nfreeman

I agree with most of this, but: - I will be pretty surprised if Jack's wingers aren't Reino and either VO or Skinner. That changes of course if Reino is traded. - With Kahun, it really depends on the outcome. If he signs elsewhere for, say, $2.75MM x 2 years, most here (including me) will be PO'd that the Sabres didn't sign him (unless, of course, we are blown away by the Sabres' other moves, but that seems unlikely).

It sounds like the 2 guys they wanted were JQ and JJ, and they got both of them. Yes, it would've been slightly better to have worked out the trade down with Nashville, but that would've increased the risk of missing out on either or both of those guys, and the cost to them for locking in both of them was a 4th-rounder. Not a huge loss.

So, I've now listened to both KA interviews (last night's presser plus this AM with Howard Simon) as well as RK today with the Instigators. I strongly disagree with @Thorny's interpretation. There is simply no way to reconcile KA's and RK's statements with the theory that they didn't view Quinn as a better player than Rossi or Perfetti, regardless of position.

We, the loyal but battered and desolate fan base, are reeling from the franchise's apparent move into cheapskatedness, plus their less-than-inspiring 1st-round-pick, failure to make any trades at the draft and now likely loss of a promising young forward. Will they do something substantial on the first day of free agency -- i.e. at least as big as the Staal trade -- to bolster our spirits? I voted yes, but I'm probably deluding myself.

Interesting, and probably for the best, since it means they won't be relying on him to be the 3C.

How else do SabreSpacers get married?

The bolded is nuts.

Well, as noted upthread, the rule now is that if the award is $4.2MM per year or less, the team cannot walk away. I think that is the primary reason KA made this decision -- i.e. the risk of a non-avoidable award in the $4MM range.

I don’t think we’ve heard any numbers. I chose that one as it’s in the ballpark of the arbitration walk-away cutoff #s mentioned upthread and in the ballpark of what someone with Kahun’s recent production might reasonably expect in arbitration — and so what he might be pushing for in negotiations. I would guess that the Sabres want to give him a prove-it deal in the $2.5MM x 2 years neighborhood, while Dom wants more like $4.5MM x 4 years. So I don’t think it’s a matter of being $300K apart. I also think the TT deal is neither here nor there as it is so cheap as to essentially be a no-risk flyer. Again, i would like to keep him, but I think Kahun is in the class of guys that is really going to get squeezed this off-season, and that there will be plenty of alternatives at comparable cost.

Well, if Kahun wouldn't sign for less than $4MM, I think the Sabres did the right thing here. That would be a ridiculous contract in this economic climate. It's too bad, because he's shown some potential and I'd like to see how he does over a full season. But every team needs to be prudent and the Sabres are no exception.

It has to be said: unless they work out a deal to re-sign him, this looks like a shortsighted, penny-pinching move.

Whoa. So now he's UFA?

That's an interesting question -- would I rather have Mitts or a low 2nd-rounder that the Sabres would've chosen today? I think I'd rather stick it out with Mitts for this coming season, but it's not a no-brainer.

Geez. So no trades at the draft? I sure hope they don't sit on their hands tomorrow and Friday.

Well, your question related to their strategy, which I took to mean that you assumed that they drafted for need and not BPA. Is that not the case? In any case, you are certainly welcome to your opinion/evaluation/interpretation that they drafted for need and not because they think JQ is a better player than Rossi, Perfetti, etc. I just think it is highly unlikely that they did so -- and in fact so unlikely as to be unrealistic. You are right that that is my opinion/interpretation.

This question is based on an assumption that assumes away the whole conversation -- i.e. you are assuming that they drafted based on need as opposed to BPA. There is zero evidence that this is the case. More specifically, there is zero evidence that the Sabres didn't view JQ as the BPA, regardless of what McKeens, Pronman or various SabreSpacers think. As I mentioned in a different thread, it would be nuts for the Sabres to have taken JQ because they are deficient at RW today -- so nuts as to be highly implausible. Of course, which is why @Thorny's assumption is deeply flawed.

I would guess that drafting for need was a factor in the sense that the Sabres needed to bolster their very limited stable of forward prospects as opposed to D or G. However, within the group of good forwards that was available to them, I would guess that they chose BPA. As others have noted, due to the development timeline, it would be nuts for them to draft RWs based on their current roster needs.

Well, he's 5'11", 192 lbs, so pretty solidly built. He's evidently quite fast and highly competitive. Also, he's one of only 3 players to play in the German men's league during his draft-eligible year. Works for me.

You guys are right. I deleted it.

I’d rather have Anderson than Domi.

Not-so-hot take: I'm going to be pretty disappointed if they don't make a real trade today.

First bolded -- do you not think economic activity -- i.e. millions of job losses -- affects public health outcomes? Second bolded -- no -- they say this, which I also quoted upthread: Third bolded -- I don't see any claim of a consensus anywhere in their statement. Fourth bolded -- the declaration doesn't claim to be a cost-benefit study that is submitted for peer review. Fifth bolded -- there are literally millions of people in this country who have acquired immunity at this point. I don't see why this isn't feasible. Sixth bolded -- what is your expertise in this area? Is it comparable to that of the authors? Last bolded -- no one is saying that the vulnerable should be "separated out." The point is that masks, distancing, visiting outdoors, limiting workers to those with immunity and other measures would be implemented to protect them.

Well, I think you're right that the virus spread like crazy initially when there were no measures in place to prevent the spread, and it caused a lot of harm among the most vulnerable segments of the population when there were no measures in place to protect them. I think the point of the GB declaration is that now that the world has 7 months of experience with the virus, we are better off allowing schools and society generally to reopen, as long as there are well-constructed measures in place to protect the most vulnerable. In other words, if we protect the vulnerable, we can live with the spread of the virus among the rest of the population, since (i) doing so will get us to herd immunity more quickly and (ii) the virus isn't that dangerous to the rest of the population. I'm not saying that the GB declaration is unquestionably correct, although I tend to agree with it. I just think it's worth noting that there are a ton of sober, respected experts in the field who are advocating for this approach.

Of course, and the devil will be in the details. There aren't many details on that website, although they do offer this: I think the main takeaway from the declaration is that these epidemiologists/HC professionals believe, as a scientific matter, that a broad reopening will have substantially fewer destructive consequences than a broad lockdown. This is certainly true, but I doubt you could find many epidemiologists at Harvard, Stanford and Oxford to advocate for a flat earth. Tupac, of course, is a different matter.

The Athletic has Perfetti going #4, Rossi going #7 and the Sabres with... https://theathletic.com/2072618/?source=twitteradsbc&ad_id=29871744