Jump to content

Recommended Posts

7 minutes ago, Hoss said:

I haven’t seen that and if anyone is reporting it I will never trust them again. He was a massive get for them. Even if he were available Risto isn’t even a third of the price it would take.

Unless you go back to the price Botterill *could* have paid to get him, originally.

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

Unless you go back to the price Botterill *could* have paid to get him, originally.

I don’t think so. He got a first and I think if Risto were worth that he’d be on another team by now.

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Hoss said:

I don’t think so. He got a first and I think if Risto were worth that he’d be on another team by now.

But what's Risto x 3?

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

But what's Risto x 3?

This is a semantics things and I love semantics haha Botterill was too afraid to do the right thing.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hoping the expansion draft opens up some affordable trades as is being reported. If so I can see the Sabres being active in that front.

For the forward group, I'd like to see them consider the following:

Trade for:
Rickard Rackell (2nd+?)
Mattias Ekholm(3rd?)

The prices are likely too low most years, hoping this year is the exception. 

Sign 2 of:
Ryan Nugent-Hopkins
Brandon Saad
Blake Coleman
Barklay Goodrow
Nick Bonino
Brett Ritchie
Nick Foligno
Nick Bjugstad

Difficult to guage whether Buffalo will be able to attract these players or not but if they can I think they would be on the right path. 

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, Hoss said:

This is a semantics things and I love semantics haha Botterill was too afraid to do the right thing.

yes lol. but you did say it haha

But ya basically it was just to take a shot at Botts. We could have had JT Miller for a 1st

Edited by Thorny
Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, Norcal said:

Hoping the expansion draft opens up some affordable trades as is being reported. If so I can see the Sabres being active in that front.

For the forward group, I'd like to see them consider the following:

Trade for:
Rickard Rackell (2nd+?)
Mattias Ekholm(3rd?)

The prices are likely too low most years, hoping this year is the exception. 

Sign 2 of:
Ryan Nugent-Hopkins
Brandon Saad
Blake Coleman
Barklay Goodrow
Nick Bonino
Brett Ritchie
Nick Foligno
Nick Bjugstad

Difficult to guage whether Buffalo will be able to attract these players or not but if they can I think they would be on the right path. 

 

 

I think the discussion of adding a 2C through has gotten a lot more interesting over the past few weeks.

Are you going hurt Mitts/Cozens or waste UFA dollars/trade capital by investing in a 2C? Don't get me wrong, adding a Danault makes us a better team, but cap remote is finite. Would we be better investing our $ in other areas? Particularly with the idea that Reinhart can cover the 2C position if Dylan or Casey is overmatched.

One of the many tough questions Adams will be faced with this summer.

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

I think the discussion of adding a 2C through has gotten a lot more interesting over the past few weeks.

Are you going hurt Mitts/Cozens or waste UFA dollars/trade capital by investing in a 2C? Don't get me wrong, adding a Danault makes us a better team, but cap remote is finite. Would we be better investing our $ in other areas? Particularly with the idea that Reinhart can cover the 2C position if Dylan or Casey is overmatched.

One of the many tough questions Adams will be faced with this summer.

I didn't put Danault on my list but he could help settle the C spine and give alot of flexibility. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
50 minutes ago, Norcal said:

I didn't put Danault on my list but he could help settle the C spine and give alot of flexibility. 

If the Sabres decide to trade Eichel this offseason, signing him would be a good idea 

 

1 hour ago, dudacek said:

I think the discussion of adding a 2C through has gotten a lot more interesting over the past few weeks.

Are you going hurt Mitts/Cozens or waste UFA dollars/trade capital by investing in a 2C? Don't get me wrong, adding a Danault makes us a better team, but cap remote is finite. Would we be better investing our $ in other areas? Particularly with the idea that Reinhart can cover the 2C position if Dylan or Casey is overmatched.

One of the many tough questions Adams will be faced with this summer.

 

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

How insane would it be to keep the 3 current scoring lines together and then give Eichel Girgensons & Okposo (or a FA brought in if Kyle ends up on LTIR next year) to have 4 balanced lines?

There would be no true checking line, but also no true #1 line either.  The Reinhart line would be the only one w/out true mucker and all 4 lines would have a playmaker.   Would probably only consider this if they can convince Seattle to not take Bjork.

  • Like (+1) 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
16 minutes ago, Taro T said:

How insane would it be to keep the 3 current scoring lines together and then give Eichel Girgensons & Okposo (or a FA brought in if Kyle ends up on LTIR next year) to have 4 balanced lines?

There would be no true checking line, but also no true #1 line either.  The Reinhart line would be the only one w/out true mucker and all 4 lines would have a playmaker.   Would probably only consider this if they can convince Seattle to not take Bjork.

Now *that* is a fascinating thought experiment.  Can you imagine the chances which Zemgus and Kyle create actually going in more often than every third game?

  • Thanks (+1) 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, Thorny said:

But you are forgetting, people want to move Jack 

We don't need him anymore

(yes this is hyperbole)

I get your hyperbole, but that's not the point. There's culture and there's chemistry and there's attitude on the team and maybe, just maybe this is the right moment to move him. You get a return, you probably create cap room, and you get to move on with a new era attitude. 

Not trading him this off season and (potentially) losing next year would be disastrous. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, PerreaultForever said:

I get your hyperbole, but that's not the point. There's culture and there's chemistry and there's attitude on the team and maybe, just maybe this is the right moment to move him. You get a return, you probably create cap room, and you get to move on with a new era attitude. 

Not trading him this off season and (potentially) losing next year would be disastrous. 

The bolded is the part i agree with 

Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
5 hours ago, dudacek said:

I think the discussion of adding a 2C through has gotten a lot more interesting over the past few weeks.

Are you going hurt Mitts/Cozens or waste UFA dollars/trade capital by investing in a 2C? Don't get me wrong, adding a Danault makes us a better team, but cap remote is finite. Would we be better investing our $ in other areas? Particularly with the idea that Reinhart can cover the 2C position if Dylan or Casey is overmatched.

One of the many tough questions Adams will be faced with this summer.

When have Casey or Cozens been overmatched in recent weeks?  I’ll be honest and say the 2C is solved.  It’s either Cozens, Mitts or Reinhart.  We could do worse. I know I’m on the minority, but I really don’t see the need to change much in our forward group for next season other then replacing Eakin with a good player.

We have some really good lines and pairings right now.  I like the Mitts line as is.  I like R2 with Cozens.  I also like the new effort from Olofsson, Skinner and Reinhart.

 

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

When have Casey or Cozens been overmatched in recent weeks?  I’ll be honest and say the 2C is solved.  It’s either Cozens, Mitts or Reinhart.  We could do worse. I know I’m on the minority, but I really don’t see the need to change much in our forward group for next season other then replacing Eakin with a good player.

I agree at C I think, add a C to replace Eakin and I'm actually good. Mitts was something I wasn't counting on at all (nor Reinhart at C) so those things combined with DC make it likely to me 2C is filled. 

The one difference is I think we should add a t6 wing. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

According to CapFriendly, we can keep Asplund (and therefore Bjork) by simply playing him in only 1/2 of the remaining games.

He has 8(9?) games to go until he is expansion draft fodder.   Does GMKA have the guts to hold out this kid?

Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, etiennep99 said:

According to CapFriendly, we can keep Asplund (and therefore Bjork) by simply playing him in only 1/2 of the remaining games.

He has 8(9?) games to go until he is expansion draft fodder.   Does GMKA have the guts to hold out this kid?

No.  That is not what that # refers to.  Teams have to expose at least 1 goalie & at least a certain # of skaters with NHL experience.  Those #'s are referring to them qualifying to count as those players.  Both have enough pro experience to need to be protected or the Sabres will have to risk losing them.

It would be interesting to see if Skinner would be willing to be exposed realizing there's no way that Seattle will want that contract.

  • Like (+1) 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
38 minutes ago, Taro T said:

No.  That is not what that # refers to.  Teams have to expose at least 1 goalie & at least a certain # of skaters with NHL experience.  Those #'s are referring to them qualifying to count as those players.  Both have enough pro experience to need to be protected or the Sabres will have to risk losing them.

It would be interesting to see if Skinner would be willing to be exposed realizing there's no way that Seattle will want that contract.

 

Ah.  OK.  I get it.  The wording on CapFriendly is definitely confusing.  You're right.  Asplund has almost 3 years of pro experience, so he does need to be protected. But he hasn't played enough games to meet the category of players who can qualify for the minimum of players with extensive experience who must be exposed.  That is to say that Seattle needs to be able to pick well experienced players, not just a bunch of raw and/or underplayed tweener players, such as CJ Smith.  Girgensons and Eakin would suffice for our must expose 2 forwards aspect.  Miller meets the must expose 1 real D-man.  Tokarski is our 1 goalie who must be exposed (unless we resign Ullmark and/or Hutton before the expansion draft).

  • Like (+1) 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Taro T said:

No.  That is not what that # refers to.  Teams have to expose at least 1 goalie & at least a certain # of skaters with NHL experience.  Those #'s are referring to them qualifying to count as those players.  Both have enough pro experience to need to be protected or the Sabres will have to risk losing them.

It would be interesting to see if Skinner would be willing to be exposed realizing there's no way that Seattle will want that contract.

Great question.  I can see Skinner wanting to do Adam’s a solid after firing RFK.  But isn’t the tag like an all or none?  As in you can’t “temporarily” lift the NMC clause and then get it back?

  • Thanks (+1) 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, Broken Ankles said:

Great question.  I can see Skinner wanting to do Adam’s a solid after firing RFK.  But isn’t the tag like an all or none?  As in you can’t “temporarily” lift the NMC clause and then get it back?

It seems that with the MOU that a NTC or NMC could be temporarily lifted by the player as a NMC now travels with the player to a new team (before, a team that hadn't negotiated the NMC had the choice of honoring it or not).

Article 11 Section 8 of the CBA deals specifically w/ NTCs & NMCs. Didn't see anything there stating that a NMC cannot be reinstated.

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

I read Vogl’s Q&A in the Athletic and I’ll boldly predict the Eakin will be demoted if Granato returns as coach.  Apparently Rasputin wanted him and Granato is not a fan.

He also raised the possibility that KA should acquire a RW this off-season.  He said he wants VO at his natural position, LW.  Someone in the comments pointed out that VO has been more effective as a RW this season. Given our nominal depth charts I can see why he thinks that, but I disagree.  

Depending on how management views the spine, I think we have more then enough capable wingers to field 4 productive lines.

Center:  Option 1 :Eichel, Reinhart, Mitts;  Option 2:  Eichel, Mitts, Cozens

RW: Reinhart/ Cozens, VO, Thompson, KO/Bjork - admittedly it’s a little thin on experience without VO and Reinhart at center but I’m betting Cozens and Thompson continuing the growth we are currently witnessing.  With Cozens at center, a 123 punch of Reinhart, VO and Thompson is pretty formidable.

LW: Skinner, Asplund, R2, Girgensons/Bjork.  Asplund and R2 are making this team and we are stuck with Skinner.  Moving VO back over here creates the same mess Hall’s acquisition made given the ascension of R2 and Asplund.  

Truthfully the utility ability of VO and Bjork give us great injury coverage. 

This calculus changes somewhat if Bjork or Asplund are lost to expansion or KO retires.  

The only major move I want is Eakin demoted and replaced.  

One other note. I ran a cap analysis for this team re-signing all our RFAs, McCabe and Ullmark plus a backup, Eakin still a Sabre and came out at 75 mill.  I’m inclined to keep the cap space and see what happens with the young team.

Link to post
Share on other sites
13 hours ago, GASabresIUFAN said:

I read Vogl’s Q&A in the Athletic and I’ll boldly predict the Eakin will be demoted if Granato returns as coach.  Apparently Rasputin wanted him and Granato is not a fan.

He also raised the possibility that KA should acquire a RW this off-season.  He said he wants VO at his natural position, LW.  Someone in the comments pointed out that VO has been more effective as a RW this season. Given our nominal depth charts I can see why he thinks that, but I disagree.  

Depending on how management views the spine, I think we have more then enough capable wingers to field 4 productive lines.

Center:  Option 1 :Eichel, Reinhart, Mitts;  Option 2:  Eichel, Mitts, Cozens

RW: Reinhart/ Cozens, VO, Thompson, KO/Bjork - admittedly it’s a little thin on experience without VO and Reinhart at center but I’m betting Cozens and Thompson continuing the growth we are currently witnessing.  With Cozens at center, a 123 punch of Reinhart, VO and Thompson is pretty formidable.

LW: Skinner, Asplund, R2, Girgensons/Bjork.  Asplund and R2 are making this team and we are stuck with Skinner.  Moving VO back over here creates the same mess Hall’s acquisition made given the ascension of R2 and Asplund.  

Truthfully the utility ability of VO and Bjork give us great injury coverage. 

This calculus changes somewhat if Bjork or Asplund are lost to expansion or KO retires.  

The only major move I want is Eakin demoted and replaced.  

One other note. I ran a cap analysis for this team re-signing all our RFAs, McCabe and Ullmark plus a backup, Eakin still a Sabre and came out at 75 mill.  I’m inclined to keep the cap space and see what happens with the young team.

I’m not really much of a fan of running back a last place roster, even though we’ve been a lot better. Also, R2 has been playing right wing 

  • Like (+1) 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
13 hours ago, GASabresIUFAN said:

I read Vogl’s Q&A in the Athletic and I’ll boldly predict the Eakin will be demoted if Granato returns as coach.  Apparently Rasputin wanted him and Granato is not a fan.

He also raised the possibility that KA should acquire a RW this off-season.  He said he wants VO at his natural position, LW.  Someone in the comments pointed out that VO has been more effective as a RW this season. Given our nominal depth charts I can see why he thinks that, but I disagree.  

Depending on how management views the spine, I think we have more then enough capable wingers to field 4 productive lines.

Center:  Option 1 :Eichel, Reinhart, Mitts;  Option 2:  Eichel, Mitts, Cozens

RW: Reinhart/ Cozens, VO, Thompson, KO/Bjork - admittedly it’s a little thin on experience without VO and Reinhart at center but I’m betting Cozens and Thompson continuing the growth we are currently witnessing.  With Cozens at center, a 123 punch of Reinhart, VO and Thompson is pretty formidable.

LW: Skinner, Asplund, R2, Girgensons/Bjork.  Asplund and R2 are making this team and we are stuck with Skinner.  Moving VO back over here creates the same mess Hall’s acquisition made given the ascension of R2 and Asplund.  

Truthfully the utility ability of VO and Bjork give us great injury coverage. 

This calculus changes somewhat if Bjork or Asplund are lost to expansion or KO retires.  

The only major move I want is Eakin demoted and replaced.  

One other note. I ran a cap analysis for this team re-signing all our RFAs, McCabe and Ullmark plus a backup, Eakin still a Sabre and came out at 75 mill.  I’m inclined to keep the cap space and see what happens with the young team.

I'm coming around on Mitts, I really am, but Cozens is gonna be a center I think from now on. 

  • Like (+1) 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
42 minutes ago, Thorny said:

I’m not really much of a fan of running back a last place roster, even though we’ve been a lot better. Also, R2 has been playing right wing 

As you stated there is a strong argument to shake up a roster that hasn't produced. But that's not how this roster should be looked at. The Krueger method was a roster crushing system. In comparison, the Granato method gives you a better insight to the actual talent level of the roster. Even with a relatively small sample size it is evident that there is much more talent to work with than was apparent when Krueger was behind the bench. And because there is a young core that is playing better under the new coach it augurs well that those players still have more potential to tap. If you add in Jack to the mix and just maybe a much better return on the Skinner investment then the case can be made to be judicious and not aggressive in altering the roster. It just seems to me with better coaching guidance that internal improvement more than outside additions will be the better approach to take this offseason.   

Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
29 minutes ago, LGR4GM said:

I'm coming around on Mitts, I really am, but Cozens is gonna be a center I think from now on. 

I don't disagree.  I listed two options of a spine of Eichel, Reinhart, Mitts or Eichel, Mitts, Cozens and I think option 2 is the more likely scenario.  I think they have both shown in recent weeks that they can carry a line and it goes back to what I wrote at the start of the season, you learn to play center in the NHL by playing center in the NHL.  I think center is the highest and best use for both Cozens and Mitts, but it's nice to know that all 3 guys (Reinhart, Cozens or Mitts) can slide to wing if necessary and that wingers like Asplund or R2 can slide to center if necessary.  I like a very flexible roster because of injuries. Another factor for Casey and Dylan is that they are about 50% in the face-off dot compared to Sam's 42%.

 

 

Edited by GASabresIUFAN
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.   Restore formatting

  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...