Marvin

Let us get our heads in the right spot. If Jack and Sam are $1 players, hope for a half-dollar coin and a pair of quarters in exchange. Most likely, one of those is a slug. Unless we are trading with a team that needs to shake up its core as well, we will NOT get a top player for either Jack or Sam; that defeats the purpose of the teams trading for them. And, if I were them, I would try to just acquire Jack and/or Sam for my prospects, picks, and lower-end roster players. Therefore, any prospect will be a year or two away from their point of view. A 1st round pick is probably in the deal. You will get some roster filler.

Nope. Yakushev. The Soviets' top player in the Summit Series. The guy whose ankle Bobby Clarke set out to break.

I remember Darcy and Lindy saying at the beginning of the year, very specifically, that if the league really enforced the rules as they promised, then they expected to make the playoffs "comfortably". In response, people around the hockey world derided them by saying they expected "to draw blood from a stone," as one pundit said. So their clear expectation was that the Sabres were good enough to land about 6th in the conference. There was no reason to expect to have anything other than 4 middle lines based on the team before The Great Lockout. BTW, you can construct a Stanley Cup Finalist without having a top line per se -- ask the Las Vegas Golden Knights, so the theory is replicable. How often and how well is another matter.

No - they had a good plan and got lucky that they turned from a decent playoff team into the best team in hockey -- barring injuries. I think they planned 2005-6 as a year to find what they needed -- and found that they didn't need anything but ordinary luck.

They weren't expected to be. The plan was 3 2nd lines. Briere broke out, Connolly fulfilled his promise, and Drury elevated his game all in 1 season.

I figure that is part of it. It is his life and neck injuries should always be handled with the method that is a saddle point for the widest margin for error, maximum safety, and maximum chance of success, shortest recovery time, and sustainability. Honestly, the Sabres should have let him make the decision. My Dad knew one of the top neurosurgeons in the country (Pittsburgh) -- they need a 3rd party perspective and respect Jack's call. If it were me, I would be Jack right now. I remember Yakushev...

3 2nds and a 3rd, but yeah. This is the proper model.

They would get less in a trade in the off-season if they wanted to.

The idea is that you will be on the positive side of the possession ledger even against Marchand-Bergeron-Pasternak for the entire game. 2 guys that can't skate? Unless Okposo counts twice, I don't see it. We don't have an option: we need to build a team which looks likes the 1995-2001 team without Hasek. We need better defence because we won't have Hasek. We are not getting players like Eichel and Reinhart back. So you go the Las Vegas route.

I am expecting Alexander Mogilny or Dale Hawerchuk type trades: pick(s), solid young players, no comparable stars. Build that way and trade for certain types of players later. It would be silly to expect other teams to give us the players they want to add Jack and Sam to.

I presume you mean ground-up: just acquire good players and assemble a good team. No more tanking - build to improve every single year. Each rebuild is limited in length and not an all-out tank.

We need to build balance. 4 x 2nd / 3rd lines. Beat teams with consistency. Everyone can check the opposition's top lines and every line can chip in. 4 versions of the LOG line would go a *long* way in the regular season and playoffs.

No more tanking. Build the team to improve every year. Value ensemble play. Value team defence. Value team offence. Create a sound foundation and build from it.

No one will send top players. You are looking at the Alexander Mogilny trade as your template for Jack and Sam. We officially are committed to the Las Vegas route. Thanks for saying that. Anyone talking anything like The Tank needs to relearn the lesson.

I agree. So let us drill down. How much of that is youth on the defence, with up to 5 players under 23? How much of that is on the less experienced forwards? I expect better defencive play from the veterans, so how much of the lack of awareness was the players How much of the lack of team defence is on the coaches -- and for how long? I don't have all the answers.

Someone was going to be Solicitor General Robert Bork for the Sabres' Saturday Night Massacre. What you need to hope is that GMKA is Leon Jaworski. There is one thing that bothers me: until XHCRK was fired, virtually every hockey decision went through Jack Eichel as well as the Pegulas. Maybe the Pegulas are not all of the problem.

Just a wee bit. I hope. The coach has to be right and the trades of Eichel, Reinhart, and Ristolainen need to bring back quality in volume rather than stars. We need to go the Las Vegas route.

Two reports I read said that Jack wanted surgery and the team did not -- probably because it would hurt his trade value.

Rolston's 2013 Sabres also had more rest than other teams at the end of that year. The Sabres played 13 games in the first 22 days while no one else played more than 10. They played a lot of tired teams late that season which helped Rolston's optics.

Fair enough. IMHO, if we can't count on Skinner being top-6 even with Eichel, then we are dead in the water for at least 5 more years. I personally would try to move Olofsson and Thompson with assets for top 6 help. Given your evaluation, our best option would be to try the Las Vegas route and make hay in the bottom of the line-up. Something like (Upgrade from Olofsson)-Eichel-Reinhart Asplund-Mittlestadt-(Upgrade from Thompson) Skinner-Cozens-Ruotsalainen Girgensons-(Defencive Centre)-Okposo Upgraded reserves. I would have one top line and essentially 3x3rd lines, with effectively a LOG line to do the heavy defencive lifting. The reserves would be quality and not Eakin/Caggiula level.

I think people want to turn over half of the current roster -- not counting the above.

I used @Gabrielor's highest numbers from page 1 of this thread as a base. I figure cap usage based upon 5 forward lines, 4 defence pairs, and 3-6 goaltenders. We can quibble about those, but they look like good projections. I worked this out further down the page. In sum: I protect Eichel, Skinner, Reinhart, Olofsson, Asplund, Mittlestadt, Thompson, Dahlin, Borgen, and Jokiharu. Neither Cozens nor Ruotsalainen need protection. Seattle should not Ristolainen because he is over-priced. I am keeping neither Ristolainen nor Miller. I priced 2 higher-end, physical, veteran, stay-at-home defencemen at $7M and goaltending at $7M. Assuming one of the goalies is Ullmark, this makes my back-end: Dahlin-Vet Vet-Jokiharu Borgen-Bryson Samuelsson-Fitzgerald Ullmark Vet Pekka-Lukkonen Those who want to spend more than $3M on forwards can instead get good, steady vets for the 3rd pair and use UPL in Buffalo to drive that total from $14M to about $10M. My forward lines before doing anything and with Girgensons here, are: Skinner-Eichel-Cozens Ruotsalainen-Reinhart-Olofsson Asplund-Mittlestadt-Thompson Girgensons-Bjork-Okposo Murray-Eakin-Caggiula IMHO, this requires a top 6 upgrade and some hockey trades for different kinds of players. Doing that with $3M will not be easy, but it is feasible. If you have more, then you have more options. Obviously, my 5th line needs an upgrade at all 3 positions.

@Broken Ankles Please correct me if I am wrong. What you are advocating looks to me like a 5 year rebuild. You trade Eichel, Reinhart, Ristolainen, and Miller. For what, exactly? IMHO, you should expect underwhelming returns on all of them. Now, maybe that turns the team into Las Vegas east if it is done really well, but I would not count on it. And most of us want to turn over about 1/4 of the roster. That is not a complete overhaul, but that's hardly minor. Also, I personally make up line-ups with what we have to see what we need to get. Ideally, I would get 2 veteran defencemen, 2 goaltenders (1 if Ullmark stays), 2 top-6 forwards (1 if you want Cozens there), and a revamp of the bottom of the line-up after Okposo. (I do not assume we can LTIR Okposo. I assume Seattle takes Girgensons.) That is 4-6 regulars and most of the bottom of the line-up. I think Eakin in Rochester works better because $900,000 of his $1.3M comes off the books after next year. If Bjork is here, then he belongs on the 4th-5th lines. Reider, Sheahan and Caggiua are adequate for 5th line duty, but I would prefer upgrades on all of them. I want the top guys in Rochester to be NHL-ready youth, not AHL-NHL "'tweeners." This is not small unless you require Eichel and Reinhart to ge moved.

Thanks for doing all that. BIAS ALERT: I would have preferred XGMTM's sind of team here to XGMJB's vision. Although I understand the goal, I personally think the Kane-Bogosian trade was gross over-payment. We could have moved some players is separate deals and wound up moving fewer assets in the end for the same outcome. I also think the O'Reilly-McGinn trade was massive over-payment. This is another one where the goal was the right one, but too many assets went out the door for them. I strenuously disagree with his seeming refusal to full stock Rochester to create a genuine player pipeline. IMHO, this is his biggest sin. This meant there was almost no room for error in trades, drafts, etc. All three of these issues point to what I think is the crux of his problems: he over-estimated his own ability to judge talent and relative value. His philosophy on handling assets only works if you are perfect in evaluating the value of what you got.

Because I would like to make the playoffs next season, I want to turn this around: what kind of players do we have? Which coach would use the players' abilities, diversify their games, and create the expectation of winning? Large parts of our team are very young. Our expected 3rd line, a potential 2nd liner, and potentially 4 of our defencemen will be 23 or under. The next coack can't be one known for killing youth. Many of our players excel with more dynamic games, so we need a coach whose preferred style caters to that. He must not sacrifice their games for his system. He must be able to utilise their skills while diversifying their games.