Off-season Game Plan 2024

[sabremike]

13 hours ago, JohnC said:

One of the biggest weaknesses that this GM has, and you seem to allude to, is his ability to assess pro talent. The Sabre organization has been solid in evaluating prospects but not too adept in assessing talent in the market. Apparently, it is more by design not to get involved in the market, and instead emphasize what one has in the system. That's a mistake simply because you are limiting your options to improve when some avenues are deliberately taken off the table. 

As far as I'm concerned, at this point, I simply don't care if a transaction is strategically made or are done reactively. The issue comes down to adding talent to the roster, one way or the other. I have not been as harsh a critic of this GM as many here are. But if he doesn't show a greater level of urgency this offseason through deeds, then my patience with him and his approach will be exhausted. There is no excuse for him not to make moves to improve and better balance this roster.   

Do you know who Adams cannot acquire through a trade no matter what he offers? Anyone in the entire league with a no trade/no move clause. But I will note this doesn't let him off the hook for appearing to have no clue about constructing a roster.

[Taro T]

17 minutes ago, Archie Lee said:

Also, unless we are trading someone, or demoting Greenway to line 4, or buying out Skinner, there is no room in the top 9 (at least, not for a winger). 

And yet, Adams has flat out stated, ever since the trade deadline passed and apparently on several occassions that he wants to add a top 9 (top 6?) W and also a bottom 6C that is good on the PK and at the dot.  Considering Krebs has continued to be underwhelming am really hoping that bottom 6C is another top 9 guy.

Then, there could be 1 or 2 other additions to recreate the 4th line to have "an identity" though am not as convinced as others are that 1 of those 2 isn't Girgensons.

Expect that he will bring in those pieces, though they may be underwhelming.  Am not convinced he makes any changes to the D unless sending out Johnson or Jokiharju is necessitated to bring in one of those 1st 2 pieces.  And am not convinced a vet NHL netminder gets brought in to compete with Levi &/or UPL.  But do expect to see some changes in the F ranks.

[Archie Lee]

1 hour ago, Taro T said:

And yet, Adams has flat out stated, ever since the trade deadline passed and apparently on several occassions that he wants to add a top 9 (top 6?) W and also a bottom 6C that is good on the PK and at the dot.  Considering Krebs has continued to be underwhelming am really hoping that bottom 6C is another top 9 guy.

Then, there could be 1 or 2 other additions to recreate the 4th line to have "an identity" though am not as convinced as others are that 1 of those 2 isn't Girgensons.

Expect that he will bring in those pieces, though they may be underwhelming.  Am not convinced he makes any changes to the D unless sending out Johnson or Jokiharju is necessitated to bring in one of those 1st 2 pieces.  And am not convinced a vet NHL netminder gets brought in to compete with Levi &/or UPL.  But do expect to see some changes in the F ranks.

I’m not disputing this, but don’t recall him saying he wants to add a top 9 wing. I hope he does. If he does, though, it will mean demoting Greenway to line 4, or trading Skinner, Tuch, Benson, Quinn or Peterka (none of whom are being demoted to line 4), or buying out Skinner. I guess they could “Krueger” Skinner again, or trade Greenway, but I can’t imagine those options are in the plans.  I’m still holding out slim hope (5% chance, maybe?) for a Skinner buyout. It’s a bit of a litmus test for me re: just how serious they are about making the playoffs this season. Though I’m holding out slim hope, I don’t think they are as serious as I would prefer. 

[triumph_communes]

This is the Adams who got Terry to believe us signing Taylor Hall meant we were competing for a cup, not just making the playoffs. 
 

All the talent we’ve had who has left and had immediate impact has shown it’s not our assessment as much as it is our country club culture leading to underperforming. 
 

And you can’t really assess players performance when they are under that shroud. 
 

Long way of saying that Adam’s can’t really be judged on his pro talent in the past because everything had been different - the budget, the coaching, the culture, the expectations. 

I agree when Adam’s says we have the talent in the top6 and top4 defense and goaltending.  We just need role players and have cap flexibility to find them.  This is a whole different scenario to picking prospects who will grow.  Don’t need to, just need to find who still has the wheels to repeat what they did on a good team.

 

Success has more on Lindy’s ability to change the culture despite what’s going on over his head. And he’s used to playing euchre with a crap hand.

[JohnC]

2 hours ago, sabremike said:

Do you know who Adams cannot acquire through a trade no matter what he offers? Anyone in the entire league with a no trade/no move clause. But I will note this doesn't let him off the hook for appearing to have no clue about constructing a roster.

I don't get your point. If a player the GM is interested doesn't want to waive his no-trade/move clause to come here, then you go to your next player option in the pursuit of players. In the sports business and in life if option A is not attainable, then you go to option B-Z. And it should be pointed out that every franchise in the league has to contend with no trade clauses in the hockey business. 

[Broken Ankles]

4 hours ago, Archie Lee said:

Back to the comparable Quinn trade, my primary reasons for rejecting such a trade right now, are that we have no need to move Quinn, and we don't have any particular need for the 23rd overall pick and/or Liljegren.  Flash forward a year and lets say that we are in a position similar to Carolina is now, and we have made roster moves that make it impossible to re-sign Peterka, Quinn, Byram, Levi and Greenway and the decision is that Quinn is the odd man out. In that scenario (assuming Quinn stays on a steady positive trajectory and he is the best piece in the trade), would Quinn return greater value than #23 OA and a youngish right-shot 4-5 d-man?  

I'm genuinely not sure.  I'm neither trying to over or under value any of these assets.  Just asking.

Just like the thought that Necas is odd man out in Carolina (I would think he is not bc still an RFA and easier to retain vs the overwhelming number of UFA’s Brett Peche might get some desperate team to overpay and therefore not even an option in Carolina), I would hope that If Buffalo was forced into a decision of retaining RFA or UFA, the RFA’s like JJP and Quinn would be the easier decisions to keep.  Not 100% apples to apples for me to use Quinn (or JJP) b/c we have an opportunity to bridge both like Necas was for two years with a modest increase.  But let’s push the scenario two years down the road, where JJP or Quinn are coming off a bridge deal looking for in excess of $8m each.  Both are top 6 players (like Necas) and you need to decide on one.  Would not expect at least a top 15 first round pick and another top level asset or two for either?  Sam got you a low mid 1st and Prospect and he was a year older, or was on a second Bridge deal.  

[GASabresIUFAN]

41 minutes ago, Archie Lee said:

I’m not disputing this, but don’t recall him saying he wants to add a top 9 wing. I hope he does. If he does, though, it will mean demoting Greenway to line 4, or trading Skinner, Tuch, Benson, Quinn or Peterka (none of whom are being demoted to line 4), or buying out Skinner. I guess they could “Krueger” Skinner again, or trade Greenway, but I can’t imagine those options are in the plans.  I’m still holding out slim hope (5% chance, maybe?) for a Skinner buyout. It’s a bit of a litmus test for me re: just how serious they are about making the playoffs this season. Though I’m holding out slim hope, I don’t think they are as serious as I would prefer. 

If KA can make a deal that pushes Greenway to the 4th line, that’s a step in the right direction. I like Greenway and am glad he is here.  I do think if we made a 4th line staring Greenway, a decent center and another smart effort player, we could have a very effective and disruptive “4th” line.  

When I look at the returning forwards I see 4 top 6 players (Quinn, TNT, Tuch and JJP), 3 players who could be in the top 6 but shouldn’t be yet (or anymore) in Skinner, Benson and Cozens and a 3/4 liner in Greenway.  
 

In Adam’s world the forwards probably look something like this

JJP TNT Tuch

Benson Cozens Quinn

Skinner ????  Greenway

?????  Krebs ?????

What he should be looking at

JJP TNT Tuch

Benson  ????  Quinn

Skinner Cozens ????

????  ????  Greenway

We need a top6/9 center, a top 9 RW, a 4th LW and Center.  

[Archie Lee]

7 minutes ago, Broken Ankles said:

Just like the thought that Necas is odd man out in Carolina (I would think he is not bc still an RFA and easier to retain vs the overwhelming number of UFA’s Brett Peche might get some desperate team to overpay and therefore not even an option in Carolina), I would hope that If Buffalo was forced into a decision of retaining RFA or UFA, the RFA’s like JJP and Quinn would be the easier decisions to keep.  Not 100% apples to apples for me to use Quinn (or JJP) b/c we have an opportunity to bridge both like Necas was for two years with a modest increase.  But let’s push the scenario two years down the road, where JJP or Quinn are coming off a bridge deal looking for in excess of $8m each.  Both are top 6 players (like Necas) and you need to decide on one.  Would not expect at least a top 15 first round pick and another top level asset or two for either?  Sam got you a low mid 1st and Prospect and he was a year older, or was on a second Bridge deal.  

Necas' status in Carolina perhaps hinges on their intentions with Guentzel.  

[LGR4GM]

You know what's interesting. There are a lot of ppl around here who talk about giving Krebs another chance or seeing what he does this year or not getting rid of him too early etc... but Dylan Cozens has 1 down year where his coach was trash and it is all doom and gloom that he is some 3rd line level player that we are stuck with for 6 more years. Just interesting how perceptions and expectations shape how we feel. Not necessarily commenting on whats correct or incorrect. 

[PerreaultForever]

49 minutes ago, LGR4GM said:

You know what's interesting. There are a lot of ppl around here who talk about giving Krebs another chance or seeing what he does this year or not getting rid of him too early etc... but Dylan Cozens has 1 down year where his coach was trash and it is all doom and gloom that he is some 3rd line level player that we are stuck with for 6 more years. Just interesting how perceptions and expectations shape how we feel. Not necessarily commenting on whats correct or incorrect. 

That's because they are apples and oranges. 

Cozens was given a big payday so there is an expectation to go along with that. 

Krebs is a bottom end low pay guy who might (stress might) still get better. He's a low risk investment. They are not comparable, even if they are of a similar age. 

Personally I don't care if they bring back Krebs, but if the plan is Krebs as 3C, then we are in deep trouble. As for Cozens, one down year on a bad team with a bad coach means absolutely nothing. I still think he's a better winger than center but since we lack centers I have to hope Ruff can bring out his best. 

[Thorner]

On 5/19/2024 at 1:18 PM, GASabresIUFAN said:

Let me see if I understand your post.  We should trade two 1sts (or equivalent) for a less physical and less defensively aware version of Mitts and give him the same money that re-signing Mitts would have cost?  If that's the case, why trade Mitts? I thought the whole point of trading Mitts was for KA to avoid another long-term big forward contract.  I'm not against this move per se, but if this was the plan, why not re-sign Mitts and use the 2 1sts on a top 4 D, who adds a skill set we don't already have?  

He really likes Byram and didn’t particularly like Mitts, it’s almost certainly that simple. Team building can’t just be collecting talent, mix is a big consideration. We’ll see if he’s right.

The only thing that would be wrong on it’s face is not replacing Mitts at all  

Edited May 20 by Thorny

[LGR4GM]

1 hour ago, LGR4GM said:

Just interesting how perceptions and expectations shape how we feel. Not necessarily commenting on whats correct or incorrect. 

 

16 minutes ago, PerreaultForever said:

That's because they are apples and oranges. 

Cozens was given a big payday so there is an expectation to go along with that. 

[PerreaultForever]

14 minutes ago, Thorny said:

He really likes Byram and didn’t particularly like Mitts, it’s almost certainly that simple. Team building can’t just be collecting talent, mix is a big consideration. We’ll see if he’s right.

The only thing that would be wrong on it’s face is not replacing Mitts at all

I agree with the second sentence, but does he "really like Byram" or was Byram just the best player he could get for Mitts from a team that wanted Mitts? A guy he thought would not hate coming to Buffalo because he had friends there. 

I am really curious as to how Ruff puts this D together. I personally don't see how Byram gives us what we need there. 

[Thorner]

2 minutes ago, PerreaultForever said:

I agree with the second sentence, but does he "really like Byram" or was Byram just the best player he could get for Mitts from a team that wanted Mitts? A guy he thought would not hate coming to Buffalo because he had friends there. 

I am really curious as to how Ruff puts this D together. I personally don't see how Byram gives us what we need there. 

They certainly weren’t in a “take the best you can get” situation for Mitts at all, no reason to necessarily sell if not getting exactly or close to exactly what you want so while I said Adams didn’t like Mitts I just meant relative to his other top centres- he had adjudged Mitts to be in the “tradeable to achieve or help facilitate the improvements we want” category but likely not a “players to be moved” category.

I don’t know about the deal but I can comfortably say Adams either doesn’t see or care about a “redundancy” issue on the backend nor likely a handedness issue and has a conscious idea of how he figures he wants to build the team from Levi out through the puck movers and into the now likely speedier forward group with the departure of Mittelstadt.

unless Krebs is the 3C then I dunno what the forwards are supposed to be 

[Taro T]

57 minutes ago, Thorny said:

They certainly weren’t in a “take the best you can get” situation for Mitts at all, no reason to necessarily sell if not getting exactly or close to exactly what you want so while I said Adams didn’t like Mitts I just meant relative to his other top centres- he had adjudged Mitts to be in the “tradeable to achieve or help facilitate the improvements we want” category but likely not a “players to be moved” category.

I don’t know about the deal but I can comfortably say Adams either doesn’t see or care about a “redundancy” issue on the backend nor likely a handedness issue and has a conscious idea of how he figures he wants to build the team from Levi out through the puck movers and into the now likely speedier forward group with the departure of Mittelstadt.

unless Krebs is the 3C then I dunno what the forwards are supposed to be 

If Granato were still here, would expect the D pairings in October to be:

Byram - Dahlin

Power - Jokiharju

Clifton - Samuelsson

with Johnson (or a proxy for him so he can be playing while waiting for an opening) and Bryson the spare pair.  No good feel for who Ruff will put with whom, but do expect (at least to the degree that they can with only 1 true stay at home D-man out of the 8) an offensive-defensive tandem on each pair.

 

Lines - pretty sure we're looking at

Peterka - Thompson - Tuch

Benson/New Guy - Cozens - Quinn

Skinner - 2nd New Guy - New Guy/Benson

Girgensons/4th New Guy - Krebs/3rd New Guy - Greenway

With Krebs the spare F who could slot into any bottom 6 role in a pinch (the rub being just how well he could handle that; maybe he'll surprise being a year older).

 

And still expect there's a pretty good chance that 1st New Guy is S. Buffalo native Patrick Kane.  Adams was sure he had him last year until the team stunk out of the gate.  Could see, just like Tuch wants to, Kane wanting to play for Ruff. 

[JohnC]

3 hours ago, GASabresIUFAN said:

If KA can make a deal that pushes Greenway to the 4th line, that’s a step in the right direction. I like Greenway and am glad he is here.  I do think if we made a 4th line staring Greenway, a decent center and another smart effort player, we could have a very effective and disruptive “4th” line.  

When I look at the returning forwards I see 4 top 6 players (Quinn, TNT, Tuch and JJP), 3 players who could be in the top 6 but shouldn’t be yet (or anymore) in Skinner, Benson and Cozens and a 3/4 liner in Greenway.  
 

In Adam’s world the forwards probably look something like this

JJP TNT Tuch

Benson Cozens Quinn

Skinner ????  Greenway

?????  Krebs ?????

What he should be looking at

JJP TNT Tuch

Benson  ????  Quinn

Skinner Cozens ????

????  ????  Greenway

We need a top6/9 center, a top 9 RW, a 4th LW and Center.  

I'm reluctant to go along where you placed Cozens. The Benson/Cozens/Quinn is an appealing line to me. I'm aware that Skinner is scorned in this room. But I wouldn't be resistant to moving Skinner back up to the top line with Tage and Tuch, and then moving JJP to the wing playing with Cozens and Quinn on the second line. What that would do is move Benson to the third line with the expectation that the GM brings in a credible 2/3 C to be on the third line. I agree with you that ideally, Greenway is more suited as a fourth line player with the hope that the GM brings in a player or two to fortify that lower line. With respect to what role will Krebs have? My response would be for him to earn whatever role he can get. 

Where I am aligned with you is that the GM needs to add talent from the outside. If it is mostly for bulking up the lower lines, I would be fine with that assuming he brings in a 2/3 C to replace Mitts. 

[Taro T]

15 minutes ago, JohnC said:

I'm reluctant to go along where you placed Cozens. The Benson/Cozens/Quinn is an appealing line to me. I'm aware that Skinner is scorned in this room. But I wouldn't be resistant to moving Skinner back up to the top line with Tage and Tuch, and then moving JJP to the wing playing with Cozens and Quinn on the second line. What that would do is move Benson to the third line with the expectation that the GM brings in a credible 2/3 C to be on the third line. I agree with you that ideally, Greenway is more suited as a fourth line player with the hope that the GM brings in a player or two to fortify that lower line. With respect to what role will Krebs have? My response would be for him to earn whatever role he can get. 

Where I am aligned with you is that the GM needs to add talent from the outside. If it is mostly for bulking up the lower lines, I would be fine with that assuming he brings in a 2/3 C to replace Mitts. 

If Skinner isn't making $9MM / year does anyone see him as a #1 LW at this point in time?  They can't trade him.  Really doubt they buy him out (this year).  So, he's going to play somewhere on this roster.  He generates a higher percentage of his own chances than most other wingers do.  Let him get 3rd line usage and the decrease in output due to having lesser linemates should be more than offset by his facing lesser opponents.  His screwing up his linemates chances will also be less harmful to the Sabres than him messing up the top line's scoring chances.

Skinner to the 3rd line seems like a win-win-win.

[Taro T]

 

And Adams SHOULD be trying to improve the middle 6 (2W & 3C ideally) which will necessarily make the bottom 6 better too as a guy like Benson might now slide to the 3rd line.  Really good teams have guys that can play in the top 6 outside the top 6.  It wouldn't take a lot of change to let Buffalo be one of those teams too.

[JohnC]

1 minute ago, Taro T said:

If Skinner isn't making $9MM / year does anyone see him as a #1 LW at this point in time?  They can't trade him.  Really doubt they buy him out (this year).  So, he's going to play somewhere on this roster.  He generates a higher percentage of his own chances than most other wingers do.  Let him get 3rd line usage and the decrease in output due to having lesser linemates should be more than offset by his facing lesser opponents.  His screwing up his linemates chances will also be less harmful to the Sabres than him messing up the top line's scoring chances.

Skinner to the 3rd line seems like a win-win-win.

I'm not strongly advocating for him to be on the first line, but I'm open to it. Will the change in coaching have an effect on how he plays? Maybe so. What Skinner can do is score goals. And over the past few years his set up skills has improved. It just seems to me that the third and fourth lines should have the characteristic of being tough to play against. I don't see him in that mold as a player. 

[Taro T]

1 minute ago, JohnC said:

I'm not strongly advocating for him to be on the first line, but I'm open to it. Will the change in coaching have an effect on how he plays? Maybe so. What Skinner can do is score goals. And over the past few years his set up skills has improved. It just seems to me that the third and fourth lines should have the characteristic of being tough to play against. I don't see him in that mold as a player. 

If the 3rd line consisted of Benson & Danault, even if Skinner were the other winger it would still be tough to play against and it would generate a lot of chances itself.  That '06 team had a 3rd line that was very tough to play against - the RAV line.  It wasn't tough to play against because it was bashing guys skulls in.  It was tough to play against because it had a ton of fire power for a 3rd line.

[JohnC]

3 minutes ago, Taro T said:

If the 3rd line consisted of Benson & Danault, even if Skinner were the other winger it would still be tough to play against and it would generate a lot of chances itself.  That '06 team had a 3rd line that was very tough to play against - the RAV line.  It wasn't tough to play against because it was bashing guys skulls in.  It was tough to play against because it had a ton of fire power for a 3rd line.

The critical issue that you bring up is the importance of adding a 2/3 C that will allow you more options within the lines. What will be Skinner's role? There will be more line options and flexibility if the Mitts subtraction can be credibly filled. I'm open to all options. What I want to see once camp begins is that players earn their roster spots and roles. If Skinner can be a factor on a lower line, that isn't something to scoff at. And if he can be a positive factor on a higher line, then that isn't something that I'm automatically resistant to. Next season, there will be a new coach who will be open to all options. In camp, there certainly be a lot of line experimentation. The players will ultimately get what they should or shouldn't get.  

[PerreaultForever]

4 hours ago, Thorny said:

They certainly weren’t in a “take the best you can get” situation for Mitts at all, no reason to necessarily sell if not getting exactly or close to exactly what you want so while I said Adams didn’t like Mitts I just meant relative to his other top centres- he had adjudged Mitts to be in the “tradeable to achieve or help facilitate the improvements we want” category but likely not a “players to be moved” category.

I don’t know about the deal but I can comfortably say Adams either doesn’t see or care about a “redundancy” issue on the backend nor likely a handedness issue and has a conscious idea of how he figures he wants to build the team from Levi out through the puck movers and into the now likely speedier forward group with the departure of Mittelstadt.

unless Krebs is the 3C then I dunno what the forwards are supposed to be 

You don't know that. Neither do I. Adams works to an internal cap number and a projection of who he wants and when and with Mitts becoming our top points producer it's quite possible he no longer fit into Adams cap budget. He'd already decided Cozens was 2C and Thompson was 1C so Mitts was a 3C number or out he goes. Hence you take back the best you can get to eliminate the problem.

I'm not saying I agree with that or if it's a fact, but it's definitely a possibility and logically, you know you can see it. 

[GASabresIUFAN]

I was crunching some numbers and it doesn't look good for the Sabres being able to truly spent much this off-season unless it's on one year deals.  Assuming Ryan Johnson and Levi make the team and UPL takes a 4 million contract, the Sabres will only have 17 million to sign or acquire 5 forwards and 2 D or about 2.3 per player.

Unfortunately, KA must keep in mind that JJP, Quinn and Byram need new deals following next season with only Greenway's 3 mill coming off the books after next season.  The way KA has structured the team isn't sustainable.  If he acquires players, they'll be on short-term deals in order to be off the books after the season to clear room to at least retain JJP and Quinn.  

The qualifying offers for the RFA are 925K for UPL, 2.6 mill for Jokiharju, 1.9 for Bryson and 832K for Krebs.  Given the Sabres budget, Krebs is sadly returning as cheap depth with upside (in theory anyway).  I don't think Bryson is worth 1.9.  I'd rather trade Joki than keep him, but it may be cheaper for KA to retain Joki than find a useful RHD replacement.

With Savoie (887K), Krebs (2 years 1 mill per season), and Joki (3 year @ 4 per season) another nearly 6 mill will be spent on rookies and returning players.  This leaves us with 11 million for 4 players and us still needing a 2/3C.  

Here is a link to some FA contract estimates.  They look pretty good.  Their UPL and Joki projections seem spot on.  https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1JPtGk5m_S9VuR5e7T8lb_BlilXRwJPF0V2ddQzjjpvc/edit?pli=1#gid=0

 

Edited May 21 by GASabresIUFAN

[thewookie1]

2 hours ago, GASabresIUFAN said:

I was crunching some numbers and it doesn't look good for the Sabres being able to truly spent much this off-season unless it's on one year deals.  Assuming Ryan Johnson and Levi make the team and UPL takes a 4 million contract, the Sabres will only have 17 million to sign or acquire 5 forwards and 2 D or about 2.3 per player.

Unfortunately, KA must keep in mind that JJP, Quinn and Byram need new deals following next season with only Greenway's 3 mill coming off the books after next season.  The way KA has structured the team isn't sustainable.  If he acquires players, they'll be on short-term deals in order to be off the books after the season to clear room to at least retain JJP and Quinn.  

The qualifying offers for the RFA are 925K for UPL, 2.6 mill for Jokiharju, 1.9 for Bryson and 832K for Krebs.  Given the Sabres budget, Krebs is sadly returning as cheap depth with upside (in theory anyway).  I don't think Bryson is worth 1.9.  I'd rather trade Joki than keep him, but it may be cheaper for KA to retain Joki than find a useful RHD replacement.

With Savoie (887K), Krebs (2 years 1 mill per season), and Joki (3 year @ 4 per season) another nearly 6 mill will be spent on rookies and returning players.  This leaves us with 11 million for 4 players and us still needing a 2/3C.  

Here is a link to some FA contract estimates.  They look pretty good.  Their UPL and Joki projections seem spot on.  https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1JPtGk5m_S9VuR5e7T8lb_BlilXRwJPF0V2ddQzjjpvc/edit?pli=1#gid=0

 

 

https://www.capfriendly.com/forums/thread/837646?post_id=4915126

 

This would around my guess

[Flashsabre]