Off-season Game Plan 2024

[Buffalonill]

What sabres fan wrote this horrible  trade https://sabrenoise.com/posts/nhl-mock-draft-2-0-sabres-trading-first-round-pick-land-star-forward-01hz52ndjg77

11th overall pick (Zeev Buium), 2025 3rd-round pick, and Matt Savoie for 2024 2nd Round Pick, 2025 4th-round pick, and Frank Vatrano

 

[Flashsabre]

19 hours ago, Buffalonill said:

What sabres fan wrote this horrible  trade https://sabrenoise.com/posts/nhl-mock-draft-2-0-sabres-trading-first-round-pick-land-star-forward-01hz52ndjg77

11th overall pick (Zeev Buium), 2025 3rd-round pick, and Matt Savoie for 2024 2nd Round Pick, 2025 4th-round pick, and Frank Vatrano

 

He’s basing it off of Vatrano’s outlier season this year. He’s not a centre either.

Brutal proposal

[PerreaultForever]

I'm curious what people here would think of this. Saw it proposed and approved of by several people on a Kraken website. 

Krebs, Jokiharju and our 1st this year  for their3 pending UFAs next year Gourde, Tanev and Larsson. 

NTCs I suspect make this a non starter but if I was the Sabres I'd jump on this in a heartbeat. 

[dudacek]

34 minutes ago, PerreaultForever said:

I'm curious what people here would think of this. Saw it proposed and approved of by several people on a Kraken website. 

Krebs, Jokiharju and our 1st this year  for their3 pending UFAs next year Gourde, Tanev and Larsson. 

NTCs I suspect make this a non starter but if I was the Sabres I'd jump on this in a heartbeat. 

I’d be shocked if that move didn’t put us solidly in the playoffs.

You bring in the bottom 6 energy winger the team is crying for, upgrade Krebs significantly at 3C, and give Power exactly the partner he needs. Yet the quality returned for those 3 rentals should be enough to make the Kraken seriously consider it if they aren’t planning to re-sign them. They aren’t getting anything near #11 for any of those guys individually and the other 2 pieces have value.

It’s exactly in the sweet spot @Thorny has been calling for: make the Sabres better even if you probably lose the trade looking strictly at it from long-term value.

[thewookie1]

46 minutes ago, PerreaultForever said:

I'm curious what people here would think of this. Saw it proposed and approved of by several people on a Kraken website. 

Krebs, Jokiharju and our 1st this year  for their3 pending UFAs next year Gourde, Tanev and Larsson. 

NTCs I suspect make this a non starter but if I was the Sabres I'd jump on this in a heartbeat. 

I’d say no, but based on value and cap space. Essentially you are taking on 12.6mil cap for 30+ players with only 1 year apiece and sending a high 1st and 2 much younger players back. 
 

Id offer next year’s 2nd with a playoff berth condition to become a 1st. But not 1 guy there is worth the 11th pick in the draft. However player wise I’d be interested just not at that exorbitant price. 
 

Could we do it; with retention perhaps, but from a value standpoint we’d be getting screwed.

 

Another question would be could we get any of them to stay one or two more years at a reasonable cap hit 

Edited May 31 by thewookie1

[thewookie1]

First I’d want to keep 11 until Iginla is off the board and perhaps Eisserman. If both are gone; then I’m more open to trade down.

So my offer would be 11, Jokiharju, and Krebs

for 

Gourde, Tanev, Larsson and 40

I’d throw in a 3rd next year for some retention on Gourde.

https://www.capfriendly.com/armchair-gm/team/5192733

 

Edited May 31 by thewookie1

[Broken Ankles]

2 hours ago, PerreaultForever said:

I'm curious what people here would think of this. Saw it proposed and approved of by several people on a Kraken website. 

Krebs, Jokiharju and our 1st this year  for their3 pending UFAs next year Gourde, Tanev and Larsson. 

NTCs I suspect make this a non starter but if I was the Sabres I'd jump on this in a heartbeat. 

I’m like the idea of three new faces. Especially grizzled veterans.  But you need some term. Can’t be all expiring UFA.  I mentioned up thread about Hronek last year getting moved for essentially the 11th.  That was a #2-3 D with one year plus he is an RFA with arbitration rights.  So likely to sign an extension making it worth a high first rounder.  Like the pedigree of Larsson but the UFA thing makes me think they walk in July.  

[Buffalonill]

4 hours ago, Flashsabre said:

He’s basing it off of Vatrano’s outlier season this year. He’s not a centre either.

Brutal proposal

And going to be 31 like really .. 

[thewookie1]

4 hours ago, thewookie1 said:

First I’d want to keep 11 until Iginla is off the board and perhaps Eisserman. If both are gone; then I’m more open to trade down.

So my offer would be 11, Jokiharju, and Krebs

for 

Gourde, Tanev, Larsson and 40

I’d throw in a 3rd next year for some retention on Gourde.

https://www.capfriendly.com/armchair-gm/team/5192733

 

 

Just so you know I'm getting good reviews for my slight alteration.

[PerreaultForever]

4 hours ago, thewookie1 said:

I’d say no, but based on value and cap space. Essentially you are taking on 12.6mil cap for 30+ players with only 1 year apiece and sending a high 1st and 2 much younger players back. 
 

Id offer next year’s 2nd with a playoff berth condition to become a 1st. But not 1 guy there is worth the 11th pick in the draft. However player wise I’d be interested just not at that exorbitant price. 
 

Could we do it; with retention perhaps, but from a value standpoint we’d be getting screwed.

 

Another question would be could we get any of them to stay one or two more years at a reasonable cap hit 

See you're trying to win the trade, and I agree with @dudacek I think it would get us in the playoffs and imo finally breaking that 13 year non playoff run would be worth it, even if all 3 left the year after (although obviously you'd try to keep some of them). Gives all those Rochester kids one more year to mature as well.

A real coach, finally in the playoffs, regardless of what happens after, the entire conversation changes and maybe then the NTCs for Buffalo start to stop and more players will also consider coming. We simply HAVE to break the loser label before we lose another round of young talent and rebuild yet again in a perpetual spiral. 

[PerreaultForever]

2 hours ago, Broken Ankles said:

I’m like the idea of three new faces. Especially grizzled veterans.  But you need some term. Can’t be all expiring UFA.  I mentioned up thread about Hronek last year getting moved for essentially the 11th.  That was a #2-3 D with one year plus he is an RFA with arbitration rights.  So likely to sign an extension making it worth a high first rounder.  Like the pedigree of Larsson but the UFA thing makes me think they walk in July.  

They might, but if it got us in the playoffs, who the F cares. 

[Thorner]

32 minutes ago, PerreaultForever said:

See you're trying to win the trade, and I agree with @dudacek I think it would get us in the playoffs and imo finally breaking that 13 year non playoff run would be worth it, even if all 3 left the year after (although obviously you'd try to keep some of them). Gives all those Rochester kids one more year to mature as well.

A real coach, finally in the playoffs, regardless of what happens after, the entire conversation changes and maybe then the NTCs for Buffalo start to stop and more players will also consider coming. We simply HAVE to break the loser label before we lose another round of young talent and rebuild yet again in a perpetual spiral. 

Exactly. I’d imagine the winning has value in and of itself, probably great value. It’ll help the entire environment and it’s attractiveness to outside players 

[thewookie1]

2 hours ago, Thorny said:

Exactly. I’d imagine the winning has value in and of itself, probably great value. It’ll help the entire environment and it’s attractiveness to outside players 

And if we still fail; then what?

[Thorner]

50 minutes ago, thewookie1 said:

And if we still fail; then what?

[thewookie1]

1 minute ago, Thorny said:

Well I do feel my counter proposal is very fair still

[Archie Lee]

15 hours ago, PerreaultForever said:

I'm curious what people here would think of this. Saw it proposed and approved of by several people on a Kraken website. 

Krebs, Jokiharju and our 1st this year  for their3 pending UFAs next year Gourde, Tanev and Larsson. 

NTCs I suspect make this a non starter but if I was the Sabres I'd jump on this in a heartbeat. 

I think it works as a stand-in for a conceptual roster that includes newly acquired veterans in the following roles:  match-up 3C, gritty/banger 4th line winger, and 2nd pair R-shot D (in place of Joker). I don't think Seattle is looking to make such a trade at this point though (as someone else said, more likely at the deadline), and all 3 have trade protection. I think you could acquire a combination of similar players through trade and free agency, without sacrificing #11.

 

[JohnC]

14 hours ago, dudacek said:

I’d be shocked if that move didn’t put us solidly in the playoffs.

You bring in the bottom 6 energy winger the team is crying for, upgrade Krebs significantly at 3C, and give Power exactly the partner he needs. Yet the quality returned for those 3 rentals should be enough to make the Kraken seriously consider it if they aren’t planning to re-sign them. They aren’t getting anything near #11 for any of those guys individually and the other 2 pieces have value.

It’s exactly in the sweet spot @Thorny has been calling for: make the Sabres better even if you probably lose the trade looking strictly at it from long-term value.

The #11 pick added to Krebs and Joki is too rich for me for the proposed Seattle deal.  In return we get three UFA players, essentially rentals. That's a definite no for me. There are players to be had in trades that will help to strengthen our lower lines. This seems more like an act out of desperation than a smartly calculated deal. There are a number of teams that are in a cap bind where players will have to be dealt because of it. The best approach is to be patient and wait to see how the market shakes out. Our #11 pick is a valuable asset to be used or parlayed. I'm not wasting it by using it on players who will be on their UFA year. 

[dudacek]

Step away the value chart for a minute, and look at the big picture:

Jokiharju is not someone the team is likely to be able to afford to keep long-term. Given the cap, the Sabres probably will not be able to give him term. There is a very good chance he goes to arbitration this summer and is a UFA next summer. If he’s not traded this summer, this will probably be his last year as a Sabre.

Larsson is a better player and a better fit for next year’s team.

The future of Krebs is uncertain, but it is increasingly unlikely he will become more than a bottom 6 player. There’s a better chance he is merely a replaceable part than a core piece. There is a very good chance he will be passed on the depth chart and made redundant in the near future by one of the many prospects up front.

Gourde is a better player and a better fit for next year’s team.

Pick 11 has a ton of asset value. It is also 3 to 5 years before the NHL team will see a return if we invest that value in an 18-year-old, and another 2 before that value is fully realized.

Tanev is a better player and a better fit for next year’s team.

Johnson, Novikov, Komarov and Strbak - does it really matter if they are replacing Larsson in a year instead of Jokiharju? Savoie, Kulich, Rosen and Östlund - does it really matter if they are replacing Gourde and Tanev in a year instead of Krebs and Girgensons?

These are the pieces around the edges, not the core pieces. Good teams are constantly juggling them on a year-to-year basis in order to win now. You accumulate a rich cache of young players like the Sabres have in order to allow you to do that.

Would you rather trade Jokiharju and Krebs for draft picks next summer, or a better team right now? I don’t think there’s a debate there for most of us.

What this trade idea forces you to weigh is the possibility of #11 becoming a core piece in the future against the possibility of filling in the 3 biggest holes on next year’s roster in order to win now. In principle, it’s really no different than the Canucks trading a hefty bag of futures for pending FAs Hronek, Zadorov and Lindholm. In practice, the Sabres have a much larger cupboard of assets in place to bankroll such trades than the Canucks did. It’s time to spend some of those assets.

I agree with @Archie Lee that you might be able to accomplish the same thing at a cheaper cost. I also agree with @PerreaultForever that there are intangible gains to being good next year that should not be ignored.

 

 

Edited June 1 by dudacek

[French Collection]

6 hours ago, JohnC said:

The #11 pick added to Krebs and Joki is too rich for me for the proposed Seattle deal.  In return we get three UFA players, essentially rentals. That's a definite no for me. There are players to be had in trades that will help to strengthen our lower lines. This seems more like an act out of desperation than a smartly calculated deal. There are a number of teams that are in a cap bind where players will have to be dealt because of it. The best approach is to be patient and wait to see how the market shakes out. Our #11 pick is a valuable asset to be used or parlayed. I'm not wasting it by using it on players who will be on their UFA year. 

It is an overpay but I am tired of waiting for the prospects to step up and push this team over the hump. They probably won’t be ready in October, only growth from existing players (Power, Quinn, JJP, Benson, Byram, goalies) and a return to form for TNT and Cozens could do it. Injuries and regression from some could destroy this plan early on. 

I also suspect that 1 or 2 of the 3 could extend in Buffalo if they make the playoffs. Larsson could develop a Swedish connection with Rasmus or become a Tallinder type Dman for Power to blossom. Tanev is from southern Ontario and could be a well paid 4th liner/PK guy if he is a good fit. His work ethic and guts are contagious in a playoff run. You never know with Gourde.

Their next contracts may be their last ones and if they like being the vets to get this up and coming team going it might work.

Krebs could find another gear but maybe not. Jokiharju can easily be replaced. #11 is just another prospect.

Edited June 1 by French Collection

[thewookie1]

11 minutes ago, dudacek said:

Step away the value chart for a minute, and look at the big picture:

Jokiharju is not someone the team is likely to be able to afford to keep long-term. Given the cap, the Sabres probably will not be able to give him term. There is a very good chance he goes to arbitration this summer and is a UFA next summer. If he’s not traded this summer, this will probably be his last year as a Sabre.

Larsson is a better player and a better fit for next year’s team.

The future of Krebs is uncertain, but it is increasingly unlikely he will become more than a bottom 6 player. There’s a better chance he is merely a replaceable part than a core piece. There is a very good chance he will be passed on the depth chart and made redundant in the near future by one of the many prospects up front.

Gourde is a better player and a better fit for next year’s team.

Pick 11 has a ton of asset value. It is also 3 to 5 years before the NHL team will see a return if we invest that value in an 18-year-old, and another 2 before that value is fully realized.

Tanev is a better player and a better fit for next year’s team.

Johnson, Novikov, Komarov and Strbak - does it really matter if they are replacing Larsson in a year instead of Jokiharju? Savoie, Kulich, Rosen and Östlund - does it really matter if they are replacing Gourde and Tanev in a year instead of Krebs and Girgensons?

These are the pieces around the edges, not the core pieces. Good teams are constantly juggling them on a year-to-year basis in order to win now. You accumulate a rich cache of young players like the Sabres have in order to allow you to do that.

Would you rather trade Jokiharju and Krebs for draft picks next summer, or a better team right now? I don’t think there’s a debate there for most of us.

What this trade idea forces you to weigh is the possibility of #11 becoming a core piece in the future against the possibility of filling in the 3 biggest holes on next year’s roster in order to win now. In principle, it’s really no different than the Canucks trading a hefty bag of futures for pending FAs Hronek, Zadorov and Lindholm. In practice, the Sabres have a much larger cupboard of assets in place to bankroll such trades than the Canucks did. It’s time to spend some of those assets.

I agree with @Archie Lee that you might be able to accomplish the same thing at a cheaper cost. I also agree with @PerreaultForever that there are intangible gains to being good next year that should not be ignored.

 

 

Hence my counter proposal, I’m willing to “lose” some in the long term but just not straight up 11 and 2 RFAs for 3 UFAs especially without retention involved. 
 

Effectively at full price I have no idea how we’d field a good team because we’d need to magically convince multiple quality 4th liners and bench players to sign to league minimum contracts. 

[dudacek]

1 hour ago, JohnC said:

The #11 pick added to Krebs and Joki is too rich for me for the proposed Seattle deal.  In return we get three UFA players, essentially rentals. That's a definite no for me. There are players to be had in trades that will help to strengthen our lower lines. This seems more like an act out of desperation than a smartly calculated deal. There are a number of teams that are in a cap bind where players will have to be dealt because of it. The best approach is to be patient and wait to see how the market shakes out. Our #11 pick is a valuable asset to be used or parlayed. I'm not wasting it by using it on players who will be on their UFA year. 

In a cap system, there are only so many players you can commit to long-term.

The Sabres are close to that cap already with Dahlin, Samuelsson, Power, Cozens, Thompson (and Skinner).

Within the next few years, they will have to make similar calls on Peterka, Quinn, Byram, Tuch and UPL.

And they have Benson, Savoie, Kulich, Östlund, Rosen and Levi coming.

Your position makes a lot more sense for a team like Calgary, or a team where the Sabres were 3 years ago than it does for the Sabres now.

[JohnC]

9 minutes ago, dudacek said:

Step away the value chart for a minute, and look at the big picture:

Jokiharju is not someone the team is likely to be able to afford to keep long-term. Given the cap, the Sabres probably will not be able to give him term. There is a very good chance he goes to arbitration this summer and is a UFA next summer. If he’s not traded this summer, this will probably be his last year as a Sabre.

Larsson is a better player and a better fit for next year’s team.

The future of Krebs is uncertain, but it is increasingly unlikely he will become more than a bottom 6 player. There’s a better chance he is merely a replaceable part than a core piece. There is a very good chance he will be passed on the depth chart and made redundant in the near future by one of the many prospects up front.

Gourde is a better player and a better fit for next year’s team.

Pick 11 has a ton of asset value. It is also 3 to 5 years before the NHL team will see a return if we invest that value in an 18-year-old, and another 2 before that value is fully realized.

Tanev is a better player and a better fit for next year’s team.

Johnson, Novikov, Komarov and Strbak - does it really matter if they are replacing Larsson in a year instead of Jokiharju? Savoie, Kulich, Rosen and Östlund - does it really matter if they are replacing Gourde and Tanev in a year instead of Krebs and Girgensons?

These are the pieces around the edges, not the core pieces. Good teams are constantly juggling them on a year-to-year basis in order to win now. You accumulate a rich cache of young players like the Sabres have in order to allow you to do that.

Would you rather trade Jokiharju and Krebs for draft picks next summer, or a better team right now? I don’t think there’s a debate there for most of us.

What this trade idea forces you to weigh is the possibility of #11 becoming a core piece in the future against the possibility of filling in the 3 biggest holes on next year’s roster in order to win now. In principle, it’s really no different than the Canucks trading a hefty bag of futures for pending FAs Hronek, Zadorov and Lindholm. In practice, the Sabres have a much larger cupboard of assets in place to bankroll such trades than the Canucks did. It’s time to spend some of those assets.

I agree with @Archie Lee that you might be able to accomplish the same thing at a cheaper cost. I also agree with @PerreaultForever that there are intangible gains to being good next year that should not be ignored.

 

 

Your last sentence precisely captures the issue of the balance between cost and outcome. There is no one here who doesn't want to urge this middling organization to extend itself to do what is required to make this a playoff team. That doesn't mean that it shouldn't do it in a smart and balanced way. I just think that @Archie Lee  has it right that there should be a better cost/balance ratio when considering player trades. It doesn't seem to me that the proposal that included our #1 pick for three UFAs meets calculation. 

[Taro T]

9 minutes ago, dudacek said:

Step away the value chart for a minute, and look at the big picture:

Jokiharju is not someone the team is likely to be able to afford to keep long-term. Given the cap, the Sabres probably will not be able to give him term. There is a very good chance he goes to arbitration this summer and is a UFA next summer. If he’s not traded this summer, this will probably be his last year as a Sabre.

Larsson is a better player and a better fit for next year’s team.

The future of Krebs is uncertain, but it is increasingly unlikely he will become more than a bottom 6 player. There’s a better chance he is merely a replaceable part than a core piece. There is a very good chance he will be passed on the depth chart and made redundant in the near future by one of the many prospects up front.

Gourde is a better player and a better fit for next year’s team.

Pick 11 has a ton of asset value. It is also 3 to 5 years before the NHL team will see a return if we invest that value in an 18-year-old, and another 2 before that value is fully realized.

Tanev is a better player and a better fit for next year’s team.

Johnson, Novikov, Komarov and Strbak - does it really matter if they are replacing Larsson in a year instead of Jokiharju? Savoie, Kulich, Rosen and Östlund - does it really matter if they are replacing Gourde and Tanev in a year instead of Krebs and Girgensons?

These are the pieces around the edges, not the core pieces. Good teams are constantly juggling them on a year-to-year basis in order to win now. You accumulate a rich cache of young players like the Sabres have in order to allow you to do that.

Would you rather trade Jokiharju and Krebs for draft picks next summer, or a better team right now? I don’t think there’s a debate there for most of us.

What this trade idea forces you to weigh is the possibility of #11 becoming a core piece in the future against the possibility of filling in the 3 biggest holes on next year’s roster in order to win now. In principle, it’s really no different than the Canucks trading a hefty bag of futures for pending FAs Hronek, Zadorov and Lindholm. In practice, the Sabres have a much larger cupboard of assets in place to bankroll such trades than the Canucks did. It’s time to spend some of those assets.

I agree with @Archie Lee that you might be able to accomplish the same thing at a cheaper cost. I also agree with @PerreaultForever that there are intangible gains to being good next year that should not be ignored.

 

 

You make a strong case for that deal.  Only 2 issues with that deal as proposed.  The really big one being, it's doubtful that Vancouver, after winning their division, is going to be anxious to get rid of those 3 players to do a mini-retool.  And the other being, though Adams has said he'd trade some of the future pieces if moving them makes sense, can he get over the treshold to actually make that sort of a trade.  If he's going to be successful, he needs to get over that threshold; and he claims he's willing to do so, but until he's done so, he hasn't done so.

And, until a move that reduces what 2-3 years out might be to improve today happens, it hasn't.  Every move that's been made to date APPEARS to have '27 as the focus.  Don't expect, nor even want, Adams to do anything to scuttle that; and don't believe losing Krebs and 11 for likely rentals does that (and personally would be in favor of that deal at the end of the day); but not convinced that Adams would make that sort of a move that does "sacrifice" future for rentals.

Expect there's a much better chance that Adams would go for a move costing assets that would bring in a Cirelli than one that would bring in rentals.  My 2 cents.  YMMV.

[GASabresIUFAN]

Gourde, age 32, 33 pts last year - contract 5.15

Tanev, age 32, 16 points last year - contact 3.5

Larsson, age 31, 18 points last year - contract 4.0

Gourde and Tanev will add nothing to this team except cap expense at this point in their careers.  If Seattle is willing to eat 50% of their contracts, I might be interested.  Why does anyone have an interest in two forwards who no longer can play anywhere close to their contract cost.

Better current players, and probably younger as well, are available as UFA and for less money.  Blueger, had 28 pts last year, is 29 on a 1.9 mill contract.  Roslovic had 31 pts (in only 59 game) is 27 and could be signed for 3.5 to 4.  I'd rather give a one year prove it deal to Kapanen then trade for Tanev.

Larsson I'd take over Joki in a minute for next season.  He has something left in the tank.  

Edited June 1 by GASabresIUFAN

[thewookie1]

35 minutes ago, GASabresIUFAN said:

Gourde, age 32, 33 pts last year - contract 5.15

Tanev, age 32, 16 points last year - conttact 3.5

Larsson, age 31, 18 points last year - contract 4.0

Gourde and Tanev will add nothing to this team except cap expense at this point in their careers.  If Seattle is willing to eat 50% of their contracts, I might be interested.  Why does anyone have an interest in two forwards who no longer can play anywhere close to their contract cost.

Better current players, and probably younger as well, are available as UFA and for less money.  Blueger, had 28 pts last year, is 29 on a 1.9 mill contract.  Roslovic had 31 pts (in only 59 game) is 27 and could be signed for 3.5 to 4.  I'd rather give a one year prove it deal to Kapanen then trade for Tanev.

Larsson I'd take over Joki in a minute for next season. 

Kapanen is one of the softest players in the league. While overpriced we are also desiring that playoff experience and general veterancy