Off-season Game Plan 2024

[LGR4GM]

The 2nd line center is Cozens. I'm truly confused why so many ppl think Adams will add a center that pushes his boy Cozens down to the 3rd line. It's just not happening impo.

3 minutes ago, sabrefanday1 said:

Maybe KA is smarter then we think and he will at some point trade Byram for that elsuive 2nd center...or package one of our d-men with propects and/or picks for said centerman. Mitts was not going to come cheap but maybe now we can trade for a center who is more affordable?

 

[French Collection]

8 hours ago, GASabresIUFAN said:

You’ll see the anger and angst grow when Colorado makes Mitts’ their No.2 center next fall and KA installs Krebs as our 3C out of camp.  When this happens it will further illustrate that Adams traded Mitts because he couldn’t afford to keep him because of the internal cap and therefore couldn’t afford to replace Mitts either, leaving only Krebs.  

Colorado has cap constraints so it will be interesting to see what Mitts gets. KA made his decision to not have 3 $7M centres and might end up with 3 Dmen making more than that.

I will be angry like most of this board if Krebs starts at 3C. I still hope he can get there through hard work and some tweaks to his game but he has to earn it. KA has to make a move to get this team to a playoff level. The current group could do it but there is a lot that has to go right and NHL depth at C is lacking.

[Taro T]

1 hour ago, French Collection said:

Colorado has cap constraints so it will be interesting to see what Mitts gets. KA made his decision to not have 3 $7M centres and might end up with 3 Dmen making more than that.

I will be angry like most of this board if Krebs starts at 3C. I still hope he can get there through hard work and some tweaks to his game but he has to earn it. KA has to make a move to get this team to a playoff level. The current group could do it but there is a lot that has to go right and NHL depth at C is lacking.

Still am expecting Adams to pursue Kane to slot into the top 9 and Cirelli (or similar) to slot into the bottom 6 at C with another 1 or 2 guys to start the year on the 4th line.  Will he be able to convince Kane that with Ruff leading the boys that they can contend?  Will he be able to actually land Cirelli or similar?  Figure those answers are maybe and probably.  But those are the 3-4 slots he's likely backfilling this off-season.

Krebs will be 23 this season.  Still young, but if he continues to work hard over the off-season he should be able to put on the muscle to play that d-bag style that he seems to want to play.  Will it be good enough to be 3C?  Maybe in a year or 2, but not expecting it this year; but am still hopeful that he won't have to be good enough to be the 3C on a regular basis this year.

[Archie Lee]

1 hour ago, French Collection said:

Colorado has cap constraints so it will be interesting to see what Mitts gets. KA made his decision to not have 3 $7M centres and might end up with 3 Dmen making more than that.

I will be angry like most of this board if Krebs starts at 3C. I still hope he can get there through hard work and some tweaks to his game but he has to earn it. KA has to make a move to get this team to a playoff level. The current group could do it but there is a lot that has to go right and NHL depth at C is lacking.

I think Mittelstadt's deal will come in at 5-6 years and between $5-$6 million per, and I think that is what he would have gotten whether he was here or in Colorado.  Cozens and Thompson got their deals after having more impressive seasons than any that Mitts has had, specifically when it comes to goals scored.  Mitts's performance and value when compared to the seasons that led to the Cozens and Thompson contracts, brings Mitts in at a lower AAV. 

I don't have any great issue with starting next season with Krebs getting a shot at 3C.  The problem though is we are very thin at C and it will be tough to find a 4C that is good enough to move up for an extended period in the event of either an injury or Krebs not working out. Not to mention, we have no clear option for moving someone into a top 6 role if Thompson or Cozens are out of the line-up.  Not to mention, it would be good to have a 5th C also.

What I struggle with is why Adams seemed so willing to discard what was a near perfect situation that he had with Thompson, Cozens, Mitts.  At least, near perfect for a team without a true #1C. The best option, in my view, going into next season would have been to move Mitts or Cozens to the wing in the top 6 with Krebs at 3C.  Then if you have an injury or if Krebs is just not getting it done, you have a 3rd middle-to-top-six C available to slide in to a centre role. Why Adams did not see the value of this, or thought that it was less valuable than adding Byram to the D corps, I don't understand. 

(Note: I'm not down on Byram at all, and think he makes our D better. I don't see his skillset as redundant.  Injuries happen on D also, and with Byram we are set-up with 3 strong puck-moving D who can QB a PP; that's not nothing. Also, there are still 3 back-end positions to fill with more defence focused players.  That Clifton and Joker aren't ideal defenders does not make it wrong to acquire Byram.  There are options that other teams would exercise to upgrade on Joker/Clifton.)

Now, if the plan is to go out and get a centre/LW in free agency such as Chandler Stephenson, or to trade for a Cirelli or a Colton, and to replace Joker with a more more physically-imposing and defensive-focused player, then it all comes together for me.  Though this should be the plan it is highly unlikely to occur.  For one, it would require a Skinner buyout, which should happen but won't (a Skinner buyout would allow us to spend on both a 3C in the Stephenson/Cirelli range and a 2nd pairing R shot D upgrade to Joker). For two, until proven otherwise I suspect we still have an internal cap that will come in closer to $80 million than $87.7 million.  And third, many acquisitions and attempted acquisitions of the Adams era were rumored in advance (it was known we were in on Chychrun, Greenway had been rumored, the Byram for Mitts swap was discussed in the media weeks before it happened).  The two centres linked to the Sabres last year were Cates and Laughton from the Flyers. A potential deal with the Flyers might be dead, but it is that quality of C that we are likely to add.

 

 

[Archie Lee]

17 minutes ago, Taro T said:

Still am expecting Adams to pursue Kane to slot into the top 9 and Cirelli (or similar) to slot into the bottom 6 at C with another 1 or 2 guys to start the year on the 4th line.  Will he be able to convince Kane that with Ruff leading the boys that they can contend?  Will he be able to actually land Cirelli or similar?  Figure those answers are maybe and probably.  But those are the 3-4 slots he's likely backfilling this off-season.

Krebs will be 23 this season.  Still young, but if he continues to work hard over the off-season he should be able to put on the muscle to play that d-bag style that he seems to want to play.  Will it be good enough to be 3C?  Maybe in a year or 2, but not expecting it this year; but am still hopeful that he won't have to be good enough to be the 3C on a regular basis this year.

I hate to keep coming back to the same thing, but Kane+Cirelli (or the equivalent) is not possible without both a Skinner buyout and a commitment to being a cap team (neither of which is likely). Kane took a bit of a prove it deal with the Wings last season and then went out and proved it. He was a legitimate difference making winger.  He is going to get $6 million plus unless he prioritizes a Cup and opts to sign with a contender for less. Assuming conservative extensions for our RFA's, the $12 million it would cost for Kane + Cirelli eats the rest of the cap and still leaves us with 2/3 of a 4th line to find. I would love it if this were a possibility (ie: we buyout Skinner, commit to being a cap team and make Kane/Cirelli type deals), but I can't see it happening.

[thewookie1]

7 hours ago, PerreaultForever said:

Yup. I don't believe Byram is "bad" either, I just believe we already have that guy and we can't build a proper D with all the same guy. 

I agree that these guys can be hard to get, but I also think we as a franchise have undervalued them and our coaching and team systems have made many of them look bad and not fit in and then moved on. 

Watching that Toronto Boston series, McCabe was their best D man and is exactly what we lack but we didn't value him. Lybushkin was actually their second best D man and while he's far from perfect I still don't understand why we tossed him away for next to nothing. I know the analytics crowd have numbers on him, but he was a heck of a lot better than over the hill Johnson, he had snarl, and in the right system he's a better D man then he was for us. 

Boston picked up Andrew Peeke for a 3rd rounder and a failed NHLer/AHLer. Now Peeke is no Pesce, but he's solid and a heck of a good shot blocker. Perfect bottom end guy. 

Now I'm not saying these guys are better than Byram, they are far less skilled, but they are all guys who complement the type of D guys we have and they can be physical and they are defensive D men. This goes right back to McNabb. We simply do not value defensive D men. We only seem to want fast skating puck movers, and hence, our D is always in disarray and a work in progress rather than a solid set unit. 

 

Frankly it seems the past 13 years, a number of defensive defenseman haven't quite worked here very well. McNabb never had a shot and McCabe was solid but wanted to go to Chicago for his wife. (Then Chicago traded him) 

Bush was a good big defenseman but his issue was he was a trainwreck in getting the puck up the ice

[GASabresIUFAN]

Just now, thewookie1 said:

 

Frankly it seems the past 13 years, a number of defensive defenseman haven't quite worked here very well. McNabb never had a shot and McCabe was solid but wanted to go to Chicago for his wife. (Then Chicago traded him) 

Bush was a good big defenseman but his issue was he was a trainwreck in getting the puck up the ice

Don't forget we dumped Borgen before giving him a chance.  Mule can't stay healthy etc...  That doesn't change the need to add them to our team.  My guess is we have one of the highest D payrolls in the NHL, but still have a below average defense.  Maybe we are spending our money on the wrong players.

[thewookie1]

19 minutes ago, GASabresIUFAN said:

Don't forget we dumped Borgen before giving him a chance.  Mule can't stay healthy etc...  That doesn't change the need to add them to our team.  My guess is we have one of the highest D payrolls in the NHL, but still have a below average defense.  Maybe we are spending our money on the wrong players.

We had little choice in regards to Borgen; that was an expansion draft casualty and we could only protect 3 Dmen or we would of likely lost Thompson 

[Taro T]

1 hour ago, Archie Lee said:

I hate to keep coming back to the same thing, but Kane+Cirelli (or the equivalent) is not possible without both a Skinner buyout and a commitment to being a cap team (neither of which is likely). Kane took a bit of a prove it deal with the Wings last season and then went out and proved it. He was a legitimate difference making winger.  He is going to get $6 million plus unless he prioritizes a Cup and opts to sign with a contender for less. Assuming conservative extensions for our RFA's, the $12 million it would cost for Kane + Cirelli eats the rest of the cap and still leaves us with 2/3 of a 4th line to find. I would love it if this were a possibility (ie: we buyout Skinner, commit to being a cap team and make Kane/Cirelli type deals), but I can't see it happening.

Kane is 35 years old and will qualify for a bonus laden contract should he be willing to sign a 1 year deal.  Should they sign Kane, it pretty much guarantees that Skinner is bought out NEXT year, but he doesn't have to get bought out this year.

Believe it was GA that said the team has ~17MM they can spend towards the cap.  Spending it on 2 sort of expensive players and 2 4th liners is easy to do and, especially with Kane being bonus eligiible it could be done with not breaking whatever internal cap they MIGHT have.

Lastly, people keep saying the team won't spend near the cap and presumably that will doom the season, but would Ruff have signed on if he knew he was getting hamstrung the way he used to when Hasek was around UNLESS he REALLY  believed in the team they have here?

 

[PASabreFan]

5 minutes ago, Taro T said:

Kane is 35 years old and will qualify for a bonus laden contract should he be willing to sign a 1 year deal.  Should they sign Kane, it pretty much guarantees that Skinner is bought out NEXT year, but he doesn't have to get bought out this year.

Believe it was GA that said the team has ~17MM they can spend towards the cap.  Spending it on 2 sort of expensive players and 2 4th liners is easy to do and, especially with Kane being bonus eligiible it could be done with not breaking whatever internal cap they MIGHT have.

Lastly, people keep saying the team won't spend near the cap and presumably that will doom the season, but would Ruff have signed on if he knew he was getting hamstrung the way he used to when Hasek was around UNLESS he REALLY  believed in the team they have here?

 

But Ruff was also here when 1. Terry's spending spree failed and 2. Internal budgets under Knox/Rigas and OSP were accompanied by several Cusps @Sabres Fan in NS.

So he might merely have been convinced that if and when the team gets close, Terry will put them over the top and certainly won't let good teams be dismantled.

Ruff might accept the challenge of getting the team close under conditions akin to the good/bad old days.

[Taro T]

1 minute ago, PASabreFan said:

But Ruff was also here when 1. Terry's spending spree failed and 2. Internal budgets under Knox/Rigas and OSP were accompanied by several Cusps @Sabres Fan in NS.

So he might merely have been convinced that if and when the team gets close, Terry will put them over the top and certainly won't let good teams be dismantled.

Ruff might accept the challenge of getting the team close under conditions akin to the good/bad old days.

Which part of "UNLESS he REALLY  believed in the team they have here" was the unclear part?

Pretty sure you and I might be on the same page here.

Considering Ruff sure does seem to only be planning to be here in the HC role for 2 seasons, it would seem that he expects that to occur, if not this year, then next.  Could be off on that, but it fits with Lindy's apparent timeline.

[seer775]

We are ***** so long as Skinner's contract is a cap hit.

[LGR4GM]

2 hours ago, Taro T said:

Still am expecting Adams to pursue Kane to slot into the top 9 and Cirelli (or similar) to slot into the bottom 6 at C with another 1 or 2 guys to start the year on the 4th line.  Will he be able to convince Kane that with Ruff leading the boys that they can contend?  Will he be able to actually land Cirelli or similar?  Figure those answers are maybe and probably.  But those are the 3-4 slots he's likely backfilling this off-season.

Krebs will be 23 this season.  Still young, but if he continues to work hard over the off-season he should be able to put on the muscle to play that d-bag style that he seems to want to play.  Will it be good enough to be 3C?  Maybe in a year or 2, but not expecting it this year; but am still hopeful that he won't have to be good enough to be the 3C on a regular basis this year.

If at 23 Krebs still hasn't bothered to add enough muscle to play 3c how long do I wait, 25? 26? 27? 33? What's the cutoff because 18yr old Zach Benson played that style just fine. 

[dudacek]

10 hours ago, thewookie1 said:

 

Mitts likely sealed his fate when the "wanting a contract like Thompson and Cozens" rumors floated around. At the present cap; you can't exactly run 7mil per center 1 through 3. Mitts claims Adams never talked to his agent but I would take that in meaning serious negotiations. If he wanted a minimum of 7x7mil and we were unwilling to do long term with 7mil then a contract negotiation would of been a fruitless venture to begin with..

 

Edmonton has $23M invested in their top 3C (27 if you use Henrique instead of McLeod) Florida $16 (Lundell on ELC), Dallas $22 and the Rangers $19M.

You absolutely can invest $21M in your top 3 centres if that’s how you want to build your team.

Adams chose not to.

5 hours ago, LGR4GM said:

The 2nd line center is Cozens. I'm truly confused why so many ppl think Adams will add a center that pushes his boy Cozens down to the 3rd line. It's just not happening impo.

 

So much this.

Regardless of what any of us think of Cozens, it’s pretty clear that Adams sees him as a core player.

[Taro T]

40 minutes ago, LGR4GM said:

If at 23 Krebs still hasn't bothered to add enough muscle to play 3c how long do I wait, 25? 26? 27? 33? What's the cutoff because 18yr old Zach Benson played that style just fine. 

Didn't mean to imply a lack of muscle kept him from being a reasonable 3C.  Meant it kept him from being the D-bag he seems to want to be on the ice.

Should he become the D-bag he wants to be, would that (and being a year closer to his prime, and at 23 he's getting to a point where he should start being what he is) be enough to create enough space for him to make the passes we on rare occassion saw from him when he first became a Sabres and be an effective 3C?

Benson's game is significantly different than Krebs' game.  Benson learned to understand the game on a high level early, because at his size he'd've gotten killed sometime in the last 8 years after checking was introduced.  And, it's kind of unfair to compare Krebs to Benson because Benson is the rarest of cats.  Can't recall the last time a guy that wasn't drafted in the top 10 played a full NHL season at 18.  Maybe the comparason for Krebs will be Asplund, but am hoping (with no real reason TO hope) that the better comparason is Mittelstadt or Thompson.  2 guys that were NHLers at very early ages and struggled early but figured it out when they got some man strength added to the rest of the toolkit.

[French Collection]

3 minutes ago, Taro T said:

Can't recall the last time a guy that wasn't drafted in the top 10 played a full NHL season at 18. 

ROR made the Avs as an 18 year old after being drafted 33rd. Not sure how many more have done it.

[Archie Lee]

1 hour ago, Taro T said:

Kane is 35 years old and will qualify for a bonus laden contract should he be willing to sign a 1 year deal.  Should they sign Kane, it pretty much guarantees that Skinner is bought out NEXT year, but he doesn't have to get bought out this year.

Believe it was GA that said the team has ~17MM they can spend towards the cap.  Spending it on 2 sort of expensive players and 2 4th liners is easy to do and, especially with Kane being bonus eligiible it could be done with not breaking whatever internal cap they MIGHT have.

Lastly, people keep saying the team won't spend near the cap and presumably that will doom the season, but would Ruff have signed on if he knew he was getting hamstrung the way he used to when Hasek was around UNLESS he REALLY  believed in the team they have here?

 

To your 2nd paragraph, I encourage you not to take anyone’s word (including mine) for how much cap space we have. Go to capfriendly and utilize their armchair GM tool. Once you sign UPL, Krebs, Joker and Bryson to even conservative deals and promote a few ELCs to backup roles, there is not enough space left to add two 5-6 million $ contracts. There isn’t. Even if you move Joker and replace him with a low level contract, there isn’t space for two bigger $$ additions. 
 

To your 3rd paragraph, I don’t think that having an internal cap that comes in at, say, $81.5, dooms the season. It does make it tougher to upgrade the roster though and thus lowers the chances of success. I do think though that people are underestimating Ruff’s willingness to accept less than ideal circumstances while overestimating the influence he will have. He is the league’s 2nd oldest coach. A year out of the league would likely render him irrelevant to future coaching competitions. He wanted to coach in the NHL this year and coaching the Sabres again is likely viewed by him as a good way to cap a great career. I’m sure he thinks there are good pieces here that might allow for success (and he would be right), but I don’t think current evidence supports that he set a number of conditions that relate to him having a high degree of influence on anything other than coaching. 

[PASabreFan]

1 hour ago, Taro T said:

Which part of "UNLESS he REALLY  believed in the team they have here" was the unclear part?

Pretty sure you and I might be on the same page here.

Considering Ruff sure does seem to only be planning to be here in the HC role for 2 seasons, it would seem that he expects that to occur, if not this year, then next.  Could be off on that, but it fits with Lindy's apparent timeline.

Two years for Ruff bc of a two year contract? Bc they hired Appert?

Is there something I missed that makes you and others so sure it's two and done for Ruff?

I wouldn't put it past the Sabres to operate in such an odd fashion, but I'm not sold on The Timeline.

[Archie Lee]

5 minutes ago, PASabreFan said:

Two years for Ruff bc of a two year contract? Bc they hired Appert?

Is there something I missed that makes you and others so sure it's two and done for Ruff?

I wouldn't put it past the Sabres to operate in such an odd fashion, but I'm not sold on The Timeline.

My sense is that it is tied to Adams’s extension and the 2 years left on Granato’s deal. If Ruff is successful and wants to keep coaching, he will get extended. Pegula likely did not want to commit any money past two years. Which is also why Ruff was likely the best/only vet coach option. No other veteran successful coach (maybe Boudreau) would have accepted a two year deal. 

[French Collection]

8 minutes ago, Archie Lee said:

Pegula likely did not want to commit any money past two years

Nailed it.

[LGR4GM]

44 minutes ago, Taro T said:

Didn't mean to imply a lack of muscle kept him from being a reasonable 3C.  Meant it kept him from being the D-bag he seems to want to be on the ice.

Should he become the D-bag he wants to be, would that (and being a year closer to his prime, and at 23 he's getting to a point where he should start being what he is) be enough to create enough space for him to make the passes we on rare occassion saw from him when he first became a Sabres and be an effective 3C?

Benson's game is significantly different than Krebs' game.  Benson learned to understand the game on a high level early, because at his size he'd've gotten killed sometime in the last 8 years after checking was introduced.  And, it's kind of unfair to compare Krebs to Benson because Benson is the rarest of cats.  Can't recall the last time a guy that wasn't drafted in the top 10 played a full NHL season at 18.  Maybe the comparason for Krebs will be Asplund, but am hoping (with no real reason TO hope) that the better comparason is Mittelstadt or Thompson.  2 guys that were NHLers at very early ages and struggled early but figured it out when they got some man strength added to the rest of the toolkit.

My question for you and everyone else is how long do I have to wait for Krebs to be more than what he's shown to this point? He's currently an above average JAG. I could probably replace him with a handful of 2 mill players that would give me more. I'll give him this year but if he's the same by the trade deadline, time to move on. There's 3 guys in Rochester that might give us more. 

I still find it interesting for Krebs it's patience but for Cozens it's 3rd line. If Cozens is what anyone thinks a 3c is, then how is Krebs considered anywhere close to that?

Edited May 25 by LGR4GM

[SabreFinn]

20 minutes ago, LGR4GM said:

My question for you and everyone else is how long do I have to wait for Krebs to be more than what he's shown to this point? He's currently an above average JAG. I could probably replace him with a handful of 2 mill players that would give me more. I'll give him this year but if he's the same by the trade deadline, time to move on. There's 3 guys in Rochester that might give us more. 

I still find it interesting for Krebs it's patience but for Cozens it's 3rd line. If Cozens is what anyone thinks a 3c is, then how is Krebs considered anywhere close to that?

Adams might give Krebs a last chance since we got a new coach. I think Adams works that way, he is willing to give more chances than other GMs. But it sure is the last for Krebs.

[dudacek]

8 minutes ago, LGR4GM said:

My question for your and everyone else is how long do I have to wait for Krebs to be more than what is shown to this point? He's currently an above average JAG. I could probably replace him with a handful of 2 mill players that would give me more. I'll give him this year but if he's the same by the trade deadline, time to move on. There's 3 guys in Rochester that might give me more. 

I still find it interesting for Krebs is patience but got Cozens it's 3rd line. If Cozens is what anyone thinks a 3c is, then how is Krebs considered anywhere close to that?

Krebs is an interesting one for me: 

Is he a Casey Mittelstadt-esque case of patience being needed?

Is he a Tyson Jost type — given plenty of rope due to his draft slot, but basically an NHL tweener?

I'm kinda inclined to think he's neither. I think his most likely fate is as a Teddy Blueger-esque journeyman role player.

He's right at the 200-game mark that I tend to use as a cut-off for when the learning period wraps up for young NHLers.

And I think that over those 200 games he's really grown as a defensive player. But his offensive game seems to actually have regressed. He will never be a finisher, but he used to show far more creativity than he did this past year.

He's going to get a cheap qualifying offer and not much more, so there's no sense turning the page yet.

He is competitive, diligent, relatively fast and coachable; I'm fine with him as a 4th-line placeholder. But in order to be an actual asset, he needs to forge some kind of bottom-six identity trait: PK, faceoffs, 30-point scorer, fighter, forechecker, pest, shutdown guy, hitter... he desperately wants to have a role on this team, but seems to have no idea what that is.

I'm really hoping Ruff can help him find it.

 

[Taro T]

1 hour ago, LGR4GM said:

My question for you and everyone else is how long do I have to wait for Krebs to be more than what he's shown to this point? He's currently an above average JAG. I could probably replace him with a handful of 2 mill players that would give me more. I'll give him this year but if he's the same by the trade deadline, time to move on. There's 3 guys in Rochester that might give us more. 

I still find it interesting for Krebs it's patience but for Cozens it's 3rd line. If Cozens is what anyone thinks a 3c is, then how is Krebs considered anywhere close to that?

Realize your comments are generalized, but you picked the wrong post to complain about too little patience for Cozens or that he's the guy that should be the 3rd line C.  Every lineup this kid has come up with for this upcoming season has him at 2C with Quinn stapled to his side.

And, while it's likely that Krebs is the 4C this coming season, he very well could be next year's Jost.  (IMHO, it's more likely he's the 4C than the 3C, but that's in the mix too.)  By next year's Jost mean the 13th F who slots in pretty much anywhere in the bottom 6 when an injury hits.  He really needs to be working his butt off this off-season because there is an opportunity there for him to grab the 3C role or he could Asplund his way right out of town or he could be any of several things on the 4th line.

2 hours ago, Archie Lee said:

To your 2nd paragraph, I encourage you not to take anyone’s word (including mine) for how much cap space we have. Go to capfriendly and utilize their armchair GM tool. Once you sign UPL, Krebs, Joker and Bryson to even conservative deals and promote a few ELCs to backup roles, there is not enough space left to add two 5-6 million $ contracts. There isn’t. Even if you move Joker and replace him with a low level contract, there isn’t space for two bigger $$ additions. 
 

To your 3rd paragraph, I don’t think that having an internal cap that comes in at, say, $81.5, dooms the season. It does make it tougher to upgrade the roster though and thus lowers the chances of success. I do think though that people are underestimating Ruff’s willingness to accept less than ideal circumstances while overestimating the influence he will have. He is the league’s 2nd oldest coach. A year out of the league would likely render him irrelevant to future coaching competitions. He wanted to coach in the NHL this year and coaching the Sabres again is likely viewed by him as a good way to cap a great career. I’m sure he thinks there are good pieces here that might allow for success (and he would be right), but I don’t think current evidence supports that he set a number of conditions that relate to him having a high degree of influence on anything other than coaching. 

Again, Pat Kane can be on a bonus laden 1 year deal.  Meaning he can come it at $1-2MM officially on a contract that would give him a good shot at getting $6MM this year.  If the Sabres end up under the cap w/ that bonus, great; there are no cap ramifications the following season.  If they don't stay under the cap, that overage gets taken off next year's cap.  Which is why having Kane pretty much forces their hand to dump Skinner NEXT off-season provided Kane doesn't hit the proverbial wall this year.

We KNOW there was interest on both sides for a deal but it didn't happen when the Sabres started the year as basketcases.  From what Adams has said he's looking for this off-season, expect he would fit the W role to a T.  He just needs to convince him that the Sabres have their heads out of their you know whats.

So, no, their remaining cap doesn't keep them from making "two bigger $$ additions."

[Taro T]

2 hours ago, PASabreFan said:

Two years for Ruff bc of a two year contract? Bc they hired Appert?

Is there something I missed that makes you and others so sure it's two and done for Ruff?

I wouldn't put it past the Sabres to operate in such an odd fashion, but I'm not sold on The Timeline.

2 years because of the 2 year contract and because of Ruff's age.  Guys with his resume don't only get 2 year deals.  Pretty sure the plan is that if things go well, that he slides into an advisory role and Adams becomes PoHO with one of the hotshot AGM's taking on Adams current title.  And if things go poorly, then Ruff becomes the PoHO and either one of the hotshot AGM's take on Adams' current role or they do a legit GM search led by Ruff.

Expecting that Lindy is getting ready to hang up the whistle; and if after 2 years, he decides he wants to stick around a little longer behind the bench, am sure they'd let him (provided things didn't blow up) but even Bowman got out of coaching at 68 (and he'd tried to do so unsuccessfully back in his late 40's).