Archie Lee
-
Posts
726 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Events
Posts posted by Archie Lee
-
-
41 minutes ago, dudacek said:
They’re both quick, but Noah Östlund plays a considerably different game to Ennis.
Ennis was a one-on-one player who made plays stickhandling.
Östlund is a give-and-go player who generally moves the puck as quickly as he gets it.
I'm not making a prediction. Honestly, I'm about to express a rather uniformed impression that I have of Östlund. He gives me Asplund vibes (size, background, post-draft production, uncertainty if he can be a centre in the NHL, etc.).
-
27 minutes ago, Flashsabre said:
The list is from Expected Range. If you click on the “Sources” tab at the top it explains who they are and how the rankings work. They use 19 sources to compile the list.
Here’s another list from a guy that does a lot of online content:
https://x.com/HadiK_Scouting/status/1802100083426480146/photo/1
Acknowledging I have seen very little of any of the players in this draft, from all that I have read and the little I have seen, I would be thrilled with anyone in that top 11.
-
1
-
-
16 hours ago, RochesterExpat said:
I’ve been saying 3 because I am hoping we have Rousek as the 14th forward this season to start and I am absolutely fine with that. If we bring in 4 and that moves Krebs to that 14th/rotational spot, that’s even better. I am also assuming Skinner returns next season. It’s basically three or bust for me. Four is a bonus. But I don’t except more than two additions.
The sad truth is this is how I expect our lineup to be for opening night:
——
JJP - Thompson - Tuch
Benson - Cozens - Quinn
Skinner - Krebs - [Underwhelming Add]
Greenway - Girgensons - [“veteran” on basically league minimum we all forget the name of in 3 years]
Rousek
——
Dahlin - Power
Sammy - Byram
Clifton - Joki
Bryson, Clague
——
This team has turned me into a real pessimist. Not sure I’ve ever hoped to be more wrong about anything with sports before.
Until we see otherwise, I think the post-off-season roster will be closer to this than we are hoping. Goalies will be UPL and Levi. The D looks mostly right, though I don’t think Clague will be on the team. It will be Johnson or an underwhelming UFA, like Brendan Smith. I think we do trade a prospect or #11 for a 3C and that our general reaction will be of disappointment in the return (Jenner for #11 is the ceiling, Laughton for Rosen and a lesser pick the floor). We will come in $3-5 million under the cap. For some fans it will be surprising how close to the cap we are, but the reality is there is only room for one big move or two-three moderately big moves.
I don’t see this as “Sabre fan end of the world”. I think it is possible that adding a veteran 3C combined with better coaching, some bounce back years and maturation, will get us close and maybe into a WC spot. But we will not be going into training camp thinking this is a playoff team. Rather, we will be thinking this is a playoff team “IF” a lot of things go right that are far from sure-bets to go right.
-
20 minutes ago, K-9 said:
Yes, and if you’d read my posts in this thread you’d realize that I agree that Savoie and Kulich have little to no chance at all of cracking the lineup as I’ve always maintained that they both need more seasoning in the A. My only point has been that IF they should outplay whomever Adams brings in (again, little chance that happens) then we will have underestimated them.
I appreciate what you are saying. But it is not the case that there is little to no chance that Kulich or Savoie will beat out a veteran, established, important player (Tuch, Cirelli, Kane, Cozens) who the Sabres paid a high-price to obtain and/or pay a big salary to. There is no chance. It only happens if something unexpected goes wrong, like an injury or a veteran showing up terribly out of shape.
Kulich being better in training camp than Patrick Kane as example (who would be one of the biggest offseason signings in Sabre history) is not going to get Kulich the start in game one over Kane.
(queue Allen Iverson: "Training Camp? We're talking Training Camp?").
-
12 hours ago, K-9 said:
Perhaps you missed the part of my initial post where I said there would be little chance of either Savoie or Kulich making the team as I believe both need more AHL seasoning. The point is that if they should happen to play well enough to beat whomever Adams brings in, then perhaps we’d all have underestimated them.
Pick any two players that you’d like to see brought in, any two. If by some miracle Savoie and Kulich beat them out (and, again, I highly doubt they would) then I don’t think we could say Adams didn’t do well enough so much as Savoie and Kulich did far, far better than expected. Hence we will have underestimated them.
There is zero chance that Adams brings in two established top-9 players through trade/free agency and then gets to the end of camp and puts them in the press-box because Savoie and Kulich looked better in a couple of pre-season games against Columbus.
-
21 hours ago, Taro T said:
IF they demonstrably outperform others and earn spots on the roster, then they play as Sabres.
Whether it is a fail of Adams or not, is entirely a reflection on what competition he brings in for them to outperform.
If he brings in Kane and a true top 3C (say a Cirelli, Ek, or Danault) and a legit gritty 4th liner or 2 and those 2 make the roster, well then the Sabres should be really good (provided the GT doesn't take a step back) because they'll legitimately have 4 legit lines and the D should be improved under Ruff as well.
If he brings in the equivalent of Jost and Robinson to be challenging for top 9 roles, well, yes, it'd be a fail.
In either case, if they are 2 of the top 9 F's, they need to be on the roster. (Don't necessarily want them in 4th line roles at this point, so if they're say 11, and 12 would likely send them back down even though technically they're better than what else would be in Buffalo.)
This isn't how it works though. If Adams has the sort of off-season you reference, our forwards look something like this (assuming no Skinner buyout and that Krebs is part of the trade for the 3C).
- Skinner/Thompson/Tuch
- Peterka/Cozens/Kane
- Benson/Cirelli/Quinn
- Greenway/Gritty/Gritty
Barring injury, there is no space for Kulich or Savoie. As you say they aren't suited for the 4th line. The only player in the top 9 who I could even remotely imagine them benching to start the season, for reasons other than health, would be Skinner. While it could happen, it is not likely to happen, even if Kulich and Savoie look better in camp/pre-season. They aren't going to sign Kane and give up a boatload for Cirelli and then get to the end of pre-season and put those two in the press-box because Savoie and Kulich looked better in camp. Apply the same idea to Tuch/Thompson or Peterka/Cozens. It's not going to happen. I'm not trying to be a wanker here. The reason Benson made the team last year is because they left a spot open for a prospect to make the top 9. The only way Kulich or Savoie make the team out of camp this year is if they leave a spot open (ie: no Kane in this scenario) or if there is an injury.
-
1
-
8 minutes ago, JohnC said:
What happens if Kulich and/or Savoie shine in camp and demonstratively outperform other players competing for a roster spot? Do you send them down because you are wedded to an approach that is usually the right way to go. Or do you make a judgment on an individual case that goes against the norm. I was surprised when Benson made the roster last year. As it turned out, he was an asset and not a liability. In general, the patient approach you are advocating for is the right approach to take. But sometimes, a player playing beyond expectations should be judged on performance. It's a delicate balance that calls for a lot of judgment. In general, I so agree with you that when in doubt take the longer development route. But there are exceptions to every rule.
I don’t think this is how it works in practical terms. In practical terms good teams fill holes with players whose performance is, for the most part, predictable.
I disagree with the narrative that Benson busted down the door last year. I think the Sabres left a spot open for the best prospect in camp and then demanded so little from their vets in camp that Benson, a confident, tenacious, talented kid, rose above others. It should never have been an option though.
-
1
-
-
Dallas is a model for how to integrate youth into a veteran ready to win NHL line-up. In 20-21 they added 20 year old Robertson and 21 year old Oettinger. The next year Thomas Harley. The next Wyatt Johnston and Ty Dellandrea. This past year Stankovan. Next year will probably be Mavrik Bourque, who will be 23 (there should be no rush). Over the same period we added, often at a younger age: Cozens, Krebs, Samuelsson, Quinn, Power, Peterka, Luukkonen, Benson and, I would say, Levi. We may well add more youngsters this coming season as Kulich, Savoie, Rosen and Johnson are nearing readiness to be NHL players. While the situations are different, the results were predictable. We have added too many young players too quickly to a roster that did not have a base of veterans or a veteran coach (Dallas had Bowness and DeBoer) that could help them thrive.
I agree that we need to add veterans this off-season who make it near impossible for our forward prospects to make the team out of camp. If one of them knocks the door down, fine. If one or two are having a strong year in Rochester and then get an injury call-up and never look back, great.
If we are trading assets this off-season, my preference is that we move a prospect or two instead of #11. Move one or two kids who are nearing NHL readiness for a player who helps us over the next 2-4 years, and use our picks to keep the pipeline stocked.
-
1
-
-
I have no great issue with this. At the right price he is fine for the 4th line. Buying out Skinner would do far more for a culture change and to create space for a new type of player than moving on from Girgs.
I’ve seen more than a few posts about Radek Faksa being a possible target (bottom 6 player who has a history with Ruff). I’m not sure I could come up with two players whose careers are closer to identical than Faksa and Girgs. One just had the misfortune of being drafted by the Sabres.
-
4
-
1
-
-
6 minutes ago, GASabresIUFAN said:
My board reflects what the guy from Red Line was talking about. Celebrini is No. 1 by a wide margin. There is little separating No. 2 Levshunov from No. 11 Helenius. There is a gap from Helenius to No. 12 Eiserman, but Eiserman, Yakemchuk and Sennecke have nearly identical rankings. I'm not surprised some teams have Iginla and Sennecke in the top 5. They have received top 5-7 voted from the various (I'm up to 9) rankings I've added to my consensus board.
I personally think it's Celebrini 1 and Levshunov 2, but after that anything can happen. I'd add that I think Buium, Silayev and Demidov will also go in the top 7 and Parekh in the top 10.
After doing some work on this draft, I'd rather trade Rosen and another former 1st rd pick like Östlund or Kulich then give up the 11. The top 14 picks are too strong and we need a top prospect a little separated in development time from the other top guys.
Completely agree on the last paragraph. Mostly because we have more prospects than will fit in the next two seasons (even accounting for a bust or two), and it would be better to move two existing high-end prospects out and bring in a new one.
-
1
-
-
1 hour ago, JohnC said:
I agree that there isn't a necessity to sign young players such as JJ and Quinn to extended contracts right away. There's plenty of time to face that long-term deal/issue. Yet, if the organization has a belief that players such as Quinn and JJ will reach the next level, then from a financial standpoint it makes more sense to get that type of deal in place sooner.
Players such as Dahlin and Tage are already contractually locked up. From a longer perspective, I think the organization was smart in securing them for the long term. Some people believe that the organization jumped the gun extending a deal to Samuelsson. Although he has been plagued with injuries, my view is that he will prove to be worth his contract. However, there are no guarantees.
My basic point is that young players that have demonstrated the expected progression/development, especially those who come from within your system, should be signed sooner to those extended contracts than later. I'm not arguing that all their promising young players should be given those type of long and rich contracts, but wisely selectively the right candidates for that type of gilded contract is the right thing to do.
I think there are times when a team needs to put off the longer term deal and take the opposite risk that it might cost more to extend a player down the road. The best teams in the league are examples. I’m certain that Dallas would have loved to lock Oettinger and Robertson up long-term. If they had done so though, then there would have been no Pavelski or no Marchment or poorer depth. Likewise, Florida could have locked up Bennett, Verhaeghe or even Reinhart, to longer term deals, but the price would have meant a reduction in overall depth and talent. Ditto Edmonton with Bouchard. At some point, a team needs to shift emphasis away from planning for the future towards icing the best possible team in the present.
-
1
-
-
20 minutes ago, Doohickie said:
$7 million for 7 years.
Re: Joshua. I was listening to a Leafs’ podcast yesterday and the hosts briefly spoke of Joshua as a UFA candidate. They rather quickly dismissed him for the Leafs due to cost and mentioned that they heard, or think, Joshua will be looking for the Mason Marchment deal. Two years ago Marchment signed as a UFA with Dallas for 4 x $4.5. At first I thought that was a bit rich for Joshua. Then I looked deeper and saw that prior to getting his contract, Marchment had played only 91 NHL games and produced 20 goals and 58 points and 71 pms. He was 27 at the time (29 now). Joshua is 28 but has played 184 games and produced 33 goals and 64 points and 143 pms. Maybe the Marchment contract for Joshua isn’t so out of line. He is the sort of player we are missing.
-
2
-
-
The hockey scouting world is filled with brothers, sons, nephews, old teammates and buddies. Some of them turn out to be good at it.
All indications are that this leaves Forton with more, not less, responsibility when it comes to amateur scouting and the draft. I think the Sabres have drafted well the last 5-6 years, so I can’t say this bothers me.
-
4
-
-
35 minutes ago, thewookie1 said:
I disagree with the idea of not having the foresight in how we'd sign our own players. Not that means we need to leave 8 mil in cap this year to prepare but let's not just hand out giant contracts to middling players.
I don’t think we should proceed without foresight either. I just don’t think we should be waiting for players on ELCs to earn big raises before we prioritize being good. I think we probably agree on that.
If we make moves this off-season that help us make the playoffs and Quinn and Peterka have such great years that they earn big contracts and the moves we made prevent us from keeping both players, that isn’t tragic. It’s the price of doing business. I’m not saying we should be reckless, but we should not be waiting on something that might not occur.
-
10 hours ago, PerreaultForever said:
But watch, some team like Boston will sign Lindholm to 8 million or something and this board will go "oh it's too much, they are stupid, contract won't age well etc" and then watch that team win their division and go on a playoff run.
It's time to stop thinking about winning every trade and worrying about future cap numbers and rather actually trying to make the team the best it can be and win now.
I wholly agree with the sentiment. I also think $8 million for Lindholm would be a mistake.
We should prioritize buying out Skinner, getting UPL extended and then using the $25 million left to rework the roster into that of a playoff team. Next year is next year. I’m not saying we should be reckless, but we should not be worrying about how we are going to pay Peterka, Quinn and Byram. Best case scenario is things go well for the team and its players, and a year from now some very tough decisions need to be made.
-
3 hours ago, LGR4GM said:
The list of players I would trade Quinn or Benson for is short, really short. Comparing either to Kulich, Rosen, Wahlberg, Östlund or Neuchev is like comparing a Jeep Grand Cherokee with all the bells and whistles, to a Ford Focus rental from budget, and arguing they the same because they are both cars. Quinn and Benson literally drive whatever line you put them on all while being exceptionally good in the neutral and defensive zones. Quinn and Benson as early as this season might show they are our two best 200ft forwards.
Note: I do see you said "the deal would have to be really good" but what I am saying is the deal would have to be great. I am talking Benson and 11 for Nathan MacKinnon. Something absurd because that is how much I would rather keep Benson and Quinn on my team. I am more apt to trade any of the other players in the forward ranks before them including Tuch, Tage, or Cozens. Quinn probably carries the most risk because of injury but I think Zach Benson is on track to be a truly special NHL player.
I like Benson and Quinn a lot and would be reluctant to move them. You and and a few others see more potential than I think is there though. Both can be high-level NHL players. It is highly unlikely that either will ever be seriously considered worthy of being the center-piece of a trade for an elite player such as MacKinnon.
-
9 hours ago, thewookie1 said:
I want to upgrade the team but not gut it. To get a new 3C shouldn’t require roster players to be used in the acquisition. Additionally, I don’t Tkachuk as enough of an upgrade from a Quinn or Peterka to be worth the massive overpayment we’d need to add towards it.
I think Marcus Foligno is a great guy but I have zero interest in trading Peterka to get an heavily overpaid 3rd going into 4th liner.
Frankly I have no intention of touching the Top 6 players in Thompson, Cozens, Tuch, Quinn, Peterka, and Benson. Skinner could be had but I’m not interested in a buyout this year or bribing a team to take him. Defensively Dahlin and Power aren’t going anywhere and Samuelsson has a similar status purely due to style of play. Neither UPL or Levi should be traded no matter the offer.
Im not looking to move Clifton or Greenway
Byram I want to see under Ruff before I make any decisions
Krebs is meh, but I wouldn’t just dump him on the side of the road.
To me any Peterka + for Tkachuk trades feel way too costly to stomach for a player who could just pull the same thing with us in a year or two. Since I wholeheartedly believe he wants to play in St. Louis. if Ottawa doesn’t work out.
I don’t want to trade multiple cakes for a mysterious cake that may contain peanuts.
Sam Bennett was had for 2 2nds, find me that acquisition. Find me a non-Savoie prospect and 11 for a legitimate player akin to the Reinhart deal.
When you say that you have no interest in touching the top 6 players you list, do you mean that you have no interest in trading any of them or do you mean that you actually project them as our top 6? I wouldn’t be thrilled about moving any of them, but would move Quinn, Peterka or Benson in the right deal (a benefit of having those 3 AND Kulich, Rosen, Savoie, Wahlberg, Östlund, Neuchev is that it allows flexibility to trade for a better player). Still, the deal would have to be really good. As a current top 6 though, this group is weak and a lot would need to go right for it to be playoff level. Basically at least 2 of Thompson, Tuch, Cozens will need to return to 22-23 form and at least 2 of the young wingers need to take significant leaps forward. It is possible this will happen, but not something that can be counted on my view.
-
29 minutes ago, Sabres Fan in NS said:
Booby is gonna get the Conn.
He played so well and his guys did enough when they had their chances.
I still say this series will go 6.
Florida is what I want the Sabres to be. All round very talented team that plays hard and knows what it takes to win in the playoff. With a stone cold goaler.
It would be difficult I think for us to emulate either of the current cup final teams. We just don't have the high-end forward talent (there is no emerging McDavid, Draisaitl, Barkov or Tkachuk here). We are perhaps close to a different team that just lost though, Dallas. We have a Heiskanen (maybe a couple in Dahlin and Power). We might have an Oettinger (UPL, maybe Levi). We have several candidates to be Robertson (Quinn, Peterka...). I think we have a Hintz (Cozens). We have a Stankoven (actually, a better Stankoven in Benson). Not quite the same, but we have some vets who can play high end roles like Seguin, Duschene and Pavelski did for Dallas (Thompson, Tuch, maybe Skinner still). We have a Lindell (Samuelsson). We need a Marchment, a Faksa, a Dadonov, a Tanev. Oh, and a Wyatt Johnston would be nice (maybe we get that kind of boost from the big trade everyone is hoping for, not someone as young as Johnston but perhaps as impactful over a 3-4 year period). If well managed, this is quite doable I think.
-
1 hour ago, GASabresIUFAN said:
I looked that up as well. Sadly he hasn't built on that promise.
I'm not disputing this is true. But, the situation is a bit unusual in that for reasons that aren't entirely clear or obvious we decided to promote him to the NHL when we had no spot for him to play his projected natural position in the lineup. In 35 AHL games Krebs produced 36 points. We had no spot for him in the top 9 on promotion, so he ends up playing 4th line with Okposo/Girgs/Robinson. That's not a knock against those players, but Krebs's production is not out of line with what 4th liners produce. Florida's 4th line C for much of the year has been Kevin Stenlund, who had 15 points in 81 regular season games and has 1 point in 17 playoff games. It just seems to me that we want Krebs to produce at a level that warrants his place in the Eichel trade while he gets the same sort of minutes and line-mates that the Kevin Stenlunds of the NHL get. I think Krebs could have produced 40+ points had he the opportunity to play the season with two of Tuch, Quinn, Peterka, Cozens, Thompson.
-
2
-
-
53 minutes ago, tom webster said:
FWIW, and I know at least one poster doesn’t think it’s worth much, but after a few conversations over the weekend, I am 100% convinced that the Sabres will make a big splash in the coming weeks. Something along the likes of Danault, Jenner. Eriksson EK, Jenner. And it won’t stop there.
The hire of Ruff was significant but the real notice of intent was the hiring of Pete Guelli. Ruff had some leverage but Guelli is a rising star and doesn’t sign on without some significant guarantees.
TPegs was not in Buffalo to discuss draft prospects. He was here to agree to the monetary ramifications of the pending moves.
While it is technically possible to add two players of this calibre without a Skinner buyout, it will not leave for great 4th line additions. Also, it would not make much sense to do this without a Skinner buyout as none of these players are 4th liners and we would run out of positions for our existing NHL forwards. Not to mention the "and it won't stop there" portion. Hopefully a Skinner buyout, or significant retention on a Skinner trade (less likely), is part of the monetary ramifications here.
-
15 minutes ago, dudacek said:
You’d think it would have to be #11 and their favourite from the Savoie/Östlund/Kulich trio as a base.Maybe we toss in Johnson, who can go back to his girlfriend and his buddy Faber in Minny?
If he really is on the market for a futures deal, I can’t see anyone beating that offer.
Agreed. The only way this happens is if we are paying big and the Wild are looking to do a reset for after the Parise/Suter contracts are up. #11/Krebs/pick a prospect.
-
4 minutes ago, dudacek said:
I see 2 things that might make Ek available.
The fact that Minnesota is in an awful spot under the cap this year thanks to the Parise buyout
The fact that their core has quietly gotten old and they might need to re-focus on a Faber/Boldy window.
I could see them trying to do a quick reset by flipping some of their older players for some players in their early 20s. And Ek certainly is someone who could generate that kind of return.
And the fact that Ek is owed $22.5M over the next few years including $9M next year isn’t insignificant.
I guess we’ll see if Terry really is cheap.
Never say never. but it is hard for me to see Ek being on the table. His contract is amongst the most team-friendly in the NHL. He has a 10 team no trade, which doesn't automatically mean we are a no-go, but it doesn't increase the odds. It would be great though as he would arguably be our best forward if we acquired him. He isn't a 3C, that's for certain.
I don't think the Wild are in an awful spot re: the cap, though. They are in no position to make big upgrades this off-season, but they have more than enough space to fill out their roster with some bottom pairing d-men and 4th line forwards. I have to think their plan is to get through the year and then they get around $12 million in cap relief when the Parise/Suter buyouts settle into a nominal amount for the next 4 seasons. They won't get better this year or next by moving out one of their top 4 players who is on a very team-friendly deal.
Also, just a little nit-pick on the Wild being in a bad cap spot "thanks to the Parise buyout". They are not in a bad spot because of the Parise, and Suter, buyouts. They are in a bad spot because those contracts were handed out to begin with. Had they not bought them out they would be in the precise bad spot re: the cap. Just like if we buy Skinner out (which we may have to in order to do the deals @tom webster is indicating), it won't be the buyout that puts us in a bad spot 2 years from now (with a $6.44 million hit). It was the contract that put us in that spot, and without a buyout we will be in an even worse spot 2 years from now (with a $9 million dollar cap hit).
-
1
-
-
21 minutes ago, Pimlach said:
It is also a sign of a strong top 9. Nothing wrong with 4th lines, the better teams roll them a lot. He could be 4th line and first PK and be effective.
I’m not quite ready to commit to this conclusion yet. Tuch is legit. In this scenario, the player acquisition who pushes Greenway to line 4 is likely at least a legit solid veteran player with some offence. After that we have question marks. Skinner is an uncertainty. I love Quinn, Peterka, and Benson, but they will be 23, 22 and 19 to start next season. All have shown signs they can be top 6 wingers in the NHL. I think there is still risk in expecting them to be this next season.
-
1
-
-
3 hours ago, Thorny said:
I’d say they have a chance simply for the reasons you already outlined: it’s a formula they’ve followed to success thus far. It could theoretically continue
On the other hand, the nhl famously often has a team go on a magical run to the finals as more or an underdog before everything catches up to them: so I could see the Oilers falling apart too. It’s not easily predictable IMO
The Oilers were a pre-season cup favourite. Only the Panthers have won more playoff rounds in the last 3 playoffs (7-6) than the Oilers. They have two of the top five players in the world, an elite offensive d-man and a deep bench of players in their prime. I don’t get the Cinderella-Team narrative that is popping up here and there.
-
1
-
Cap Friendly purchased by Washington Capitals; Will cease to function after UFA in July
in The Aud Club
Posted
Cool. A lot of hockey fans would not begin to understand how someone would get information or value or satisfaction out of posting 44,000 times on a hockey discussion forum. We all have our things we enjoy and don't enjoy.