Layout Your Offseason Plan

[Thorny]

14 minutes ago, thewookie1 said:

Yup, that seems rather accurate. I’m looking for long term success versus immediate success. I don’t see enough of an advantage from Hellebuyck taking us to the 2nd round then departing in bettering our long term push to win the Cup. Mainly because I don’t want Levi to have to come in the next season and be expected to equal or top Hellebuyck 

Framing my position as looking for merely immediate success is inaccurate, and adds more to the ever increasing pile of comments along the lines of “you aren’t patient enough.” The entire reason I’m good with the deal is because it does NOT harm the LT success.

I just think, that long term success has to actually START. I’m not going to plan for a decade long window, that would be absolutely foolish. Those runs are exceptionally uncommon. “No thanks to playoffs, I’ll take a decade and 4 cups” isn’t a convincing stance. Our window will probably be several years. Yes, I do think our window is now open rather than existing in some vague, unreadable Future we are still trying to protect without diving into

[French Collection]

Hellebuyck could extend.

[Thorny]

21 minutes ago, thewookie1 said:

Yup, that seems rather accurate. I’m looking for long term success versus immediate success. I don’t see enough of an advantage from Hellebuyck taking us to the 2nd round then departing in bettering our long term push to win the Cup. Mainly because I don’t want Levi to have to come in the next season and be expected to equal or top Hellebuyck 

Where do you see the Sabres finishing WITHOUT Hellebuyck next season? 

And don’t give me some vague answer. You are pretty hard line in saying Hellebuyck getting us beyond round 2 is a “small” (unlikely) target

Do you have the likely ending spot as first-round exits? 

Edited June 2, 2023 by Thorny

[GASabresIUFAN]

6 hours ago, thewookie1 said:

You can't win a rental without winning the Cup

I'm unwilling to give Hellebuyck 8x10mil and trade 2/3 1sts in value to get him 

I'd rather just sign a UFA goalie and hope Levi explodes onto the scene than trade 13OA, UPL, Savoie/Kulich for Hellebuyck who will expect to either become a UFA or an absurd extension that doesn't work from a cap or year situation.

I’m against trading for Hellebuyck as well, nor am I interested in giving him a huge extension. I’m not interested in a rental either.  We need a stable tandem for about 3 years.  After that we need to develop a backup for Levi or just get a FA backup that fits the cap.  

To many reasonable options out there to waste big assets on a one year rental.  

Also if I were KA I’d be a little nervous in the transition for someone like Helle from the WPG system to our very open very high event style. 

[Thorny]

1 minute ago, GASabresIUFAN said:

I’m against trading for Hellebuyck as well, nor am I interested in giving him a huge extension. I’m not interested in a rental either.  We need a stable tandem for about 3 years.  After that we need to develop a backup for Levi or just get a FA backup that fits the cap.  

To many reasonable options out there to waste big assets on a one year rental.  

Also if I were KA I’d be a little nervous in the transition for someone like Helle from the WPG system to our very open very high event style. 

Winnipeg’s forwards aren’t good defensively 

[GASabresIUFAN]

7 minutes ago, Thorny said:

Winnipeg’s forwards aren’t good defensively 

What does this even mean?  WPG as a team was significantly better defensively than the Sabres.

The Sabres gave up the 4th most HDCA at 888. WPG was significantly better at only 752.  
 

 

[Thorny]

4 minutes ago, GASabresIUFAN said:

What does this even mean?  WPG as a team was significantly better defensively than the Sabres.

The Sabres gave up the 4th most HDCA at 888. WPG was significantly better at only 752.  
 

 

I mean that Hellebuyck standing on his head was the reason they gave up less goals 

the play of Hellebuyck in winnipeg is WELL documented beyond one solitary Rick Bowness season 

Edited June 2, 2023 by Thorny

[Thorny]

If we trade for a G with 2 seasons left, why isn’t that considered a rental? Actually asking. That’s not the window we intend to win the Cup in, apparently, is it? Why is 2 years ok but 1 isn’t? 1 year rental is a thing, 2 year rentals are not a thing?

Like what they heck is even a “rental” lol. Did we just rent out 05-06 as legit cup contenders, it only being 1 year nullifies the experience? 

It’s better to add a significantly inferior goalie to the equation for 2 years, rather than a Vezina goalie for 1? Who are we acquiring that’s good enough that 2 seasons of runway for that goalie gives us a better shot than 1 year with a Vezina guy?

these are all legitimate questions I’m asking 

Edited June 2, 2023 by Thorny

[thewookie1]

24 minutes ago, Thorny said:

Where do you see the Sabres finishing WITHOUT Hellebuyck next season? 

And don’t give me some vague answer. You are pretty hard line in saying Hellebuyck getting us beyond round 2 is a “small” (unlikely) target

Do you have the likely ending spot as first-round exits? 

I just think even with Hallebuyck, the likelihood of a young team like ours getting beyond the 2nd round is small. 4 teams make the Conference Finals after all; it’s not exactly an easy feat to reach. 
 

Without Hallebuyck, the likelihood drops further and the most likely guess Id have is 1st round exit.

 

if we could get Hallebuyck to agree to a 5x7.5mil extension then go get him

[Thorny]

4 minutes ago, thewookie1 said:

I just think even with Hallebuyck, the likelihood of a young team like ours getting beyond the 2nd round is small. 4 teams make the Conference Finals after all; it’s not exactly an easy feat to reach. 
 

Without Hallebuyck, the likelihood drops further and the most likely guess Id have is 1st round exit.

 

if we could get Hallebuyck to agree to a 5x7.5mil extension then go get him

So basically you think Hellebuyck probably buys the Sabres a playoff series victory we won’t otherwise have without him, so rather than pay a first to acquire that you’d sooner pay, I dunno, a 2nd, get some other stop gap, and lose round 1. Would you consider this accurate? 

Edited June 2, 2023 by Thorny

[thewookie1]

6 minutes ago, Thorny said:

If we trade for a G with 2 seasons left, why isn’t that considered a rental? Actually asking. That’s not the window we intend to win the Cup in, apparently, is it? Why is 2 years ok but 1 isn’t? 1 year rental is a thing, 2 year rentals are not a thing?

Like what they heck is even a “rental” lol. Did we just rent out 05-06 as legit cup contenders, it only being 1 year nullifies the experience? 

It’s better to add a significantly inferior goalie to the equation for 2 years, rather than a Vezina goalie for 1? Who are we acquiring that’s good enough that 2 seasons of runway for that goalie gives us a better shot than 1 year with a Vezina guy?

these are all legitimate questions I’m asking 

 

A true rental is any UFA-to be player acquired for 1 or fewer seasons. If after trading for said player, the next July 1st he can walk, that's a rental.

2 year contracts are considered short term players but since they get 2 seasons with the team, they aren't rentals

Just now, Thorny said:

So basically you think Hellebuyck probably buys the Sabres a playoff series victory we won’t otherwise have without him, so rather than pay a first to acquire that you’d sooner pay, I dunno, a 2nd, get some other stop gap, and lose round 1. Would you consider this accurate? 

Close, its not purely based on Hallebuyck but also the lack of experience we have.

[Thorny]

3 minutes ago, thewookie1 said:

 

A true rental is any UFA-to be player acquired for 1 or fewer seasons. If after trading for said player, the next July 1st he can walk, that's a rental.

2 year contracts are considered short term players but since they get 2 seasons with the team, they aren't rentals

That’s all arbitrary. Those aren’t actually official definitions, though. So any one year contract signed is a “rental” contract? 

as far as I’m concerned “rental” has always referred to players acquired at the deadline 

Edited June 2, 2023 by Thorny

[Thorny]

I’m actually asking why 1 full season term is bad but 2 seasons is goldilocks. Why? Why does 2 years fit just right when 1 is *completely unacceptable*. Because that’s what you are saying, 1 is a non-starter, but 2 (when, btw, you enter into the “rental” scenario when you get to the final year of that deal) is completely acceptable. 

What is the actual explanation for why the second year makes the time frame acceptable when a one year time frame is insufficient? 

Edited June 2, 2023 by Thorny

[thewookie1]

2 minutes ago, Thorny said:

That’s all arbitrary. Those aren’t actually official definitions, though. So any one year contract signed is a “rental” contract? 

as far as I’m concerned “rental” has always referred to players acquired at the deadline 

It's a very arbitrary definition because its an arbitrary idea. The Trade Deadline is rental day, well players traded in January are also called rentals usually. Is it simply any player acquired within the season?

Analysts call guys acquired at the deadline with 1 year extra, A bit more than a rental

1 minute ago, Thorny said:

I’m actually asking why 1 full season term is bad but 2 seasons is goldilocks. Why? Why does 2 years fit just right when 1 is *completely unacceptable*. Because that’s what you are saying, 1 is a non-starter, but 2 (when, btw, you enter into the “rental” scenario when you get to the final year of that deal) is completely acceptable. 

What is the actual explanation for why the second year makes the time frame acceptable when a one year time frame is insufficient? 

Odds to a degree.

A player with 1 year can get hurt and never play for you. 

A player with 2 years is far less likely to get hurt 2 straight seasons and never play for you. 

 

[Thorny]

4 minutes ago, thewookie1 said:

It's a very arbitrary definition because its an arbitrary idea. The Trade Deadline is rental day, well players traded in January are also called rentals usually. Is it simply any player acquired within the season?

Analysts call guys acquired at the deadline with 1 year extra, A bit more than a rental

Odds to a degree.

A player with 1 year can get hurt and never play for you. 

A player with 2 years is far less likely to get hurt 2 straight seasons and never play for you. 

 

Fair enough.
 

Good discussion.

[French Collection]

FTR I am OK with getting Hellebuyck. Not all of these prospects will get to play in Buffalo.

There may already be discussions about a possible extension, lots of cloak and dagger stuff. They are not supposed to but I am sure there are ways.

If not, they have a whole year to figure out if it is a good fit. The development of Levi could be a key to the term.

Maybe 13 for 18, Rosen and UPL gets it done. Sabres get to have a first rounder, maybe Simashev.

[Weave]

I would wade in but Thorny is carrying the freight.

We can afford to spend a prospect/ pick or two.  We have an *actual* surplus and will not he able to ice all of them if they all pan out.

You can’t have a playoff run without actually starting one.

Of all the player’s theoretically available to acquire, Helly arguably gives us the highest chance of success.

Was Okposo a rental for us last season? Was Girgensons?  Why is Helly different?  1 full season.  Not a rental.

And my fall back, the future is not guaranteed.  That prospect or pick we keep isnt guaranteed to make a difference.  It’s not guaranteed that Levi doesn’t blow out a knee and lose his career.  It’s not guaranteed that Dahlin, or Thompson, or Power remain healthy during the time it takes Levi to develop into a starter.  Hell, it’s not guaranteed that Levi develops into a starter.

Get Helly.  Win. Let’s see where it goes from there.

It’s almost like some of us are afraid of actually winning again.

OK, I got my feet wet anyway.

[Weave]

And another thing, don’t be afraid to sign Helly to a long term deal.  If Levi pans out and becomes the future franchise goalie, Helly becomes a top 3 goalie WITH term that you probably get more for in a trade than you gave up to get him.

[Dr. Who]

17 minutes ago, French Collection said:

FTR I am OK with getting Hellebuyck. Not all of these prospects will get to play in Buffalo.

There may already be discussions about a possible extension, lots of cloak and dagger stuff. They are not supposed to but I am sure there are ways.

If not, they have a whole year to figure out if it is a good fit. The development of Levi could be a key to the term.

Maybe 13 for 18, Rosen and UPL gets it done. Sabres get to have a first rounder, maybe Simashev.

13, UPL and a B prospect would be my preferred package, but I am on the side of those who think Hellebuyck is worth the expenditure. Your alternative is interesting. Simashev at 18 is a nice play.

[Marvin]

I want to be clear about my stance: I think Hellebuyck and Saros get the Sabres 1 round deeper in the playoffs.  I would give up #13, UPL, and an OK prospect for Hellebuyck.  I would give up a much better prospect for Saros and maybe a 2nd rounder as well because of the extra year.

Why does the extra year matter?  Because that gives Buffalo 1 extra season for Levi to grow.  I thought that was obvious.  It seems clear that the long-term commitment is to Levi, so we need to evaluate goalkeeping acquisitions against that backdrop.

[Thorny]

39 minutes ago, Marvin said:

I want to be clear about my stance: I think Hellebuyck and Saros get the Sabres 1 round deeper in the playoffs.  I would give up #13, UPL, and an OK prospect for Hellebuyck.  I would give up a much better prospect for Saros and maybe a 2nd rounder as well because of the extra year.

Why does the extra year matter?  Because that gives Buffalo 1 extra season for Levi to grow.  I thought that was obvious.  It seems clear that the long-term commitment is to Levi, so we need to evaluate goalkeeping acquisitions against that backdrop.

I’m just not sure a Saros is available. If we don’t go out and get Hellebuyck, we probably sign a FA to a 2 year deal or swap a lower pick out the door. In my calculation I’d prefer the 1st for one year of Helle and simply signing a G the following year or paying that outlier pick at that point. Getting Helle doesn’t leave us up sh*tt’s creek (good show) for next season: we can simply go bargain bin hunting for a back up at THAT point rather than now 

It’s probably not Helle or Saros, it’s probably Helle or another kick at a Comrie-ish can 

As soon as we start listing real names we’ll see that the risk in those guys even being good is greater than the risk of giving up a pick. Having mediocre goaltending next season is a risk much more alive and well than whatever the risks of losing one more pick in a very deep pool are

Edited June 3, 2023 by Thorny

[Marvin]

6 minutes ago, Thorny said:

I’m just not sure a Saros is available. If we don’t go out and get Hellebuyck, we probably sign a FA to a 2 year deal or swap a lower pick out the door. In my calculation I’d prefer the 1st for one year of Helle and simply signing a G the following year or paying that outlier pick at that point. Getting Helle doesn’t leave us up sh*tt’s creek (good show) for next season: we can simply go bargain bin hunting for a back up at THAT point rather than now 

It’s probably not Helle or Saros, it’s probably Helle or another kick at a Comrie-ish can 

As soon as we start listing real names we’ll see that the risk in those guys even being good is greater than the risk of giving up a pick. Having mediocre goaltending next season is a risk much more alive and well than whatever the risks of losing one more pick in a very deep pool are

FYI: there is debate over Saros's availability.  The majority of fans and pundits think not.  However, there is no question that he was available at the deadline.  The question is if he was only available because of Nashville's view of the playoff picture.  On the other hand, we know anyone with 1 or 2 years left on their contracts are available from Winnipeg and probably Calgary.

[thewookie1]

3 hours ago, Weave said:

And another thing, don’t be afraid to sign Helly to a long term deal.  If Levi pans out and becomes the future franchise goalie, Helly becomes a top 3 goalie WITH term that you probably get more for in a trade than you gave up to get him.

My max is 5 years and 7.5m

[dudacek]

From Seravalli:

John Gibson, the man who may have nixed a trade to the Sabres last summer, has apparently told the Ducks he’s now OK with being moved.

29 with 4 years left at $6.4. Excellent his first few seasons. Hasn’t performed to his rep for a few years now.

Edited June 3, 2023 by dudacek

[Archie Lee]

Maybe Adams was legitimately interested in Gibson.  It is, however, counter to everything Adams has said and done in building the team thus far.  He simply has shown no interest in taking on a veteran player with lots of term and a high AAV.  Indeed, he has said on multiple occasions that it is important that he and the organization know a player before they make that kind of a commitment to an individual.

My opinion is that the hockey world in general looks at the Sabres and assumes they will do what the hockey world in general does.  There is no veteran starting goalie in Buffalo and thus the Sabres will be in on any veteran goalie who might make them better in the short-term.  This is why the connection to Gibson is made and now to Hellebuyck as well, I think. 

There is little to no chance, from what Adams has said and done, that the Sabres are interested in acquiring Gibson (high AAV, lots of term, declining performance) or Hellebuyck (high acquisition cost, one year to UFA with an extension that would require a high AAV over a long-term while also blocking Levi). If Adams acquires either player it will mean he has had a 180 degree shift in his plan for building the roster. 

My recollection is that in the year-end interview Adams was asked about going young in net and his answer was that the organization's philosophy on this was to be "fearless".  All signs point to Levi/UPL as our goalies. 

Edited June 3, 2023 by Archie Lee