Toggle sidebar

Roster Thread (2023-2024 Season)

  • Xenforo Cloud will be upgrading us to version 2.3.5 on March 3rd at 12 AM GMT. This version has increased stability and fixes several bugs. We expect downtime for the duration of the update. The admin team will continue to work on existing issues, templates and upgrade all necessary available addons to minimize impact of this new version. Click Here for Updates
Status
Not open for further replies.
Tatanka said:
I am advocating signing him. Same terms as the existing three. Keep the ones that serve the purpose. Deal one of the others. Nickel and diming at this point is counter productive. None of the three will be unmovable going forward with one possible exception. But signing any of these guys doesn’t mean all or any are part of any core until they show they can win.
Click to expand...

For the record, in the "which center do you trade" poll-thread, I voted Tage and posted my reasoning why.

I don't think 6x7 is nickel and diming Mitts, but I can see the argument that he should get the same contract as Cozens based off of how they are playing currently.

I just do not think an arbiter gives him 7+ if he stays on his current pace, so then we are strictly basing his value off of what Cozens is earning and not what his league wide comps are getting. Cozens got 7M because he potted 31 goals, but Cozens is playing like a sub 4M dollar forward this season - and Casey should be compensated for what he brings, not based on what the Cozens deal is. (Remember, Mitts is not even on the PK now)

I would probably go up to 7 if that were required to keep him, but I think that is an overpay and a discount here will help a lot with cap going forward.
 
Irie said:
For the record, in the "which center do you trade" poll-thread, I voted Tage and posted my reasoning why.

I don't think 6x7 is nickel and diming Mitts, but I can see the argument that he should get the same contract as Cozens based off of how they are playing currently.

I just do not think an arbiter gives him 7+ if he stays on his current pace, so then we are strictly basing his value off of what Cozens is earning and not what his league wide comps are getting. Cozens got 7M because he potted 31 goals, but Cozens is playing like a sub 4M dollar forward this season - and Casey should be compensated for what he brings, not based on what the Cozens deal is. (Remember, Mitts is not even on the PK now)

I would probably go up to 7 if that were required to keep him, but I think that is an overpay and a discount here will help a lot with cap going forward.
Click to expand...
I do not fear the cap as much as many here. Everyone is movable if need be. I also think the Sabres are not in a position of moving NHL vets, yes, Mitts is a vet at this point, until or unless a hockey trade presents itself to benefit the team. Is anyone untouchable? No. Not a single one. But by the same token cap planning is putting the cart before the horse.
 
  • Like
Reactions: SECRET SQUIRREL, joshjull and Chainshot
Tatanka said:
I do not fear the cap as much as many here. Everyone is movable if need be. I also think the Sabres are not in a position of moving NHL vets, yes, Mitts is a vet at this point, until or unless a hockey trade presents itself to benefit the team. Is anyone untouchable? No. Not a single one. But by the same token cap planning is putting the cart before the horse.
Click to expand...

Here is the question, "Do you want to try to compete next season?"

I ask because if Mitts gets the deal you are talking about, the team has 19M for 2 goalies, 2 D and 5 forwards.

UPL is going to likely get a hefty raise. If he falters some, the discussion changes.

Is Levi ready to be the backup on a more competitive team, or does he need another year of seasoning in the A?

This is why I think cap planning is so important, even now.

I wouldn't mind seeing Adams bring in a 1B vet goalie and Levi start the season in Rochester. I think it was fine for Levi to get some Pro experience this season, and now I think he knows what he has to work on to improve and I think Rochester is a great place for him to do that. Not certain I want to rely on him to be a solid backup (or starter if UPL faulters) next year.

I expect re-signing UPL and bringing in a short-term vet to total up to a combined 6M or so in goal. That leaves 13M for 2 defensemen and 5 forwards.

We know this team can't compete if they are going to play another 4 or 5 ELC players regularly on top of all the youth that is already here. Adams is going to have to bring in some money to bolster the bottom 6. Cap is going to be a challenge.

I know you mentioned trading a big contract to accommodate Mitts, which may be the solution, but all these moves require careful cap planning now, and the moves need to be smart.
 
Irie said:
Here is the question, "Do you want to try to compete next season?"

I ask because if Mitts gets the deal you are talking about, the team has 19M for 2 goalies, 2 D and 5 forwards.

UPL is going to likely get a hefty raise. If he falters some, the discussion changes.

Is Levi ready to be the backup on a more competitive team, or does he need another year of seasoning in the A?

This is why I think cap planning is so important, even now.

I wouldn't mind seeing Adams bring in a 1B vet goalie and Levi start the season in Rochester. I think it was fine for Levi to get some Pro experience this season, and now I think he knows what he has to work on to improve and I think Rochester is a great place for him to do that. Not certain I want to rely on him to be a solid backup (or starter if UPL faulters) next year.

I expect re-signing UPL and bringing in a short-term vet to total up to a combined 6M or so in goal. That leaves 13M for 2 defensemen and 5 forwards.

We know this team can't compete if they are going to play another 4 or 5 ELC players regularly on top of all the youth that is already here. Adams is going to have to bring in some money to bolster the bottom 6. Cap is going to be a challenge.

I know you mentioned trading a big contract to accommodate Mitts, which may be the solution, but all these moves require careful cap planning now, and the moves need to be smart.
Click to expand...
I think it's pretty easy to find space:
Buying out Clifton saves us 2.2

Tuch deal is ending, we should probably let him walk/trade him at the deadline unless we can get a great extension there

Skinner deal can be bought out as an energency measure

We have Quinn and Peterka that we can bridge after next season
 
Irie said:
Here is the question, "Do you want to try to compete next season?"

I ask because if Mitts gets the deal you are talking about, the team has 19M for 2 goalies, 2 D and 5 forwards.

UPL is going to likely get a hefty raise. If he falters some, the discussion changes.

Is Levi ready to be the backup on a more competitive team, or does he need another year of seasoning in the A?

This is why I think cap planning is so important, even now.

I wouldn't mind seeing Adams bring in a 1B vet goalie and Levi start the season in Rochester. I think it was fine for Levi to get some Pro experience this season, and now I think he knows what he has to work on to improve and I think Rochester is a great place for him to do that. Not certain I want to rely on him to be a solid backup (or starter if UPL faulters) next year.

I expect re-signing UPL and bringing in a short-term vet to total up to a combined 6M or so in goal. That leaves 13M for 2 defensemen and 5 forwards.

We know this team can't compete if they are going to play another 4 or 5 ELC players regularly on top of all the youth that is already here. Adams is going to have to bring in some money to bolster the bottom 6. Cap is going to be a challenge.

I know you mentioned trading a big contract to accommodate Mitts, which may be the solution, but all these moves require careful cap planning now, and the moves need to be smart.
Click to expand...
I want this team to compete each and every season. It is the business they are in. Where I think we disagree is on the simple point of a core. Until you win you don’t have one. A GM should be cooking the stew, finding the mix that wins. No player should be part of the future if they are not part of the solution today. With that in mind your remaining questions can be addressed from that perspective. I feel Levi is farther away from NHL competent starter than many believe and a consistent stint facing as many shots and reps he can get is the only way for him to make that leap. So we need another tender. None of the players under contract are givens. I have my preferences and obviously so do yo. However, the arguments being presented are skewed towards we cannot add x bc we have y under contract. The first question is whether y should be here. If x is better, get x. And I do not believe in developing players in the nhl. If they can replace an NHL player AND produce, great. If not get an NHL player to do the job.

Is managing a team more difficult in my paradigm? Absolutely. But that is why GMs get paid what they do. The successful teams as measured in wins, operate that way. The cap decisions come after you found the winning combo. And a core is not 10 players. It is a 1c 1 d a few others including maybe a goalie, who when benches get shortened in the playoffs will see most of the TOI. The rest are part of the ever changing cast of supporting characters. Win first. Make the playoffs before thinking about a CF. Win a cup before thinking of winning 2 in a row. First things first.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Doug Prishpreed and Irie
Tatanka said:
I want this team to compete each and every season. It is the business they are in. Where I think we disagree is on the simple point of a core. Until you win you don’t have one. A GM should be cooking the stew, finding the mix that wins. No player should be part of the future if they are not part of the solution today. With that in mind your remaining questions can be addressed from that perspective. I feel Levi is farther away from NHL competent starter than many believe and a consistent stint facing as many shots and reps he can get is the only way for him to make that leap. So we need another tender. None of the players under contract are givens. I have my preferences and obviously so do yo. However, the arguments being presented are skewed towards we cannot add x bc we have y under contract. The first question is whether y should be here. If x is better, get x. And I do not believe in developing players in the nhl. If they can replace an NHL player AND produce, great. If not get an NHL player to do the job.

Is managing a team more difficult in my paradigm? Absolutely. But that is why GMs get paid what they do. The successful teams as measured in wins, operate that way. The cap decisions come after you found the winning combo. And a core is not 10 players. It is a 1c 1 d a few others including maybe a goalie, who when benches get shortened in the playoffs will see most of the TOI. The rest are part of the ever changing cast of supporting characters. Win first. Make the playoffs before thinking about a CF. Win a cup before thinking of winning 2 in a row. First things first.
Click to expand...

I think you would be surprised at how much I actually agree with your positions on a fundamental level. The area I think we disagree is that it sounds like you feel like Adams should be able to trade his way into a successful roster, and I think this team has to be coached into it's success before the heavy roster tweaks will generate gains.

I also feel that we need to be realistic about personnel change and evaluation.

Making good trades and upgrading roster players is difficult, especially for a small market team. A great GM maybe can make one or two longterm upgrades a year, (in a good year). If your organization is not a top destination choice of players around the league, you usually can't realistically quickly shuffle your roster into success.

Roster turnover leads to a lot of adjustment time as players work to develop chemistry and settle in to a new team in their roles. The evaluation process has to allow for the adjustment period.

Focusing on roster changes when the coaching staff has the team playing mistake filled terrible team hockey feels a lot more like cart before the horse to me than Future cap planning. I think that once this team has a solid coach and starts to play responsible, cohesive team hockey, then the process you described above would be an outstanding path to take to make this team a contender.
 
Irie said:
I think you would be surprised at how much I actually agree with your positions on a fundamental level. The area I think we disagree is that it sounds like you feel like Adams should be able to trade his way into a successful roster, and I think this team has to be coached into it's success before the heavy roster tweaks will generate gains.

I also feel that we need to be realistic about personnel change and evaluation.

Making good trades and upgrading roster players is difficult, especially for a small market team. A great GM maybe can make one or two longterm upgrades a year, (in a good year). If your organization is not a top destination choice of players around the league, you usually can't realistically quickly shuffle your roster into success.

Roster turnover leads to a lot of adjustment time as players work to develop chemistry and settle in to a new team in their roles. The evaluation process has to allow for the adjustment period.

Focusing on roster changes when the coaching staff has the team playing mistake filled terrible team hockey feels a lot more like cart before the horse to me than Future cap planning. I think that once this team has a solid coach and starts to play responsible, cohesive team hockey, then the process you described above would be an outstanding path to take to make this team a contender.
Click to expand...
This the roster thread. If you want to talk coaching changes fine. A coach change needs to be a given. But out conversation started with Mitts. In the roster thread. And I think a new coach will hasten some ,of the needed rpster tweaks, because anyone of competences is not going to put up with some of the play of the current roster inhabitants.
 
I get people saying Mitts shouldn't be paid less than Cozens or wouldn't accept it, but Cozens had more points and more goals than Mitts has ever had while also being three years younger when he got his contract. I am not saying mitts isn't a better player now, but it should be relatively easy to explain why Cozens got/gets paid more.
 
  • Like
Reactions: SECRET SQUIRREL
DJN21 said:
sooooo Lets bring Marcus Foligno back yeah?
Click to expand...
He's exactly the type of player we need, IMO. Heart, size, toughness, pk, a little production, leadership. He would be a good replacement in the Okposo role, IMO.

His cap hit is a little high, but we have plenty of space, most of the core locked up to reasonable deals, cheap young players to fill out the roster, and the cap is going up significantly over the next couple years. It's a minor concern to me, at most.
 
TheBarnIsElectric said:
He's exactly the type of player we need, IMO. Heart, size, toughness, pk, a little production, leadership. He would be a good replacement in the Okposo role, IMO.

His cap hit is a little high, but we have plenty of space, most of the core locked up to reasonable deals, cheap young players to fill out the roster, and the cap is going up significantly over the next couple years. It's a minor concern to me, at most.
Click to expand...
A 32 year old with a 4-year extension that kicks in next year? Ugh, he might be worth it for one season, but by the end of that contract... nope. We've seen how Okposo hasn't aged well into his 30s. Not going to trust that Foligno, that plays a much more physical game than OK does will age well.

Yes, the cap is going up, but so is Dahlin (+5M / year), Power (+7.4M/year), not to mention the RFAs like Mitts, Krebs, and UPL that are going to need raises this offseason.

That cap increase is going to get eaten up much more quickly than we'd like.
 
  • Like
Reactions: SECRET SQUIRREL, Tijuana Donkey Show, Zman5778 and 2 others
Mattilaus said:
I get people saying Mitts shouldn't be paid less than Cozens or wouldn't accept it, but Cozens had more points and more goals than Mitts has ever had while also being three years younger when he got his contract. I am not saying mitts isn't a better player now, but it should be relatively easy to explain why Cozens got/gets paid more.
Click to expand...
I keep imagining 7 years at 6.5-7 mil AAV. I'd prefer it be closer to 6.5 or even less, but recent contracts like Tippet's say otherwise.
 
Irie said:
Here is the question, "Do you want to try to compete next season?"

I ask because if Mitts gets the deal you are talking about, the team has 19M for 2 goalies, 2 D and 5 forwards.

UPL is going to likely get a hefty raise. If he falters some, the discussion changes.

Is Levi ready to be the backup on a more competitive team, or does he need another year of seasoning in the A?

This is why I think cap planning is so important, even now.

I wouldn't mind seeing Adams bring in a 1B vet goalie and Levi start the season in Rochester. I think it was fine for Levi to get some Pro experience this season, and now I think he knows what he has to work on to improve and I think Rochester is a great place for him to do that. Not certain I want to rely on him to be a solid backup (or starter if UPL faulters) next year.

I expect re-signing UPL and bringing in a short-term vet to total up to a combined 6M or so in goal. That leaves 13M for 2 defensemen and 5 forwards.

We know this team can't compete if they are going to play another 4 or 5 ELC players regularly on top of all the youth that is already here. Adams is going to have to bring in some money to bolster the bottom 6. Cap is going to be a challenge.

I know you mentioned trading a big contract to accommodate Mitts, which may be the solution, but all these moves require careful cap planning now, and the moves need to be smart.
Click to expand...

Levi is quite fine as a backup now. He is 2 games above .500, which is good for a backup goalie

If UPL keeps up this play, Levi is never going to be more than a backup anyways
 
I think the situation is becoming a bit more clear. Currently 8th place team is on pace for 95.2 points so let’s say 96 points for playoffs.

Need 48 points in 33 games.

This translates to:
24-9
23-8-2
22-7-4
21-6-6
Etc.

So essentially it’s still a pipe dream. Which we all already knew.
 
  • Like
Reactions: SECRET SQUIRREL, Tijuana Donkey Show and joshjull
Snippit said:
I think the situation is becoming a bit more clear. Currently 8th place team is on pace for 95.2 points so let’s say 96 points for playoffs.

Need 48 points in 33 games.

This translates to:
24-9
23-8-2
22-7-4
21-6-6
Etc.

So essentially it’s still a pipe dream. Which we all already knew.
Click to expand...
I want to hit the pipe that makes that happen. ( actually maybe I don't as it's tough clearing out all the parasites left from before)


If they still kill the messenger that destroys cognitive dissonance, you may wanna run. ...


So ....if we have a 10 game win streak we could still miss not by playing above 500 hockey after , in the end. Wooo .


Side note/riddled mind skullf•ckd , ... hid(den) behind my wall , waiting for the ....

Why does pat mcafee circle jerk format ( show about sports entertainment) have long distance shots which result in money for many in need by making highly improbable baskets w various baals in Tina's thunderdome ?


Where can i hail a tornado outa here.
 
Last edited:
Mattilaus said:
I get people saying Mitts shouldn't be paid less than Cozens or wouldn't accept it, but Cozens had more points and more goals than Mitts has ever had while also being three years younger when he got his contract. I am not saying mitts isn't a better player now, but it should be relatively easy to explain why Cozens got/gets paid more.
Click to expand...
That doesn‘t really matter much.

What will are the 4 RFA years + 3 UFA years in Cozens 7yr deal.

A 7 year deal for Mitts would be 1 RFA year + 6 UFA years. Having double the amount of UFA years will easily bring Mitts deal to the same level or above Cozens’.
 
Last edited:
With Quinn going out, it seems like this would be the time to bring up one of their scoring line winger prospects to give them some run in a role that isn't shuffling around with Tyson Jost and Vic Olofsson.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Latest posts

Ad

Upcoming events

Ad

Top Bottom