dudacek

Why not? Is he significantly worse than Corey Perry and Dylan Holloway, currently playing top 9 in the Stanley Cup final I’m not the kind of guy to build my lineup on a hierarchy system. The lines would depend more on role or chemistry. But in terms of ice time, I’d be giving Quinn and Tuch the most and Peterka Benson Skinner Greenway and new guy similar counts based on play and situation. Who were the 3rd liners out of Dumont, Hecht, Grier, Kotalik, Vanek, Afinogenov, Pominville and whichever of Connelly and Roy wasn’t playing centre?

Not disagreeing at all, but the heart of this team's offensive philosophy will be driven by its back end.

Isn't he saying the new guy and those 5 are the top 9 wingers, Greenway is knocked down?

So Gaustad, minus the faceoffs? For me, he's more the Grier: size and defensive conscience in a top 9 role.

I frequently see people pencilling Greenway in as a 4th-liner. I struggle to think of many teams who have a player as strong as Greenway on their 4th line. With the exception of the year he was in the doghouse and traded to Buffalo, Greenway was inarguably a 3rd-liner in Minnesota, part of what was considered one of the best 3rd lines in the game with Foligno and Ek. In Buffalo last year, he was actually 4th in ice time among forwards at more than 17 minutes a game, ahead of Cozens, Skinner and Peterka. Statistically, a 10-goal, 30-point player is a good 3rd-liner. His 28 points last year put him 64th among left wings. Throw in the fact that he is strong defensively and a mammoth human being, I tend to think of him as almost a prototypical 3rd-liner.

I might quibble about the way the pieces get used, but the only thing I'd say differently about the roster is Krebs is the 4C and I'm fine with him in that role, so long as the new 3C is sturdy and can win a faceoff. And I also think Adams will try to move Jokiharju if he can find a more physical 4/5 RD at similar or cheaper $$

Over the course of the season Levi put up good back-up goalie numbers, while UPL put up good starting goalie numbers. The counter-argument is that neither provided the same quality of play over the first 2 months of the season, where the season was lost. I took the "Levi timeline" thing to mean "the Sabres are planning to be good when Levi is ready to be an upper-echelon starter" which I don't really agree with, but that may not have been the intent of the original post.

Maybe I'm misreading you guys? Power will be 22 this coming season. Dahlin and Samuelsson 24, Thompson 26, Cozens 23 — the window should be opening now, not a few years down the road. To simplify, I would say the Sabres can and should be competitive over the entire 8 years of Dahlin's contract, which kicks in this fall. Or do you mean Cup conversation timeline, as opposed to playoff conversation timeline? If Quinn is the player much of Sabrespace seems to think he is, that's a heck of an addition to next year's roster.

LGR asked under what scenario Iginla gets past the Flames. To me, the answer is "if Berkley Catton (or name your player) is still on the board". There will be player available at 9 you can easily justify taking over Iginla.

Who is the worst player a top 12 pick has ever been moved for? The fact that it is in conversation tells me Adams has at least interest in adding a piece that is more than “around the-edges.”

The contracts tell me the timeline is the Thompson, Cozens, Samuelsson, Dahlin, Power timeline.

I’m really curious how Lindy plans to implement structure when so many of his key parts haven’t shown much of an aptitude for it. Cozens, Peterka, Skinner and Thompson: 4 of your top six play games based on beating opponents with their bodies, rather than their brains: “just throw it deep along the sidelines coach, I can beat this guy!” You can’t shield them all, and you certainly can’t bench them all. How much can you get them to change? I’m expecting a much different look to the forward lines. If you force Cozens into the matchup role - which it sounds like they want to do - do you put Tuch with him as the most structured of your top wingers? Then add Greenway as your best defensive winger and match them against Matthews, Point and the like? Same idea as Drury and Grier, back in the day? Can you find a Chandler Stevenson or Sam Bennett to anchor a sneaky good 2-way “2nd” line with an emerging Quinn? Can Benson improve enough to be a Quinn-like presence on the other side? Will that allow an all-offence “first”-line of Thompson Skinner and Peterka to wreak havoc a la Max, Vanek and Roy? Then Krebs going full pest between two new loads on the wing as a forechecking line? That’s something I could see Lindy doing, but it will acquire an above average new centre, as well as Cozens, Quinn and Benson taking a step.

I think the sweet spot for Skinner's raw value is when he's around your #6F — if he can play 15 minutes a night mostly with good offensive players, but not necessarily against the other team's best. Ideally for him, he's back with Tuch and Thompson again while Ruff creates a legitimate matchup line so that line doesn't have to consistently face the other team's best. I don't know if he's going to work on a 3rd line unless that line is with Roy and Vanek. Put Skinner with guys who are too structured or can't create chaos and you're wasting his skill. Put him against skilled structure and he tends to freelance and collapse whatever structure you are trying to create, tilting the ice in the wrong direction. Put him in the offensive zone in situations where his unit is more talented than the opponent's unit, he will feast. I fully expect Quinn to pass him this year, and it looked like Peterka may have passed him last year. That still makes him the #5F, which is pretty much where he can work. But I have my doubts of Peterka and Cozens being two thirds of a shutdown line, and therefore how the creation of a shutdown line will effect him. So I am concerned with all the talk of needing structure he will be squeezed out of a role where he can succeed by a more structured player. It really depends on who the Sabres can acquire to flesh out the lineup.

This board is going to call me a homer, but the Sabres shouldn’t have to add a thing if they offered Power. Brady Tkachuk put up 44 and 45 points in his first 2 seasons and didn’t have Rasmus Dahlin blocking him from playing on the power play. Yes, 6’4 nasty wingers with first-line scoring ability are unicorns. So are 6’6 defencemen who can skate and move the puck like Power can. Power is under contract for another 7 years, which will probably be the 7 best years of his career. Tkachuk has 4 years until he is a UFA. Defencemen are more important than wingers. If Power is the player he was in November 2 years from now, then he won’t get you Tkachuk. But he is a #1 pick 160 games into his NHL career. Mystery box prices still apply. I said it up thread, if Power is offered, it is highly unlikely any NHL team will be offering a single more valuable asset. Yes, Tkachuk is a better player right now and that matters. But it isn’t the only thing that matters.

There’s a weird thing up here about wanting a Canadian team to win. But I’ve noticed the people who express that are by and large the less hardcore fans. The hardcore fans here like Edmonton and Calgary like Buffalo likes Bill Belichik. And I think it’s the same for other Canadian cities and their neighbours. And, of course, all non-Ontarians are united in their hatred of the Leafs and their fans’ centre-of-the-universe attitudes.

LW: They would be in serious need of a top 6 left wing. They could also use another top 6 RW, given Batherson could be upgraded and Girous is ancient. They have their young building blocks on D and at centre with Sanderson and Stutzle. But their 2C Norris is troubled by injuries, their 2D Chabot is overpaid and their 3D Chychrun wants out. Their goalies suck. Their prospect pool is pretty empty because all their youngsters are on the big team. And they're mostly young and have been bad for a while so they're more interested in younger players that can play now, and would probably be looking for the best asset that fits that description more than any particular style or position. *** He's a top-tier player because of the overall package, but his career highs are 37 goals and 83 points: most accurately, he's a 35/75 producer. Think of what his brother went for, or what Eichel went for.

Contracts match. Doubt the Sens would be offered a more valuable single asset.

I would think the most likely centrepiece is Quinn: position fit, Ottawa kid, highest potential of the pieces the Sabres are likely willing to move. From a hockey standpoint, he’s a great fit. My questions would be 2: What other pieces would be required? There would be a lot of teams competing and One would think the Senators would want more than futures. Does Brady want to be here? There’s no point paying a high price just to be held over the barrel next summer when Brady’s NTC kicks in.

The amount of smoke makes the Staios denials ring hollow for me. Smells a lot like the smoke around Eichel in the summer of 2021; this is the way these things usually play out in the NHL old boys network. Is Brady being a leader by saying he’s tired of being surrounded by incompetents, or is he selfishly abandoning ship? The answer probably depends on whether you’re a fan of the Senators, or a fan of one of the teams Brady wants to go to.

People know Bloom was available to score the memorial cup winner because he got cut from the Canucks ECHL team and went back to Saginaw as an over-ager, right?

A lot of hockey fans struggle to see the line between being a self-centred, antagonistic hot-tempered bully and being a focused, competitive, fiery leader. The Tkachuks definitely straddle that line.

I believe

I like those guys, but it wasn't really about the players. It was simply a thought exercise to see what dumping Skinner for Savoie would free up cap-wise over the big years of his buyout. And the answer was "a lot".

So I ran a ran a capfriendly scenario where I bought Skinner out, replaced him with Savoie, brought in 3 more forward upgrades (Bennett, Jeannot, Trenin) and was still $9 under the cap next year. (which, ironically, means I probably don't even have to buy out Skinner this year) And it left with me with about $32M the following year in order to re-sign or replace Greenway, Jeannot, Bennett, Peterka, Quinn and Byram — which seems like plenty. We'd probably elect to let one or more of the UFAs walk, but reloading should be easy considering we can bridge Quinn and Peterka if we want and we still have Rosen, Östlund, Kulich and Wahlberg among others as unused chips. The following year — the biggest Skinner hit — we have Tuch and Clifton at UFA and Benson's ELC expiring. Letting Clifton walk and the rise in the cap should pay for giving the other two raises. With the core locked up and lots of ELC options available we should be home free for a while after that. That was just the first random hit I tried and was totally doable. There are probably better options to use that $9M I'm under this year (like holding on to Skinner one more year and letting Savoie play in Rochester) and trades that make better sense. The point was just to see if the option was worth investigating. I am now officially on the buy out Skinner train.

How does fact that you have Zach Benson and Isak Rosen available on entry level contracts for 2 more years and Jiri Kulich and Matt Savoie for 3 affect that calculation? Couldn’t the Sabres be taking advantage of that now? Shouldn’t they be? To use your own example, skip bringing in a $5M player to replace Skinner for the next 3 years, bring in Savoie for $1M instead. He’s not likely to be 35-goal, 65-point Skinner, at least not right away, but he doesn’t have to be. Let Peterka and Quinn take care of that, bump Benson up a notch to the 20-45 guy and slide Savoie or Kulich into Benson’s 15-15 slot. Use the extra $4 million in savings on upgrading Z, KO, Jost, Olofsson and Robinson with the types of players we’re lacking. To me, the biggest argument against adding a rookie to the NHL roster is “too many of the same types of players”. That argument falls by the wayside if he is instead of Skinner, rather than in addition to. And that’s mostly because Skinner’s game has the same flaws you typically worry about with rookies. Thanks, this is the first time I’ve actually seen a way to use a Skinner buyout that might make sense long- and short-term.