nfreeman

Unforgettable. Not so fast there pardner. Darcy's 1st- and 2nd-round picks during that period: 1998 -- 1 - Kalinin; 2- Petey, Norm Milley and Jaroslav Kristek 1999 -- 1 - Barrett Heisten; 2 -- Milan Bartovic, Doug Janik and Michael Zigomanis 2000 -- 1 - Artem Kryukov; 2 -- Gerard Dicaire 2001 -- 1 - Jiri Novotny; 2 -- Derek Roy, Chris Thorburn and Pommer 2002 -- 1 - Keith Ballard and Paille; 2 -- none 2003 -- 1 - Vanek; 2 -- Branislav Fabry 2004 -- 1 - Stafford; 2 -- Michael Funk 2005 -- 1 - Marek Zagrapan; 2-- Philipp Gogulla 2006 -- 1 - Dennis Persson; 2 -- Enroth and Weber That is ONE good NHL forward out of 7 drafted in the first round (and there were a bunch of guys drafted after Vanek who were better than he was), plus a decent player in Stafford and a fringe guy in Paille, and 4 total washouts. I also think that if we're evaluating 1st- and 2nd-rounders, the video scouting period counts too, because those guys would've been scouted in person. In the 2007 - 2013 drafts, the best forwards he drafted in the first 2 rounds (in 16 picks total) were Ennis, Kassian, Armia and Zemgus -- not a top-sixer to be found. Darcy IMHO was good at drafting players who could play in the NHL, but terrible at drafting forwards.

I liked him. He seems pretty sharp, and not like the type of guy who would join a BS organization that isn't committed to winning. We'll see.

I thought Joki was excellent in the 3rd period last night -- cool as a cucumber under pressure, and beautiful skating and passing.

This looks like a good move, and a good sign that the FO will be built back up to NHL standards.

Yikes. Question for the medical types here: is this something that would have developed over time from the wear and tear of playing hockey/lifting weights/etc, or more likely been the result of a single incident (per @SwampD's post upthread about the crosscheck)? If the former, then it probably explains the subpar Jack we saw early in the season before he was shut down. Separately: I think we can stick a fork in the possibility of Eichel being traded this summer. With an injury like this, no one is going to give up a package good enough for KA to accept without seeing Jack back and playing to his peak.

GA has pretty consistently assumed -- with zero justification IMHO but with possible correctness -- that Mitts would turn into a good NHL forward. I'm not there yet, but certainly Mitts is now showing signs that this is outcome is quite possible.

Let the record reflect that with the Bruins swarming for the GWG in the final minutes of the 3rd period last night, the Sabres got a whistle and a D-zone draw with about a minute left -- and Mitts cleanly won a huge faceoff, enabling the Sabres to clear the zone and create a couple of chances of their own. @GASabresIUFAN might turn out to be right about him. Holy mackerel.

Would you rather have Hall for a playoff run this year or Foligno?

I would love it if the Bruins tied themselves to that lead balloon. It’s weird though. You’re right that Hall is a different guy since the injury, but he still seems pretty fast and strong on his skates to me. It looks more like he’s lost his hands and his timing. The mojo is gone and what’s left is flash, dash and empty shifts. Separately, I only saw the 3rd period plus OT, but that was a pretty exciting and hard-fought chunk of a hockey game. The difference post RK in guys like Joki, Dahlin, Mitts and, yes, Skinner is enormous. And I freaking love Cozens. Make the right moves this summer and I will be raring to go in the fall.

But but but -- KA should've gotten a first-rounder! He got worked over by those other GMs! Other teams got more for their players! JFC.

It would have been insane for them to keep Hall in retaliation for Hall's exercising his NMC. The Sabres would've looked even more like a clown show, they wouldn't have gotten the 2nd-rounder or Bjork AND it would've hurt their ability to get FAs in the future.

So -- last fall, would you have walked away from signing Hall over the NMC? Only a yes or no is an acceptable answer -- not "I would've gotten him to agree to a limited NMC/other more team-friendly structure." (I am not trying to single you out, as you are far from the only poster decrying the NMC. My point is simply that pretty much everyone was ecstatic over signing Hall, and this was part of the price to do so.) I will also point out that giving someone a 1-year contract with an NMC is very different from giving someone a long-term deal with an NMC.

I agree with most of this and would just add that I fervently hope (and kinda think) that KA understands that drafting well won't matter unless and until the other fundamental components (coaching, FO and goaltending) are in place.

I think the GM well understood that if he wanted to sign Hall, the NMC was part of the price, and he was OK with paying that price. Do you think that they would've gotten a #1 for Hall if the NMC had not been in place?

I know you know this, but the most critical task is for them to build the right infrastructure to accommodate the good players they already have and (hopefully!) draft: coaching, scouting and goaltending. Right now we are nowhere on all 3 of those.

Well, I certainly agree that KA is accountable for the results. I think the results in terms of Hall's productivity were terrible, as were the broader results of KA's first year as a GM. However, the Hall results in terms of asset management were fine -- they didn't have to give up any assets for Hall, he was on the team for 37 games, and they got a 2nd-rounder and a prospect young player for him. This is nuts. There are multiple credible NHL insiders saying they weren't going to get any more for Hall than what they got, and they were contractually committed to Hall for less than 1 season. This was a country mile away from an Okposo or Skinner debacle, or the tank, or the ROR trade, or GMTM's failed tenure, or JB's failed tenure, or Housely, or Krueger, or for that matter trading Schoenfeld, Rico and Gare.

Again: did anyone here, at the time we signed Hall, say that he/she would've walked away from signing him because of the NMC?

Well, TP did agree to pay $8MM for Hall this season, and eat 50% of Hall's salary for the last 1/3 of the season (so TP is paying 5/6 of Hall's salary), so I don't think there were financial constraints on KA in this deal. Bottom line is that Hall was terrible all year and that, as Bob McKenzie reported, no one was going to give the Sabres a #1 for him. The rest of it (not your post -- I'm referring to all 23 pages of this thread) is just noise.

Who said this and what exactly did he/she say?

If KA had refused to give Hall the NMC, which had led Hall to sign elsewhere, would you (or anyone else) have called that a good decision by KA at the time? The question answers itself.

Has this ever happened? And if KA had taken this rounte, would it not have been a major debacle that would have made the Sabres look even more like a Mickey Mouse franchise? Bob McKenzie, who is pretty credible, said this morning that no one was giving up a first-rounder for Hall. Between that, common sense and seeing how awful Hall was this year, I don't see how anyone can think otherwise.

OK, Mr. Smarty-Pants, but the question remains: do you think Lazar-for-Bjork was something the Bruins made the Sabres do, or vice-versa?

No. Foligno, who is a warrior with some skill, is a much more desirable commodity for a playoff run than Hall, who has looked terrible and useless all season. Exactly. This was a great move for the Leafs. Frankly, if the Sabres had traded Hall for Foligno and given him an extension immediately, I would've been thrilled. Do you seriously think the Bruins made the Sabres take Bjork? I really doubt that -- I think the Sabres wanted a prospect with upside in the deal and the upgrade from Lazar to Bjork was the extra part of the price the Bruins paid for Hall.

Caggiula is on an expiring contract and was a waiver claim. He is not relevant here.