Archie Lee

The Reinhart for Levi and a 1st trade was announced after round one of the 2021 draft. It may have been in place before the Rosen selection. Certainly Adams believed Levi was the goalie of the future. Adams never hid his view that Levi was unlike other goalie prospects and that he expected him to be the guy pretty much from the day Levi turned pro.

Early in Krebs’s time as a Sabre, Granato said that he has a little bit of Marner in him.

This is so on point. It would be foolish for anyone to ignore UPL’s shortcomings (primarily his inconsistency). But some are just ignoring that in 2 of the last 3 seasons the Sabres had very good goaltending, and in those years their best goalie was UPL.

Norris has a 10 team no trade. I don’t know the teams on his list, but safe bet Winnipeg is one.

I don’t think decisions should be made based on the small sample size of 3 regular season games. But I will throw out that my offseason view that Josh Doan is the logical piece, holds. If Kulich and Östlund are centres, then Thompson and Helenius are RW’s. With an extended Quinn, your top 3 RWs for the foreseeable future could be Thompson, Quinn, Helenius. Top 3 centres Kulich, Östlund, Norris. LW? Benson, Krebs, Zucker/McLeod. Im not eager to trade Doan or to trade for Hellebuyck. But if you believe Hellebuyck is one of the top 3 goalies in the world, that he would address the Sabres primary weakness, and that he makes the Sabres a Cup contender, then not being willing to part with Josh Doan, is illogical to me.

Kempe signed for 8 x $10.625 (85 million total) on Nov 17th. Kempe is a 30 year old winger drafted in round 1 in 2014 who in 713 games has 231 goals and 476 points. Tuch is also a 30 year old winger drafted in rd 1 in 2014. He has 202 goals and 450 points in 617 career games. When Kempe signed his deal the market was set for Tuch. Short of Tuch coming out and saying there was zero chance he was ever going to extend in Buffalo, I will always believe that had the Sabres offered the Kempe deal on Nov 18th, Tuch would have taken it. Whether that would have been good or bad for the team in the short or long-term, is another thing.

They gave up Rosen (value maybe a late 2nd or 3rd), a 2nd, 3rd, 4th, 6th and 7th for Stanley, Schenn, Pearson, and Carrick. Short of a 1st, that's nearly an entire draft class for a group of players who had next to no impact on the playoffs, with only Carrick still here. I understand that there was no centerpiece traded and that they get 7 new picks every year, but that is a terrible return for the assets expended. If the Sabres had McMann, they could trade other players for something they are missing.

At the time I think Zary was basically a Krebs-level prospect. So possibly. What am I missing here? Zary has not taken the step forward they would want, but his #'s relative to salary seem well above waiver level. He is at $3.775 this year and next.

I don't recall there being any insider report on this. If Quinn said no to a long-term deal, then my guess is that the offer was less than the Doan contract. If the Sabres offered Quinn something between the Doan and Benson deal, I would be surprised to learn he said no. Indeed, I would be surprised if he didn't take that deal today if offered.

When framed like that, McLeod is certainly more valuable than a 50 point winger with a bigger contract, who doesn't kill penalties.

I’m not certain it is player talent that is the issue. But, it is possible that Dahlin, as great an all around d-man as he is, is not the sort of dynamic creator or puck-mover needed to make a modern-day PP hum. I know that seems like blasphemy. I would like to see Dahlin moved to the right wall on the PP, and I would give Zellweger, or Power, a shot as the d-man.

I certainly don’t think that offer is valueless. But, it amounts to 3 players who appear to be in the category of “odd-man out” in Buffalo. I understand that we do not want to part with a core piece like Doan (or Quinn at this point), or one of our best prospects like Rudolph or Helenius. But then this just becomes the equivalent of: “Of course we will take Hellebuyck if the Jets are giving him away, and no other team is offering a bit more than our spare parts”. The gap between how great the general fanbase believes a Hellebuyck acquisition is needed v. the value of assets they are willing to give up to get him, remains Grand Canyon large.

Is "perfection-seeking" an insult? I think you are being overly negative and that it is way too soon to draw any conclusions about how this season will go. Not making a trade so far is not evidence that a trade won't be made. I will say though, that you at least have the villain right. The Sabres' turnaround last season was driven largely by goaltending. They received best in the league goaltending from Dec 1st through the end of the regular season. Anyone who pays attention to hockey, knows that the Sabres do not have a trio of goalies likely to repeat that performance. Yet, somehow the villains are UPL (arguably the player whose performance a year ago was the most critical to the turnaround) and Chevy, that loser GM in Winnipeg (what a d!nk for not giving us the best goalie in the world). If this falls apart, the villain is Jarmo (and, I would add Ruff). A very different path could have been taken. Still, way too early for conclusions I think.

I agree. Players who play to the edge or beyond, don't spend any time worrying about getting punched in the back of the helmet by players like Olivier. Yet, as stated, it remains part of the game and I have yet to see a player say he didn't appreciate having such a teammate. The odd and somewhat concerning thing to me is that we gave up a lot at the deadline to get tougher, when such toughness really isn't needed or utilized in the playoffs, only to then conclude that we didn't need such players for this season. What changed? Were Jarmo and Ruff not on the same page? Why did we give up Rosen, a 2nd, a 3rd, a 4th, and a 6th to get tougher (that is unquestionably what we did), only to conclude 4-5 months later that we didn't need that toughness (I acknowledge that 34 year old Sam Carrick is still here and a useful 4th line player). I understand that some fans view what we gave up at the deadline as meaningless assets that a team should trade at the deadline to address depth needs, but surely we could have grabbed something more useful in the longer-term. Warren Foegele was acquired for a 2nd. Bobby McMann for a 2nd and a 4th.

All things being equal, nobody takes UPL over Hellebuyck. Of course, all things are never equal. UPL is on the team, he's 27, he is coming off a season where he was one of the best goalies in the league ("When is 0.919 sv% UPL coming back?" you ask, as though it's been 6 years or something; it was Dec - April last season), we are paying him $4.75 million for the next 3 years. Hellebucyk, on the other hand, is 33, is coming off the one bad year of his career, with the Gold Medal in there, has 5 years left at $8.5 million, is not on the team, and the cost to get him is very high. Having said all that, I think most people, myself included, would still like to add Hellebuyck. Though, in a year where goaltending is going to be critical, I still say the best play would have been Hellebuyck for 50 starts and UPL for 34. Personally, not that anyone is asking, I think goaltending is best viewed like hitting in baseball. Even the best hitters will have the occasional 0-5 night. There is a randomness to it that means those who know baseball don't get worked up about a hitter going 0-5 on a Tuesday night in May in Anaheim. A hitter's performance is best measured in the context of a season and not within the arbitrary constraints of a 9 inning game. I'm not too worried about a Thursday night in October in Columbus. All things being equal though, yeah, I would take Hellebuyck.