Archie Lee

I don’t think so. While Seattle found a way to keep Shane Wright around the NHL for a bit and get him some AHL time, the general thought is that it was a tough year for him. I’m not sure that the best path for Savoie is to spend a year going from Buffalo to Rochester to the World Juniors and then to the WHL. Better to just be either an NHL player or a WHL player in my view (with the world juniors in there if he is in the WHL).

He has Benson falling to 14. I know we have drafted many smaller scoring forwards the last two years, but passing on Benson at 13 might be one that haunts a team. Cristall at 45 would be amazing.

I’m fine with either a 7-8 yr extension or a 2-3 year bridge. The long-term deal locks him up and provides cost certainty. The bridge opens up the possibility of having him on our blue line for the next 12 years. The Dahlin bridge seems to have worked fine. Maybe it is going to cost us an extra $1.5 - $2 million in AAV for the first 5 years of his next deal, but it also gets us 2-3 additional years. If Power wants a bridge and then 3-4 years from now he can demand more then Dahlin, then that will mean he has turned into the extraordinary player we think/hope he is and also that the cap has gone up.

You are right that it would “start the clock”, but the clock is probably starting in the next 12 months regardless. Also, I think that to say that is the “big reason” it won’t happen is to dismiss that there is an actual thought-out and long-term plan in place If Hellebuyck is available the price will be high. We can meet it, but it will be painful. There are contenders who will want him. Also, an extension will likely be in the Skinner range for AAV. This puts us in cap trouble earlier than we need to be. There are good reasons to not acquire Hellebuyck that go beyond the GM delaying expectations and protecting his job.

I haven’t read every post in this thread, but my sense is that in general people would take Hart if the price was low. The price you suggest is not getting Hart. The price you suggest is next to nothing. If we can get Hart for next to nothing then I am fine with acquiring him. The cost will be a lot higher than what you suggest though.

If the key here is the cap % of the Makar and Fox deals, then, regardless of whether that is referring to the cap % in year one of their contracts or today, the deal should come in with an AAV under $10. Also, note that Makar’s was for 6 years and the Fox deal was for 7. I’ll guess 7 x 9.7. Which would be pretty great.

Fair point, but there are clear differences. First, Ottawa retained on the Murray deal with the Leafs. I'm not sure if it was ever reported if retention was or was not part of the deal with the Sabres, but he might not have been coming at $6.2. The bigger difference though is the term. Murray had 2 years remaining from last off-season; meaning his contract is up before Dahlin, Power, Mitts, Joker and Krebs need new deals. Gibson has 4 years remaining at $6.4. I doubt Anaheim would retain for that length of time. His contract takes us through years where new deals will also be needed for Tuch, Peterka, Quinn, Levi and any rookie (Kulich?, Savoie?) who makes the team this season. So, the two are not really comparable. I should say that I could see Adams taking on a veteran goalie for two seasons. I don't think it will happen, but it would not shock me if we did sign any # of UFA goalies for 2 seasons. I also think he could be convinced to take a run at Saros if he became available (the ship has sailed on Ullmark I suspect).

I think you are right. The more likely outcome than a big splash trade for a Gibson or Hellebuyck I think, is that he signs a Raanta or a Talbot or a Brossoit to a 1 or 2 year deal.

Maybe Adams was legitimately interested in Gibson. It is, however, counter to everything Adams has said and done in building the team thus far. He simply has shown no interest in taking on a veteran player with lots of term and a high AAV. Indeed, he has said on multiple occasions that it is important that he and the organization know a player before they make that kind of a commitment to an individual. My opinion is that the hockey world in general looks at the Sabres and assumes they will do what the hockey world in general does. There is no veteran starting goalie in Buffalo and thus the Sabres will be in on any veteran goalie who might make them better in the short-term. This is why the connection to Gibson is made and now to Hellebuyck as well, I think. There is little to no chance, from what Adams has said and done, that the Sabres are interested in acquiring Gibson (high AAV, lots of term, declining performance) or Hellebuyck (high acquisition cost, one year to UFA with an extension that would require a high AAV over a long-term while also blocking Levi). If Adams acquires either player it will mean he has had a 180 degree shift in his plan for building the roster. My recollection is that in the year-end interview Adams was asked about going young in net and his answer was that the organization's philosophy on this was to be "fearless". All signs point to Levi/UPL as our goalies.

On the Savoie/Kulich topic, I would say that I generally agree that I think we could slow down the NHL in 2023 talk. I've got no real issue with them being in the NHL to start next season, I just don't think it should be a sure thing either. Looking back to the years 2000-2009, the Sabres drafted 16 players who played 500 or more NHL games. Only one, Tyler Myers, was an NHL regular by the start of his D+2 season. On average it took 3.5 years post-draft for those 16 players to become NHL regulars. There was a lock-out in there, but the bigger point is that it did not hurt those players that it took some time for them to make it to the NHL. The list of these players includes Ryan Miller, Brian Campbell, Derek Roy, Thomas Vanek, Jason Pominville and Paul Gaustad. Key contributors to the 2005-2007 teams. Since 2009 it has been a bit different. 9 drafted Sabres became regulars with the team either from the start of D+1 or D+2. Girgensens, Ristolainen Zadorov, Reinhart, Eichel, Mittelstadt, Dahlin, Cozens and Power. Some were clearly ready, some were clearly not. A one-sized fits all approach is not the way to go, but if you just use the 21st century Sabres as a guideline, it is better to be patient with than to rush a prospect. Quinn and Peterka were not NHL regulars until the start of D+3. I'm not sure Kulich and Savoie are better prospects than Quinn and Peterka. I'm also not sure that there is space or a need to force them into the line-up. We are at the point where they should only be in the NHL if it makes the Sabres better. Savoie's career won't be stunted if he has to play another year in the WHL, being a leader on a contending team and a key player on Canada's world junior squad. Likewise, I suspect there is lots that Kulich can learn from another year in Rochester.

Assuming the consolidated ranking of "20th" is accurate, then relative to where Rosen was ranked it could be said that they reached a bit. Of course, that the Sabres took him at 13 likely means that they had him ranked closer to 10. It's way too early to draw conclusions on whether it was a good pick. I know that when it comes to the draft I am guilty of looking at the players who are ranked slightly higher than where we are picking and focusing on 2 or 3 who I hope slip. Of course, for a player to slip it means that a team or teams took players who were ranked lower. We are probably as likely to pick a player ranked in the 20's with our 1st pick this year as we are to get a top 10 kid who falls. I was disappointed on draft night when they took Quinn. A was so focused on either Rossi slipping or on us possibly getting the "pro-ready" Lundell that I didn't spend any time on the real possibility they would take Quinn. A few minutes of research after the draft and I was happy with the pick. Incidentally, Quinn was taken 8th and as of now he is 8th in career NHL points from the 2020 draft.

Thomas Vanek had the best speculative explanation I have heard. He was on After the Whistle speaking on the subject a couple of weeks back. Vanek pointed out that as Johnson becomes a UFA Aug 15th, he can wait and see how the draft and free agency period shakes out. He basically has the luxury of waiting, scoping out the NHL landscape with regards to player depth and pick a place where he wants to go and where he has the best chance to be in the NHL this coming season. I hadn't thought of this until I heard it from Vanek. It makes sense. If the Sabres trade for a #4 at the draft and sign a 6-7 in free agency, then Johnson is likely Rochester bound (indeed, the Sabres may already have advised him that their plan is for him to be with the Amerks). There may be teams out there though, who advise Johnson he has a chance to be on the NHL roster and whose off-season defensive acquisitions/losses make clear that it is a legitimate possibility.

I don't know how this works, but CapFriendly has updated the "must sign by" date for Marjala to June 1, 2025. I suspect it has something to do with him leaving Junior and going back to Finland. I've never seen him play. The statistical year he had in Finland moved him into the "intriguing" category.

A pick in the 50's in 2023 is worth more than pick 63 or 64 in 2024. I will be pleasantly surprised if we get a 2nd for Olofsson. I don't think we are getting significant blue-line help for him either. I like Olofsson more than most fans, but I don't think his value is very high.

The Sabres were able to negotiate a 3rd for Portillo. The Kings I'm sure had reason to think they would get him signed, but there was no compensation for Portillo if he walked to free agency. Maybe the 2nd rd compensation for Johnson means there is still an opportunity to get a 2nd in this year's draft for him. Chicago jumps out as they have four 2nd rd picks this year and with Bedard coming they might want a player who is closer to the NHL than anyone they will get in Rd 2 this year. Incidentally, the Blackhawks have some work to do to get to the cap floor. They also don't have any goal scorers on their current roster. A Johnson/Olofsson deal for a 2nd in 2023 and a later pick in 24 or 25 might make sense for both teams.

Well, we know that from a salary cap perspective, Adams is highly unlikely to make a "Tavares-like" investment for the forward group or the defence. One thing Adams has been pretty clear on is that he believes he needs to know a player before he commits long-term to them. Adams won't be signing another team's UFA to a long-term big money deal. He also won't be taking on a long-term deal in a trade (there won't be a Parayko-like acquisition). Any trade acquisition or free agent signing is likely to be for 2-3 years max, so that it does not hand-cuff the team long-term in the event that the player is not a good fit. The lesson with Tavares, in my view, is that patience is key. The best player available in any particular off-season, is not likely to be the best-player for the long-term.

It could just be that the "big 4" are too much of the same kind. Individually they might thrive in the playoffs in different environments. Combined, they leave the Leafs top-heavy and not built for deep playoff runs. Add to the mix that they have a string of playoff failures and that they play in the league's biggest fishbowl and the pressure is no doubt immense. It would not surprise me at all to see Matthews or Marner star in the playoffs on a different team. I don't buy that Paul Maurice, who took over the President's Trophy winner from a year ago and barely squeezed them into the playoffs, out-coached Keefe (or Montgomery for that matter). I think Keefe is a very good NHL coach who gets the most out of his team in the regular season. Come playoff time it is not so much that the Leafs shrink as it is that they have no particular room or area to grow. The things that you need to be prepared to do to win in the playoffs are things that they just don't have enough of in their arsenal. I don't hate Leaf players. My personality leaves me strongly disliking players like Tkachuk, Bennett and Gudas more so. Bunting aside, the Leafs are not a collection of players I have any particular issues with. They are the competition though. I hope they decide to dismantle and move on from Dubas and Keefe and at least one of Marner or Matthews (Tavares is not moveable for assets back and Nylander, the current fan and media darling, isn't going anywhere this off-season). I think if they make bold moves in an effort to be a better playoff team, it is more likely that the outcome is they are simply not as good in the regular season. Next year, the Atlantic race might just be wide-open.

The NHL is even dumber than people think then. Bedard to Chicago has just drawn attention to the monster under the rug.

I agree with this. It is long past time to remove fighting and predatory body checks from hockey. Fighting is simply not needed. The Sabres just finished a very entertaining year of hockey and there were 6-7 fights all season. I won't lie, fights lift me out of my seat. But I will easily give up those brief and few moments of excitement if it means that I don't need to see a player splayed out on the ice with his brain scrambled. I don't want one of the Sabres' young players careers to end prematurely or to read 15 years from now about how they are struggling with pain and cognitive dysfunction because of too many concussions. The same goes for predatory hitting. The reality is that predatory hits are there for the taking multiple times a game and most players pass on the opportunity to inflict injury on the opposition. They pass on the opportunity because the hit might take them out of position defensively or it might result in them being penalized or they know they are risking injury to themselves, and, in many cases, they have respect for their opposition and don't want to risk causing serious injury to another player. As hits like this become more rare, players become less aware of the threat and thus are more likely to expose themselves to a predatory hit. There, unfortunately, are a handful of players remaining in the league (the Trouba, Gudas, Cernak types) who have no regard or respect for the well-being of their opponents. The game is dangerous enough. The additional thrills that come with the occasional fight or predatory hit are simply no longer worth the long-term negative outcomes on player health.

I feel the same way about the Bruins. I also don't dislike the Leaf players / team. I do dislike the Tampa players / team in general. That said, I'm rooting for Tampa to come out of this group as I think it maximizes off-season disruption among the teams we are trying to catch.

I don't think the phrase "wants to be here" applies only to things like the weather, community spirit, great food or affordable cost of living. When current players say this is where they want to be, I think they are also referencing organizational culture and the opportunity for team and personal success that currently exists on this version of the Sabres. In some cases, that may be primarily what they are referencing. There is probably not a single NHL team who would not take Johnson for free on an entry-level contract. He is the rare young player who has positioned himself where he can pick whatever NHL team / situation he wants to sign with. When he signs, it will be with the team he wants to be with...even if "the team he wants to be with" means the team that presents him with the best professional opportunity (by his assessment).

I still hope Johnson signs with the Sabres. It now seems unlikely though. All he needs to do is wait a few months and he can pick his spot. At this point, if he is not 100% in on the Sabres, then he might as well wait. I don't feel slighted by this. If he does sign with the Sabres it will be because he wants to be here. If he doesn't, it won't mean that Buffalo was 35th on his list behind every NHL franchise and 3 teams in the KHL. It will just mean that he was in the somewhat rare situation of having actual options and he did not find the Sabres to be the best of those. He could have many good reasons, including some that have nothing to do with hockey.

I finally listened as well and my take is pretty much the same as yours. Adams is not going to throw a player under the bus. He is positive by nature. I understand why some want definitive statements such as: "We need to upgrade our defence" or "There is no excuse for us to not be in the playoffs next season". That is just not his personality. For every Mark Messier who guarantees a win in game 6 there is also a Matt Hasselback who says "We want the ball and we're going to score". I think Adams is comfortable in his own skin and with his personal leadership style and he has no interest in pretending to be brash or provocative. Here are some things I did hear Adams say: - we have talked about things to improve like defensive play and special teams - it is good that the players are holding themselves to a higher standard and that they expect to make the playoffs - when it comes to goaltending, [our analytics area] looks deeper [than public data] and we needed to be better than we were in front of UPL at times - we are going to look to get better and are open to anything that moves the needle - the goal is to make the playoffs year after year and to win the Stanley Cup

I think this is fair. I don't object to improving the team in any area and it is certainly the case that there are going to be goaltenders available who are, playing the odds, likely to be better than UPL next year. I just don't agree that UPL should be dismissed outright as a bust.

Sorry, but I see a bit of a contradiction here. We increased our offensive output by 64 goals. Much of that was from young players increasing production (Cozens, Thompson) or being added (Quinn, Peterka). No question that a full season of Tuch made a difference. Considering how young we are, why can't our defence, goaltending and overall team defensive play improve? That said, I'm not convinced we won't make any changes on defence.