Re-sign, trade or keep? Which players on the Sabres would you put in the trade market and when?

[LGR4GM]

11 minutes ago, quill said:

You are correct. My bad on the percentage part. I got my info from the same source, only it was a page that only included the 25 players with the most FO wins, of which Cozens was the only Sabre on it:

https://www.foxsports.com/nhl/stats?category=faceoffs&sort=fow&season=2024&seasonType=reg&sortOrder=desc

Anyway, this team loses too many faceoffs of the crucial variety.  I think as a team we're not too far from the bottom of the list in FO's.

You're good. This place exists to bring this stuff up. Even as bombastic as I come across, I learn stuff from every counter point made. 

[mjd1001]

13 hours ago, quill said:

Where did I say Cozens was a faceoff specialist? I said he was one of the only decent faceoff men we have. According to Fox Sports Stats he's at 49.6% and 23rd in the league in FO wins. Can you name one player on the Sabres who's currently doing better than him in that department?

He's not decent. He's bad.  He was bad last year, the year before, and up until the last 2 weeks his numbers were very bad this year.  He had 2 good weeks of winning faceoffs, that doesn't elevate him to 'decent'. He's still bad, just he has had a 2 week stretch that make THIS YEARS number only below average (and yes, 50% is still below average for a center.  Centers should win slightly more than 50% because they are often takign draws against less experienced wingers when the opposing center gets thrown out.

He has been decent for the past few weeks, but for the rest of his career, including this years numbers... he is...bad.

[JohnC]

11 minutes ago, mjd1001 said:

He's not decent. He's bad.  He was bad last year, the year before, and up until the last 2 weeks his numbers were very bad this year.  He had 2 good weeks of winning faceoffs, that doesn't elevate him to 'decent'. He's still bad, just he has had a 2 week stretch that make THIS YEARS number only below average (and yes, 50% is still below average for a center.  Centers should win slightly more than 50% because they are often takign draws against less experienced wingers when the opposing center gets thrown out.

He has been decent for the past few weeks, but for the rest of his career, including this years numbers... he is...bad.

Why single out Cozens for his inadequacy in winning faceoffs? In general, the team has been below par for years. This is a franchise that has had a number of long-term deficiencies without being able to improve on them. An intelligently run franchise addresses problems while this stolid franchise ignores them. That's why the cycle of mediocrity continues to repeat itself. 

[LGR4GM]

11 minutes ago, JohnC said:

Why single out Cozens for his inadequacy in winning faceoffs? In general, the team has been below par for years. This is a franchise that has had a number of long-term deficiencies without being able to improve on them. An intelligently run franchise addresses problems while this stolid franchise ignores them. That's why the cycle of mediocrity continues to repeat itself. 

Ryan McLeod is 53.2% and has won 297 faceoffs. I would say that they at the very least partially addressed this. 

We aren't bad because of faceoffs, we are bad because of effort and roster building. 

[mjd1001]

13 minutes ago, JohnC said:

Why single out Cozens for his inadequacy in winning faceoffs? In general, the team has been below par for years. This is a franchise that has had a number of long-term deficiencies without being able to improve on them. An intelligently run franchise addresses problems while this stolid franchise ignores them. That's why the cycle of mediocrity continues to repeat itself. 

I singled him out because the person I was replying to was saying him being 'decent' was a good point of his game.

 

[JohnC]

7 minutes ago, LGR4GM said:

Ryan McLeod is 53.2% and has won 297 faceoffs. I would say that they at the very least partially addressed this. 

We aren't bad because of faceoffs, we are bad because of effort and roster building. 

In general, our team faceoff stat is not impressive. And it should be noted that sometimes stats don't capture the fact that the Sabres lose a lot of draws at critical times and situations where it more significantly impacts the game. 

To say that we are bad of our effort and roster building is stating the obvious. It's like saying water is wet. Everyone is aware of it. 

[DarthEbriate]

Folks improve at face-offs with strength and experience. And, most importantly, by having wingers who are willing to fight for the possession.

Krebs has shown a dramatic improvement this season in his faceoffs now at age 24. Cozens (23) might just break 50% in a year or two.

5 minutes ago, JohnC said:

In general, our team faceoff stat is not impressive. And it should be noted that sometimes stats don't capture the fact that the Sabres lose a lot of draws at critical times and situations where it more significantly impacts the game. 

To say that we are bad of our effort and roster building is stating the obvious. It's like saying water is wet. Everyone is aware of it. 

This is the key on faceoffs. In late-game situations they've been eye-test terrible against the guys the opposing coaches put out to win.

[LGR4GM]

14 minutes ago, JohnC said:

In general, our team faceoff stat is not impressive. And it should be noted that sometimes stats don't capture the fact that the Sabres lose a lot of draws at critical times and situations where it more significantly impacts the game. 

To say that we are bad of our effort and roster building is stating the obvious. It's like saying water is wet. Everyone is aware of it. 

Stats also don't capture what happens after you win faceoff. If I win a draw and it goes between my defense and down the ice... good for me? If Buffalo wasn't so goddamn pathetic at winning puck battles, losing a faceoff would be less of a problem. You are focused on a tree while the forest is on fire. 

[K-9]

We can directly attribute lost face-offs to every loss incurred when the opponent pulled their goalie in favor of the extra attacker and then scored ensuing tying goals to force OT in games we then went on to lose. Latest example being last week vs. Colorado when we lost face-off after face-off in the D zone and couldn’t clear the puck. 

Like Marty always says, face-offs aren’t important except when they’re important.

Bring back Curtis Lazar, face-off specialist extraordinaire. 

[JohnC]

38 minutes ago, LGR4GM said:

Stats also don't capture what happens after you win faceoff. If I win a draw and it goes between my defense and down the ice... good for me? If Buffalo wasn't so goddamn pathetic at winning puck battles, losing a faceoff would be less of a problem. You are focused on a tree while the forest is on fire. 

You lack the self-awareness to recognize how obnoxious you can sometimes be. Have a good day and admire yourself in your self-aggrandizing mirror. 

[LGR4GM]

1 hour ago, JohnC said:

You lack the self-awareness to recognize how obnoxious you can sometimes be. Have a good day and admire yourself in your self-aggrandizing mirror. 

Isn't about me. That's what you and PerreaultForever and others never get. I don't matter. The solution and the understanding matter. 

[JohnC]

3 hours ago, LGR4GM said:

Isn't about me. That's what you and PerreaultForever and others never get. I don't matter. The solution and the understanding matter. 

It's really not a major challenge to recognize what the solutions are for this archaically run franchise. In this case, even the blind can see what is so starkly obvious. 

I'm not out to get into any nasty duels with anyone. It's a waste of time and diminishes the forum. 

Edited January 8 by JohnC

[MDFan]

At this point, I would not want Adams to make any significant moves.  That should be saved for a competent front office structure who would have free hand to blow this ***** up and start over.  

[GASabresIUFAN]

1 hour ago, MDFan said:

At this point, I would not want Adams to make any significant moves.  That should be saved for a competent front office structure who would have free hand to blow this ***** up and start over.  

I’ve mentioned this before, but how can you trust a guy who acquires a 3rd puck moving high draft pick LHD when he already has 2 taking up 25% of his internal cap? How do you trust a guy who trades away his most versatile forward but primarily a center, when you don’t have enough good centers on your roster?  How do you trust a guy that doesn’t bring in defensive D when that has been the team’s greatest weakness for years and your two top offensive D don’t have good partners?  How do you allow a guy to keep his job when he can’t adequate evaluate the issues with his roster?  The answer is in a real organization the guy would have been long gone.

Take the Devils for example.  They have a very good young team, but they showed their defense wasn’t working, their GM brought in proven veteran D to solidify thr group and mentor the youngsters.  The next season, when the goalies didn’t prove up to the task, he brought in 2 new goalies.  Shocking isn’t it?  
 

Adams, the asst coaches, and Forton all need to be fired yesterday.  Sadly we both know this isn’t happening.

[GASabresIUFAN]

Given the EP rumors and discussions, I thought I’d bump this topic and ask again, who do we feel are part of the solution and who are the problem on the ice?  Who are you willing to part with and who is a definite no. 
 

I’d divide our current organization as follows:
Top players - TNT, Tuch, Dahlin

Young roster players with more upside - Benson,  Quinn, JJP, Kulich, Power and Byram (and maybe Krebs)

Young vets - Cozens, McLeod, Samuelsson, UPL

Good Vets on expiring contracts -Zucker and Greenway

Roster filler - Lafferty, Kubel, Joki, Malenstyn, Bryson, Reimer and Gilbert

Top prospects - Top 5 pick, Helenius, 

Good prospects nearing ready - Rosen, Wahlberg, Levi, Östlund, Novikov, maybe Neuchev. 

Other close prospects - Kozak and Johnson and Komarov.   Johnson and Kozak are here because of limited NHL upside.  

So that’s what we got to trade.  They aren’t burning it down again, so who are willing to keep?

 

[Stoner]

Why.

[GASabresIUFAN]

4 minutes ago, Stoner said:

Why.

Because these are the questions good organizations ask when they evaluate their team.  
 

 

 

 

[Weave]

1 hour ago, GASabresIUFAN said:

Because these are the questions good organizations ask when they evaluate their team.  
 

 

 

 

None of them should be off the table.  Show me the players coming back and lets talk.

[Stoner]

1 hour ago, GASabresIUFAN said:

Because these are the questions good organizations ask when they evaluate their team.  
 

 

 

 

We are not organizations.

[Pimlach]

On 1/8/2025 at 10:04 AM, K-9 said:

We can directly attribute lost face-offs to every loss incurred when the opponent pulled their goalie in favor of the extra attacker and then scored ensuing tying goals to force OT in games we then went on to lose. Latest example being last week vs. Colorado when we lost face-off after face-off in the D zone and couldn’t clear the puck. 

Like Marty always says, face-offs aren’t important except when they’re important.

Bring back Curtis Lazar, face-off specialist extraordinaire. 

I always think of Don Luce when it comes to winning a critical face-off. 
 

The reality is the center can win the draw but if his team does get the puck and maintain possession then he doesn’t really win.   We a problem with this.  This team is passive in their defensive zone and quick to go into a shell.  

[steveoath]

Can’t remember if I’ve replied to this. 
 

but for me the only untouchables are Dahlin, Benson and Kulich. I would listen to offers on anyone else. 

[JohnC]

2 hours ago, GASabresIUFAN said:

Because these are the questions good organizations ask when they evaluate their team.  
 

 

 

 

Do you want an incompetent GM to make a consequential deal while he is under duress for his failings? The most consequential deal that our silent and perplexing owner can do is hire a qualified GM to assess the roster and then make rational deals. 

[Pimlach]

37 minutes ago, Stoner said:

We are not organizations.

[Archie Lee]

Not that The Athletic's rankings are the be all and end all, but if you accept that they have some merit and you believe in the general idea that it is good to accumulate top players, then getting Pettersson for some combination of 3-4 assets that don't include Dahlin, Thompson, Tuch and Power, is probably a sound decision.  Pettersson would be our top player (according to the Athletic's rankings) with the four Sabres I list also making the top 120.

Pettersson gives me some cause for worry. Also, I don't like the idea of Adams making a big trade.  In a vacuum though, parting with Cozens, Byram, and one of Benson, Quinn, or Peterka, for Pettersson, would likely be viewed as a deal that makes us a better team. This would be particularly so, if it is not the only move and steps are taken to:

- get Dahlin and Power the right partners

- make a decision on Samuelsson and his contract

- keep Zucker and Greenway or add similar players in their place

- address the back-up goalie situation

- address the coaching staff

The problem I have, is the more you consider all of the additional moves that need to be made, the more obvious it becomes that we just don't have a GM who is up to it. So it ends up being the addition of an $11.6 million player with some questionable commitment, to an environment that is rather soul-sucking.  Not a great combo. 

[GASabresIUFAN]

43 minutes ago, JohnC said:

Do you want an incompetent GM to make a consequential deal while he is under duress for his failings? The most consequential deal that our silent and perplexing owner can do is hire a qualified GM to assess the roster and then make rational deals. 

Do I want Adams to make roster decisions? Of course not.  A real organization would have fired him before the new year.  However, TP isn't firing his lapdog and odds are he is going to be the GM next year as well.  Sadly, he is going to be making the decisions this deadline and again this off-season.  

The best we can hope for is that he has learned something the last few years and makes at least a deal or two that make some sense.  

Here are Adams' last 4 trades of note

1) McLeod and Tullio for Savoie - Savoie, a former top 10 pick, turned into a cost control middle six center.  While I'm not a McLeod fan, this is not a terrible trade. Savoie was past on the organizational depth chart by Benson and others.  

2) Malenstyn for a 2nd rd pick (43rd) - Wash drafts Cole Hutson with the pick (ouch).  Stupid waste of a good asset for a easily replaced player, but at least Malenstyn has played his role well.

3) Draft pick swap - Our 11th for SJS's 14th and 42nd.  SJ takes Dickinson and the Sabres draft Helenius and Kleber (Cole Hutson went next to Wash with our pick).  This is a reasonable trade down and Helenius is probably our top prospect.

4) Mitts for Byram - From an asset to asset trade, the deal is "fine," except the deal was done to save $ rather than improve the roster.  Byram is a redundant asset who we basically saved money on for one season and then have to re-sign (for more than Colo paid Mitts) or trade and we gave up our best playmaking center with no viable replacement on the roster.  

Edited Sunday at 07:27 PM by GASabresIUFAN