Archie Lee

This is possible, but not likely in my view. Barring a trade or injury, Olofsson is likely part of the opening night line-up and will be given an opportunity to play himself in or out of a consistent role. I think they would have preferred to trade him earlier in the off-season, but there is just no market for wingers in the NHL (which, by the way, should be a cautionary tale about the value of our smaller, unproven, not-guaranteed to play centre in the NHL, forward prospects). By the time Quinn is ready to return, other injuries will have occurred. Olofsson will, I think, get a solid opportunity to keep himself consistently in the line-up. I think they try to capitalize on his contract year status; 30 goals is not unrealistic. It's very possible that 6 months from now we look back and laugh at how we fans were generally so ready to just move on from Olofsson.

The team was one of the highest scoring teams in hockey last season and still missed the playoffs. The reason they missed is because they gave up too many goals. The head coach has been absolutely clear in his statements that the goal was to create an offensive identity for the team and for its individual players, and to eventually introduce tighter defensive concepts as part of a progression. Despite of this fact (our coach basically telling us that this was the plan), it is still the case that certain players have become emblematic of the team’s shortcomings. The 3 players who we have primarily singled out are UPL, Jokiharju and Olofsson. Granato and the assistants are all back. Therefore, to get better defensively we must remove defensive liabilities. I think the team will be better defensively when there is a team commitment to doing so. I do think that happens this year and that the 3 players I mention will be just fine. I’m not making a prediction, but I suspect a healthy Olofsson plays a middle 6 role for us all year (someone will be injured by the time Quinn comes back). 20+ goals is likely and 30 is a possibility.

Turgeon was the guy for me. I am similar to him in age and he and Mogilny were really the only two star players of my actual age-group. I also have a soft-spot for players whose shortcomings, fair or unfair, end up being symbolic of the team's failings. There is no going back and there is no knowing what would have happened under different circumstances (the Butterfly Effect and all that), but Housley/(Hawerchuk), Andreychuk, Turgeon and Hasek are hall of famers. Mogilny should be. Benoit Hogue and Uwe Krupp were better hockey players at that point in their careers than Randy Wood and Randy Hillier. Mike Ramsey still had a little mileage. As much as I love Lafontaine and recognize his injuries were unforeseeable, we were barely .500 with him and ultimately won nothing. I always thought the trading of Turgeon was an over reaction and shortsighted.

VO was 7th among forwards in time on ice last year. His corsi/fenwick stats were similar to players like Peterka, Cozens, Jost. There were stretches of time last year, despite what some will say, where he was one of our better forwards. He has weaknesses in his game and there are stretches where he can be a liability. It is clear the team knows this and indications are that VO understands this and is committed to trying to improve in those areas and, by extension, become a more consistent player. Whether he can at 27-28 is a fair question. I thought he would be traded this offseason. I'm not going to be upset though if we start the season with a 28 goal scorer who is a good teammate and in his contract year, in our middle-six. I would not be shocked if VO ends up as the 13th forward many nights. Likewise I would not be shocked if he plays with Cozens and Mitts and scores 35. Also, I'm fine with starting the year with any two of Levi, Comrie and UPL as our goalies.

I would love to add a true top 4 D to partner with Power. I don’t think it is critical though. Last year we started with Bryson and Fitz in the 6-7 roles. If we add another D that pushes Bryson to 8-9 (behind the new guy, Stillman and maybe Clague and even Johnson) then I think our depth is quite a bit better from a year ago. Add in incremental development still coming for Dahlin, Power, Samuelsson and (IMO) Joker, and I’m ok with adding a depth defender. Mikkola is my prediction.

I’m in the “it’s ok to be patient” quadrant of the fanbase. That said, I get excited about potential moves and opportunities for roster enhancement. The Quinn injury is terrible. I feel for the kid. But, some contending teams use situations like this as opportunities for roster enhancement. A roster space just opened up. We can give it back to OV, who the coaching staff did not trust down the stretch. We can give it to the best youngster in camp, knowing they might be overwhelmed at times (like Quinn and JJ last year). Or, we can go out and add a veteran who makes the team better. If we add, we can do so knowing that more injuries are likely and when Quinn is ready in January there will be others likely on injury reserve. I suspect we won’t add. But Max Domi, as an example, might make us a better team.

I looked it up. It’s a word. Awesome to learn a new and cool word today.

Listening to the Adams clip, I don’t think he is saying anything he hasn’t said before: If the right deal is there to move up, or move back, they will be aggressive and make it. The key words are probably “the right deal”. I doubt the right deal will be there. I’m ok with all this.

Simashev is far from a consensus top 15. While the Sabres have picked 6 Russians in the past two drafts, they have not used a 1st on a Russian player. It may be that there comes a point in the draft where a Russian is simply the BPA on their board and there is no logic to taking a different player. But all factors included, they might see #13 as too risky.

I heard on multiple podcasts that the director of Central Scouting later clarified that he had Morin as the top North American d-man, not the top overall.

I won’t speak for the original poster, but likely this is because Cozens has already “hit” as a prospect and the others haven’t fully done so yet. Also, going by birth year, Quinn is the same age as Cozens and Krebs. In my view, the oversight is that Krebs is worthy of being included in the 1st poll. I think Krebs is going to be a key core piece for us. (queue the Krebs trade)

Thanks for this. Great work. From my “research”, the most likely to fall to us are Moore, Pelikka and, to a lesser extent, Benson. I would be very surprised to shocked if anyone else in your top 11 fell to us. The most likely to move up and be gone at our pick are Willander, Wood, Perreault and Danielson. I have my preferences, but won’t find it hard to get behind almost every player in your top 24, the exceptions being Cristall and Brindley. Nothing against those two, but I think they are higher risk and should go later than 13.

I don’t think so. While Seattle found a way to keep Shane Wright around the NHL for a bit and get him some AHL time, the general thought is that it was a tough year for him. I’m not sure that the best path for Savoie is to spend a year going from Buffalo to Rochester to the World Juniors and then to the WHL. Better to just be either an NHL player or a WHL player in my view (with the world juniors in there if he is in the WHL).

He has Benson falling to 14. I know we have drafted many smaller scoring forwards the last two years, but passing on Benson at 13 might be one that haunts a team. Cristall at 45 would be amazing.

I’m fine with either a 7-8 yr extension or a 2-3 year bridge. The long-term deal locks him up and provides cost certainty. The bridge opens up the possibility of having him on our blue line for the next 12 years. The Dahlin bridge seems to have worked fine. Maybe it is going to cost us an extra $1.5 - $2 million in AAV for the first 5 years of his next deal, but it also gets us 2-3 additional years. If Power wants a bridge and then 3-4 years from now he can demand more then Dahlin, then that will mean he has turned into the extraordinary player we think/hope he is and also that the cap has gone up.

You are right that it would “start the clock”, but the clock is probably starting in the next 12 months regardless. Also, I think that to say that is the “big reason” it won’t happen is to dismiss that there is an actual thought-out and long-term plan in place If Hellebuyck is available the price will be high. We can meet it, but it will be painful. There are contenders who will want him. Also, an extension will likely be in the Skinner range for AAV. This puts us in cap trouble earlier than we need to be. There are good reasons to not acquire Hellebuyck that go beyond the GM delaying expectations and protecting his job.

I haven’t read every post in this thread, but my sense is that in general people would take Hart if the price was low. The price you suggest is not getting Hart. The price you suggest is next to nothing. If we can get Hart for next to nothing then I am fine with acquiring him. The cost will be a lot higher than what you suggest though.

If the key here is the cap % of the Makar and Fox deals, then, regardless of whether that is referring to the cap % in year one of their contracts or today, the deal should come in with an AAV under $10. Also, note that Makar’s was for 6 years and the Fox deal was for 7. I’ll guess 7 x 9.7. Which would be pretty great.

Fair point, but there are clear differences. First, Ottawa retained on the Murray deal with the Leafs. I'm not sure if it was ever reported if retention was or was not part of the deal with the Sabres, but he might not have been coming at $6.2. The bigger difference though is the term. Murray had 2 years remaining from last off-season; meaning his contract is up before Dahlin, Power, Mitts, Joker and Krebs need new deals. Gibson has 4 years remaining at $6.4. I doubt Anaheim would retain for that length of time. His contract takes us through years where new deals will also be needed for Tuch, Peterka, Quinn, Levi and any rookie (Kulich?, Savoie?) who makes the team this season. So, the two are not really comparable. I should say that I could see Adams taking on a veteran goalie for two seasons. I don't think it will happen, but it would not shock me if we did sign any # of UFA goalies for 2 seasons. I also think he could be convinced to take a run at Saros if he became available (the ship has sailed on Ullmark I suspect).

I think you are right. The more likely outcome than a big splash trade for a Gibson or Hellebuyck I think, is that he signs a Raanta or a Talbot or a Brossoit to a 1 or 2 year deal.

Maybe Adams was legitimately interested in Gibson. It is, however, counter to everything Adams has said and done in building the team thus far. He simply has shown no interest in taking on a veteran player with lots of term and a high AAV. Indeed, he has said on multiple occasions that it is important that he and the organization know a player before they make that kind of a commitment to an individual. My opinion is that the hockey world in general looks at the Sabres and assumes they will do what the hockey world in general does. There is no veteran starting goalie in Buffalo and thus the Sabres will be in on any veteran goalie who might make them better in the short-term. This is why the connection to Gibson is made and now to Hellebuyck as well, I think. There is little to no chance, from what Adams has said and done, that the Sabres are interested in acquiring Gibson (high AAV, lots of term, declining performance) or Hellebuyck (high acquisition cost, one year to UFA with an extension that would require a high AAV over a long-term while also blocking Levi). If Adams acquires either player it will mean he has had a 180 degree shift in his plan for building the roster. My recollection is that in the year-end interview Adams was asked about going young in net and his answer was that the organization's philosophy on this was to be "fearless". All signs point to Levi/UPL as our goalies.

On the Savoie/Kulich topic, I would say that I generally agree that I think we could slow down the NHL in 2023 talk. I've got no real issue with them being in the NHL to start next season, I just don't think it should be a sure thing either. Looking back to the years 2000-2009, the Sabres drafted 16 players who played 500 or more NHL games. Only one, Tyler Myers, was an NHL regular by the start of his D+2 season. On average it took 3.5 years post-draft for those 16 players to become NHL regulars. There was a lock-out in there, but the bigger point is that it did not hurt those players that it took some time for them to make it to the NHL. The list of these players includes Ryan Miller, Brian Campbell, Derek Roy, Thomas Vanek, Jason Pominville and Paul Gaustad. Key contributors to the 2005-2007 teams. Since 2009 it has been a bit different. 9 drafted Sabres became regulars with the team either from the start of D+1 or D+2. Girgensens, Ristolainen Zadorov, Reinhart, Eichel, Mittelstadt, Dahlin, Cozens and Power. Some were clearly ready, some were clearly not. A one-sized fits all approach is not the way to go, but if you just use the 21st century Sabres as a guideline, it is better to be patient with than to rush a prospect. Quinn and Peterka were not NHL regulars until the start of D+3. I'm not sure Kulich and Savoie are better prospects than Quinn and Peterka. I'm also not sure that there is space or a need to force them into the line-up. We are at the point where they should only be in the NHL if it makes the Sabres better. Savoie's career won't be stunted if he has to play another year in the WHL, being a leader on a contending team and a key player on Canada's world junior squad. Likewise, I suspect there is lots that Kulich can learn from another year in Rochester.

Assuming the consolidated ranking of "20th" is accurate, then relative to where Rosen was ranked it could be said that they reached a bit. Of course, that the Sabres took him at 13 likely means that they had him ranked closer to 10. It's way too early to draw conclusions on whether it was a good pick. I know that when it comes to the draft I am guilty of looking at the players who are ranked slightly higher than where we are picking and focusing on 2 or 3 who I hope slip. Of course, for a player to slip it means that a team or teams took players who were ranked lower. We are probably as likely to pick a player ranked in the 20's with our 1st pick this year as we are to get a top 10 kid who falls. I was disappointed on draft night when they took Quinn. A was so focused on either Rossi slipping or on us possibly getting the "pro-ready" Lundell that I didn't spend any time on the real possibility they would take Quinn. A few minutes of research after the draft and I was happy with the pick. Incidentally, Quinn was taken 8th and as of now he is 8th in career NHL points from the 2020 draft.

Thomas Vanek had the best speculative explanation I have heard. He was on After the Whistle speaking on the subject a couple of weeks back. Vanek pointed out that as Johnson becomes a UFA Aug 15th, he can wait and see how the draft and free agency period shakes out. He basically has the luxury of waiting, scoping out the NHL landscape with regards to player depth and pick a place where he wants to go and where he has the best chance to be in the NHL this coming season. I hadn't thought of this until I heard it from Vanek. It makes sense. If the Sabres trade for a #4 at the draft and sign a 6-7 in free agency, then Johnson is likely Rochester bound (indeed, the Sabres may already have advised him that their plan is for him to be with the Amerks). There may be teams out there though, who advise Johnson he has a chance to be on the NHL roster and whose off-season defensive acquisitions/losses make clear that it is a legitimate possibility.

I don't know how this works, but CapFriendly has updated the "must sign by" date for Marjala to June 1, 2025. I suspect it has something to do with him leaving Junior and going back to Finland. I've never seen him play. The statistical year he had in Finland moved him into the "intriguing" category.