Using CF:

sign the RFAs, you have 23. Swap MacInnis and R2. Include Eichel, you're at 24. They signed Hayden to be an extra forward here. Pretty confident in that.

So you're trading Eichel, who doesn't even count against the roster right now, and surely acquiring NHL bodies. Based on contract projections for the rest of them, you probably need 6M back. How many players is that? What if you get Krebs, who they would want to start in the NHL? Ok, you demote Eakin. Let's say you get Tuch, put him on IR, fine. Means you need you gotta suck up 2-3M more (Eakin demotion is -1.05M). I guess you can demote Hayden and go hunting for a trash contract for a pick.

All that is assuming a Vegas trade is indeed Krebs, Tuch and a non roster player/picks. It's a new ballgame if you're acquiring additional NHL players.
- TheSabresTaco

It's clear you and I differ as we've been through this before, but if they're smart, they're not letting any of Hayden, Eakin, or Caggiula get in the way of things as they're all easily replaceable.

It's clear you and I differ as we've been through this before, but if they're smart, they're not letting any of Hayden, Eakin, or Caggiula get in the way of things as they're all easily replaceable.
- kingcong39

Like I said, you can demote any one of them. But they signed Drake prior to FA. He's staying here, like it or not. It's not like they're trying to give young guys Drake minutes. Eakin, my guess, is the first one to go. Long as they solve their giant hole at center.

Drake is staying. Bet on it.

It's clear you and I differ as we've been through this before, but if they're smart, they're not letting any of Hayden, Eakin, or Caggiula get in the way of things as they're all easily replaceable.
- kingcong39

And to add to this, if any of those trade scenarios bring back veterans, then which kids suffer (playing time) because of their presence? Do you just ship them to a third team? What about hitting the cap floor? This trade is a bigger challenge than people seem to realize.

And to add to this, if any of those trade scenarios bring back veterans, then which kids suffer (playing time) because of their presence? Do you just ship them to a third team? What about hitting the cap floor? This trade is a bigger challenge than people seem to realize.
- TheSabresTaco

Depends how bad the veterans are. Could always stash em in the pressbox or waive them to Roch and eat the 75% at the NHL level. Plus there are always injuries

Depends how bad the veterans are. Could always stash em in the pressbox or waive them to Roch and eat the 75% at the NHL level. Plus there are always injuries
- Hank Balling

Your fourth line is some mix of drake, girgs, eakin, hayden, okposo. whoever you get back is probably not worse than hayden and eakin. If they bring back a tuff guy like Hayden, I think they'd easily demote him. Demoting Eakin would require at least 1 C to return.

I would take Henrique back in a trade if he would waive. Plus we will need a FaceOff guy.

I would take Henrique back in a trade if he would waive. Plus we will need a FaceOff guy.
- Buff36

It would solve two issues at the same time. Cap floor and center depth. Maybe they even take Eakin in return as press box depth.

It would solve two issues at the same time. Cap floor and center depth. Maybe they even take Eakin in return as press box depth.
- TheSabresTaco

Could be a good mentor to the young players. And maybe he turns into a asset down the road in a trade with a playoff team.

There were two top line forwards traded this offseason in Buchnevich and Reinhart and the Seth Jones trade got more then both of those returns combined.

The market for d-men, especially RHD, was red hot this offseason.

Duncan Keith’s corpse got a 3rd rounder. Risto gets a top 15 selection, Seth Jones gets traded and signed to a ludicrous contract extension.
- Pegullaville

(2) forwards is a pretty small sample size, considering the 2 buch and sam , are more like good 2 line forwards

Sam with his magic wand played 1C this season, imagine the (2) 3rds we would have recieved in return



I'd say playing style and talent , as well as position come into play as well. Using 2 examples is kinda 🗣

It would solve two issues at the same time. Cap floor and center depth. Maybe they even take Eakin in return as press box depth.
- TheSabresTaco

Maybe its unconventional, but do we really need to have any cap dump players around the young guys?

It's one of the biggest mistakes during the contstant rebuild. Acquiring pouty vets who want to play elsewhere.

Can we acquire contracts or like you said , immediately waive them and take the cap hit?

That's why retaining money on eichel is important IMO

Maybe its unconventional, but do we really need to have any cap dump players around the young guys?

It's one of the biggest mistakes during the contstant rebuild. Acquiring pouty vets who want to play elsewhere.

Can we acquire contracts or like you said , immediately waive them and take the cap hit?

That's why retaining money on eichel is important IMO
- Boss34

In a flat cap era I wouldn't want to retain money on Eichel unless we were paid handsomely for it.

Which is why taking a player with a year or two left on their deal is a better situation. Helps get you to the cap floor, and won't be on the books for 5 years

In a flat cap era I wouldn't want to retain money on Eichel unless we were paid handsomely for it.

Which is why taking a player with a year or two left on their deal is a better situation. Helps get you to the cap floor, and won't be on the books for 5 years
- Stripes77

Just for kicks, what if we could get Zegras or Rossi as part of a package for 3 quality assets. The catch is that we have to retain 4 mill on Jack for the duration. Assuming the Pegulas would do it (very doubtful). would we want to?

I think yes. We won't be within shouting distance of the cap for at least 3 years (and probably more).

Just for kicks, what if we could get Zegras or Rossi as part of a package for 3 quality assets. The catch is that we have to retain 4 mill on Jack for the duration. Assuming the Pegulas would do it (very doubtful). would we want to?

I think yes. We won't be within shouting distance of the cap for at least 3 years (and probably more).
- Slump Buster

I mentally draw the line at retaining at 25%, so no more than $2.5M per.

Jack Eichel comes in a fails a physical.
That will really strengthen the trade value.
- ImThatGuy

Then keep him. Nobody is going to trade for him if he fails a physical anyway. When he heels, he plays for us.

I mentally draw the line at retaining at 25%, so no more than $2.5M per.
- kingcong39

Makes sense, but it's the old question of going just a little bit further past the line to get what you want. I hate to say it but in the case of Minnesota they'd probably insist that we take back a buyout which is probably a non-starter.

Makes sense, but it's the old question of going just a little bit further past the line to get what you want. I hate to say it but in the case of Minnesota they'd probably insist that we take back a buyout which is probably a non-starter.
- Slump Buster

Unfortunately for Minnesota, buyout dead cap is immovable. That's part of what makes the Suter buyout somewhat nonsensical.

Makes sense, but it's the old question of going just a little bit further past the line to get what you want. I hate to say it but in the case of Minnesota they'd probably insist that we take back a buyout which is probably a non-starter.
- Slump Buster

I'm not going further than 25% as to me, that's roughly 3% of the cap and $2.5M is roughly how much the cap will rise in the next 2-3 seasons.

Yep,

The nhl is based on position, not actual player's talent like other sports.

Sam played 1C , the most important position in hockey and produced.

He's small, slow and not tough.
None of which can be "fixed"

That's why his return was mediocre at best.

At this rate, eichel is going to actually get a non ror return.
Why do you want to trade him so badly, while injured and pouting?

Our gm is being patient and almost everyone realizes that once eichel is healthy.

Seth jones is a good hockey player, but that doesnt matter....
- Boss34

Well the other side of it is that he has a $7.5mm bonus and NMC kicking in next summer, so it’s a balance between trading him now and before then when he will have the ability to only pick 1-2 teams that the Sabres can negotiate with and Pegula pays him.

With that said, the best time to trade Eichel is likely at the trade deadline. He should be healthy by then and teams will be thirsty to add him for a run.

I think the drop dead date has to be next years draft.

After that, if he’s not traded, I can see the Sabres basically saying you’re stuck playing for us, get over it.

So a ?, since it seems we are in the Wright conversation do we try and use Eichel to get a stud RD which we are lacking.

So a ?, since it seems we are in the Wright conversation do we try and use Eichel to get a stud RD which we are lacking.
- Buff36

I would try to obtain the best “C” prospect I can. Even if it means reducing the quantity of assets coming back

In a flat cap era I wouldn't want to retain money on Eichel unless we were paid handsomely for it.

Which is why taking a player with a year or two left on their deal is a better situation. Helps get you to the cap floor, and won't be on the books for 5 years
- Stripes77

Would you rather pay 2mm a year for the next 5 years to get a significantly better return, for a total of 10mm, or pay him 7.5mm in one shot for his bonus and then trade him after?

Technically you would “save” 2.5mm over 5 years, but paying him 7.5mm in one shot and then trading him, while not increasing his value since you don’t retain salary, may be viewed just as negatively.

Isn’t Buffalo significantly far aware from the salary cap floor currently though? Like 7mm or so? So if you traded Eichel and didn’t really get back any NHL players making money, you’d be 17mm away from the floor?

I would try to obtain the best “C” prospect I can. Even if it means reducing the quantity of assets coming back
- Pegullaville

Good Post

I would try to obtain the best “C” prospect I can. Even if it means reducing the quantity of assets coming back
- Pegullaville

yea.

There were two top line forwards traded this offseason in Buchnevich and Reinhart and the Seth Jones trade got more then both of those returns combined.

The market for d-men, especially RHD, was red hot this offseason.

Duncan Keith’s corpse got a 3rd rounder. Risto gets a top 15 selection, Seth Jones gets traded and signed to a ludicrous contract extension.
- Pegullaville

I never saw Buchnevich as a top line forward.

Would you rather pay 2mm a year for the next 5 years to get a significantly better return, for a total of 10mm, or pay him 7.5mm in one shot for his bonus and then trade him after?

Technically you would “save” 2.5mm over 5 years, but paying him 7.5mm in one shot and then trading him, while not increasing his value since you don’t retain salary, may be viewed just as negatively.

Isn’t Buffalo significantly far aware from the salary cap floor currently though? Like 7mm or so? So if you traded Eichel and didn’t really get back any NHL players making money, you’d be 17mm away from the floor?
- rangerdanger94

The team should explore it. I mean if someone gives you a million bucks to do something menial then yea. All depends on the additional return to holding celery.