Kevyn Adams: likes where his group's at

[dudacek]

10 hours ago, tom webster said:

I agree. Winnipeg supoposedly wanted Krebs, #14 plus two top prospects or one and an unprotected #1 next year, that is an awful  lot for one year of Ehlers even if they threw in Iafollo.

@Thorny you might get a new first-round pick every year, but the odds are pretty damn good you are going to get more than 82 games out of 4 of them.

This is a steep price for a signed Ehlers.

Look at the prices paid for Sergachev, Fiala, Reinhart, and many others of similar value. It sounds like Adams was prepared to pay exactly the type of overpay you want him to pay: lose the trade to get the player.

Paying that price for a rental would be ludicrous.

[dudacek]

6 hours ago, Pimlach said:

This is fair.  He could do worse damage by giving up too much for one year of a good player.  Like he already did in the Mitts deal, Byram has one year, then what?   

So, target players with more term.  

Byram is entering into the final year of his contract, but he will be just a restricted free agent next summer.

He is under Sabre control for at least 3 more years.

Edited July 4 by dudacek

[dudacek]

14 hours ago, nfreeman said:

Good stuff @tom webster.

I don't think it's necessarily fair to criticize KA for not being able to convince Ehlers or Necas to sign extensions, if that's what some posters here are inclined to do.  Those guys are 1 year from UFA -- they aren't going to give that up to sign extensions in NHL Siberia.

Then the question becomes how much are you prepared to give up for 1-year rentals who mentally have one foot out the door upon arrival and are likely to play that way all year.  I'm not inclined to give up that much for that kind of player, but YMMV.

The question then becomes where does he pivot?

Mangiapane, Faksa, Joseph, Reilly Smith… all available at prices he could have paid.

It’s not like he couldn’t have overpaid another free agent like he did Zucker.

When a door closes, it’s his job to find to find another.

You've heard him say it: try to get better every single day.

[French Collection]

3 minutes ago, dudacek said:

The question then becomes where does he pivot?

Mangiapane, Faksa, Joseph, Reilly Smith… all available at prices he could have paid.

It’s not like he couldn’t have overpaid another free agent like he did Zucker.

When a door closes, it’s his job to find to find another.

You've heard him say it: try to get better every single day.

He wasn’t ideal but Roslovic could have been a bottom six guy who can play C. I don’t think there is anyone left in UFA of any value for that role.

[Thorner]

32 minutes ago, dudacek said:

@Thorny you might get a new first-round pick every year, but the odds are pretty damn good you are going to get more than 82 games out of 4 of them.

This is a steep price for a signed Ehlers.

Look at the prices paid for Sergachev, Fiala, Reinhart, and many others of similar value. It sounds like Adams was prepared to pay exactly the type of overpay you want him to pay: lose the trade to get the player.

Paying that price for a rental would be ludicrous.

Almost as ludicrous as a 14 year playoff drought  

[Thorner]

1 hour ago, dudacek said:

@Thorny you might get a new first-round pick every year, but the odds are pretty damn good you are going to get more than 82 games out of 4 of them.

This is a steep price for a signed Ehlers.

Look at the prices paid for Sergachev, Fiala, Reinhart, and many others of similar value. It sounds like Adams was prepared to pay exactly the type of overpay you want him to pay: lose the trade to get the player.

Paying that price for a rental would be ludicrous.

Depends who the prospect is, too. Top prospect is sort of vague. This is one of those things we just have to disagree on because it’s a manifestation of us not valuing playoffs in the same way. Using the term “rental” for an entire year period doesn’t even compute for me. The league is measured in seasons. The entire lifespan of the best Sabres team I’ve seen is 2 seasons. My entire fandom is holding on because of 2 seasons - one season is a lot. It doesn’t surprise me Adams wouldn’t be confident that a successful season could convince an Ehlers to stay, he doesn’t seem a good recruiter in ideal circumstances, never mind having to sell a player on not yet apparent success

Back to the prospect. If the top prospect is, say, Rosen. 

Krebs - irrelevant asset

rosen - superfluous asset 

2 first round picks

yes, I pay two first rounds picks for Ehlers. There is zero evidence not trading our first round picks leads to a modicum of success 

It’s a pittance in reality. It’s only “ludicrous” by this artificial adherence to the market video game we all partake in for fun 

its 2 draft picks. Who seriously cares. (I get people do. I just don’t and can’t understand it.)

With a guarantee of playoffs, would you make the move? If the answer is yes, it just then comes down to our belief in Ehlers but also and probably more importantly our willingness to risk paying the price and failing. I think the reason it’s so easy for me to risk it is because I for one contemplate and also weight the risks of NOT making the move. Not trading for Ehlers under those circumstances and further decreasing our likelihood of making the playoffs is more risky to me. The fallout missing the playoffs would entail, in several facets

you don’t think we can afford to pay the price, I don’t think we can afford not to. Simple as that 

Edited July 4 by Thorny

[PerreaultForever]

I don't know if Adams is inept, or he has his hands tied by NTCs and any other number of issues but whichever the case the result is the same. You can see he is trying to bring in the missing pieces and the right type of players (that we don't have) but what he's getting is the fringe versions of that type and the end result will be that these guys do not get it done. So just like with Robinson, new guys will throw a hit or two and people here will get excited but it'll fade fast when nothing changes and so will their play. 

That's what I (sadly) see happening. 

[Darryl Shannon's +/-]

I wish they published all of the locations associated with no trade/move clauses.  Would make it easier for fans to know trade targets and also be pressure on the front office if you are on every one.

[Pimlach]

8 hours ago, dudacek said:

Byram is entering into the final year of his contract, but he will be just a restricted free agent next summer.

He is under Sabre control for at least 3 more years.

Under their control yes, but they have to sign him, and how much will that be?  

[JohnC]

20 minutes ago, Pimlach said:

Under their control yes, but they have to sign him, and how much will that be?  

In hindsight, wouldn't it have been better to re-sign Mitts at the contract that he signed with Colorado (3yrs, 5.75 AAP)? Looking at the asking price for even rental top six forwards seems to be very steep. It just seems that not retaining a player that was already on the roster (and wanted to be here) resulted in a cascading effect that in the end left us in a bind. 

I'm not knocking Byram as a player. I see him as a legitimate first or second pairing defenseman. It just seems to me that losing Mitts created a bigger negative than adding Byram created a positive. Some GMs play one dimensional chess while others play a three dimensional game. 

[Archie Lee]

I’m not sure what we are trying to do. Let’s say we did make the trade for Ehlers and we did get him extended. He makes $6 now. I assume any extension would be at $7 million+. CapFriendly still works. Extend Ehlers at $7+ and assume short-term bridges next year of $4-4.5 for Peterka and Quinn and a little better for Byram and the money is gone. If any of our big RFAs next year have huge breakouts and warrants a long-term big money deal, then someone would have to go. 

My point is that whether we trade for someone or sign them as a UFA, once we start handing out long-term money to new players, cap space gets tight and the likely outcome is that a Quinn, Peterka or Byram (or Tuch, or Samuelsson) has to go. I don’t know why we weren’t in on more guys in free agency then. There is no truer test of “wanting to be here” than actually making a conscious decision to sign a contract that binds you to being here. We could have added a couple of additional players, kept our prospects and then next year made difficult decisions on who to move and started to promote the kids on ELCs. 
 
Trading for a player like Ehlers puts us in the same spot cap-wise that a UFA signing would, but also costs us some of the prospect and draft capital that we could use to replace players who price out. 

We lost another opportunity by not diving in to free-agency harder. 

[tom webster]

21 minutes ago, JohnC said:

In hindsight, wouldn't it have been better to re-sign Mitts at the contract that he signed with Colorado (3yrs, 5.75 AAP)? Looking at the asking price for even rental top six forwards seems to be very steep. It just seems that not retaining a player that was already on the roster (and wanted to be here) resulted in a cascading effect that in the end left us in a bind. 

I'm not knocking Byram as a player. I see him as a legitimate first or second pairing defenseman. It just seems to me that losing Mitts created a bigger negative than adding Byram created a positive. Some GMs play one dimensional chess while others play a three dimensional game. 

If you see Byram as a legitimate top defenseman(and I do) then you always make that trade.

Plus, two things about Casey and Buffalo,

1) he probably isn’t taking that deal in Buffalo

2) they are looking for something different as far as skill set from their number three center

[JohnC]

3 minutes ago, tom webster said:

If you see Byram as a legitimate top defenseman(and I do) then you always make that trade.

Plus, two things about Casey and Buffalo,

1) he probably isn’t taking that deal in Buffalo

2) they are looking for something different as far as skill set from their number three center

We agree on the caliber of player Byram will be.

With respect to your first point, I strenuously disagree that Mitts wouldn't have signed a similar (bridge deal) with Buffalo. By all accounts he liked it here and was invested in this team. 

With respect to your second point regarding preferred skill sets, he may not fit perfectly with what you want in style of play, but it can't be argued that he wasn't a legitimate 2/3 C who can also move up to the top line (as he did) and keep it functioning as a top line. He also has the versatility to play wing when needed. In essence, what you are saying is that with a cup contending and superior team he fits in but with a less talented team he doesn't. That argument doesn't resonate with me.

As I have repeatedly stated, this was a good and fair trade for each team as a one on one transaction. But in my view, because there wasn't an adequate fallback position to replace the departed player, it turned out to be a negative deal from a roster building standpoint.

Why hasn't the GM found a replacement for Mitts? Because the cost to replace him is extremely high. That's my point. Our GM is a checker player competing against chess players. This was a stolid performance by the GM that lacked vision and anticipation.  

[French Collection]

43 minutes ago, JohnC said:

In hindsight, wouldn't it have been better to re-sign Mitts at the contract that he signed with Colorado (3yrs, 5.75 AAP)? Looking at the asking price for even rental top six forwards seems to be very steep. It just seems that not retaining a player that was already on the roster (and wanted to be here) resulted in a cascading effect that in the end left us in a bind. 

I'm not knocking Byram as a player. I see him as a legitimate first or second pairing defenseman. It just seems to me that losing Mitts created a bigger negative than adding Byram created a positive. Some GMs play one dimensional chess while others play a three dimensional game. 

That deal works well for Colorado and Casey. They had no real 2C so he has no competition for a prime role. We will never know if he would have signed for similar money in Buffalo.
I have always liked Byram and am eager to see his fit within the unit and how Lindy uses him.

3C is still my biggest concern. KA seems to have been shut out of any upgrades and spins Krebs as a capable player. If he starts the season there and falters, it looks like he has no backup plan other than the Rochester kids.

 

[JohnC]

7 minutes ago, French Collection said:

That deal works well for Colorado and Casey. They had no real 2C so he has no competition for a prime role. We will never know if he would have signed for similar money in Buffalo.
I have always liked Byram and am eager to see his fit within the unit and how Lindy uses him.

3C is still my biggest concern. KA seems to have been shut out of any upgrades and spins Krebs as a capable player. If he starts the season there and falters, it looks like he has no backup plan other than the Rochester kids.

 

It's very likely he would have signed a similar deal with Buffalo. The deal he signed with Colorada was essentially a bridge deal that would expire when he was 28, and in his prime. That type of deal would have worked for him here. The agent for Mitts stated that KA barely communicated with him, showing little interest in retaining him. 

For the superior team that traded for him he becomes a 2C. They valued his talents enough to let go a promising young defenseman who contributed in is rookie year in their Cup run. That tells you that they valued Mitts a lot, much more than KA did. 

In my mind, and in Colorado's view, Mitts is a 2C talent. If he would have played as a 3C in Buffalo, so what. There is nothing wrong playing a 2C talent on a lower line. That's an indication of team depth. 

As I have said, the issue isn't whether the trade of Mitts for Byram was a fair/good trade. It was. But from a roster building standpoint, because there wasn't an adequate fallback position (so far) it seems to be a negative deal. 

[Pimlach]

40 minutes ago, tom webster said:

If you see Byram as a legitimate top defenseman(and I do) then you always make that trade.

Plus, two things about Casey and Buffalo,

1) he probably isn’t taking that deal in Buffalo

2) they are looking for something different as far as skill set from their number three center

Like what?   What are they looking for?  Right now we have less goals, less assists, less two way play, less power play ability, and less versatility to play on any line, …. Yup.  That’s different.   By default Payton Krebs is the 3C right now.  I didn’t see him earn it last season. 

I sure hope they find a better “something different”.  

I will agree that he would want more money in Buffalo due to the dumb contract they gave Cozens and the team operating under the cap (once again). 

[tom webster]

14 minutes ago, Pimlach said:

Like what?   What are they looking for?  Right now we have less goals, less assists, less two way play, less power play ability, and less versatility to play on any line, …. Yup.  That’s different.   By default Payton Krebs is the 3C right now.  I didn’t see him earn it last season. 

I sure hope they find a better “something different”.  

I will agree that he would want more money in Buffalo due to the dumb contract they gave Cozens and the team operating under the cap (once again). 

Have you looked at the production Florida got from their second(EROD) and third (Lindell) centers? Buffalo wants a more defensive third center and their first two to play like they did two years ago. And Cozens contract isn’t dumb. When the cap hits $100M he will either be huge value if he plays like two years ago or about right if he plays like last year.

[Pimlach]

53 minutes ago, tom webster said:

Have you looked at the production Florida got from their second(EROD) and third (Lindell) centers? Buffalo wants a more defensive third center and their first two to play like they did two years ago. And Cozens contract isn’t dumb. When the cap hits $100M he will either be huge value if he plays like two years ago or about right if he plays like last year.

Erod type players come along almost every year for the playoffs.  Quite often they are the ones we trade at the deadline.  
 

When you set your roster so far under the cap that you are paying players who are not on the roster just to reach the cap floor then sure, Cozens contract was probably needed.  
 

Looking down the road, which is what we do in Sabreland, Cozens contract should be fine if he can get his game back. 

Edited July 4 by Pimlach

[LGR4GM]

Can I be honest? I'm worried about Cozens maybe the least this year. I think in a Ruff offense, he'll be better. 

[tom webster]

6 minutes ago, Pimlach said:

Erod type players come along almost every year for the playoffs.  Quite often they are the ones we trade at the deadline.  
 

When you set your roster so far under the cap that you are paying players who are not on the roster just to reach the cap floor then sure, Cozens contract was probably needed.  
 

Looking down the road, which is what we do in Sabreland, Cozens contract should be fine if he can get his game back. 

The Sabres didn’t need Cozens contract to reach the floor.

[Thorner]

2 hours ago, JohnC said:

We agree on the caliber of player Byram will be.

With respect to your first point, I strenuously disagree that Mitts wouldn't have signed a similar (bridge deal) with Buffalo. By all accounts he liked it here and was invested in this team. 

With respect to your second point regarding preferred skill sets, he may not fit perfectly with what you want in style of play, but it can't be argued that he wasn't a legitimate 2/3 C who can also move up to the top line (as he did) and keep it functioning as a top line. He also has the versatility to play wing when needed. In essence, what you are saying is that with a cup contending and superior team he fits in but with a less talented team he doesn't. That argument doesn't resonate with me.

As I have repeatedly stated, this was a good and fair trade for each team as a one on one transaction. But in my view, because there wasn't an adequate fallback position to replace the departed player, it turned out to be a negative deal from a roster building standpoint.

Why hasn't the GM found a replacement for Mitts? Because the cost to replace him is extremely high. That's my point. Our GM is a checker player competing against chess players. This was a stolid performance by the GM that lacked vision and anticipation.  

Well said