i’m not convinced montour is actually going to be as good in the future as he’s been this year so that feels like a lot

Absolutely no reason for buffalo to treat olofsson and UPL as negative assets to move down in the draft

That is quite alot.

Why sign Severson for 5 years then spend multiple 1sts and young players for Montour who is a UFA after next season and may require a very substantial raise? Nashville cant have all that capapce tied up in 30+ year old dmen.just doesnt make a ton of sense. This team is still not a serious competitor unless they have a GAA of 1.00

Isles, Edmonton and Buffalo all decline

Buffalo pass, why we need this trade?

I don't see them being considered negative assets here. BUF is upgrading their goaltending, and getting some picks for getting Olofsson off their books.

From a Preds perspective, I wouldn't trade Lankinen for UPL, or a 3rd and 4th for Olofsson. Moving up two spots is the only incentive for NSH here.

Buffalo doesn’t have to pay anyone to move Olofsson. He is a 28 goal man who just happens to not have a spot here anymore. You clearly see him and Luukkonen as negative assets for Buffalo, which is why you think they should pay Nashville to take them. On both counts you are wrong.

It's not my proposal, and I clearly stated that I feel BUF is getting something in exchange for UPL and Olofsson, and explained what that is (upgraded goaltending and draft picks).

The last thing Buffalo needs is more mid round draft picks, and Lankinen is not as much of an upgrade as you think. Certainly not enough to warrant this trade.

Just because it's not great for Nashville, doesn't mean it's good for buffalo.

We still have 3 goalies, we moved down in the draft and got essentially nothing for it

So it's a trade both teams decline. Like 90% of CF proposals. BUF isn't paying to dump their players here though.

FWIW Lankinen looked quite good once he got out of CHI. I was surprised he re-signed with NSH, instead of trying to find a tandem situation where he could play more.

I would argue BUF doesn't have three goalies though. Both Comrie and UPL are AHL goalies. Levi doesn't have enough pro experience yet. Like it or not, this proposal would result in BUF having one NHL goalie, which is more than they currently have.

I simply do not agree with your goalie characterization.

Lankinen has a .904 career save percentage

Why should i believe his 19 game stint is for real when i have the rest of his career to compare it to?

again, buffalo moves down, which likely costs more than the mid round draft picks you offered, so we are handing you Olofsson and UPL for lankinen? No thank you.

I think a 3rd and a 4th is about fair value to move down two draft spots. A 2nd would be too much at that point in the draft. it really comes down to how the draft has shaken out to that point. If a player NSH covets has fallen to that point, I could see them ponying up more. If the guy(s) BUF wanted at #13 are already gone, why not make the trade. If the player they really want is still there, both of NSH's 1sts might not convince them to move down.

As for the rest of it, I wouldn't do Lankinen for UPL and Olofsson either. NSH would still need to find a backup for Saros, and this year's UFA crop is bleak. I'd rather not have Olofsson in the lineup - especially not at his full cap hit.

Here's what is works ou
I just put two trades in one.
Olofsson for a 3rd and a 4th.
UPL+13OA for Lankinen+15OA.
Nothing here has negative value, it's just that Lankinen can take the reins for a year until Levi is ready. UPL doesn't seem like he'll get much of a shot so why not upgrade?

@Fjordy

When Lankinen was 24 he ws still in the AHL.
Luukkonen will be just fine next year and Levi will carry the load for 50 games.
Olofsson is not a cap dump as he scored 28 goals last year, and only 16 NHL forwards scored faster than his 1.6 goals /60 minutes.
He is worth more to the Sabres than a 3rd and 4th.
Buffalo does not need a GK upgrade and will rather keep Victor than give him away.