Jump to content

How can the Sabres upgrade in goal?


Recommended Posts

1 minute ago, dudacek said:

COVID happened. The market for $4 million defenceman died.

Ryan Murray went for a 5th

Nate Schmidt for a 3rd

Marcus Nuutivara for Cliff Pu

Olli Maatta for Brad Morrison

 

Then it should have a similar impact on the $4m back-up goaltender market. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
22 minutes ago, Thorny said:

Not "worth" it only by market value. Why not consider actual value? Why wouldn't it be worth paying a protected first to bring in what very well could be the missing piece in our pursuit of the playoffs?

If we acquired a goalie better than Ullmark who played the lion's share of the games, do you deem that worth a first? Forget about the market. KA should trust his talent analysis and pay the price required to bring in the goalie he wants. Obviously it's not going to be something exorbitant like 2 firsts. 

Personally I'm much more willing to live with the scenario where we do everything in our power to be good (and we're so close), and fail, than coming this close and going into the season, willingly, with a major hole. 

- - - 

It's not like when Tim Murray overpaid for the guys he wanted - we weren't ready. We have a top 6 good enough, right now, to compete for a cup: at least that's my view. And even if we didn't, there's no sense paying Hall 8 mil for one year, with nothing guaranteed after (ESPECIALLY if we go one or two years on Sam's deal), and taking on all that uncertainty, if not to maximize the coming season. 

Hutton isn't an option based on the results we've seen. That's easy analysis. 

I've asked this question before but I will ask it again: What goalie/s do you consider worth paying a hefty price of a first round pick plus additional assets and who is available? If the current Lehner of the Vegas version was available I would consider a deal for him. However, that's not the case. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Thorny said:

That's awesome but it also avoids my hypothetical question

I feel that even if we make great strides this year and just miss that this could work itself out next year. We missed out on some deals I would have been ok with. Now the cost will be a factor for anyone who will make that difference. If a deal comes along that would make that difference then I expect KA to jump on it.

If he decides to pay a high price, so be it and I'll accept it based on my confidence in him.

Just for interest....can anyone who follows the other leagues tell me if there are any goalies we might be able to bring over to fill the spot? Older vet or other that maybe no one is thinking about?

Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, JohnC said:

I've asked this question before but I will ask it again: What goalie/s do you consider worth paying a hefty price of a first round pick plus additional assets and who is available? If the current Lehner of the Vegas version was available I would consider a deal for him. However, that's not the case. 

Kuemper?

Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, Thorny said:

That's awesome but it also avoids my hypothetical question

Your hypothetical question is built on the unproven premise that replacing Hutton with a “good” goalie means we will make the playoffs and keeping the current tandem means we won’t.

And it supported by the unproven premise that the Sabres can replace Montour with Borgen and not miss a beat.

Accepting those two shakey premises, making the playoffs this year is not the goal, winning the Stanley Cup is. So the answer is to your question depends on what happens in the playoffs and during following off-season. If we lost in the first round and Hall walks, Staal retires and Kuemper becomes a Kraken, yes people would certainly question it.

  • Like (+1) 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, MakeSabresGrr8Again said:

I feel that even if we make great strides this year and just miss that this could work itself out next year. We missed out on some deals I would have been ok with. Now the cost will be a factor for anyone who will make that difference. If a deal comes along that would make that difference then I expect KA to jump on it.

If he decides to pay a high price, so be it and I'll accept it based on my confidence in him.

Just for interest....can anyone who follows the other leagues tell me if there are any goalies we might be able to bring over to fill the spot? Older vet or other that maybe no one is thinking about?

Well, you *kind of* answered it. Half-marks

5 minutes ago, dudacek said:

Your hypothetical question is built on the unproven premise that replacing Hutton with a “good” goalie means we will make the playoffs and keeping the current tandem means we won’t.

And it supported by the unproven premise that the Sabres can replace Montour with Borgen and not miss a beat.

Accepting those two shakey premises, making the playoffs this year is not the goal, winning the Stanley Cup is. So the answer is to your question depends on what happens in the playoffs and during following off-season. If we lost in the first round and Hall walks, Staal retires and Kuemper becomes a Kraken, yes people would certainly question it.

Almost like the definition of a hypothetical.....

You assume variables in a hypothetical...that's kind of the point?

Qualifying your answer makes sense, but it's not necessary for me to do so when phrasing the hypothetical - the purpose is to gauge reaction. 

- - - 

To answer it myself, yes, if we traded a first for a goalie and make the playoffs under the parameters I included, I wouldn't need to see anything beyond that to call it a good deal. 

Edited by Thorny
  • Haha (+1) 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
16 minutes ago, Broken Ankles said:

Then it should have a similar impact on the $4m back-up goaltender market. 

The purchase price for Raantta (one of the few $4 million backups in the league) probably isn’t high at all.

If we had the cap space we can flip them a pick and both teams would walk away happy.

The issue is the contract we’d have to dump to fit him under our cap.

Edited by dudacek
Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Thorny said:

Kuemper?

I would be receptive to acquiring Kuemper but not for the price you are willing to pay. Kevin Adams has been wise in being patient and waiting for the market to settle before jumping the gun on his transactions. He needs to continue on with that approach. There is still time to seize opportunities if they become available. Be patient and you will be rewarded. Act with impatience and you will be taken advantage of. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
57 minutes ago, MakeSabresGrr8Again said:

You are assuming that I am the one who brought up using a 1st rd pick AND that I agree to giving up a 1st for a goalie. Let me assure you that I don't and I was just adding to the convo.

My stand is that IF Adams ( I promise you I am not him) were to trade a 1st + for a goalie, it better be a very good one.

At the right price I think most players are available, whether to pay that price is the question.

So, I think we agree on more than you think.

 

We are in accord. 🍺

  • Thanks (+1) 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, JohnC said:

I would be receptive to acquiring Kuemper but not for the price you are willing to pay. Kevin Adams has been wise in being patient and waiting for the market to settle before jumping the gun on his transactions. He needs to continue on with that approach. There is still time to seize opportunities if they become available. Be patient and you will be rewarded. Act with impatience and you will be taken advantage of. 

So, if I gave you the scenario right now where: we traded a first for Kuemper, he played the lion's share of the games at a level superior to Ullmark, and we made the playoffs. 

This is the information I am giving you, nothing more. To establish a baseline. Don't like the question, don't answer it - but if you are going to answer it, have at it - do you accept that trade?

There are some who would argue it's an overpay by market and turn the trade down at it's face. I'm interested in seeing who takes that stance. 

Edited by Thorny
Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Thorny said:

So, if I gave you the scenario right now where: we traded a first for Kuemper, he played the lion's share of the games at a level superior to Ullmark, and we made the playoffs. 

This is the information I am giving you to establish a baseline. Don't like the question, don't answer it - but if you are going to answer it, have at it - do you accept that trade?

With your scenario of the fantasy world of knowing what will happen in the future I say yes. In the real world of making a judgment based on the current facts I say no. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

For me, if we were to achieve that scenario, I would be satisfied with the trade *regardless* of how events transpired after words. Therefore, I only need the specific things I mentioned in the hypothetical to take place, for me to be good with it. And, because I view the likelihood of those things arising, with Kuemper added, as pretty likely, I make the trade pretty easily. 

This is my viewpoint, and represents answering the hypothetical. The point was to fill in certain variables to gauge whether the trade was being turned down, by the poster, based on say, market value, or, the events that may transpire after. And whether, merely making the playoffs under a good performance from say Kuemper would be enough to deem the trade a success. 

If someone answers no, then we know the market value is being given high importance, or the following events, etc

If someone answers yes, then we can dial into the likelihood of those 2 things arising (making the playoffs, solid G performance) as the biggest factor in whether or not one likes/takes the deal. 

Of course there are numerous outside factors, like who else may be available, and at what cost, but *of course* everyone would take a BETTER deal if it were available! And as we aren't involved in the front offices of teams, those are variables that are tough to pin down.

Edited by Thorny
Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, JohnC said:

With your scenario of the fantasy world of knowing what will happen in the future I say yes. In the real world of making a judgment based on the current facts I say no. 

Look I can get past you calling me personally immature a couple weeks ago, on a message board, when you don't know me, based on an analysis of my views...on...hockey? But I don't really have time for someone who won't make the small effort required to understand the hypothetical I am in good faith trying to explain in great detail, without the obvious snarky verbiage.

Lord knows I read through your word salad haha. Cheers dude.

 

Edited by Thorny
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Thorny said:

Look I can get past you calling me personally immature a couple weeks ago, on a message board, when you don't know me, based on an analysis of my views...on...hockey? But I don't really have time for someone who won't make the small effort required to understand the hypothetical I am in good faith trying to explain in great detail, without the obvious snarky verbiage.

Lord knows I read through your word salad haha. Cheers dude.

 

What are you talking about? I answered your hypothetical question. And then I followed up with an additional response related to the reality of the situation. 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

If the Sabres were to trade a 1st for a goalie, wouldn't they have just drafted Askarov?

If Khudobin starts stealing the show or maybe even if he doesn't, Bishop could probably be had for cheap.

A re-signed Rask might not cost too much either.

Edited by Ducky
Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, JohnC said:

What are you talking about? I answered your hypothetical question. And then I followed up with an additional response related to the reality of the situation. 

 

You can PM me if you like, not derailing the thread by quoting the old post. 

Not derailing it again, I should say, after this post. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

I put an lottery-protected first up for Kuemper; he’s worth it.

But I’m not paying the additional price to create the cap space. We’re offering a premium asset that the Yotes are getting from no one else. They aren’t getting both the asset and the cap space. They have to meet us halfway, like Vegas did with Schmidt.

1st is not on the table for any of the other goalies out there.

Edited by dudacek
Link to post
Share on other sites
14 minutes ago, GASabresIUFAN said:

I think our best hope is for UPL to do a Carter Hart.  Play great in the AHL and force his way into the NHL years ahead of alleged schedule.

It can certainly be the best hope but it can't be the strategy. 

  • Like (+1) 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

This, I would do.

Risto, Casey, Hutton and an unprotected first for

Kuemper and Chychrun

It’s a straight hockey trade where the Sabres add just under $1 million in salary. Coyotes save another million cash because we’ve already paid Risto’s bonus and they can buy out Hutton and save another $1 million

Link to post
Share on other sites
38 minutes ago, dudacek said:

This, I would do.

Risto, Casey, Hutton and an unprotected first for

Kuemper and Chychrun

It’s a straight hockey trade where the Sabres add just under $1 million in salary. Coyotes save another million cash because we’ve already paid Risto’s bonus and they can buy out Hutton and save another $1 million

Hmm, that would be a hard one but I do like Chychrun quite a bit and seeing as he has a Pegula connection can’t hurt. I just hate anything involving unprotected 1sts. Give me Top 3 protection and I say sure.

Link to post
Share on other sites
16 hours ago, Ducky said:

If the Sabres were to trade a 1st for a goalie, wouldn't they have just drafted Askarov?

If Khudobin starts stealing the show or maybe even if he doesn't, Bishop could probably be had for cheap.

A re-signed Rask might not cost too much either.

To the bolded:  that’s the difference between acquiring a goalie for the 2020-21 season, and acquiring a goalie for 2023.  Big difference.  Plus Buffalo theoretically already have a high end goalie prospect on the way for 2023.  They need a goalie for 2020.

  • Like (+1) 3
Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
×
×
  • Create New...