Archie Lee

I am sure there was a report that the Oilers inquired about Varlamov. The Oilers were on his no trade list and he refused to waive. He may simply value living on the island and in a particular community over being a starting goalie. I agree on Holtby. I would be fine with adding him but he is not a guy I would throw $5 million per at, even for a very short-term. I realize that Adams is in a position where he has to do something, but I don’t think it ever makes sense to do something that is that far outside of what any other GM would do. If you sign Holtby for $5 mil per and he far underperforms his AAV, which would be likely, Adams would be rightly criticized for throwing ridiculous money at a player who was unlikely to earn it with his performance.

On the topic of who will be paired with Power next year, my recollection is that Adams stated they were thinking of options and that they were considering external and internal candidates. I don’t think Adams ever specifically said he was planning to actively pursue a veteran to pair with Power. I don’t have a prediction, but I think some read more into Adams’s comments than what was actually said.

After watching San Jose beat Vegas last night, if San Jose decides to go to younger, then I will throw out Reimer and Bonino as trade options for veteran goalie and veteran bottom 6 centre. Both were good. Reimer made several enormous saves.

Maybe you know the following and just mean the Sabres should have found a way via a trade to keep Borgen and move Bjork to Seattle instead. If so, then I too would have been happy had we kept Borgen somehow. For anyone reading who is unaware though, it was not a choice between Borgen and Bjork. The Sabres chose the option of protecting 7 forwards and 3 defencemen (10 skaters in total: Eichel, Reinhart, Olofsson, Mittelstadt, Thompson, Asplund, Bjork, Dahlin, Joker and Risto). They had the option of protecting additional defencemen but it would have meant only being allowed to protect 8 skaters; meaning protecting Borgen would have required them to expose 3 additional forwards. Bjork for Borgen? Sure. Asplund for Borgen? Maybe, but a bad trade-off in my view. Olofsson or Mittelstadt or Thompson for Borgen? Oh my!

The 2nd half that the Sabres have had this year is the 2nd half that I have hoped for over many years now. In the Eichel years, we never had a season that ended with more optimism than it began (the exception being perhaps Eichel's 1st year). I did this quickly, so there might be a mistake or two in the #'s. In the last 10 full 82 game seasons (going back to 2009-10 and excluding the two covid years and 12-13) there have been: - *14 NHL teams that missed the playoffs with a DeLuca .500 record or better; and - 14 teams that made the playoffs with a DeLuca .500 record or worse. Of those 28 teams, 12 finished with precisely DeLuca .500 records and 6 of those made the playoffs and 6 did not. DeLuca .500 might not get you in, but it will have you in the conversation. It is the next step for the Sabres. Until we are at DeLuca .500 or very close to it over 82 games, the playoffs are not a possibility. (*This year, Vancouver is currently a game below DeLuca .500, so they could still finish DeLuca .500 or better and miss).

I have no inside information to support this, but it was always my assumption that Housley played a role in the decisions to accept/target Berglund and Sobotka as parts of the deal. Setting aside any need the Sabres felt to get rid of O'Reilly, they were essentially attempting to do two things with the trade: 1.) Improve their depth (O'Reilly would be replaced by Mittelstadt, Berglund and Sobotka). 2.) Add to their prospect pool/depth (Thompson, the picks). Housley was an assistant in Nashville for 4 years prior to joining the Sabres and would have seen lots of Berglund and Sobotka, including in a 6 game playoff series in 2017. I imagine that JB ran Sobotka/Berglund by Housley and that Housley thought they would be good middle-six additions. While St. Louis clearly thought Berglund / Sobotka were cap dumps, I think they were players that the Sabres were happy to add. We were trying to have our cake and eat it too (replace O'Reilly's minutes and production with better depth while also adding to the prospect pool). None of this makes the trade any better, but I think there was (flawed) logic behind the acquisitions obtained in return.

Just my opinion, but I don’t think being in the same organization as your Dad, brother, uncle, etc., is ideal for the player, the relative or the organization. Better to make your own way.

I think Vegas is still in a position where if they just win their games they will get in. Nashville’s schedule is rough. Dallas has their Van/Cal/Edm stretch and they host the Knights. LA’s schedule is comparatively easy but they just aren’t that good right now. Vegas has three in a row at home v Devils, Caps and Sharks. If they sweep they will likely be well positioned a week from now. I think Vegas is going to have to falter further to miss.

Bryson, like 1/2 the players on our current NHL roster, is not a finished product. The last two games showed what our defence can expect to face in games against contenders. Bryson was not the only one who struggled at times. Bryson and 80% of our D, is young though. There is still room for growth and adaptation.

If Vegas gets in it will be LA that they pass, I think.

This is generally true, but not likely the case here. I think ownership has been sold on a rebuild and being patient with our young goalies is likely part of that process. For clarity, I’m not suggesting we don’t need a goaltending upgrade. Just that there is a big gap between what we have and going out and getting a Connor Hellebuyck level goalie.

A few things on this. - I don't think the Jets would do it. They have so many well-regarded vets that I think they take one more shot of trying to win with their core. Hellebuyck will remain be a huge part of that. - If, however, they did make him available, there will be a dozen NHL teams interested. The cost will be high. I think for us to get him would take at least one piece that would really hurt. We aren't getting him for Vegas 1st and Johnson or UPL and Florida's 1st. It would cost multiple pieces and one or two them would be something that Adams would not give up like our first this year or Peterka or Krebs or Quinn. Hellebuyck is a top 5 NHL goalie; one of only a handful of goalies that you can confidently say: "I know what I'm going to get from him". The Jets are not moving him in a rebuild for our 8th and 9th best draft/prospect assets. The cost might be Vegas's 1st, Peterka and Portillo. Fans will say that's crazy and they would be right. It's also why we won't be making such a trade. - I like what Adams has done since the Krueger firing and I think we are on the right track. While I would be excited if we went out and acquired a goalie like Hellebuyck, such an acquisition would start the clock on Adams' future with the team. The moment a GM acquires the player who changes the expectations from "we are building something here" to "we are in the hunt" is the moment that a GM starts the clock on being fired. I don't say this cynically as I don't think Adams will have this front of mind this offseason; but I think we are another season away from this kind of "we are all in" move.

My prediction is that Bryson will be the right-side partner to one of our top-3 LHD (Dahlin, Power, Samuelsson) for the next 1/2 decade. My other prediction is that 2-3 times a year Bryson will get badly out-muscled for a goal against and for certain fans it will always be those 2-3 plays that define him.

I voted no for basically the same reasons you state. The other thing is the Sabres would need to take a giant leap forward. I would add though that few foresaw the Islanders dropping off as far as they have and even fewer projected what is happening in Vegas. There are teams that could collapse next year if they pull the wrong Jenga block.

Always interesting to see how NHL GM's value certain players. Mason Appleton is a guy who, for a couple of years now, I've thought would be a great bottom 6 add for the Sabres. He is valued less than Scott Wedgewood.

There is a rush to judge player acquisitions today. Certainly Vegas acquired Eichel as the missing piece and they will be quite disappointed if they miss the playoffs. They do though have him for the next 4 years, and it is possible if not certain that he will be a better player a year from now. There are two reasons for why my current second favourite team is “whoever is playing Vegas”: 1). Draft position. If we end up with a pick in the 14-16 range that would be awesome obviously. 2). The general post-trade media reaction. Once the trade was done, Eichel went from being damaged goods who the Sabres needed to be realistic about (in regards to trade return) to a Nathan Mackinnon-like star who was going to put Vegas over the top. That Eichel had missed nearly two years of hockey, was having major surgery and had no history of leading an NHL team to anything, was not part of the consideration. All that said, there is lots of hockey left this year.

I agree with this. The uncertainty though is what is the intention with regards to the draft and prospect capital they are accumulating. Right shot d-men, we are told, are in high demand. We have two who are pending UFAs who are apparently sought by teams that have intentions of winning a Stanley Cup. Based on that, I think there is a reasonable argument we should extend Miller and Pysyk rather than trade them at the deadline for more picks. If, though, the intent is to use the acquired draft and prospect capital to go out and get better players (a goalie, a better right-shot D, a veteran middle 6 centre and a top 6 winger who brings things to the table that Olofsson does not), then I am fine with us trading NHL players like Olofsson at this year’s deadline. The concern is that the intent is to just amass prospects and wait for the best to emerge. I don’t think that is the plan though. At some point an organization needs to use the data they have on their own prospects to identify which are the ones they will build around and which are the ones they will move to enhance their lineup.

I would personally separate the current Sabres off-ice leadership group (Adams, Karmanos, Granato, etc.) from the failings of the past decade. Whether we get this turned around is still in question, but the current regime (less ownership) can't be faulted for what their predecessors did or didn't do. I also don't know enough about what happened in the locker room to fault Gionta. Perhaps he failed as a leader and perhaps there were young players who were not interested in being led. What I do agree with though is the sentiment that this is not Jack Eichel's fault (at least, it is largely not his fault). What we saw with the Sabres post-Regier and pre-Adams was a complete failure of leadership and competency at the GM position and head coaching positions. Tim Murray perhaps deserves a bit of slack as he, it appears, tried to keep the clowns from running the circus when he drew a line at firing Bylsma.

The Johnson hit on Dahlin was a clear penalty (interference or high-sticking or both). I didn't think it was particularly violent, but it was a penalty and both teams knew it (after the hit, the game proceeds in slow motion for a few seconds as the players on both teams seem to be anticipating a whistle). Then there is a relatively weak make-up call against the Avs and Dahlin gets away with what I think was clearly a retaliatory hit that most Sabre fans would have been angry about had it gone the other way; I think the Dahlin hit was actually a bit worse than the Johnson one. It seems that NHL referees are mostly just present to randomly call a few penalties a game as a reminder to players that the game is being officiated. In other words, players should be mindful of breaking the rules as it is always possible that the referee will decide that a particular random infraction warrants a penalty based on game situation. I should add that I don't think the Sabres come out on the short-end of these calls. We are just not as good as most teams and therefore it is more difficult for us to overcome the bad calls that go against us and, conversely, we don't capitalize on the bad calls that go against other teams.

It’s an arbitrary cut-off to be sure, but in the two calendar years prior to last night’s game, Eichel had only played 32 NHL games. In that stretch he was always hurt/injured and produced only 6 goals, 17 assists and 23 points. It has been 2 full years since Eichel was Eichel, so to speak. It may take some time for him to again reach the top levels of his game.

I think it is entirely reasonable that Adams and his management team placed a value on Ullmark and stuck with it. Giving a player an extra year or an extra million in AAV or a NMC (or all 3) is how you get in trouble. That the Sabres don't have cap issues this year and won't next year doesn't mean they won't have issues in 2-3 years. Giving a player more than his determined value just sets a precedent for other players to demand the same. It might be a pipe dream that we will eventually be a team like the Bruins or the Lightning where players will want to be here and will accept slightly below market value in order to stay with or come to the Sabres; I don't think you get there though by setting the precedent that you will overpay. That said, I personally valued Ullmark at the same level as Demko, 5x5, and would have tried to get him at that before free agency. I don't like the NMC he got from the Bruins, but would have given him some trade protection. Also, I don't think the above references to the respective save %'s of Ullmark and UPL this season make an argument for not signing Ullmark. Unless you have a Vasilevskiy, you need 2 goalies. Having Ullmark at a .916 save % as a 1A who transitions to a 1B or 2A over the course of a 5 year contract would have been a solid use of $5 million in cap space in my view. Losing Ullmark has left us needing two goalies instead of one.

Houser and Dell getting it done, mostly. Credit where it’s due. Since we had to turn it over to that duo, goaltending has not been an issue.

I saw somewhere else this morning a similar chart that went back over a decade. It showed the Sabres were middle of the pack and not that they were injury prone over a 10+ year period. One other thing that might be a factor: the Sabres are out of contention early. Perhaps they have some players with injuries that they might play through in different circumstances. I'm not saying that any specific injured player on the team could have played or could now play with their injury; but in this of all seasons, there is no great reason to play hurt.

Krebs may have just become an NHL player.

Not that anyone here doesn't already know this, but coaching matters.