Next Season’s Big Challenge

[dudacek]

17 minutes ago, BullBuchanan said:

It's impossible to still be good offensively while being more defensively responsible and improving our ability to winning one goal games?

No it's not impossible at all. The Buffalo Sabres just accomplished it.

They were 3rd  offensively and 2nd defensively since Dec. 9. That's after being 10th offensively and 30th defensively the previous season.

They also improved from .516 to .566 in 1-goal games from last season to this.

Edited May 23 by dudacek

[BullBuchanan]

Just now, dudacek said:

No it's not impossible at all. The Buffalo Sabres just accomplished it.

They were 3rd  offensively and 2nd defensively since Dec. 9. That's after being 10th offensively and 30th defensively the previous season.

They also improved from .516 to .566 in 1-goal games.

Cool, so what I'm suggesting is to be better by using our strength on defense to shore up our weakness on defense. If we can do that without "gutting the defense", what's not to like?

[tom webster]

18 minutes ago, PerreaultForever said:

Well yes, there is risk, but he's the one guy who might be out there that you could take the risk on. I mean if Boston wants to trade us Swayman sure, look into it, but that isn't happening. No other top rated goalie is available. Maybe Helleybuck is. 

Is he worth seven years worth of risks? Maybe. If he helps win them a Cup he definitely is.

[dudacek]

12 minutes ago, BullBuchanan said:

Cool, so what I'm suggesting is to be better by using our strength on defense to shore up our weakness on defense. If we can do that without "gutting the defense", what's not to like?

 

If you can find a way to trade Bo Byram for Jaccob Slavin, be my guest.

I've been responding to your contention that our defence corps is a major weakness that must be addressed, when in fact it has been very successful. It's the identity of the team and the engine that has been driving its improvement.

Edited May 23 by dudacek

[BullBuchanan]

Just now, dudacek said:

 

If you can find a way to trade Bo Byram for Jaccob Slavin, be my guest.

I've been responding to your contention that our defence corps is a major weakness that must be addressed, when in fact its the identity of the team and the engine that has been driving its improvement.

Both things can be true. Their improvement helped us get to the playoffs, but they topped out, and the patterns they showed are the patterns that have been there for years. Clearly Kekalainen isn't as bullish on them as you are, because he tried to trade for Parayko, and you don't do that to have him be your #5.

I'm sitting there watching the games, calling out the gaps, and the announcers call them out a second later after the pass is completed. My GF stares at me not understanding what just happened.

I see Pasternark skating down the ice all alone and boom, there goes the pass for the breakaway. Not once, not twice. Every game. I see us over or under persue the puck in our own zone, either letting MTL cycle like it's a powerplay, or we send two guys after the puck while on of the most dangerous weapons on their team is parked in the slot. I see us pass from behind the net into the slot to a streaming opposing forward forcing our tendie to make a hero save. If he saves, which they did a lot, that inflates your stat, making you feel justified in your opinion, while the reality of watching the games completely destroys it.

It's great that they're better in aggregate, but until those things are fixed, we won't be a Stanley Cup team. Of course, the other option is to get a goalie so red hot or just straight up elite, that we don't get punished for undisciplined play and we just win every game 6-3.

If you want to go that route, I'm fully on board. I'm team Hellebuyck, and I actually think it's the easiest way to fix the problem.

[dudacek]

11 minutes ago, BullBuchanan said:

I see Pasternark skating down the ice all alone and boom, there goes the pass for the breakaway. Not once, not twice. Every game.

 

And I see Pastrnak -7 in 6 games as his 100-point team is sent packing. 🤷‍♂️

We did beat a Bruins team that plays exactly the style you're advocating. Montreal is in the final 4 playing exactly the style that scares you.

Four of our top 6 or 7 players are defencemen. I'd rather get better building on the strengths we have than trying to become something we're not.

[thewookie1]

1 hour ago, PerreaultForever said:

Well those are all valid points but I'd also say as inconsistent as he was, Florida doesn't win the cup without Bobrovski. Edmonton would have. Switch goalies and Edmonton would have. Would Helleybuck have stopped that shot UPL let in in OT and we'd be in Carolina? I have to think yes, that was a goal a top playoff goalie has to stop. 

As for the money, let me ask you this. If at the beginning of the season you could have traded Tuch for Helleybuck would you have done it? Obviously it's money in one place but you'd have to find a way. Find a way to shed Greenway and UPL or maybe trade Norris somewhere. With all the ELCs on this roster you'd have to think it's not that hard to get done. 

Anyway, it's not likely to happen. I suspect they will roll back the same guys and maybe even ship Levi out of town.

I'd say about 75% he makes that save. He had a rough year and has certainly given up some really ugly ones.

No I would not have traded Tuch for Hellebuyck. Tuch has been a God send for this team and while I expect for that to end now, he left us in a far better place than  what he joined. You want me to target Hellebuyck, give him to me for UPL, Greenway and Kesserling. It's a monetary wash and we can always "kneecap him" in 4 years if he falls off a cliff.  

[K-9]

1 hour ago, BullBuchanan said:

… It's great that they're better in aggregate, but until those things are fixed, we won't be a Stanley Cup team. Of course, the other option is to get a goalie so red hot or just straight up elite, that we don't get punished for undisciplined play and we just win every game 6-3. …

You’ve alluded to this need to score six goals to win every game a few times now. But the stats simply don’t support that.

In your earlier post that I initially responded to you said this:

Quote

“Find me that stats that prove we had a shutdown defense this year then. In the playoff games we lost this year, we would have needed to score: 5(BOS),2(BOS),6(MTL), 6(MTL), 7(MTL) 3(MTL).”

You only pointed out playoff games we lost. Why not point out the playoff games we won as well? And why not include the entire season’s body of work as well when qualifying how good or bad we were defensively?

[PromoTheRobot]

On 5/19/2026 at 12:04 PM, OverPowerYou said:

I disagree. We have the youth and the talent. Go all in 

IF you can get a difference maker. Are any available?

[Pimlach]

It will be  big challenge to get 109 points again.  

With Florida coming back into the fold the just getting a top 3 spot in the division will be hard to do, they will have to be healthy and stay committed over the long 84 game grind.  

-  Goaltending and overall team defense (GAA) should be tageted to improve upon.  

-  Power Play must improve. 

-  Due to salary cap constraints they may be relying on more youth next , that could be a factor.  

Edited May 23 by Pimlach

[PerreaultForever]

2 hours ago, tom webster said:

Is he worth seven years worth of risks? Maybe. If he helps win them a Cup he definitely is.

That would be the gamble you are taking. If you can keep the D roughly the same, top 6 based around the young guys plus everyone but Tuch, maybe a star goalie who steals a game here or there is just what it takes to flip a series or two.

[BullBuchanan]

1 hour ago, K-9 said:

You’ve alluded to this need to score six goals to win every game a few times now.

I never said that. You misunderstood, and that's concerning.
 

1 hour ago, K-9 said:

In your earlier post that I initially responded to you said this:

You only pointed out playoff games we lost. Why not point out the playoff games we won as well? And why not include the entire season’s body of work as well when qualifying how good or bad we were defensively?

Because the games we won didn't hold us back from getting to the next step. The games we lost did. In order for us to get better we need all the games we won + some of the games we lost. 

I did "include the entire season’s body of work as well when qualifying how good or bad we were defensively", but some folks wanted to throw that away and only talk about December 9th to April 17th, because those dates fit their argument better.

What is your point here? What do you think held us back from being a Stanley cup champion.

[PerreaultForever]

1 hour ago, thewookie1 said:

I'd say about 75% he makes that save. He had a rough year and has certainly given up some really ugly ones.

No I would not have traded Tuch for Hellebuyck. Tuch has been a God send for this team and while I expect for that to end now, he left us in a far better place than  what he joined. You want me to target Hellebuyck, give him to me for UPL, Greenway and Kesserling. It's a monetary wash and we can always "kneecap him" in 4 years if he falls off a cliff.  

Really? I'd have made that trade in a heartbeat and still would (if Tuch was signed) and I liked Tuch. 

You can't give up a pile of peripheral garbage for what you want. Every year fans do this. They gather up all the useless or not needed bits and think they could offer them up for something good. Never going to happen. There's only a few ways you get top talent. You trade top talent in a different position for it. Or you trade a bunch of picks and futures for it like Adams did for Eichel. Free agency is possible, but there's rarely anything top level there, it's over priced, and there's a bidding war, so you usually lose going after the big guns in that. 

[PerreaultForever]

58 minutes ago, Pimlach said:

It will be  big challenge to get 109 points again.  

With Florida coming back into the fold the just getting a top 3 spot in the division will be hard to do, they will have to be healthy and stay committed over the long 84 game grind.  

-  Goaltending and overall team defense (GAA) should be tageted to improve upon.  

-  Power Play must improve. 

-  Due to salary cap constraints they may be relying on more youth next , that could be a factor.  

PP definitely has to improve. That's a given . 

Now Florida should be better and Barkov is certainly a dominant player. But Bobrovsky is getting old (if he's even there). Marchand has had another round of surgeries so just how much is left in that tank? They have some issues so they aren't a lock to be back on top. It could go south again. Tampa could drop (finally). Ottawa and Detroit might still screw it up. Boston could easily fall. There's a lot of competition but no reason to think Sabres can't be in a similar spot to this year.

Look at Montreal. Young team, had a playoff loss and the next year won the division. Sabres should have learned a lot from this playoff. They should be that much better. They have continuity and stability in management. No reason to not think this is just the beginning. As I said after the series, unless management totally screws it up this team should be a cup winner sometime over the next 5-6 years if not sooner. 

[BullBuchanan]

2 hours ago, dudacek said:

And I see Pastrnak -7 in 6 games as his 100-point team is sent packing. 🤷‍♂️

We did beat a Bruins team that plays exactly the style you're advocating. Montreal is in the final 4 playing exactly the style that scares you.

Four of our top 6 or 7 players are defencemen. I'd rather get better building on the strengths we have than trying to become something we're not.

This is an irrelevant comparison. You can't just say a strategy is effective or ineffective because it resulted in a win or a loss. Sports isn't chess where everything is equal except the strategy and tactics. There are athletes involved.

We beat Boston because we played better than most of their players most of the time. McAvoy had a horrendous series. Pasternak was ineffective, Zadarov becaus e a liability for them as the series wore on. Swayman kept them in games. Overall our talent level was higher, which should have been obvious.

Montreal was a different story. Their talent level is much higher than ours. I don't think we have a player on our team that could play on their top line. Their top 6 as a whole unit is significantly better than ours as a result. Their goalie is very good and red hot. Their top 4 is at least in the same discussion as ours with them arguably having a talent advantage. 

I don't like "Building on strength" as a strategy to win a championship. It's a great strategy if what you care most about is being competitive, but it's really hard to get better at a thing you're already good at, because you quickly reach the point of diminishing returns.

I'm not even sure what your stance is beyond being against improving our defense. Does your path to us winning the cup involve us adding more goals to win games where the opponent drops 5 or 6 on us? Are you wanting to build for 7 game series where we steal one in OT? Genuinely asking.

Edited May 24 by BullBuchanan

[K-9]

29 minutes ago, BullBuchanan said:

I never said that. You misunderstood, and that's concerning.
 

Because the games we won didn't hold us back from getting to the next step. The games we lost did. In order for us to get better we need all the games we won + some of the games we lost. 

I did "include the entire season’s body of work as well when qualifying how good or bad we were defensively", but some folks wanted to throw that away and only talk about December 9th to April 17th, because those dates fit their argument better.

What is your point here? What do you think held us back from being a Stanley cup champion.

You’ve alluded to needing to score 6 or more goals to win a couple times. 

Your 2nd paragraph is cherry picking, thus my initial description of your post as “stats in a vacuum.”

If you did include the entire season’s body of work, then you should be able to admit that we were a good defensive team this season. Including the playoff games we won, but that you choose to ignore. Talk about fitting an argument better. 

My point is that the Sabres proved that they were a good defensive team this season. And every advanced stat bears that out. 

As to what held us back from beating Montreal, we could point to a dozen singular plays. We were the better team in the series, again, as the stats indicate, but couldn’t bury that one chance while the Habs did. Sometimes the better team doesn’t win. That’s hockey. 

 

[thewookie1]

2 hours ago, PerreaultForever said:

Really? I'd have made that trade in a heartbeat and still would (if Tuch was signed) and I liked Tuch. 

You can't give up a pile of peripheral garbage for what you want. Every year fans do this. They gather up all the useless or not needed bits and think they could offer them up for something good. Never going to happen. There's only a few ways you get top talent. You trade top talent in a different position for it. Or you trade a bunch of picks and futures for it like Adams did for Eichel. Free agency is possible, but there's rarely anything top level there, it's over priced, and there's a bidding war, so you usually lose going after the big guns in that. 

To me a goalie is important but not worth dumping major assets on to get in a trade as well as paying 10mil to employ. They are just too unpredictable to trust as an asset.

[dudacek]

2 hours ago, BullBuchanan said:

This is an irrelevant comparison. You can't just say a strategy is effective or ineffective because it resulted in a win or a loss. Sports isn't chess where everything is equal except the strategy and tactics. There are athletes involved.

We beat Boston because we played better than most of their players most of the time. McAvoy had a horrendous series. Pasternak was ineffective, Zadarov becaus e a liability for them as the series wore on. Swayman kept them in games. Overall our talent level was higher, which should have been obvious.

Montreal was a different story. Their talent level is much higher than ours. I don't think we have a player on our team that could play on their top line. Their top 6 as a whole unit is significantly better than ours as a result. Their goalie is very good and red hot. Their top 4 is at least in the same discussion as ours with them arguably having a talent advantage. 

I don't like "Building on strength" as a strategy to win a championship. It's a great strategy if what you care most about is being competitive, but it's really hard to get better at a thing you're already good at, because you quickly reach the point of diminishing returns.

I'm not even sure what your stance is beyond being against improving our defense. Does your path to us winning the cup involve us adding more goals to win games where the opponent drops 5 or 6 on us? Are you wanting to build for 7 game series where we steal one in OT? Genuinely asking.

To the bold: game 7, overtime. We must have played out of our minds to have hung in there with such a superior opponent.

I told you what my stance was already: pushing back or providing context to false or misleading statements, like

"The amount of money we spend on defense is insane, and we're not getting meaningful returns"

"Our defense left our goalies exposed constantly"

"Find me that stats that prove we had a shutdown defense this year then"

"where the gaps in our play are compared to other teams"

"Our defenseman get bullied in their own zone, and are routinely unable to clear effectively"

"It's impossible to still be good offensively while being more defensively responsible and improving our ability to winning one goal games?"

I have no problems with improving our defence (or our offence, our goaltending, or our transition game, or our special teams). I think the quality of our top 4 defenders is the strength of the team and changing its makeup is probably the last thing I'd address when it comes to improving our cup chances.

[PerreaultForever]

3 hours ago, thewookie1 said:

To me a goalie is important but not worth dumping major assets on to get in a trade as well as paying 10mil to employ. They are just too unpredictable to trust as an asset.

I think all players are unpredictable in their own way. I mean did you predict Tage would suck against Montreal or do a pirouette at the blue line trying to play D? It's just more noticeable when goalies do it. 

[thewookie1]

14 hours ago, PerreaultForever said:

I think all players are unpredictable in their own way. I mean did you predict Tage would suck against Montreal or do a pirouette at the blue line trying to play D? It's just more noticeable when goalies do it. 

I guess I’d add that skaters have more than one way to create value. You can assist if not scoring, you can hit if neither, you can play better defense. A goalie has one purpose alone. Win or lose

[PerreaultForever]

17 minutes ago, thewookie1 said:

I guess I’d add that skaters have more than one way to create value. You can assist if not scoring, you can hit if neither, you can play better defense. A goalie has one purpose alone. Win or lose

Well I think we are going to just have to agree to disagree on this one. My own view is build from the goalie out. A solid goalie can steal games, can cover up for mistakes forwards make, and can flip the result in a close game. It's just that his mistakes are the most visible. Boston for example would not have made the playoffs if not for Swayman (and Korpisalo sometimes too as he had some very good games) and McJesus would have a few cups if Edmonton had a good goalie. Toronto probably would have gotten past Boston many of those times they played if the goalies were reversed. 

If you look at the Sabres currently you'd have to say the biggest weakness is in net. It's only average at it's best. If you want to upgrade this team as is, you could use a goalie and a true 1C. 

Tuch, where a lot of these discussions start, is not essential. People say "but he's a 30 goal scorer". To which I'd say we did fine without Peterka, we will be fine without Tuch. Benson, Helenius and Östlund will all up their production next year if healthy and maybe Kulich too. Goal scoring should not be a problem. Signing Benson is essential. If you can lock up Byram for a decent number you do that too. If he wants too much you move him to Philly or somebody desperate for a mobile D and/or potential PP point guy. If you can get a 1C or a goalie upgrade by trading futures you do it. Then you can win now. 

I will not be surprised if they have Mrtka as a third pairing D but I would also not be surprised if he's 2-3 years away still. He's the only prospect I'm reluctant to move, but if you have to you have to. Trade all the draft picks. IDC. I'm tired of drafting for the future and waiting. 

[BullBuchanan]

On 5/23/2026 at 9:53 PM, dudacek said:

To the bold: game 7, overtime. We must have played out of our minds to have hung in there with such a superior opponent.

I told you what my stance was already: pushing back or providing context to false or misleading statements, like

"The amount of money we spend on defense is insane, and we're not getting meaningful returns"

"Our defense left our goalies exposed constantly"

"Find me that stats that prove we had a shutdown defense this year then"

"where the gaps in our play are compared to other teams"

"Our defenseman get bullied in their own zone, and are routinely unable to clear effectively"

"It's impossible to still be good offensively while being more defensively responsible and improving our ability to winning one goal games?"

I have no problems with improving our defence (or our offence, our goaltending, or our transition game, or our special teams). I think the quality of our top 4 defenders is the strength of the team and changing its makeup is probably the last thing I'd address when it comes to improving our cup chances.

I guess we just fundamentally disagree and no amount of evidence will change your mind.

[BullBuchanan]

On 5/23/2026 at 5:26 PM, K-9 said:

You’ve alluded to this need to score six goals to win every game a few times now. But the stats simply don’t support that.

 

On 5/23/2026 at 7:29 PM, K-9 said:

You’ve alluded to needing to score 6 or more goals to win a couple times. 

Did I "allude to needing to score 6 or more goals a couple of times" or "every time" ?

It's a fact, not opinion that two of our losses against Montreal would have required us to score 6 goals to win and one of them would have required 7 goals to win.

The only other possible option, is stopping the opponent from scoring so many goals, and as you and Dudacek have said, you believe our defense is the strongest part of our team, so improving there isn't really viable, leaving the other primary option to outscore the opponent. 

[K-9]

2 hours ago, BullBuchanan said:

 

Did I "allude to needing to score 6 or more goals a couple of times" or "every time" ?

It's a fact, not opinion that two of our losses against Montreal would have required us to score 6 goals to win and one of them would have required 7 goals to win.

The only other possible option, is stopping the opponent from scoring so many goals, and as you and Dudacek have said, you believe our defense is the strongest part of our team, so improving there isn't really viable, leaving the other primary option to outscore the opponent. 

Go back and read your own posts and you will see that you mentioned needing to score six or more goals to win games. Perhaps you were simply using hyperbole to emphasize your point about how poor our defense is. Fine. But does it really matter at this point? You think our defense isn’t good enough. Others disagree. Tims to move on. 

How many goals were required in our wins against Montreal? You like to point at the losses only, but that simply isn’t the whole picture. 

[BullBuchanan]

20 hours ago, K-9 said:

Go back and read your own posts and you will see that you mentioned needing to score six or more goals to win games. Perhaps you were simply using hyperbole to emphasize your point about how poor our defense is. Fine. But does it really matter at this point? You think our defense isn’t good enough. Others disagree. Tims to move on. 

How many goals were required in our wins against Montreal? You like to point at the losses only, but that simply isn’t the whole picture. 

This is my last post to you, because I can't stand repeating the same point over and over again.

In 3 of our 4 losses to Montreal we would have NEEDED 6 or 7 GOALS TO WIN.  If you want to win those games,  you have two options, score more goals than the opponent or prevent more goals. It seems like your solution is just to lose because you think the defense is elite already and it's not necessary to score more than the opponent.

It's like trying to debate a brick wall.