Archie Lee

Yeah, the focus is largely on the teams what missed the playoffs as possible destinations for Trotz. There are teams in the playoffs that could make a change too. If the Leafs lose rd 1 he could be a candidate there. Dallas seems ready made for Trotz if this is it for Bowness.

I think that looks good. The only part that I don’t think is semi-reasonable is the Fleury signing.

Comrie is intriguing. He is younger and less experienced, so perhaps a higher risk as you may not know for certain what you are getting. The flip-side is that uncertainty means he might be your long-term answer. I like that we have 3 good young goalie prospects whose rights currently belong to us; but none of the 3 have done anything in my view to warrant the organization taking a position of not wanting to "box them out". I don't disagree with Adams' philosophy of keeping a lane open for the kids, particularly as it applies to Cozens, Krebs, Quinn, Peterka, Power and Samuelsson. But none of our goaltending prospects are in a position where we can say with confidence that they are going to be a good NHL goalie, for the Sabres, in the near future. I'm not advocating anything rash like a trade for Gibson or Binnington, but I also don't see that we currently have any goalies to box-out. We have a kid in Rochester who has struggled to be consistent at that AHL level and to stay healthy and two college prospects who have yet to commit. Our goaltending prospects are good and I'm glad we have them and I'm not about to panic because Luukkonen has yet to take the next step or because Portillo and Levi have not signed. We have no goalie prospects that we can be sure to count on at the NHL level anytime soon though.

I think you are correct, though I absolutely think Boston wanted Lazar. They could just as easily have taken back Riley Sheahan or Tobias Reider, both of whom were on league minimum deals that were expiring. Lazar had another year at $800k. The Bruins had a good idea that he would be a good fit for them in a bottom six role. Lazar is a UFA. We could do worse than to have him as our 4th line centre next year. Also, I don't hate that we took back Bjork. Lazar is a better player and we came out on the wrong end, but Bjork probably did have a higher ceiling that was worth exploring.

This seems a bit premature. There are 3 teams in the playoffs currently forced into using their 3rd string goalies. All 3 have had good moments, but lots of goalies will look good for a game or two. A few years ago Carey Price was injured and a young Dustin Tokarski went in and stole the show for a bit. Kochetkov and Ingram are interesting goalie prospects, but one strong playoff game from each is perhaps not yet an indication that their respective franchises have goaltending factories. What those franchises do though, particularly Carolina, is identify a weakness and address it.

I will own up to that. I thought it was wrong for a team that was weak in goal to trade a young goalie for such a slight return. In reality the Sabres staff knew far better than me what they had in Johansson. I was wrong on this one.

I agree with you. The frustrating part is that the only cost to retain Ullmark was the value of his contract. To obtain an Ullmark-level goalie this off-season will cost assets (prospects / picks). It is unlikely we get an Ullmark-level goalie in free agency.

I mostly agree on Ullmark. I thought last year that the bar was set with the Demko contract. I would have given Ullmark 5 x 5 or 5 x 5.25 and been happy to lock up 1/2 of a 1A/1B tandem for the next half decade. I recognize though that Ullmark has had durability issues and has yet to show he can be an effective 50+ game starter and playoff performer. Also, I do understand that a GM needs to set a value on a player and stick to it. Adams and his front-office team likely valued Ullmark at closer to 3 x 5 or 4 x 4.5. With that in mind I appreciate that you can't always give a player a bit more than what you value them at; overpaying players is not a path to get a franchise to a position where they no longer need to do so. I personally think Adams undervalued Ullmark and that it was a mistake to let him go. There will likely come a time where we really have no choice but to make such a commitment to a goalie whose #'s are not better than Ullmark's. That said, I respect that Adams stuck to his position on where he valued the player.

I agree with the central point you are making. The Sabres have a gap to close between them and the playoff teams in the Eastern Conference. It will not be easy to close that gap and much will need to go right in order for the Sabres to become contenders for a playoff position. I also agree that we have the cap space, and prospect/draft capital, to narrow the gap. I think it can be done without giving away too much of the future. That said, I think there are some flaws in the evidence you are using to support your conclusion. First, it's a good thing that all 9 regulation losses were against playoff teams. Getting to the playoffs is as much about separating yourself from the bottom tiers of the league as it is about joining the top tier. It is very much a good thing that we did not lose a game in regulation against a non-playoff team in March and April. Second, as mjd1001 has pointed out, it is not as though we feasted entirely on non-playoff teams over the past two months. 8 of our 16 wins came against Toronto (3 times), Minnesota, Calgary, Pittsburgh, Nashville, and Carolina. I would add that two additional wins were against Vegas and Vancouver, teams that were feverishly trying to get into playoff contention. The Sabres had a tougher than average schedule in the last two months and played at a 102-103 point pace. While that is not a clear indication we are now playoff bound, it's definitely a good thing. Finally, I think there is a flaw in isolating that we were outscored by 32 goals (45-13) in our last 9 regulation losses. In hockey, too much is sometimes read into a 5-0 or 6-1 loss. They play 82 of these and even good teams will have several games over the course of a year that just get away from them. Regulation losses in hockey, even for good teams, often turn lopsided. For comparison, Toronto's negative goal differential over their last 9 regulation losses is -30. Calgary's is -25. Washington's is -27. Edmonton's -25. Nashville's -29. Dallas -26. Los Angelas -29. Those are all playoff teams. None of those are quite as bad as the Sabres's -32, but if you take any team's last 9 regulation losses, the negative goal differential will likely be bad.

I rarely make a point of strongly disagreeing with a post as we are all just offering opinions here. Your view of Ullmark is just wrong though. We will be incredibly fortunate if we find a goalie this off-season who comes close to posting a .917 save % (as Ullmark has done the past two years) or a .913 save % as Ullmark has done over his career. If we do get someone that good who is around Ullmark’s age, or if one of our prospects turns out to be that good, then locking that player up long-term at around $5 million per year should be a priority. Having a good goalie like Ullmark locked up long term does not prevent a team from finding and developing a Shesterkin. These can occur independently.

Eichel wasn’t “the” problem here and he isn’t “the” problem in Vegas. What the Sabres had wrong and what the Knights now have wrong is the belief that Eichel was/is “the” solution. He isn’t. When fully healthy he is really good. What he isn’t is a generational talent who will lift a moribund franchise out of the darkness. What he isn’t Is an elite “top-five centre in the world” who is the missing piece for a championship team. It’s unfortunate for him that he keeps being casted in roles he is not suited for.

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.