Jump to content

Goalies On Waivers so far


GASabresIUFAN
 Share

Recommended Posts

On 10/6/2021 at 4:11 PM, GASabresIUFAN said:

As I've said before the the pivot from not retaining Ullmark isn't going the opposite direction and signing scrap heap players.  The pivot from not retaining Ullmark is trading for someone else competent or signing someone else competent.

But that’s the thing, there wasn’t any other goalies available to sign of higher quality. Plus who’s to say KA didn’t hunt the trade market. Just look how much Colorado had to pay to get Kuemper from Arizona. Obviously the Sabres shouldn’t be trading 1sts for goalies. And if CBJ is asking for the same for Korpisalo then he’s wise not to make that trade either. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 10/6/2021 at 4:11 PM, GASabresIUFAN said:

As I've said before the the pivot from not retaining Ullmark isn't going the opposite direction and signing scrap heap players.  The pivot from not retaining Ullmark is trading for someone else competent or signing someone else competent.

The emphasis is on players that want to be here.  There was noone else too sign or trade for.  I'm not sure why you haven't accepted this yet.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 10/4/2021 at 4:04 PM, GASabresIUFAN said:

Max Lagace

Garrett Sparks

Alex Lyon

Any interest? I have some interest in Sparks and Lyon, but they are more of the same, except Lyon is 24 and has a chance of developing into something still.  He was good at Yale.

At one point the Leafs fans thought they had somoene in Sparks..... (just like ever young goalie to ever put the Pads on for the Leafs)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 10/7/2021 at 5:53 PM, Weave said:

The emphasis is on players that want to be here.  There was noone else too sign or trade for.  I'm not sure why you haven't accepted this yet.

And yet Eichel is still here........

We don't know who could be had though. How many expected Ned to be dealt to the redwings from the Canes this offseason after being in the top 3 for rookie of the year? Seattle was able to get their starting goalie in the Expansion draft then signed someone else to take the spot in FA before teh other guy even had a chance to play (The Sabres could have made a play for either of them in FA or making a deal with the Panthers to get the one they lost in the expansion draft). Instead they are going to go into the season with a guy who announced he was going to retire a few days before signing in Buffalo after playing in a couple games last year and Tokarski. Continuing to throw out the prospects with journeymen players to lose games isn't going to help develop the young guys into a winning team. Its either going to ruin the prospect by forcing them to develop immediately, or it will cause them to lose their will to play (like O'reilly) and want out rather then stay and hope things turn around.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, apuszczalowski said:

And yet Eichel is still here........

We don't know who could be had though. How many expected Ned to be dealt to the redwings from the Canes this offseason after being in the top 3 for rookie of the year? Seattle was able to get their starting goalie in the Expansion draft then signed someone else to take the spot in FA before teh other guy even had a chance to play (The Sabres could have made a play for either of them in FA or making a deal with the Panthers to get the one they lost in the expansion draft). Instead they are going to go into the season with a guy who announced he was going to retire a few days before signing in Buffalo after playing in a couple games last year and Tokarski. Continuing to throw out the prospects with journeymen players to lose games isn't going to help develop the young guys into a winning team. Its either going to ruin the prospect by forcing them to develop immediately, or it will cause them to lose their will to play (like O'reilly) and want out rather then stay and hope things turn around.

I don’t agree with the bolded. There’s a difference between where ROR was at in his career when he wanted out, and where the players on entry level contracts like Cozens, Quinn, JJP, R2, etc are in their careers. Those players and new and hungry and excited for opportunities  

There was a time when players like Eichel and Risto were excited to be here and wanted to help turn it around. There’s no shortage of players who started on lousy teams (Mario Lemieux) who didn’t lose their will to play, or have their development ruined. 

The Sabres have to be smart in deciding who they think is ready, and which players shouldn’t be rushed (like Grigorenko was). So far, it seems they are doing it right for the most part. 

Edited by Andrew Amerk
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 10/7/2021 at 2:04 PM, thewookie1 said:

But that’s the thing, there wasn’t any other goalies available to sign of higher quality. Plus who’s to say KA didn’t hunt the trade market. Just look how much Colorado had to pay to get Kuemper from Arizona. Obviously the Sabres shouldn’t be trading 1sts for goalies. And if CBJ is asking for the same for Korpisalo then he’s wise not to make that trade either. 

You don't think he could have swung a deal for Dreidger? Vanecek even would probably be an upgrade from what we have, with upside. Those are two obvious ones that were available, and then the Columbus goalies for a (probable) higher price tag. I think there were better options. 

imo KA let Ullmark play him no more no less. If Rask comes back, maybe the Bruins will trade him back 🙂

 

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

6 hours ago, Doohickie said:

Do we want him back though?  I heard he wasn't too good in preseason.

That's a pretty good question. And I suppose if he plays well in the regular season Bruins won't be trading him away so he has to be bad for us to get him so I guess no, we will be lucky to have not signed him long term. 

I have read that he's had adjustment issues and communication problems in Boston and that will come in time. Their D apparently box out players differently than he's used to and well, I guess he's just not used to a D that actually knows how to play hockey. Once they learn each other's tendencies maybe he will shine. Don't know. 

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

5 minutes ago, PerreaultForever said:

That's a pretty good question. And I suppose if he plays well in the regular season Bruins won't be trading him away so he has to be bad for us to get him so I guess no, we will be lucky to have not signed him long term. 

I have read that he's had adjustment issues and communication problems in Boston and that will come in time. Their D apparently box out players differently than he's used to and well, I guess he's just not used to a D that actually knows how to play hockey. Once they learn each other's tendencies maybe he will shine. Don't know. 

Or he will get hurt again 😙

  • Sad 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 10/12/2021 at 7:10 PM, PerreaultForever said:

You don't think he could have swung a deal for Dreidger? Vanecek even would probably be an upgrade from what we have, with upside. Those are two obvious ones that were available, and then the Columbus goalies for a (probable) higher price tag. I think there were better options. 

imo KA let Ullmark play him no more no less. If Rask comes back, maybe the Bruins will trade him back 🙂

 

Why so many trade him back scenarios on SabreSpace?   We deserve better.   People want Lazar back, Borgen back, and now Ullmark?  
 

We don’t want Ullmark back, our FO is supposed to be good enough to know we have better goalies in the pipeline.  Not that I trust we do but that’s the idea with letting him go right?  
 

Maybe I can swing a trade for Al Smith?  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, PerreaultForever said:

Ya, pretty sure he just strung KA along for leverage. KA tried hard to sign him. It was a fail. 

Really not sure that the word "hard" belongs in that sentence.  (Shaddap, Inky. 😉 )

Adams did try to sign him & reportedly expected him to sign the deal they'd worked out.  But reportedly he only offered a 2 year deal for the same money the Bruins offered at longer term.  That isn't exactly putting much effort into signing far & away their best goalie for at least the next 2 years & possibly 3 or 4.  Considering the "good" part of Plan B was a guy on the verge of retirement, there really seems to be little effort spent on that position at all.  (Yes, Levi might be great in 3 years.  That's a long time away.)  And we all saw how well it worked out the last time a guy that came to the Sabres that was considering retiring after (rather than before, hopefully that's an important distinction) becoming a Sabre worked out.

Agree that the outcome was a fail.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Taro T said:

Really not sure that the word "hard" belongs in that sentence.  (Shaddap, Inky. 😉 )

Adams did try to sign him & reportedly expected him to sign the deal they'd worked out.  But reportedly he only offered a 2 year deal for the same money the Bruins offered at longer term.  That isn't exactly putting much effort into signing far & away their best goalie for at least the next 2 years & possibly 3 or 4.  Considering the "good" part of Plan B was a guy on the verge of retirement, there really seems to be little effort spent on that position at all.  (Yes, Levi might be great in 3 years.  That's a long time away.)  And we all saw how well it worked out the last time a guy that came to the Sabres that was considering retiring after (rather than before, hopefully that's an important distinction) becoming a Sabre worked out.

Agree that the outcome was a fail.

 

Yup. Adams is required to address the position adequately regardless of "thinking he had a deal worked out". That a GM "thinking" they had a guy locked up is even being offered as an argument in defense of his failure in this regard is absurd. And Murray thought the Kane trade would work. And Botterill thought the package he got in return for ROR was adequate. It doesn't matter what Adams thought, it matters what he actually did with the position. 

No deal can ever be assumed to be complete until it's actually done - the fact Ullmark didn't sign proves this - and any GM knows that. Goaltender is an incredibly important position on a hockey team, and it would never be excusable for a GM to not have viable plan Bs in his arsenal should his first option not work out - considering how important the position is, it simply cannot go unaddressed. Of course no assumption can afford to be made on a player signing before it happens as a GM can't find himself out of options - that scenario needs to be actively planned for considering the importance of the position. 

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

2 minutes ago, Thorny said:

Adams is required to address the position adequately

The process.  Seriously, this is not their year to compete for the Cup, so he's not going to invest in a top goalie.  He wants the team better put together before that happens.  (See also:  Tyrod Tailor before Josh was drafted.)  Anderson/Toker = Tyrod Tailor in the build process.  Just a placeholder until the rest of the team is ready to contend.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Doohickie said:

The process.  Seriously, this is not their year to compete for the Cup, so he's not going to invest in a top goalie.  He wants the team better put together before that happens.  (See also:  Tyrod Tailor before Josh was drafted.)  Anderson/Toker = Tyrod Tailor in the build process.  Just a placeholder until the rest of the team is ready to contend.

It's ok to not bring in your long term starter now. It's not ok to provide bottom-of-the-league goaltending 2 years straight. 

"They aren't competing for the cup so the goalies can be awful this year" can literally be applied to any portion of the roster

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

12 minutes ago, Thorny said:

It's ok to not bring in your long term starter now. It's not ok to provide bottom-of-the-league goaltending 2 years straight. 

"They aren't competing for the cup so the goalies can be awful this year" can literally be applied to any portion of the roster

Incorrect.  Goalie, like QB, is the one position that can instantly bump a team's prospects up significantly.  The Bills got to the playoffs with Tyrod.  The Sabres may get there without a stud goalie.  Add a stud goalie after the rest of the team is built and the Sabres will be scary good.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, Doohickie said:

Incorrect.  Goalie, like QB, is the one position that can instantly bump a team's prospects up significantly.  The Bills got to the playoffs with Tyrod.  The Sabres may get there without a stud goalie.  Add a stud goalie after the rest of the team is built and the Sabres will be scary good.

Your argument contradicts itself - and no one builds that way intentionally - "QB is the most important so add that piece last". What? lol 

The fact your argue the team could be better significantly with one move proves my argument, if it's true. No reason to be a bottom feeder willingly if Adams has the ability to change that with a single maneuver. 

And again, not wanting to overpay for their franchise goalie right now doesn't mean you go with the worst available, then, as plan B

Edited by Thorny
Link to comment
Share on other sites

41 minutes ago, Thorny said:

Your argument contradicts itself - and no one builds that way intentionally - "QB is the most important so add that piece last". What? lol 

The fact your argue the team could be better significantly with one move proves my argument, if it's true. No reason to be a bottom feeder willingly if Adams has the ability to change that with a single maneuver. 

And again, not wanting to overpay for their franchise goalie right now doesn't mean you go with the worst available, then, as plan B

Thorny, good points but what goalies were available at a price  and term acceptable. That's what we really don't know. Of the few we heard of maybe that was the issue.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, Radar said:

Thorny, good points but what goalies were available at a price  and term acceptable. That's what we really don't know. Of the few we heard of maybe that was the issue.

The “what was even available?” card is one pulled often but the degree of difficulty in working that argument is pretty high when you are sitting with, on paper, the worst goaltending unit in the league. 

If “what was even available?” still applies, expectations are quite literally non-existent. 

I fully admit not accepting just that, regarding expectations, may be on me at this point. 

  • Like (+1) 1
Link to comment
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...
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...