2023 NHL Summer Trade Thread

[dudacek]

29 minutes ago, PerreaultForever said:

I suppose that's because, aside from Levi, it's turnover around the edges and not the core. .

I’d agree with this.

Im of the opinion the core of Thompson Tuch Dahlin Power Cozens Levi doesn’t need to turn over, it just needs time.

[JohnC]

12 hours ago, PerreaultForever said:

I suppose that's because, aside from Levi, it's turnover around the edges and not the core. 

I think we are improved, I just don't think we've improved enough. It still all hinges on Levi.

The Sabres improved 16 pts from the previous season. The core for the most part is now established. And most of this core is young and expected to get better. Most of the changes that are being made upgrade the lower half of the defense and lines. It seems to me that if the Sabres continue on the same course it has been on for the past few years, the trajectory will continue to point upwards. 

You are correct that much is depending on the play of Levi. I'm comfortable in saying that he is a better option staffing the goalie position than what we had for much of last season. Is it a risk to depend on such a young player? Of course it is. If you want a guarantee, you are not going to get it. That's what sports are all about. 

Edited July 7, 2023 by JohnC

[Weave]

11 hours ago, dudacek said:

As it stands right now, these are the changes from last year’s opener:

• Jost Asplund
• Greenway Hinostroza
• Rousek (?) Bjork
• Clifton Bryson
• Johnson Fitzgerald
•  Levi Anderson
• Luukkonen Comrie

That’s 7 of 23 slots - a lot more of a turnover than what it feels like.

 

That is pretty much in line with the idea that hockey rosters turn over every 3 years.  7 of 23 is a 30% turnover.

[shrader]

4 minutes ago, Weave said:

That is pretty much in line with the idea that hockey rosters turn over every 3 years.  7 of 23 is a 30% turnover.

And only two of those guys didn't play at all for the team last year and three of the departed were already gone mid-season.  So it's a bit misleading. 

[dudacek]

21 minutes ago, shrader said:

And only two of those guys didn't play at all for the team last year and three of the departed were already gone mid-season.  So it's a bit misleading. 

Misleading in what sense?

Jost played 59 games for the Sabres last year. The other 6 "new" guys played 59 combined.

 

[shrader]

9 hours ago, dudacek said:

Misleading in what sense?

Jost played 59 games for the Sabres last year. The other 6 "new" guys played 59 combined.

 

I just don’t like looking at turnover from one opener to the next during the off-season. It starts happening within days so I hope people don’t view it as a “here’s what we did this summer”. 
 

Then there’s the guys on that opening roster who are only there due to injuries. And the new guys the following year who have been I. The system for years. I just don’t know exactly what picture is painted by this. 

[PerreaultForever]

14 hours ago, JohnC said:

The Sabres improved 16 pts from the previous season. The core for the most part is now established. And most of this core is young and expected to get better. Most of the changes that are being made upgrade the lower half of the defense and lines. It seems to me that if the Sabres continue on the same course it has been on for the past few years, the trajectory will continue to point upwards. 

We did improve by 16 points. A lot of that was because of Samuelsson becoming a regular higher end D man, Power added, Cozens leap forward. Trajectories however are not linear and the upward curves are not automatic. They can flatten or drop. Key injuries, lack of depth for those injuries, an off season for somebody, a regression, a young player who got better doesn't keep getting any better than that, opposition teams improving more than you, lots of possibilities. Going with the same team as the year before guarantees you nothing. 

The D should be a bit better (and deeper) but will that be enough. Especially as teams take notice and don't just think it'll be an easy night (and get caught napping). 

14 hours ago, JohnC said:

You are correct that much is depending on the play of Levi. I'm comfortable in saying that he is a better option staffing the goalie position than what we had for much of last season. Is it a risk to depend on such a young player? Of course it is. If you want a guarantee, you are not going to get it. That's what sports are all about. 

You're right about guarantees, but relying on a rookie is not what sports is all about. There are teams that make moves that give fans hope and confidence. They don't always pan out, they are not "guaranteed", but they get made and they often do work out. 

Right now we have hope that the trajectory continues, the rookie plays well, the small changes help, and prospects continue to develop and then maybe we are good enough to sniff at the playoffs and maybe if all goes well make the playoffs finally. It's a slim hope that separates the optimists from the pessimists and so forth. That debate will continue into the season  and get bigger if we have a slump or falter in any way. 

Now imagine if this team tomorrow traded picks and/or prospects (no roster players aside from the who cares like VO or Jokiharju) and landed Helleybuck in one deal and Pesce in another. If that happened, we wouldn't just be talking playoff possibilities, we'd be discussing how we're now better than the Leafs and are we good enough to win the division. Wouldn't you rather be having that discussion?

[sabresparaavida]

44 minutes ago, PerreaultForever said:

We did improve by 16 points. A lot of that was because of Samuelsson becoming a regular higher end D man, Power added, Cozens leap forward. Trajectories however are not linear and the upward curves are not automatic. They can flatten or drop. Key injuries, lack of depth for those injuries, an off season for somebody, a regression, a young player who got better doesn't keep getting any better than that, opposition teams improving more than you, lots of possibilities. Going with the same team as the year before guarantees you nothing. 

The D should be a bit better (and deeper) but will that be enough. Especially as teams take notice and don't just think it'll be an easy night (and get caught napping). 

You're right about guarantees, but relying on a rookie is not what sports is all about. There are teams that make moves that give fans hope and confidence. They don't always pan out, they are not "guaranteed", but they get made and they often do work out. 

Right now we have hope that the trajectory continues, the rookie plays well, the small changes help, and prospects continue to develop and then maybe we are good enough to sniff at the playoffs and maybe if all goes well make the playoffs finally. It's a slim hope that separates the optimists from the pessimists and so forth. That debate will continue into the season  and get bigger if we have a slump or falter in any way. 

Now imagine if this team tomorrow traded picks and/or prospects (no roster players aside from the who cares like VO or Jokiharju) and landed Helleybuck in one deal and Pesce in another. If that happened, we wouldn't just be talking playoff possibilities, we'd be discussing how we're now better than the Leafs and are we good enough to win the division. Wouldn't you rather be having that discussion?

While that obviously would be pretty cool, I think there’s more to it than that. With the additions of Pesce and Helle, that does make us a solid team, and potentially one that could compete for the division. However, Pesce and Hellebuyck are on 1 year contracts, and there are other things that we might be discussing in a year, such as: Did we waste significant assets for a one year shot at the cup when we weren’t ready yet? Or in the case we do resign them: How do we afford to pay Quinn/JJP next year? 
 

Adding Pesce and Helle would make us better next year, but even with them, we are not a top cup contender. Sure, it’s possible to win, but highly unlikely. The last time a team went from missing the playoffs to winning the cup in 1 year was 1994. Spending significant assets on them is not a smart decision when they will be gone after a year when they don’t put us over the top, or will cost too much against the cap and hurt the team in the future. 
 

 

[PerreaultForever]

23 minutes ago, sabresparaavida said:

While that obviously would be pretty cool, I think there’s more to it than that. With the additions of Pesce and Helle, that does make us a solid team, and potentially one that could compete for the division. However, Pesce and Hellebuyck are on 1 year contracts, and there are other things that we might be discussing in a year, such as: Did we waste significant assets for a one year shot at the cup when we weren’t ready yet? Or in the case we do resign them: How do we afford to pay Quinn/JJP next year? 
 

Adding Pesce and Helle would make us better next year, but even with them, we are not a top cup contender. Sure, it’s possible to win, but highly unlikely. The last time a team went from missing the playoffs to winning the cup in 1 year was 1994. Spending significant assets on them is not a smart decision when they will be gone after a year when they don’t put us over the top, or will cost too much against the cap and hurt the team in the future. 
 

 

I guess I should have added traded for and signed to extensions. That was what I was thinking. 

There is one thing here I feel a need to comment on and that's how much are you thinking we have to pay Quinn/Peterka? They haven't done much of anything yet. I see no cap problem. We currently have over 6 million left. We trade VO we have more than enough to cover both salaries. Next year we no longer have Johnson's money. The cap is projected to go up roughly 5 million. Kyle and Zemgus are gone. Worst case we ditch Casey and replace him with Kulich's rookie contract. I see no problem at all. 

[JohnC]

9 hours ago, PerreaultForever said:

We did improve by 16 points. A lot of that was because of Samuelsson becoming a regular higher end D man, Power added, Cozens leap forward. Trajectories however are not linear and the upward curves are not automatic. They can flatten or drop. Key injuries, lack of depth for those injuries, an off season for somebody, a regression, a young player who got better doesn't keep getting any better than that, opposition teams improving more than you, lots of possibilities. Going with the same team as the year before guarantees you nothing. 

The D should be a bit better (and deeper) but will that be enough. Especially as teams take notice and don't just think it'll be an easy night (and get caught napping). 

You're right about guarantees, but relying on a rookie is not what sports is all about. There are teams that make moves that give fans hope and confidence. They don't always pan out, they are not "guaranteed", but they get made and they often do work out. 

Right now we have hope that the trajectory continues, the rookie plays well, the small changes help, and prospects continue to develop and then maybe we are good enough to sniff at the playoffs and maybe if all goes well make the playoffs finally. It's a slim hope that separates the optimists from the pessimists and so forth. That debate will continue into the season  and get bigger if we have a slump or falter in any way. 

Now imagine if this team tomorrow traded picks and/or prospects (no roster players aside from the who cares like VO or Jokiharju) and landed Helleybuck in one deal and Pesce in another. If that happened, we wouldn't just be talking playoff possibilities, we'd be discussing how we're now better than the Leafs and are we good enough to win the division. Wouldn't you rather be having that discussion?

I'm more than happy that our GM didn't trade away picks and prospects for a top tier goalie such as Helly, a goalie who would be an UFA after one year. The Sabres used their first-round pick to draft, Benson, a highly regarded prospect. Yet, you and many others preferred to gratuitously deal it away for a one-year rental. That makes no sense to me. (It should be noted that not one team in the draft traded away their first-round pick for a player.)

I would love to have acquired Pesce. But I wouldn't have given up this year's first round pick for him. Our GM ended up acquiring Clifton and Johnson to add to the thin blueline. What did he give up? Nothing! I thought that was a nifty fallback move to get two contributing players in an area of weakness at reasonable contracts. 

As I pointed out in a prior post, the Sabres improved by 16 points from the prior season. This is a roster made up with a lot of young players. You don't think that in general the young players will get better? I do. So, what is your recommendation? It's not to continue doing what has worked but to change course and resort to making short-term, expedient deals that have proven not to work for this franchise. That makes absolutely no sense!

You and others have repeatedly stated that taking the expedient approach that you are recommending guarantees the franchise a playoff spot next season. That is not necessarily true. And if it were, it doesn't mean that if the GM continued on with the course he is on that this team wouldn't be a playoff team. 

Our GM has falsely been accused of taking a status-quo approach. That is not an accurate description on how he has operated. He dealt away our old core and in return he has gotten good value. He has made a few smaller deals such as acquiring Jost and Greenway to incrementally improve the roster. He recently added two defensemen on reasonable contracts, and gave up nothing. His drafting since he took over has been solid. My recommendation is to continue doing what he has been doing. Stay the course! 

[Turbo44]

9 hours ago, PerreaultForever said:

I guess I should have added traded for and signed to extensions. That was what I was thinking. 

There is one thing here I feel a need to comment on and that's how much are you thinking we have to pay Quinn/Peterka? They haven't done much of anything yet. I see no cap problem. We currently have over 6 million left. We trade VO we have more than enough to cover both salaries. Next year we no longer have Johnson's money. The cap is projected to go up roughly 5 million. Kyle and Zemgus are gone. Worst case we ditch Casey and replace him with Kulich's rookie contract. I see no problem at all. 

Is there a team that would trade for VO at this point and his 4.8m cap hit?? Thinking he’d have to be included in a bigger trade for a Pesce/Hellebuyck/Gibson type

[LGR4GM]

Last year everyone outside of Buffalo and a chunk of fans here, saw the Redwings sign all these ufas and Yzerman is Jesus and omg the Redwings are gonna be in the playoffs race etc... that didn't happen. Making moves to make moves or in the Wings case, because they literally have no one to fill them, doesn't just make you better. 

Power, Cozens, Dahlin, Peterka, and Krebs at the minimum will be better than last year because they've all grown a year through experience, are young, and are driven with skill. Levi is simply better than UPL. Clifton and E. Johnson are better than clague, Bryson, Fitzgerald and Pilut who all had to play multiple games for us. 

The Sabres are a better than last year. What that means in season, we will have to wait to see. 

[LGR4GM]

3 minutes ago, Turbo44 said:

Is there a team that would trade for VO at this point and his 4.8m cap hit?? Thinking he’d have to be included in a bigger trade for a Pesce/Hellebuyck/Gibson type

One of these things is not like the other, one of these things is a ***** goalie named Gibson who doesn't belong. 

[Eleven]

7 minutes ago, LGR4GM said:

One of these things is not like the other, one of these things is a ***** goalie named Gibson who doesn't belong. 

All things being equal including salary, would you flip Olofsson for Gibson straight up?  I.e., if Anaheim retained enough so that the Sabres were paying the 4.75 to Gibson instead of Olofsson?

I can see both sides of this one, so I'm just honestly looking for opinions here.

[Hank]

2 minutes ago, Eleven said:

All things being equal including salary, would you flip Olofsson for Gibson straight up?  I.e., if Anaheim retained enough so that the Sabres were paying the 4.75 to Gibson instead of Olofsson?

I can see both sides of this one, so I'm just honestly looking for opinions here.

No. But, I'm higher on 6K than most, I'd rather have him than Gibson. 

[LGR4GM]

8 minutes ago, Eleven said:

All things being equal including salary, would you flip Olofsson for Gibson straight up?  I.e., if Anaheim retained enough so that the Sabres were paying the 4.75 to Gibson instead of Olofsson?

I can see both sides of this one, so I'm just honestly looking for opinions here.

No. 

[JohnC]

15 minutes ago, Eleven said:

All things being equal including salary, would you flip Olofsson for Gibson straight up?  I.e., if Anaheim retained enough so that the Sabres were paying the 4.75 to Gibson instead of Olofsson?

I can see both sides of this one, so I'm just honestly looking for opinions here.

No. I would keep Olofsson and hope that he can play a more balanced game. Quinn getting hurt might give him an opportunity to play, even if it is on a lower line. The hope is that he regains his game and increases his value as an asset to be dealt. He may not be an all-around player but he still can shoot. That's a valuable trait that a lot of teams covet. 

[CTJoe]

3 minutes ago, JohnC said:

No. I would keep Olofsson and hope that he can play a more balanced game. Quinn getting hurt might give him an opportunity to play, even if it is on a lower line. The hope is that he regains his game and increases his value as an asset to be dealt. He may not be an all-around player but he still can shoot. That's a valuable trait that a lot of teams covet. 

Yes, Gibson is a top 15 NHL goalie, UPL never will be.  Gibson has been beaten down by a defense that makes the Sabres D look like the Bruins.  Gibson would be better than fine as Levi's tandem.  His team gave up more shots per game last year than any team in the history of hockey.  Hockey has been around a long time..... .899 save % last year seucked for him, by far his worst, but compare it to UPL's

I have no idea how anyone has faith in UPL progressing.  He has underacheived in every league he's played in except for the one year in Juniors. I have much more confidence in Comrie, if he can have a health year

 

[steveoath]

11 minutes ago, CTJoe said:

Gibson is a top 15 NHL goalie,

in what metric?

In games played last season he was top 15 amongst Goaltenders.

His save % was 41st. 

He was 100th in GAA.

source: https://www.quanthockey.com/nhl/seasons/nhl-goalies-stats.html

 

 

 

 

Edited July 8, 2023 by steveoath

[sabresparaavida]

10 minutes ago, CTJoe said:

Yes, Gibson is a top 15 NHL goalie, UPL never will be.  Gibson has been beaten down by a defense that makes the Sabres D look like the Bruins.  Gibson would be better than fine as Levi's tandem.  His team gave up more shots per game last year than any team in the history of hockey.  Hockey has been around a long time..... .899 save % last year seucked for him, by far his worst, but compare it to UPL's

I have no idea how anyone has faith in UPL progressing.  He has underacheived in every league he's played in except for the one year in Juniors. I have much more confidence in Comrie, if he can have a health year

 

This is a wild overstatement. Gibson’s best season in the past 4 years was .904, which is pretty damn close to .899. Certainly not “by far” his worst, when the 3 seasons prior he had been really close. 

[Taro T]

10 minutes ago, steveoath said:

in what metric?

In games played last season he was top 15 amongst Goaltenders.

His save % was 41st. 

He was 100th in GAA.

source: https://www.quanthockey.com/nhl/seasons/nhl-goalies-stats.html

 

Pretty sure salary.

[Thorny]

10 hours ago, PerreaultForever said:

I guess I should have added traded for and signed to extensions. That was what I was thinking. 

There is one thing here I feel a need to comment on and that's how much are you thinking we have to pay Quinn/Peterka? They haven't done much of anything yet. I see no cap problem. We currently have over 6 million left. We trade VO we have more than enough to cover both salaries. Next year we no longer have Johnson's money. The cap is projected to go up roughly 5 million. Kyle and Zemgus are gone. Worst case we ditch Casey and replace him with Kulich's rookie contract. I see no problem at all. 

Kyle and Zemgus will be gone? Based on what precedent? Hinostroza theory?  I suppose I’ll believe it when I see it. 

Also, I highly doubt we move Mittelstadt. He’s our 5th best forward 

Edited July 8, 2023 by Thorny

[dudacek]

11 minutes ago, Thorny said:

 

Also, I highly doubt we move Mittelstadt. He’s our 5th best forward 

No, he’s a third liner. Two guys with less ice time and way fewer points are our 2nd liners.

just ask the internet 🤷

[Thorny]

17 minutes ago, dudacek said:

No, he’s a third liner. Two guys with less ice time and way fewer points are our 2nd liners.

just ask the internet 🤷

I’m glad “third liner” is the lowest I ever went with for him, when it was getting nasty around here a couple seasons ago. He’s certainly proved me wrong but at least not to the extent where an egg will fry on my face.

He’s really good

Edited July 8, 2023 by Thorny

[dudacek]

3 minutes ago, Thorny said:

I’m glad “third liner” is the lowest I ever went with for him, when it was getting nasty around here a couple seasons ago. He’s certainly proved me wrong but at least not to the extent where an egg will fry on my face.

He’s really good

He wasn’t to start the year; plays frequently died on his stick as he skated himself into dead areas.

But by the end of the season he frequently looked like the WJC version of Casey, a puck hound with fantastic hands.

I hope the player we saw down the stretch is the player he can continue being. Teams with that guy as their 5th best forward are very, very good.