Off-season Game Plan 2024

[Thorner]

20 minutes ago, dudacek said:

"Utter revisionism" on Ulmark is strong.  I thought about pulling him out and rewriting that portion and decided "long already, people know the history."

Ultimately he didn't re-sign and has told the media since that after his Dad died during COVID he could have never stayed in Buffalo. You can remove him from the equation if you want, but the point about most of the better veterans being done with Buffalo still stands.

"Considerably worse hockey" simply meant this:

• 2023/24: .512
• 2020/21: .330
• 2019/20:: .493
• 2018/19: .463
• 2017/18: .378

As for the rest, arguing against the degree of the rebuild is entirely fair. Personally, I don't think a quick fix built around Eichel was going to work for reasons I've already outlined.

To the bold, the Krueger COVID year was far and away the worst year of my fandom. The 2 years previous to this one were (sadly) 2 of the 3 best since Pegula bought the team.

Ya that’s interesting, the Covid year was never that bad for me. It was short, it was weird, a bunch of teams were doing weird things, and my mind was more usually that normal occupied with things beyond sports. I also knew it didn’t represent much of a verdict on anything: like I said Jack barely played, and he was hurt for the games he did. 

Of course I’m arguing against the “extent of the rebuild” because that’s the topic at hand: we can’t just call any collection of fixes to the team a “rebuild”. Obviously we needed fixes. We can debate the connotation of rebuild but the topic at hand is whether a rebuild where winning wouldn’t be expected until year 4 needed to be put in place, Adams’ specific rebuild, and my answer to that is an easy, definitive “no.”

I don’t think *any* team should institute a 4/5 year plan - making the playoffs is not hard, I’ve mentioned many times I find it to entirely be a lie sold to fans. So yes I of course also think it shouldn’t be applied in our situation where the fanbase was even more starving for a playoff berth than everyone other 

don’t call it a “quick fix”. Call it: fixing your team without setting aside 5 years to do it, wasting all of our time. The turnover from bad to playoffs is demonstrably significantly quicker on average than even just Adams’ term so far 

Quick fix has a poor connotation that I’m not putting my post behind 

Occam’s razor, please: Adams wanted the longer runway and the accompanying job security. Botterill did too “tear down to the studs”. It’s not a hot take, plenty of these guys prefer that situation 

- - - 

Going in circles a bit with the vet point: I entirely disagree. Eichel and Reinhart were done because Adams wanted to rebuild, we didn’t need to rebuild cause they were done. So I do not agree the veterans point stands 

.493 to .512 is 3 points. That’s not considerable. The irony is that the only considerably worse year, 17-18, was by way of this stupid “tear down to the studs and build up” mentality 

Edited May 15 by Thorny

[Brawndo]

 

[Thorner]

4 minutes ago, Brawndo said:

 

Ah gaddamn I almost made it to the hypothetical returns before the subscribe noti popped up. I do like the first line results in second line minutes bit (maybe someone can help me out with what I couldn’t get to)

people will look at him “only” having one year left on his deal as a bad thing (yes, I know, one year doesn’t have value as a human being. We get endless. It’s not like my entire fandom hangs on because of a solitary season in the last 20 years (2006)) but to me it’s a good thing that should facilitate a trade to a team willing to prioritize next year and worry about the rest later 

it won’t be us 

Edited May 15 by Thorny

[steveoath]

***** it. Get Sam Bennett and Nick Cousins. Run them on a line with Greenway or Benson. 

[Brawndo]

9 minutes ago, Thorny said:

Ah gaddamn I almost made it to the hypothetical returns before the subscribe noti popped up. I do like the first line results in second line minutes bit (maybe someone can help me out with what I couldn’t get to)

people will look at him “only” having one year left on his deal as a bad thing (yes, I know, one year doesn’t have value as a human being. We get endless. It’s not like my entire fandom hangs on because of a solitary season in the last 20 years (2006)) but to me it’s a good thing that should facilitate a trade to a team willing to prioritize next year and worry about the rest later 

it won’t be us 

Buffalo has one of the most exciting groups of young talent in the NHL, with Tage Thompson, Dylan Cozens, Rasmus Dahlin and JJ Peterka supplemented by Owen Power, Zach Benson, Jack Quinn, Peyton Krebs and Bowen Byram. All of these players are either locked up long-term or under team control as restricted free agents. In some ways, this makes Ehlers a perfect fit: Buffalo could absorb his $6 million AAV in 2024-25, while not being tied to it the following season — which just so happens to be when Peterka, Quinn and Byram will all need new contracts.

The Sabres played to a positive goal differential last season, despite missing the playoffs by seven points. They’re an intriguing mix of on the way up and in need of improvement, whether it comes from their own development or an upgrade like Ehlers. Buffalo also has the top prospect pool in the NHL and all of its own picks in the first four rounds of the next three drafts, offering a ton of options for futures-based trades. Matthew Fairburn has recently written about the possibility of Buffalo moving the No. 11 pick.

That’s where things get tricky, though.

It’s easy to talk about that pick or to covet prospects like Noah Östlund. That calibre of prospect seems like a difficult ask for one year of Ehlers’ services. Matthew Savoie would have intrigue, too, but also seems like the sort of prospect Buffalo would resist moving. The undersized overager tore apart the WHL last season. Defencemen Ryan Johnson, Nikita Novikov and Maxim Strbak may also have appeal to the Jets, whose prospect pool is deeper up front than on the back end.

[dudacek]

I would absolutely be interested in Ehlers for the right price.

Very much would prefer to see them use their assets on a similar-level player with a different skill set.

[thewookie1]

1 hour ago, Thorny said:

Going in circles a bit with the vet point: I entirely disagree. Eichel and Reinhart were done because Adams wanted to rebuild, we didn’t need to rebuild cause they were done. So I do not agree the veterans point stands 

.493 to .512 is 3 points. That’s not considerable. The irony is that the only considerably worse year, 17-18, was by way of this stupid “tear down to the studs and build up” mentality 

I think Eichel was done even prior to that; he was apparently unhappy with Botterill's handling of the roster that year and had wanted us to trade our 1st+ for Taylor Hall

I guess both agree with Eichel's anger with Botts screwing up that season royally while also thinking he's nuts wanting Taylor Hall, of all players, to throw the kitchen sink at.

So I disagree about Eichel wanting to leave because of Adams wanting to do another rebuild; I think that was final straw but not the original reason. The player we could've kept on the other hand was Sam Reinhart but I'm guessing COVID itself and/or Adams and the brain trust being unsure of Reinhart's value sans Eichel sent us down the 1 year bridge deal into a precipice.

 

One hypothetical I'd like to propose is that Eichel & Reinhart would still be Sabres had Botterill traded Risto and a 4th for Nik Ehlers near the start of the season which had been widely reported he balked at due to the 4th. With Ehlers our top 6 would of looked much better as well as it would of fixed our logjam on RHD thus allowing Montour and Scandella to stick around. 

[Thorner]

7 minutes ago, thewookie1 said:

I think Eichel was done even prior to that; he was apparently unhappy with Botterill's handling of the roster that year and had wanted us to trade our 1st+ for Taylor Hall

I guess both agree with Eichel's anger with Botts screwing up that season royally while also thinking he's nuts wanting Taylor Hall, of all players, to throw the kitchen sink at.

So I disagree about Eichel wanting to leave because of Adams wanting to do another rebuild; I think that was final straw but not the original reason. The player we could've kept on the other hand was Sam Reinhart but I'm guessing COVID itself and/or Adams and the brain trust being unsure of Reinhart's value sans Eichel sent us down the 1 year bridge deal into a precipice.

 

One hypothetical I'd like to propose is that Eichel & Reinhart would still be Sabres had Botterill traded Risto and a 4th for Nik Ehlers near the start of the season which had been widely reported he balked at due to the 4th. With Ehlers our top 6 would of looked much better as well as it would of fixed our logjam on RHD thus allowing Montour and Scandella to stick around. 

Agree with a lot in here but not really the semantics on Eichel - if Adams desire to rebuild was the “final straw” that means it was salvageable before that: I believe the evidence bears this out as well:

we shouldn’t forget that Jack initially rescinded the trade request when Adams briefly committed to winning: and did so WHILE PLAYING HURT 

Dude was willing to put his body and career on the line during the shortened Covid year for the Buffalo Sabres. Shouldn’t be forgotten. He suited up, injured, for 21 games in 2021 because Adams said they’d commit to winning.

Edited May 15 by Thorny

[Thorner]

1 minute ago, seer775 said:

and then we went on to put up the longest losing streak of all time.

Can't blame the guy for wanting to leave at any point in his tenure with the Sabres.

Sabres are nothing but bad.

It doesn’t escape me that the biggest justification for why we couldn’t win with Eichel was a short Covid season where we…didn’t have Eichel 

[Thorner]

Just now, seer775 said:

It's all bad man.

I understand what you mean, but personally the greatest angst comes from the fact it’s *not/hasn’t* been all bad. Not all. Even after the Eichel disaster we only missed the playoffs by a single point. The Sabres always seem to find themselves on the extremes, a league outlier. Tank better, miss the playoffs more, can’t just stop at a great prospect pool: we need to continue adding to it so it’s the best prospect pool ever… I don’t even like Adams strategy and we’d still have been in the playoffs with better GT two season ago. One small budge on Adams “Levi timeline” and we’d be in, REGARDLESS of the other bad you correctly mentioned.

But he wouldn’t do it. It was the Levi timeline, after all. We adhere to the plan or we adhere to nothing at all 

[Thorner]

2 minutes ago, seer775 said:

Does the past indicate future performance?

It does if you have the same guy at the helm.

No new owner, no new results, period. Unless somebody gets reaaaal smart.

I have an infinitude of doubt.

You don’t need to be smart you just need to be a little bit quicker of wit than the guy running from the same bruin 

[Flashsabre]

Didn’t know where to put this. It is a Swedish media interview (it’s in Swedish) but it gives a tour of all the facilities in the arena. It is very interesting to see. There is a brief UPL cameo.

[Flashsabre]

Watching Power-Parayko play together for Canada at the Worlds is easy on the eyes😃

I think they need to find Power a defensive minded, physical dman partner. DeMelo, Tanev or Roy are ufas or find a trade partner.

Edited May 16 by Flashsabre

[thewookie1]

Some suggested Kevin Hayes as a possible 3/4C for a couple years. I’m mixed on him. In St. L last year he certainly adopted a more defensive approach with more Dzone than Ozone starts and had a 56% FO. However he’s still making 2x3.75 and isn’t historically a great FO guy.

[PerreaultForever]

4 hours ago, Flashsabre said:

Watching Power-Parayko play together for Canada at the Worlds is easy on the eyes😃

I think they need to find Power a defensive minded, physical dman partner. DeMelo, Tanev or Roy are ufas or find a trade partner.

Absolutely. Parayko is a guy several of us have been advocating we should try to get (along with Pesce as another similar). I'm a firm believer in the one offensive guy one defensive guy (in simplest terms) pairings on D. Samuelsson was supposed to give us that, maybe he still will, but I'd like another one brought in for sure. 

5 minutes ago, thewookie1 said:

Some suggested Kevin Hayes as a possible 3/4C for a couple years. I’m mixed on him. In St. L last year he certainly adopted a more defensive approach with more Dzone than Ozone starts and had a 56% FO. However he’s still making 2x3.75 and isn’t historically a great FO guy.

Big no to Kevin Hayes. Flyers fans I know absolutely hated him and Torts pointed at him as one of the top "subtractions" needed a year ago. He is notorious for taking nights off and slacking and that is the exact opposite of what we need. 

If you want a forward like that I'd rather look at Domi or Bertuzzi as examples. Inconsistent as well but at least they give you grind and as Burke used to say "truculence". 

I wonder if there's a Philly trade possible around Laughton and perhaps Samuelsson on our end with picks and other players/prospects each wants or doesn't? Remember his dad has history there and Flyers like to inbreed.  Samuelsson can stay on IR there with Risto 🙂

Sign a free agent D man along with trading Samuelsson for Laughton, we are instantly better. 

[thewookie1]

2 hours ago, PerreaultForever said:

Absolutely. Parayko is a guy several of us have been advocating we should try to get (along with Pesce as another similar). I'm a firm believer in the one offensive guy one defensive guy (in simplest terms) pairings on D. Samuelsson was supposed to give us that, maybe he still will, but I'd like another one brought in for sure. 

Big no to Kevin Hayes. Flyers fans I know absolutely hated him and Torts pointed at him as one of the top "subtractions" needed a year ago. He is notorious for taking nights off and slacking and that is the exact opposite of what we need. 

If you want a forward like that I'd rather look at Domi or Bertuzzi as examples. Inconsistent as well but at least they give you grind and as Burke used to say "truculence". 

I wonder if there's a Philly trade possible around Laughton and perhaps Samuelsson on our end with picks and other players/prospects each wants or doesn't? Remember his dad has history there and Flyers like to inbreed.  Samuelsson can stay on IR there with Risto 🙂

Sign a free agent D man along with trading Samuelsson for Laughton, we are instantly better. 

Laughton is god awful man, he's fallen off a cliff over the past two years

[PerreaultForever]

1 hour ago, thewookie1 said:

Laughton is god awful man, he's fallen off a cliff over the past two years

I'm not sure about him but I disagree. Good on face offs, checks well, kills penalties. I think he'd be a good 3C. 

[thewookie1]

4 minutes ago, PerreaultForever said:

I'm not sure about him but I disagree. Good on face offs, checks well, kills penalties. I think he'd be a good 3C. 

 

His stats and general analytics are rather ugly and if I could find it those bar charts has him pure red

[PerreaultForever]

1 minute ago, thewookie1 said:

 

His stats and general analytics are rather ugly and if I could find it those bar charts has him pure red

On a garbage team with bad linemates and expectations of being a 2C. I'm not sold on Laughton being all that and everything but if you want to add people you need to think of who might actually be a guy we could get as well as just wanting guys. There are better guys but with higher price tags and harder to get. 

[dudacek]

26 minutes ago, PerreaultForever said:

On a garbage team with bad linemates and expectations of being a 2C. I'm not sold on Laughton being all that and everything but if you want to add people you need to think of who might actually be a guy we could get as well as just wanting guys. There are better guys but with higher price tags and harder to get. 

Do you think Samuelsson is a low price tag?

A 24-year-old 6’4” 230-pound defensively strong defenceman on a team that has no one else like that?

[PerreaultForever]

1 hour ago, dudacek said:

Do you think Samuelsson is a low price tag?

A 24-year-old 6’4” 230-pound defensively strong defenceman on a team that has no one else like that?

I didn't suggest a one for one. I said they might be the centerpieces of a larger trade involving picks/prospects players but in the end they'd get a D (which they need desperately) plus etc. and we'd get a 3C plus etc.  The GMs can work out the equivalencies on how to make it "equal" or pleasing to each other. 

[Flashsabre]

Start your Friday off with this beauty someone came up with🤣

[French Collection]

1 hour ago, Flashsabre said:

Start your Friday off with this beauty someone came up with🤣

Print that and use it as toilet paper.

[Brawndo]

12 hours ago, PerreaultForever said:

On a garbage team with bad linemates and expectations of being a 2C. I'm not sold on Laughton being all that and everything but if you want to add people you need to think of who might actually be a guy we could get as well as just wanting guys. There are better guys but with higher price tags and harder to get. 

Evolving Hockey’s Model had Laughton in the one percentile for defensive metrics this past season. 
Even on a bad team putting up that number in a Torts System is a major red flag. 

Here’s Skinner Player Card for comparison 

[dudacek]

10 hours ago, PerreaultForever said:

I didn't suggest a one for one. I said they might be the centerpieces of a larger trade involving picks/prospects players but in the end they'd get a D (which they need desperately) plus etc. and we'd get a 3C plus etc.  The GMs can work out the equivalencies on how to make it "equal" or pleasing to each other. 

At the risk of being told I don't want win, any trade where the 2 biggest pieces involved are Samuelsson and Laughton is a trade I don't want to make.