Taro T

Probably Sabres call as to whether to make it a 1 way or 2 way QO. He only played 40 games this last season and only has 131 GP the last 3 years. But IF he missed at least 20 games this past year due to being on IR or a total of 49 games due to being on IR the past 3 years combined, then yes, the QO needed to be on a 1 way deal. Know he missed time in January due to a LBI suffered in practice, but don't know how many games he missed while on IR. Good call.

Yeah, not sure if they're following the Bryson model of not handing out a QO to a guy or if they're following the Kahun model of not handing out a QO to a guy. Guess we'll know which it is pretty soon.

Veteran. Cheap. Has looked good AT TIMES. Pretty sure this describes every goalie brought in by the Sabres from the outside post-Lehner. (Not including Levi.)

Yes, prior to the MOU a player needed to essentially be on a team for a full year to be eligible for an 8 year contract with his current club. This was done to keep players from getting traded at the deadline and then become eligible for the 8 year deal. This was supposed to be an incentive allowing teams to keep "home grown" talent as the team the player had been with was the only one that could offer 8 year deals; new teams could only offer 7 year deals. With the MOU, they modified that and allowed players that get traded by the deadline to also be eligible for 8 year deals. So, while the rumor was Vegas and TO were negotiating a trade for Marner because TO was going to press tampering charges, it is also possible that the reason they were negotiating was to allow Vegas to give him an 8 year deal even though technically they could only offer him a 7 year deal. And as to somebody else's Q about teams interviewing upcoming UFAs, that practice was eliminated with the MOU. (Was pretty sure hadn't seen that allowed since then; and that's because that is when the practice was removed. Really don't understand why they did that. It seemed to be a useful tool for teams, players, and agents. Thus they must disallow it. It made sense. 😉 )

Don't see any reason at all for them to not want Bernard-Docker. He played very well with Power last year (and there weren't many D that have done so). Would want him as the 7 in an absolute worst case scenario. Am hoping that @thewookie1 is onto something with his thought that this allows the Sabres to work out a contract with him without him having arbitration eligibility. (There's nothing to arbitrate over when neither side is locked in to the other.) Don't recall ottomh ANY Sabres going to arbitration under Pegula (maybe Kennedy's was under TP but thought that was in the Golisano era); maybe that's a hill that Pegula WILL die over - NO salary arbitration.) If that isn't it, really don't see a solid rationale for the Sabres to have not offered him his $866k as a placeholder to keep his rights.

Correct. They had a "legal tampering period" for about 2-3 days prior to the new league year starting for a few years, but that is no longer a thing. Don't recall the exact year they got rid of that, but it's been this way pretty much at least since the MOU was agreed to.

He was on his 2nd contract. No performance bonuses allowed.

Kisakov not getting a QO makes a ton of sense. On the surface of it, Bernard-Docker not getting one doesn't make nearly as much. Seemed to be worth at least $900k IMHO. Not sure why the Sabres would sweat the extra $60-100k unless they plan on using that in FA &/or trading for pieces that are significantly more expensive than what they currently have. And that's completely outside their MO.

He played well for the Sabres after he arrived. The only way this makes sense is if they have a deal for less than $866K that Bernard-Docker said would be acceptable to him provided nobody else beats it and if for some reason the Sabres are confident that nobody will beat that deal.

Why Santy Claus, WHY? Per puckpedia, his QO is only $866k. If they already have a deal in place with him that they'll re-sign him to $805k again provided nobody else tries to sign him, cool, I guess. But are you REALLY going to go THAT hard after a true difference maker that you need that extra $60k in your quiver to make it all work?

Well, it did and it didn't with Zucker. He was one of their best forwards last year (definitely in the top 4 or so). But the team still fell further back from the playoffs than they were either of the 2 prior years. So, on a microlevel it worked. On a macro level, at best it was too little.

And apparently there was a weird and really late trade.

How do we KNOW there wasn't some communication? Because nobody is reporting that the Loafs are threatening the Sabres with tampering unlike the way they're threatening the Kin-ig-hits. He is STILL under contract and is a Loaf until midnight tonight (barring a really weird late trade). Other GMs can't reach out to him until he's a FA.

Why wouldn't he be willing to sign a new contract roughly a year ago but be willing to sign one now? Because he wanted to see what he's worth on the open market and that wasn't possible a year ago. Heck, Stamkos several years back took TB into the tamper period before re-signing with him because he wanted to know what he was worth on the open market and wanted to know that what he was getting offered by Tampa was fair. These guys typically only get 1 (2 tops) chances to find out what they're truly worth. If he was open to being a Sabre one year ago, why wouldn't he still be open to it. Surely @Sabres Fan in NS still shouts that he should sign in Buffalo any time he goes back for a Junior team reunion, right? So the bug is there in his ear already. 😉 Just need Adams to make an offer he'll consider worth accepting and have Kekalainen work his Gaudreau magic convincing him Buffalo is the place to be. And after Winnipeg all those years, it HAS to look good, right? 😉

Because like some comedian said about what the negotiating process must've been like when they got Sean Connery to be the voice of the dragon in the movie Dragonheart. The phone conversation from Connery's side must've sounded something like this: No way, it's too klitschy, it's beneath me, it's a joke, it's, it pays HOW much? As @Weave said, you miss 100% of the shots you don't take. What's the worst that taking a shot does? It changes not a God blessed thing. What's the best that taking a shot does? It just MIGHT work. And even if its only a 2% chance, it's worth taking. And like somebody else said, why not see if you can have Josh Allen in on the phone conversation when Kekaliainen and Adams call him up? Fork it. Think outside the box for once.

Well, then, as Emily Lutella used to say, "nevermind."

Isn't convincing a guy like Marner to come to a backwater oasis supposed to be the primary skill setting Kekalainen apart from other potential mentors for Adams? Jarmo, git 'er done.

Aren't NCAA players only allowed to accept one paid trip to the NHL team that holds their rights, or did that change with the NCAA's NIL changes? If that is still a thing, would expect him here at the prospects tournament which will be more valuable to see how he stacks up against other nearly / early pro players than seeing how he stacks up against kids barely 18.

Don't want Danault now 5 years later. Will bring up thoughts of what should've been every single time he touches the puck. Desperately wanted him 5 years ago rather than blowing everything up once again.

Would say Östlund is the obvious trade piece. He still likely has value around the league but Helenius is the better prospect now and the Sabres would be loathe to part with him; Noah not as much IMHO. (And Noah still might pan out as an NHLer.) Rosen only gets added as a trade piece if somebody needs SOMETHING, ANYTHING else other than a 6th or 7th round draft pick coming back. Yes, Buffalo would love to deal him; but somebody has to actually WANT him using up one of their 50 slots in order for them to successfully do so. Hope for his sake, somebody really doesn't want Adams throwing in a 7th to balance everything out.

AND the plan WAS adjusted about a year and a half ago. Original plan never would've seen Mittelstadt, Savoie, &/or Cozens traded. Now their own can be traded provided the return isn't anyone over the age of 25.

Depends. IF that $5.5MM they netted in cap space by only getting ~75-80% of what Peterka is worth gets used to really shake up the team would rather have that original deal the way it is. If (when) they hang on to that cap space like Scrooge McDuck holds onto a nickel, would absolutely 100% prefer this adder to the deal leaving them only a little over $2MM of wasted cap space.

At 19. Expecting one to be significanlty closer to his ceiling for that stat than the other.

Wow, they can only put together 1 more F line using F's than they could using G's. Wonder if any of the G's skate out for kicks. (No, not really, but it would be fun to see.)

Speaking of which, wonder just how much of standing pat at the trade deadline 2 years ago (edit, eh, 3 years now actually) was Granato believing he had what they needed in the room, Pegula not wanting to spend any more than he already'd agreed to, and Adams not wanting to lose any of his precious prospects? Expecting it was most likely most heavily Donny's beief in his room that led to that. And he was literally 2 goals from the trade deadline on away from being right. 2 more goals in any game they lost in regulation by 1 goal and he was right and the whole trajectory of how things are going and viewed changes. Of course, make an adjustment to something that happened that's that small and maybe Teddy Roosevelt never becomes President. Wonder if Granato ever says, yeah, we should've finalized that offer of x and a lottery protected 1st for y. Should've bought in on that one. We were THAT friggin' close.