Off-season Game Plan 2024

[dudacek]

25 minutes 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. 

OK. But what if you add Byrum replacing EJ to that context?

Thompson and Cozens bouncing back?

The health of Quinn and Samuelsson?

How much of an upgrade of those 3 departing players do we need to win 5 more games next year?

Edited June 2 by dudacek

[Archie Lee]

11 minutes ago, Weave said:

Don’t let perfect be the enemy of better.

The initial proposal wasn’t laid out as a scenario where this was the one and only option for the Sabres to upgrade their roster this off-season. As I said, in a mythical world where there is no other option, then sure I would do the trade. Im not sure who our 4th line centre is in this mythical world, or who is going to play up if Cozens or Thompson are injured, but sure, if this is the one and only deal that could be made, let’s do it. 

In the real world where there are other and better options which are, frankly, far more realistic, I would pass.

[Weave]

2 minutes ago, Archie Lee said:

The initial proposal wasn’t laid out as a scenario where this was the one and only option for the Sabres to upgrade their roster this off-season. As I said, in a mythical world where there is no other option, then sure I would do the trade. Im not sure who our 4th line centre is in this mythical world, or who is going to play up if Cozens or Thompson are injured, but sure, if this is the one and only deal that could be made, let’s do it. 

In the real world where there are other and better options which are, frankly, far more realistic, I would pass.

In a world with better options, everyone takes the better option.  I mean, duh.  But that isn’t really the conversation.  The conversation is, would you do Joki, Krebs, 11 for those 3 players?  It kind of has to presume that a better deal isn’t there.  

[JohnC]

24 minutes ago, PerreaultForever said:

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.

An organization that acts out of desperation instead of measured calculation is a sign that the organization continues to ineptly handle its business. That's not how you attract players; it's how you continue to make players shun your franchise. 

There are deals to be made this offseason. The proposed deal is an example what not to do. There is a myth here that no one wants to come here. That's far from the case. Buffalo certainly is not appealing to a lot of players. That doesn't mean that other players can't be brought in.  Players can be added through trades and free agency. If option A isn't attainable, then go to option B-Z.  

[Archie Lee]

13 minutes ago, dudacek said:

OK. But what if you add Byrum replacing EJ to that context?

Thompson and Cozens bouncing back?

The health of Quinn and Samuelsson?

How much of an upgrade those 3 departing players do we need to win 5 more games next year?

Yes, if Thompson and Cozens combine for 70 goals and Byram is the player that we hope and Quinn and Samuelsson both play 75 plus games and Benson jumps to 45-50 points and the PP isn’t terrible and UPL is still good, then we will be in the playoffs.  But, if these things happen we make the playoffs with Krebs and Joker and pick a UFA 4th line winger (Carrier, Lafferty). 

5 minutes ago, Weave said:

In a world with better options, everyone takes the better option.  I mean, duh.  But that isn’t really the conversation.  The conversation is, would you do Joki, Krebs, 11 for those 3 players?  It kind of has to presume that a better deal isn’t there.  

It was the conversation until some people changed it to a fantasy world where this was the one and only option. 

Edited June 2 by Archie Lee

[JohnC]

43 minutes ago, Weave said:

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.

In all likelihood the focus of attention for the GM relates to redoing the lower lines. (That's what he has stated.) That caliber of player/s is available. Overpaying in assets is not the right way to pursue this level of talent. I'm open to all sensible options. And that includes trading our first pick. But I'm opposed to dispatching that valuable pick for the proposed UFAs. That makes no sense to me. 

[Weave]

8 minutes ago, Archie Lee said:

Yes, if Thompson and Cozens combine for 70 goals and Byram is the player that we hope and Quinn and Samuelsson both play 75 plus games and Benson jumps to 45-50 points and the PP isn’t terrible and UPL is still good, then we will be in the playoffs.  But, if these things happen we make the playoffs with Krebs and Joker and pick a UFA 4th line winger (Carrier, Lafferty). 

It was the conversation until some people changed it to a fantasy world where this was the one and only option. 

Hardly.  There are multiple conversations underway.  None of them are related to the other conversations, except for the “would you do this” pretense.  They all kind of have a similar presumption.

[Weave]

6 minutes ago, JohnC said:

In all likelihood the focus of attention for the GM relates to redoing the lower lines. (That's what he has stated.) That caliber of player/s is available. Overpaying in assets is not the right way to pursue this level of talent. I'm open to all sensible options. And that includes trading our first pick. But I'm opposed to dispatching that valuable pick for the proposed UFAs. That makes no sense to me. 

The bolded is reasonable, and the opinions are why we are here.  But if you are presuming that any given deal is desperation then you are coming at it from the wrong perspective.  Is it aggressive? Yes.  Of course.  But aggressive =\= desperate, also of course.

The primary difference here is that a bunch of us see this as the right time for aggressive moves to fill out the roster.  We have more assets than we can keep, giving us a fairly unusual opportunity to be a bully with them to get what we need.  IMO failure to do so by the GM would be negligent.

[dudacek]

8 minutes ago, Archie Lee said:

Yes, if Thompson and Cozens combine for 70 goals and Byram is the player that we hope and Quinn and Samuelsson both play 75 plus games and Benson jumps to 45-50 points and the PP isn’t terrible and UPL is still good, then we will be in the playoffs.  But, if these things happen we make the playoffs with Krebs and Joker and pick a UFA 4th line winger (Carrier, Lafferty).

I was trying to avoid the "if everything goes right" scenario and focus on the context of what the actual roster needs.

Go back to your earlier post of it being a template: most of us like the idea of adding a centre, a physically strong defensive defenceman and hard-to-play against winger.

You said the upgrade offered by those three pieces won't get us into the playoffs. How good does our upgrade need to be?

[Taro T]

2 hours ago, Weave said:

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.

Nitpicking, but they are currently in the 3rd rebuild.  (Rebuild 1: centered on Eichel, O'Reilly, Kane, & Lehner.  Rebuild 2: centered on Eichel & Dahlin.  Rebuild 3: ongoing.  Rebuild 4: ???? (Hopefully not necessary.))

[Taro T]

2 hours ago, dudacek said:

OK. But what if you add Byrum replacing EJ to that context?

Thompson and Cozens bouncing back?

The health of Quinn and Samuelsson?

How much of an upgrade of those 3 departing players do we need to win 5 more games next year?

Depends on whether UPL regresses any or not.  If he regresses, then Levi darn well better be ready to be the starter at least 45% of the time and likely more.  IF the goaltending regresses, they might need all that you've been mentioning JUST to get back to barely missing the playoffs with a record that should be 7 or 8 points out if not for a woeful Eastern Conference.

If UPL stays at the level he was in January - March and Levi plays like he did January on then they might not need any more than that to get in.  REALLY hoping Adams doesn't roll the die on the goaltending again but fulling expecting him to do so.  (And would be fine with that dice roll one season from now as we'll have another full season of seeing how those 2 are maturing.  (Presuming UPL &/or Levi doesn't deficate himself this year.  Should that not be the case, well ...)

[NAF]

7 hours ago, JohnC said:

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. 

You have to give up something of value to get a player like Tkachuk. I'll agree with you -- Quinn is an intelligent player and would play a key role in any sort of potential Sabre dynasty. He is however, smaller (ie, play-style not necessarily conducive to playoff hockey) and injury prone. I'd gladly part with him and two complete question marks for a player who had 37 goals last year on a dogshit team.

18 hours ago, thewookie1 said:

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.

This isn't the NHL of old. Players have more power than in the 90s and early 2000s. Ottawa is a mickey mouse organization and Tkachuk has devoted 6 years of his career to that dumpster fire. Requesting a trade (which we don't even know if he did) doesn't automatically make him a low character player. They wouldn't have named him captain if he was.

[dudacek]

31 minutes ago, Taro T said:

Depends on whether UPL regresses any or not.  If he regresses, then Levi darn well better be ready to be the starter at least 45% of the time and likely more.  IF the goaltending regresses, they might need all that you've been mentioning JUST to get back to barely missing the playoffs with a record that should be 7 or 8 points out if not for a woeful Eastern Conference.

If UPL stays at the level he was in January - March and Levi plays like he did January on then they might not need any more than that to get in.  REALLY hoping Adams doesn't roll the die on the goaltending again but fulling expecting him to do so.  (And would be fine with that dice roll one season from now as we'll have another full season of seeing how those 2 are maturing.  (Presuming UPL &/or Levi doesn't deficate himself this year.  Should that not be the case, well ...)

To my way of thinking there is such a wide range of potential results for so many Sabres players that they are going to be a very difficult team to predict regardless of who they add.

They pretty much have to count on a lot of their roster being better. Given ages and track records that's not a huge stretch.

Adding Byram to the top 4 and dumping EJ was their big move on the blueline.

But they can't stop there. They have to — at minimum — upgrade the team's overall effectiveness using the slots (likely) vacated by Girgensons, Olofsson, Okposo, Mittelstadt, Jost and Comrie.

Edited June 2 by dudacek

[Archie Lee]

2 hours ago, dudacek said:

I was trying to avoid the "if everything goes right" scenario and focus on the context of what the actual roster needs.

Go back to your earlier post of it being a template: most of us like the idea of adding a centre, a physically strong defensive defenceman and hard-to-play against winger.

You said the upgrade offered by those three pieces won't get us into the playoffs. How good does our upgrade need to be?

I do think it is a decent template for part of what the Sabres could try to do this off-season. I’m not sure I would say it wouldn’t get us in the playoffs. It could. But in an earlier post you had said (I’m paraphrasing) that you couldn’t see this team missing with these additions.  I don’t think these players added to last year’s roster in place of Mitts,  Okposo, Joker, would have made us a playoff team. Could they this coming year?  Sure.  But a lot would have to go right that didn’t. A person doesn’t have to imagine a bunch of worst case scenario outcomes. All that needs to happen for the playoffs to be a tough achievement is for Thompson, Tuch, Skinner, Cozens and Dahlin to produce at the same level as they just did. 

I would be happy if we made 3 similar upgrades this off-season  I just think:

1.) We can do it without giving up #11; and

2.) It leaves a lot to chance. Specifically, we are relying on a group of forwards to either bounce back or emerge. Gourde, Tanev and Larson aren’t fixing our offence. 

 

[Taro T]

3 minutes ago, dudacek said:

To my way of thinking there is such a wide range of potential results for so many Sabres players that they are going to be a very difficult team to predict regardless of who they add.

They pretty much have to count on a lot of their roster being better. Given ages and track records that's not a huge stretch.

Adding Byram to the top 4 was their big move.

But they can't stop there. They have to — at minimum — upgrade the team's overall effectiveness using the slots (likely) vacated by Girgensons, Olofsson, Okposo, Mittelstadt, Jost and Comrie.

Agree.  And, again, just going by what Adams has stated, he's very happy with the D and he's happy with the G.  He has publicly stated he wants to bring in 3-5 pieces at the F ranks (depending upon whether one is expecting the C he wants to bring in to be a part of the 4th line's "identity" or on the 3rd line).

He's said he'd be willing to use some of the prospects and/or picks to make that happen if such a deal would "make sense."  (Not sure if his words were make sense or just something to that effect.)  Which is why them trading for a Cirelli would seem likely (trading prospects/picks/& or a young guy could make sense for a bonafide 3C that still has term and won't cost as much as the 1C or 2C) and why Kane is likely still on their radar (he upgrades the middle 6W's and doesn't cost ANY of Adams' precious futures).  

[Archie Lee]

2 hours ago, Weave said:

Hardly.  There are multiple conversations underway.  None of them are related to the other conversations, except for the “would you do this” pretense.  They all kind of have a similar presumption.

My apologies. I must have misunderstood which conversation I was contributing to. 

[thewookie1]

38 minutes ago, NAF said:

You have to give up something of value to get a player like Tkachuk. I'll agree with you -- Quinn is an intelligent player and would play a key role in any sort of potential Sabre dynasty. He is however, smaller (ie, play-style not necessarily conducive to playoff hockey) and injury prone. I'd gladly part with him and two complete question marks for a player who had 37 goals last year on a dogshit team.

This isn't the NHL of old. Players have more power than in the 90s and early 2000s. Ottawa is a mickey mouse organization and Tkachuk has devoted 6 years of his career to that dumpster fire. Requesting a trade (which we don't even know if he did) doesn't automatically make him a low character player. They wouldn't have named him captain if he was.

I couldn’t care less if players have power. In my opinion when you sign a contract with the captaincy either explicitly or effectively given to you as a part of the deal; the player has an obligation to stick through most if not the entire contract. Anything besides that, not including the team itself dealing the player against their wishes, is a sign of a lack of conviction and character.

[JohnC]

2 hours ago, Weave said:

The bolded is reasonable, and the opinions are why we are here.  But if you are presuming that any given deal is desperation then you are coming at it from the wrong perspective.  Is it aggressive? Yes.  Of course.  But aggressive =\= desperate, also of course.

The primary difference here is that a bunch of us see this as the right time for aggressive moves to fill out the roster.  We have more assets than we can keep, giving us a fairly unusual opportunity to be a bully with them to get what we need.  IMO failure to do so by the GM would be negligent.

In general terms, we both are in accord that our GM has to be proactive in adding talent to this team this offseason. I totally agree that we have some excess assets to parlay. In how that should be done we have some space between us. We shall see. 

[Archie Lee]

3 hours ago, Weave said:

The bolded is reasonable, and the opinions are why we are here.  But if you are presuming that any given deal is desperation then you are coming at it from the wrong perspective.  Is it aggressive? Yes.  Of course.  But aggressive =\= desperate, also of course.

The primary difference here is that a bunch of us see this as the right time for aggressive moves to fill out the roster.  We have more assets than we can keep, giving us a fairly unusual opportunity to be a bully with them to get what we need.  IMO failure to do so by the GM would be negligent.

I agree that it is time for aggression. I don’t think this is the right trade though (except for maybe in the “no other option” vacuum). 

I think we should buy out Skinner and use the $7.55 million in cap savings to completely remake the bottom 6 of our roster. As is, we are committed to a top 6 that is made up entirely of current players who either need to bounce back or emerge. If you buyout Skinner you can add a top 6 winger (pushing a winger down to the 3rd line) and a 3rd line centre and still remake the 4th line.  

Being opposed to trading #11 in a deal where you don’t think the value is correct does not mean that you are against being aggressive this off-season. 

Edited June 2 by Archie Lee

[JohnC]

2 hours ago, Taro T said:

Agree.  And, again, just going by what Adams has stated, he's very happy with the D and he's happy with the G.  He has publicly stated he wants to bring in 3-5 pieces at the F ranks (depending upon whether one is expecting the C he wants to bring in to be a part of the 4th line's "identity" or on the 3rd line).

He's said he'd be willing to use some of the prospects and/or picks to make that happen if such a deal would "make sense."  (Not sure if his words were make sense or just something to that effect.)  Which is why them trading for a Cirelli would seem likely (trading prospects/picks/& or a young guy could make sense for a bonafide 3C that still has term and won't cost as much as the 1C or 2C) and why Kane is likely still on their radar (he upgrades the middle 6W's and doesn't cost ANY of Adams' precious futures).  

Cirelli is brought up a lot in this site about an attractive player to target. I'm aware that Tampa will be squeezed somewhat in trying to work a deal for Stamkos. However, I haven't heard anything about Tampa being interested in shedding this particularly player. Tampa may be in the beginning in their down cycle but why would they shed one of their instrumental players when they are still a very competitive team? An interesting question regarding Tampa is would it be better for Tampa to lose Stamkos if his contract demands are too high if it was the reason for not being able to retain Cirelli who recently signed a long-term contract? I simply don't see Cirelli being available for any team at this point. 

[thewookie1]

3 hours ago, Archie Lee said:

I agree that it is time for aggression. I don’t think this is the right trade though (except for maybe in the “no other option” vacuum). 

I think we should buy out Skinner and use the $7.55 million in cap savings to completely remake the bottom 6 of our roster. As is, we are committed to a top 6 that is made up entirely of current players who either need to bounce back or emerge. If you buyout Skinner you can add a top 6 winger (pushing a winger down to the 3rd line) and a 3rd line centre and still remake the 4th line.  

Being opposed to trading #11 in a deal where you don’t think the value is correct does not mean that you are against being aggressive this off-season. 

No use in buying out Skinner; it will put us in a precarious position next year

[Archie Lee]

37 minutes ago, thewookie1 said:

No use in buying out Skinner; it will put us in a precarious position next year

In what way?  The dead cap hit from 25-26 through 28-29 is virtually the same whether you buy him out this year or next. 

Edited June 3 by Archie Lee

[PerreaultForever]

7 hours ago, JohnC said:

An organization that acts out of desperation instead of measured calculation is a sign that the organization continues to ineptly handle its business. That's not how you attract players; it's how you continue to make players shun your franchise. 

There are deals to be made this offseason. The proposed deal is an example what not to do. There is a myth here that no one wants to come here. That's far from the case. Buffalo certainly is not appealing to a lot of players. That doesn't mean that other players can't be brought in.  Players can be added through trades and free agency. If option A isn't attainable, then go to option B-Z.  

You say it's a "myth" but the evidence would seem to say otherwise. 

You break the cycle by WINNING. You get to that with bold aggressive moves. Your stance has merit for some teams in general, but it's not how you break 13 years of losing. The window for progress (this time) will close faster than you think. 

[JohnC]

9 hours ago, PerreaultForever said:

You say it's a "myth" but the evidence would seem to say otherwise. 

You break the cycle by WINNING. You get to that with bold aggressive moves. Your stance has merit for some teams in general, but it's not how you break 13 years of losing. The window for progress (this time) will close faster than you think. 

You and others make the assumption that the Sabres can't make a better deal than the proposed three UFA deal.  That's at the heart of the disagreement. If I'm going to include in a trade our first-round pick, I would expect a better return on players and contract terms. We'll just have to wait and see. 

[French Collection]

13 minutes ago, JohnC said:

You and others make the assumption that the Sabres can't make a better deal than the proposed three UFA deal.  That's at the heart of the disagreement. If I'm going to include in a trade our first-round pick, I would expect a better return on players and contract terms. We'll just have to wait and see. 

The main point most of us are trying to make is, DO SOMETHING.

None of the moves need to be blockbusters. These are payers to round out a team, fill in gaps, provide depth and allow the prospects to grow and be challenged for ice time.

Whatever KA does, it needs to be for the now, this team has plenty of future potential pieces.