Off-season Game Plan 2024

[PerreaultForever]

14 hours 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. 

Not exactly. You can TRY for a better return but you have to do whatever it takes this year imo. If the "better trade" isn't there make the one you can make. Overpay. Lose the trade. It doesn't matter. 

Just get it done!

[dudacek]

1 hour ago, thewookie1 said:

If you buyout Skinner yes you get a cool 7.5 mil in new cap space for this singular year. However, any replacement for his production will make the combined cap hit the next two years worse than we'd have if we just waited. 

Imagine if you will we replace his production by signing a 5mil player for 3 years. Well, this year he'd have a cap hit of 6.44mil, next year it would rise to 9.44mil and then in two years it would be a whopping 11.44mil. It's not exactly easy to straight up replace a 25+ goal scorer and not take a beating over the next two seasons in cap space which we'll likely need for Peterka, Quinn, Benson, Levi, etc.

Trading him is far better way to rid of his cap hit, albeit partially. Your only option with a buyout this year is to sign a player to a 1 year deal, hope Quinn/Peterka fill the hole and then sign another 1 year deal at 4mil next year and 2.5mil in 2 years . Otherwise you are making a larger cap hit for the position.  

 

1 hour ago, dudacek said:

How does fact that you have Zach Benson and Isak Rosen available on entry level contracts for 2 more years and Jiri Kulich and Matt Savoie for 3 affect that calculation?

Couldn’t the Sabres be taking advantage of that now? Shouldn’t they be?

To use your own example, skip bringing in a $5M player to replace Skinner for the next 3 years, bring in Savoie for $1M instead. He’s not likely to be 35-goal, 65-point Skinner, at least not right away, but he doesn’t have to be. Let Peterka and Quinn take care of that, bump Benson up a notch to the 20-45 guy and slide Savoie or Kulich into Benson’s 15-15 slot.

Use the extra $4 million in savings on upgrading Z, KO, Jost, Olofsson and Robinson with the types of players we’re lacking.

To me, the biggest argument against adding a rookie to the NHL roster is “too many of the same types of players”. That argument falls by the wayside if he is instead of Skinner, rather than in addition to.

And that’s mostly because Skinner’s game has the same flaws you typically worry about with rookies.

Thanks, this is the first time I’ve actually seen a way to use a Skinner buyout that might make sense long- and short-term.

So I ran a ran a capfriendly scenario where I bought Skinner out, replaced him with Savoie, brought in 3 more forward upgrades (Bennett, Jeannot, Trenin) and was still $9 under the cap next year. (which, ironically, means I probably don't even have to buy out Skinner this year)

And it left with me with about $32M the following year in order to re-sign or replace Greenway, Jeannot, Bennett, Peterka, Quinn and Byram — which seems like plenty. We'd probably elect to let one or more of the UFAs walk, but reloading should be easy considering we can bridge Quinn and Peterka if we want and we still have Rosen, Östlund, Kulich and Wahlberg among others as unused chips.

The following year — the biggest Skinner hit — we have Tuch and Clifton at UFA and Benson's ELC expiring. Letting Clifton walk and the rise in the cap should pay for giving the other two raises. With the core locked up and lots of ELC options available we should be home free for a while after that.

That was just the first random hit I tried and was totally doable. There are probably better options to use that $9M I'm under this year (like holding on to Skinner one more year and letting Savoie play in Rochester) and trades that make better sense. The point was just to see if the option was worth investigating.

I am now officially on the buy out Skinner train.

 

 

Edited June 4 by dudacek

[thewookie1]

4 hours ago, dudacek said:

How does fact that you have Zach Benson and Isak Rosen available on entry level contracts for 2 more years and Jiri Kulich and Matt Savoie for 3 affect that calculation?

Couldn’t the Sabres be taking advantage of that now? Shouldn’t they be?

To use your own example, skip bringing in a $5M player to replace Skinner for the next 3 years, bring in Savoie for $1M instead. He’s not likely to be 35-goal, 65-point Skinner, at least not right away, but he doesn’t have to be. Let Peterka and Quinn take care of that, bump Benson up a notch to the 20-45 guy and slide Savoie or Kulich into Benson’s 15-15 slot.

Use the extra $4 million in savings on upgrading Z, KO, Jost, Olofsson and Robinson with the types of players we’re lacking.

To me, the biggest argument against adding a rookie to the NHL roster is “too many of the same types of players”. That argument falls by the wayside if he is instead of Skinner, rather than in addition to.

And that’s mostly because Skinner’s game has the same flaws you typically worry about with rookies.

Thanks, this is the first time I’ve actually seen a way to use a Skinner buyout that might make sense long- and short-term.

The issue here would be is Savoie ready to step right in and become at least 33% of Skinner’s production?

Id also check if we could trade Skinner for Trouba or Coulture before buying him out. In no small part because I really don’t want him to sign 1x1mil in Toronto

[PerreaultForever]

Skinner has a NTC. I don't know why people keep thinking we can trade him for even a bag of pucks. It's just not happening. I'd just buy him out and I couldn't care less where he goes or for how much. 

[Archie Lee]

8 hours ago, dudacek said:

 

So I ran a ran a capfriendly scenario where I bought Skinner out, replaced him with Savoie, brought in 3 more forward upgrades (Bennett, Jeannot, Trenin) and was still $9 under the cap next year. (which, ironically, means I probably don't even have to buy out Skinner this year)

And it left with me with about $32M the following year in order to re-sign or replace Greenway, Jeannot, Bennett, Peterka, Quinn and Byram — which seems like plenty. We'd probably elect to let one or more of the UFAs walk, but reloading should be easy considering we can bridge Quinn and Peterka if we want and we still have Rosen, Östlund, Kulich and Wahlberg among others as unused chips.

The following year — the biggest Skinner hit — we have Tuch and Clifton at UFA and Benson's ELC expiring. Letting Clifton walk and the rise in the cap should pay for giving the other two raises. With the core locked up and lots of ELC options available we should be home free for a while after that.

That was just the first random hit I tried and was totally doable. There are probably better options to use that $9M I'm under this year (like holding on to Skinner one more year and letting Savoie play in Rochester) and trades that make better sense. The point was just to see if the option was worth investigating.

I am now officially on the buy out Skinner train.

 

 

Love it.
 

The only part of your post I would quibble with is having Savoie in the lineup. Put Quinn in that spot (3rd line with Bennett and Greenway; great 3rd line) and use the 10 million in space to add a top 6 forward to play with Peterka and Cozens. If worried about the cap in future years, keep some flexibility by making it Mangiapane or Ehlers who are a year away from UFA status. If you are more willing to be ruthless though (ie: Quinn and Peterka are great, but we are not married to them and one of them could be traded next off-season), trade for Necas or sign Stephenson. 
 

This is what good teams do all the time. The Rangers can’t keep all their RFA’s and quality UFA’s. That’s just reality. We want to be in a spot a year from now where it hurts to say goodbye to a good player. 

Edited June 4 by Archie Lee

[JohnC]

I'm aware of the dominant view that Skinner should be dealt or if necessary bought out. Why not simply keep him and put him on the first line? On that line it is not unrealistic to believe that he can score around 35 goals. Moving him up to the first line then allows you to move JJP to the second line with Cozens the center and Quinn on the other wing. That should be a very vibrant line. The issue then becomes who is going to be added on a third line that has Benson? 

It seems that Skinner has beeb dismissed as a player by many, just like Mitts was a few years back. He does have some liabilities but his biggest asset is that he is a goal scorer. Does his biggest asset make up for his limitations? I think so but most do not. 

[LGR4GM]

38 minutes ago, JohnC said:

I'm aware of the dominant view that Skinner should be dealt or if necessary bought out. Why not simply keep him and put him on the first line? On that line it is not unrealistic to believe that he can score around 35 goals. Moving him up to the first line then allows you to move JJP to the second line with Cozens the center and Quinn on the other wing. That should be a very vibrant line. The issue then becomes who is going to be added on a third line that has Benson? 

It seems that Skinner has beeb dismissed as a player by many, just like Mitts was a few years back. He does have some liabilities but his biggest asset is that he is a goal scorer. Does his biggest asset make up for his limitations? I think so but most do not. 

This comparison rings very hollow IMPO. Mitts was 22 a few years back and struggling to be an NHL player, we all now exactly what Jeff Skinner is going to bring. Skinner is going to give you 25-35g and 25-35a in a top 6 role while being exceedingly mediocre defensively. Most want him moved because they feel we need more from our players than what Skinner brings but unlike Mittelstadt, we all know exactly what he will bring. They won't move Skinner this year, but I could see them try next off season either via trade with retention or through a buyout. With Skinner having a full NTC because Botteril and Pegula are morons, it has really made things difficult. 

Moving on from Skinner has to do with changing the dynamics of the top 6 and within the next year, Zach Benson will surpass Jeff Skinner and that creates an issue because Skinner is wasted with less skilled teammates like Krebs and Greenway IMPO. 

[GASabresIUFAN]

20 minutes ago, LGR4GM said:

With Skinner having a full NTC because Botteril and Pegula are morons, it has really made things difficult. 

if they are morons for giving a NMC so if every other GM in the NHL.  Look at every roster in the NHL.  Go find a top 9 forward or a top 4 D on a veteran contract and you’ll see some type of NMC.  Adams gave Hall a full NTC on a one year deal. Yzerman is one the worst offenders. According to capfriendly, nearly every player we have discussed, like Larson, Karlsson, Gourde, Jeannot and Kerfoot all have at least a M-NTC.  Cirelli’s kicks in next season.  Even Connor Sheary has some trade protection. 

The truth is Adams should have tried to move Skinner at the deadline to a team desperate for scoring.  He should have retained 3 mill a season for the remainder of his deal as an inducement.  Other GMs find way to move players with NTCs. It’s time for Adams to grow a pair and find a solution.  

[Archie Lee]

1 hour ago, JohnC said:

I'm aware of the dominant view that Skinner should be dealt or if necessary bought out. Why not simply keep him and put him on the first line? On that line it is not unrealistic to believe that he can score around 35 goals. Moving him up to the first line then allows you to move JJP to the second line with Cozens the center and Quinn on the other wing. That should be a very vibrant line. The issue then becomes who is going to be added on a third line that has Benson? 

It seems that Skinner has beeb dismissed as a player by many, just like Mitts was a few years back. He does have some liabilities but his biggest asset is that he is a goal scorer. Does his biggest asset make up for his limitations? I think so but most do not. 

Your first paragraph is the argument for keeping Skinner and it is fair. He has bounced back from down years before and it would not be at all shocking if he scored 30 again this year. I don’t dismiss Skinner as a potentially useful player and I actually reject that he is an active barrier to us being a playoff team. 

If though, you think his value has diminished and that it is likely to diminish further and that a buyout is likely anyway in a year or two, then it is important to remember that the the cap space downside in 2025-2026 and 2026-2027 does not get appreciably better by waiting (and, of course, is only worse if you don’t buy him out at all). Not to mention, with waiting or not buying him out, you never get the benefit of the flexibility to remake your roster as you can with the $7.55 million saved through a buyout this year. 

[GASabresIUFAN]

@dudacek Why would you give 2.7 to Trenin who is 17 pt player? Two 3rds for Jeannot?  The guy had 14 pts last year on a 2.65 cap hit.  These guys had 2 pts total in 14 playoff games this season.  

These are 2 overpayments for 4th line players.  

We can do better for that money and assets.  

 

[LGR4GM]

8 minutes ago, GASabresIUFAN said:

if they are morons for giving a NMC so if every other GM in the NHL.  Look at every roster in the NHL.  Go find a top 9 forward or a top 4 D on a veteran contract and you’ll see some type of NMC.  Adams gave Hall a full NTC on a one year deal. Yzerman is one the worst offenders. According to capfriendly, nearly every player we have discussed, like Larson, Karlsson, Gourde, Jeannot and Kerfoot all have at least a M-NTC.  Cirelli’s kicks in next season.  Even Connor Sheary has some trade protection. 

The truth is Adams should have tried to move Skinner at the deadline to a team desperate for scoring.  He should have retained 3 mill a season for the remainder of his deal as an inducement.  Other GMs find way to move players with NTCs. It’s time for Adams to grow a pair and find a solution.  

See how I wrote "full ntc" that's the dumb part. 

[Taro T]

33 minutes ago, LGR4GM said:

See how I wrote "full ntc" that's the dumb part. 

The dumb part was giving him absolutely all the $'s he could have hoped to get AND a full NMC.  Give him $6MM/yr and a full NMC or eat the poop sandwich that was the $9MM/yr for 8 years and give him a partial NMC where he can't be waived to Ra-cha-cha and can block a trade to only 5-10 teams.

[dudacek]

27 minutes ago, GASabresIUFAN said:

@dudacek Why would you give 2.7 to Trenin who is 17 pt player? Two 3rds for Jeannot?  The guy had 14 pts last year on a 2.65 cap hit.  These guys had 2 pts total in 14 playoff games this season.  

These are 2 overpayments for 4th line players.  

We can do better for that money and assets.  

 

I like those guys, but it wasn't really about the players. It was  simply a thought exercise to see what dumping Skinner for Savoie would free up cap-wise over the big years of his buyout.

And the answer was "a lot".

[GASabresIUFAN]

57 minutes ago, LGR4GM said:

See how I wrote "full ntc" that's the dumb part. 

I looked at capfriendly and 101 players have full NMC/NTCs.  Skinner's deal is not unusual at all.

 In fact, 221 players have some sort of trade protection or about 30% of the league.  8 teams have 9 or more with trade protection.  10 teams have 5 or more guys with full NMC/NTCs.  I do agree that full NMC/NTCs are dumb, especially on long-term contracts, but there is plenty of dumb to go around in the NHL. Guys like Eric Haula and Nick Paul have full NTCs.

Giving Hall an NTC likely cost us a 1st rd pick.  Skinner's is keeping us from moving on from a player who needs to move on.  

Edited June 4 by GASabresIUFAN

[LGR4GM]

29 minutes ago, GASabresIUFAN said:

I looked at capfriendly and 101 players have full NMC/NTCs.  Skinner's deal is not unusual at all.

 In fact, 221 players have some sort of trade protection or about 30% of the league.  8 teams have 9 or more with trade protection.  10 teams have 5 or more guys with full NMC/NTCs.  I do agree that full NMC/NTCs are dumb, especially on long-term contracts, but there is plenty of dumb to go around in the NHL. Guys like Eric Haula and Nick Paul have full NTCs.

Giving Hall an NTC likely cost us a 1st rd pick.  Skinner's is keeping us from moving on from a player who needs to move on.  

So you agree it was dumb, I am not sure what we are even talking about then

[tom webster]

2 hours ago, LGR4GM said:

See how I wrote "full ntc" that's the dumb part. 

Skinner wasn’t signing any contract unless it guaranteed he was playing for Detroit, Buffalo, Pittsburgh or Toronto. You can argue whether to sign him to anything but that clause was non-negotiable.

[Flashsabre]

Sabres are Cooking people. Fans about to eat😜

[thewookie1]

Just now, Flashsabre said:

Sabres are Cooking people. Fans about to eat😜

He tends to be at least somewhat trustworthy with his predictions.

[LGR4GM]

1 minute ago, Flashsabre said:

Sabres are Cooking people. Fans about to eat😜

Remember, every team is in town for the combine. 

[thewookie1]

10 minutes ago, LGR4GM said:

Remember, every team is in town for the combine. 

I'll try not to almost hit Celebrini with my car this time around.

[triumph_communes]

Lindy has spent his career just dealing with the cards he was dealt. I can imagine he joined with the idea of telling Adam’s how to construct the roster. 
 

a ‘splash’ is absolutely in play. 
 

we need to figure out what to do with Joki and the excess forward depth and our hole is bottom 6

 

so ‘splash’ is definitely going to be to overpay for character. And I’m okay with that

 

i used to think I understood the market, but teams are all cap strapped that the market is so weird now. I think this actually an advantage since we’re just looking to overpay the type of players whose salary is depressing in this market

 

I hope at the end of the day we keep Quinn. Power is a nice to keep, but I won’t be super pissed if he’s gone at least. Savoie and 11OA should be on the table. 

[LGR4GM]

9 minutes ago, thewookie1 said:

I'll try not to almost hit Celebrini with my car this time around.

this time? 

[thewookie1]

38 minutes ago, LGR4GM said:

this time? 

The Combine for the McDavid/Eichel draft was the last time.

Was downtown so I decided to slowly drive around the HarborCenter to see if I could spot a player I could recognize. So, with no one behind me, I went 20mph down Washington St. next to it. About half way down, McDavid, Marner, Strome and one other Canadian kid came out of the side door. McDavid, not paying attention walked directly off the curb into the road never even looking for traffic. Obviously my speed made it easy to stop but Marner grabbed McDavid by the sleeve and yanked him back onto the sidewalk. So that's the time I nearly hit a #1 slated prospect with my vehicle.

[JohnC]

4 hours ago, LGR4GM said:

This comparison rings very hollow IMPO. Mitts was 22 a few years back and struggling to be an NHL player, we all now exactly what Jeff Skinner is going to bring. Skinner is going to give you 25-35g and 25-35a in a top 6 role while being exceedingly mediocre defensively. Most want him moved because they feel we need more from our players than what Skinner brings but unlike Mittelstadt, we all know exactly what he will bring. They won't move Skinner this year, but I could see them try next off season either via trade with retention or through a buyout. With Skinner having a full NTC because Botteril and Pegula are morons, it has really made things difficult. 

Moving on from Skinner has to do with changing the dynamics of the top 6 and within the next year, Zach Benson will surpass Jeff Skinner and that creates an issue because Skinner is wasted with less skilled teammates like Krebs and Greenway IMPO. 

You missed the point regarding the Mitts comparison. My central point regarding the Mitts scenario related to how too many people were locked in about in their assessment about him. The same dynamic appears to apply to the Skinner scenario. You are misinterpreting my point about him if you believe I'm talking about the long-term implications about him as a player on this team. My focus is on this upcoming season. 

Is Skinner a defensive liability? Maybe so, but not to the extent that many people believe it to be. In fact, I would argue that he is less of a defensive liability, or at the least not more, than JJP is. 

In my view, it is not out of the range of possibility that on the top line he can end up as a 30-35 goal scorer. And if allowed to play on the second PP unit, it is not inconceivable that he can approach the 40 goal mark. Others may scoff at that goal production but I don't. 

My overriding point is that more attention should be directed toward his offensive asset than his defensive liability. 

 

[LGR4GM]

7 minutes ago, JohnC said:

You missed the point regarding the Mitts comparison. My central point regarding the Mitts scenario related to how too many people were locked in about in their assessment about him. The same dynamic appears to apply to the Skinner scenario. You are misinterpreting my point about him if you believe I'm talking about the long-term implications about him as a player on this team. My focus is on this upcoming season. 

Is Skinner a defensive liability? Maybe so, but not to the extent that many people believe it to be. In fact, I would argue that he is less of a defensive liability, or at the least not more, than JJP is. 

In my view, it is not out of the range of possibility that on the top line he can end up as a 30-35 goal scorer. And if allowed to play on the second PP unit, it is not inconceivable that he can approach the 40 goal mark. Others may scoff at that goal production but I don't. 

My overriding point is that more attention should be directed toward his offensive asset than his defensive liability. 

 

You're missing my point. Mitts had runway to get better. Skinner is 32, he's not changing or growing, he is what he is. You're also ignoring ppl have correctly evaluated what he is and wish to move on. I'd personally keep him until next summer and then buyout or trade him now.