It comes down to what do you think will help your team more. Stamkos, or 2-3 mid range players. The talk about the pick this year that was done before is irrelevant because they're not exclusive. You can get Stamkos and a draft pick and let the pick play in the minors or on a lower line. So, for me, I'd rather take Stamkos.

Stamkos' Salary will be 11M which, according to General Fanager, will put the Sabres at 57M with 10F/4D/1G. With the Salary cap expected to go up ~3 Million, that leaves 19 Million for 2-3 forwards, 2-3 defensemen, and a backup goaltender, about 2.7/player if you want to look at it that way. Risto will take 5-6 so now you're at 13. Other RFAs that need to be paid are McCabe, Foligno, Girgensons, Larrson, and D-lo. None of those project to be more than 2-3M.

If cap space is still too tight trading Tyler Ennis (4.6 Million) is an option as well. Brian Gionta (4.25 Million) is also off the cap after next year. Jack and Sam are signed to ELCs for 2 more years, and are RFAs for 6 more after this I believe (RFA status is the one that always gets me) which is just about the length of the proposed Stamkos deal. They can be here for cheap while we are able to pay 91.

Lastly, the cap should continue to rise. If the cap rose with the Canadian dollar as low as it has been (.76 to $1) I don't expect it to stop anytime soon. Even if it goes up by an average of 1M per year it affects the relative cost of the deal. From 14.47% of the cap in year 1 (at the reported 76M) to 13.4% in year 7 (82M). I look at Crosby's deal, Ovechkin's deal, and right now they don't look bad for the players they're getting. At the time they were huge deals and huge salaries and now Kane and Towes have larger deals and even Subban is being paid more than Crosby.

Tl;dr is we can have Stamkos and it won't completely hogtie us. He's the type of player you spend the money on and can become a better team overnight.
- Zschalberg

Good post. Only thing cap is not expected to go up 3 mil this year. In fact could actually go DOWN. But other than that very good, valid points. I take Stamkos all day everyday and figure everything else out after that.

Good post. Only thing cap is not expected to go up 3 mil this year. In fact could actually go DOWN. But other than that very good, valid points. I take Stamkos all day everyday and figure everything else out after that.
- CoHo_to_B-Lo

Gary Bettman SAID the projection is to go up 3 mil

Gary Bettman SAID the projection is to go up 3 mil
- MattFreaknEllis

I believe Stash was the one who said it yesterday but I couldn't find it, so I found sauce instead.

https://www.nhl.com/news/...llion-in-2016-17/c-791523

"We gave them a very, very, very rough projection on what the cap could conceivably be next season, which will be somewhere between where it is now and up $3 million, in that range," Commissioner Bettman said. "That will depend on a variety of factors."

Among the factors that could come into play are the accuracy of the preliminary reports, the value of the Canadian dollar and the possibility of the NHL Players' Association initiating its five percent escalator to further raise the cap.

And we will have a player thats better than ROR. Along with our home grown players. I think it would put us in the best spot to be a contender than we have ever been.
- cabin

With what we have now adding a player like him would put us in a good spot. Then you have a draft pick that you can have play in juniors/finland or let play in Rochester instead of throwing into the NHL and expecting immediate results. Then, when they're ready, you have a 925K player that might be able to put up some actual numbers. That's the main part of the Detroit model that I want to follow. Draft well, develop while your current players play, then have a guy come in and play a decent supporting role for cheap.

With what we have now adding a player like him would put us in a good spot. Then you have a draft pick that you can have play in juniors/finland or let play in Rochester instead of throwing into the NHL and expecting immediate results. Then, when they're ready, you have a 925K player that might be able to put up some actual numbers. That's the main part of the Detroit model that I want to follow. Draft well, develop while your current players play, then have a guy come in and play a decent supporting role for cheap.
- Zschalberg

Your last couple of posts have made alot of sense.....THEY HAVE NO PLACE HERE!!

Still find it hard to believe that we a chance to get a legit star player and people don't want him.

Still find it hard to believe that we a chance to get a legit star player and people don't want him.
- SABRES 89

"It took us 6 games to win the cup. If NOLAN were our coach we'd have won in 4! "

Your last couple of posts have made alot of sense.....THEY HAVE NO PLACE HERE!!
- feetontheair22

I'll try to do better.

Odds on moves this offseason anyone?

Stamkos 30:1?
Lindholm 20:1
Fowler 10:1
Trade up in 1st round of draft 30:1
Trade 1st round pick 30:1
Trade Ennis 10:1

Thoughts? Comments? Concerns?

It comes down to what do you think will help your team more. Stamkos, or 2-3 mid range players. The talk about the pick this year that was done before is irrelevant because they're not exclusive. You can get Stamkos and a draft pick and let the pick play in the minors or on a lower line. So, for me, I'd rather take Stamkos.

Stamkos' Salary will be 11M which, according to General Fanager, will put the Sabres at 57M with 10F/4D/1G. With the Salary cap expected to go up ~3 Million, that leaves 19 Million for 2-3 forwards, 2-3 defensemen, and a backup goaltender, about 2.7/player if you want to look at it that way. Risto will take 5-6 so now you're at 13. Other RFAs that need to be paid are McCabe, Foligno, Girgensons, Larrson, and D-lo. None of those project to be more than 2-3M.

If cap space is still too tight trading Tyler Ennis (4.6 Million) is an option as well. Brian Gionta (4.25 Million) is also off the cap after next year. Jack and Sam are signed to ELCs for 2 more years, and are RFAs for 6 more after this I believe (RFA status is the one that always gets me) which is just about the length of the proposed Stamkos deal. They can be here for cheap while we are able to pay 91.

Lastly, the cap should continue to rise. If the cap rose with the Canadian dollar as low as it has been (.76 to $1) I don't expect it to stop anytime soon. Even if it goes up by an average of 1M per year it affects the relative cost of the deal. From 14.47% of the cap in year 1 (at the reported 76M) to 13.4% in year 7 (82M). I look at Crosby's deal, Ovechkin's deal, and right now they don't look bad for the players they're getting. At the time they were huge deals and huge salaries and now Kane and Towes have larger deals and even Subban is being paid more than Crosby.

Tl;dr is we can have Stamkos and it won't completely hogtie us. He's the type of player you spend the money on and can become a better team overnight.
- Zschalberg

Good analysis - and don't forget that Moulsen's, Bogo's, Gorges and maybe Kane's salary comes off the books in the range of 3 years for each of them.

I'll try to do better.

Odds on moves this offseason anyone?

Stamkos 30:1?
Lindholm 20:1
Fowler 10:1
Trade up in 1st round of draft 30:1
Trade 1st round pick 30:1
Trade Ennis 10:1

Thoughts? Comments? Concerns?
- Zschalberg

I'd Say:

Stamkos 10:1?
Lindholm 20:1
Fowler 10:1
Trade up in 1st round of draft 10:1
Trade 1st round pick 5:1
Trade Ennis 10:1

No worries, I'm here to help, lol

last night, after issuing my usual warning about Stamko's production...I challenged other posters to think about paying $11M when his production continues to decline...focusing on Goals and projecting that his Goals are likely to fall from 40's, to 30's to 20's ... he is currently on pace for 37 this year...down from 42 the year before.

I was called out --what basis do I have to make such a preposterous projection, well the facts speak for themselves...
Season G/Gm A/Gm Pts/Gm
2008-09 0.291 0.291 0.582
2009-10 0.622 0.537 1.159
2010-11 0.549 0.561 1.110
2011-12 0.732 0.451 1.183
2012-13 0.604 0.583 1.188
2013-14 0.676 0.405 1.081
2014-15 0.524 0.354 0.878
2015-16 0.449 0.348 0.797

If I knew how to post a damn Image here I would paste the Excel graph...what you would see is a dropoff of Goals and Assist (therefore Pts) from 2011-12 season.
a sure, steady decline. Does past performance indicate a likelihood in the future. I would say yes...but more so to point out that expecting a return to 50 goals as justification for spending $11M should be considered a high risk.



- IonSabres

Numbers can tell you anything you want them to. Two fundamental weaknesses to this analysis as it stands:

1. NHL goals per game needs to be incorporated into this for each year
2. It doesn't take into account what his Sabres' linemates would do for his stats (let's say Eichel and Reinhart in this case) and what he'd do for their production.

Numbers can tell you anything you want them to. Two fundamental weaknesses to this analysis as it stands:

1. NHL goals per game needs to be incorporated into this for each year
2. It doesn't take into account what his Sabres' linemates would do for his stats (let's say Eichel and Reinhart in this case) and what he'd do for their production.
- turbo044

1. We don't know what changes, if any, will be made to address scoring. That's a whole can of worms.
2. How much better are Jack and Sam than his current linemates? Not a huge Tampa guy but they are a top team in the East and went to the Cup last year. He's gotten less ice time because he's not the only player, but I'd assume he'd still have capable linemates.

I agree with you, btw, I'm just saying I don't know those answers.

Btw, Jack has 48 points. O'Reilly has 49. Who leads the team at the end of the year?

Also, Sam has 34. Not sure what the quote was the beginning of this season about how many points he would have.

1. We don't know what changes, if any, will be made to address scoring. That's a whole can of worms.
2. How much better are Jack and Sam than his current linemates? Not a huge Tampa guy but they are a top team in the East and went to the Cup last year. He's gotten less ice time because he's not the only player, but I'd assume he'd still have capable linemates.

I agree with you, btw, I'm just saying I don't know those answers.
- Zschalberg

Seems there were the same doubts regarding RORs production and stats before he came here.

"IF" we pick in the 6-8 range i wouldnt mind moving back around the 10-14 range.

Charles McAvoy has caught my eye. solid d man

Numbers can tell you anything you want them to. Two fundamental weaknesses to this analysis as it stands:

1. NHL goals per game needs to be incorporated into this for each year
2. It doesn't take into account what his Sabres' linemates would do for his stats (let's say Eichel and Reinhart in this case) and what he'd do for their production.
- turbo044

i was wondering the same thing. is stamkos production down because he suffered a horrific broken leg a few years ago, or is it down because everybody in the league is scoring less?

"IF" we pick in the 6-8 range i wouldnt mind moving back around the 10-14 range.

Charles McAvoy has caught my eye. solid d man
- yen6d1

Disagree. Take Nylander at that point. Or trade the pick. If you're not top 5 then you need to do something better than a mid-range 1st prospect.

It comes down to what do you think will help your team more. Stamkos, or 2-3 mid range players. The talk about the pick this year that was done before is irrelevant because they're not exclusive. You can get Stamkos and a draft pick and let the pick play in the minors or on a lower line. So, for me, I'd rather take Stamkos.

Stamkos' Salary will be 11M which, according to General Fanager, will put the Sabres at 57M with 10F/4D/1G. With the Salary cap expected to go up ~3 Million, that leaves 19 Million for 2-3 forwards, 2-3 defensemen, and a backup goaltender, about 2.7/player if you want to look at it that way. Risto will take 5-6 so now you're at 13. Other RFAs that need to be paid are McCabe, Foligno, Girgensons, Larrson, and D-lo. None of those project to be more than 2-3M.

If cap space is still too tight trading Tyler Ennis (4.6 Million) is an option as well. Brian Gionta (4.25 Million) is also off the cap after next year. Jack and Sam are signed to ELCs for 2 more years, and are RFAs for 6 more after this I believe (RFA status is the one that always gets me) which is just about the length of the proposed Stamkos deal. They can be here for cheap while we are able to pay 91.

Lastly, the cap should continue to rise. If the cap rose with the Canadian dollar as low as it has been (.76 to $1) I don't expect it to stop anytime soon. Even if it goes up by an average of 1M per year it affects the relative cost of the deal. From 14.47% of the cap in year 1 (at the reported 76M) to 13.4% in year 7 (82M). I look at Crosby's deal, Ovechkin's deal, and right now they don't look bad for the players they're getting. At the time they were huge deals and huge salaries and now Kane and Towes have larger deals and even Subban is being paid more than Crosby.

Tl;dr is we can have Stamkos and it won't completely hogtie us. He's the type of player you spend the money on and can become a better team overnight.
- Zschalberg

My head hurts!!!!

Disagree. Take Nylander at that point. Or trade the pick. If you're not top 5 then you need to do something better than a mid-range 1st prospect.
- Zschalberg

i cant see murray drafting nylander. just doesnt fit what hes trying to do. wonder about the whole russian thing with sergachyov possibly being best d available when we pick.

"IF" we pick in the 6-8 range i wouldnt mind moving back around the 10-14 range.

Charles McAvoy has caught my eye. solid d man
- yen6d1

Speaking of, a loss tomorrow will put us in 26th place at least. Winnipeg and Calgary play each other so someone has to win. They'll be tied in points with less games. Root for a 3 point game. Columbus plays Detroit who lost to the Leafs so anything is possible. Edmonton plays St. Louis and Toronto plays Tampa.

i cant see murray drafting nylander. just doesnt fit what hes trying to do. wonder about the whole russian thing with sergachyov possibly being best d available when we pick.
- rover16

If we're near the end of the rebuild stage and we want to take the next step forward then taking a prospect who won't help in the next 2 years (not that I know he won't, just saying if that's the case) shouldn't be our goal. If we're picking that low where the talent level has dropped from that supposed 2nd tier (Matthews is tier 1, Puljujarvi, Laine, Tkchuck, maybe Chuchryn although I've seen him drop on some lists are tier 2) then I say trade it for a more immediate impact. Use the other 10 picks for pipeline guys and the next few years try to get your blue chips.

Disagree. Take Nylander at that point. Or trade the pick. If you're not top 5 then you need to do something better than a mid-range 1st prospect.
- Zschalberg

Lol well with trading back you receive an asset with that mid range pick

Lol well with trading back you receive an asset with that mid range pick
- yen6d1

Not enough to justify moving back and it doesn't really help you short or long term. You give up the best player in that kind of deal. Those trades made sense in year 1 of the rebuild when we were just hoarding picks/prospects.

If we're near the end of the rebuild stage and we want to take the next step forward then taking a prospect who won't help in the next 2 years (not that I know he won't, just saying if that's the case) shouldn't be our goal. If we're picking that low where the talent level has dropped from that supposed 2nd tier (Matthews is tier 1, Puljujarvi, Laine, Tkchuck, maybe Chuchryn although I've seen him drop on some lists are tier 2) then I say trade it for a more immediate impact. Use the other 10 picks for pipeline guys and the next few years try to get your blue chips.
- Zschalberg

oh i agree. of course as the pick loses value to us, it loses value to whoever we would want to trade it too. there is just no denying that its still in our best interest to lose a bunch of games to round out the season. this stupid system needs to be overhauled. have a play-in game like the ncaa does for the last two playoff spots in each conference. and then have a straight lottery for teams that miss. its too black and white right now- either you are playing for lord stanleys dinnerware or finish as bad as possible to have the best chance at a difference maker- its not working.

Not enough to justify moving back and it doesn't really help you short or long term. You give up the best player in that kind of deal. Those trades made sense in year 1 of the rebuild when we were just hoarding picks/prospects.
- Sabresfan-365

All of this. If this was 2 years ago, sure. But we want to get better next season. So what helps us get better next season and it's not trading down to 10.