Sabres Training Camp Thread

[LGR4GM]

7 minutes ago, That Aud Smell said:

It isn't happening so don't worry about it. 

[Taro T]

8 hours ago, Thorner said:

I’ll agree to disagree, simply because every single place I see the rule listed it’s not what you say - so I don’t think I’m confusing anything. (the link has the full rule, one of the conditions of an emergency recall in general is being cap strapped), but if you post an updated version of the official rules I quoted, I’d be happy to change my mind if I’m simply wrong 

otherwise, we can always see how it shakes out in season

Look it up yourself.  You are stuck in section 50 of the CBA.  The controlling section for this issue is section 13.

Having too many players take ill at 1 time does not, under normal conditions, trigger section 50 issues.  That is what these section 13 emergency provisions primarily deal with.

[LGR4GM]

1 minute ago, Taro T said:

Look it up yourself.  You are stuck in section 50 of the CBA.  The controlling section for this issue is section 13.

Having too many players take ill at 1 time does not, under normal conditions, trigger section 50 issues.  That is what these section 13 emergency provisions primarily deal with.

You know what's crazy, that you know the sections of the CBA this well. I will believe you, I just don't think Buffalo would make that move though. 

[Taro T]

2 minutes ago, LGR4GM said:

You know what's crazy, that you know the sections of the CBA this well. I will believe you, I just don't think Buffalo would make that move though. 

It likely never comes up.  But again, the original post, the response to which you chimed in and began this tangent, was a lament over what happens should Reimer get claimed off waivers.  Which likely is a 50-50 proposition at worst.  (The B's Swayman situation being a wildcard.  Could see them wanting him to backup Korpisalo until they get Swayman resolved.)

[dudacek]

8 hours ago, PerreaultForever said:

Because they did it last year. They won't waive Reimer because they'd be afraid he'd get claimed (maybe even Boston given the Swayman debacle) and they want to play Levi so they will keep all 3. If Levi isn't good he will get sent down later or if Levi is good maybe eventually they waive Reimer but not right away. Just a guess. 

How will it work? Fine, if they stay relatively healthy. 

By "how will it work?" I meant how would they use the trio?

They just gave UPL a 5-year deal, safe to say they expect he'll get at least half the starts.

So you basically think they will stash Reimer in the press box and make Levi the #2 to start? Where each ends up depends on whether Levi sinks or swims?

That's certainly possible.

Edited October 1 by dudacek

[Thorner]

1 hour ago, Taro T said:

Look it up yourself.  You are stuck in section 50 of the CBA.  The controlling section for this issue is section 13.

Having too many players take ill at 1 time does not, under normal conditions, trigger section 50 issues.  That is what these section 13 emergency provisions primarily deal with.

Nope. That section refers to players who have been “loaned”. A CHL player signing a contract mid-season is by definition not on lone, according to cba as I understand it 

the player would have to be / could only be claimed under the designations I listed 

Edited October 1 by Thorner
Go ahead, give me the 50th X you’ve given me in thread ;)

[Thorner]

32 minutes ago, dudacek said:

By "how will it work?" I meant how would they use the trio?

They just gave UPL a 5-year deal, safe to say they expect he'll get at least half the starts.

So you basically think they will stash Reimer in the press box and make Levi the #2 to start? Where each ends up depends on whether Levi sinks or swims?

That's certainly possible.

How do you see the goalies shaking out? 

[dudacek]

18 minutes ago, Thorner said:

How do you see the goalies shaking out? 

I want Luukkonen and Levi to mimic the Ullmark Swayman model and the 3rd goalie question to be as relevant as it was in the days of Miller and Hasek.

I think that's what the Sabres want too.

I think Reimer is aware of that.

Which makes me think that if any team wanted Reimer on a $1M deal to be their #2, they could have signed him this summer, so the Sabres are probably reasonably comfortable waiving him in the flood of goalies getting waived this week.

Boston claiming him wouldn't bother me at all. Effectively it probably means he will become a Sabre (Amerk) again as soon as Swayman signs.

If either UPL or Levi goes down short-term the other will be capable of carrying the load even without Reimer. Long-term and they would have to spend some of that draft capital on another Reimer.

[Brawndo]

Out of the candidates to be waived Rousek, Bryson, Clague, Gilbert and Reimer which one does the organization really not have a suitable replacement for? 
 

That’s Reimer without a doubt. 
 

Both Anaheim and Boston have unsettled goaltending situations, so even though the risk is minimal of him being claimed, it is still possible. 

The three headed goalie monster sucks, but they do have the ability to move Levi back and forth to Rochester to maximize his number of starts. 
Give UPL and Levi the bulk of  the practice time and work in Reimer as needed. UPL and Levi both missed time last season do to injuries. 
 

I would waive Rousek, Bryson, Clague and assign Kulich to Rochester. 
 

My 13th forward would be Krebs and the 7th defenseman would be Gilbert as he brings more physical play than Bryson. 

[Thorner]

22 minutes ago, Brawndo said:

Out of the candidates to be waived Rousek, Bryson, Clague, Gilbert and Reimer which one does the organization really not have a suitable replacement for? 
 

That’s Reimer without a doubt. 
 

Both Anaheim and Boston have unsettled goaltending situations, so even though the risk is minimal of him being claimed, it is still possible. 

The three headed goalie monster sucks, but they do have the ability to move Levi back and forth to Rochester to maximize his number of starts. 
Give UPL and Levi the bulk of  the practice time and work in Reimer as needed. UPL and Levi both missed time last season do to injuries. 
 

I would waive Rousek, Bryson, Clague and assign Kulich to Rochester. 
 

My 13th forward would be Krebs and the 7th defenseman would be Gilbert as he brings more physical play than Bryson. 

It’s such a daunting consideration in a way, after hearing guys like Jake Allen talk first-hand about how difficult it makes performing on all 3 goalies in question. It doesn’t just suck, it’s risky. 

[dudacek]

26 minutes ago, Brawndo said:

Out of the candidates to be waived Rousek, Bryson, Clague, Gilbert and Reimer which one does the organization really not have a suitable replacement for? 
 

That’s Reimer without a doubt. 
 

Both Anaheim and Boston have unsettled goaltending situations, so even though the risk is minimal of him being claimed, it is still possible. 

The three headed goalie monster sucks, but they do have the ability to move Levi back and forth to Rochester to maximize his number of starts. 
Give UPL and Levi the bulk of  the practice time and work in Reimer as needed. UPL and Levi both missed time last season do to injuries. 
 

I would waive Rousek, Bryson, Clague and assign Kulich to Rochester. 
 

My 13th forward would be Krebs and the 7th defenseman would be Gilbert as he brings more physical play than Bryson. 

 

2 minutes ago, Thorner said:

It’s such a daunting consideration in a way, after hearing guys like Jake Allen talk first-hand about how difficult it makes performing on all 3 goalies in question. It doesn’t just suck, it’s risky. 

These are both solid arguments.

It kinda hinges on the expectations of Reimer: if he and the team are OK with basically being an afterthought for the time being then it might work.

I think we're overthinking this a little too much.

Every team with 2 NHL goalies waives its 3G. You only keep a 3rd if you've got a lot of uncertainty and/or he's a valued but not-ready prospect you don't want to lose.

If Levi is ready, waive Reimer. If he's not, send down Levi.

[Thorner]

1 minute ago, dudacek said:

 

These are both solid arguments.

It kinda hinges on the expectations of Reimer: if he and the team are OK with basically being an afterthought for the time being then it might work.

I think we're overthinking this a little too much.

Every team with 2 NHL goalies waives its 3G. You only keep a 3rd if you've got a lot of uncertainty and/or he's a valued but not-ready prospect you don't want to lose.

If Levi is ready, waive Reimer. If he's not, send down Levi.

I think I agree. It’s sort of a “if BOTH Levi and UPL are incapable of shouldering a starter’s workload we are screwed anyways” type deal. It’s probably time to pick the best two and let it ride 

If they can’t make a roster move at G with conviction, by now, they have an issue with the stable of rostered goalies 

[Thorner]

This is the first offseason in a while I feel that Adams has the goalies in a good spot to start the year. THIS is finally a “what could Adams have even done?” situation, if the goalies didn’t pan out.

I don’t KNOW that UPL would replicate or come close to his performance last season, but logically we should be betting on him, in a team building /roster construction sense, to do so. I don’t really think we can afford to hedge, if you take my meaning. 

Levi is a fine backup under that prism, particularly supported by Reimer. Components A and B are confidence inducing at least the point I wouldn’t prioritize keeping Reimer at the expense of the roster as a whole 

Obv at end of day KA is still liable for the actual results at the position, but I don’t think one could argue Adams plan at G for this season was a misguided one *at the time he instituted it* - unfortunately for GMs the job description is to make the right choices - not merely choices that are defensible within the moment they are made 

Edited October 1 by Thorner

[Brawndo]

Roster moves 

 

 

The players released from tryouts will also report to Rochester 

[Brawndo]

Players on waivers 

 

[Flashsabre]

22 minutes ago, Brawndo said:

Players on waivers 

 

Damn if we lose Sandstrom to waivers😜

[PerreaultForever]

5 hours ago, dudacek said:

By "how will it work?" I meant how would they use the trio?

They just gave UPL a 5-year deal, safe to say they expect he'll get at least half the starts.

So you basically think they will stash Reimer in the press box and make Levi the #2 to start? Where each ends up depends on whether Levi sinks or swims?

That's certainly possible.

Yes, that's it. They are hedging their bets. They don't want to piss off Levi by sending him down to start the year but they are not sure he's ready so Reimer is insurance. They could send Reimer down but I do think they'd be afraid of a waiver claim, at least until Levi has played some games and they know for sure. 

They can get away with it since their injury fill ins in most cases are safe in terms of waivers and they can be sent up or down easily. 

[shrader]

20 hours ago, Taro T said:

And btw, what a beeyotch it is to try to find a copy of that agreement between the NHL & CHL (even the prior one from 2013 that was renewed through '29 in '22).  Apparently a copy of it was on the Oregon state website due to hearings on whether amateur athletes (CHL players) were to be treated as employees for Workman's Comp type benefits but it does not appear to still be there.

Should anyone know where a copy exists, would love to see a link or even how to find a hard copy.

Can that person find the AHL CBA while they’re at it?

[Doohicksie]

6 hours ago, Flashsabre said:

Damn if we lose Sandstrom to waivers😜

Come on Swayman.... work your magic. 😄

 

[PerreaultForever]

6 minutes ago, Doohicksie said:

Come on Swayman.... work your magic. 😄

 

would you trade for him - haha. 

[Doohicksie]

1 minute ago, PerreaultForever said:

would you trade for him - haha. 

I'm leaning toward no, to be honest.  If he commands 8+ mil for 8 years... He's good, but is he *that* good?

[PerreaultForever]

2 hours ago, Doohicksie said:

I'm leaning toward no, to be honest.  If he commands 8+ mil for 8 years... He's good, but is he *that* good?

I don't think he's worth it. He might be, but it's not a sure thing. Bussi looked pretty good tonight, so goaltending might not sink them but it's definitely not the Bruins position of strength any more. 

[triumph_communes]

If we had a player claimed off of waivers that’d be such a good feeling to have again 

[Wyldnwoody44]

These name changes are messing with my head 😂😂

[shrader]

3 hours ago, triumph_communes said:

If we had a player claimed off of waivers that’d be such a good feeling to have again 

How many players actually get claimed at the start of the year league wide these days anyway? It has to be single digits. I wouldn’t be surprised if you could count them on one hand.