NHL Trade Rumors and Speculation 2022-23

[thewookie1]

1 minute ago, Taro T said:

Really believe anything short of 90 points should be viewed as an abject failure.  If that means overpaying on a goalie that won't cost them 10 points in the standings, well, then so be it.

That still depends based on years. I’ll overpay for two years but I’m not willing to eat a terrible contract for an average goalie.

[JustOneParade]

54 minutes ago, Thorny said:

The “sorry I tried” lingo wouldn’t work for me, personally, should it come to that. I’ll have no doubt Adams will have given his full effort within the parameters he himself set, but my argument would be with the set parameters. 

Buying time until Levi arrives is a strategy fraught with potential perils.

“Buying time” presents a multitude of issues, up to and including potential disenfranchisement of players, fans. 

“Until” presents issues, as well. Willingly “waiting” a matter of *years* on someone who is not close to a guaranteed difference maker at the NHL level is... dicey, to say the least. Not to mention, what you are afraid of w/ handing out term right now (under the prism of a trusted talent evaluation) is Levi having competition. I’m not sure when “not blocking” (ie counting chickens) took precedence over healthy competition, but it’s beginning to trend towards the “weird”. Ie, perhaps there’s another motive. 

If we don’t sign a good goalie here, it should be (and I hope it’s) because, in Adams’ estimation, there wasn’t anyone worth paying for, full stop. If a good goalie (again, through the context of KA’s talent eval.) can be had, for term, it’s not something we should be turning down (even at a slight overpay owing to our cap space and multitude of picks) due to the prioritization of a “maybe” down the line. 

Nailed it. To expand a bit on these thoughts:

1) Regarding the concept of value, if KA slightly overpays on a 1 or 1A goalie I don't see this as problematic. If he overpays for another of what we already have, then that's a problem.

2) This concept of blocking Levi is perplexing. IF in a two or three years Levi is behind a successful 2022 addition in goal, isn't that a good thing? IF KA wants Levi unfettered access to the starting job in the near future that just doesn't seem wise at all. And IF its Levi who needs that path clear of competition then do we really want that guy anyway?

3) IF KA banks on Levi becoming 'the Guy' in a few years, continues to muddle along in goal until then, and is ultimately wrong about him, I hate to think where this organization might be (figuratively and maybe literally soon thereafter). Attendance? Young core players approaching free agency? Way too much uncertainty and risk for my taste should KA opt to do nothing of consequence with the goaltending.

[JohnC]

2 hours ago, Thorny said:

The “sorry I tried” lingo wouldn’t work for me, personally, should it come to that. I’ll have no doubt Adams will have given his full effort within the parameters he himself set, but my argument would be with the set parameters. 

Buying time until Levi arrives is a strategy fraught with potential perils.

“Buying time” presents a multitude of issues, up to and including potential disenfranchisement of players, fans. 

“Until” presents issues, as well. Willingly “waiting” a matter of *years* on someone who is not close to a guaranteed difference maker at the NHL level is... dicey, to say the least. Not to mention, what you are afraid of w/ handing out term right now (under the prism of a trusted talent evaluation) is Levi having competition. I’m not sure when “not blocking” (ie counting chickens) took precedence over healthy competition, but it’s beginning to trend towards the “weird”. Ie, perhaps there’s another motive. 

If we don’t sign a good goalie here, it should be (and I hope it’s) because, in Adams’ estimation, there wasn’t anyone worth paying for, full stop. If a good goalie (again, through the context of KA’s talent eval.) can be had, for term, it’s not something we should be turning down (even at a slight overpay owing to our cap space and multitude of picks) due to the prioritization of a “maybe” down the line. 

I agree with most of the decisions that the GM has made in the rebuild. However, I am perplexed at his apparent casual attitude in addressing the goalie situation. It makes no sense to me. If he doesn't meaningfully address the position, it will undercut the good work he has done in restocking the roster. There are still opportunities to bring in another credible goalie. But it seems as days pass by the number of options decline. 

Keep an eye out for a deal with Washington. One of their goalies is rumored to be moved. 

 

[nfreeman]

8 hours ago, Porous Five Hole said:

It might be. Ryan Miller was the Amerks starter for two full seasons, and was the Sabres backup in year three. 
 

With Levi committing to another year in college, and then following the above path (which is reasonable), then he is the Sabres backup in year four of Campbell’s potential deal. 
 

I don’t see this as an issue or a block at all. If Levi outplays the Sabres free-agent signing sooner, that’s even better. But it would be risky to count on that. 

I agree with most of this, but Miller played 3 full years in Rochester, during which he had a few cups of coffee in Buffalo.  He wasn’t really a backup in Buffalo.  After his 3rd year as the starter in Rochester (which was the year of the lockout in the NHL), he won the competition with Marty and Noronen for the #1 slot with the Sabres.  
 

7 hours ago, GASabresIUFAN said:

 

Seriously?  It’s a spin worthy of our President.  It’s not his fault he can’t get a goaltender.  Excuses, excuses, excuses.  

Don’t do this, please.  
 

1 hour ago, dudacek said:

That Lysowski/Yerdon podcast did a good job giving me reasons why I should prepare to be disappointed by what materializes on the goaltending front this summer.

But I learned my lesson last year.

I'm not going to judge Adams on what goalies he does or doesn't acquire this summer, I'm going to judge him on how his moves — or lack thereof — affect our results.

The train has started to pick up momentum and that needs to continue. 74 points last year was good enough. This year, it is not.

Well, if he goes with Anderson and UPL and it works, I guess he gets credit, but it’s kinda like drawing to an inside straight — probably not a smart play.  

[dudacek]

31 minutes ago, JustOneParade said:

Nailed it. To expand a bit on these thoughts:

1) Regarding the concept of value, if KA slightly overpays on a 1 or 1A goalie I don't see this as problematic. If he overpays for another of what we already have, then that's a problem.

2) This concept of blocking Levi is perplexing. IF in a two or three years Levi is behind a successful 2022 addition in goal, isn't that a good thing? IF KA wants Levi unfettered access to the starting job in the near future that just doesn't seem wise at all. And IF its Levi who needs that path clear of competition then do we really want that guy anyway?

3) IF KA banks on Levi becoming 'the Guy' in a few years, continues to muddle along in goal until then, and is ultimately wrong about him, I hate to think where this organization might be (figuratively and maybe literally soon thereafter). Attendance? Young core players approaching free agency? Way too much uncertainty and risk for my taste should KA opt to do nothing of consequence with the goaltending.

Yes, exactly.

I get the idea of planning to have UPL move into a bigger role by the end of this season and Levi challenging him 2 or 3 years down the road.

But it can’t be your only plan.

If you don’t sign Campbell because you don’t want to make a 5-year $30 million investment it would take to get him, I can get behind that. It’s a bad contract.

If you don’t trade for Georgiev because Drury is demanding Portillo and pick 16 in return, I can get behind that too. It’s a bad trade.

But if you can get a goalie at more reasonable prices, you can’t let term and the maybe of UPL or Levi get in your way.

[Brawndo]

 

[Taro T]

14 hours ago, Brawndo said:

 

Whatever it takes to slide Jiricek past 6.  Handedness is off, but does Columbus really want to spend 6 and 12 on D?

[Brawndo]

6 minutes ago, Taro T said:

Whatever it takes to slide Jiricek past 6.  Handedness is off, but does Columbus really want to spend 6 and 12 on D?

I wonder if they make the trade with Arizona would Columbus offer 6th Overall to teams drafting 7-11. 

[Brawndo]

Friedman mentioned on the Pod that Bruce Garrioch reported in order to move Matt Murray the Sens would have to include the 7OA Pick. Friedman reported the Sens probably do not want to do that. Adams should offer 28 (preferably)or 16 to Ottawa for 7OA and Murray. 

Murray has two years left at 6.25 Million AAV and has a history with Mike Bales. 

[thewookie1]

30 minutes ago, Brawndo said:

Friedman mentioned on the Pod that Bruce Garrioch reported in order to move Matt Murray the Sens would have to include the 7OA Pick. Friedman reported the Sens probably do not want to do that. Adams should offer 28 (preferably)or 16 to Ottawa for 7OA and Murray. 

Murray has two years left at 6.25 Million AAV and has a history with Mike Bales. 

I’d eat his salary but have no interest in using him in the NHL

[sabresparaavida]

2 minutes ago, thewookie1 said:

I’d eat his salary but have no interest in using him in the NHL

He did bounce back some last year after a couple awful seasons. If we could get him+7OA for 28OA, I would be quite happy with that trade. 

[Lanny]

43 minutes ago, Brawndo said:

Friedman mentioned on the Pod that Bruce Garrioch reported in order to move Matt Murray the Sens would have to include the 7OA Pick. Friedman reported the Sens probably do not want to do that. Adams should offer 28 (preferably)or 16 to Ottawa for 7OA and Murray. 

Murray has two years left at 6.25 Million AAV and has a history with Mike Bales. 

It seems impossible that this is the case. 

Edited July 6, 2022 by Lanny

[Brawndo]

4 minutes ago, Lanny said:

That seems impossible. 

Further in the Podcast, Friedman mentioned He believes a team proposed that trade and Garrioch is well connected with the Sens Brass 

[dudacek]

54 minutes ago, Brawndo said:

Friedman mentioned on the Pod that Bruce Garrioch reported in order to move Matt Murray the Sens would have to include the 7OA Pick. Friedman reported the Sens probably do not want to do that. Adams should offer 28 (preferably)or 16 to Ottawa for 7OA and Murray. 

Murray has two years left at 6.25 Million AAV and has a history with Mike Bales. 

Hell yes.

Murray is rightly regarded as a terrible anchor because of the cap, but the cap is irrelevant to the Sabres this year and might be next year as well.

Worst case scenario, we spend $15 million of Terry's cash and banish Murray to east coast league.

Now that's weaponizing cap space! Small price to pay for a top 10 pick, IMO.

Best case scenario, Murray rebounds and is the bridge we need to get to Levi.

I mean he's been terrible, but when the alternatives are looking like Tokarski, Subban and Dell...

[thewookie1]

I’d love to make this deal but I’d worry KA would decide this would be the goaltending tandem for the year.

[thewookie1]

45 minutes ago, sabresparaavida said:

He did bounce back some last year after a couple awful seasons. If we could get him+7OA for 28OA, I would be quite happy with that trade. 

Murray + 7OA for 28OA

Sign Eric Comrie 1x2.5mil

Just hold onto Anderson as an emergency goalie

[mjd1001]

1 hour ago, Brawndo said:

Friedman mentioned on the Pod that Bruce Garrioch reported in order to move Matt Murray the Sens would have to include the 7OA Pick. Friedman reported the Sens probably do not want to do that. Adams should offer 28 (preferably)or 16 to Ottawa for 7OA and Murray. 

Murray has two years left at 6.25 Million AAV and has a history with Mike Bales. 

If that is what Ottawa doesn't want to do but might need to do, then your idea is great.  28 for 7 and Murray...or if you need to 28 and a 3rd....I wouldn't go more than that but if that was even an option I'd push all day for it.

[sabresparaavida]

18 minutes ago, thewookie1 said:

I’d love to make this deal but I’d worry KA would decide this would be the goaltending tandem for the year.

A small price to pay IF KA drafts well this year. 7, 9, 16 and 41 OA could add a lot of skill and set up our pipeline to be just about the best in the league, with already one of the youngest rosters in the league.

[Brawndo]

 https://www.dailyfaceoff.com/j-t-miller-climbs-to-no-2-on-trade-targets-board-canucks-still-far-apart-on-extension/

[Flashsabre]

45 minutes ago, dudacek said:

Hell yes.

Murray is rightly regarded as a terrible anchor because of the cap, but the cap is irrelevant to the Sabres this year and might be next year as well.

Worst case scenario, we spend $15 million of Terry's cash and banish Murray to east coast league.

Now that's weaponizing cap space! Small price to pay for a top 10 pick, IMO.

Best case scenario, Murray rebounds and is the bridge we need to get to Levi.

I mean he's been terrible, but when the alternatives are looking like Tokarski, Subban and Dell...

Murray is owed $7 million this year and $8 million next in cash. I don’t think Terry wants to spend a lot of cash. They will be just over the minimum of the cap floor. The Bishop deal helps them get there but the actual cash paid is less then $1 million. 

We shall see but I don’t think that is a deal they look at especially with Murray being so unreliable.

[dudacek]

28 minutes ago, Flashsabre said:

Murray is owed $7 million this year and $8 million next in cash. I don’t think Terry wants to spend a lot of cash. They will be just over the minimum of the cap floor. The Bishop deal helps them get there but the actual cash paid is less then $1 million. 

We shall see but I don’t think that is a deal they look at especially with Murray being so unreliable.

Terry can just drill another well.

[Taro T]

2 hours ago, Brawndo said:

Friedman mentioned on the Pod that Bruce Garrioch reported in order to move Matt Murray the Sens would have to include the 7OA Pick. Friedman reported the Sens probably do not want to do that. Adams should offer 28 (preferably)or 16 to Ottawa for 7OA and Murray. 

Murray has two years left at 6.25 Million AAV and has a history with Mike Bales. 

 

1 hour ago, dudacek said:

Hell yes.

Murray is rightly regarded as a terrible anchor because of the cap, but the cap is irrelevant to the Sabres this year and might be next year as well.

Worst case scenario, we spend $15 million of Terry's cash and banish Murray to east coast league.

Now that's weaponizing cap space! Small price to pay for a top 10 pick, IMO.

Best case scenario, Murray rebounds and is the bridge we need to get to Levi.

I mean he's been terrible, but when the alternatives are looking like Tokarski, Subban and Dell...

What he said.  Plus, now if Murray does rebound they aren't relying solely on Anderson as the backup.  (Still want them to target a legit, albeit ST, starter.)

See no real downside to the Sabres in that deal.

[Porous Five Hole]

Is the thinking with all the Sens/Murray talk that Ottawa wants to rid themselves of the contract for a certain reason? Sale of the team?

I get that he sucks, but with that contract included, their current cap hit is 55M and the floor is 60.2M. They only have 14 roster players next year, but they also have 5 RFA’s and none of them will be expensive. So essentially 19 players signed. 
If they take out the 6.25M of Murray, the team might have a hard time getting to the cap floor without overpaying a UFA or two. 
 

What am I missing?

[Taro T]

6 minutes ago, Porous Five Hole said:

Is the thinking with all the Sens/Murray talk that Ottawa wants to rid themselves of the contract for a certain reason? Sale of the team?

I get that he sucks, but with that contract included, their current cap hit is 55M and the floor is 60.2M. They only have 14 roster players next year, but they also have 5 RFA’s and none of them will be expensive. So essentially 19 players signed. 
If they take out the 6.25M of Murray, the team might have a hard time getting to the cap floor without overpaying a UFA or two. 
 

What am I missing?

No idea who owns the Sens at present, but with Melnyk's death 4 months ago can see that situation still being fluid and ridding themselves of deadweight salary to be a short term priority.

[Contempt]

15 minutes ago, Porous Five Hole said:

Is the thinking with all the Sens/Murray talk that Ottawa wants to rid themselves of the contract for a certain reason? Sale of the team?

I get that he sucks, but with that contract included, their current cap hit is 55M and the floor is 60.2M. They only have 14 roster players next year, but they also have 5 RFA’s and none of them will be expensive. So essentially 19 players signed. 
If they take out the 6.25M of Murray, the team might have a hard time getting to the cap floor without overpaying a UFA or two. 
 

What am I missing?

Terry has a boat to pay for.