Offseason Gameplan 2022 - Solving the goaltending system wide.

[JohnC]

3 hours ago, French Collection said:

By giving away 1st round picks just to take a contract you are not replenishing your pipeline of players on ELCs to replace the talent that prices itself off of your team.

It also means you have mismanaged your cap by giving big money and too long of a deal to players that you can’t even give away.

Their roster was loaded with talent. They dealt a high cost player and a draft pick to keep their best players. When you have a loaded roster you have to make tough decisions and do what you have to do to keep the players that you want to. It's a problem that talent laden teams have to contend with. I would rather be in that situation than have a roster full of budget players that don't get you anywhere meaningful. 

[French Collection]

50 minutes ago, JohnC said:

Their roster was loaded with talent. They dealt a high cost player and a draft pick to keep their best players. When you have a loaded roster you have to make tough decisions and do what you have to do to keep the players that you want to. It's a problem that talent laden teams have to contend with. I would rather be in that situation than have a roster full of budget players that don't get you anywhere meaningful. 

Agree that talent is a good thing and I would prefer a loaded roster to JAGs. They have talent but too much cap allocated to 4-5 guys. There is no middle class because the other 20 guys have to be near minimum wage.

However, my point is I don’t think Dumbass is a cap genius by giving up a first rounder to get a team to take a contract. He’s just desperate. A cap genius finds a balance by staggering contracts and having a pipeline of ELCs.

We hammer GMTM for trading a first for Lehner. Imagine giving a first rounder to have a team take Okposo.

Edited May 21, 2022 by French Collection

[French Collection]

On 5/16/2022 at 1:46 PM, JohnC said:

The issue for the Leafs is not so much do they want to keep him as it is can they afford to keep him. If I were advising the Sabres he would be a goalie that I would recommend targeting this offseason. If I'm going to overpay a player on a short to medium term deal he is the caliber of goalie I would do it for. 

I am starting to warm up to this idea, there is no way the Leafs could match. He will probably have to give them a big discount if he wants to be on that team.

An added bonus is we remove their best goalie option.

He seems like a good guy and is loved by his teammates, KA likes those types.

Edited May 21, 2022 by French Collection

[JohnC]

52 minutes ago, French Collection said:

Agree that talent is a good thing and I would prefer a loaded roster to JAGs. They have talent but too much cap allocated to 4-5 guys. There is no middle class because the other 20 guys have to be near minimum wage.

However, my point is I don’t think Dumbass is a cap genius by giving up a first rounder to get a team to take a contract. He’s just desperate. A cap genius finds a balance by staggering contracts and having a pipeline of ELCs.

We hammer GMTM for trading a first for Lehner. Imagine giving a first rounder to have a team take Okposo.

I've never said that their GM is a genius. However, there is a cycle when a team is ready to compete for a cup as  compared to a team like the Sabres who are still in a preliminary stage as a serious cup contender. The big challenge for all GMs is not so much giving out high annual salaries as it is the length of contracts. To retain or acquire top tier players organizations are not only required to pay high annual salaries but also give them long term deals. Those same issues happened when Skinner's contract was up after we acquired him from Carolina.  When you have players such as Marner and Mathews you have to pay them the premium going rate for annual salaries and the required long term deals. And the same issue happened when the organization decided to sign Tavares as a free agent. A lot of tough decisions need to be made. In a few years the Sabres will also be facing the same tough decisions when our talented young players are entering their second contracts. 

[French Collection]

2 minutes ago, JohnC said:

I've never said that their GM is a genius. However, there is a cycle when a team is ready to compete for a cup as  compared to a team like the Sabres who are still in a preliminary stage as a serious cup contender. The big challenge for all GMs is not so much giving out high annual salaries as it is the length of contracts. To retain or acquire top tier players organizations are not only required to pay high annual salaries but also give them long term deals. Those same issues happened when Skinner's contract was up after we acquired him from Carolina.  When you have players such as Marner and Mathews you have to pay them the premium going rate for annual salaries and the required long term deals. And the same issue happened when the organization decided to sign Tavares as a free agent. A lot of tough decisions need to be made. In a few years the Sabres will also be facing the same tough decisions when our talented young players are entering their second contracts. 

Agree.

The good GMs are able to get players to take less money in order to have more to spend on other assets. Crosby, Bergeron, Marchand, etc… Chicago and Tampa have won multiple Cups by keeping a core and re tooling the rest year by year.

[PerreaultForever]

3 hours ago, French Collection said:

Agree.

The good GMs are able to get players to take less money in order to have more to spend on other assets. Crosby, Bergeron, Marchand, etc… Chicago and Tampa have won multiple Cups by keeping a core and re tooling the rest year by year.

It's not the GMs, those examples are/were all good teams that players wanted to be part of. That's easy for a GM to work with. Tampa has the bonus advantage of the tax laws too. We aren't a desirable spot yet. Maybe one day soon we will be again. 

[Taro T]

6 hours ago, PerreaultForever said:

It's not the GMs, those examples are/were all good teams that players wanted to be part of. That's easy for a GM to work with. Tampa has the bonus advantage of the tax laws too. We aren't a desirable spot yet. Maybe one day soon we will be again. 

If the Bills could go from the NFL's equivalent of Siberia to a place that a guy like Von Miller would rather play for than the defending Champs in well under 5 years, the Sabres can become a place NHLers want to be as well.  

[JohnC]

12 hours ago, thewookie1 said:

I’d still say Fleury > Ullmark

Fleury is certainly better than Ullmark. That isn't the issue. The issue is whether he would sign with Buffalo. And that is unlikely. Fleury has had a stellar career. He is at the end of his career where he most likely would be signing short-term deals. If he has options to sign with a number of teams it will be with a team that gives him a chance to be on a cup contending team. The Sabres are not at that competitive juncture yet. 

Our GM was not willing to give Ullmark a contract that he was willing to sign. The irony is that he will now have to go out and sign an Ullmark caliber goalie for the market price that was in the range that he refused to give to the departed goalie. That was a gaffe that has come back to plague this team. 

There will be some good goalies available on the market for a variety of reasons, most notably cap reasons. But the problem is that on the other side of the equation there will be a number of teams needing goalies. It's a tough market for a critical position. Make no mistake what I'm saying here. I'm aware of the caliber of goalie Ullmark is. He is at best a mid-tier or even a little lower starting goaltender. That is better than what we currently have. 

 

[Archie Lee]

10 hours ago, French Collection said:

Agree.

The good GMs are able to get players to take less money in order to have more to spend on other assets. Crosby, Bergeron, Marchand, etc… Chicago and Tampa have won multiple Cups by keeping a core and re tooling the rest year by year.

Chicago fell apart as a contender when Toews and Kane received their big extensions after their 3rd cup win in 2015.  They went from making $6.3 each per year to $10.5 and with that any hope of retaining the sort of quality depth that is needed to truly contend went out the window.  They still had a couple of years where they performed very well in the season (5th overall in 15/16 and 3rd overall in 16/17) but then the bottom fell-out.

By giving Matthews and Marner max AAV immediately after their entry level deals expired, the Leafs skipped over the 2-3 year window where they could have been top of the list cup contenders.  Instead they went directly to the part where they scramble year after year to add critical roster pieces on the cheap.    

[Archie Lee]

27 minutes ago, JohnC said:

Fleury is certainly better than Ullmark. That isn't the issue. The issue is whether he would sign with Buffalo. And that is unlikely. Fleury has had a stellar career. He is at the end of his career where he most likely would be signing short-term deals. If he has options to sign with a number of teams it will be with a team that gives him a chance to be on a cup contending team. The Sabres are not at that competitive juncture yet. 

Our GM was not willing to give Ullmark a contract that he was willing to sign. The irony is that he will now have to go out and sign an Ullmark caliber goalie for the market price that was in the range that he refused to give to the departed goalie. That was a gaffe that has come back to plague this team. 

There will be some good goalies available on the market for a variety of reasons, most notably cap reasons. But the problem is that on the other side of the equation there will be a number of teams needing goalies. It's a tough market for a critical position. Make no mistake what I'm saying here. I'm aware of the caliber of goalie Ullmark is. He is at best a mid-tier or even a little lower starting goaltender. That is better than what we currently have. 

 

I'm 95% with you on Ullmark. While I would not label him a top 10 NHL goalie, the reality is there are less than 10 current NHL goalies who have shown they are consistently year over year better than he is.  A year after Ullmark left the Sabres there is no prospect goalie knocking on the door.  Ullmark was not blocking anyone. He would have capably filled a 1A or 1B or 2A role (take your pick from year to year) for a not ridiculous amount of money for 1/2 a decade.

That said, where I differ slightly is on the bolded above.  I don't think I can conclude, yet, that the loss of Ullmark is plaguing the team.  For one, not having Ullmark had minimal impact on the Sabres a year ago.  Sure they may have better weathered a few mid-season periods where the losses were mounting, but at best they might have been a 78-82 point team with him playing 50 games.  With him we would still have been way out of the playoff picture and still picking 9-11 in the draft. On a go forward basis, well we just don't know what will happen yet. I'm on record as saying I think we will be very fortunate to find as good a goalie as Ullmark for similar $$$ (and I don't think we will even try to do so); but we don't know how this will play out just yet.

[JohnC]

5 minutes ago, Archie Lee said:

I'm 95% with you on Ullmark. While I would not label him a top 10 NHL goalie, the reality is there are less than 10 current NHL goalies who have shown they are consistently year over year better than he is.  A year after Ullmark left the Sabres there is no prospect goalie knocking on the door.  Ullmark was not blocking anyone. He would have capably filled a 1A or 1B or 2A role (take your pick from year to year) for a not ridiculous amount of money for 1/2 a decade.

That said, where I differ slightly is on the bolded above.  I don't think I can conclude, yet, that the loss of Ullmark is plaguing the team.  For one, not having Ullmark had minimal impact on the Sabres a year ago.  Sure they may have better weathered a few mid-season periods where the losses were mounting, but at best they might have been a 78-82 point team with him playing 50 games.  With him we would still have been way out of the playoff picture and still picking 9-11 in the draft. On a go forward basis, well we just don't know what will happen yet. I'm on record as saying I think we will be very fortunate to find as good a goalie as Ullmark for similar $$$ (and I don't think we will even try to do so); but we don't know how this will play out just yet.

There is a saying that I always found to be wise: Don't let perfect be the enemy of the good. I strongly believe (not provable) that if Ullmark would have been our #1 goalie last year the Sabres would have earned at least ten more points. That's not a trivial amount for an impact of one player. The full impact of not signing Ullmark can not be determined until we know how the GM addresses the position this offseason. If he finds a superior goalie, then the impact was minimal. If the GM doesn't come away with a dependable goalie this year then the negative impact would have had a lingering effect beyond the one season. 

[nfreeman]

14 hours ago, GASabresIUFAN said:

So basically Ullmark level goaltending.  Maybe KA should have found away to keep Ullmark.  

It sure seems like the Sabres would’ve had to have beaten Boston’s offer to keep Ullmark — i.e. they would’ve had to have given him a five year deal. Do you think they should’ve done so?
 

38 minutes ago, Archie Lee said:

Chicago fell apart as a contender when Toews and Kane received their big extensions after their 3rd cup win in 2015.  They went from making $6.3 each per year to $10.5 and with that any hope of retaining the sort of quality depth that is needed to truly contend went out the window.  They still had a couple of years where they performed very well in the season (5th overall in 15/16 and 3rd overall in 16/17) but then the bottom fell-out.

By giving Matthews and Marner max AAV immediately after their entry level deals expired, the Leafs skipped over the 2-3 year window where they could have been top of the list cup contenders.  Instead they went directly to the part where they scramble year after year to add critical roster pieces on the cheap.    

Well, I think Chicago really fell apart when they panicked after losing in the first round in 2017 and treated away Panarin and Hjalmarsson, both of whom were excellent players. They haven’t been nearly the same since then.

[GoPuckYourself]

I truly believe both Levi and Portillo returning to college put a huge wrench in GM KA plans, no doubt in my mind. I don't see a top notch goalie coming here unless we severely overpay them and even then I'm not sure. My guess is they bring back Anderson and sign a guy like Joonas Korpisalo or Alexandar Georgiev. Seriously what legit goalie is signing with Buffalo, those guys are chasing cups.

[JohnC]

10 minutes ago, nfreeman said:

It sure seems like the Sabres would’ve had to have beaten Boston’s offer to keep Ullmark — i.e. they would’ve had to have given him a five year deal. Do you think they should’ve done so?
 

 

I'm aware you addressed your question to @GASabresIUFAN but if you would allow me to intrude and answer the question I would say definitely yes. Is a 5 year deal significantly different than a 4 year deal? I would say no, especially for an organization that didn't have much of a backup option. How many years away is UPL from being a #1 goalie, assuming he will be? How many years away is Levi away from being a starting goalie in this league, assuming he will continue on the upward projection? Just because you sign Ullmark to a five year deal that doesn't mean that you can't deal him after a couple to three years later if a better option is found. If he is an average starter (which I consider him to be) there would be a market for him. 

[mjd1001]

2 hours ago, GoPuckYourself said:

I truly believe both Levi and Portillo returning to college put a huge wrench in GM KA plans, no doubt in my mind. I don't see a top notch goalie coming here unless we severely overpay them and even then I'm not sure. My guess is they bring back Anderson and sign a guy like Joonas Korpisalo or Alexandar Georgiev. Seriously what legit goalie is signing with Buffalo, those guys are chasing cups.

I don't know names off the top of my head, but there are some guys that are just motivated more by money than they are by cups.  I know it has been  years since I heard this, but I remember a couple of players (now former players, maybe Peters??? but not sure) who would mention that guys from North America are more motivated by the cup....but they guys from Europe aren't as motivated by the cup because they didn't grow up following it as much..that SOME of the Europeans care more about Money and the Olympics than they do about chasing a cup.

Find a guy like that who is a $3-$4 million dollar goalie...overplay him by $1 million per year, and there you go (wish it was that easy)

Edited May 21, 2022 by mjd1001

[GASabresIUFAN]

56 minutes ago, nfreeman said:

It sure seems like the Sabres would’ve had to have beaten Boston’s offer to keep Ullmark — i.e. they would’ve had to have given him a five year deal. Do you think they should’ve done so?
 

Well, I think Chicago really fell apart when they panicked after losing in the first round in 2017 and treated away Panarin and Hjalmarsson, both of whom were excellent players. They haven’t been nearly the same since then.

Yes.  KA should have signed him year 1, he should have signed him before the expansion draft and he should have signed him for 5 years if that is what it would taken to get it done.  Now it would be only a 4 year deal and we likely would have had another 4-6 wins last season.  

Lets face it.  KA is going to have to give some bridge goalie likely older than Ullmark a 3 -4 year deal at similar money just to get Ullmark level goaltending.  Might as well have signed Ullmark.

Edited May 21, 2022 by GASabresIUFAN

[French Collection]

58 minutes ago, mjd1001 said:

I don't know names off the top of my head, but there are some guys that are just motivated more by money than they are by cups.  I know it has been  years since I heard this, but I remember a couple of players (now former players, maybe Peters??? but not sure) who would mention that guys from North America are more motivated by the up....but they guys from Europe aren't as motivated by the cup because they didn't grow up following it as much..that SOME of the Europeans care more about Money and the Olympics than they do about chasing a cup.

Find a guy like that who is a $3-$4 million dollar goalie...overplay him by $1 million per year, and there you go (wish it was that easy)

Even a guy like Campbell may be looking for a good payday. This could be his last contract.

[Taro T]

1 hour ago, nfreeman said:

It sure seems like the Sabres would’ve had to have beaten Boston’s offer to keep Ullmark — i.e. they would’ve had to have given him a five year deal. Do you think they should’ve done so?
 

Well, I think Chicago really fell apart when they panicked after losing in the first round in 2017 and treated away Panarin and Hjalmarsson, both of whom were excellent players. They haven’t been nearly the same since then.

Things people continually dismiss in discussing Ullmark is that the Sabres had exclusive negotiating rights to Ullmark, that he agreed that the "final" offer from the Sabres was acceptable if nobody else beat it, AND reportedly the Sabres offered to match the Boston deal.

Rather than keeping some money back in his offer to Ullmark, Adams should've and could've made the Boston offer BEFORE he hit FA.  If Ullmark was honest w/ Adams, and there is no reason to expect he wasn't, then at that point, the B's that were far closer to the cap than the cap floor chasing Sabres would've had to beat Buffalo's offer.

People always seem to look at it from prior to the trade deadline or after the Boston offer.  But Adams still could've gotten the prize by simply making his "best offer" actually his best offer.  He got cute, trying to save cash when he didn't need to do so.  And it burned him.

 

To your point on the Hawks, yeah, those 2 trades were the final nail in the wheels falling off.

[Taro T]

1 hour ago, GASabresIUFAN said:

Yes.  KA should have signed him year 1, he should have signed him before the expansion draft and he should have signed him for 5 years if that is what it would taken to get it done.  Now it would be only a 4 year deal and we likely would have had another 4-6 wins last season.  

Lets face it.  KA is going to have to give some bridge goalie likely older than Ullmark a 3 -4 year deal at similar money just to get Ullmark level goaltending.  Might as well have signed Ullmark.

If we weren't in the middle of a pandemic that shut the world, and significantly impacted the owners' main cash flow sources, maybe he would've.  Considering nobody knew what was coming a year down the road, am willing to cut him some slack on the 1 year deals.  (And it wasn't the only 1 year deal that hurt.)  Owners knew what their cash flows were short term, but if things stayed locked down they were very much in doubt LT.

[PerreaultForever]

6 hours ago, Taro T said:

If the Bills could go from the NFL's equivalent of Siberia to a place that a guy like Von Miller would rather play for than the defending Champs in well under 5 years, the Sabres can become a place NHLers want to be as well.  

I totally agree, and I've said that before. We SHOULD be. We used to be. Used to be a ton of Sabres living in and around St. Catherines so they could stay in southern Ontario, be close to the rink but still be in Canada. Hopefully Owen Power will love the proximity to Mississauga and it'll grow again. It should. We just have to start winning. 

[Archie Lee]

21 hours ago, Taro T said:

Things people continually dismiss in discussing Ullmark is that the Sabres had exclusive negotiating rights to Ullmark, that he agreed that the "final" offer from the Sabres was acceptable if nobody else beat it, AND reportedly the Sabres offered to match the Boston deal.

Rather than keeping some money back in his offer to Ullmark, Adams should've and could've made the Boston offer BEFORE he hit FA.  If Ullmark was honest w/ Adams, and there is no reason to expect he wasn't, then at that point, the B's that were far closer to the cap than the cap floor chasing Sabres would've had to beat Buffalo's offer.

People always seem to look at it from prior to the trade deadline or after the Boston offer.  But Adams still could've gotten the prize by simply making his "best offer" actually his best offer.  He got cute, trying to save cash when he didn't need to do so.  And it burned him.

 

To your point on the Hawks, yeah, those 2 trades were the final nail in the wheels falling off.

I have no inside knowledge so would not say that the bolded is incorrect.  But, I think it is at least as likely that the Sabres gave their best offer in advance of free agency and that Boston then matched this. In this scenario, Ullmark's agent then asked Adams if the Sabres would increase their offer to beat Boston's.  Adams said no to this as they had set their value at 4x5 and were not going to go 5 years or increase the AAV.

Personally, I would have gone 5x5 for Ullmark, but I don't think I have seen anything that confirms Adams was caught trying to save some cash.  I think he just placed a value mark on Ullmark and was not going higher.

[Taro T]

Just now, Archie Lee said:

I have no inside knowledge so would not say that the bolded is incorrect.  But, I think it is at least as likely that the Sabres gave their best offer in advance of free agency and that Boston then matched this. In this scenario, Ullmark's agent then asked Adams if the Sabres would increase their offer to beat Boston's.  Adams said no to this as they had set their value at 4x5 and were not going to go 5 years or increase the AAV.

Personally, I would have gone 5x5 for Ullmark, but I don't think I have seen anything that confirms Adams was caught trying to save some cash.  I think he just placed a value mark on Ullmark and was not going higher.

To the bolded, that's not what was reported.  Supposedly Adams DID agree to match the Bruins offer.  Which means his "best offer" wasn't actually his best offer.

[JohnC]

23 hours ago, nfreeman said:

It sure seems like the Sabres would’ve had to have beaten Boston’s offer to keep Ullmark — i.e. they would’ve had to have given him a five year deal. Do you think they should’ve done so?
 

Well, I think Chicago really fell apart when they panicked after losing in the first round in 2017 and treated away Panarin and Hjalmarsson, both of whom were excellent players. They haven’t been nearly the same since then.

Panarin was not going to sign another contract with Chicago. My understanding is that he wanted to go to NY to play. So he was dealt. He eventually ended up in NY. This was a case where contract considerations and approaching free agency status drove the decision on this player. The Sabres were in a similar situation with Reinhart, Montour and Risto. You get what you can get and then move on. It's a tough and complicating part of the business that all organization have to deal with. 

[Archie Lee]

2 minutes ago, Taro T said:

To the bolded, that's not what was reported.  Supposedly Adams DID agree to match the Bruins offer.  Which means his "best offer" wasn't actually his best offer.

I'm not saying you are wrong, because I don't know what happened.  I have gone back and read the articles/columns from free agency and Ullmark's departure though, and I don't find any that state the bolded.  I did find one article from the Buffalo News that indicated Ullmark wanted 6x6 to stay in Buffalo, which perhaps suggests the Bruins matched the Sabres offer and that Ullmark attempted to leverage this to get more out of the Sabres.

Regardless, my larger point is that there has been no definitive account in the media of what the Sabres offered Ullmark and whether it came before or after Boston's offer. With that in mind, I contend that it is at least as likely that the Bruins matched the Sabres's offer as the other way around.

[JohnC]

7 minutes ago, Archie Lee said:

I'm not saying you are wrong, because I don't know what happened.  I have gone back and read the articles/columns from free agency and Ullmark's departure though, and I don't find any that state the bolded.  I did find one article from the Buffalo News that indicated Ullmark wanted 6x6 to stay in Buffalo, which perhaps suggests the Bruins matched the Sabres offer and that Ullmark attempted to leverage this to get more out of the Sabres.

Regardless, my larger point is that there has been no definitive account in the media of what the Sabres offered Ullmark and whether it came before or after Boston's offer. With that in mind, I contend that it is at least as likely that the Bruins matched the Sabres's offer as the other way around.

My understanding is that what @Taro T stated is accurate. The Sabres were willing to match the Boston offer but Ullmark wanted a year longer term and a higher average salary from Buffalo in order to stay with Buffalo. The GM declined. The GM candidly talked about the Ullmark negotiations on WGR. He said that the organization set a value on the player and were not willing to go beyond it. He pointed out in that radio segment that is how the organization was going to handle personnel decisions i.e. place a value on a player and have the discipline to stay with it.