Taro T

To the bolded, correct. Skinner has a NMC and must therefore be protected. The only exception is that Skinner may voluntarily waive his NMC strictly for the expansion draft and that would allow the Sabres to leave him exposed and protect 7 other forwards rather than the 6 other they can protect at present. (He also could voluntarily waive his NMC to be traded somewhere. There's an outside, slim chance of the former happening. No way in Hades they get lucky enough for the latter to happen.) Okposo, however, has a NTC and does not need to be protected. Seattle can claim him without his approval in the expansion draft. They may not trade for him without his express approval.

They can't take Skinner w/out his permission due to the NMC. Okposo has a NTC so he will be exposed in the expansion draft. So he can be Seattle's selection from Buffalo. But the NTC makes it pretty tough to, um, trade him.

To get Okposo to Seattle, they have to take him in the expansion draft unless he really wants to be a Kracker. They can trade make additional trades, but just how much value is there in punting Okposo in a year when Eichel likely is off the books?

Items that make the "you have to tell us who you'd take with 1" problematic: Okposo has a NTC, so to get him on the Kraken, unless he REALLY wants to be that team's elder statesman, they have to select him in the expansion draft which IIRC happens 2 days before the entry draft. And, after the trade has been executed, the Krackers really don't have any incentive to refrain from, say trading that pick to Anaheim for 3 OA, possibly leaving the Sabres losing out on the guy they want & also possibly yutzing up an Eichel deal (which, IMHO, is a good thing, but guessing Adams won't see that way). And, an item which is more a technical matter on your other proposal, the Sabres would have to trade Miller to get the Krackers to take Okposo, they can't trade Okposo to get them to take Miller. And, not directly related to your point but merely another observation, that would mean the Sabres will definitely not retain salary from an Okposo deal.

Pretty sure you're correct. But especially if Eichel & 1-4 others that should be part of this team moving forward are gone, that $6MM cap hit is no burden whatsoever & really don't see the difference in value between Borgen & Miller or a UFA as being a high 2nd rounder, nor the difference between Bjork & the Sabres 9th available F as being worth a high 2nd rounder either. So, if he can be moved cheaply enough, sure, move that contract. But don't go crazy trying to do it. That cap space isn't too valuable this year, unless Adams & Granato are really good poker players & the full on youth movement is a bluff / misread worse than Perreault for Lemaire was.

If all it takes to get to keep Borgen & Bjork and lose Okposo's cap hit is a 4th or a 'meh' prospect or maybe even a 3rd, then sure. But if it's more than a 3rd, no thank you.

So, did you delete this & then repost?

Afawk, no there was no specific deadline added by ownership. But the Sabres will find more value to say pick 3 OA if there are still an entire draft pool minus 2 picks rather than knowing that pick became Beniers or Clarke or whomever. (It keeps the value if that is the guy the Sabres wanted with it, but it has less value if the guy that was picked there isn't the one the Sabres would've taken there.) So, there is a defacto time limit (2 actually) - prior to the Seattle draft, which is a soft limit, & prior to the pick is used at/prior to the entry draft, which is a hard limit for making the trade this off-season (presuming a pick will be part of the return).

This. If Eichel, Reinhart, & Ristolainen are all gone and the new core are all guys on ELC &/or 2nd contracts, then Skinner's contract becomes an annoyance rather than what it is now, which is a constraint. And that annoyance ends up a cautionary tale of what NOT to do.

Unless Adams is a world class poker player (and am hoping he is, but not expecting that) there is almost no possibility Eichel is still a Sabre after the draft is completed. He'll be traded for a package including a high pick. The true question IMHO is whether he'll still be a Sabre when the rosters are set for the Seattle draft. My guess is he isn't, but that's far more a 50/50 proposition.

So, how should one do it?

Sure, adjust for age, but HOW does one properly adjust for age? Only 3.8% of forwards drafted become "stars" (however defined in this case). And though there's the obvious (and well documented) decline in # of players that get drafted as we move from January to December (with the September bump due to that being the draft cutoff age) due to youth leagues all having a firm 12/31 - 1/1 age cutoff date & the bigger kids generally getting into better programs than their smaller later birthday'd brethren; there isn't any immediately apparent order to when the "star" forwards are born. In raw #'s, May has the most stars, March the fewest with January & November being right in the middle. Would expect cofactors such as height at a particular age start to provide more order.

Pretty sure you're going to get your wish. (Doesn't mean you 2 are right. 😉 )

Keep 'em both. 😉

That's cool. But what had brought up the dynasties was another poster stating this year's Tampa squad might have been the best & deepest he's ever seen and pointing out there were several teams 30-50 years ago that were better and IMHO deeper with that '77 Cup winner as the best of them all. Again, IMHO. Thanks for the clarification.

If McCabe comes back, they need to have a plan to fill his spot in October & November regardless. If they don't really care about the results this season, and if the "big 3" are gone, they likely don't, then could see Samuelson or Miller flipping sides penciled in there. Maybe they bring Pilut back. Would prefer they find a 4/5 in FA that can fill in until Jake is ready, but pretty sure my preferred offseason isn't even in Adams' contingency plans.

They were a good pairing for longer than that under Krueger. And, it doesn't really matter that it was McCabe that makes the pairing work. McCabe is that pairing's Tallinder or McKee. So what? What should matter to you is whether the pairing works or not. The results are what matters. And that that pairing is a 2nd pairing, rather than a 1st, doesn't change it being a very good #2. Nor does it change the fact that it's been their best pairing. If Dahlin continues to grow, he and Borgen show signs of being able to be at least a good #2 as well, if not a 1. Work the forwards around them properly and upgrade the goaltending and both can be good enough for the team to compete. Find the partner for Jokiharju to make that pairing look like a 2 as well & they've got something.

OK, everybody that's happy with the hire &/or accepting the hire, ...

McCabe-Ristolainen has been the Sabres best pairing, with the brief exception of Scandella-Jokiharju, regardless of coach since they've been playing together. But sure, Granato, who's primary selling point is putting players in situations they can excel at rather than locking them into a set "system" is the one that will #### that up. (We really need that :wacko: emoji back. 😉 ) Odds are 1 or both aren't back, so it's likely moot anyway.

You know EXACTLY what you're getting with that pairing. Or is Granato not as good of a coach as everyone says he is? Didn't think of that, did you? 😉

Well yes, nobody wants Eakin back nor Irwin in any role higher than 8th initially on the depth chart. But Eakin is under contract & couldn't recall if Irwin is as well. Reider & Sheahan are UFAs and it is up to them whether they come back. Could see Sheahan coming back but it is his decision presuming Granato doesn't have somebody from his travels that he sees fitting into that 4C/5C/13th F role that Sheahan occupied this year.

Yes, he can. But we don't know what we're getting with that new pairing. We're also almost definitely getting to deal with the "learning a new partner" growing pains at least the 1st 1/2;of this coming season & likely all of it unless they "click" right off. It's far more likely McCabe & his new partner won't click. @Thorny brings a good point about McCabe's injury history, but that is more of an argument to dump both guys than just Ristolainen IMHO.

This team will not have Staal, Hall, nor Hutton at an absolute minimum. Eakin & Irwin aren't going to get regular usage either and it is very likely Reider & Sheahan don't get brought back as well. Vegas will claim somebody too. And it is up to McCabe and Ullmark as to whether they are Sabres in October. That's 35% - 50% of the typical crew iced under the now fired coach gone from this year's squad. How exactly is keeping Eichel, Reinhart, & Ristolainen keeping "everyone around?" Keep the good & great players and upgrade the duds. That's how teams improve TODAY rather than in 3 years. (Or 13 years, but who's counting? 😉 )

To the bolded, YES. When you get a pairing with synergy, encourage it. GMs way too often forget to consider chemistry when deciding to move a guy out (or in, for that matter). Jokiharju hasn't been close to the player he was prior to trading Scandella. He's young, but doubt he ever looks better than he did during that 1/2 season. And if McCabe won't re-sign, get what you can for Ristolainen & plan to need to bring in 2 vets rather than just 1.

That '77 Habs squad didn't have Laperriere and the Trembley was Mario, not JC.