashville May just want too much for Saros. Meanwhile Hart and Demko would be somewhat akin to refurbished products you hope keep their shinier form.
 

Presently Levi is the golden calf and is safe. He is presently at minimum going to get a shot at the 1A spot in camp.

UPL and Comrie are in less safe waters. UPL will either back up in Buffalo or be traded; I see no circumstance in which KA lets him go on waivers to get claimed. Essentially Comrie only has two shots at playing in Buffalo next year to start. Either Levi falls on his face or a team offers an absurd price for UPL. Essentially Comrie can’t be the backup based on merit or performance due to UPL’s waiver issue. 

You seem to be the most conservative poster on here when it comes to trades.

What I mean is pretty much every goalie who comes up for discussion either costs too much in assets, has/wants a contract you’re not interested in, or isn’t good enough.

Is there any goalies out there you think are worth pursuing?

[Weave]

KA will sign a D man in FA that the consensus will determine an upgrade over Joki (Buffalonil wiil object, of course), and that will be it.  No new F’s.  No new GT’s.

He’s done.

[Marvin]

43 minutes ago, Weave said:

KA will sign a D man in FA that the consensus will determine an upgrade over Joki (Buffalonil wiil object, of course), and that will be it.  No new F’s.  No new GT’s.

He’s done.

Whom does he replace Olofsson and Hinostroza with?

[Taro T]

1 hour ago, Marvin said:

Whom does he replace Olofsson and Hinostroza with?

Olofsson's been replaced by Greenway.

Hinostroza?  Right now, it looks like Rousek.  But if Adams grabs a 4C then Vinnie was replaced by Jost.

[Thorner]

23 minutes ago, Taro T said:

Olofsson's been replaced by Greenway.

Hinostroza?  Right now, it looks like Rousek.  But if Adams grabs a 4C then Vinnie was replaced by Jost.

Huh?

[Taro T]

11 minutes ago, Thorny said:

Huh?

Hinostroza was not in the top 12.  He was the 13th F.  Presuming Olofsson goes away, there are 12 F's.  So, right now Jost is (on paper at least) in the top 12.  He is NOT Hinostroza.  But if a 4C were brought in, then Jost is 13 and he is Vinnie.

And expect that Rousek would be behind Jost at present so he'd be 13 right now.  If those 2 are flipped, then Vinnie became Jost whether a 4C is brought in or not.

[dudacek]

The Sabres forward depth chart last year based on total ice time:

• Thompson
• Tuch
• Skinner
• Cozens
• Mitts
• Okposo
• Olofsson 
• Peterka
• Quinn
• Girgensons
• Krebs
• Jost
• Hinostroza
• Asplund

 It’s really interesting to compare that to how it looked down the stretch:

• Skinner
• Cozens
• Mitts
• Krebs
• Quinn 
• Thompson
• Okposo
• Tuch
• Girgensons
• Peterka
• Greenway
• Olofsson
• Jost
• Hinostroza

The above is for the final 24 games and it’s twisted by Thompson missing 4 games to injury and Tuch and Greenway 7. If you do it by per game played it goes:

• Tuch
• Thompson
• Skinner
• Cozens
• Mitts
• Krebs
• Quinn
• Okposo
• Greenway
• Peterka
• Olofsson
• Hinostroza
• Girgensons
• Jost

The most interesting thing to me is how much more Donnie leaned on Krebs down the stretch. Hinostroza only played 6 games. The Sabres went 11/10/3 over that period.

[thewookie1]

4 hours ago, dudacek said:

You seem to be the most conservative poster on here when it comes to trades.

What I mean is pretty much every goalie who comes up for discussion either costs too much in assets, has/wants a contract you’re not interested in, or isn’t good enough.

Is there any goalies out there you think are worth pursuing?

 

For me, all trades need to at minimum break even for our team. Now that doesn't mean you can't buy rentals or the like but rather they need to make an impact worthy of what was traded away. For instance trading a 1st for a random forward; that forward would need to bring significant value to the team for that year (if he's a true rental) whether it be in goals/assists or some combination points, hits, experience etc. In the end you want to walk away feeling like the trade was worth it in the end.

The biggest issue with goalies are they have the highest natural risk factor of any position since there are very few valuable avenues it can go. What I mean by that is if you trade/sign a player to score goals but he injures his arm and never puts up huge goal numbers; you can still garner positive value from him if he compensates in other manners such as assists or two-way play. An offensive defenseman can theoretically still be a very effective two-way or defensive defenseman in theory. Skaters are far more flexible in this way. Goalies really aren't, you're either good or bad. Regardless if the goalie has to adjust his play or not due age, injury or what not; all that matters is can he keep the puck out of the net. Hence their boom or bust trait.

As for contracts, I have a similar feel about goalies. Long-term contracts with goalies rarely work in the team's favor; especially high AAV ones. The reason being you can't exactly hide a declining goalie in the lineup. A Forward can go from Line 1 to 4 in theory while a Defenseman can go from 1st to 3rd pair. A goalie has two slots and both are more or less locked in game by game. Burying them is practically useless since few goalies outside of ELCs make the 1mil or so you get in relief when burying their contract. 

Lastly goalies tend to be finicky by nature but also highly influenced by their team's structure and style of play. Martin Brodeur was a great goalie, but he also played on a defensive stalwart his entire career which will always put him below Hasek and Roy in my rankings of goalies. We will need a goalie who thrives in chaos and can make an above average number of saves against odd-man rushes. Our style, even with better defensive coverage, will always be more prone to odd-man attacks. 

 

Now that my reasoning is finished, I'll give my take on the available goalies 

Hellebuyck is a great goalie but one with questionable results against high danger opportunities and is asking for an immediate no in a contract. Vasilevskiy was 26 when he signed for 8x9.5mil and had won a Stanley Cup already. While great Hellebuyck would be 5 years older and likely a "bad" fit with our style of play as a whole. Even Bob was 29 when he signed his 7x10mil contract. (Hellebuyck would be 31 at Year 1 of his (8x9.5 mil contract in theory) Thus based on his asking price via trade and contractual demands I have zero interest in him. 

Saros is more in-line stylistically and has shown to be effective in more offensively minded defensive set ups. So that isn't an issue and the fact he and Levi have a lot in common would make it even more useful for Levi's growth. The major issue with Saros is availability and cost of acquisition. If they asked to move up to 13 from 24, Östlund, our 2024 2nd and Polotov I'd be very willing to go through with the deal. The issue would be if they insist of Kulich or Savoie to which I'd be rather incredulous to even discuss trading. Hell I'd even put a condition on that 2024 2nd to become a 1st if it helped. Thus I feel somewhat discouraged by the likelihood of the acquisition   

Hart is plainly not worth 2 1sts plus in my book.

Gibson is far too erratic and has a terrible contract to boot

 

If you have other goalies, feel free to ask.

 

As for the counterpoint we don't need to win every trade I'd say; no we don't need to school another team, it can be very fair or even slightly lost. It just can't be a complete waste of assets akin to Murray's McNabb and 2 2nds for Deslauries and Fasching or a near disaster like the ROR trade which only through good luck gave us a star in return. Trading Savoie or Kulich for a year or two of a goalie has all the makings of a complete failure in the making. (Filip Forsberg for Martin Erat anyone?) For instance if we traded Savoie to Nashville, the only conceivable way we come out clean is if either Savoie falls on his face or Saros literally plays Vezina level goaltending 2 years in a row while turning Levi into an up in coming star and taking us deep into the playoffs both years. Anything less than that makes it very easy for Savoie to make us regret our trade for a myriad of years.

[dudacek]

7 hours ago, dudacek said:

any goalies out there you think are worth pursuing?

 

2 hours ago, thewookie1 said:

 

For me, all trades need to at minimum break even for our team. Now that doesn't mean you can't buy rentals or the like but rather they need to make an impact worthy of what was traded away. ….….…our trade for a myriad of years.

So, not really?

[thewookie1]

18 minutes ago, dudacek said:

 

So, not really?

Well I don't mind Saros depending on the trade proposal.

 

Edited June 22, 2023 by thewookie1

[dudacek]

10 minutes ago, thewookie1 said:

Well I don't mind Saros depending on the trade proposal.

 

So one of the very best goalies in the league, so long as we can get him in a quantity deal that doesn’t include giving up an NHL player, or one of our best prospects, or us falling out the first round?

[thewookie1]

3 hours ago, dudacek said:

So one of the very best goalies in the league, so long as we can get him in a quantity deal that doesn’t include giving up an NHL player, or one of our best prospects, or us falling out the first round?

It's 

13, Östlund, Poltapov, and a '24 2nd that turns into a '24 1st if we make the playoffs next year.

for

24 and Saros

 

I've got some NSH fans interested so I made it

13, Östlund, Poltapov, 2024 1st (Top 5 Protected) 

for 

24 and Saros

 

That's an equivalence of approximately 2 1sts, and a 2nd + moving from 24 to 13 is worth a very high 2nd in regards to value charts. So 2 1sts and 2 2nds.

[mjd1001]

11 hours ago, dudacek said:

You seem to be the most conservative poster on here when it comes to trades.

What I mean is pretty much every goalie who comes up for discussion either costs too much in assets, has/wants a contract you’re not interested in, or isn’t good enough.

Is there any goalies out there you think are worth pursuing?

I know this was not directed at me, but I feel the same way (I am not eager to make trades and if its not a clear 'win' I'm likely not interested --  at this time).

Why?  I think making trades that you might not win, taking chances for something that might be a big reward....those type of deals I could get behind when your team is really 'stuck in the mud', so to speak. If you are going no-where or have an attitude in the room that needs to get changed, go ahead and make some big changes.  However, I feel good about the direction of the current team.  I LIKE the players on the current team.  I think there is a chance that all of the goaltenders on the roster play better this year and that Levi could be a long term solution and he is here already.  I think if you made NO moves (which I do not want NO moves) the team would still be better if no major moves were made.

With that said, I want a move for a top-4 D-man and if that means trading assets (including a former 1st rounder) than that is what I'd be comfortable with.  

[Buffalonill]

16 hours ago, Hank said:

Look at the roster that played in front of Saros the last month of the season when they almost snuck into the playoffs, he may be the best goalie in the league. I'd offer 13OA, 6K, Savoie and VO, for Saros, Parssinen  and Carrier. 

Buffalo doesn't need Saros  all they need is a vet goalie Levi will be fine 

Edited June 22, 2023 by Buffalonill

[Randall Flagg]

2 hours ago, thewookie1 said:

It's 

13, Östlund, Poltapov, and a '24 2nd that turns into a '24 1st if we make the playoffs next year.

for

24 and Saros

 

I've got some NSH fans interested so I made it

13, Östlund, Poltapov, 2024 1st (Top 5 Protected) 

for 

24 and Saros

 

That's an equivalence of approximately 2 1sts, and a 2nd + moving from 24 to 13 is worth a very high 2nd in regards to value charts. So 2 1sts and 2 2nds.

What would your plan be if nashville doesn't want to trade him?

[thewookie1]

43 minutes ago, Randall Flagg said:

What would your plan be if nashville doesn't want to trade him?

Sign someone

[nfreeman]

10 hours ago, dudacek said:

So one of the very best goalies in the league, so long as we can get him in a quantity deal that doesn’t include giving up an NHL player, or one of our best prospects, or us falling out the first round?

Imma flip it around on you sir:  would you trade #13, Savoie, Kulich, Quinn, JJP, Levi, Östlund or Rosen for Helle, who has 1 year left under contract and, it appears, will require a huge contract in order to stay longer than that?

As I've said previously, I would not, although my answer on #13, Ostlun and Rosen would change if Helle had 2 years left.

[dudacek]

19 minutes ago, nfreeman said:

Imma flip it around on you sir:  would you trade #13, Savoie, Kulich, Quinn, JJP, Levi, Östlund or Rosen for Helle, who has 1 year left under contract and, it appears, will require a huge contract in order to stay longer than that?

As I've said previously, I would not, although my answer on #13, Ostlun and Rosen would change if Helle had 2 years left.

I would trade 13 or Rosen for Helle straight across even though I would have no intention of signing him to the suggested demand because I believe it puts us in contention this year while buying Levi the time he will need.

I would do that because they are the pieces listed least likely to be part of the core moving forward, and are made expendable by the other names on the list.

Side benefits of the deal are the possibility that we may be able to reach a more suitable deal with Hellebuyck because he finds he likes it here, and that his presence allows the rest of the roster to “power up” and grow into the role of perennial contender after he’s gone if that’s the path he takes.

Edited June 22, 2023 by dudacek