Archie Lee

Dudacek can give his thoughts on whether he would prefer that we just kept Mitts. His post on Necas is firmly in the real world though, where Mitts is gone. I like the Necas idea. Carolina loves their Finns and their D is going to have some losses this off-season. Maybe Joker ++ and we can get him?

There are very few "national" writers or commentators who know a lot about the needs of individual teams. If fairness, it is a lot of work to have a great handle on the prospects and a deep understanding of the needs of the teams that are drafting. There are a couple of non-team-specific hockey podcasts I listen too that I typically enjoy when they are talking about teams other than the Sabres. When they do Sabres talk though it often seems superficial and not well-informed. I think this is the case here. If Dickinson is there at 11, I don't think the Sabres will be scared off from taking him just because of their strong depth at left-shot D. If they take him though, it won't be because then need to add a dynamic two-way D threat.

I think Dudacek was correct to point out that the precedent is for these rebuilds to take significant time to yield results. That said, we did miss by a point in 22-23 and most of us now agree that there were moves Adams could have made to get this team into the playoffs, or to more aggressively compete for the playoffs, that season and certainly in the season just past. There is a degree of incongruence in the argument that this process takes lots of time when one considers how close we were to getting in just 13 months ago.

Something to remember about the rebuild that Adams undertook in earnest after the Krueger firing, is that the Sabres were not a team that had been good for years and was crumbing due to age and the wear and tear of playoff runs. He was starting rebuild on a team that had been bad for years. While he moved out Hall, Montour, Risto, Reinhart, Eichel and (not purposely, Ullmark), he was not in a position of starting from scratch. The team that he started a rebuild with had drafted in the top 10 every year post- Eichel-draft and had also fairly recently traded Ryan O'Reilly for future assets. Adams started a rebuild with a team that already had the following assets: Thompson (2016 draft), Mitts, Joker, Luukkonen (2017 draft), Dahlin, Samuelsson (2018), Cozens, Johnson (2019) and Quinn, Peterka (2020, the first Adams draft). Then he had the luxury of a 1st OA in year one of the rebuild with Power. The base of talent that already existed when the Adams rebuild started, is why we were able to come within a point of making the playoffs in 22/23. The disaster he took over was more due to toxic culture than to being bereft of talent; this was not a rebuild that was starting from near ground zero, such as what is happening in Chicago and San Jose at present.

I will straddle the fence here. I think Adams took over a disastrous situation, did a good getting things turned in the right direction, and then messed up by not approaching last off-season with enough urgency. Now we see if he can do what he should have tried to do last off-season.

Agreed. It also helped that the Canucks were willing to buyout the guy who didn't fit anymore (OEL). They get full credit for being smart and bold.

This is a bit of a Royal Flush, isn't it? I mean, sure, we could this. We will likely try to. But most of the teams in the league will be competing to find their Lafferty, Blueger and Joshua. All 3 are free agents this off-season. If you want players like that in reality and not theoretically, it's going to cost a lot more than $3.8 million.

The above is all true. To take it a step further, let's assume Krebs is moved back to 4C. Let's also assume that Skinner and Greenway are the 3rd line wingers. And let's assume Levi is the 2nd goalie as is likely to be the case. This leaves us around $9 million to bring in a 3rd line C and two 4th line wingers. Upgrades don't need to cost more than what we paid Okposo, Girgs and Jost, but we probably have to spend at least the same, $7 million, to get better players. If this happens, we will have increased our spending to within $2 million of the cap (give or take), without upgrading or changing the make-up of our top-6 and D. It also assumes we are actually prepared to spend that much. I do think that the above scenario can render us a better team than a year ago. With development of existing players and bounce back years and better coaching, it could yield a playoff team. Unless we are moving a veteran out though (Joker, Greenway, Samuelsson, Skinner), there is little to no room for a bigger splash. Lots of fans want us to move #11 and/or one or two top prospects for veteran upgrades. Such a trade or trades would mean, I think and hope, bringing in a player with a larger contract. I'm not making excuses for management. Just pointing out that all of the hope for big acquisitions (not you, but from this thread: Pavelski, Necas, Pesce, E. Lindholm, Stephenson, Stamkos, Marchessault and Zadorov) is likely misplaced for multiple reasons, one of which is there actually isn't a lot of cap space available.

I don't see this at all. I think there is generally the opposite occurring and people are as much or more excited about Benson than they were about Quinn/Peterka. Completely agree with your last paragraph, except it wasn't just perception. I was critical of Benson being in the line-up this year, but not because Benson did not play well. I think he had as good of a rookie year, and in some ways a better rookie year, than what Peterka or Quinn had. My disappointment in his place on the team relates to this past year being a season where we needed to move forward; to move forward we needed something more in that position than a winger who would give us an uneven rookie season in the same category of the rookie seasons we got from Peterka/Quinn. Benson is great. I'm thrilled we have all 3.

I think you are looking at 23-24 year end numbers.

That is including VO’s departure and the $4.2 million cap increase. I’m not saying we have no room to manoeuvre. Unless we are going to be bold though, there isn’t as much room as some might think.

Not to put too much of a damper on your enthusiasm for possible UFA upgrades, but if the Sabres just give conservative extensions to their RFA's and promote Levi, Johnson and Rousek to back-up roles, they are left with under $10 million to fill out three bottom-6 forward positions. If the plan is to "up" spending on the bottom-6 (ie: spend more than the $8.6 million paid last year to Girgs, Okposo, Jost and Robinson), then the cap is nearly gone. That assumes the Sabres are even considering spending something close to the cap. I'm not trying to be pessimistic as I do think there are meaningful changes that can be made. But, unless they are willing to spend to the cap and/or trade a vet (Joker $$$ or higher) and/or buyout Skinner, they will just be playing with the edges of the roster.

I won’t speak for JohnC, but maybe he is not factoring Benson’s age when he says the point total was not too impressive, but rather what the Sabres needed. Benson’s play was impressive last year, particularly when you consider his age. What the Sabres didn’t need last year was an 18 year old who posted offensive # ‘s nearly as good as what Quinn posted the year before. They needed better. That’s not Benson’s issue, of course.

I would be fine with them trading Johnson. Of course, a potential trade of any of our top prospects and picks comes with the “for the right player” qualifier. He was born the same year as Cozens, Krebs, Byram, Quinn and Levi. There is currently not a top-6 D-spot for him on the team. I would not have an issue with him being Clifton’s partner on the 3rd pair, but have we improved our D core/depth for the coming critical season if we trade Joker or Samuelsson (or Clifton, I guess) and replace that player with Johnson? In a world where getting better in the short and long term is the true priority, I think we trade Joker for a bottom 6 forward upgrade, sign a UFA right shot D (Demelo, Roy, Tanev, Pesce), keep Johnson in Rochester and next off-season make the difficult decision to either trade Johnson or make room for him in the NHL by trading Byram or Samuelsson. The Russians don’t come into the NHL picture until 26-27 I know this likely isn’t that world though.

Maybe there were bridges burned, but Chris Taylor seems a logical choice (assuming he is not back in New Jersey). He ha a history with Ruff, Rochester and, I think, Karmanos (he was an assistant for a year at Wilkes-Barre). If the head coach in the AHL is to implement the NHL head coaches systems, then Taylor makes sense.

I like Ruff. I think he is a good coach. I would have preferred a new direction. He is not an accountability guru. https://www.thescore.com/nhl/news/2851323

To me, this all goes back to last off-season and the lack of commitment and expectations established by Adams. Okposo is just stating what we all could see. At the end of last season the players were disappointed they did not get in the playoffs and were eager to take the next step. Adams and Granato went out of their way at their year-end pressers to throw cold water on the notion that they missed an opportunity by not getting in the playoffs AND on the notion that anything short of the playoffs this year should be considered failure. They then lived up to their lack of urgency by not addressing obvious team needs in the off-season. Adams set the tone with his end of season press conference and with his off-season activity (committing to Levi, no changes to the 4th line, no replacement for Quinn, no willingness to sacrifice an asset to move off of Olofsson and replace him with a player who Granato could make better use of). Long before they started the season with a struggling Levi getting 4 straight starts and an 18 year old replacing Quinn in the middle six, the players had got the message: we aren’t serious about this.

We just disagree. I think it is short-sighted to be worrying about an extra $450k in cap hit from 25-26 to 28-29 and a $2.5 million hit in 29-30 when the cap could be over $100 million. The Canucks bought out OEL last June. They saved almost $8 million in space this year. That’s JT Miller. Or Lindholm and Zadorov. For the next 7 years the buyout cap hit is 2.3, 4.7, 4.7, 2.1, 2.1, 2.1, 2.1. Few Canuck fans are lamenting the buyout right now (it will hurt at some point though). Of course, I know that the Sabres aren’t buying out Skinner. Their recent coaching moves show they are less than courageous when it comes to bold moves. For discussion purposes though, imagine an off-season where they do the things you are hoping they do, and they clear up $7.5 million in space to add two players that are currently not accessible due to cap limitations. Dare to dream.

I have zero concerns about the long range plan for Appert to take over as head coach (assuming that’s the plan). I don’t think this means Appert takes over in two years. If things go well, maybe Ruff wants to coach longer. If things don’t go well, then the plan is likely discarded. The only likely way that Appert becomes head coach is if things go well, in which case most fans won’t be too concerned if Appert is handed the job.

My take is that Adams had a plan that involved keeping Wilford, Ellis and Bales and promoting Appert and he went out and got the one veteran coach who would agree to take the job under those parameters. Ruff, I think, knew that he would have limited to no NHL head coach options outside of this position, so he was willing to accept the parameters that Adams set. I suspect Ruff's position also comes with the carrot of an ongoing Advisory role that will keep him involved longer term, so long as the next couple of years go well. I think this is, simultaneously, something that could work out fine and that is incredibly disheartening. On the one hand, I acknowledge that Wilford and Ellis may well be fine assistant coaches. That we had a bad powerplay last year does not, in itself, mean Ellis is unworthy of coaching at this level. A year ago and without any context, if you told me that our 24-25 staff would be the same (Granato back) except for Appert replacing Christie, I would not have cringed. It could workout fine. The disheartening part is that it is continued evidence that we just don't operate like a normal NHL team. There is zero chance that any of the oft-mentioned quality head coaching candidates out there (Berube, Woodcroft, Evason, Gallant, Keefe) accept this set of parameters. Ruff was chosen for a number of reasons and no small part of that was his willingness to mesh with the existing plan.

#3 isn’t an option as he has a full NMC. There is absolute cap benefit to a buyout. $7.5 this year, $4.5 next year and $2.5 the year after that. The downside to the cap is the $2.5 hit in years 4-6.

These are all valid points. But we don’t have as much space as some might think. Give our RFA’s the extensions predicted by Evolving Hockey and promote Levi, Johnson and Rousek to back-up roles and there is about 8 million left to acquire meaningful forward additions. Of course, you can move existing players in trades (Joker as an example) and create space. But the space available to make substantive changes is hindered to a degree (not impossible by any means) with Skinner’s hit. Eight of this years playoff teams have dead cap extending past this season. Vancouver and Nashville have substantial dead cap hits extending 4 & 5 years respectively. Those are two teams whose leadership has been praised for addressing team needs and getting their franchises turned around and back in the playoffs in short order. The buyouts they committed to have played a big role in allowing them to make the changes they made.

These are all good points. Up until the end of this last season, I had never contemplated a Skinner buyout seriously. The length and cost of any buyout always seemed a bit absurd, at least until you got to year 8. Looking at it closely for the first time, I’m actually kind of convinced that it was structured to make this year the inflection point. This is the year where the debate needs to occur and management needs to weigh the value of $7.5 million in extra cap space this off-season vs the drag of an extra year’s cap hit of $2.5 million in 2029-30. There are a few points that tip me towards a buyout this June: - I think we may have reached the point where Skinner, all things considered, does not meet the value of even half his AAV. He was never worth $9 million but at his best he was maybe worth $7 million and you could swallow hard and accept that he got to UFA status and got himself paid. I think we are now at a point where what you can get with the cap space saved with a buyout is more than what you can get from Skinner at his AAV. - The cost of a buyout now vs next year is really only one year at approx $2.5 million. The approximate $500k extra cap hit the 4 years after this year is not immaterial, but it is also not a huge issue and it won’t ultimately be the difference between keeping Quinn and Peterka and losing them (if things go well, keeping both will be tough regardless). Critically to this argument is that the one year where it really hurts (the extra 6th year) is 2029-2030. I don’t want to get in a habit of throwing away future cap space, but a dead cap hit of $2.5 million 6 years from now should not be a huge concern relative to the importance of making the playoffs in 2024-2025. - Which leads to the final point. We get $7.5 million in space this off-season, one of the most critical in franchise history, with a buyout now. The question should be: are we a better hockey team this year with Jeff Skinner at $9 million or are we better with whatever players we can add using the $7.5 we save with a buyout?

A year ago, when it first looked like the Flames were possibly headed to a rebuild, people were wondering if a 33 year old Kadri with 6 years left at $7 million per, could be moved. He had a bounce back year, but I’m not sure his trade value is what you think it is. He has a full NMC though, so the point is likely moot anyway.

Serious question, what’s your logic for waiting a year? The buyout cap hits? Or do you think we still might get enough value from Skinner to make the $9 million cap hit at least somewhat palatable?