2023 Free Agent Frenzy (Non-Sabres)

[PerreaultForever]

35 minutes ago, dudacek said:

In the Sabres history, they’ve made a jump from mediocre to very good three times:

1975

1990

2006

Look at those teams, particularly their ages and where they came from. Not once was it sparked by a collection of flashy veteran outside additions. Every time it was sparked by a young, homegrown core that either arrived, or stepped into their fully formed selves at around the same time.

Apparently, it happens every 15 years or so.

75 is Danny Gare's arrival? 90 is Mogilny? Then Vanek I think. 

I mean you're not wrong that most star Sabres were drafted or homegrown and that is the way you build a successful franchise but the league's also changed quite a bit. There's far more player movement these days with caps and free agency rules and all that other complicated money math. Rosters turn over faster than ever before. Look how the Bruins keep hanging on and they don't draft anybody. 

You may not have been paying attention to what I was saying when Seattle came into the league (and I wouldn't blame you because I'm often just babbling nonsense) but I've been paying close attention to the differences in approach for team building and they jumped ahead of us by signing some big name FAs. Now I know the circumstances are not identical and there's lots of room for argument over that but they filled holes on their roster and turned over players in a very different way and it's working. 

Maybe 3 years from now we will have leaped ahead of them and maybe we stay there longer but that remains to be seen. 

Did we really need a "development year" or could we already have been a winner if we'd just added a proper goalie and a few skilled veterans. I think we could have been, and I also think if we keep patiently waiting rather than winning now we might miss our window entirely and thus never win. 

idk, I just hope Levi is brilliant and then all of this is moot. 

[JohnC]

10 hours ago, PerreaultForever said:

My guess is nobody comes up this year and they just have VO take Quinn's spot and then when Quinn comes back maybe they try to flip VO at the deadline.

Like some of you I'd still like to see a headline grabbing move that would give me confidence about next year but I think this is likely it. 

I don't want PR headline grabbing moves. I want intelligent and thoughtful moves that will allow this historically befuddled organization to have sustained success. Our GM is on the right track and moving in the right direction. What you are recommending is going to put this franchise back in the ditch filled with fetid water. You are Ying and I am Yang. 

[LTS]

7 hours ago, PerreaultForever said:

75 is Danny Gare's arrival? 90 is Mogilny? Then Vanek I think. 

I mean you're not wrong that most star Sabres were drafted or homegrown and that is the way you build a successful franchise but the league's also changed quite a bit. There's far more player movement these days with caps and free agency rules and all that other complicated money math. Rosters turn over faster than ever before. Look how the Bruins keep hanging on and they don't draft anybody. 

You may not have been paying attention to what I was saying when Seattle came into the league (and I wouldn't blame you because I'm often just babbling nonsense) but I've been paying close attention to the differences in approach for team building and they jumped ahead of us by signing some big name FAs. Now I know the circumstances are not identical and there's lots of room for argument over that but they filled holes on their roster and turned over players in a very different way and it's working. 

Maybe 3 years from now we will have leaped ahead of them and maybe we stay there longer but that remains to be seen. 

Did we really need a "development year" or could we already have been a winner if we'd just added a proper goalie and a few skilled veterans. I think we could have been, and I also think if we keep patiently waiting rather than winning now we might miss our window entirely and thus never win. 

idk, I just hope Levi is brilliant and then all of this is moot. 

But it's necessity for them because they had no prospect pool.  They've been in the league 2 years.  The question isn't where they are now, it's where will they be in a few more years if they keep drafting lower in the standings and their FA acquisitions age out.  Effectively both Seattle and Vegas entered the league as a team who were at their near peak.  They weren't obtaining young players that will sustain a roster.  You are looking at these teams in a very narrow window. Yes Vegas won this year, and winning cannot be understated, but they will poised for a drop unless they can trade away their top players.. who all have movement clauses.

Seattle has 4 players on their roster 25 or younger. 1 was drafted (Beniers), 1 expansion (C. Fleury), 1 waiver (Tolvanen), 1 UFA (Yamamoto). Their average age is 29.1. And they aren't drafting at the top to build a prospect pool.

I'll take what the Sabres are doing right now. It's tough with the years of losing to get to this point, Seattle and Vegas don't have that history.

[LGR4GM]

11 hours ago, PerreaultForever said:

My guess is nobody comes up this year and they just have VO take Quinn's spot and then when Quinn comes back maybe they try to flip VO at the deadline.

Like some of you I'd still like to see a headline grabbing move that would give me confidence about next year but I think this is likely it. 

You know what I could not give a rat fart about? Whether or not the media or you or anyone thinks we made some big "headline grabbing" move. 

I remember how when the Sabres signed top 10 scorer Tage Thompson to an insanely good deal, that should have grabbed headlines, but it was met with little laughs around the nhl because his shot% wasn't that high and he was a one year wonder. So again, I don't need a headline move, I need smart moves. 

[Thorny]

15 hours ago, Flashsabre said:

Because it is July 8th or you just want to complain?😀

Well, it is now 

[dudacek]

8 hours ago, PerreaultForever said:

75 is Danny Gare's arrival? 90 is Mogilny? Then Vanek I think. 

I mean you're not wrong that most star Sabres were drafted or homegrown and that is the way you build a successful franchise but the league's also changed quite a bit. There's far more player movement these days with caps and free agency rules and all that other complicated money math. Rosters turn over faster than ever before. Look how the Bruins keep hanging on and they don't draft anybody. 

You may not have been paying attention to what I was saying when Seattle came into the league (and I wouldn't blame you because I'm often just babbling nonsense) but I've been paying close attention to the differences in approach for team building and they jumped ahead of us by signing some big name FAs. Now I know the circumstances are not identical and there's lots of room for argument over that but they filled holes on their roster and turned over players in a very different way and it's working. 

Maybe 3 years from now we will have leaped ahead of them and maybe we stay there longer but that remains to be seen. 

Did we really need a "development year" or could we already have been a winner if we'd just added a proper goalie and a few skilled veterans. I think we could have been, and I also think if we keep patiently waiting rather than winning now we might miss our window entirely and thus never win. 

idk, I just hope Levi is brilliant and then all of this is moot. 

Not sure if I made my point:

The 74 Sabres already had the Connection, Luce, Rammer, Schoeny, Korab and nearly everyone else who we remember as the core of a great team and they still missed the playoffs. 

It wasn’t additions that put them over the top, it was experience.

Last year’s Sabres team was force-fed that experience. Is it so unrealistic to see them make a similar leap?

Edited July 8, 2023 by dudacek

[Thorny]

24 minutes ago, dudacek said:

Not sure if I made my point:

The 74 Sabres already had the Connection, Luce, Rammer, Schoeny, Korab and nearly everyone else who we remember as the core of a great team and they still missed the playoffs. 

It wasn’t additions that put them over the top, it was experience.

Last year’s Sabres team was force-fed that experience. Is it so unrealistic to see them make a similar leap?

It’s not unrealistic. It’s very possible. The conflation arises because as soon as someone advocates for a slightly less overwhelmingly conservative approach, to perhaps increase that likelihood, it’s taken as a statement of a desire to 180 on Adams’ plan and betray every bit of logic that informs it. Merely suggest the idea of a singular, more aggressive move with an eye on winning specifically this coming season and John will consider your position as one that wants to make numerous “expedient” short sighted moves to the tune of effectively changing course entirely. 

It doesn’t need to be so stringently black and white, and so needlessly absolute: It seems we are being divided by posts like his into 2 camps: the “team Adams”, or “team Murray” - if you like the idea of a singular win now trade where the future of the pool is not compromised at all. Team Adams seems to take even the suggestion of such as a philosophical breaking point 

It’s actually possible to think we COULD make the playoffs next year doing little, yet WANT to make a future move with an eye for enhancing those chances, and yet STILL prioritize the fundamentals of the plan, overall. Ie, using a little future currency is totally ok because we are in a position to do so, a position of abundance 

Maybe Adams simply references a hard-line chart for every single transaction in perpetuity and calls it a day, but much more realistically the parameters for making decisions change depending on the context and timing. Evaluations change. Fluidity is a thing. Teams at different points in their competitive cycle behave in different ways: a good debate is where abouts in that cycle we are. The idea that Adams needs to be a robot isn’t, really. 

Edited July 8, 2023 by Thorny

[thewookie1]

To be honest I don't think Adams is some sort of miser with assets and would like to make a move or two to put his team in a better situation. The issue is that teams aren't playing nice and as such we're trapped in an endless holding pattern. Think the Chychrun situation on a wider degree. We know of at least two solid trade strategies that were struck down by external pressure, Chychrun's uneven demands & Murray's NTC as well as a likely rumored acquisition attempt of Gibson who like Murray blocked the offer. That most certainly shows a degree of aggression to improve the team. Greenway was supposedly acquired at a slightly higher price than initially offered by the team. This gives me a sense that many teams aren't discussing in good faith over value. If Hellebuyck is worth a 1st and they decline our offer of a 1st while insisting on Kulich/Savoie or even Benson now you end up in a holding pattern not due to a lack of effort but an insistence on prospects which Adams has no desire to move. Essentially imagine buying something for $65 and you go to the register with 3 $20's and a $5 and although its completely correct value. The cashier wants a $50 and a $20. So they are both demanding a different asset and an additional $5 for "friendliness" 

That is what I theorize is going on.

[dudacek]

I’d say more of a spectrum than camps, but that’s nitpicking; I’m in agreement.

Most of Sabrespace would like another good defenceman, wants a goalie, wants to hoard our pool as much as possible and likes the direction we’re headed.

The devil (and much of our conversation) is in the details.

28 minutes ago, Thorny said:

It’s not unrealistic. It’s very possible. The conflation arises because as soon as someone advocates for a slightly less overwhelmingly conservative approach, to perhaps increase that likelihood, it’s taken as a statement of a desire to 180 on Adams’ plan and betray every bit of logic that informs it. Merely suggest the idea of a singular, more aggressive move with an eye on winning specifically this coming season and John will consider your position as one that wants to make numerous “expedient” short sighted moves to the tune of effectively changing course entirely. 

It doesn’t need to be so stringently black and white, and so needlessly absolute: It seems we are being divided by posts like his into 2 camps: the “team Adams”, or “team Murray” - if you like the idea of a singular win now trade where the future of the pool is not compromised at all. Team Adams seems to take even the suggestion of such as a philosophical breaking point 

It’s actually possible to think we COULD make the playoffs next year doing little, yet WANT to make a future move with an eye for enhancing those chances, and yet STILL prioritize the fundamentals of the plan, overall. Ie, using a little future currency is totally ok because we are in a position to do so, a position of abundance 

Maybe Adams simply references a hard-line chart for every single transaction in perpetuity and calls it a day, but much more realistically the parameters for making decisions change depending on the context and timing. Evaluations change. Fluidity is a thing. Teams at different points in their competitive cycle behave in different ways: a good debate is where abouts in that cycle we are. The idea that Adams needs to be a robot isn’t, really. 

 

[Thorny]

11 minutes ago, dudacek said:

I’d say more of a spectrum than camps, but that’s nitpicking; I’m in agreement.

Most of Sabrespace would like another good defenceman, wants a goalie, wants to hoard our pool as much as possible and likes the direction we’re headed.

The devil (and much of our conversation) is in the details.

 

My point was that it IS a spectrum and not camps. But the suggestion of merely a singular move with an eye primary on winning in the coming season often, nonetheless, gets you lumped into a camp, that’s what I was saying. It’s a spectrum but there are those on the extremities.

Also, you mean *avoid* hoarding the pool as much as possible, no? 

Edited July 8, 2023 by Thorny

[Taro T]

1 hour ago, dudacek said:

Not sure if I made my point:

The 74 Sabres already had the Connection, Luce, Rammer, Schoeny, Korab and nearly everyone else who we remember as the core of a great team and they still missed the playoffs. 

It wasn’t additions that put them over the top, it was experience.

Last year’s Sabres team was force-fed that experience. Is it so unrealistic to see them make a similar leap?

Experience was a part of it.  Staying healthy was another part of it.

'73-'74 was doomed by injuries, mediocre goaltending, and inexperience.  2 of those were improved the next season.

[Thorny]

Just now, Taro T said:

Experience was a part of it.  Staying healthy was another part of it.

'73-'74 was doomed by injuries, mediocre goaltending, and inexperience.  2 of those were improved the next season.

We were so healthy last year league relative (for a change), I’m really hoping that’s somehow do to our advancements in training they said they’d look into: a regression to the mean could be difficult 

[dudacek]

9 minutes ago, Thorny said:

My point was that it IS a spectrum and not camps. But the suggestion of merely a singular move with an eye primary on winning in the coming season often, nonetheless, gets you lumped into a camp, that’s what I was saying. It’s a spectrum but there are those on the extremities.

Also, you mean *avoid* hoarding the pool as much as possible, no? 

No, I meant hoarding. As in most of us want Benson, Savoie etc to become the stars we imagine they will become right here in Buffalo and are reluctant to let any of them go.

Most of us also realize they all can’t be stars and they are logically an organizational strength that should be used to shore up organizational weaknesses. The spectrum comes from who and how many we are willing to sacrifice, and to get what.

[Taro T]

1 minute ago, Thorny said:

We were so healthy last year league relative (for a change), I’m really hoping that’s somehow do to our advancements in training they said they’d look into: a regression to the mean could be difficult 

Personally expect the healthiness was due to a few reasons besides luck which if correct would mean they should stay relatively healthy again this year.

Those include: 1. strategic play - e.g. they don't go as out of their way to block shots as other teams do and a significant portion of their injuries came from blocking shots: Lyubushkin, Samuelsson, and Tuch at a minimum missed time with blocked shot injuries;

2. Improved training and recovery methods - those should be sustainable;

3. Youth - except for extremely unlucky events (Quinn's achilles injury) young guys tend to have way fewer soft tissue injuries than older guys do because their tendons and ligaments etc are more supple than they'll be when they're hitting 30 and this team will once again be one of the youngest in the league.

Also, have not looked at the overall injury #'s from last year, but don't believe they were significantly healthier than other teams in goal and on D but they absolutely were crazily healthy at F last year.  While (even taking Quinn out of the conversation) don't expect they'll stay that healthy again up front; they very easily could stay as healthy or healthier in net and on D.

[Thorny]

15 minutes ago, dudacek said:

No, I meant hoarding. As in most of us want Benson, Savoie etc to become the stars we imagine they will become right here in Buffalo and are reluctant to let any of them go.

Most of us also realize they all can’t be stars and they are logically an organizational strength that should be used to shore up organizational weaknesses. The spectrum comes from who and how many we are willing to sacrifice, and to get what.

Oh I thought you meant hoarding for trade 

Must have been thinking of “raid” 

[Doohickie]

11 hours ago, dudacek said:

In the Sabres history, they’ve made a jump from mediocre to very good three times:

1975

1990

2006

Look at those teams, particularly their ages and where they came from. Not once was it sparked by a collection of flashy veteran outside additions. Every time it was sparked by a young, homegrown core that either arrived, or stepped into their fully formed selves at around the same time.

Apparently, it happens every 15 years or so.

I wish I could fake in a giraffe instead of the lion...

[Standing Room Smoking Cigs]

1 hour ago, Taro T said:

Personally expect the healthiness was due to a few reasons besides luck which if correct would mean they should stay relatively healthy again this year.

Those include: 1. strategic play - e.g. they don't go as out of their way to block shots as other teams do and a significant portion of their injuries came from blocking shots: Lyubushkin, Samuelsson, and Tuch at a minimum missed time with blocked shot injuries;

2. Improved training and recovery methods - those should be sustainable;

3. Youth - except for extremely unlucky events (Quinn's achilles injury) young guys tend to have way fewer soft tissue injuries than older guys do because their tendons and ligaments etc are more supple than they'll be when they're hitting 30 and this team will once again be one of the youngest in the league.

Also, have not looked at the overall injury #'s from last year, but don't believe they were significantly healthier than other teams in goal and on D but they absolutely were crazily healthy at F last year.  While (even taking Quinn out of the conversation) don't expect they'll stay that healthy again up front; they very easily could stay as healthy or healthier in net and on D.

Adams at this point is right to hoard prospects, better yet he is signing them, especially the Russians and setting a rotation of not just another guy(s) to fill the roster. After now what 12 years of missing the playoffs, I'm willing to stay the course for another year even if comes up short of playoffs. Adams is not long for the GM job, he'll be moved up to a Sabres Shanny job and Karmanos will be the next GM.... as it should for success going forward... We look at the all the prospects we have and are impatient to get to that next level... yet honestly.... the new front office installed is still "prospects" in terms of years with the Sabres in meaningful decision making jobs. The Sabres have mastered tanking... and well it was a great job... they're still trying to master a not a rebuild,.. but a new team without the benefit of a 2000's era expansion draft. This team will be good for a long time... They are plugging in the defensemen that will help the kids we have, and are right to assume UPL and Levi will mature and stop the the goaltending by 'Hey can you suit up, you look like a goaltender' we have had. Adams has never struck me as I want the credit kind of guy... he seems to really seem invested in building a special something that will last a long time. Also I think Adams is aware of the Detroit model (Jimmy D and Holland)  of 25 years of playoffs, 4 cups, you build, you accumulate... you trade after success and you become a destination for those who want a day with the cup... Whelp... I said my peace...I'll post again n about 3 months!!! (No I'm not Adams agent!!!)

[Sabres Fan in NS]

21 hours ago, Thorny said:

I liked him. Wouldn’t have minded him back as the 13th man 

Me too.  In the an(n)als of Sabre history he had one of the best names ever.

You will be missed Hiney-Stroka.

[PerreaultForever]

4 hours ago, JohnC said:

I don't want PR headline grabbing moves. I want intelligent and thoughtful moves that will allow this historically befuddled organization to have sustained success. Our GM is on the right track and moving in the right direction. What you are recommending is going to put this franchise back in the ditch filled with fetid water. You are Ying and I am Yang. 

Incorrect. Hugely incorrect in fact. You pick and choose from my comments to go to that extreme level and try to make me sound like Murray trading away all my picks and prospects for bad veterans and rentals. Utter nonsense. 

First, I already said when I was saying a trade like that (and they were just examples) would excite me, I was assuming it would include a signing/extension. Obviously (and I thought it would be obvious) I'm not trading a ton for a rental, that's silly. Sometimes people choose to dissect any little thing missing in a sentence and run with it even if it misses the idea entirely but that's the nature of the internet. I hope that's cleared up for you now. 

Now, as for back in the ditch, how? Explain. I'm advocating filling the holes and giving it a push forward as the moment is right and the time is now. You want to wait 3 more years for a prospect or pick to maybe be a star go for it. I think we already have a huge prospect pool, lots of draft capital and a decent young core already on the roster. When is the right time for you to move forward if not now?  How many flashy young wingers you think we can add to the roster? 

Point is, as I've said before, there's middle ground. Clifton's a nice add, but he's a little guy and on a good team really a bottom end fill in guy. A decent one, and I'm happy to add him (I advocated for it all year so clearly KA reads my posts 🙂 ) but let's just look at Pesce (as an example). He's an absolute rock as a higher end defensive partner. You get him, lock him up for 7-8 years and you have Power's perfect partner. Your top D is now Samuelsson-Dahlin, Power-Pesce. Wow! That competes with anybody and the D is in place as your cornerstone for a long time. Not bad right? But anyway, doesn't matter, they have a longer time line than me. I hope they don't blow it this time by being too slow and waiting too long. 

[PerreaultForever]

4 hours ago, LTS said:

I'll take what the Sabres are doing right now. It's tough with the years of losing to get to this point, Seattle and Vegas don't have that history.

No, they don't have that history. They are both establishing a history of winning and being a winner.  Both are different. I was only talking about Seattle though as their experience is different to Vegas. Seattle's initial roster wasn't very good. Most people said they'd suck and they were not very good first year, but they were not afraid to turn over that roster, make big moves in free agency and they turned into a winner fast. 

You also can't say they had any great advantage. They didn't get to flip an Eichel for 4 assets or a Reinhart or even a Risto. That's a lot of assets added to a team that also has a D with 2 first overall picks on it. imo they started way below us but they want to win now and have. We have a far less aggressive and far more patient approach now, and thus it takes longer. In the end we might be better, but it's a big maybe.

[PerreaultForever]

4 hours ago, LGR4GM said:

You know what I could not give a rat fart about? Whether or not the media or you or anyone thinks we made some big "headline grabbing" move. 

I remember how when the Sabres signed top 10 scorer Tage Thompson to an insanely good deal, that should have grabbed headlines, but it was met with little laughs around the nhl because his shot% wasn't that high and he was a one year wonder. So again, I don't need a headline move, I need smart moves. 

That was just a way of wording it and you know that. The headline move can also be a smart move. As an example, pairing Pesce with Power for close to the next decade would have been incredibly smart, would have made headlines AND we'd ALL be excited about it. 

[PerreaultForever]

3 hours ago, dudacek said:

Not sure if I made my point:

The 74 Sabres already had the Connection, Luce, Rammer, Schoeny, Korab and nearly everyone else who we remember as the core of a great team and they still missed the playoffs. 

It wasn’t additions that put them over the top, it was experience.

Last year’s Sabres team was force-fed that experience. Is it so unrealistic to see them make a similar leap?

Oh no, I got it, and experience will help some players. I agree. Cozens leap forward was a big reason we did as well as we did and the younger guys still have potential upside, but it won't come from Quinn this year and we're still looking at a gamble in goal. It can work, but it's just a maybe (maybe not). Korab was traded for and his pairing with Schoeny made them a force. Luce and Ramsey had chemistry but adding Gare made us have 2, not 1, solid lines and gave the checking unit a dangerous counter strike capability. Those were "holes" that needed filling.

I look at the whole roster and, although I think we are a little better, I see the same holes and weaknesses as this past season. The bottom end might even be worse as they are older/slower.

I also have confidence in Levi being a good (maybe great) goalie in 3 years. I do not have confidence in him being a great goalie right away. It's another maybe. Maybe not. 

[JohnC]

23 minutes ago, PerreaultForever said:

Incorrect. Hugely incorrect in fact. You pick and choose from my comments to go to that extreme level and try to make me sound like Murray trading away all my picks and prospects for bad veterans and rentals. Utter nonsense. 

First, I already said when I was saying a trade like that (and they were just examples) would excite me, I was assuming it would include a signing/extension. Obviously (and I thought it would be obvious) I'm not trading a ton for a rental, that's silly. Sometimes people choose to dissect any little thing missing in a sentence and run with it even if it misses the idea entirely but that's the nature of the internet. I hope that's cleared up for you now. 

Now, as for back in the ditch, how? Explain. I'm advocating filling the holes and giving it a push forward as the moment is right and the time is now. You want to wait 3 more years for a prospect or pick to maybe be a star go for it. I think we already have a huge prospect pool, lots of draft capital and a decent young core already on the roster. When is the right time for you to move forward if not now?  How many flashy young wingers you think we can add to the roster? 

Point is, as I've said before, there's middle ground. Clifton's a nice add, but he's a little guy and on a good team really a bottom end fill in guy. A decent one, and I'm happy to add him (I advocated for it all year so clearly KA reads my posts 🙂 ) but let's just look at Pesce (as an example). He's an absolute rock as a higher end defensive partner. You get him, lock him up for 7-8 years and you have Power's perfect partner. Your top D is now Samuelsson-Dahlin, Power-Pesce. Wow! That competes with anybody and the D is in place as your cornerstone for a long time. Not bad right? But anyway, doesn't matter, they have a longer time line than me. I hope they don't blow it this time by being too slow and waiting too long. 

I would absolutely wait on players such as Benson, Savoie, Kulich etc. That would be the smart and right thing to do. If you want sustainable success you have to draft wisely and put the right support system in place the talent in the system. And that has been done during the tenure of KA. When your strategy in roster building is working well, you don't change your course of action because you are impatient. 

[PerreaultForever]

13 minutes ago, JohnC said:

I would absolutely wait on players such as Benson, Savoie, Kulich etc. That would be the smart and right thing to do. If you want sustainable success you have to draft wisely and put the right support system in place the talent in the system. And that has been done during the tenure of KA. When your strategy in roster building is working well, you don't change your course of action because you are impatient. 

Sustainable success is built by good drafting. Nobody argue that so you don't need to keep saying it. 

So you wait on Kulich, one more year, and then an NHL development year and then..........

You wait on Savoie, 2 more years? Three?

Benson? 2 years as well if he's better? Maybe 3? 

You didn't answer my question. How many more years are you willing to wait?

[JohnC]

4 minutes ago, PerreaultForever said:

Sustainable success is built by good drafting. Nobody argue that so you don't need to keep saying it. 

So you wait on Kulich, one more year, and then an NHL development year and then..........

You wait on Savoie, 2 more years? Three?

Benson? 2 years as well if he's better? Maybe 3? 

You didn't answer my question. How many more years are you willing to wait?

With respect to the issue of waiting on talent my response is simply, yes. 

With respect to how many more years am I willing to wait: My response is that we are there right now, this upcoming season. This team that has mostly been assembled is a playoff team. (My opinion.) If this team doesn't make the playoffs, I will be deeply disappointed. We have gotten to this point because the GM acted smartly and patiently.