nfreeman

I said something similar in the GDT, but I think if we’re not past the point of no return, we are really getting close. The team looks completely lost. This can’t be how it is every night for the rest of the season.

I hate to say it, but I think they need to make a major change ASAP, and it’s probably canning Howie. They are mailing it in.

I like Howie, and I think the team's problems run much deeper than just the HC position, but I can't say I'd be unhappy if they dumped Howie and brought in Quenneville this summer. I also wouldn't mind if they brought in a senior czar-type person like when Toronto brought in Lamoriello. What a freaking debacle.

Is Scandy a healthy scratch?

Well, the lack of examples of a team actually paying a fat bonus and then trading the player makes it much less unknown. And communicating like a normal human being who isn't a DB isn't "showing restraint." It's just what normal people do.

OK, but these are generalities that do not address my point: that it is impossible to know how much a trade offer for ROR would've improved if the Sabres had paid the bonus, and that in that situation, most if not all NHL owners would've instructed their GMs to either save the $7.5MM or keep ROR. The Colorado situation isn't applicable because there was no $7.5MM bonus deadline. You are of course free to decline to put the time in and find facts supporting your theory, but all that does is weaken your position.

There's one huge difference: the outcome in a buyout is known, while the outcome in paying the bonus and then trading the player (i.e. whether you'll be able to get a better trade) is unknown. Can you cite any examples of paying a big bonus to a player and then trading him? And your first sentence is an excellent example of why many people here have had issues with you -- and why you are likely to find yourself in time out again soon.

I’ll say it: concern is creeping in.

While I think the necessity of trading ROR is a legitimate question (one which I do not agree with your answer, but still legitimate), the above is where I think you are on pretty shaky ground. I think it’s very unusual for a team in the Sabres’ situation with ROR’s bonus to eat the bonus and then trade him. I think at least 26 NHL owners, and maybe all of them, would instruct the GM to either keep him or trade him before the bonus is due.

I don't think anyone is saying that TM was a better GM than JB. It's fair to evaluate JB and his moves, including the ROR and Kane decisions (and the execution of those decisions) without reference to TM. It's also reasonable to think that JB has been a better GM than TM was but still has made mistakes -- some serious and consequential -- and overall hasn't performed as well as one might like. (NB that I don't think this, but I don't think it's an opinion from outer space.)

OK boys. Let's take it down a notch here.

Ooooooooooohhhh. Huge point for Liger.

Well, to jump over a team with a 4-point advantage, the Sabres need to "gain" 5 points so they aren't relying on tiebreakers. Since the team you're chasing is a playoff team, that means you have to assume that team is going to be playing at an above-.500 pace -- so they are probably going to win 5 of those 8 games and will therefore earn 10 points. When you add those 10 points to the 5 the Sabres need to pass them -- you've got 15 points, or 1 less than the 16 the Sabres would earn with 8 straight wins. As you said -- it's not exactly right, but IMHO it's pretty close -- and the more teams you have to pass, the closer it gets to troof.

My rule of thumb in the “Sabres are X points out of the last playoff spot” is that to take that last spot, 2 straight wins are required for each point they are behind. So if they are 2 points behind, they need 4 straight wins to supplant the current holder of the spot.

If I may: - Lehner was a disaster last season, no doubt in part due to his personal demons. Even so, I'd guess 90% to 100% of NHL GMs would've made the same decision that JB made. And it's nonsense to blame JB and Howie for not saving him and/or getting more out of him. - The debate tactic of "If X had happened, you would've said Y" is weak sauce. It can't be proven or disproved and IMHO doesn't advance a position. - I've already given my opinion on ROR multiple times, so will forbear here, but as to Kane: he's having a very strong season and seems to have landed in the right place. Good for him. I would've been OK keeping Kane, but understood the decision to move on from him. I also think Skinner is better than Kane -- but I'd sure rather have Kane on his contract than KO on his. - As to the broader questions of whether JB and Howie have the right stuff: it's too early to tell IMHO. Certainly there are reasons for both optimism and pessimism. I think it's worth remembering that people tend to improve at their jobs with experience.