Archie Lee

I'm not sure if this is sarcasm. If so, my apologies for misreading. I think the plan was to go with Ullmark as the starter with Tokarski or Luukkonen as the back-up; Luukkonen would have gone back to Rochester if not obviously ready to make the leap. This would not have precluded the possibility that a goalie could come back in an Eichel trade who would have pushed both Tokarski and Luukkonen to Rochester. It is still a possibility we will get a goalie in an Eichel trade. It is also possible that they were having discussions with both Dell and Anderson about coming in to play behind Ullmark. When Ullmark opted to go to the Bruins, "the pivot" was (I think) to sign both Anderson and Dell. The reason to sign both is to increase the possibility that at any given time during the season you have at least one goalie between Anderson, Dell, Luukkonen and Tokarski who is playing at an NHL level. The one UFA goalie who I think the Sabres should have been all over was David Rittich. Having Rittich would not have been cause for any great level of comfort for us fans, but I think he checks a # of boxes (veteran, younger than Dell or Anderson, has had some NHL success) and would have been a decent add to back-up Ullmark and provide some insurance if Ullmark did not re-sign. Rittich was coming off a two year deal that paid him 2.75 per. He signed pretty early in free agency with Nashville for 1 x 1.25. If we had given him one year at 2.5-2.75 I don't think anyone would have said it was ridiculous. Finally, I like the Joker and Mittelstadt signings.Both have a chance to be real value deals by year 3.

Indeed there is some irony in what has happened in the last 5 months; we may finally have been near to having the homegrown talent needed to support Eichel and Reinhart. If the Sabres don't start having on-ice success in the next couple of seasons (legitimately competing for the playoffs in 22-23, making the playoffs by 23-24) it won't be because the team's current talent pool (less Eichel) was so lacking that no GM or coach could have led them to success. If the team doesn't move forward to being successful in that timeline it will be because Adams and those who report to him (but mostly Adams) were not up to the task, just as Murray, Botterill and Krueger were not up to the task. My strong view is that Jack Eichel could retire tomorrow and the Sabres get nothing for him and the 2-3 year timeline for success should still be highly achievable.

Depending on what you mean by "on the horizon", I see it as the opposite. Provided that the current Sabre braintrust knows what they are doing, and skepticism is understandable, I think that the critical mass referenced is near to being achieved. Without chronicling every pick and prospect, since the Eichel draft the Sabres have picked top ten for six straight years including two 1st OA picks. It has to be incredibly rare, perhaps unprecedented, for a team drafting that high for that long to also have young players like Risto and Reinhart who can be traded for multiple pieces, including two additional firsts, and still have a talent like Eichel to deal for more assets. Corey Pronman from The Athletic is currently working through his rankings of NHL teams based on their talent under age 23. He has worked his way from teams 32-9. Thus far the Sabres have not made an appearance. I'm not suggesting he is the final word on such things, but I think the Sabres are near the top in this regard. If anything we may be under-rated because, well, Sabres. An Eichel trade and the first round of the '22 draft are going to add to the stockpile. I'm not anti-Eichel and have no hard feelings toward him. He is not the one responsible for the Sabres's shortcomings over the past 6 years. I do think though that when he is gone we may see that there is room for player growth that has not existed these past few seasons.

The thing is, the likely Sabres roster this year might not contain a bunch of kids. It's possible there won't be an outright rookie that makes the roster to start the year. Cozens is young and still inexperienced, for sure. But other young players like Dahlin, Joker, Mitts and Thompson have all been in the NHL for 3 (or parts of 3) seasons. There are other young players that may make the team out of camp like Samuelsson, Ruotsalainen and Luukkonen; but they might just as likely be in Rochester to start the year. The Sabres have lots of veteran players and even some of their "young" players (Olofsson, Bjork) aren't particularly young. I think the Sabres are absolutely going to have nights where they are in over their heads against veteran teams that are focused. Some of those nights will get ugly, like the two game set against Boston late last season where we lost 5-2 and 6-2 and were badly overmatched. But so much will depend on how focused Granato can keep the Sabres through the season. The Sabres followed up those 2 losses to the Bruins by beating the Islanders back to back. 82 games is long for every team. There will be nights where we catch good teams off guard. There will be teams that won't be as good as currently expected. My bet is that this will be the first season we have since the tank where we exceed expectations. I realize that isn't saying much as expectations could not be lower. But I don't mean we are going to finish in 30th place instead of dead last. I think we finish close to our recent traditional spot that sees us pick in the 7-9 range of the draft, only this year it will feel like we are actually progressing.

To the bolded, I think you are connecting dots that don't align. Just about the worst thing a professional sports team can do is mess with a player's health. In specific relation to Eichel's health, there is no reason to think that either side in this dispute is acting in bad faith. I understand that the reputation the Sabres have earned as a bumbling franchise will, for some people, be reinforced by this, but that does not mean their position is wrong.

I'm not sure about the bolded. In the group of 5 players you list, only Reinhart was good (for the most part) from start to finish last year. Eichel, Ullmark and McCabe spent much of the year playing injured or out with injury. I'm personally with you on Risto, but 50% of the fanbase has told us for years that getting rid of him will be addition by subtraction. All things considered, replacing these guys in relation to what they did for us last year might not be that difficult.

I think this summarizes the "tank" v. "not a tank" debate pretty well. If in mid-November Aaron Dell is giving us a .920 save % and Vinnie Hinostroza is playing at a point per game pace and we trade them both for a 6th round pick, then we will know it is a tank.

The one thing I hope with goaltending this coming season is that we don't just continually stick with a guy who is not playing well. The last 2 years we stuck with Hutton long past the point were it was obvious he wasn't good enough. I know that Tokarski is not an exciting option; but his #'s v. Hutton's #'s last year = almost a 1/2 goal less against per game. The only goalie in our current stable that the organization is committed to is Luukkonen. He should be playing in the environment that is best conducive to his development. The other guys should be rotated based on how they are playing. If Dell or Anderson start the year giving us .905 or better then that is likely all that can be hoped for. But if they are giving us .895, then Tokarski (or even Houser) should get a shot and/or waivers should be explored.

If Fitzgerald were 4” taller he would be Will Borgen. I wouldn’t write off that he might be a legit NHL D-man.

I agree. Unfortunately, I suspect the current reality is that no team is offering this good of a return. Indeed, the Rangers would likely view each piece I have listed from them (Strome, Chytil, Schneider, Georgiev and the 1st) as more valuable than Johnson; maybe with the exception of Georgiev. So you can probably just take Johnson and Schneider out of the trade. Also, they are not likely to trade both Strome and Chytil in the deal. Maybe they would if Eichel was sure to be ready from the start of the year. As is, it would leave them very thin down the middle. A more likely offer from NY right now would be Strome, Kravtsov, Georgiev and a 1st.

I completely agree. There is no guarantee though that Rossi or Krebs won't bust. There was a time when Yakupov was as highly regarded, likely more so, as a prospect than either of those two.

I guess we will see what we eventually receive. We might get a return that includes 1 higher end prospect (Zegras, Rossi, Krebs), but that will put a lot of pressure on that prospect as "the player" we obtained for Jack Eichel. My proposal is the equivalent of five 1st round picks (in my view). Chytil, Schneider and the 1st are obvious 1st round equivalents. There might be debate over Georgiev and Strome, but I think they equal two firsts (or very close). Since arriving in NY, Strome has produced at basically the same level as Reinhart; I don't think know why this would be dismissed as the Panarin effect when he has not likely played more with Panarin than Reinhart got to play with Eichel. That we are getting the equivalent of five first round picks is why I included Johnson as part of the deal. He's not a throw in; he's included because: - All of the assets obtained from the NYR are in areas of more urgent organizational requirement (centre, RD, goal) - Johnson is one of only four 1st round picks in the entire 2018 and 2019 NHL draft classes who has yet to sign an NHL contract; I'm not too worried about this, but Schneider is signed and ready to play in Rochester next year.

I actually think there are multiple Ranger options that are pretty good. They are not my preferred trade partner for many reasons, but they have some great pieces that make sense if there is no team that is offering what we have identified as that single elite prospect that should be the starting point for a deal. I don't agree at all on the St. Louis / O'Reilly comparison. To begin with, the Rangers simply don't have any players in the Berglund/Sobotka category that could be included in the deal. Strome is the one bigger contract that might have to come our way for salary reasons. He has 108 points in 126 games over the past two seasons and has one year at $4.5 million left on his deal. There is no comparison between him and the Blues' cap dumps. If the Sabres were willing to retain 50% on Strome's contract, there would be at least a dozen NHL teams interested in him I would think. After Strome, even if you take out the big three of Laf, Kaako and Miller, it leaves a large pool of good young players in Chytil, Kravtsov, Lundkvist, Schneider and Georgiev; just to name the most prominent. A trade of Eichel, the rights to Ryan Johnson and a depth goalie (Tokarski) for: Strome, Chytil, Schneider, Georgiev and a 1st, would be a fine return in my opinion. While there is risk to be sure in any trade that focuses on multiple pieces; it is also the case that there are no guarantees around prospects like Zegras, Rossi or Krebs. I really think, at this point, that the Eichel trade will be about asset accumulation. If the Sabres were to make this trade with the Rangers, they would have the following 1st round picks since 2016 in their system: Dahlin #1, 2018 Power #1, 2021 Cozens #7, 2019 Mittelstadt #8, 2017 Quinn #8, 2020 Rosen #14, 2021 Schneider #19, 2020 Chytil #21, 2017 Thompson #26, 2016 Jokiharju #29, 2017 That's 10 first round picks from the past 6 drafts with three additional 1st round picks coming in 2022 to go along with additional higher-end prospects like Ruotsalainen, Luukkonen, Samuelsson and Peterka. That would provide us with a combination of young NHL talent, prospect talent and draft capital at a level that we frankly never had before or after the tank years.

There are many things that go into good leadership. Not being a good leader does not make one a bad person. Unfortunately, when people rise to leadership positions and they are either not yet ready or not "made" for the role, their leadership shortcomings are sometimes mistaken for issues of character. This is on the Sabres (not the current leadership; Adams and Granato did not make Eichel the captain and anoint him to a leadership role). Eichel was thrust into a role he was ill-suited for.

Honestly, if we are signing these guys we should give Houser a shot. He can be waived as easy as Dell.

Nick Bonino for a year would be ok. He has played on winners most of his career. Can play wing if we go young at centre and can move to centre in times where it is getting overwhelming for the kids.

I think we only had around a 20% chance of winning the lottery. The tank was for a 1/5 chance at McDavid, with Eichel (a potentially generational player) being the worst case scenario.

Maybe DeSmith too. The thing that is being overlooked on this, I think, is that a team like Washington might either: 1.) Prefer to lose Vanicek over other exposed players. So, if they trade Vanicek they are increasing the likelihood they then lose a player they value more; or 2.) Feel certain that Seattle is not going to take Vanicek; so, trading him would mean giving up goalie depth for no good reason.

The Avalanche did the same thing. Protected Grubauer. Like the Sabres they are going into the expansion draft without an NHL calibre starting goalie under contract.

It's really an unusual year. We have Sabres fans, credibly I think, stating with conviction that Eklund should be our pick at #1. Yet the mock draft that the two NHL writers (Kimelman and Morreale) published yesterday has Eklund going 5th or 9th. As a fan who loves the draft but acknowledges he gets little opportunity to see any of these players outside of a view highlight videos, it is hard to process. In a way it would be more fun (not better, but more enjoyable) if we picked 6th or 7th this year as we could watch and see who falls to us. Of course, that 1st pick of round 2 may prove valuable as a lot of teams, including us, should have a player still available after round 1 who they would have picked in the high teens or low 20's.

If he is here this year, it would be nice if he had a year where he was used as a 4th d-man, 2nd pairing defender. His price tag is high for that deployment, obviously. Whether he would help the team in that role, I'm not sure. Hard to know when he has not been used that way. I won't be shocked if the Sabres don't move him. I think he will be protected. I think the Sabres will either: 1.) Give something to Seattle to take Miller; or 2.) Be perfectly fine with Seattle just taking whichever exposed player they take.

There aren't many teams that have: 1.) An expansion draft eligible goalie they are protecting; 2.) A 2nd expansion draft eligible goalie they wouldn't want to lose for nothing; and 3.) A 3rd expansion draft eligible goalie that they can expose to Seattle, as is required, if they trade goalie #2. The other factor is that those few teams who meet the above criteria, may well just prefer to lose the goalie to Seattle than to lose the skater that Seattle would take if goalie #2 is traded. This is not as simple as some are making it out to be. The few teams that are in a situation where they may want to move a goalie, may be taking it down to the wire, similar to the regular trade deadline.

Just speculating. Maybe the Sabres don't want to lose two right shot D-men in the next few days. If they trade Risto and protect Borgen, it funnels Seattle towards Miller (unless Seattle takes Girgensens). That would leave us with Joker and Borgen as our only two NHL-level right shot D-men (and that's making the assumption we are correct and Borgen is NHL-level). The Sabres could still acquire one or two right shot D-men in other trades or in free agency, but maybe they would prefer to just protect Risto or Borgen and let Seattle pick the right shot D-man they want between Miller or Risto/Borgen. It would still be my preference that we trade something to Seattle to have them take Miller. The wildcard in all of this, in my view, is that we really don't know what the Sabres' plans are for this year. Are they: 1.) Planning a longer term rebuild where they come in well below the cap with a very young team and leverage that cap space to take on bad contracts and good assets from other teams? Or 2.) Planning to spend closer to the cap by taking back useful veterans as part of Eichel/Reinhart trades and by adding more useful vets in free agency in an attempt to be competitive during a shorter-term rebuild. If they are doing #1, then trading Risto and protecting Borgen makes sense. If they are doing #2, then, regardless of our opinions on Risto and Miller, I don't think it makes sense for us to lose both of them in the span of a few days.

Dumba, Fiala, Rask, Rossi, a 1st and a 2nd for Eichel and Ryan Johnson.

Just curious as to what analytics you would be referencing? I don't have access (that I know of) to anything other then corsi/fenwick type stuff, and they are pretty close in those categories. Not surprisingly, Bjork's corsi/fenwick #s were better in Boston (as were Hall's and Lazar's). I would protect Asplund over Bjork, because he is 16 months younger and can also play centre.