Off-season Game Plan 2024

[PerreaultForever]

1 hour ago, French Collection said:

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 paid 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 going it might work.

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

Trade for one Tanev and then try to entice another Tanev in free agency? Not quite my Foligno dream but pretty good if they were interested. 

If we made this trade and I was Adams I'd slap a letter on Gourde's jersey and offer him a long term extension with a promised leadership role. I know a number of you will think he's too old for that but I think a 5 year deal would entice him and 3-4 of those years will be good ones if not more. Overpay? Yes. Invaluable? Also yes.

If Larsson worked out with Dahlin and he signed you'd also then have the luxury of being able to flip another D man at some point. Byram if his next number is too high for your liking or the oft injured Samuelsson.

Consider Larsson-Dahlin, Power-Tanev, Samuelsson-Clifton (Byram traded for a power forward)

Off season dreams are nice 🙂

 

[GASabresIUFAN]

1 hour ago, thewookie1 said:

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

I think you're missing the broader point.  Acquiring diminishing vet players simply because they are vets is a failing strategy.  How did signing Johnson or re-signing Okposo work out?  We need to acquire players with tread left on the tire.  Larsson ok, but as to the other 2, there are cheaper and better options.  

[thewookie1]

29 minutes ago, GASabresIUFAN said:

I think you're missing the broader point.  Acquiring diminishing vet players simply because they are vets is a failing strategy.  How did signing Johnson or re-signing Okposo work out?  We need to acquire players with tread left on the tire.  Larsson ok, but as to the other 2, there are cheaper and better options.  

Gourde is still a solid player and Tanev isn't exactly over the hill for 1 year. I wouldn't go so far as to extend Gourde for 4/5 years but both he and Tanev have another couple years of bot 6 play in them.

[GASabresIUFAN]

13 minutes ago, thewookie1 said:

Gourde is still a solid player and Tanev isn't exactly over the hill for 1 year. I wouldn't go so far as to extend Gourde for 4/5 years but both he and Tanev have another couple years of bot 6 play in them.

Ok, but at what cost? 2 mill for Tanev and 3.5 for Gourde are all they are worth at this point.  Spending nearly 8.7 on them is terrible cap management.  We can get currently better players for the same money or less.  Bennett for example. He has one year left and no trade protection at $4 mill. I’d rather take on Jeannot at 2.6 vs Tanev at 3.5, but I don’t want either.  
 

 

[DarthEbriate]

1 hour ago, GASabresIUFAN said:

I think you're missing the broader point.  Acquiring diminishing vet players simply because they are vets is a failing strategy.  How did signing Johnson or re-signing Okposo work out?  We need to acquire players with tread left on the tire.  Larsson ok, but as to the other 2, there are cheaper and better options.  

You get the low-remaining tread, leadership, guys on short deals to bolster what you’ve got. You don’t throw term at them. EJ this past season was a fail, but it’s fine because it was one year. 

Now, find a with-tread playoff machine (Pavelski when the Stars got him)… and we’re talking.  

[Thorner]

4 hours 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.

 

 

SOMEONE probably accomplishes that same thing at a cheaper cost. But we aren’t the field: that’s always the issue with said logic. If we want the one team that consummates the deal to be us, the offer you proposed is the one that actually results in completion rather than a “we stayed true to our value evaluation” scenario

[NAF]

No clue if the Brady Tkachuk rumors are valid but he’d be a fantastic addition. High character player that can play playoff style hockey — something this team is sorely lacking.

 

My offer would be:

Quinn + 11OA + Rosen

Edited June 2 by NAF

[thewookie1]

2 hours ago, NAF said:

No clue if the Brady Tkachuk rumors are valid but he’d be a fantastic addition. High character player that can play playoff style hockey — something this team is sorely lacking.

 

My offer would be:

Quinn + 11OA + Rosen

Sadly that remains doubtful; the captaincy was a part of his contract negotiations in Ottawa and asking out would make him as low character as a non-criminal can be.

[thewookie1]

Ah yes, laugh all you want Thorny; because obviously a guy who forced the letter C be on his jersey and then would turn around and demand a trade are sure signs of a high character individual. 
 

Unlike Vegas, we don’t exactly have a group of vets who can more or less tell Tkachuk to grow up, stop being a problem child, and play hockey. 
 

 

For us to improve the team doesn’t require us to just throw assets at a problem and pray it succeeds. You can still be smart with your moves even when possibly slightly overpaying. If a team will take a 2nd and a prospect for a player; you don’t need to give them a 3rd for giggles. Simultaneously when acquiring rental players you need to make sure they wouldn’t be Eric Staals 

[GASabresIUFAN]

https://www.capfriendly.com/armchair-gm/team/5196088

Thought this might be a low cost in terms of internal assets, but it would give us 4 bona fide centers.  It would also improve the PK, add a center that wins draws, allow Lindy to roll 4 lines, give Krebs an opportunity to contribute and elevate the physicality of the entire lineup.

Here are the transactions

Sign UFAs - Matt Dumba (Physical RHD to play with Power - 3 years 3.125), C Teddy Blueger to man the 4C (3 years 2.75), W Mike Amadio (3 years - 3.25)

Trade Joki to Utah for Alex Kerfoot.  

Re-sign UPL (3 years @ 3.5), Krebs (2 years @ 1.25), Bryson (2 years @ 1.25) 

Total cap cost about 84 million.  

So why those 4 players

1) Dumba - Physical RHD who hits, blocks shots, is a vet with playoff experience and as a former top 10 pick can relate to the pressure on Power and Dahlin and unlike Johnson, he has significant tread left on the tire.

2) Kerfoot - playmaking center who is an excellent Pker.  Surprisingly physical and is willing to block shots.  

3) Amadio - Winger with decent size, a bit of late bloomer with 27 points back top back. Can score.  Solid playoff contributor as well

4) Blueger - C who wins draws, hits and has playmaking skills.  

 

[JohnC]

22 hours ago, French Collection said:

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.

The prospects in our system are not going to push this team over the hump. Most people agree to that view. That's not what is being arguing here. The proposed trade of dealing away Joki, Krebs and our #1 pick for three UFAs make little sense to me. As you acknowledged, it is an overpay. So why do it, especially if the lower lines can be improved and reconfigured with attainable players without giving up much in assets?

As you keenly observed, the source of this team's improvement is going to come from the half a dozen players you have listed. And as @LGR4GM noted the return to health of Quinn and Samuelsson will certainly bolster this roster. And don't discount the importance of the new coach installing more structure and accountability to this loose team being important additions. 

 If our GM doesn't act to improve this roster (most notably bottom half), then he should be sent packing. A passive offseason strategy shouldn't be tolerated. I'm certainly not against making deals. But to make a bad deal (overpay) just to demonstrate you are taking some action isn't the right course of action to take. 

[JohnC]

12 hours ago, NAF said:

No clue if the Brady Tkachuk rumors are valid but he’d be a fantastic addition. High character player that can play playoff style hockey — something this team is sorely lacking.

 

My offer would be:

Quinn + 11OA + Rosen

Absolutely no! I'm not giving up Quinn in any trade unless it is a zany deal that is overwhelmingly in our favor. Quinn returning to health and form is going to be one of our key players. 

[French Collection]

27 minutes ago, JohnC said:

The prospects in our system are not going to push this team over the hump. Most people agree to that view. That's not what is being arguing here. The proposed trade of dealing away Joki, Krebs and our #1 pick for three UFAs make little sense to me. As you acknowledged, it is an overpay. So why do it, especially if the lower lines can be improved and reconfigured with attainable players without giving up much in assets?

As you keenly observed, the source of this team's improvement is going to come from the half a dozen players you have listed. And as @LGR4GM noted the return to health of Quinn and Samuelsson will certainly bolster this roster. And don't discount the importance of the new coach installing more structure and accountability to this loose team being important additions. 

 If our GM doesn't act to improve this roster (most notably bottom half), then he should be sent packing. A passive offseason strategy shouldn't be tolerated. I'm certainly not against making deals. But to make a bad deal (overpay) just to demonstrate you are taking some action isn't the right course of action to take. 

I am extremely passionate about making the playoffs this year and I would make that trade. If there are cheaper options to get similar players then that is KA’s job to go out and make those deals.

I agree that sitting on his hands will to a lot of angst among the fanbase and he needs to round out the bottom six with some experience and grit.

This is just one example of a hypothetical deal and it can also be tweaked by salary retention, a 2nd round pick coming back, Rosen instead of the 1st or being allowed to talk to the players about their futures.

In my mind Krebs and Joki are easily replaced and the 1st rounder adds to the pile of prospects. The sum of that is a lot for 3UFAs but one or more could extend and I think cumulatively they have a greater impact than Krebs and Joki.

Here is another theoretical layer to that deal. This trade happens at the draft and the Sabres have spoken to Larsson and he indicates he wants to get to UFA status. KA flips him for a good asset and makes a hard pitch to UFA Chris Tanev to play with his brother. Those guys would change the culture immediately.

The other culture change would be the message that Mitts, Joki and Krebs were moved so there is an expectation to step up and be counted.

[Archie Lee]

19 minutes ago, JohnC said:

The prospects in our system are not going to push this team over the hump. Most people agree to that view. That's not what is being arguing here. The proposed trade of dealing away Joki, Krebs and our #1 pick for three UFAs make little sense to me. As you acknowledged, it is an overpay. So why do it, especially if the lower lines can be improved and reconfigured with attainable players without giving up much in assets?

As you keenly observed, the source of this team's improvement is going to come from the half a dozen players you have listed. And as @LGR4GM noted the return to health of Quinn and Samuelsson will certainly bolster this roster. And don't discount the importance of the new coach installing more structure and accountability to this loose team being important additions. 

 If our GM doesn't act to improve this roster (most notably bottom half), then he should be sent packing. A passive offseason strategy shouldn't be tolerated. I'm certainly not against making deals. But to make a bad deal (overpay) just to demonstrate you are taking some action isn't the right course of action to take. 

I fully agree with the bolded. No question that Gourde, Tanev and Larsson would be good acquisitions.  Of the 3, in my view Gourde is the only needle mover.  I think we can sign a bottom 6 winger in free-agency who is as good as Tanev and who is also a bit younger and cheaper and get an extra year or two of term.  I just don't think we need to give up a valuable trade asset to obtain that piece of the puzzle (though, I understand that the current trade value of Krebs and Joker is debatable).

If we are including #11 in a deal with other assets, then we should get a player who is better and/or younger and/or has more term, than any of these 3. 

 

 

[Weave]

1 hour ago, JohnC said:

The prospects in our system are not going to push this team over the hump. Most people agree to that view. That's not what is being arguing here. The proposed trade of dealing away Joki, Krebs and our #1 pick for three UFAs make little sense to me. As you acknowledged, it is an overpay. So why do it, especially if the lower lines can be improved and reconfigured with attainable players without giving up much in assets?

As you keenly observed, the source of this team's improvement is going to come from the half a dozen players you have listed. And as @LGR4GM noted the return to health of Quinn and Samuelsson will certainly bolster this roster. And don't discount the importance of the new coach installing more structure and accountability to this loose team being important additions. 

 If our GM doesn't act to improve this roster (most notably bottom half), then he should be sent packing. A passive offseason strategy shouldn't be tolerated. I'm certainly not against making deals. But to make a bad deal (overpay) just to demonstrate you are taking some action isn't the right course of action to take. 

I’d argue the Joki and Krebs are not part of a playoff solution, and therefore aren’t much of an asset to give up.  The only valuable asset in that proposal is the #11.  If that’s what it takes to get the monkey off the teams’ back, it’s not an overpayment.

[GASabresIUFAN]

Getting Gourde and Tanev without salary retention is a non-starter for me.  If they were UFA there is no way in he.. that we'd give Gourde 5+ and 3.5 to Tanev.  They aren't worth it.  Sending the 11th over pick for them and Larsson is a terrible deal.  None are worth that kind of consideration in part or as a group.  Why do y'all want declining players nearing the end of their careers anyway when there are UFAs who are just as good if not better and who can be signed for less money? 

Even in trade there are better options.  Alex Kerfoot has one year left at 3.5.  He's only 29 and is a better player right now than Gourde is.  Why not trade for him?  If we are going to throw significant assets at someone, why not Sam Bennett?  

Here's the good news, Larsson, Tanev and Gourde at have M-NTCs.  Hopefully, if KA even offers a trade for these guys, they'll save KA from himself and turn us down.

 

 

Edited June 2 by GASabresIUFAN

[JohnC]

2 hours ago, Weave said:

I’d argue the Joki and Krebs are not part of a playoff solution, and therefore aren’t much of an asset to give up.  The only valuable asset in that proposal is the #11.  If that’s what it takes to get the monkey off the teams’ back, it’s not an overpayment.

I respectfully but strenuously disagree. You are making an assumption that getting those three UFAs will be the difference in making the playoffs or not. There is also another false assumption regarding that proposed trade that alternative options for other players won't be collectively as good if not better than the proposed trade. I feel strongly that if you are going to deal your valuable #1 pick, that you can get a better return in a different deal for players that more likely will not be one-year rentals. 

[freester]

16 hours ago, NAF said:

No clue if the Brady Tkachuk rumors are valid but he’d be a fantastic addition. High character player that can play playoff style hockey — something this team is sorely lacking.

 

My offer would be:

Quinn + 11OA + Rosen

I would replace Quinn with Savoie and Joker. Unfortunately I don’t think Brady is coming here

[JohnC]

51 minutes ago, GASabresIUFAN said:

Getting Gourde and Tanev without salary retention is a non-starter for me.  If they were UFA there is no way in he.. that we'd give Gourde 5+ and 3.5 to Tanev.  They aren't worth it.  Sending the 11th over pick for them and Larsson is a terrible deal.  None are worth that kind of consideration in part or as a group.  Why do y'all want declining players nearing the end of their careers anyway when there are UFAs who are just as good if not better and who can be signed for less money? 

Even in trade there are better options.  Alex Kerfoot has one year left at 3.5.  He's only 29 and is a better player right now than Gourde is.  Why not trade for him?  If we are going to throw significant assets at someone, why not Sam Bennett?  

Here's the good news, Larsson, Tanev and Gourde at have M-NTCs.  Hopefully, if KA even offers a trade for these guys, they'll save KA from himself and turn us down.

 

 

If the proposed deal was for Sam Bennett, I would be open to it. I'm adamantly opposed to giving up assets, that includes our #11 pick, for three UFAs. That makes no sense to me. Acting out of desperation is putting yourself in a vulnerable position when getting involved in the trade market. We can do better in the market. 

[Dkollidas]

Overall this team has to make some moves if they really want to make a playoff run and I believe they truly only need to make a few additions of players in the $1m-$4m range in terms of cap hit.

 

one move I’d be in favor of is acquiring Nico Sturm & Jan Ruuta from San Jose. 

We’d likely be able to acquire both for a prospect like Poltapov & a 3rd, or Krebs & a 4th, or Jokhiharju & a 4th? 
 

Sturm is a solid 4th liner, nice size, solid defensive play and strong on face offs.

Ruuta could be a really solid bottom pair addition. His acquisition would allow the team some flexibility with their pairings and potentially keep a guy like Ryan Johnson in Rochester to start the season and not force him into a job he hasn’t earned 

[Weave]

48 minutes ago, JohnC said:

I respectfully but strenuously disagree. You are making an assumption that getting those three UFAs will be the difference in making the playoffs or not. There is also another false assumption regarding that proposed trade that alternative options for other players won't be collectively as good if not better than the proposed trade. I feel strongly that if you are going to deal your valuable #1 pick, that you can get a better return in a different deal for players that more likely will not be one-year rentals. 

 But, we aren’t talking about some other mythical deal.  We are talking about this mythical deal.  In that context, and in the context of improving the team being more important than winning the trade, the only asset I consider of value is that #11.  Sure, if there is a better deal, do it.  But if KA is set to make a decision about this mythical deal, wouldn’t it have to presume that a better mythical deal isn’t on the table?

[Weave]

42 minutes ago, JohnC said:

If the proposed deal was for Sam Bennett, I would be open to it. I'm adamantly opposed to giving up assets, that includes our #11 pick, for three UFAs. That makes no sense to me. Acting out of desperation is putting yourself in a vulnerable position when getting involved in the trade market. We can do better in the market. 

Ugh.  Why does this have to be a desperation deal?  It makes sense standing on its own if the goal is improving the roster in specific areas.

And frankly, I don’t see how desperation can be a dirty word here when we are on the cusp of a 3rd rebuild if this roster filling out doesn’t push the core in the right direction.

[PerreaultForever]

59 minutes ago, JohnC said:

I respectfully but strenuously disagree. You are making an assumption that getting those three UFAs will be the difference in making the playoffs or not. There is also another false assumption regarding that proposed trade that alternative options for other players won't be collectively as good if not better than the proposed trade. I feel strongly that if you are going to deal your valuable #1 pick, that you can get a better return in a different deal for players that more likely will not be one-year rentals. 

Buffalo is NOT a desirable location for players to come at this time. That's just a fact due to the ineptitude. If you want that to change you have to make a splash and send a strong message that things are changing. A move like this signals that earth shaking change. Once you make that move maybe other people start to give Buffalo a second look, like Tanev's brother. Maybe Kane. Others.

If you continue to evaluate everything in "value" and try to win trades and over rate what you have it's going to take years and years and years still and during those years so many things can still go wrong. It's time for this team to change the narrative, and to make sure that happens they are going to have to "lose" some trades to get what they need and/or make some overpays in free agency. If they don't, Cozens will be back in the Worlds and we will be looking at the draft lottery again and again and again.

[Archie Lee]

12 minutes ago, Weave said:

 But, we aren’t talking about some other mythical deal.  We are talking about this mythical deal.  In that context, and in the context of improving the team being more important than winning the trade, the only asset I consider of value is that #11.  Sure, if there is a better deal, do it.  But if KA is set to make a decision about this mythical deal, wouldn’t it have to presume that a better mythical deal isn’t on the table?

If this is a scenario where no other deal is possible and there is no negotiation on the price, then sure. I don’t agree that it makes us a playoff team though. These 3 players are replacing Mitts, Okposo and Joker from last year. I don’t think these three players out perform Mitts, Okposo and Joker to the degree that it puts us in the playoffs. 

[Weave]

1 minute ago, Archie Lee said:

If this is a scenario where no other deal is possible and there is no negotiation on the price, then sure. I don’t agree that it makes us a playoff team though. These 3 players are replacing Mitts, Okposo and Joker from last year. I don’t think these three players out perform Mitts, Okposo and Joker to the degree that it puts us in the playoffs. 

Don’t let perfect be the enemy of better.