Roster Off-Season Gameplan

[GASabresIUFAN]

@dudacek and @PerreaultForever when I ran a status quo scenario as few weeks ago including the return of McCabe, Ullmark, Miller and all the RFAs I came out at about 75 mill.  Using the Evolving Wild Contract Projections, I come up with 77.5 but with McCabe returning for 3 years @ 3.5, Ullmark back 4 years @ 4.5 plus, $2 mill for a backup goalie and keeping 8 D (including Samuelsson) and Eakin

If we demote Eakin (Saving 1.1) and lose Miller to expansion (saving 3.875) that opens up two roster spots and nearly 5 mill in Cap, bring us down to 72.6.  I'd also demote Samuelsson to maximize his PT and replace with someone like Irwin just hopefully better).

8.5 should be enough to work with to get the middle 6 physical winger.  A trade for such a winger would likely involve someone like Thompson or Asplund heading the other way.

 

 

[Marvin]

18 minutes ago, Thorny said:

To the bold - the easiest thing would have been to keep Larsson, but I digress. Eakin was what they wanted, I guess. Agree they need to upgrade L4 now.

What do you mean by solid vet add re: goalie? Behind UPL on the depth chart or above? I'm thinking a 1A to Ullmark's 1. 

Agree on the D, I think.

Does Eichel bump up the forward unit to average (provided the L4 addition)? We'd need the top 6 wingers to come out significantly on the positive end of all possible outcomes for that to happen, in my personal estimation. Skinner, Olofsson, Bjork and Ruotsalainen all have serious question marks regarding their viability as top 6 players, at all, never mind whether they can be "league average" ones. 

Making a few of those bets seems reasonable to me - a successfully identified top 6 winger addition would go a long way towards playoffs looking like a realistic outcome to me. Without that, I think it leaves a fair bit to hope. 

I think we are on the same page.  Some clarification:

1. Larsson apparently signed in Arizona for less than Buffalo offered.  I would like to try bringing him back because there were games where I really missed the LOG line.

2. I want a veteran goalie as 1A to Ullmark.

3. Ideally, we would get 3 mid-level defencemen, 1 for each pairing, but I think the price would be too high if I want to fix the forwards.

[PerreaultForever]

25 minutes ago, GASabresIUFAN said:

If we demote Eakin (Saving 1.1) and lose Miller to expansion (saving 3.875) that opens up two roster spots and nearly 5 mill in Cap, bring us down to 72.6.  I'd also demote Samuelsson to maximize his PT and replace with someone like Irwin just hopefully better).

I would be really surprised if Miller is taken by Seattle. I think they would take Bjork or Thompson or Borgen ahead of him and at least one of them is likely exposed. 

[Thorny]

26 minutes ago, Marvin, Sabres Fan said:

I think we are on the same page.  Some clarification:

1. Larsson apparently signed in Arizona for less than Buffalo offered.  I would like to try bringing him back because there were games where I really missed the LOG line.

2. I want a veteran goalie as 1A to Ullmark.

3. Ideally, we would get 3 mid-level defencemen, 1 for each pairing, but I think the price would be too high if I want to fix the forwards.

I guess it just comes down to whether you want and prioritize the T6 addition at F, I suppose 

Edited May 5, 2021 by Thorny

[Gabrielor]

4 hours ago, Taro T said:

Waive as in buy out or waive as in play them in Ra-cha-cha?

Okposo has a $6MM cap hit in Buffalo, just under $5MM in Ra-cha-cha, and $4MM bought out next season.  Buying him out and having his contract on the books for 4 seasons doesn't seem to do anything for the Sabres.  Better to keep him in Buffalo or Ra-cha-cha & then try to trade him to a cap floor team his final year (if it fits w/ his modified NMC) so they pay $2MM for a $6MM cap hit & a serviceable 4th liner.

Eakin only has 1 year left on his deal.  Bury him in Ra-cha-cha and be done with him after next year.

 

4 hours ago, Doohickie said:

 

4 hours ago, Doohickie said:

THIS is how it works.

What?

 

Waive as in waive to the minors. Waiving someone != buying them out. I agree buying out Okposo is stupid to do, which is why I never suggested it. 

 

This is that nonsense misrepresenting of a post for a zinger they always do on hfboards that I despise...

 

Edited May 5, 2021 by Gabrielor

[Gabrielor]

3 hours ago, Marvin, Sabres Fan said:

I will use Gabrielor's high end salary estimates with a trade of Ristolainen as my base.  (IMHO, Dahlin and Reinhart will be $7M rather than 8, but let us plan for the harder scenario.)  I make additions and changes from here.  I expect Girgensons to be taken by Seattle.  

That's the right approach to take when doing these exercises. Be pleasantly surprised if Adams can come under. This organization hasn't earned the benefit of the doubt. The rookies playing well still doesn't excuse the pretty poor showing on the Hall deal. Adams is still a baby-faced rookie.

[Thorny]

1 hour ago, GASabresIUFAN said:

@dudacek and @PerreaultForever when I ran a status quo scenario as few weeks ago including the return of McCabe, Ullmark, Miller and all the RFAs I came out at about 75 mill.  Using the Evolving Wild Contract Projections, I come up with 77.5 but with McCabe returning for 3 years @ 3.5, Ullmark back 4 years @ 4.5 plus, $2 mill for a backup goalie and keeping 8 D (including Samuelsson) and Eakin

If we demote Eakin (Saving 1.1) and lose Miller to expansion (saving 3.875) that opens up two roster spots and nearly 5 mill in Cap, bring us down to 72.6.  I'd also demote Samuelsson to maximize his PT and replace with someone like Irwin just hopefully better).

8.5 should be enough to work with to get the middle 6 physical winger.  A trade for such a winger would likely involve someone like Thompson or Asplund heading the other way.

 

 

I don't think I give McCabe 3 years. He's a Bogosian waiting to happen re injuries

[Gabrielor]

Just now, Thorny said:

I don't think I give McCabe 3 years. He's a Bogosian waiting to happen re injuries

I'm not sure I give him one, unless he's coming back at basically the same number. He's out until December. You can't have a critical top 4 piece missing while you're trying to get a good jump on an important season.

[Doohickie]

13 minutes ago, Gabrielor said:

This is that nonsense misrepresenting of a post for a zinger they always do on hfboards that I despise...

You need to get over yourself.

[Gabrielor]

1 minute ago, Doohickie said:

You need to get over yourself.

What's there to get over? I come on hockey forums and post what I'm thinking. I often agree with others, take others' opinions when their knowledge is superior, and don't have any kind of ego.

 

Folks like you muddy the experience by doing exactly what you're doing.

[Doohickie]

Me?  You're the one starting the whole metadiscussion about not liking posting styles.

[Taro T]

34 minutes ago, Gabrielor said:

 

 

What?

 

Waive as in waive to the minors. Waiving someone != buying them out. I agree buying out Okposo is stupid to do, which is why I never suggested it. 

 

This is that nonsense misrepresenting of a post for a zinger they always do on hfboards that I despise...

 

Dude, asked you a question & then explained why the question was asked.   You do realize that in the process of exercising an ordinary course buy-out the team typically waives the player, right?  (Your reply implies that you DON'T/DIDN'T and the request for clarification was reasonable.) 

So, while waiving a player != buying him out; waiving a player also doesn't equal sending him to Ro-cha-cha.  Waiving the player INITIATES either process in MOST circumstances; it is not the sum whole of exercising the process. 

And, to further muddy the waters, though it was clear you didn't imply this next situation (so whether this is what you meant wasn't asked), a team can waive a player and then involve him in NO transaction which allows the team to forego waiving him for up to 30 days to involve him in another transaction such as sending him to the minors.

Thanks for the clarification.

[Marvin]

56 minutes ago, Thorny said:

I guess it just comes down to whether you want and prioritize the T6 addition at F, I suppose 

I would like to, but the price and priority worry me.  I am working from Gabrielor's $8M max before I do anything.  I assume Miller ($3.9M) and Ristolainen ($5.4M) are traded and Girgensons ($2M) is in Seattle.  That leaves me about $19M to work with.

My top priority is a 1A-1B goaltending tandem above UPL.  I call that $7M.  That leaves $12M.

My next priority is two middle-pair defencive defencemen later in their careers as partners for Jokiharu and Dahlin.  Based on salaries for the guys I would want, these are $6M.  That leaves $6M for the forwards.

I need to assume $2M for the bottom of the roster, but I push Eakin to the minors to give me $5M more for the top 9.

My top 9 base is Skinner-Eichel-Ruotsalainen, Cozens-Reinhart-Olofsson, and Asplund-Mittlestadt-Thompson.  I assume Skinner is quasi-productive or else the team is dead in the water for the next 5 years.  I don't see why I can't make hockey trades which add at most $5M and still make that top 9 overall a bit above average.

Please tell me what I am missing.

[Gabrielor]

2 minutes ago, Taro T said:

Dude, asked you a question & then explained why the question was asked.   You do realize that in the process of exercising an ordinary course buy-out the team typically waives the player, right?  (Your reply implies that you DON'T/DIDN'T and the request for clarification was reasonable.) 

So, while waiving a player != buying him out; waiving a player also doesn't equal sending him to Ro-cha-cha.  Waiving the player INITIATES either process in MOST circumstances; it is not the sum whole of exercising the process. 

And, to further muddy the waters, though it was clear you didn't imply this next situation (so whether this is what you meant wasn't asked), a team can waive a player and then involve him in NO transaction which allows the team to forego waiving him for up to 30 days to involve him in another transaction such as sending him to the minors.

Thanks for the clarification.

I did actually know that, but didn't know the no transaction paragraph.

 

Thank you for the clarification. I'll shorthand waive to Roch in all future Eakin/Okposo mocks, because no mock I make won't waive those two to Roch, at least.

[Thorny]

10 minutes ago, Marvin, Sabres Fan said:

I would like to, but the price and priority worry me.  I am working from Gabrielor's $8M max before I do anything.  I assume Miller ($3.9M) and Ristolainen ($5.4M) are traded and Girgensons ($2M) is in Seattle.  That leaves me about $19M to work with.

My top priority is a 1A-1B goaltending tandem above UPL.  I call that $7M.  That leaves $12M.

My next priority is two middle-pair defencive defencemen later in their careers as partners for Jokiharu and Dahlin.  Based on salaries for the guys I would want, these are $6M.  That leaves $6M for the forwards.

I need to assume $2M for the bottom of the roster, but I push Eakin to the minors to give me $5M more for the top 9.

My top 9 base is Skinner-Eichel-Ruotsalainen, Cozens-Reinhart-Olofsson, and Asplund-Mittlestadt-Thompson.  I assume Skinner is quasi-productive or else the team is dead in the water for the next 5 years.  I don't see why I can't make hockey trades which add at most $5M and still make that top 9 overall a bit above average.

Please tell me what I am missing.

You aren’t missing anything.

Just depends on the type of “hockey trades” you want to make. I just don’t think the net gain in our top 6 by converting, say, Reinhart into Tkachuk is enough of a bolster to the unit. Ideally I’d like to work a trade where we are using picks, prospects, and players we don’t necessarily need to pencil into the T6 like, say, Olofsson, into someone who more ideally fits the mold of T6 player. 

It just come down to the type of trade and the net gain. I want to actively add to the top 6 not swap out gametypes.

I should say, I’m open to swaps like that too - but that would be in addition 

Edited May 5, 2021 by Thorny

[thewookie1]

Buyout Eakin

Waive Okposo to Rochester and use him sparingly as a call up near the end of the season. Or just hope he LTIRetires because I am honestly worried for his health.

 

[Buffalonill]

Boys boys we're all on the same side hug it out

Edited May 5, 2021 by Buffalonill

[GASabresIUFAN]

3 hours ago, PerreaultForever said:

I would be really surprised if Miller is taken by Seattle. I think they would take Bjork or Thompson or Borgen ahead of him and at least one of them is likely exposed. 

I’ve seen a variety of projections listing him as the target for Seattle, because they need some contracts, he can run their PP initially, is only on a one year deal and would bring assets back at the trade deadline.  They might even be able to convince KA to give them something to take the contract.  

[The Jokeman]

7 hours ago, Gabrielor said:

For sure. Unless something ridiculous is available (I'd hypothetically be interested in Matthew Tkachuk, for instance), leave forward alone. It needs to be supplemented (checking center, and a pugilist), but those are orbit adds. Leave this new core to blossom into whatever it's going to turn in to.

 

On that topic, no deals more than 2 years for any young player not named Dahlin. We don't truly know what's what yet, so cheap bridges everywhere!

 

Lastly, some cuts. Eakin/Okposo need to go. Eakin especially, but Okposo....it's over man. It's been sad to watch for a while. I'd prefer to waive both.

I agree just cut the dead weight and be done with it.

[JohnC]

2 hours ago, Gabrielor said:

That's the right approach to take when doing these exercises. Be pleasantly surprised if Adams can come under. This organization hasn't earned the benefit of the doubt. The rookies playing well still doesn't excuse the pretty poor showing on the Hall deal. Adams is still a baby-faced rookie.

Considering Hall had the clause in his contract to determine where he would go how do you conclude that the deal to Boston was a bad deal. The GM got the best deal he could get considering the circumstances. When you don't have the leverage then you don't have the leverage. 

[Gabrielor]

30 minutes ago, JohnC said:

Considering Hall had the clause in his contract to determine where he would go how do you conclude that the deal to Boston was a bad deal. The GM got the best deal he could get considering the circumstances. When you don't have the leverage then you don't have the leverage. 

He took 'the best deal available' a full day before the deadline. He could've easily waited. The deal he did was the bare minimum expected. Nothing for playoff performance. Nothing for re-signing him / exclusive negotiation window. If you're telling me Sweeney shut all that down and hardballed a 2nd and a middle six player, then I stay by saying Adams did a poor job.

 

I said it before/during/after, but regardless of the control Hall had, staying in Buffalo post-deadline would've been much worse for him than for us missing out on a 2nd. Adams had negotiation power he could've used to get more. Instead, he took a basic deal that was a total win in every way for Boston.

[Marvin]

2 hours ago, Thorny said:

You aren’t missing anything.

Just depends on the type of “hockey trades” you want to make. I just don’t think the net gain in our top 6 by converting, say, Reinhart into Tkachuk is enough of a bolster to the unit. Ideally I’d like to work a trade where we are using picks, prospects, and players we don’t necessarily need to pencil into the T6 like, say, Olofsson, into someone who more ideally fits the mold of T6 player. 

It just come down to the type of trade and the net gain. I want to actively add to the top 6 not swap out gametypes.

I should say, I’m open to swaps like that too - but that would be in addition 

I am open to trading players and picks for upgrades; indeed, IMHO, we must use some assets the strengthen the top 9 a bit.  I appear to want to spend more on the bottom of the forward roster than you are.

BIAS ALERT: the memories from the early Sabres teams biased me towards depth and more overall balance in ice time because that was how the Flyers, Islanders, and Bruins would beat us: from the 3rd pairs, 4th lines, and in goal.  Also, the 1996-2001 Sabres teams were successful in spite of not having a real top line because they had Hasek, depth, and balance.  The 2005-11 Sabres had key contributions from the bottom of the roster and organisational depth.

Thus, if we could recreate the LOG line or something like it, I would do it -- even though it would leave only about $2-3M to upgrade the top 6 -- because they would suck up tough defencive minutes against the other team's top lines and allow us to put the top 3 lines out against lesser competition in favourable situations.

[JohnC]

2 minutes ago, Gabrielor said:

He took 'the best deal available' a full day before the deadline. He could've easily waited. The deal he did was the bare minimum expected. Nothing for playoff performance. Nothing for re-signing him / exclusive negotiation window. If you're telling me Sweeney shut all that down and hardballed a 2nd and a middle six player, then I stay by saying Adams did a poor job.

 

I said it before/during/after, but regardless of the control Hall had, staying in Buffalo post-deadline would've been much worse for him than for us missing out on a 2nd. Adams had negotiation power he could've used to get more. Instead, he took a basic deal that was a total win in every way for Boston.

Waited for what? Do you think a miraculous bonanza deal would have popped up in another day? The player wanted to go to Boston. The GM had no other option other than to retain him and continue to pay his hefty salary while he sat out because the organization wanted to play younger players in this futile season. What you fail to consider is that Hall was an UFA. And the market rate for UFAs traded on the deadline is a paltry price. And for the acquiring team there is no guarantee that the player dealt for is going to sign a future contract with Boston. Sometimes you are in a good position to dictate the terms of a deal and sometimes you are not. Our GM got what he could get. That's how the market works. 

 

[Crusader1969]

5 hours ago, PerreaultForever said:

I would be really surprised if Miller is taken by Seattle. I think they would take Bjork or Thompson or Borgen ahead of him and at least one of them is likely exposed. 

Gonna have to entice them to take him.  He’s a UFA at the end of next season, they may see value in that.  
 

[Crusader1969]

the way things have been going I don’t see there being a huge roster turnover

I’m thinking that they are just short a top 6RW to play with Eichel    I don’t see it being Cozens and I’d like Samson to be the 2C   

don’t really see the solution being a UFA. 
will definitely need to make a trade. 

The depth chart at RW with Samson moving to center is

Cozens
Tage
Okposo 
Quinn

I’m using the 2022 1st rounder (lottery protected), 2022 2nd, Olofsson and Ryan Johnson as trade bait