Sabres Officially Select #9, #16, and #28

[dudacek]

I'm OK with the principle of moving a younger piece of the future for a Tuch type, but I get Adams caution.

The cap demands smart decisions and, at the moment, there are too many question marks about what we have. Retaining the flexibility of cap space and a full pipeline seems prudent, unless that Tuch-type comes with the same kind of attitude and contract Tuch has.

[Doohickie]

Just now, dudacek said:

Retaining the flexibility of cap space and a full pipeline seems prudent, unless that Tuch-type comes with the same kind of attitude and contract Tuch has.

Agree with all that, with the possible exception of also wanting to fill the *right* hole in the lineup.  That's why I think Kevyn will wait a bit before making any trade to try to improve the team.  Maybe he has already identified that hole (goalie being the obvious one) and is working on a trade.  But this build is so much about chemistry and development I kind of see him wanting to see where the Sabres stand and how they are progressing before hitting the trade market.

[dudacek]

33 minutes ago, Doohickie said:

Agree with all that, with the possible exception of also wanting to fill the *right* hole in the lineup.  That's why I think Kevyn will wait a bit before making any trade to try to improve the team.  Maybe he has already identified that hole (goalie being the obvious one) and is working on a trade.  But this build is so much about chemistry and development I kind of see him wanting to see where the Sabres stand and how they are progressing before hitting the trade market.

Yes. I think it goes without saying that he'll make moves to get a goalie and a defenceman. This is more about trading potential core pieces for an actual core piece.

Actual core pieces involve a level of long-term cap commitment I'm not sure Kevyn is ready to make.

Thus far he has only made that type of commitment to one player: Tuch.

He has some big decisions pending in the relatively near future on Olofsson, Tage, Asplund, Mittelstadt, Jokiharju, Dahlin and, to a lesser extent Cozens.

I get the sense he'd rather spend this season seeing what he has in those players and the ones coming behind them before making most of those decisions. (Although I do suspect we will see a Tage extension this summer)

Edited May 25, 2022 by dudacek

[mjd1001]

56 minutes ago, dudacek said:

I'm OK with the principle of moving a younger piece of the future for a Tuch type, but I get Adams caution.

The cap demands smart decisions and, at the moment, there are too many question marks about what we have. Retaining the flexibility of cap space and a full pipeline seems prudent, unless that Tuch-type comes with the same kind of attitude and contract Tuch has.

I don't think there is a team in the league that doesn't want a 'Tuch type' player.  Sure, some teams will go out and try to build a roster with pure talent, but no one will turn away a guy because he has too good of an attitude.  The thing is those guys are pretty rare, and its hard to get a team who has one to give them up. Which is why I think you hear Adams talking about things taking time, patience, etc.  He is probably thinking it is going to be a LOT easier to draft and develop guys like that in your system than to try to get plug-and-play guys form other teams.  You can have a developmental system that nurtures those characteristics at every stage, and you will have years to see if the guys you drafted are like that. The downside is it takes that much more time to get them to your roster.

[MattPie]

23 minutes ago, mjd1001 said:

I don't think there is a team in the league that doesn't want a 'Tuch type' player.  Sure, some teams will go out and try to build a roster with pure talent, but no one will turn away a guy because he has too good of an attitude.  The thing is those guys are pretty rare, and its hard to get a team who has one to give them up. Which is why I think you hear Adams talking about things taking time, patience, etc.  He is probably thinking it is going to be a LOT easier to draft and develop guys like that in your system than to try to get plug-and-play guys form other teams.  You can have a developmental system that nurtures those characteristics at every stage, and you will have years to see if the guys you drafted are like that. The downside is it takes that much more time to get them to your roster.

Completely agree, they only way those guys shake loose are cap issues which luckily the Sabres don't currently have, and a few teams do.

[SwampD]

2 hours ago, PromoTheRobot said:

Those fans are over on TBD discussing the merits moving on from McDermott and Beane. 😂😂😂

😂

2 hours ago, PromoTheRobot said:

What I meant was you can trust what you're seeing and decide if there's improvement. I see improvement. I'm sure you do too. 

 

I have seen improvement. That's not saying very much. They had nowhere else to go. The Sabres this past decade (and certainly under Krueger) may have been the worst. team. ever. Their playoff drought kinda confirms that.

Just because everyone here is convinced that "we've turned a corner," doesn't mean that there aren't thousands of miles yet to go. I cannot say with any certainty that they are going to be good next year. I can't even say they are going to be average (which is all it takes to make the playoffs) with any certainty.

The concept of a corner. That's all it is. Before we get all Pegula-y talking about multiple Stanley Cups, can we just make the playoffs first?

[PromoTheRobot]

29 minutes ago, SwampD said:

😂

I have seen improvement. That's not saying very much. They had nowhere else to go. The Sabres this past decade (and certainly under Krueger) may have been the worst. team. ever. Their playoff drought kinda confirms that.

Just because everyone here is convinced that "we've turned a corner," doesn't mean that there aren't thousands of miles yet to go. I cannot say with any certainty that they are going to be good next year. I can't even say they are going to be average (which is all it takes to make the playoffs) with any certainty.

The concept of a corner. That's all it is. Before we get all Pegula-y talking about multiple Stanley Cups, can we just make the playoffs first?

Ok whatever. I saw a team playing at playoff-caliber for three of 7 months. Injuries and COVID derailed us. So barring similar bad luck I fully expect them to be in the playoff hunt next year. Sorry but building an NHL team from the ground up takes time.

[Taro T]

35 minutes ago, SwampD said:

😂

I have seen improvement. That's not saying very much. They had nowhere else to go. The Sabres this past decade (and certainly under Krueger) may have been the worst. team. ever. Their playoff drought kinda confirms that.

Just because everyone here is convinced that "we've turned a corner," doesn't mean that there aren't thousands of miles yet to go. I cannot say with any certainty that they are going to be good next year. I can't even say they are going to be average (which is all it takes to make the playoffs) with any certainty.

The concept of a corner. That's all it is. Before we get all Pegula-y talking about multiple Stanley Cups, can we just make the playoffs first?

Prior to seeing what moves happen, the former definitely can't be said & it's still a minor leap to expect the latter.  Though w/ adequate to good goaltending the latter (average, aka in the playoff hunt, if not actually in the playoffs) becomes a very reasonable expectation,

[dudacek]

Average was not good enough to make the playoffs in the east last year.

[Taro T]

2 minutes ago, dudacek said:

Average was not good enough to make the playoffs in the east last year.

You sure about that?

8 below average teams missed the playoffs by a mile.  Every team that was average or better made them.  Ordinary would've gotten the Caps in w/ about a week's worth of games to spare.

[dudacek]

7 minutes ago, Taro T said:

You sure about that?

8 below average teams missed the playoffs by a mile.  Every team that was average or better made them.  Ordinary would've gotten the Caps in w/ about a week's worth of games to spare.

We’re talking about average getting the Sabres in the playoffs.

Median is 16/17th place. Caps finished 13th.

Im not going to calculate the actual average point totals, or get too hung up on the precise terminology, but to me 101 points represents a good team, not an average one.

Edited May 25, 2022 by dudacek

[Marvin]

If I were a player, I look at the Sabres' record starting with the first win in Toronto and would think, "we got mediocre to average goaltending and went 16-9-3 in that gauntlet.  We have a real shot at the playoffs next year if we average or better goaltending."  Thus, GMKA needs to be much more serious about upgrading the goalkeeping this offseason even if it is just to tide us over until out prospects emerge. 

[Sabres Fan in NS]

*Give me a NHL goaler or give me death!!*

New Sabre fan slogan.

[Taro T]

35 minutes ago, dudacek said:

We’re talking about average getting the Sabres in the playoffs.

Median is 16/17th place. Caps finished 13th.

Im not going to calculate the actual average point totals, or get too hung up on the precise terminology, but to me 101 points represents a good team, not an average one.

And 84 represents a bad team.  Not even a kind of, sort of, average team.  Topping THAT was good enough to be in the playoffs.  😉  (You don't have to be better than the 8th best team; you need to be better than the 9th best team.  If you're the 9th best team, by definition you can't be better than yourself, so you need to get somebody else into that role if you're going to get in, but it's always the 9th best team that is controlling.  And is why the Caps, or Pens, or Bolts, or whomever only needed to be average to get in.  None of the bottom 8 were even that good.)

The mean, BTW, was just under 92 this season.  So, all but 2 teams league wide that were above average by that definition made the playoffs.  And the top 16 teams by record all made the playoffs, so all above average teams by your definition made them and all below average teams missed them.  (More an anomaly than anything else, but it is what it is.)  So, kind of like how back in '86 being exactly average wasn't good enough for the Sabres to make the playoffs, being even a modicum over average was good enough then and 

[PromoTheRobot]

Everyone needs to remember the league is now 32 teams so half don't make the playoffs. In 1990-91, there were 21 teams in the NHL and a record of 28-43-9 (65pts/.406 pts%) got you into the field of 16.

Edited May 25, 2022 by PromoTheRobot

[PerreaultForever]

6 hours ago, Doohickie said:

I see those two more as depth than core. 

Interesting thought for anyone to consider. What exactly is the "core"? It's one of the buzz words used these days but how many players get to be designated as "core"? Starting 6? 11? More? Less? 

I mean if you have an all star, he's in your core. But where does the line get drawn and the other side of the line is players who are just players and can be traded, replaced, etc. 

and just for the record and the above conversations EVERY team wants a "young Tuch type player". Always. 

[JohnC]

4 hours ago, dudacek said:

Players we know are good NHLers, even if we’re still not sure how good:

* Tuch, Tage, Olofsson, Dahlin

Players who appear to have the ability to be good NHLers but still need to play and establish themselves:

* Mitts, Cozens, Krebs, Asplund, Quinn, Peterka, Power, Samuelsson, Jokiharju, UPL

Assets that could represent significant pieces emerging from the Sabres pipeline over the next 5 years:

* Levi, Rosen, Poltapov, Kisakov, Johnson, Portillo, 9, 16, 28, 41, 2023 1st and 3 2nds

 

To me @JohnC Is advocating moving assets from the 2nd or, more likely, 3rd groups this summer in order to add to the 1st group next season.

Im curious who agrees and who would rather see who emerges from within, organically?

You seem to understand the gist of what I have been advocated for. With respect to your last group starting with Levi there are players such as Johnson and Portillo I wouldn't be reluctant to include in a deal. I consider Levi a keeper (a no touch player), Portillo not so. If I could get a second-line power forward who plays a muscular game like Tuch, I would be willing to use our large cap space and maybe the lowest first round or second round pick to get a player who offers immediate help and also is young enough to play for a number of years. 

Let's not forget that the Sabres played in an arena that was usually 2/3 empty for most of its games. It would be beneficial from a competitive and business standpoint that the front office/owners demonstrate to the fanbase (and @Thorny) some urgency to become a relevant team in this league.  

Anyone who interprets what I am advocating for as mortgaging the future doesn't understand what I have said in my many posts on this topic. 

[dudacek]

1 hour ago, JohnC said:

You seem to understand the gist of what I have been advocated for. With respect to your last group starting with Levi there are players such as Johnson and Portillo I wouldn't be reluctant to include in a deal. I consider Levi a keeper (a no touch player), Portillo not so. If I could get a second-line power forward who plays a muscular game like Tuch, I would be willing to use our large cap space and maybe the lowest first round or second round pick to get a player who offers immediate help and also is young enough to play for a number of years. 

Let's not forget that the Sabres played in an arena that was usually 2/3 empty for most of its games. It would be beneficial from a competitive and business standpoint that the front office/owners demonstrate to the fanbase (and @Thorny) some urgency to become a relevant team in this league.  

Anyone who interprets what I am advocating for as mortgaging the future doesn't understand what I have said in my many posts on this topic. 

Do you think adding the type of player that you could get for pick 28 or 41 will put butts in the seats?

I don’t. Certainly not directly through star power, but also not indirectly by improving the team significantly more than Quinn or Peterka or whoever gets bumped out of the top 9 to accommodate the new guy will.

Also you do recognize that acquiring a significant piece now means increasing the likelihood of being forced to trade one or more of Thompson/Tuch/Mitts/Dahlin/Power/Cozens/Samuelsson and/or others in a few years due to cap restraints, while also removing a chip, or chips from the pipeline that could instead be developed to augment or replace them?

It’s not mortgaging the future, but it will likely force you to predict the future sooner, and with less evidence.

Edited May 25, 2022 by dudacek

[Doohickie]

3 hours ago, SwampD said:

can we just make the playoffs first?

That's really all I'm hoping for next year.  Unless we see TO in the first round, then a first round win is a must.  😈

[Curt]

1 hour ago, PerreaultForever said:

Interesting thought for anyone to consider. What exactly is the "core"? It's one of the buzz words used these days but how many players get to be designated as "core"? Starting 6? 11? More? Less? 

I mean if you have an all star, he's in your core. But where does the line get drawn and the other side of the line is players who are just players and can be traded, replaced, etc. 

and just for the record and the above conversations EVERY team wants a "young Tuch type player". Always. 

It is an interesting conversation regarding the concept of core.

From an organizational/financial point of view, no one is really core unless you are giving them a contract that’s extremely hard to move, like a $8M+ 6+ year deal, or you are giving them a NMC.

From a more on ice point of view, I think it’s the guys who set the tone for the identity of the team, as a mix of talent, style of play, and mental makeup/culture.

combining the financial and on ice aspects, it’s probably no more than 6-7 guys.  I don’t think the cap will generally allow for long term commitment to more good players than that.

With regards to the Sabres, I don’t think we know who the core is yet.

[mjd1001]

8 minutes ago, Curt said:

It is an interesting conversation regarding the concept of core.

From an organizational/financial point of view, no one is really core unless you are giving them a contract that’s extremely hard to move, like a $8M+ 6+ year deal, or you are giving them a NMC.

From a more on ice point of view, I think it’s the guys who set the tone for the identity of the team, as a mix of talent, style of play, and mental makeup/culture.

All of that is true in my opinion.   

If management thinks a player is part of their 'core' going forward, look for someone with a 3+ year deal at 6% of the cap at the time of signing.

[dudacek]

33 minutes ago, Curt said:

It is an interesting conversation regarding the concept of core.

From an organizational/financial point of view, no one is really core unless you are giving them a contract that’s extremely hard to move, like a $8M+ 6+ year deal, or you are giving them a NMC.

From a more on ice point of view, I think it’s the guys who set the tone for the identity of the team, as a mix of talent, style of play, and mental makeup/culture.

combining the financial and on ice aspects, it’s probably no more than 6-7 guys.  I don’t think the cap will generally allow for long term commitment to more good players than that.

With regards to the Sabres, I don’t think we know who the core is yet.

Great post.

For the fans and the coach it's essentially the players you rely on most on the ice and , to a lesser extent, in the room.

But to a GM it's simply group you have committed — or plan to commit — significant dollars and term to.

Commit just enough to the right ones (Bergeron and Marchand) and you are going to be good for a long time.

Commit too much to the wrong ones: (Parise and Suter) (Marner and Tavares?), you get stuck in the mushy middle.

Adams has already inherited the Skinner overcommitment and acquired what appears to be a good value in Tuch

Dahlin, Thompson, Power, Cozens, Krebs, Mittelstadt, Jokiharju, Quinn, Peterka, Olofsson, Samuelsson: Are enough of these guys core? How many? Which ones? If not enough of them are, where do we get the others?

Tearing down a team is easy, making it competitive again isn't much harder.

But making it a real contender is going to require some hard choices. Never mind boxing players out the roster, Adams also has to worry about boxing himself out of choices.

He has collected a ton of assets, but has selected very little of his core.

Edited May 25, 2022 by dudacek

[Curt]

12 minutes ago, dudacek said:

Great post.

For the fans and the coach it's essentially the players you rely on most on the ice and , to lesser extent, in the room.

But to a GM it's simply group you have committed — or plan to commit — significant dollars and term to.

Commit just enough to the right ones: Bergeron and Marchand and you are going to be good for a long time.

Commit too much to the wrong ones: Parise and Suter (Marner and Tavares?), you get stuck in the mushy middle.

Adams already inherited the Skinner overcommitment and acquired what appears to be a good value in Tuch

Dahlin, Thompson, Power, Cozens, Krebs, Mittelstadt, Jokiharju, Quinn, Peterka, Olofsson, Samuelsson: Are enough of these guys core? How many? Which ones? If not enough of them are, where do we get the others?

Tearing down a team is easy, making it competitive again isn't much harder.

But making it a real contender is going to require some hard choices. Never mind boxing players out the roster, Adams also has to worry about boxing himself out of choices.

I would say that Adams is already locked in with a couple core players.  Skinner because he has no choice and Tuch because he wants him to be.  That’s it so far.

With what they showed this past season, I think Thompson and Dahlin are pretty likely to join the group.

Then there is the group of hopefuls.  Power, Samuelsson, Cozens, and Quinn. (Peterka?)

Then there is a bushel of maybes.

[Doohickie]

1 hour ago, PerreaultForever said:

What exactly is the "core"?

I would say among Dmen, Power and Dahlin are core.  Muel and Joki may also be but... maybe not.

Among forwards I think the first line is (Skinner-Tage-Tuch), and probably Cozens, maybe Mitts, Krebs, Olofsson.... in decreasing order.... The "veteran core" (i.e., they've been here a long time but probably not much longer) are Okposo and Girgs.

[PerreaultForever]

9 hours ago, Curt said:

It is an interesting conversation regarding the concept of core.

From an organizational/financial point of view, no one is really core unless you are giving them a contract that’s extremely hard to move, like a $8M+ 6+ year deal, or you are giving them a NMC.

From a more on ice point of view, I think it’s the guys who set the tone for the identity of the team, as a mix of talent, style of play, and mental makeup/culture.

combining the financial and on ice aspects, it’s probably no more than 6-7 guys.  I don’t think the cap will generally allow for long term commitment to more good players than that.

With regards to the Sabres, I don’t think we know who the core is yet.

Well in the case of the Sabres Skinner is core then by that definition. Is he? I don't think so. He's kind of we're stuck with him and we hope he has a decent season or two until we can buy him out. Or is he core? 

8 hours ago, Doohickie said:

I would say among Dmen, Power and Dahlin are core.  Muel and Joki may also be but... maybe not.

Among forwards I think the first line is (Skinner-Tage-Tuch), and probably Cozens, maybe Mitts, Krebs, Olofsson.... in decreasing order.... The "veteran core" (i.e., they've been here a long time but probably not much longer) are Okposo and Girgs.

I think that's too many. Dahlin can be placed there and Power should end up there but can any rookie really be core before proving themselves (even if you assume they will)?

Tage has 1 good season does that make him core? Can you just name your top scoring line as core? The rest, no, they're not. 

To me the core has to be players you consider indispensable and they define the identity of your team. As I'm not sure what our identity is (yet) I'm not sure we even have a core (yet). I'm not doubting that some of those players like Cozens or Krebs might become core players but not yet. 

18 hours ago, Curt said:

Cutter Gauthier

I would not be unhappy with this pick at all.