Archie Lee

When it comes to prospects there should be no rush. I don't mean that we should be absolute in not trading any. I also don't mean we should just patiently wait for this batch of prospects to be ready. The Sabre roster has many good pieces, but also some holes and some structural deficiencies. Serious NHL teams that have cap space and assets address their holes and deficiencies, they don't leave spots open for the prospect who shows best in camp. Adams failed in not recognizing that a shift in perception had occurred by the end of 22-23 and that it was no longer going to be good enough to miss the playoffs with some young guys doing some good things. By not taking advantage of the assets he had and moving the process forward last off-season, he ultimately took the team backwards. That failure cost him his plan, and likely some agency (and a coach his job). I think it would be a mistake though, to now over-correct and trade away their 1st rd pick and half their top prospects. The Sabres have lots of assets at their disposal and don't need to move their 1st rd pick or top prospects to enhance the roster (I'm not absolute on this, I just think if they do things correctly then holding these assets will ultimately pay-off). The lesson from the Amerk's loss is that there need be no hurry to rush any of these kids to the NHL. They can all be back in Rochester, get a year older, a year stronger, a year more mature, support them with a bit of a different style of coach and veteran player (much like should happen in the NHL this year) and let them take a run. If things go as planned with the Sabres, there will be difficult cap decisions to make before 25-26. Then there should be 2-3 of these young guys absolutely ready to step in and help and thrive at the NHL level.

I’m not down on Levi. I urge you though to have a look at the list of young AHL goalies in the last decade who have had seasons with a 920 save %. and higher. The list is pretty long. Some ended up being very good NHL goalies. Most didn’t.

I think this is a succinct way of putting it. We have picks, prospects, some young roster players and cap space. I’m not too hung up on what pieces we move or don’t move. Just take advantage of the assets we have to make the team better.

The alternative is probably a one year Swayman deal ($3.5 ish). A two year deal takes UPL to UFA status. If we want some of his UFA years, then I think we will need to approach $5 million per. Lots of risk either way.

Keep the pick. Keep all the top prospects* in Rochester (or wherever they are required to play) for another year. Buy out Skinner. Bolster the roster with veterans acquired through free agency or by trading lesser assets (Joker, 2nd rd picks or later). Make the playoffs in the NHL and compete for the Calder in the AHL. Promote 2-3 Top prospects on ELC’s to the NHL roster in 25/26 when the cap crunch comes. *I’m ok with trading one or two top prospects, but think the roster can be effectively remade without doing so.

I’m not defending Adams with this comment, but for the past 3 seasons he has not been seriously trying to bring in veteran centres (there is a valid criticism regarding it not being a priority). Since the Krueger firing, Adams has, more or less, executed his plan. We have just come to the 1st point in his process where the plan did not render the results he anticipated. This off-season we will learn a lot.

It’s not that the ownership group could not afford to buy him out but rather that there would be no point. There are virtually no cap savings. He is 33. He had 65 points in 80 games.

I’ll be a bit surprised if Keefe is not fired. I think he is a good coach, but the easiest change for the Leafs to make is to fire him and bring in any one of the veteran coaches available. I think their brass will look at how they played games 5-7 and target a coach who they perceive will have them play like that from the start (Berube). There will be calls for Marner and/or Tavares to be traded, but they both have full no moves. I suppose there are ways to convince a player to accept a trade. Both are UFAs after next season, so change is coming one way or another.

It’s all message board fodder, Dude.

In my view Ruff has largely been a coach who gets as much out of his team as could reasonably be expected. That’s good. He is not a coach whose system or intellect or force of determination will push a team to be more than the sum of its parts. I don’t think that changes for the better at this point of his career. The 23-24 Sabres are maybe marginally better with Ruff than Granato, but they are not a playoff team. I would argue that the outlier from the Granato era is that he somehow dragged the 22-23 team to within a point of the playoffs; that was a greater coaching achievement than the 23-24 season was a failure. We will be as good as the team that Ruff is provided to coach. Great roster improvement is needed for us to be in playoff contention.

I could not disagree more. Post-pandemic, 90% of NHL fan-bases would be so lucky to have such a fraudulent team to root for. Just looking at their roster and at who is producing for them night after night and it seems to me they have reached that point of critical mass where they have a high # of players who are either in, approaching, or just coming out of their prime performance years. Once you get down to 8 NHL teams, the road is tough (this is not the NHL I grew up watching where 12/16 or 16/21 teams were in the playoffs). Watching the Oilers and watching all the former Sabres who are in the playoffs, just reinforces how terribly the Sabres managed the post-tank years. It is really just the past couple of years that we should be a top 5-6 contender.

I think it is possible that the double-digit number of people who he spoke to, were people he spoke to about the idea of hiring Ruff. In other words: he did due diligence on Ruff by having many discussions with many people about Ruff before he hired him. Adams got a lot of praise for how he handled the press conference where he addressed firing Donnie. I’ve read that some think his demeanour on that day and on the day of the Ruff press conference was the most confident he has been since he became GM. I see the opposite. I see a guy whose plan failed and who is now scrambling. I see a guy who knows his options to move this forward with the speed needed to save his job are extremely limited.

You make many good points that I agree with. I would argue that there is a difference between “A” tank (the concept of tanking) and “THE” tank (the tank that we did). There was no appetite among any group associated with the Sabres (ownership, management, fans) to manage the tank in a way that we would now describe as proper (I don’t doubt you may have felt different at the time, but I would not say your view was representative of how fans felt in general). The expectation was that we would be terrible for 2 years, get a good player in 2014 and then McEichel in 2015 and then be back in the playoffs and on our way to contending within another year or two. There was never any intention, at least after Regier was fired, to manage the tank and rebuild “properly”. In other words, I don’t think “THE” tank can be separated from the failed rebuild. Note: you are, of course, free to separate them if you see it otherwise. I’m not speaking for anyone but myself, but I don’t see what happened from June 2015 to June/July 2018 as being separate from “THE” tank.

I'm not looking to make change for the sake of change. But, if we come back next year with the same top-6 D and Skinner, there won't be many roster spots or much cap space left to make substantial change. I'm onboard for a remade 4th line, but I don't see (as examples) adding Noah Cates through trade and the likes of Brendan Smith, William Carrier, Kevin Stenlund, etc. as UFA's as moving the needle all that much. And just adding players of that level (along with extensions for Joker, Krebs, UPL, Bryson) will get us within a couple millions of the cap.

Assuming the Sabres plan to be a cap team from here (no sure thing, I understand), then from a cap perspective, the only significant value in waiting a year is avoiding the 6th year cap hit of $2,444,444. The benefit in buying him out now is $7.5 million in space this season to remake the roster. From an actual dollars spent perspective, waiting a year saves Pegula about $3.7 million ( I think). For me it is the mix.

I’m fine with moving a high-end prospect or two this off-season. My preference, though, would be to address our top-end needs (middle six forward, 2nd pair D) through free agency and to trade some secondary pieces (Joker, B-prospects, 2nd rd picks and later) to fill out the 4th line and depth positions. If the Sabres are serious this off-season and spend to the cap (hopefully with a Skinner buyout), then whether they acquire new players via trade or free agency it will put them in a difficult cap position next year with Peterka, Quinn, Byram as RFAs (and Levi). I’m not afraid of that and indeed hope we are in a difficult cap position a year from now. I want them to have tough decisions to make regarding RFA’s or trading a vet or two to make space. If we are in such a difficult spot, then the more good prospects we have to challenge for vacated roles, the better. There should be no rush to trade or promote our top prospects. In 04-05, Vanek, Roy, Pominville, Gaustad and Miller were in Rochester and their average age to start the season was 21.6. Next year to start the season the average age of Rosen, Kulich, Savoie, Östlund and Levi will be a full year younger. I’m not opposed to trading one or two in the right deals, but improving through free agency and keeping prospect bullets in the chamber, so to speak, for when the cap crunch hits, should be an option.

Today? No. But that doesn’t mean we are headed in the Leafs direction (again, it feels stupid to say that because the Leafs are so much better than us). The Leafs actually have a lot of jam/grit in their line-up. It is just that they have tied half of their salary to 4 elite offensive players who collectively have little jam/grit. This has not allowed them to have a deep enough roster talent-wise. They can’t afford to spend on a goalie. Last night they were down 2 with 4 minutes left and they had Jake McCabe QBjng PP2. That is not a path we are headed on. We are actually built quite differently with goal and D prioritized from the backend. If and when we add bottom 6 grit/jam, we will see that our top players are quite able to stand up for themselves and their teammates (not all, but more than enough).

I have issues with our roster construction, but strongly disagree we are headed in the Leafs direction (setting aside the obvious, which is that we should be so lucky as to have a team that has been as good as the Leafs the past 5-6 years). We are built from the back end out. Our young D and goalies are, potentially, dramatically better than anything the Leafs have had during this stretch. Also, I think many of our top players (Dahlin, Byram, Cozens, Thompson, Tuch, Benson) do have more jam/grit in them than Toronto’s big 4. Our guys just haven’t been provided with the down the line-up toughness that allows the higher in the line-up guys to be a-holes and get away with it.

I have no idea how things will be when we finally get in. Almost all of us are now at the point, though, where we acknowledge there are issues with how the Sabres roster is constructed, both in the present and forward looking. Adams seemed to acknowledge this in his after the season press conferences. Contractually we are not constructed like the leafs though. The Leafs big 4 forwards were paid 48.5% of their cap this year. Next year the cap is projected to go up by $4 million. With the raises coming for Matthews and Nylander, their big 4 will take up 53% of the cap next year. All 4 of them have full NMCs. Unless one of them asks to be traded, they are stuck for another year until the Tavares and Marner deals are up. We are not in that sort of contractual bind. While we don’t know what will happen over the next year or two, there is currently no one on the Sabres roster who projects in the short term to be in line for a bigger contract than our current big 4 of Dahlin, Power, Thompson, Cozens (total salaries next year will = 38% of the cap). Of course, that doesn’t mean we will make effective use of the cap room that we have ( we haven’t for many years), but at this point we are not building anything like the situation the Leafs are in. The GM of the Sabres will have flexibility that the Leaf GM has not had.

Your perception of what a typical 4th line forward produces is off from reality (wildly off). Something around 500 forwards suited up for NHL games this year. If you are 201st in EVP you are not a 4th liner. I do agree with your earlier point though, that Benson should not have been in the NHL this season. It is my view. Not because he wasn’t capable. Indeed, he proved himself most capable of being a good middle 6 player. I am super excited about what he already brings and will bring to the team in the future. The reason he shouldn’t have been in the NHL is that the Sabres were in a must win year (see: Granato, Don: Fired). Teams that are in must win years and that are already young and inexperienced and that have millions of dollars in cap space don’t go into camp leaving a spot open for the forward prospect who shows the best. That’s what established veteran winning playoff teams do when they have an open spot and no cap space to bring in a veteran. Of course, this is not the point of this thread. It isn’t Benson’s issue that we don’t operate like a normal NHL team. I am thrilled that we have this kid.

The more I consider this, the more I think this off-season is the time for the buyout. If you look at this over the period of the next 6 seasons, the buyout #’s show that the only real negative to the buyout this June over next June is the 6th year cap hit of $2,444,445 (vs $0.00 in year 6 if we wait a year). That’s significant to be sure. But years 2-5 are nearly the same with a buyout this June costing a manageable extra amount of $444,445 per season. What sways me to this June is the $7,555,555 in savings this year. Now, we don’t know yet if the Sabres are ready to spend money. If they are, though, then the expected increase in the cap combined with the savings on a Skinner buyout would position the Sabres for a major roster overhaul. Assuming a reasonable extension for UPL, a Skinner buyout would leave around $25 million in cap space. It’s not so much that I think we can’t get anything useful out of Skinner next year as it is that I think we can get more useful things with the cap savings. No question if we spend to the cap this year it will create difficult decisions next off season re: new contracts for Quinn, Peterka, Greenway, Byram and potentially even Levi next year. There is risk. But if several of those guys have the type of year that it puts us in a difficult spot with the cap, then I believe the phrase is “it’s a good problem to have“.

I'm of two minds. I'm disappointed that we did not approach this the way a franchise committed to winning would approach a coaching hire. At the same time, I'm glad (relieved) that there is a guy with Ruff's background and experience who checks off many of the required boxes while also checking off the boxes that make him an option for a team like the Sabres, who don't operate the the way winning teams do. Ruff was the only real viable option. In my view, it is highly unlikely that any of the other oft-discussed and high profile candidates would have accepted a 2 year deal. I also don't think Pegula or Adams are comfortable bringing in a coach with an Alpha-male-type personality who they have no history or comfort with. In short, there was one qualified and available coach who the organization was comfortable with and one qualified and available coach who was comfortable with the organization. I think Adams moving as quickly as he did was to ensure Ruff was not alienated by a prolonged search that only could have ended with the Sabres offering Ruff the job. On the positive side. Ruff is legit. This time last year he was coaching a team that had just won 53 regular season games to a first round playoff victory over the Rangers. I think we are fortunate that Ruff was available.

Well put. While I do think it is time to discuss a Skinner buyout, I also recognize that Ruff had Afinogenov for 9 years. He can manage Skinner for 2-3 I think.

It can be hard to get a clear sense of their views. My summary, from the pod after Granato was fired AND the pod after Ruff was hired, is: - Peter’s was convinced it would be Ruff from the moment Granato was fired. Though part of the reason he thought this was what I think is a complete misunderstanding on his part of how coach contracts work in the NHL. He has a complicated history with Ruff, but respects him and thinks he will do a good job - Rivet did not think it would be Ruff and is a bit disappointed that there was not an actual search. He does think that Ruff will do a good job, but I sense he would have preferred someone else. - The most damning thing was Peters’ reference to the opinion of alumni. He indicated his texts blew up with the news with lots of former teammates texting including some he forgot had his number. He did not give names but referenced a few texts. The theme was that former players see this as the Sabres playing it safe, living in the past and generally continuing to not function like a normal NHL team. Again, this is my take on their comments.

I like the idea of Stephenson as a replacement for a bought out Skinner. If Krebs earns the 3C position then Stephenson can play wing. If Krebs does not earn the 3C then Stephenson plays centre.