How can the Sabres upgrade in goal?

[Thorny]

1 minute ago, thewookie1 said:

Could we trade Risto 🙂

That's the other thing working in our favour, we have 3 that we shouldn't have a problem sending out the door. The other team can pick. 

1 minute ago, dudacek said:

Yes, I still think Montour is tradeable. Barely. And the landing spots are shrinking.

I agree that the Sabres probably think they have options in terms of getting a goalie, but I also think those options might not be there when push comes to shove. Obviously there are moving parts, or the deal would already be done..

For sure. They just may prefer those other options.

Haha, well they better figure it out. 

Edited October 20, 2020 by Thorny

[dudacek]

1 minute ago, thewookie1 said:

Could we trade Risto 🙂

IMO, he would be a worse option than Montour— a better player likely to garner a worse return because of the lack of teams that can fit him.

But there are always going to be hockey trades available — talent and cap for roughly equivalent talent and cap. We just have to find the right fit.

[Thorny]

Convert Montour INTO a goalie, literally.

[dudacek]

11 minutes ago, Thorny said:

I don't think it seems likely that there wouldn't be a single taker, league wide, on Montour. 

At what point does is become unwise to overpay for a goalie while at the same time giving a pretty good hockey player away for free?

A first is a pretty steep price for a goalie, period. This board still moans about Lehner.

I understand COVID has messed up the market, but Montour and a first is pretty clearly an overpay.

Especially when you see what goalies have been going for over the past month.

[Thorny]

17 minutes ago, dudacek said:

At what point does is become unwise to overpay for a goalie while at the same time giving a pretty good hockey player away for free?

A first is a pretty steep price for a goalie, period. This board still moans about Lehner.

I understand COVID has messed up the market, but Montour and a first is pretty clearly an overpay.

Especially when you see what goalies have been going for over the past month.

It's an overpay by market but not in value. I'd rather make my decisions based on the latter. It doesn't become unwise for me very quickly when the net result is a real shot at the playoffs. It's time to prioritize that. 

Does anyone really care if we overpay by several magnitudes for a goalie when it could and probably would be the difference between playoffs or not, and maximizing our great top 6 or not? The benefits could be potentially exponential, all the way down to the satisfaction of Jack Eichel. 

Imagine NOT upgrading the goalie, and not making the playoffs, because you don't want to give away a couple extra draft picks. Just get it done and get a goalie. Be a little aggressive - to have been Hall aggressive and not goalie aggressive, now, would be an odd juxtaposition. I'm compelled to see the next rail on the track Adams is laying because the ones he has laid before are clearly constructed with purpose. I see a plan and to me that move can only be both necessary and inevitable. 

I never saw a discernable plan with Botterill beyond "base level confidence" and we talked about that a lot before, too. 

Edited October 20, 2020 by Thorny

[PerreaultForever]

hate to say it, but I think we missed the window of goalie upgrade potential and we're going to ride out Ullmark/Hutton for the year. 

Not sure Arizona is actually looking to unload Kuemper and Vegas might trade Fleury but I think they announced they were keeping him to keep the price high and I'm not sure I'd want to pay it. Unless some team has a really good prospect you want to gamble on I just don't see it happening. 

[I-90 W]

We should try to piece together what a package would look like to Vegas for Fleury. 

[dudacek]

13 minutes ago, Thorny said:

It's an overpay by market but not in value. I'd rather make my decisions based on the latter. It doesn't become unwise for me very quickly when the net result is a real shot at the playoffs. It's time to prioritize that. 

Does anyone really care if we overpay by several magnitudes for a goalie when it could and probably would be the difference between playoffs or not, and maximizing our great top 6 or not? The benefits could be potentially exponential, all the way to the satisfaction of Jack Eichel. 

Imagine NOT upgrading the goalie, and not making the playoffs, because you don't want to give away a couple extra draft picks. Just get it done and get a goalie. Be a little aggressive - to have been Hall aggressive and not goalie aggressive, now, would be an odd juxtaposition. I'm compelled to see the next rail on the track Adams is laying because the ones he has laid before are clearly constructed with purpose. I see a plan and to me that move can only be both necessary and inevitable. 

I never saw a discernable plan with Botterill beyond "base level confidence" and we talked about that a lot before, too. 

Yeah, I thought this is where you are heading, and I agree up to a point.

I'll pay the premium if we are acquiring a guy that can be a clear number one for this year and beyond (Kuemper?). I won't for a guy who's only going to be here for this year and probably only play 30 games (Raantta?) for the Sabres.

 

[dudacek]

28 minutes ago, I-90 W said:

We should try to piece together what a package would look like to Vegas for Fleury. 

Frank Serevelli reported Fleury was offered around the league along with a 2nd round draft pick for free and Vegas got no takers.

So, it wouldn't take much at all, although the Knights aren't as desperate now to trade him after dumping Schmidt.

I proposed a Hutton for Fleury straight-across deal a month ago that I still think Vegas would take. They essentially cut their cap by a little over $4 million and get an adequate backup. Right now, they are still $1 million over

But basically, they'd probably have to add a draft pick sweetener now and we'd have to trade a defenceman to someone else to make it work because of our cap situation.

Is there a base to build around in Fleury for Okposo? Fleury can still play, but not well enough to justify the contract, or giving up real assets.

Edited October 20, 2020 by dudacek

[I-90 W]

12 minutes ago, dudacek said:

Frank Serevelli reported Fleury was offered around the league along with a 2nd round draft pick for free and Vegas got no takers.

So, it wouldn't take much at all, although the Knights aren't as desperate now to trade him after dumping Schmidt.

I proposed a Hutton for Fleury straight-across deal a month ago that I still think Vegas would take. They essentially cut their cap by a little over $4 million and get an adequate backup. Right now, they are still $1 million over

But basically, they'd probably have to add a draft pick sweetener now and we'd have to trade a defenceman to someone else to make it work because of our cap situation.

Is there a base to build around in Fleury for Okposo? Fleury can still play, but not well enough to justify the contract, or giving up real assets.

Really wish we would make a move for him. I read that even Fleury himself was surprised he wasn’t dealt after the Lehner re-signing.

Even in his twilight years I could picture Fleury giving us 30 wins the next two seasons. Don’t think we’ve had a netminder give us 30 wins in the last 9 years. If I’m right that’s a sobering stat. 

[Weave]

Didn’t Vegas say flat out that MAF is not available after Lehners surgery was announced?

We’re  done with offseason moves IMO.  The options are too limited right now.

[Curt]

6 hours ago, thewookie1 said:

Schmidt remember was also 5x5.95 mil and is 29 at this moment.

Having a 1st pair D signed for under $6M AAV for ages 29-33 is not a bad contract.  It’s a pretty good contract.

[thewookie1]

1 hour ago, Curt said:

Having a 1st pair D signed for under $6M AAV for ages 29-33 is not a bad contract.  It’s a pretty good contract.

I wouldn't say he's a Top pair guy

[Pimlach]

8 hours ago, Andrew Amerk said:

Easy. 
 

Bring back Hasek. He’s probably in better shape than anyone on this forum, and could probably come back and still be a top 5 goalie in this league at his age. 

Of course you are joking but remember that Hasek could not wait to leave.  Why would anyone come back?  

[Curt]

23 minutes ago, thewookie1 said:

I wouldn't say he's a Top pair guy

Ok, but he has been the ice time leader for one of the best teams in the league the past 3 years.  I think he is certainly one of the best 60 D in the league.

[JohnC]

8 hours ago, Thorny said:

It's an overpay by market but not in value. I'd rather make my decisions based on the latter. It doesn't become unwise for me very quickly when the net result is a real shot at the playoffs. It's time to prioritize that. 

Does anyone really care if we overpay by several magnitudes for a goalie when it could and probably would be the difference between playoffs or not, and maximizing our great top 6 or not? The benefits could be potentially exponential, all the way down to the satisfaction of Jack Eichel. 

Imagine NOT upgrading the goalie, and not making the playoffs, because you don't want to give away a couple extra draft picks. Just get it done and get a goalie. Be a little aggressive - to have been Hall aggressive and not goalie aggressive, now, would be an odd juxtaposition. I'm compelled to see the next rail on the track Adams is laying because the ones he has laid before are clearly constructed with purpose. I see a plan and to me that move can only be both necessary and inevitable. 

I never saw a discernable plan with Botterill beyond "base level confidence" and we talked about that a lot before, too. 

I wouldn't give up a first round pick for any goalie in a trade. We used a first round pick for Cozens. The hope is that in his second year he will make the roster and in the not too distant future will be our 2C. With our first pick in this year's draft we selected Quinn who was arguably one of the best goal scorers/shooters in the draft. In two or three years the hope is that he will be a forward on one of our top two lines. The point is these first round picks are valuable assets that shouldn't be dealt for at best a second tier/pedestrian goalie. 

Hutton was a decent backup when he was first acquired. He noticeably slipped last season. Were his eye issues the main factor in that slippage? I'm not sure. If it was then if a replacement couldn't be found for a less costly price than you are advocating for, I would prefer to keep him. Marty Biron has repeatedly made the point that if Hutton is not overloaded with games he is effective. It's when he gets overused that he predictably fades. 

Make no mistake what I'm saying here. I'm not saying don't trade for an upgrade in goal if the price is right. But I would rather keep a player such as Risto or Montour and our first round pick then overpay for a second tier goaltender.  

[Thorny]

8 hours ago, dudacek said:

Yeah, I thought this is where you are heading, and I agree up to a point.

I'll pay the premium if we are acquiring a guy that can be a clear number one for this year and beyond (Kuemper?). I won't for a guy who's only going to be here for this year and probably only play 30 games (Raantta?) for the Sabres.

 

 

51 minutes ago, JohnC said:

I wouldn't give up a first round pick for any goalie in a trade. We used a first round pick for Cozens. The hope is that in his second year he will make the roster and in the not too distant future will be our 2C. With our first pick in this year's draft we selected Quinn who was arguably one of the best goal scorers/shooters in the draft. In two or three years the hope is that he will be a forward on one of our top two lines. The point is these first round picks are valuable assets that shouldn't be dealt for at best a second tier/pedestrian goalie. 

Hutton was a decent backup when he was first acquired. He noticeably slipped last season. Were his eye issues the main factor in that slippage? I'm not sure. If it was then if a replacement couldn't be found for a less costly price than you are advocating for, I would prefer to keep him. Marty Biron has repeatedly made the point that if Hutton is not overloaded with games he is effective. It's when he gets overused that he predictably fades. 

Make no mistake what I'm saying here. I'm not saying don't trade for an upgrade in goal if the price is right. But I would rather keep a player such as Risto or Montour and our first round pick then overpay for a second tier goaltender.  

So we're on completely different wavelengths, and that's ok 

4 hours ago, Weave said:

Didn’t Vegas say flat out that MAF is not available after Lehners surgery was announced?

We’re  done with offseason moves IMO.  The options are too limited right now.

Would be a real shame. 

Edited October 20, 2020 by Thorny

[MakeSabresGrr8Again]

48 minutes ago, JohnC said:

I wouldn't give up a first round pick for any goalie in a trade. We used a first round pick for Cozens. The hope is that in his second year he will make the roster and in the not too distant future will be our 2C. With our first pick in this year's draft we selected Quinn who was arguably one of the best goal scorers/shooters in the draft. In two or three years the hope is that he will be a forward on one of our top two lines. The point is these first round picks are valuable assets that shouldn't be dealt for at best a second tier/pedestrian goalie. 

Hutton was a decent backup when he was first acquired. He noticeably slipped last season. Were his eye issues the main factor in that slippage? I'm not sure. If it was then if a replacement couldn't be found for a less costly price than you are advocating for, I would prefer to keep him. Marty Biron has repeatedly made the point that if Hutton is not overloaded with games he is effective. It's when he gets overused that he predictably fades. 

Make no mistake what I'm saying here. I'm not saying don't trade for an upgrade in goal if the price is right. But I would rather keep a player such as Risto or Montour and our first round pick then overpay for a second tier goaltender.  

You also have to consider if the goalie you're trading for potentially gets you to the playoffs. The value of that 1st rd pick is not Cozens nor Quinn, and not only in the players value but also the future of the team. Sometimes you're even looking at 2nd line players moving into the first round depending on how far you go in the playoffs.

[JohnC]

2 minutes ago, MakeSabresGrr8Again said:

You also have to consider if the goalie you're trading for potentially gets you to the playoffs. The value of that 1st rd pick is not Cozens nor Quinn, and not only in the players value but also the future of the team. Sometimes you're even looking at 2nd line players moving into the first round depending on how far you go in the playoffs.

There is an assumption on your part that one of the goalies available will be the difference/reason that gets you into the playoffs. If you scan the market now name the goalie who you believe is of the caliber that will make such a difference? Again, make no mistake what I am saying here. I'm not against upgrading the position, and that position is more likely to be for the backup. I'm just not willing to pay the extravagant price of giving up a Risto and/or a first round for that type of addition. 

[nfreeman]

Maybe I'm missing something, but what about a simple Montour-for-Kuemper trade, with the Sabres retaining half ($1.9MM) of Montour's cap hit?  AZ gets a good player and $2.6MM in savings.  The Sabres deal from a position of strength and fill a major need.  The Sabres would still need to figure out a way to save $2MM to $3MM in cap somewhere, but this would be a major upgrade on the ice.

I suppose it might not be appealing enough from AZ's perspective -- but they seem pretty clearly intent on shedding salary, and there aren't many takers at this point.

[dudacek]

17 minutes ago, nfreeman said:

Maybe I'm missing something, but what about a simple Montour-for-Kuemper trade, with the Sabres retaining half ($1.9MM) of Montour's cap hit?  AZ gets a good player and $2.6MM in savings.  The Sabres deal from a position of strength and fill a major need.  The Sabres would still need to figure out a way to save $2MM to $3MM in cap somewhere, but this would be a major upgrade on the ice.

I suppose it might not be appealing enough from AZ's perspective -- but they seem pretty clearly intent on shedding salary, and there aren't many takers at this point.

I think the Yotes want more for Keumper than a rental and $2.6 million savings

But let's say I'm wrong on that. The issue is in the bolded. It won't be a Kuemper/Montour trade at all

How are you dumping salary? Miller for a 5th? Risto at 50 per cent retained for a 3rd? Reinhart for Debrusk?

Do we really want to enter the season with Kuemper, but also relying on regular minutes from Irwin, Davidson and Borgen? Is that really a major upgrade?

[JohnC]

45 minutes ago, Thorny said:

 

So we're on completely different wavelengths, and that's ok 

 

Black and white positions are easy to differentiate. On this issue you go this way while I go that way. 🍺

[MakeSabresGrr8Again]

26 minutes ago, JohnC said:

There is an assumption on your part that one of the goalies available will be the difference/reason that gets you into the playoffs. If you scan the market now name the goalie who you believe is of the caliber that will make such a difference? Again, make no mistake what I am saying here. I'm not against upgrading the position, and that position is more likely to be for the backup. I'm just not willing to pay the extravagant price of giving up a Risto and/or a first round for that type of addition. 

I'm also assuming  that if we're trading a 1st for a goalie that we're not talking about the scrap leftover UFA's. So, I assume if we're trading a 1st rd pick for a goalie then yes, I expect that player to push us into the playoffs, especially with our other additions.

A compressed schedule this year will demand that type player. Do you think Carey Price will play 60 games in a compressed schedule? The need for 2 quality goalies will be evident.

As far as who is available...for a 1st rd pick and maybe a sweetener, many could be available and if not then don't make a trade.

 

[Shootica]

I did a quick look across the league and from what I can see, the teams that could use an upgrade in net are us, Chicago, Carolina, and Edmonton. 

Arizona is the only team that from my perspective needs to move a goalie, both from a cap perspective and the fact that Adin Hill requires waivers next season.  Columbus and Dallas could move a goalie (Korpisalo or Bishop) if they're confident in the youth they have waiting and need cap space, but I'd bet that both of them stand pat.

It's been reported that the Blackhawks aren't interested in spending much money/assets on the goalie position while they aren't contending, so I only really see them going for a Craig Anderson type.  Edmonton just re-signed Craig Smith so that may be the group they're going with even though it doesn't look pretty.

That leaves us and Carolina in the goalie market, and Arizona needing to move a goalie.  If Carolina makes an upgrade, they need to trade one of their own to make space.

So to me, there's two likely outcomes:

1) We trade for Kuemper/Raanta and either waive Hutton or trade him desperately with retained money.

2) Carolina trades for Kuemper/Raanta leaving us to trade for Reimer or Mrazek.

Either way, the team we'd be getting a goalie from would have no interest in Hutton.  Which shouldn't be much of a shock, but it's worth mentioning.  And either way, we most likely have to find a trade partner for one of our right shot defensemen (or Reinhart I guess) to clear the cap space to make it work.

Edited October 20, 2020 by Shootica

[nfreeman]

28 minutes ago, dudacek said:

I think the Yotes want more for Keumper than a rental and $2.6 million savings

But let's say I'm wrong on that. The issue is in the bolded. It won't be a Kuemper/Montour trade at all

How are you dumping salary? Miller for a 5th? Risto at 50 per cent retained for a 3rd? Reinhart for Debrusk?

Do we really want to enter the season with Kuemper, but also relying on regular minutes from Irwin, Davidson and Borgen? Is that really a major upgrade?

I don't think the Sabres would, or should, unload 2 good players in order to bring in Kuemper (or any other goalie), and you're right that in my example, it would be tricky for them to figure out how to clear that last $2MM - $3Mm in cap space.  I suppose I was thinking of buying out Hutton or giving someone a pick or prospect to take him.

BTW, it sure would be nice right now to have that last $1MM of cap space that JB rolled over from last year, innit?  (To be fair, we could say the same for the $700K or so that they are overpaying Zemgus.)