Jump to content

Philosophy on the rebuild


 Share

Recommended Posts

7 hours ago, PerreaultForever said:
13 hours ago, triumph_communes said:

Ullmark contract was a mistake to make glad we weren’t the ones to do it. 

Ya, so why overpay Ullmark when you can buy up Bishop's contract and dump some of your money on him instead. Sure, makes perfect sense. 

You are either being obtuse or you are incredibly ignorant of what Kevyn is doing to prevent cap trouble down the road.

  • dislike 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 7/30/2022 at 10:13 PM, GASabresIUFAN said:

 

Until we actually have goaltending as good as Ullmark, failing to re-sign Ullmark will remain KA’s biggest error and goaltending will remain this team’s Achilles’ Heel. I have hope for Comrie, but hope and a prayer isn’t enough.

Comrie will be the #1 goalie by mid season. I predict they will extend him at the end of the year. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

37 minutes ago, PromoTheRobot said:

Comrie will be the #1 goalie by mid season. I predict they will extend him at the end of the year. 

Comrie will be the #1 goalie when camp begins and when the season starts. 

  • Like (+1) 1
  • Agree 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

22 minutes ago, PromoTheRobot said:

I thought Anderson was considered the #1 for now.

I doubt it because it is recognized that he can't handle the load of a #1 goalie. I'm offering my opinion because nothing is written in stone. I think that UPL will start off in Rochester and will be given a full load down there. It wouldn't be surprising that eventually he will be moved up. He will have to earn his way onto the roster. It's going to be interesting to see what happens if UPL shines in camp. It's my opinion that it would be better for him to get a full load in the AHL than intermittent play in the NHL. 

  • Agree 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Doohickie said:

You are either being obtuse or you are incredibly ignorant of what Kevyn is doing to prevent cap trouble down the road.

As @dudacek pointed out to me (that I think I finally understood this very morning), the cap situation would be no different. By doing what he did, it frees up a roster spot for an actual player.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

28 minutes ago, SwampD said:

As @dudacek pointed out to me (that I think I finally understood this very morning), the cap situation would be no different. By doing what he did, it frees up a roster spot for an actual player.

Yes, the point of obtaining Bishop's contract was to have relatively cheap insurance (I believe it's about $750k to get $5 million in cap dollars) to make sure the Sabres don't dip below the cap floor as they make roster moves during the season... assuming Bishop's contract is on LTIR and insurance pays 75%.  But because he will be on LTIR it doesn't prevent Bishop's salary to affect the Sabres if they approach the salary cap.  It's basically a non-move player-wise; just a financial transaction.  Bishop is this year's Johnny Boychuk.  And the reason Kevyn is doing these kinds of deals is to ensure he doesn't have long term salary liabilities that will affect cap compliance when he has to start paying players coming off ELCs. 

RE Ullmark:  If Kevyn had signed him, he'd still be paying him $5M for 3 more years... and rumor was that to stay in Buffalo he was demanding more $ or term.  And Ullmark is about the same (marginally better) than Swayman who's only making $1M per year.  If Comrie comes close to matching his SV% he had with WPG he'll be a steal compared to Ullmark.

The way I see that situation is that yes, Kevyn f'ed up by trusting a deal would get done.  The mistake he made was not trading him at the end of the season at the deadline prior to Ullmark reaching UFA.  And yes, in the absence of a contract with Ullmark he should have gone through the off-season with the assumption that he would have to be replaced.  Instead he waited, believing Ullmark would sign with the Sabres, and had no backup plan.  Yes he messed up.  But given that, it's also hard to blame him for the injuries that affected Sabres goaltending the last two seasons.

We'll see how Comrie works out but I wouldn't be surprised if this forum will be looking back at the acquisition a year from now and calling it a home run, as good a move as the Eichel trade.

  • Like (+1) 4
  • Agree 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 minutes ago, Doohickie said:

Yes, the point of obtaining Bishop's contract was to have relatively cheap insurance (I believe it's about $750k to get $5 million in cap dollars) to make sure the Sabres don't dip below the cap floor as they make roster moves during the season... assuming Bishop's contract is on LTIR and insurance pays 75%.  But because he will be on LTIR it doesn't prevent Bishop's salary to affect the Sabres if they approach the salary cap.  It's basically a non-move player-wise; just a financial transaction.  Bishop is this year's Johnny Boychuk.  And the reason Kevyn is doing these kinds of deals is to ensure he doesn't have long term salary liabilities that will affect cap compliance when he has to start paying players coming off ELCs. 

RE Ullmark:  If Kevyn had signed him, he'd still be paying him $5M for 3 more years... and rumor was that to stay in Buffalo he was demanding more $ or term.  And Ullmark is about the same (marginally better) than Swayman who's only making $1M per year.  If Comrie comes close to matching his SV% he had with WPG he'll be a steal compared to Ullmark.

The way I see that situation is that yes, Kevyn f'ed up by trusting a deal would get done.  The mistake he made was not trading him at the end of the season at the deadline prior to Ullmark reaching UFA.  And yes, in the absence of a contract with Ullmark he should have gone through the off-season with the assumption that he would have to be replaced.  Instead he waited, believing Ullmark would sign with the Sabres, and had no backup plan.  Yes he messed up.  But given that, it's also hard to blame him for the injuries that affected Sabres goaltending the last two seasons.

We'll see how Comrie works out but I wouldn't be surprised if this forum will be looking back at the acquisition a year from now and calling it a home run, as good a move as the Eichel trade.

Oh, wait,… I just remembered I don’t care.

😂

 

Gotta stop reading this board with coffee and just go kayaking.

 

Call me when we’re in the playoffs.

  • Like (+1) 2
  • Awesome! (+1) 2
  • Thanks (+1) 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Don't forget that during that time Ullmark was having alot of family tragedy and just wanted to focus on the game. I believe that the reports at the time were true that he told KA that he was going to sign here and then negotiated with Boston last minute. The Sabres did the right thing and didn't pressure him if he gave his word that he was going to stay. I think that's how it all went down because at the end of the day I think KA is a good man first and a GM second. That's why I think our culture has changed so much. Trust started flowing from the top down.

  • Like (+1) 2
  • Agree 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Which one is true?

 

Ullmark didn’t want to stay a Buffalo Sabre. No matter what realistic and fair contract KA offered, Ullmark did not want to be a Sabre any longer.

 

KA screwed up. He could have kept Ullmark if only he offered Ullmark more. Arguably an unrealistic bloated contract in comparison to what Ullmark has shown to be to that point. Ullmark would have stayed.

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

I don’t think it is semantics to say Adams mistake was not that he didn’t re-sign Ullmark, it was that he believed he was going to re-sign Ullmark and did not have a back-up plan.

The degree of damage caused by that mistake will be determined by the quality of play delivered this year by Comrie, Anderson and UPL.

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

33 minutes ago, Zamboni said:

Which one is true?

 

Ullmark didn’t want to stay a Buffalo Sabre. No matter what realistic and fair contract KA offered, Ullmark did not want to be a Sabre any longer.

 

KA screwed up. He could have kept Ullmark if only he offered Ullmark more. Arguably an unrealistic bloated contract in comparison to what Ullmark has shown to be to that point. Ullmark would have stayed.

Really don't see it as an either or and expect the truth is somewhere in the middle.

Ullmark said he was willing to stay and had worked out a deal he said he'd sign if it wasn't beaten.  The Bruins beat it & it seems Adams offered to match that but Ullmark said 'no, beat this new deal.'  Adams wouldn't and the rest is history.

So, Linus probably was happy to be moving on, but he was willing to stay.

If Adams really did offer to match the Bruins deal, he screwed up, because he should've put THAT on the table as his best offer rather than the one the Bruins topped.  Yes, it would've been a bit of an overpay, but it wouldn't have affected a single other contact the Sabres had and it would've kept at least Dell off the roster; no data on whether it would've kept Anderson away.  And the Sabres still might've been able to grab Comrie this year.  It wouldn't be as obvious a chance to become the starter here, but it still would be a real possibility as he could be better than Linus (remains to be seen if he is better or not).

But Linus being signed wouldn't affect Levi in the slightest and if it keeps UPL in Ra-cha-cha, so be it.  It probably guarantees Portillo walks, but that seems likely now anyway.  So, all signing him might have done in a negative sense is cost the team Portillo and likely Savoie as the Sabres probably finish 11th to 13th worst rather than 9th worst.

Still would've liked to have seen Adams make the B's offer 1st.  My 2 cents. 

And if not, as @dudacek said, at least have a real plan B.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Zamboni said:

Which one is true?

 

Ullmark didn’t want to stay a Buffalo Sabre. No matter what realistic and fair contract KA offered, Ullmark did not want to be a Sabre any longer.

 

KA screwed up. He could have kept Ullmark if only he offered Ullmark more. Arguably an unrealistic bloated contract in comparison to what Ullmark has shown to be to that point. Ullmark would have stayed.

I don't see why both can't be true. 

Kevyn clearly screwed up that situation.  I think it became a learning opportunity for him.  He should have recognized the real possibility that Ullmark might leave he should have had a better backup plan.  If Ullmark wasn't signed by the deadline he should have been traded for assets.  He could have still been a "good guy" by informing Ullmark that he would be traded if he wasn't signed by the deadline.  Kevyn likely would have gotten a significant return from a playoff team seeking to acquire goalie depth for their playoff run.

Did Ullmark want to stay in Buffalo?  I think it was a decision he weighed, and was informed by his agent.  I think the major factor from his point of view was that the Sabres hadn't been to the playoffs for a long time and he wanted a playoff team.  If it's true that he wanted the Sabres to pay a premium in money or term, that was probably the leverage.  I think Adams was right in not biting at that.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, dudacek said:

I don’t think it is semantics to say Adams mistake was not that he didn’t re-sign Ullmark, it was that he believed he was going to re-sign Ullmark and did not have a back-up plan.

The degree of damage caused by that mistake will be determined by the quality of play delivered this year by Comrie, Anderson and UPL.

I have a feeling there will be a 4th name added to the list.  Not a #1 or #2, but a somebody else who will be called up to play some games due to injury...maybe Subban?  I have yet to be convinced of Anderson and UPL's durability....even collectively as the #2 behind Comrie.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, Doohickie said:

You are either being obtuse or you are incredibly ignorant of what Kevyn is doing to prevent cap trouble down the road.

Please don't start with insults. You wouldn't talk like that to my face so don't do it here. Words like you are "ignorant" or "obtuse" do not belong here. Disagree with me if you like, but don't go down that road. You can be better than that. 

There's 20 million in cap space. There's plenty of room to carry a decent goalie, even if he's slightly overpaid. Ullmark's contract is on the high end for his ability but not way out of line if you compare it to other goalies. We have a few RFAs coming up in a year but so far only Thompson looks like he will get a substantial raise. Cozens, Samuelsson, Asplund, have all only earned modest lower end salaries at this point. The D will need some money the year after, but again, nobody there has done anything (yet) that screams huge increase. Cap will go up, and you have about 10 million from salary currently going to players who could be bumped off the roster by rising youngsters (Kyle, Zemgus, Vinnie can all be let go). So once again, there is plenty of money for a goalie overpay. 

  • Like (+1) 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, PerreaultForever said:

Please don't start with insults. You wouldn't talk like that to my face so don't do it here. Words like you are "ignorant" or "obtuse" do not belong here. Disagree with me if you like, but don't go down that road. You can be better than that. 

There's 20 million in cap space. There's plenty of room to carry a decent goalie, even if he's slightly overpaid. Ullmark's contract is on the high end for his ability but not way out of line if you compare it to other goalies. We have a few RFAs coming up in a year but so far only Thompson looks like he will get a substantial raise. Cozens, Samuelsson, Asplund, have all only earned modest lower end salaries at this point. The D will need some money the year after, but again, nobody there has done anything (yet) that screams huge increase. Cap will go up, and you have about 10 million from salary currently going to players who could be bumped off the roster by rising youngsters (Kyle, Zemgus, Vinnie can all be let go). So once again, there is plenty of money for a goalie overpay. 

Ullmark's salary wasn't the issue.  It was the TERM.

And lecturing me is just as insulting.

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

7 hours ago, triumph_communes said:

Sign Ullmark to five years and good luck with Levi and Portillo 

I don't get where this notion comes from that young rookie goalie prospects will stay away from teams that already have goalies. If that was the case all the young goalies would sign where exactly, cause most teams already have starting goalies. 

Does it look like Swayman's having a problem with Ullmark being on his team?

I know you probably hate the Bruins but look at them closely and tell me Ullmark wouldn't have been a great mentor for a UPL, Levi and/or Portello? 

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

That's nice.  But if he didn't want to be a mentor for UPL, Levi and/or Portillo, there's nothing that could have made him stay here.  It was his choice.  The failure of KA is not that he didn't sign him, the failure was that he was sure he would.

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

5 hours ago, Doohickie said:

That's nice.  But if he didn't want to be a mentor for UPL, Levi and/or Portillo, there's nothing that could have made him stay here.  It was his choice.  The failure of KA is not that he didn't sign him, the failure was that he was sure he would.

Well that part I definitely agree with. I said that year if he didn't sign by the deadline he should have been deadline traded and KA should have started looking at other options (goalies were moved around and we could have taken one to make him expansion draft exempt for example). Assuming he could sign him was dumb. JBot let Skinner hold him hostage, KA got leveraged by Ullmark. This team needs to realize it can't take players on faith. We are not a desirable destination at this point. 

As for Ullmark not wanting to mentor UPL etc. he would have if he'd signed. It's his character. Everything I've heard about him is he's just a likeable guy and other players love him. He didn't go to Boston to mentor Swayman, but they bonded as team mates and he doesn't view him as an adversary. So he accepts the mentor role and they help each other. He's a positive team influence, that's all. 

I'm sure Craig Anderson is a good influence as well, it's just that he's too old. He should coach, not play. Comrie? I have no idea what sort of team mate he will be or if he will be any good at all. On paper, we have sub par goaltending - AGAIN. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If the Sabres can stay healthy, they have a shot at the playoffs. Over the last 28 games they were 16-9-3 with 8 wins against playoff teams, and the only loss to a non-playoff team was to Winnipeg in a shootout.  If they can play at a similar level they will be in good shape next year. 

  • Agree 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The philosophy demands internal growth in order to be successful.

Last year, the rebuild elevated Dahlin and Thompson, resuscitated Okposo and Skinner, and added Samuelsson, Krebs, Asplund and Tuch as useful parts.

For it to continue to be a success, we need it do most of the following: maintain Dahlin, Tuch, Thompson, Okposo and Skinner; elevate Mittelstadt, Jokiharju, Olofsson and Cozens, and add Power, Quinn, Peterka, Lyubushkin and Comrie.

 

  • Like (+1) 1
  • Agree 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...