Speculation: Sabres Roster Speculation - Pre-season 2023 Edition

[Fjordsen]

The ideal target is a trade for a guy just entering his prime and on a contract that makes sense for Buffalo (mid range term, mid range salary). When that happens and he gets traded for a fair price to another team, you can bitch loudly along with me. Until then...

Marino was that guy

 

[BUCKSHOT]

I think they like Stillman.

Samuelsson-Dahlin
Power-Clifton
Stillman-EJ
Bryson-Jokiharju

I think they will rotate Stillman/Joker depending on opponent

and rotate EJ/Stillman/Joker to keep EJ as 'fresh' as possible

 

[Sabresfansince1980]

Marino was that guy

He's not available, or are we going back to any year since KA took over to begrudge the lack of moves?

 

[Jim Bob]

I think they will rotate Stillman/Joker depending on opponent

and rotate EJ/Stillman/Joker to keep EJ as 'fresh' as possible

I wonder how comfortable they will be with Jokiharju playing on his off side.

 

[Gras]

I think they will rotate Stillman/Joker depending on opponent

and rotate EJ/Stillman/Joker to keep EJ as 'fresh' as possible

Dahlin gives them good options if one of the other LD goes down with injury he can go back to playing the left and then you still have Clifton/Joker/EJ down the right, or if they need to tighten up against an opponent.

 

[Push Dr Tracksuit]

Those are bad examples. Neither Reinhart or Eichel wanted to be in Buffalo, Reinhart had a year left on his contract and indicated he wasn’t resigning in Buffalo, and Eichel was hurt.

In general, it’s better to let your picks develop and add value. There are exceptions. When Vegas had a chance to add a #1 center, they parted with Peyton Krebs. If Ottawa was willing to trade Brady Tkachuk, I’d move anyone in our prospect pool.

But just to fill current roster holes? That’s likely to lead to some bad asset management.

People keep saying this but there’s never any examples. Isn’t letting your prospects develop and then not wanting to stay part of the process? Because when I suggest trading for someone it always gets brought up but despite it just happening with 4 Sabres developed players it never gets brought up there.

It’s just not true that developing your prospects leads to net higher values.

What isn’t a fair thing to say is that people want to trade our top prospects “to fill roster holes”. 1) was eichel not filling a roster hole for Vegas ? 2) no one is suggesting you trade peterka for some 32yr old plug.

 

[BUCKSHOT]

I wonder how comfortable they will be with Jokiharju playing on his off side.

maybe EJ plays on his off side ?

 

[Jim Bob]

maybe EJ plays on his off side ?

I thought I read somewhere that he has rarely done that in his NHL career. If so, I doubt they are trying it here.

 

[HogtownSabresfan]

Ok so say we have 7 mil to spend right now. Who to target? Here were a few of my favored options (UFA and trade) -

Ryan Graves - more of a top four LHD, went to Pitt on a slight overpay and 6 yrs. Probably 3 years too much for Buffalo.
Matt Roy - LA was never trading him, but I hoped.
Will Borgen - Seattle probably wasn't trading him but I would have offered a nice asset. His salary demands would've fit for Buffalo.
Brett Pesce - actually available but sitting on the verge of the downslope of his career, but for a top dollar extension to age 36 and 3 years too long.
JT Compher - a FW splurge who got more than he should for 5 yrs. Would have taken a roster spot from a prospect that could be a better player.
Sundqvist or Bjugstad - good checking line guys at fair prices but probably don't move the needle over Girgs/Okposo (like most FW targets out there).

Just because KA didn't go after or get my personal choices doesn't mean he's being cheap at the direction of Pegula. Every one of those names came with risk that can reasonably justify not spending the salary or trade cost to get them. Replace those names with your personal preferences and it makes no difference. Nobody out there would move the needle enough, unless they are also jacking up the future cap structure and being too damn old halfway through the contract.

The ideal target is a trade for a guy just entering his prime and on a contract that makes sense for Buffalo (mid range term, mid range salary). When that happens and he gets traded for a fair price to another team, you can bitch loudly along with me. Until then...

We have lost Quinn for several months. Multiple teams signed guys on one year deals like Bertuzzi in Toronto, Tarasenko in Ottawa. There is a long list. You have focused on guys with long-term deals. Give Kyle Dubas $7 million in cap room in 2023-24 and see what he does with it. I guarantee it won't be nothing. Yzerman too. Vegas is just going to let $7 M in cap room sit there. I don't think so. Keep living the Pegula dream of no playoffs for a 12th year.

 

[HogtownSabresfan]

Lyubushkin was not good last year. Given the guys they signed, he was likely worst RHD they had signed.

True but he was a decent 7th or 8th guy. GIven we are not doing anything with cap room my choice is to carry two extra d men for depth. Now we have cap room we won't use and less depth.

 

[Der Jaeger]

People keep saying this but there’s never any examples. Isn’t letting your prospects develop and then not wanting to stay part of the process? Because when I suggest trading for someone it always gets brought up but despite it just happening with 4 Sabres developed players it never gets brought up there.

It’s just not true that developing your prospects leads to net higher values.

What isn’t a fair thing to say is that people want to trade our top prospects “to fill roster holes”. 1) was eichel not filling a roster hole for Vegas ? 2) no one is suggesting you trade peterka for some 32yr old plug.

Tage Thompson is case in point. Imagine if that Toronto trade went through.

Trading for a #1C (Eichel) is a far cry from throwing a prospect to Anaheim for John Gibson or Montreal for Petry a week ago, just because we want Adams to fill those roster hole.

 

[Irie]

People keep saying this but there’s never any examples. Isn’t letting your prospects develop and then not wanting to stay part of the process? Because when I suggest trading for someone it always gets brought up but despite it just happening with 4 Sabres developed players it never gets brought up there.

It’s just not true that developing your prospects leads to net higher values.

What isn’t a fair thing to say is that people want to trade our top prospects “to fill roster holes”. 1) was eichel not filling a roster hole for Vegas ? 2) no one is suggesting you trade peterka for some 32yr old plug.

You are talking about moving established players after they have broken out who are being moved because they wanted out, that was not really what the discussion was about.

The position was that holding the prospects longer to see what you have before moving them will often produce more over-all value to the team than moving several of them before any of them breakout.

The sum value of moving a bunch of unproven prospects often does not add up to the value of holding them longer and identifying the best of the lot to keep, even if this means losing value on most of the ones you will move on from.

There are exceptions, some prospects are worth a ton. But in general, we were talking about 3rd and 5th round selections. These kids have very little value, so the opportunity cost of holding on to them vs trading them for a return is minimal.

In the Sabres case, the glut is with small forwards, which historically have little value until they have consistently produced in the NHL. As prospects, rosen, Savoie, Ostlund etc (and even peterka) are not going to return equal value alone. A package of them along with draft capital will be required to bring in a youngish effective player with term.

Your examples ignored the production and value Sam and Jack provided while Sabres, and those two situations are also very unique in that the players asked for trades, so I think we are talking about different scenarios here.

 

[Sabresfansince1980]

We have lost Quinn for several months. Multiple teams signed guys on one year deals like Bertuzzi in Toronto, Tarasenko in Ottawa. There is a long list. You have focused on guys with long-term deals. Give Kyle Dubas $7 million in cap room in 2023-24 and see what he does with it. I guarantee it won't be nothing. Yzerman too. Vegas is just going to let $7 M in cap room sit there. I don't think so. Keep living the Pegula dream of no playoffs for a 12th year.

I'm not very impressed with either one of those players, and even if they move the needle a bit as a better Quinn replacement than whoever ends up there for three months, they are not going to make Buffalo a Cup contender. That's why I don't care much about anyone that could be had on a one year deal. This team is a playoff contender (probable playoff team) but they aren't winning a Cup this season. It's still a developmental year for several players, whether they get extra ice replacing Quinn or not. I guess you're caught up in whether they make the playoffs this season, while I believe they are going to be in regardless of tangential adds like Bertuzzi/Tarasenko.

 

[Dingo44]

We have lost Quinn for several months. Multiple teams signed guys on one year deals like Bertuzzi in Toronto, Tarasenko in Ottawa. There is a long list. You have focused on guys with long-term deals. Give Kyle Dubas $7 million in cap room in 2023-24 and see what he does with it. I guarantee it won't be nothing. Yzerman too. Vegas is just going to let $7 M in cap room sit there. I don't think so. Keep living the Pegula dream of no playoffs for a 12th year.

This continuing argument is absurd. It's probably not even worth acknowledging, but it's ludicrous to think the Pens are in the same position as the Sabres or Leafs with Dubas or where Vegas is now. Ottawa and the Red Wings also spent big money last year on UFA's and how did that work out for them? Overpaying free agents to get them to come to Buffalo over teams closer to the Cup is literally the opposite of how they want to build the team, and for good reason.

I don't spend to my credit limit on my cards - precisely because those bills come due at some point. Do you?

 

[Fjordsen]

He's not available, or are we going back to any year since KA took over to begrudge the lack of moves?

No, but I just said that Marino would be the perfect complement and didn't cost much at the time, KA also had errors, it is far from perfect.

 

[Irie]

No, but I just said that Marino would be the perfect complement and didn't cost much at the time, KA also had errors, it is far from perfect.

This is speculation though. Marino was solid for the Devils, but he was playing with pretty good, established defensive partners in a well defined coaching system.

What would he look like playing in Granato's extremely loose system where there are much lesser defined roles? How would he look playing alongside partners with a fraction of the defensive acumen?

He was overpaid in Pittsburgh, and the penguins were looking for young D as a replacement in a deal. Smith was likely viewed as a reclaimation project with a fair amount of upside potential. He had shown promise in the league as a rookie, and given his draft position there was some pedigree there. A year ago, Jokiharju may have been the ask, which would have not helped with the team depth in managements eyes, and remember, Marino did not have anywhere the same perceived upside when the trade went through and came with 5 years and 24.65M remaining owed on his deal, so there would be less incentive to give up much in the way of a large package.

There are a lot of factors that we just don't know about when it comes to potential trades and "what ifs".

What if Marino came in with that big contract and struggled in Granato's loose system the way Boosh did? What if Jokiharju turned out to be serviceable alongside Petersson in a simplified, defined 3rd line role in Pit? Everyone would be screaming how badly Adams blew that trade. So many variables... it is impossible to look back and claim one way or another hypothetically.

 

[Deep Blue Metallic]

Indictment on Joker. Personally I agree but if he is scratched that will not be ideal. He is a solid 5-6. Whatever gets me Bryson off this team I am in.

Stillman-EJ/Jokiharju. The latter might surprise us with improved play if consigned to the 3rd-pairing.

 

[Deep Blue Metallic]

Marino was that guy

You cite, with 20/20 hindsight, arguably the most one-sided trade of the previous off-season and imply "why didn't Adams do that?"

30 other GMs whiffed on that opportunity as well.

 

[Fjordsen]

You cite, with 20/20 hindsight, arguably the most one-sided trade of the previous off-season and imply "why didn't Adams do that?"

30 other GMs whiffed on that opportunity as well.

Well Fitzgerald did it and didn't pay a ton for it. In the end, Marino was very good and he was good in Pittsburgh. And we still have not found our top 4 RD (maybe Clifton will be it, but not a fact),

This is speculation though. Marino was solid for the Devils, but he was playing with pretty good, established defensive partners in a well defined coaching system.

What would he look like playing in Granato's extremely loose system where there are much lesser defined roles? How would he look playing alongside partners with a fraction of the defensive acumen?

He was overpaid in Pittsburgh, and the penguins were looking for young D as a replacement in a deal. Smith was likely viewed as a reclaimation project with a fair amount of upside potential. He had shown promise in the league as a rookie, and given his draft position there was some pedigree there. A year ago, Jokiharju may have been the ask, which would have not helped with the team depth in managements eyes, and remember, Marino did not have anywhere the same perceived upside when the trade went through and came with 5 years and 24.65M remaining owed on his deal, so there would be less incentive to give up much in the way of a large package.

There are a lot of factors that we just don't know about when it comes to potential trades and "what ifs".

What if Marino came in with that big contract and struggled in Granato's loose system the way Boosh did? What if Jokiharju turned out to be serviceable alongside Petersson in a simplified, defined 3rd line role in Pit? Everyone would be screaming how badly Adams blew that trade. So many variables... it is impossible to look back and claim one way or another hypothetically.

Marino was good everywhere and Smith was already bad, it was a terrible deal for Pittsburgh and Devils GM took advantage of it. In general, I still like Fitzgerald's work more than Adams.

 

[HogtownSabresfan]

This continuing argument is absurd. It's probably not even worth acknowledging, but it's ludicrous to think the Pens are in the same position as the Sabres or Leafs with Dubas or where Vegas is now. Ottawa and the Red Wings also spent big money last year on UFA's and how did that work out for them? Overpaying free agents to get them to come to Buffalo over teams closer to the Cup is literally the opposite of how they want to build the team, and for good reason.

I don't spend to my credit limit on my cards - precisely because those bills come due at some point. Do you?

I spend the loyalty points before they expire. You keep making arguments about long-term deals and I’m taking about one year deals. There is literally no downside risk. Your credit card analogy is not comparable to a hard cap in hockey. You have $10 M in cap room. You use it or lose it. It’s simple. The exception is saving money for performance bonuses instead of carrying them forward. I leave enough cap for performance bonuses and maybe $1 to $2 M space at deadline. That leaves room for a nice depth add but my guess is bank of Terry might be closed.

I'm not very impressed with either one of those players, and even if they move the needle a bit as a better Quinn replacement than whoever ends up there for three months, they are not going to make Buffalo a Cup contender. That's why I don't care much about anyone that could be had on a one year deal. This team is a playoff contender (probable playoff team) but they aren't winning a Cup this season. It's still a developmental year for several players, whether they get extra ice replacing Quinn or not. I guess you're caught up in whether they make the playoffs this season, while I believe they are going to be in regardless of tangential adds like Bertuzzi/Tarasenko.

If you think the Sabres are 100% lock to make the playoffs with questions in net, doubts on top 4 D and no guarantee guys will have same career years, may I know what you are smoking so i can get some?

 

[Jim Bob]

True but he was a decent 7th or 8th guy. GIven we are not doing anything with cap room my choice is to carry two extra d men for depth. Now we have cap room we won't use and less depth.

He was really not great and I will not miss him unless Clifton and EJ are hooribad.

 

[Push Dr Tracksuit]

Tage Thompson is case in point. Imagine if that Toronto trade went through.

Trading for a #1C (Eichel) is a far cry from throwing a prospect to Anaheim for John Gibson or Montreal for Petry a week ago, just because we want Adams to fill those roster hole.

I may have missed someone else suggest it but whenever I throw the usual kids in a trade it’s for a Meiers/Chychrun/Eichel type. My argument is always if you can take 1 prospect, package him with a first and turn him into himself 5 years from now, we have the assets to do that.

 

[Push Dr Tracksuit]

You are talking about moving established players after they have broken out who are being moved because they wanted out, that was not really what the discussion was about.

The position was that holding the prospects longer to see what you have before moving them will often produce more over-all value to the team than moving several of them before any of them breakout.

The sum value of moving a bunch of unproven prospects often does not add up to the value of holding them longer and identifying the best of the lot to keep, even if this means losing value on most of the ones you will move on from.

There are exceptions, some prospects are worth a ton. But in general, we were talking about 3rd and 5th round selections. These kids have very little value, so the opportunity cost of holding on to them vs trading them for a return is minimal.

In the Sabres case, the glut is with small forwards, which historically have little value until they have consistently produced in the NHL. As prospects, rosen, Savoie, Ostlund etc (and even peterka) are not going to return equal value alone. A package of them along with draft capital will be required to bring in a youngish effective player with term.

Your examples ignored the production and value Sam and Jack provided while Sabres, and those two situations are also very unique in that the players asked for trades, so I think we are talking about different scenarios here.

I just disagree with this premise and I don’t think there’s much information out there to support either position other than this is how it’s always been done. The rest of the post is filled with stuff I don’t consider relevant to the discussion. Like talking of 3rd and 5th rounders, which I’m not talking about, I’m talking about blue chip prospects with all star ceilings and nhl floors. Or how you value a prospect versus how prospects are valued or should be valued. Which this board immensely over values prospects. Which really is the crux of the point but not what’s being discussed right now. That people value peterka like the version of himself 5 years from now and that the Sabres are transitioning into a point where 5 years from now is not as relevant as the next 5 years. It’s time to start breaking out of this endless rebuild mindset and realizing that having Meiers cozens and Quinn as a second line or icing ekholm/power as a second pairing is more valuable to maximizing the current roster than spending 5 years waiting for prospects to hit their ceilings.

 

[thewookie1]

I may have missed someone else suggest it but whenever I throw the usual kids in a trade it’s for a Meiers/Chychrun/Eichel type. My argument is always if you can take 1 prospect, package him with a first and turn him into himself 5 years from now, we have the assets to do that.

The issue seems to be teams don’t want a prospect and a 1st. They want our top prospects.

I spend the loyalty points before they expire. You keep making arguments about long-term deals and I’m taking about one year deals. There is literally no downside risk. Your credit card analogy is not comparable to a hard cap in hockey. You have $10 M in cap room. You use it or lose it. It’s simple. The exception is saving money for performance bonuses instead of carrying them forward. I leave enough cap for performance bonuses and maybe $1 to $2 M space at deadline. That leaves room for a nice depth add but my guess is bank of Terry might be closed.


If you think the Sabres are 100% lock to make the playoffs with questions in net, doubts on top 4 D and no guarantee guys will have same career years, may I know what you are smoking so i can get some?

Cap space is open, roster spots not so much.

 

[Doug Prishpreed]

Any chance they start Kulich at 4C? Even if he's not ultimately a center, that seems to be a good place to learn the finer points of the game.