NHL Trade Rumors and Speculation 2022-23

[Turbo44]

39 minutes ago, Mr. Allen said:

I’m “hearing” that there’s a standing offer to Holtby for 2 years. 

Nice but that would be tampering. Can’t talk to UFAs until tomorrow and can’t sign them to wed the 13th

[7+6=13]

Maybe the Jake Allen interest is true.

[PerreaultForever]

9 hours ago, JohnC said:

I still believe that KA will add another goalie to the mix. There are still second and third tier goalies that can be procured via trade for a low price. The GM is looking for a discounted bargain. 

I want to believe he will still add a good goalie but the realistic pessimist in me thinks it'll be somebody like Rittich at best, and maybe even just Tokarski. 

[Andrew Amerk]

29 minutes ago, 7+6=13 said:

Maybe the Jake Allen interest is true.

He already quarterbacks the Bills. 

[dudacek]

6 hours ago, Doohickie said:

But we don't have anything!

 

 

I want to see Michael Houser in the opening night lineup.  In very limited action he looked pretty good:  4-2 in six games with a .917 SV% and 2.97 GAA.  If you look back on when he played, the Sabres were tire fires (end of 20-21 season, beginning of 21-22 season).  The team in front of the goalie is much better than it was a year ago.  Give the guy a shot.  If you throw out the small sample size, he is literally the best goalie the Sabres have had over the last two seasons.

You need to let this one go.

Good story. Good guy. Not a good goalie.

 

3 hours ago, Thorny said:

It’s mentioned a lot that KA is saving our cap space for eventual extensions to some of the younger players, but if we aren’t going to pay to acquire a goaltender now, keeping space to allow the Sabres to pay (see: overpay) for a goalie, should Levi not pan out, could be something I see as inclusive within KA’s plan. 

Only a guess but it seems as though he’s ok with being on the Levi timeline for finding a true starter, whether that ends up being Levi’s arrival or the move they make to address the position that presumably uses real assets/coin. 

I’ve said before that waiting is risky b/c A) players could be alienated and b) it’s a lot of eggs in the Levi basket. I do think it’s clear Adams isn’t worried about “A”, but as for “B”, I can’t imagine he could be fool enough to literally not have a back-up plan. I think we keep space for an “overpay”, basically. 

Good news is, if you trust KA’s evaluation either Levi, or the guy he gets after Levi proves inadequate, will address the position sufficiently. Bad news is, I’m not exactly sure how long the Levi timeline is. 

Maybe he still goes out an gets a bonafide 1 in the interim. I’d be all over it, if it was me. But I’m not counting on it. 

 

I’m starting to think Adams might letting perfect get in the way of good.

You know, “We have a plan and we are going to stick with it.”

I think the main reason he hasn’t got a goalie yet is he’s not willing to pay market rates for players he doesn’t see as worth paying for.

Sometimes you just gotta roll with what the world offers.

[GASabresIUFAN]

1 hour ago, dudacek said:

I’m starting to think Adams might letting perfect get in the way of good.

You know, “We have a plan and we are going to stick with it.”

I think the main reason he hasn’t got a goalie yet is he’s not willing to pay market rates for players he doesn’t see as worth paying for.

Sometimes you just gotta roll with what the world offers.

I fully agree.  Sometimes patience is not a virtue.  He keeps watching as other GMs solidify their goaltending situations waiting for the right guy to fall in his lap.   Last year, this lead to the Anderson Dell signings as a stop gap with less than stellar results.  This year we seem to be going down the same rabbit hole.

[Doohickie]

8 hours ago, dudacek said:

You need to let this one go.

Good story. Good guy. Not a good goalie.

I don't have to let it go.  At the NHL level he is literally the best goalie, statistically, that has any connection to the club.

[thewookie1]

8 hours ago, dudacek said:

You need to let this one go.

Good story. Good guy. Not a good goalie.

 

 

I’m starting to think Adams might letting perfect get in the way of good.

You know, “We have a plan and we are going to stick with it.”

I think the main reason he hasn’t got a goalie yet is he’s not willing to pay market rates for players he doesn’t see as worth paying for.

Sometimes you just gotta roll with what the world offers.

What if there is no good?

As in most UFAs aren't interested and the goalie trade market is absurd

[JohnC]

10 hours ago, PerreaultForever said:

I want to believe he will still add a good goalie but the realistic pessimist in me thinks it'll be somebody like Rittich at best, and maybe even just Tokarski. 

Whomever the GM adds to the position will disappoint most of the followers of this team. It seems that his mind-set regarding this position is not the same mind-set of the majority. I would love to be proved wrong but am not counting on it. 

[Contempt]

2 hours ago, JohnC said:

Whomever the GM adds to the position will disappoint most of the followers of this team. It seems that his mind-set regarding this position is not the same mind-set of the majority. I would love to be proved wrong but am not counting on it. 

All I want is a competent goaltender who is able to play about 50 games. If they can't deliver that again I feel justified in being disappointed and annoyed.

[JohnC]

1 hour ago, Contempt said:

All I want is a competent goaltender who is able to play about 50 games. If they can't deliver that again I feel justified in being disappointed and annoyed.

What you just clearly and concisely stated is the viewpoint of a majority of people. I know I will get a lot of flack back but the GM should have signed Ullmark last year, even if it required him stretching his contract boundaries more than he wanted. In my opinion this team would now be in a better position to succeed sooner rather than later. 

Edited July 9, 2022 by JohnC

[PerreaultForever]

6 hours ago, JohnC said:

Whomever the GM adds to the position will disappoint most of the followers of this team. It seems that his mind-set regarding this position is not the same mind-set of the majority. I would love to be proved wrong but am not counting on it. 

I don't think his mindset regarding the position is not the same. What I think differs between him and me (us?) is his timeline for this team to be good. 

[thewookie1]

Here's my most recent proposal

https://www.capfriendly.com/armchair-gm/team/3416953

If Peterka beats out JVR, just buy him out too

[Buffalonill]

19 hours ago, Mr. Allen said:

I’m “hearing” that there’s a standing offer to Holtby for 2 years. 

 

[Buffalonill]

19 hours ago, Turbo44 said:

Nice but that would be tampering. Can’t talk to UFAs until tomorrow and can’t sign them to wed the 13th

Every team does tempering before the market opens up .

[Thorny]

8 hours ago, thewookie1 said:

What if there is no good?

As in most UFAs aren't interested and the goalie trade market is absurd

Depending on the amount we’d need to overpay, it makes sense to wait on making a move until one adjudged to be the proper value presents itself. The problem though with this line of thinking is that, logically, you can’t wait indefinitely. If no “fair” transaction presents itself in say, hypothetically, the next 5 years (and the position hasn’t been filled internally) declining an overpay over the duration of that time period would actually be a more damaging result, in that the hand-cuff disadvantage you *feared* attaching to the team was simply attached anyways through never providing the roster with a keeper the team deserved and required. 

At some point, overpay or not, you need the goalie. You MIGHT handcuff yourself by paying for one, but you ASSUREDLY will handcuff yourself by *never* doing so. At some point the overpay is definitely the lesser of two evils. 

When does that point arrive? That’s the question. If I had a guess, Adams has judged the time when Levi is SUPPOSED to have arrived as that time. He’s open to a goalie now, but is firm in his stance that overpaying is not necessary at this juncture 

Edited July 9, 2022 by Thorny

[PerreaultForever]

14 minutes ago, Thorny said:

When does that point arrive? That’s the question. If I had a guess, Adams has judged the time when Levi is SUPPOSED to have arrived as that time. He’s open to a goalie now, but is firm in his stance that overpaying is not necessary at this juncture 

I'm sure that's true, as I'm sure his timeline is a long one. The problem is if you keep losing for another 2 to 3 years before your eventual winning plan comes to fruition you alienate the fans even more, you keep it a no trade clause place, you don't attract free agents, and you risk losing what you're trying to build in this locker room as some of the kids may decide maybe they'd rather go elsewhere as well. 

We need to start winning more now to turn all these things around, and we need a 3 to 4 year signed decent goalie to have any chance of doing that. 

[Dr. Who]

Just now, PerreaultForever said:

I'm sure that's true, as I'm sure his timeline is a long one. The problem is if you keep losing for another 2 to 3 years before your eventual winning plan comes to fruition you alienate the fans even more, you keep it a no trade clause place, you don't attract free agents, and you risk losing what you're trying to build in this locker room as some of the kids may decide maybe they'd rather go elsewhere as well. 

We need to start winning more now to turn all these things around, and we need a 3 to 4 year signed decent goalie to have any chance of doing that. 

That would be ideal, but who is out there that fits the parameters and is willing to come here? 

[JohnC]

2 hours ago, PerreaultForever said:

I don't think his mindset regarding the position is not the same. What I think differs between him and me (us?) is his timeline for this team to be good. 

That's the point of disagreement. I'm not a homer and try to be objective. I strongly believe that if this team has a season full of competent netminding, it could/should be vying for a low rung playoff spot. There is no question that the young players have plenty of room to grow. But I believe that GM has assembled enough talent to be in a season-long hunt for a playoff spot. That in itself would be significant progress. 

[PerreaultForever]

14 minutes ago, Dr. Who said:

That would be ideal, but who is out there that fits the parameters and is willing to come here? 

Less than there were a few days ago. 

4 minutes ago, JohnC said:

That's the point of disagreement. I'm not a homer and try to be objective. I strongly believe that if this team has a season full of competent netminding, it could/should be vying for a low rung playoff spot. There is no question that the young players have plenty of room to grow. But I believe that GM has assembled enough talent to be in a season-long hunt for a playoff spot. That in itself would be significant progress. 

Just don't see this happening with the current goalies and the holes in the roster. I see us around where we finished this year, maybe slightly higher, but no chance at the playoffs. Which is the frustrating thing for me, as I think with the key additions we COULD have been a contender. 

[Thorny]

17 minutes ago, PerreaultForever said:

I'm sure that's true, as I'm sure his timeline is a long one. The problem is if you keep losing for another 2 to 3 years before your eventual winning plan comes to fruition you alienate the fans even more, you keep it a no trade clause place, you don't attract free agents, and you risk losing what you're trying to build in this locker room as some of the kids may decide maybe they'd rather go elsewhere as well. 

We need to start winning more now to turn all these things around, and we need a 3 to 4 year signed decent goalie to have any chance of doing that. 

Definitely want a tender here myself, too. But I think Adams’ thought on the attracting other players bit is that the Sabres are going to project an image of a team succeeding despite poor goaltending. He doesn’t see the lack of a tendy spiting the development of our other players, but rather our other players succeeding in spite of the goaltending: maybe not a great deal of team success, but successful individual improvement and growth as a group to the point where, not only do the players not become disenfranchised, they paint a picture of a team a goalie away from contention.

I’d add a goalie now to aid in the process, Adams seems to believe the process can move forward unhampered by the lack of GT, where merely the statistical record suffers, and the goalie merely plugged in at a later date 

[JohnC]

8 minutes ago, PerreaultForever said:

Less than there were a few days ago. 

Just don't see this happening with the current goalies and the holes in the roster. I see us around where we finished this year, maybe slightly higher, but no chance at the playoffs. Which is the frustrating thing for me, as I think with the key additions we COULD have been a contender. 

We are talking past one another. I agree with you that if our goaltending isn't upgraded we won't contend for anything. I believe that with improved goaltending this team will be in the playoff race for a full season. That's the source of my frustration. 

[PromoTheRobot]

3 minutes ago, Thorny said:

Definitely want a tender here myself, too. But I think Adams’ thought on the attracting other players bit is that the Sabres are going to project an image of a team succeeding despite poor goaltending. He doesn’t see the lack of a tendy spiting the development of our other players, but rather our other players succeeding in spite of the goaltending: maybe not a great deal of team success, but successful individual improvement and growth as a group to the point where, not only do the players not become disenfranchised, they paint a picture of a team a goalie away from contention.

I’d add a goalie now to aid in the process, Adams seems to believe the process can move forward unhampered by the lack of GT, where merely the statistical record suffers, and the goalie merely plugged in at a later date 

Where does this come from?

[Thorny]

Just now, PromoTheRobot said:

Where does this come from?

The fact we went into last season with what I’d deem to be a poor GT outlook, while declining to “overpay” Ullmark what it would require to keep him, when that appears to have been an option. If Adams felt our development would be significantly hampered by lack of good GT, my view is he wouldn’t have adjudged some sort of overpay as the more significant potential error. He’s open to better GT in the near term, he just doesn’t feel it necessary, in the now, at the cost of an overpay.

It’s also informed by my take on what we’ve seen him do so far this summer. I can’t imagine the results from the team last season doing anything to change his view: as @dudacekmentioned, last season KA was “proven right”. 

As mentioned, I don’t think Adams thinks it can move forward in that way indefinitely, merely that it’s ok for the time being 

[dudacek]

There’s another school of thought to be considered as well:

Adams thinks the difference between Anderson/UPL and Husso or Mrazek or Georgiev or Vanecek is too negligible to warrant the prices paid.

And he’s set his sights on holding fast until he finds better bargains or better goalies.

I mean he will get another goalie, but why pay if the guy is just going to be another guy in a 3 or 4 headed monster?

Edited July 9, 2022 by dudacek