Archie Lee

Added to the one or two good players we can add with the cap space available before a buyout? Absolutely it is enough for a major overhaul (top 6 forward, 2-3 bottom 6 forwards, top 4 D and even a b/u goalie if you want to go crazy).

If the Sabres buyout Skinner and don’t utilize the cap space saved to remake the roster, then it will reinforce my current view that we don’t operate like a typical NHL team that has the primary goal of winning. My preference for a buyout is directly linked to the opportunity that exists for a major roster overhaul; the sort of overhaul where when it is done nobody would say: “what this team could really use is a one-dimensional goal scorer who makes 30-60% more than he is worth (depending on his year to year production levels)”. As with everything, we’ll see.

I’m all on board for a buyout. I still don’t think it happens, but I am 100%. But I don’t buy the Carolina got better because they dumped Skinner thing. Skinner was a year from UFA and Carolina’s options for a move were limited due to his NMC. They got what they could for him before losing him for nothing. I’m not saying he is a fit with a Brind’Amour team (he isn’t), but if I was going to weight the impact of Brind’Amour becoming head coach and Skinner’s departure on Carolina’s ascension, it would be 100% on Brind’Amour becoming coach.

It all depends on what they do with the roster. Make the right moves and a buyout can make us a better team.

I’m not an expert on this, but the Sabres are not able to waive Skinner because of his NMC. Yet, they can buy him out. So I don’t think you need to waive a player first. I suspect this is just the Rangers hoping he will be claimed or that a team will reach out about a trade that works better for them than a buyout.

Maybe I am overstating his negative value a bit. In a world where he has no NMC, yeah, maybe a team takes him for nothing and maybe even returns something. As is though, the trade partners will be few, if any, and I think we would need to give up an asset to make the deal, even at 50%.

In response to your reasons: 1.) I am trying to understand, but can't begin to see how it is "far" more tolerable waiting a year. "Ever so slightly" more tolerable? Sure. "Far" more. I just don't see where people are getting this. The math does not lie. The difference between a buyout this year and next is $444K per year from 2025/26 through 2028/29 and then only in year-six, 2029/30, do we have one year with a significant difference ($2.44 million). 2.) I don't think the Sabres should worry about what other teams do and should just worry about icing the best possible team we can this year. 3.) It would be wrong, in my opinion, post- buy-out, to look at any particular contract or contracts and say "this is what we bought with the Skinner buyout". If we buyout Skinner it opens up a multitude of options that just don't exist without a buyout. We could add a player like Necas in a trade and upgrade the bottom 6 with players who will earn more than your average 4th line player and pursue an upgrade to the top 4 D (DeMelo, Roy, Tanev). No single upgrade would be directly because of a buyout, but rather the upgrades in total are possible, in part, because of a buyout. My 1st choice would be a trade also. The barriers to this are too significant to overcome though.

I suspect Skinner's trade value is negative. We would need to attach a substantial asset to get a team to take him, even at 50% retention. I am no more down on Skinner than I ever was. I have no reason to think he is a locker room cancer, I don't think he is a significant contributory factor to his teams always missing the playoffs (on balance, he has been a net-positive for his teams over his career, I think), it would not be at all shocking if he signed with another team, posted 30 goals and 60 points and made it to the playoffs. He just isn't worth $9 million and since we may well need the $4.5 - $5.0 million in cap space next season, that comes with a buyout this year or next, I think the time is right to strike and take advantage of the extra $7.5 million that you can use this year with a buy out before month-end. I do not understand how people can compare buyout numbers for this season and next season and continue to conclude that there is benefit to waiting. The only substantive benefit to waiting comes 6 seasons from now in 2029-30. By then the cap could be $100 million; the $2.44 million in dead cap in 2029-30 should just not be a factor in this.

I realize that what Adams has laid out in this article has not exactly been given "the universal stamp of approval" by Sabres fans, but I'm a bit surprised that this is what some fans wanted to hear. All we need is a bottom 6 upgrade (including a C), some grit and D depth? That's what people wanted to hear? It might be enough. If the still unproven goaltending holds up. If multiple players have significant bounce-back years or take big steps forward production-wise. It would be nice, in my view, to add at least one catalyst-type player to the top-6. Not that I expect Adams to telegraph his plans for a player trade or UFA acquisition, by any means. I was kind of hoping though, if not expecting, that we would do more than tinker with the edges of the line-up, which is what it sounds like he is planning to do.

I can’t access the article. Without having read it, sounds like he thinks the core group is ready and does not need to be upgraded and that changes in head coach and to the “make-up” of the bottom of the line-up are what was and is needed. Is that a fair assessment or am I being too simplistic in my interpretation.

I agree. I like Mangiapane as a target, but I don’t think he should cost #11.

That was me, I think. I apologize. Lesson learned.

Cool. A lot of hockey fans would not begin to understand how someone would get information or value or satisfaction out of posting 44,000 times on a hockey discussion forum. We all have our things we enjoy and don't enjoy.

I'm not making a prediction. Honestly, I'm about to express a rather uniformed impression that I have of Östlund. He gives me Asplund vibes (size, background, post-draft production, uncertainty if he can be a centre in the NHL, etc.).

Acknowledging I have seen very little of any of the players in this draft, from all that I have read and the little I have seen, I would be thrilled with anyone in that top 11.

Until we see otherwise, I think the post-off-season roster will be closer to this than we are hoping. Goalies will be UPL and Levi. The D looks mostly right, though I don’t think Clague will be on the team. It will be Johnson or an underwhelming UFA, like Brendan Smith. I think we do trade a prospect or #11 for a 3C and that our general reaction will be of disappointment in the return (Jenner for #11 is the ceiling, Laughton for Rosen and a lesser pick the floor). We will come in $3-5 million under the cap. For some fans it will be surprising how close to the cap we are, but the reality is there is only room for one big move or two-three moderately big moves. I don’t see this as “Sabre fan end of the world”. I think it is possible that adding a veteran 3C combined with better coaching, some bounce back years and maturation, will get us close and maybe into a WC spot. But we will not be going into training camp thinking this is a playoff team. Rather, we will be thinking this is a playoff team “IF” a lot of things go right that are far from sure-bets to go right.

I appreciate what you are saying. But it is not the case that there is little to no chance that Kulich or Savoie will beat out a veteran, established, important player (Tuch, Cirelli, Kane, Cozens) who the Sabres paid a high-price to obtain and/or pay a big salary to. There is no chance. It only happens if something unexpected goes wrong, like an injury or a veteran showing up terribly out of shape. Kulich being better in training camp than Patrick Kane as example (who would be one of the biggest offseason signings in Sabre history) is not going to get Kulich the start in game one over Kane. (queue Allen Iverson: "Training Camp? We're talking Training Camp?").

There is zero chance that Adams brings in two established top-9 players through trade/free agency and then gets to the end of camp and puts them in the press-box because Savoie and Kulich looked better in a couple of pre-season games against Columbus.

This isn't how it works though. If Adams has the sort of off-season you reference, our forwards look something like this (assuming no Skinner buyout and that Krebs is part of the trade for the 3C). Skinner/Thompson/Tuch Peterka/Cozens/Kane Benson/Cirelli/Quinn Greenway/Gritty/Gritty Barring injury, there is no space for Kulich or Savoie. As you say they aren't suited for the 4th line. The only player in the top 9 who I could even remotely imagine them benching to start the season, for reasons other than health, would be Skinner. While it could happen, it is not likely to happen, even if Kulich and Savoie look better in camp/pre-season. They aren't going to sign Kane and give up a boatload for Cirelli and then get to the end of pre-season and put those two in the press-box because Savoie and Kulich looked better in camp. Apply the same idea to Tuch/Thompson or Peterka/Cozens. It's not going to happen. I'm not trying to be a wanker here. The reason Benson made the team last year is because they left a spot open for a prospect to make the top 9. The only way Kulich or Savoie make the team out of camp this year is if they leave a spot open (ie: no Kane in this scenario) or if there is an injury.

I don’t think this is how it works in practical terms. In practical terms good teams fill holes with players whose performance is, for the most part, predictable. I disagree with the narrative that Benson busted down the door last year. I think the Sabres left a spot open for the best prospect in camp and then demanded so little from their vets in camp that Benson, a confident, tenacious, talented kid, rose above others. It should never have been an option though.

Dallas is a model for how to integrate youth into a veteran ready to win NHL line-up. In 20-21 they added 20 year old Robertson and 21 year old Oettinger. The next year Thomas Harley. The next Wyatt Johnston and Ty Dellandrea. This past year Stankovan. Next year will probably be Mavrik Bourque, who will be 23 (there should be no rush). Over the same period we added, often at a younger age: Cozens, Krebs, Samuelsson, Quinn, Power, Peterka, Luukkonen, Benson and, I would say, Levi. We may well add more youngsters this coming season as Kulich, Savoie, Rosen and Johnson are nearing readiness to be NHL players. While the situations are different, the results were predictable. We have added too many young players too quickly to a roster that did not have a base of veterans or a veteran coach (Dallas had Bowness and DeBoer) that could help them thrive. I agree that we need to add veterans this off-season who make it near impossible for our forward prospects to make the team out of camp. If one of them knocks the door down, fine. If one or two are having a strong year in Rochester and then get an injury call-up and never look back, great. If we are trading assets this off-season, my preference is that we move a prospect or two instead of #11. Move one or two kids who are nearing NHL readiness for a player who helps us over the next 2-4 years, and use our picks to keep the pipeline stocked.

I have no great issue with this. At the right price he is fine for the 4th line. Buying out Skinner would do far more for a culture change and to create space for a new type of player than moving on from Girgs. I’ve seen more than a few posts about Radek Faksa being a possible target (bottom 6 player who has a history with Ruff). I’m not sure I could come up with two players whose careers are closer to identical than Faksa and Girgs. One just had the misfortune of being drafted by the Sabres.

Completely agree on the last paragraph. Mostly because we have more prospects than will fit in the next two seasons (even accounting for a bust or two), and it would be better to move two existing high-end prospects out and bring in a new one.

I think there are times when a team needs to put off the longer term deal and take the opposite risk that it might cost more to extend a player down the road. The best teams in the league are examples. I’m certain that Dallas would have loved to lock Oettinger and Robertson up long-term. If they had done so though, then there would have been no Pavelski or no Marchment or poorer depth. Likewise, Florida could have locked up Bennett, Verhaeghe or even Reinhart, to longer term deals, but the price would have meant a reduction in overall depth and talent. Ditto Edmonton with Bouchard. At some point, a team needs to shift emphasis away from planning for the future towards icing the best possible team in the present.

Re: Joshua. I was listening to a Leafs’ podcast yesterday and the hosts briefly spoke of Joshua as a UFA candidate. They rather quickly dismissed him for the Leafs due to cost and mentioned that they heard, or think, Joshua will be looking for the Mason Marchment deal. Two years ago Marchment signed as a UFA with Dallas for 4 x $4.5. At first I thought that was a bit rich for Joshua. Then I looked deeper and saw that prior to getting his contract, Marchment had played only 91 NHL games and produced 20 goals and 58 points and 71 pms. He was 27 at the time (29 now). Joshua is 28 but has played 184 games and produced 33 goals and 64 points and 143 pms. Maybe the Marchment contract for Joshua isn’t so out of line. He is the sort of player we are missing.