Roster Speculation Part XI...$teven $tamko$?? Pony up for PK?

[Chainshot]

Continuing to suck?

Putting their 2016 first rounder in play for a defenseman?

 

[Husko]

We could revisit the conversation about Sulzer's shooting percentage and how that made him super-awesome primo defense-guy.

Oh man... I don't think I remember that...

 

[Djp]

I don't see cap issues coming this teams way once Eichel and Muffin are off their ELC. Who is going to eat up our money?

Here is what I see in 2018 summer.....( the focus isn't who is playing nor on which lines)

2016 1st(ELC)-Eichel ($6M)-Fasching(BR)
ROR ($7M)-Reinhart ($5M)-Bailey ( BR)
AAA($5M)-Larsson ($3M)-Baptiste (BR)
The last 5 forwards salary= $8M

AAA= Girgensons or Kane on a 5 yr contract for $5M
ELC=$1M
BR=$2M

Forwards=9+14+10+8=$41M

Acquired LHD ($6M)-Risto ($6M)
McCabe ($2.7M)-Bogo. ($5.2M)
Guhle ( ELC)- Pysyk ( $3.1M)
7th Dman ($2M)

Lehner ($2.5 M--last contract yr before UFA)
Ullmark/Petersen ($1.5M)


Defense/goalie total =$30M

Total cost=$71M+ Hodgson buyout amount.

You could say you use 2016 1st on a LHD, then you look at acquiring a winger

I'm assuming Moulson retires...thus off the books and Ennis is traded.

In the 2019 offseason...Lehner is a UFA, high 2016 1st likely due 2nd contract.

Likely BR contracts end in 2020 and I think Bogosian is a UFA in 2020..

I see buffalo trading some stuff of for ELCs.

How are you going to fit in Stamkos??? Who gets sacrificed? Likely Reinhart.

By my back-of-the-envelope math, Buffalo can take on contracts for 2-3 years to get solid returns from teams looking to unload contracts. You mentioned Nash. Buffalo could take on players like that. Bickell from Chicago was mentioned on the trade board. One year of his contract is worth McNeill and a first. I take that deal.

I wonder what Minnesota would be willing to part with to take Pominville off their books? Some combo of Tuch, Scandella, Brodin? I think about taking Pominville back to get 1-2 of those players in a deal.

Pominville, Brodin, Tuch to Buffalo for Ennis, 2017 1st, 2016 2nd, prospects? Allows Minnesota to pay for Dumba from Brodin's contract, Ennis for Pominville saves them $1M. They get Backstrom off the books, feeing up enough room to make a run at Backes? Backes fits their age group.

My issue is eating Pominvilles contract if it has 3-4 full years left. That will hurt come 2019

Our wing depth is poor, so why is everyone inclined to trade Ennis? Hes one of our best wingers....

Our wing depth is young....not poor. Need to trade Ennis to transfer that salary spot to LD

All that being said I recognize that we probably need another forward, that Matthews and the Finns are by far the best assets - trade market included - available with a top 3 pick, and that Stamkos might represent the most "wins added" of any asset to change hands in the offseason, efficiency be damned (plus the long-term bonus of being the best UFA signing in Sabres/Pegula/Buffalo sports history).

My ideal offseason (with a top 3 pick) is:

• Draft a forward.
• Put the 17/18 firsts and non-core NHL youth on the table for every defenseman.
• Swing for the fences in UFA because Pegula/Murray are gonna whether I want to or not - Stamkos and Backes the obvious targets.
• Heavily churn whatever position we didn't fix with short term contract UFAs and other team's salary dumps - the Faynes and Wierciochs of the world.

Wins added also has yo factor in cap space taken by contract. Would you pay $10M for Stsmkos and he gets 35g or pay. $4.5 M on a Boedker and he scores 20-25 g.

I'm not overpaying for a UFA.

 

[Moskau]

Continuing to suck?

Yes. Can't see the 1st being put into play until the season is well underway.

 

[struckbyaparkedcar]

Putting their 2016 first rounder in play for a defenseman?

Oh. I like the field for an offer sheet or multi-1st trade. As I've said, I don't like that same field - nonsense PK Subban rumors excluded and we're ****ed there anyway because we're in market - in a trade for a top 3 pick. Except maybe Lidholm and even maybier Trouba. Laine and JPJ are going to be ****ing great, will do the stuff we need from our garbage-ass depth players from the jump, and should give us 1.5 seasons of Saad/Toffoli level production at absolute minimum for a negligible cap hit.

 

[struckbyaparkedcar]

Yes. Can't see the 1st being put into play until the season is well underway.

Would a team accept top 2-3 protection for firsts in 17 and 18?

 

[struckbyaparkedcar]

Full disclosure, a not-negligible part of my desire to draft one (or in some magical circumstance both) of the Finns is to see Risto play Mama Bear in the room and on the ice to the future of his national program.

 

[Chemical]

I understand everyone who says defense is a bigger concern, but you have to think about opportunity. Getting Stamkos without giving up any assets is a no-brainer. Sure, it would be ideal if he were a 26 yo UFA LHD but he's not.

The plan should be to sign him at (almost) all costs. The main concern is affording Eichel/Reinhart while filling out the rest of the roster. So, let's fast forward to the 2018 off season and see what it would look like using conservative/worst-case scenario estimations for each player.

First of all let's assume a $12AAV front-loaded deal for Stamkos just to make sure he signs.

Kane becomes hard to re-sign since he will be a UFA, so why not retain 50% on his last two years and try to get a young LHD who will be NHL ready soon from a contender. Possibly paired with Ennis and/or at the draft with a cap dump coming back. (Anaheim and Pittsburgh come to mind)

Same with Bogosian, move him to a contender looking for immediate blue line help. He will cost too much for a 3rd pairing guy when the ELCs are up so get some value now. Possibly a mega-deal with all 3 (Ennis, Kane) @ the draft for a LHD.

Assume we draft Chychrun.

Moulson is too hard to move. again, we are going worst-case scenario for cap space. So he is bought out/ moved to the minors costing 3.6mil in 2018.

Risto [email protected], Girgensons [email protected], Pysyk 4AAV, Foligno 2AAV, Larsson 2.5AAV, McCabe 2AAV

Eichel 10milAAV, Reinhart7mlAAV

O'Reilly(7.5) Stamkos(12) Reinhart(7)
Girgensons(3.5) Eichel(10) Fasching(1)
Foligno(2) Larsson(2.5) Bailey (1)
ELC & cheap vets for 4th line @3mil

Chychrun(1) Risto(6.5)
LHD acquired in trade (5) Pysyk (4)
McCabe(2) ELC player (1)

Moulson (3.6)

that's $72.6mil. in cap before goalies are taken into account. I just can't predict what Lehner or another goalie will demand this far out. So as you can see depending on how much the cap does or doesn't go up, it's feasaable even if Stamkos gets 12mil, eichel gets 10mil, and reinhart gets 7mil which are very high estimates. Also, guys like Foligno/Larsson can be swapped with cheaper contracts if needed.

 

[Eram]

I understand everyone who says defense is a bigger concern, but you have to think about opportunity. Getting Stamkos without giving up any assets is a no-brainer. Sure, it would be ideal if he were a 26 yo UFA LHD but he's not.

O'Reilly(7.5) Stamkos(12) Reinhart(7)
Girgensons(3.5) Eichel(10) Fasching(1)
Foligno(2) Larsson(2.5) Bailey (1)
ELC & cheap vets for 4th line @3mil

Chychrun(1) Risto(6.5)
LHD acquired in trade (5) Pysyk (4)
McCabe(2) ELC player (1)

Moulson (3.6)

that's $72.6mil. in cap before goalies are taken into account.

Another point - it's hard to predict cap trouble 3 years down the road when the cap is still TBD. It looks like the Canadian dollar is finally starting to rebound. Since the cap started 11 years ago, the average increase has been $2.9M/year. So by 2018, it's not crazy to think the cap could be $80M+. Using the example above there's ample room for both Ennis & Lehner.

 

[La Cosa Nostra]

There is almost zero chance that the cap doesn't increase by 2018-2019. And to me, there is only one player on the Sabres who is a must retain at all costs player and that is Eichel. So any one worrying about how we could ever add Stamkos and still be able to extend Jack and Sam.. Well if it came down to it, I would move a Sam Reinhart if the return was a legit #1 LHD 24 or under. And before anyone skewers me because I dared to mention I would trade Reinhart, let me preface that with I would prefer to extend him not trade him. But if he is looking unsignable and we still have a pressing need at LD, then what other way besides a draft miracle is there to fill that hole then to trade a highly valuable C/RW for a highly valuable #1 LHD?

And another thing, with regards to Reinharts new deal, I really don't see him making mega dollars after his ELC. Even if he signs long term. Even with his 18 goals he is still under a .5 PPG. And I don't see him ever being a PPG player. How many 60-65 point players are making $7+ mil a season?! Yes this is taking into account his all around game, two way play etc I see Reinhart being able to be extended long term at $5 mil a year, not $6-7 mil.

And a funny point about people trying to discredit Stamkos and his "decline", what Stamkos is currently doing (34-28-62 projected) is right about where Reinhart likely peaks at. Both are versatile to play W and Center and Stamkos is only 5 years older. So let's not make it seem like there is some major age gap. It's the same exact age gap as RoR and Eichel. And the best part about Stamkos is HE IS FREE. He costs no assets whatsoever besides cap. Ok, I know since we are Buffalo fans and spent most of our lives belittling free agency and preferring the "trade route" just because we couldn't sign anyone with no $/ no one really would want to sign here back then anyway but there is actually a somewhat decent chance we could actually somehow sign a 2x 50 goal scorer. The guy who finished 2nd in goals last year. Stamkos will rebound next year to 40+ goals book it. It's funny, Stammer dips a little and people just say he doesn't have MSL or he is regressing even though every single one of his teammates except Kucherov have done the same thing.... It's coaching / the team itself.

Long story short, yes this team can add Stamkos at 11-12 mil per and still easily keep Eichel and Reinhart. If we somehow can't, then you trade Reinhart for an elite LHD and since you added an elite goal scorer it won't hurt as much. And put it this way, who honestly thinks Reinhart over the next 5-6 years will be better then Stamkos? The only way it is close is if Stamkos current play isn't a mirage and he really is regressing to "just" a 35 goal scorer. Because if Stammer does rebound and start popping in 45 goals and 80 points a year then he will blow Reinhart away.


And one last thing, before Stamkos is called a "luxury" or unneeded, did anyone else see the top 6 we put out? Yikes. And that was only due to 2 injuries. And we are losing McGinn. And we have no one in the pipeline who projects as a surefire top 6 forward. Without RoR our top 6 was trash. Adding a Stamkos and/or a Matthews/Finn/Tkachuk would make sure that never happens again even with 1-2 top 6 injuries.

Sabres = ZERO Art Ross/Rocket Richard winners in franchise history. (And this includes handing out the Richard since 1970). A 2x Rocket Richard winning 26 year old superstar with 300+ career goal is a luxury

 

[Chainshot]

Future rosters aside for a moment, ROR's injury does give Bylsma the opportunity to give Larsson the hard checking assignments for a month to see how he does. It could be a blessing in disguise if Johan can get it done.

 

[Chemical]

There is almost zero chance that the cap doesn't increase by 2018-2019. And to me, there is only one player on the Sabres who is a must retain at all costs player and that is Eichel. So any one worrying about how we could ever add Stamkos and still be able to extend Jack and Sam.. Well if it came down to it, I would move a Sam Reinhart if the return was a legit #1 LHD 24 or under. And before anyone skewers me because I dared to mention I would trade Reinhart, let me preface that with I would prefer to extend him not trade him. But if he is looking unsignable and we still have a pressing need at LD, then what other way besides a draft miracle is there to fill that hole then to trade a highly valuable C/RW for a highly valuable #1 LHD?

And another thing, with regards to Reinharts new deal, I really don't see him making mega dollars after his ELC. Even if he signs long term. Even with his 18 goals he is still under a .5 PPG. And I don't see him ever being a PPG player. How many 60-65 point players are making $7+ mil a season?! Yes this is taking into account his all around game, two way play etc I see Reinhart being able to be extended long term at $5 mil a year, not $6-7 mil.

And a funny point about people trying to discredit Stamkos and his "decline", what Stamkos is currently doing (34-28-62 projected) is right about where Reinhart likely peaks at. Both are versatile to play W and Center and Stamkos is only 5 years older. So let's not make it seem like there is some major age gap. It's the same exact age gap as RoR and Eichel. And the best part about Stamkos is HE IS FREE. He costs no assets whatsoever besides cap. Ok, I know since we are Buffalo fans and spent most of our lives belittling free agency and preferring the "trade route" just because we couldn't sign anyone with no $/ no one really would want to sign here back then anyway but there is actually a somewhat decent chance we could actually somehow sign a 2x 50 goal scorer. The guy who finished 2nd in goals last year. Stamkos will rebound next year to 40+ goals book it. It's funny, Stammer dips a little and people just say he doesn't have MSL or he is regressing even though every single one of his teammates except Kucherov have done the same thing.... It's coaching / the team itself.

Long story short, yes this team can add Stamkos at 11-12 mil per and still easily keep Eichel and Reinhart. If we somehow can't, then you trade Reinhart for an elite LHD and since you added an elite goal scorer it won't hurt as much. And put it this way, who honestly thinks Reinhart over the next 5-6 years will be better then Stamkos? The only way it is close is if Stamkos current play isn't a mirage and he really is regressing to "just" a 35 goal scorer. Because if Stammer does rebound and start popping in 45 goals and 80 points a year then he will blow Reinhart away.


And one last thing, before Stamkos is called a "luxury" or unneeded, did anyone else see the top 6 we put out? Yikes. And that was only due to 2 injuries. And we are losing McGinn. And we have no one in the pipeline who projects as a surefire top 6 forward. Without RoR our top 6 was trash. Adding a Stamkos and/or a Matthews/Finn/Tkachuk would make sure that never happens again even with 1-2 top 6 injuries.

Sabres = ZERO Art Ross/Rocket Richard winners in franchise history. (And this includes handing out the Richard since 1970). A 2x Rocket Richard winning 26 year old superstar with 300+ career goal is a luxury

I agree with all of this.

The 7mil estimation was my "worst case scenario" and even then it looks very possible to keep Stam/Eich/Reinhart.

As for trading Reinhart for LHD if it comes down to it. Hopefully we won't have to but to frame it another way it's like trading Reinhart for Stamkos AND the young LHD.

 

[Paxon]

Future rosters aside for a moment, ROR's injury does give Bylsma the opportunity to give Larsson the hard checking assignments for a month to see how he does. It could be a blessing in disguise if Johan can get it done.

There are definitely some positives to look at the bright side on. Johan gets more defensive responsibility, Eichel gets more overall responsibility, Reinhart plays center, opportunities open up on the PP and PK units, someone else will have to be "the guy" for important draws, and, not to start a whole thing with anyone who'd disagree, it will almost certainly keep us from jumping up the standings. It still sucks, but so long as there's a full recovery it might have be a beneficial turn of events. Bylsma was never going to stop riding ROR hard in every situation.

 

[SamsonReinFart]

I love the idea of offersheeting Olli Maata this off-season. Although I have no idea where Pittsburgh cap situation is at. Anyone know what we'd likely be giving up in compensation?

And yeah I know everyone worries about someone doing it to our young players but it's worth it to me. I like Maata a lot and I think he'd compliment ristolainen well.

Teams don't take advantage of offer sheets enough imo.

 

[Chainshot]

There are definitely some positives to look at the bright side on. Johan gets more defensive responsibility, Eichel gets more overall responsibility, Reinhart plays center, opportunities open up on the PP and PK units, someone else will have to be "the guy" for important draws, and, not to start a whole thing with anyone who'd disagree, it will almost certainly keep us from jumping up the standings. It still sucks, but so long as there's a full recovery it might have be a beneficial turn of events. Bylsma was never going to stop riding ROR hard in every situation.

That's the silver lining in this -- it forces Bylsma's hand and stretches the current roster in a situation where they aren't going to be hurt by it in the standings. Reinhart certainly sounds like he wants to be mini-ROR, it'll be interesting to see what he does with the opportunity.

 

[Chemical]

I love the idea of offersheeting Olli Maata this off-season. Although I have no idea where Pittsburgh cap situation is at. Anyone know what we'd likely be giving up in compensation?

And yeah I know everyone worries about someone doing it to our young players but it's worth it to me. I like Maata a lot and I think he'd compliment ristolainen well.

Teams don't take advantage of offer sheets enough imo.

I think up to 5.3mil. is a 2017 1st and 3rd for compensation.

 

[Zman5778]

Decided to do a little looking over the past 5 years. These are regular season stats:

14/15 - Chicago -- 16th in GF. 1st in GA. +40 diff.
13/14 -- LAK -- 25th in GF. 1st in GA. +32 diff
12/13 -- Chicago -- 2nd in GF. 1st in GA. +53 diff (48 GP)
11/12 -- LAK -- 29th in GF. 2nd in GA. +15 diff
10/11 - Boston -- 8th in GF. 3rd in GA. +51 diff

Buffalo currently: 25th in GF. 20th in GA. -22 diff.

Recent history suggests that you win Cups by defending your goal first and foremost. You can get by with a mediocre offense.

We're a LOT further from icing an elite team defensively than we are from icing a mediocre offense. Heck, if our 5v5 offensive play improves, we're already there.

This is why I'm so against signing Stamkos to a big-money deal. Right now, in this NHL, defense is MUCH more important than offense when it comes to winning Cups.

Signing Stamkos probably makes us a great regular season team. I want Big Shiny. We need defense to get there. Can't have Stamkos AND great D at this point.

 

[Jame]

Please type it all again

 

[Jame]

Decided to do a little looking over the past 5 years. These are regular season stats:

14/15 - Chicago -- 16th in GF. 1st in GA. +40 diff.
13/14 -- LAK -- 25th in GF. 1st in GA. +32 diff
12/13 -- Chicago -- 2nd in GF. 1st in GA. +53 diff (48 GP)
11/12 -- LAK -- 29th in GF. 2nd in GA. +15 diff
10/11 - Boston -- 8th in GF. 3rd in GA. +51 diff

Buffalo currently: 25th in GF. 20th in GA. -22 diff.

Recent history suggests that you win Cups by defending your goal first and foremost. You can get by with a mediocre offense.

We're a LOT further from icing an elite team defensively than we are from icing a mediocre offense. Heck, if our 5v5 offensive play improves, we're already there.

This is why I'm so against signing Stamkos to a big-money deal. Right now, in this NHL, defense is MUCH more important than offense when it comes to winning Cups.

Signing Stamkos probably makes us a great regular season team. I want Big Shiny. We need defense to get there. Can't have Stamkos AND great D at this point.

Exactly. The goal is a cup not an art ross

 

[Chemical]

Decided to do a little looking over the past 5 years. These are regular season stats:

14/15 - Chicago -- 16th in GF. 1st in GA. +40 diff.
13/14 -- LAK -- 25th in GF. 1st in GA. +32 diff
12/13 -- Chicago -- 2nd in GF. 1st in GA. +53 diff (48 GP)
11/12 -- LAK -- 29th in GF. 2nd in GA. +15 diff
10/11 - Boston -- 8th in GF. 3rd in GA. +51 diff

Buffalo currently: 25th in GF. 20th in GA. -22 diff.

Recent history suggests that you win Cups by defending your goal first and foremost. You can get by with a mediocre offense.

We're a LOT further from icing an elite team defensively than we are from icing a mediocre offense. Heck, if our 5v5 offensive play improves, we're already there.

This is why I'm so against signing Stamkos to a big-money deal. Right now, in this NHL, defense is MUCH more important than offense when it comes to winning Cups.

Signing Stamkos probably makes us a great regular season team. I want Big Shiny. We need defense to get there. Can't have Stamkos AND great D at this point.

Why not? Those in support of signing Stamkos have shown their work. Where's yours?

We already have Risto, just need to add a couple more quality LHD. They can come from the 2016 draft (very likely), an offer sheet to Lindholm/Maata, a trade, or some combination of the three.

Or as stated above in the worst-case scenario where we can't afford Reinhart bc Stamkos is eatting too much cap, flip him for a defenseman.

 

[Moskau]

Would a team accept top 2-3 protection for firsts in 17 and 18?

I was talking offer sheets though which happen after this years draft. Which means to offer sheet anyone decent Buffalo is giving them their 2017 1st non protected. Not sure TM is willing to do that if he watches a team like Edmonton or Calgary walk up to the podium and select top 3 this year.

 

[ende]

How is Stamkos a LUXURY?!?

Are we so well off in goal scoring forwards that Stamkos is considered a luxury, a unneeded piece? Is this a serious train of thought? This franchise finished dead last back to back years (scoring UNDER two gpg both years) and this year have the 3rd worst offense. This team needs goal scorers just as bad as they need defenseman. Having a need at one area doesn't preclude filling your other major need at an other.

Yes this team needs LHD but they also NEED goal scorers. Simple as that. If the most respected insider in the sport says on national TV that possibly the best UFA in the last decade if not longer is considering Buffalo as a destination then you do whatever it takes. It's funny that people want to bypass Stamkos and then rattle off these dmen names like they would consider Buffalo for sure. Well we are almost positive that Stamkos himself would sign here, we sure as hell don't know if a Goligoski or Campbell or whoever want to sign here.

This team already HAS goal scorers. There is a mistaken belief that there is something broken or missing in this team's offense that a roster change can fix. The only remedy necessary is time. Our youngest offensive assets are developing / figuring it out / being figured out, and the veteran assets are either new additions themselves or compensating for all of the above. The chorus of trade-giddy armchair GMs lack any kind of patience and don't seem to understand that this isn't some XBox game where you just assemble a cast of players and boom instant gratification.

[If] possibly the best UFA in the last decade if not longer is considering Buffalo as a destination then you do whatever it takes

Do you shoot yourself in the foot? Because that's likely what it would take to trade for his rights. The Sabres are currently past their large trade-spree and their stock of tradable assets is depleted.

Now if Stamkos hits the open market and we can sign him without giving anything up (other than cap space), then sure I'd entertain the possibility. But I'm not making that move at the expense of our current trajectory - which would be completely fine in the absence of a Stamkos signing.

 

[struckbyaparkedcar]

I was talking offer sheets though which happen after this years draft. Which means to offer sheet anyone decent Buffalo is giving them their 2017 1st non protected. Not sure TM is willing to do that if he watches a team like Edmonton or Calgary walk up to the podium and select top 3 this year.

Barring an injury ridden and then lottery winning hellscape, we are not finishing dangerously low in a situation where we acquire any defenseman worth OSing for a first.

Lindholm does soooooooooooo much for this team.

 

[Zman5778]

Why not? Those in support of signing Stamkos have shown their work. Where's yours?

Your math shown above doesn't work. You're at $72m without goalies....the cap isn't going up nearly as quickly as projected.

How would we re-sign Chychrun in your scenario? What about that other mysterious ELC? McCabe? girgensons isn't signing a 8x3.5.

In your math, we're POSSIBLY a contender for MAYBE 2 years before we have to rebuild our D and bottom 6.

I'm more interested in building something that can be kept together for years with only minor modifications here and there as necessary (it's going to be hard enough keeping ROR/Sam/Jack/Girgensons/Larsson as it is).....one built around a tough-to-play-against D (be it physically or positionally) and our existing high-end forward talents.

Am I going to do the math? Maybe eventually. Not right now. I don't know who's available yet, nor will I waste time theorizing about anyone who may become available.

 

[Myllz]

Decided to do a little looking over the past 5 years. These are regular season stats:

14/15 - Chicago -- 16th in GF. 1st in GA. +40 diff.
13/14 -- LAK -- 25th in GF. 1st in GA. +32 diff
12/13 -- Chicago -- 2nd in GF. 1st in GA. +53 diff (48 GP)
11/12 -- LAK -- 29th in GF. 2nd in GA. +15 diff
10/11 - Boston -- 8th in GF. 3rd in GA. +51 diff

Buffalo currently: 25th in GF. 20th in GA. -22 diff.

Recent history suggests that you win Cups by defending your goal first and foremost. You can get by with a mediocre offense.

We're a LOT further from icing an elite team defensively than we are from icing a mediocre offense. Heck, if our 5v5 offensive play improves, we're already there.

This is why I'm so against signing Stamkos to a big-money deal. Right now, in this NHL, defense is MUCH more important than offense when it comes to winning Cups.

Signing Stamkos probably makes us a great regular season team. I want Big Shiny. We need defense to get there. Can't have Stamkos AND great D at this point.

I'm actually kind of surprised to see LA's offense was that low both years. Interesting.