Archie Lee
-
Posts
726 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Events
Posts posted by Archie Lee
-
-
26 minutes ago, LGR4GM said:
You like the misleading headline? We actually don't know what most teams are spending cuz ufa season hasn't started.
I think what you are referring to as the headline was actually just his tweet. Also, I don’t think his tweet is all that misleading, if at all. We will almost certainly be spending in the top 5-7 when it comes to money spent on D.
-
5 minutes ago, GASabresIUFAN said:
The more we discuss the various and infinite scenarios for this off-season, two decisions seem to be the linchpins of the offseason.
1) What to do with Skinner. There are 4 options.
A) Find a trade partner, assuming Skinner is willing to be traded. Salary retention will be part of the equation, but better than the cap hit from option B. If possible this could free up about $6 mill a year for the next 3 seasons. This is the most unlikely option.
B) Buyout. This would leave a cap burden for the next 6 years. It would save over 7.5 this coming season, 4.5 in 25/26, and only 2.5 in 26/27. We then be on the hook for 3 more years at 2.45 per season. Not a huge fan of this move, but is would help KA afford to make a big swing on a top6/top 2 pair skater. I also doubt TP will sign off on paying $14.67 million to Skinner not to play for us.
C) Keep Skinner in the top 6. Here his poor defense is least likely to harm the team and it would best utilize his skillset. Playing him down the lineup is a mistake. Leaving him in the top 4 might allow KA to focus on building a strong 2 way 3rd line featuring Benson and Greenway with a strong 2 way center like Wennberg, Kerfoot or Bennett. This is turn might free up money to upgrade Jokiharju.
D) Play Skinner on the 3rd line. If this is the plan, KA better find away to get someone like Karlsson, Duchene or Monahan to center the 3rd line or we'll be wasting Skinner's O talent and making his lack of a 2 way game more pronounced. Spending big on a 3C, then also limits how much can we spent replacing Girgensons, Robinson and KO on the 4th line. If we could some get Monahan or Karlsson, I'd be on board with this plan. but I think plan C is the most likely outcome.
2) What to do with Jokiharju? How do the Sabres really view Jokiharju's talent level? Is he a bonfide top 4 D? There are 3 options here as well. The Sabresm without Joki already have 6 D under contract for next season
A) Re-sign him for a year or 2 to see if he continues to improve and becomes a bona fide top 4 D. This would lower the cap hit some on the extension and allow Joki to serve as a bridge until Novikov and or Komarov are NHL ready. AFP projects a 1 year deal at 3.328
B) Re-sign Joki to a long-term extension. Please, please Adams don't do this. We can find better stay at home D to pair with Dahlin or Power for less than the AFP projections. AFP projections his long-term deal at 3 years 4.016
C) Trade him for other assets and players. I'm hopeful that this is the path they take. Teams need R shot D and we don't need another long-term contract for a D on the books. He just isn't worth it.
These two decisions will ultimately determine how much cap KA has to work with over the summer and what positions on the roster need to filled by outside talent.
With regards to Skinner, I think it will almost certainly be a combo of C&D. We won't get through the year with the same 4 wingers in the top 6, so Skinner will see some time on the 1st two lines and if he plays well and produces he may stay there. I don't think we will ever see 22/23 Skinner again, but I think a return to 21/22 Skinner is possible, if a bit unlikely. On the actual $$$ cost of a buyout, I think on principle alone Pegula might refuse to pay Skinner to play for someone else. However, from a practical standpoint (and someone who understands the cap, and math better than me can correct this if it's wrong), I don't think a buyout costs more money. The actual buyout cost (not cap hit) is $2.44 million per season x 6, or $14.67 total, as you state. But this is more than offset by the cap-penalty over 6 seasons (dead cap, or money that can't be spent). If we intend to spend to the cap ceiling, a buyout would not cost more actual $$$ (there are other factors that could come into play down the line with bonuses, LTIR, etc.). In my view, the only reason to not buy him out now is if you actually think you can get 3 useful seasons out of him relative to a $9 million cap hit. If that isn't realistic, and in my view it isn't, then the best thing to do is take advantage of the $7.55 million in savings with a buyout in 2024 and chart an entire new course for your forwards.
Re: Joker, I think it will be 3 years at under $4 million, likely in the $3.5 million range. I can live with this. Next year, when Byram needs a new deal they can choose between:
1.) Trading Byram for a pick/prospect to keep the pipeline stocked, and promote Johnson/Novikov: or
2.) Trade Clifton or Joker for (much) less, promote Johnson/Novikov, and use the savings to re-sign Byram.
-
36 minutes ago, dudacek said:
I frequently see people pencilling Greenway in as a 4th-liner.
I struggle to think of many teams who have a player as strong as Greenway on their 4th line.
With the exception of the year he was in the doghouse and traded to Buffalo, Greenway was inarguably a 3rd-liner in Minnesota, part of what was considered one of the best 3rd lines in the game with Foligno and Ek.
In Buffalo last year, he was actually 4th in ice time among forwards at more than 17 minutes a game, ahead of Cozens, Skinner and Peterka.
Statistically, a 10-goal, 30-point player is a good 3rd-liner. His 28 points last year put him 64th among left wings.
Throw in the fact that he is strong defensively and a mammoth human being, I tend to think of him as almost a prototypical 3rd-liner.
I agree with your assessment of Greenway. I don't think he will be on the 4th line.
I think the reason fans move him to the 4th line in projections (I've done it) is less about him being a 4th line player than it is with us having nobody else who remotely fits a 4th line wing profile. Fans are expecting that we will either upgrade the forward roster or add one of the prospects. If that happens on the wing, then the house is full. Barring a buyout or trade of a roster player, then Skinner, Tuch, Peterka, Quinn and Benson are locks for top 9 roles on the wing. It's a bit of wish fulfillment. If Greenway is on line 4, then it means we have brought in an upgrade.
-
1
-
-
40 minutes ago, LGR4GM said:
Pronman mock draft https://www.nytimes.com/athletic/5531872/2024/06/05/nhl-mock-draft-2024-celebrini-levshunov/
I have made no bones about how much I don't like Pronman's rankings but it still gives us things to talk about and there is a fun Sabres note in here.
- Mack Celebrini
- Artyom Levshunov
- Anton Silayev
- Cayden Lindstrom
- Ivan Demidov
- Sam Dickinson
- Carter Yakemchuk
- Zeev Buium
- Berkly Catton
- Beckett Sennecke
- Tij Iginla (Pronman: Several NHL team sources think Buffalo is a strong candidate to trade their pick.)
- Konsta Helenius
I don't see any logicaly way Tij Iginla makes it past Calgary at 9. That would be the perfect spot to take him in. That said, I think it is interesting there is industry chatter about Buffalo trading the pick as that indicates to me there are multiple conversations around that. As always, talking about it and doing it are 2 different things.
On Iginla, I have heard the sentiment (in an Athletic Pod) that Calgary might not see him in their top 10 and might not wish to put the sort of additional pressure on a kid that would come with drafting him into that situation (Dad’s a legend here). It seems they may draw fire whichever direction they choose.
I’m more than fine with trading #11. As @JohnC has said, there is certainly a minimum that we should expect back (3C min or top 6 wing, with some term or certainty we can extend; we might need to add). But 2 things:
- I would really prefer to deal one or two of our prospects. We don’t have space for them to begin with. Adding a top 9 forward with term is important, but further diminishes the space for our existing prospects. Trading a prospect or two and keeping #11 allows for a better integration of prospects to our NHL lineup over the next few seasons. It is hard for me to imagine that Adams does not see this.
- I would feel a little better if there were more rumours about young vets being shopped who fit the general mold of what we are looking for. Obviously there could be discussions on players that we aren’t aware are available. -
The one player I’ve watched a tonne is Tanner Howe in Regina. Late birthday C/W. likely a W in pro. Some doubts the prior two years because he played a lot with Bedard. Had a solid season as by far the best player on a bad team. Does it all and plays with some attitude. I think a prototypical safe 2nd rd pick. If we take a D in rd one and trade a forward prospect or two, I think Howe would be a good add to replenish the forward prospect ranks. He reminds me, stylistically, of Curtis Brown.
-
2
-
-
23 minutes ago, GASabresIUFAN said:
The odds of Skinner being bought out are pretty slim. I won't say none because Diggs got traded by the Bills so anything can happen.
Skinner is a black hole defensively, especially when he plays with lower level players. Placing him with Krebs late last season was a disaster.
Skinner needs to play in the top 6 or with a very capable 3rd line center to maximize his value to the Sabres. Acquiring someone like Monahan, Duchene or Karlsson might allow Skinner to be played on the 3rd line.
@Taro T I'm not sure there is enough money for the Sabres to bring in a top 6 winger and a center capable of maximizing Skinner's ability on the 3rd line, while filling the other needs on the team.
I think we can accomplish much the same thing with a 3rd line of Skinner, Karlsson, and Savoie (assuming he's ready). I'd still like to see Blueger signed for the 4th line center job. Sign Blueger and you have a 4th line of Krebs, Blueger and Greenway. I wouldn't mind also looking at Sam Lafferty instead of Krebs on the 4th line. This gives us the ablility to push Greenway back into the top 9 if Savoie isn't ready. To get Karlsson, I traded Rosen plus a 2nd in 2024 & a 3rd in 2025.
I used AFP for most of the contracts except I think we can re-sign UPL at 4 million (3 years) and Krebs at 1.25 (2 years). I re-signed Bryson (2 years @ 1.25); signed Blueger (2 years & 2.25) and Lafferty (2 years at 2.5)
By bolstering the team with Karlson, I was forced to elevate Ryan Johnson to the 3rd pair with Clifton and pair Byram with Power.
I ran this team on capfriendly and the cap hit came to 84.4 in 2024.
JJP TNT Tuch
Benson Cozens Quinn
Skinner Karlson Savoie
Lafferty Blueger Greenway (Krebs)
Dahlin Samuelsson
Power Byram
Johnson Clifton (Bryson)
UPL Levi
There is a lot that is good in that line-up. There are 9 players though, who would be 23 or under to start the season. 5 in the top 9 forwards. That’s really young.
-
I’m not familiar with the Bee connection with Utah? How about Stingers? I suck at this though.
-
1
-
-
1 hour ago, JohnC said:
I'm aware of the dominant view that Skinner should be dealt or if necessary bought out. Why not simply keep him and put him on the first line? On that line it is not unrealistic to believe that he can score around 35 goals. Moving him up to the first line then allows you to move JJP to the second line with Cozens the center and Quinn on the other wing. That should be a very vibrant line. The issue then becomes who is going to be added on a third line that has Benson?
It seems that Skinner has beeb dismissed as a player by many, just like Mitts was a few years back. He does have some liabilities but his biggest asset is that he is a goal scorer. Does his biggest asset make up for his limitations? I think so but most do not.
Your first paragraph is the argument for keeping Skinner and it is fair. He has bounced back from down years before and it would not be at all shocking if he scored 30 again this year. I don’t dismiss Skinner as a potentially useful player and I actually reject that he is an active barrier to us being a playoff team.
If though, you think his value has diminished and that it is likely to diminish further and that a buyout is likely anyway in a year or two, then it is important to remember that the the cap space downside in 2025-2026 and 2026-2027 does not get appreciably better by waiting (and, of course, is only worse if you don’t buy him out at all). Not to mention, with waiting or not buying him out, you never get the benefit of the flexibility to remake your roster as you can with the $7.55 million saved through a buyout this year.
-
8 hours ago, dudacek said:
So I ran a ran a capfriendly scenario where I bought Skinner out, replaced him with Savoie, brought in 3 more forward upgrades (Bennett, Jeannot, Trenin) and was still $9 under the cap next year. (which, ironically, means I probably don't even have to buy out Skinner this year)
And it left with me with about $32M the following year in order to re-sign or replace Greenway, Jeannot, Bennett, Peterka, Quinn and Byram — which seems like plenty. We'd probably elect to let one or more of the UFAs walk, but reloading should be easy considering we can bridge Quinn and Peterka if we want and we still have Rosen, Östlund, Kulich and Wahlberg among others as unused chips.
The following year — the biggest Skinner hit — we have Tuch and Clifton at UFA and Benson's ELC expiring. Letting Clifton walk and the rise in the cap should pay for giving the other two raises. With the core locked up and lots of ELC options available we should be home free for a while after that.
That was just the first random hit I tried and was totally doable. There are probably better options to use that $9M I'm under this year (like holding on to Skinner one more year and letting Savoie play in Rochester) and trades that make better sense. The point was just to see if the option was worth investigating.
I am now officially on the buy out Skinner train.
Love it.
The only part of your post I would quibble with is having Savoie in the lineup. Put Quinn in that spot (3rd line with Bennett and Greenway; great 3rd line) and use the 10 million in space to add a top 6 forward to play with Peterka and Cozens. If worried about the cap in future years, keep some flexibility by making it Mangiapane or Ehlers who are a year away from UFA status. If you are more willing to be ruthless though (ie: Quinn and Peterka are great, but we are not married to them and one of them could be traded next off-season), trade for Necas or sign Stephenson.
This is what good teams do all the time. The Rangers can’t keep all their RFA’s and quality UFA’s. That’s just reality. We want to be in a spot a year from now where it hurts to say goodbye to a good player.
-
9 minutes ago, thewookie1 said:
I might trade Skinner for Trouba but otherwise I wait until next year.
Buy him out next year and you save $444k over what the cost is if you buy him out now; less than 1/2 an ELC. There is virtually no benefit to waiting a year until you get to 2029/30; if you wait a year the buyout cost ends after 28/29. If, however, you do it now, you get $7.55 million to use this year on roster upgrades. There’s a lot we could do with $7.55 million that would do more to enhance the roster than Skinner at $9 million. And I’m not really that down on Skinner. I just think the fundamental question should be: can we ice a better roster using the $7.55 in savings that come with a buyout? The answer is, without question, yes.
No team has a more critical need to utilize every tool at its disposal to win this year than the Sabres. They won’t buyout Skinner because they are not committed to winning at the same level as the Knights, Panthers, Oilers, Canucks, etc.
-
1
-
-
8 minutes ago, thewookie1 said:
I’d give Krebs 2x1.5mil
UPL 3x4mil
Blueger and Bryson are good at those numbers
Id just go after someone more talented than Amadio if I’m giving anyone 3x3mil
What would you do if you had an extra $7.55 million to spend after a Skinner buyout?
-
12 minutes ago, GASabresIUFAN said:
Archie, if we acquire Kerfoot, Joki is probably part of that deal. I’d also move on from Bryson, unless he’ll return for $1 mill. UPL is the only RFA we should keep, but I fully acknowledge that Krebs will also be re-signed. Krebs’ Qoffer is only 780K and he’s not getting much more than that. That team would have about 2.5 mill in cap space.
I'm not sure Utah has any interest in Joker, but maybe. Are we just replacing him with Johnson? I doubt Krebs signs for under $1.4. I doubt we move on from Bryson, though I think he will accept less than his QO (something around $1.2 or $1.3). I'm not trying to be argumentative about your proposal. It's good. I'm just pointing out that we don't have a tremendous amount of space once we start making upgrades...and the upgrades require us to do something that I'm not sure we are committed to: spend to, or near to, the cap.
-
11 minutes ago, GASabresIUFAN said:
By the way bolstering the bottom 6 is not a bad plan this offseason. If you ask Lindy, he'll want to be able to roll 4 good to decent lines and if we get reasonable production from the 3rd and 4th lines for a change, it will take a lot of pressure off TNT and Cozens to carry the team.
I also like the idea of adding guys like Amadio and Blueger to our bottom 6. These are guys that don't take playing in the NHL for granted and play they have to earn it every shift. There are incumbent players who would benefit from working with those kind of players.
Skinner Kerfoot Greenway - Greenway attacks the net and Kerfoot creates for Skinner
Krebs Blueger Amadio - Hard working guys who hopefully rub off on Krebs. Also swapping one Latvian (Girgensons) for another (Blueger).
That's a significantly upgraded bottom 6 over the mess we had last season. If Savoie earns a slot, Greenway goes down to the 4th line and Krebs to the bench.
I would be ok with this and think it is probably about a best case scenario type of offseason. Note that, using AFP contract projections, if we make these 3 acquisitions and re-sign our 4 NHL RFA's, and promote Levi, Johnson and Rousek to back-up roles, we come in right around $500k under the cap. So even an offseason like this, which is ok, but a bit underwhelming, requires us to commit to becoming a cap team.
-
31 minutes ago, JohnC said:
Your response is perplexing? Who is arguing to do nothing? No one is, including the organization. The Cup finals haven't even started. The draft is still a little way off---a time where many deals are made. Who is arguing that we shouldn't use our potential assets to address the present roster? No one is! You are making an assumption that something isn't going to happen during a period of time when transactions usually don't happen.
Before getting intensely agitated about the inaction during a period of inaction, how about waiting for the period when most transactions happen. If you assess the number of post season transactions league wise, you'll find that there haven't been many deals made at this point yet. I'm confident as the finals wind down the rumors will be flying about deals for the Sabres and all teams in the league. TBD!
I half-agree with your post. It is true that nobody here is arguing for the team to do nothing. It is perplexing to me that a question could come up about a trade involving our 1st rd pick and a few of us not agreeing that the value is enough is then interpreted to mean we are prioritizing winning a trade over winning hockey games. As though any of us can actually do anything to influence the Sabres making or not making a trade or winning or not winning hockey games. Also, I agree that it is too soon for hand-wringing (for me anyway). If we get to July 3rd and we have not made substantive moves, then conclusions can fairly be drawn.
Where we perhaps differ is in our faith or optimism that moves are coming. When asked in the recent Seravelli interview if he regretted not doing more last off-season, Adams confidently said “no” and pointed out he did bring in Clifton and Johnson and then doubled-down on his position that bringing in a forward or two only would have taken ice-time away from Peterka, Quinn and Benson. I have not heard him say anything about a change in roster construction, other than wanting a different style of 4th line player, that gives me any sense we will make the sort of changes that in themselves give fans a higher degree of confidence. It could be that they are planning these sort of moves, but until they happen my assumption is that the plan is to come in $5-7 million under the cap and to bring in some lower-cost 4th liners that will mostly have us scratching our head a bit. Hope I am wrong.
-
1
-
1
-
-
Go Oilers. They have very few players I dislike (maybe none). I can’t stand Bennett and Tkachuk and Lomberg (would take them on the Sabres, but can’t stand them on a div rival).
My complete indifference to the success or failure of Okposo, Reinhart, Mitts in these playoffs has just confirmed that, while I rooted hard for them as Sabres and have no ill will for them, my allegiance is entirely to the uniform.
-
1
-
-
The thing that we seem to generally want the most is, I think, the most unlikely to happen. That is, Joker is moved out in a trade and a more gritty veteran R shot defender (experience, size, truculence) is brought in to pair with one of the big 3 offensive lefties. I see little chance this will happen. I do think it is possible Joker is traded for a pick and/or a 4C type, but if he is moved I think it is likely with the intent for Samuelsson to play in that 4th top-four spot (so, four lefties) and we will see Johnson/Bryson/Clifton on the 3rd pair.
Though not my first choice, I would not shudder at Joker being re-signed. I do think there is a chance we see Dahlin/Power on pair one this year. A not oft mentioned combo for the 2nd and 3rd pair could be Sammy/Joker and Byram/Clifton. Label them pair 2 or 3 as you see fit. I think with another year experience, better structure, average to good goaltending and improved offence, this D would be more than good enough.
-
16 minutes ago, thewookie1 said:
So angry EDM made the Finals, wanted Pavelski to get a chance. Plus EDM doesn’t deserve it in the slightest seeing as they only got McDavid by being inept, winning multiple 1st Overalls which made the league change the odds which gave them McDavid over us.
I pray Florida humbles them
Go Oilers. Absolutely can’t stand the Panthers.
-
1
-
1
-
-
37 minutes ago, thewookie1 said:
No use in buying out Skinner; it will put us in a precarious position next year
In what way? The dead cap hit from 25-26 through 28-29 is virtually the same whether you buy him out this year or next.
-
3 hours ago, Weave said:
The bolded is reasonable, and the opinions are why we are here. But if you are presuming that any given deal is desperation then you are coming at it from the wrong perspective. Is it aggressive? Yes. Of course. But aggressive =\= desperate, also of course.
The primary difference here is that a bunch of us see this as the right time for aggressive moves to fill out the roster. We have more assets than we can keep, giving us a fairly unusual opportunity to be a bully with them to get what we need. IMO failure to do so by the GM would be negligent.
I agree that it is time for aggression. I don’t think this is the right trade though (except for maybe in the “no other option” vacuum).
I think we should buy out Skinner and use the $7.55 million in cap savings to completely remake the bottom 6 of our roster. As is, we are committed to a top 6 that is made up entirely of current players who either need to bounce back or emerge. If you buyout Skinner you can add a top 6 winger (pushing a winger down to the 3rd line) and a 3rd line centre and still remake the 4th line.
Being opposed to trading #11 in a deal where you don’t think the value is correct does not mean that you are against being aggressive this off-season.
-
2 hours ago, Weave said:
Hardly. There are multiple conversations underway. None of them are related to the other conversations, except for the “would you do this” pretense. They all kind of have a similar presumption.
My apologies. I must have misunderstood which conversation I was contributing to.
-
2 hours ago, dudacek said:
I was trying to avoid the "if everything goes right" scenario and focus on the context of what the actual roster needs.
Go back to your earlier post of it being a template: most of us like the idea of adding a centre, a physically strong defensive defenceman and hard-to-play against winger.
You said the upgrade offered by those three pieces won't get us into the playoffs. How good does our upgrade need to be?
I do think it is a decent template for part of what the Sabres could try to do this off-season. I’m not sure I would say it wouldn’t get us in the playoffs. It could. But in an earlier post you had said (I’m paraphrasing) that you couldn’t see this team missing with these additions. I don’t think these players added to last year’s roster in place of Mitts, Okposo, Joker, would have made us a playoff team. Could they this coming year? Sure. But a lot would have to go right that didn’t. A person doesn’t have to imagine a bunch of worst case scenario outcomes. All that needs to happen for the playoffs to be a tough achievement is for Thompson, Tuch, Skinner, Cozens and Dahlin to produce at the same level as they just did.
I would be happy if we made 3 similar upgrades this off-season I just think:
1.) We can do it without giving up #11; and
2.) It leaves a lot to chance. Specifically, we are relying on a group of forwards to either bounce back or emerge. Gourde, Tanev and Larson aren’t fixing our offence.
-
2
-
1
-
-
13 minutes ago, dudacek said:
OK. But what if you add Byrum replacing EJ to that context?
Thompson and Cozens bouncing back?
The health of Quinn and Samuelsson?
How much of an upgrade those 3 departing players do we need to win 5 more games next year?
Yes, if Thompson and Cozens combine for 70 goals and Byram is the player that we hope and Quinn and Samuelsson both play 75 plus games and Benson jumps to 45-50 points and the PP isn’t terrible and UPL is still good, then we will be in the playoffs. But, if these things happen we make the playoffs with Krebs and Joker and pick a UFA 4th line winger (Carrier, Lafferty).
5 minutes ago, Weave said:In a world with better options, everyone takes the better option. I mean, duh. But that isn’t really the conversation. The conversation is, would you do Joki, Krebs, 11 for those 3 players? It kind of has to presume that a better deal isn’t there.
It was the conversation until some people changed it to a fantasy world where this was the one and only option.
-
11 minutes ago, Weave said:
Don’t let perfect be the enemy of better.
The initial proposal wasn’t laid out as a scenario where this was the one and only option for the Sabres to upgrade their roster this off-season. As I said, in a mythical world where there is no other option, then sure I would do the trade. Im not sure who our 4th line centre is in this mythical world, or who is going to play up if Cozens or Thompson are injured, but sure, if this is the one and only deal that could be made, let’s do it.
In the real world where there are other and better options which are, frankly, far more realistic, I would pass.
-
12 minutes ago, Weave said:
But, we aren’t talking about some other mythical deal. We are talking about this mythical deal. In that context, and in the context of improving the team being more important than winning the trade, the only asset I consider of value is that #11. Sure, if there is a better deal, do it. But if KA is set to make a decision about this mythical deal, wouldn’t it have to presume that a better mythical deal isn’t on the table?
If this is a scenario where no other deal is possible and there is no negotiation on the price, then sure. I don’t agree that it makes us a playoff team though. These 3 players are replacing Mitts, Okposo and Joker from last year. I don’t think these three players out perform Mitts, Okposo and Joker to the degree that it puts us in the playoffs.
2024 Stanley Cup Final - Edmonton vs Florida
in The Aud Club
Posted
Individual games can take on a life of their own. The Oilers have outshot their opponents in 13 of 18 games in the playoffs. They aren’t a “score a couple PP goals and hang on” team.