nfreeman

I don’t doubt that many 50-point guys get $5MM. However, (i) not all 50-point guys are created equally and (ii) I don’t think the Sabres need to repeat other teams’ mistakes (by paying guys too much, which can happen pretty easily if the decision is based solely on points). I think I said above that I was OK with paying more for a consistent 65-point guy — which I assume would be north of $6MM per year.

Before I can be OK with giving him a long-term deal, I need to know that Reino is part of the solution and not part of the problem. His play last year looked a lot more like he was part of the problem. As for the 2 years before then -- I don't agree that he was pretty consistent, although it wasn't night-and-day like last year. Still, there were plenty of long stretches in his 1st 2 years in which he was completely ineffective. I am pretty sure he went something like 28 games in his second year with 1 even-strength goal. More to the point, his 3 years of work to date makes me NOT want to give him a long-term deal. He's a young, highly paid high draft pick who's put up OK numbers on a terrible team that apparently has had serious off-ice issues. He hasn't displayed any leadership or difference-making whatsoever. That is exactly the kind of guy I want to wait and see on. Because he very much fits the profile of an entitled guy who gets a fat contract and then immediately plateaus. And if he gets the bridge deal he deserves, uses it as motivation and then turns into a consistent 65-point guy who doesn't hide under the bed when it counts? I'm happy to pay him the extra $1.5MM per year that he'll have earned.

On my team, they don't twiddle their thumbs for the first half of the season while the season goes down the drain, then put up numbers in a series of meaningless games, and then get rewarded with a fat, long-term deal.

I think Reino's last season was worth well below $5.5MM, and would be quite unhappy if the Sabres committed to pay him that much for the next 5-6 years and got 5-6 seasons like what Reino delivered last year. Frankly, if my crystal ball told me that Reino was going to deliver that kind of season every year, I would try to unload him and there is NFW I would give him a long-term deal.

Sorry NS. God bless your friend and his family.

As to the 1st paragraph: this is not illogical, but it ignores the human element, which appears to have been problematic. As to the 2nd: I didn't mean to imply that you were beating a dead horse -- just that the "he could've gotten more/no he couldn't" conversation has been had multiple times, so I wasn't interested in beating that horse either.

So that means essentially you were ready to try again with the same core as last season (albeit with different goaltending). Would you have fired Housley this summer? If not, why would next season have been better than last? As for the "they should've gotten more for ROR and Kane" -- the discussion on this has been had repeatedly. Suffice it to say again for the record that I disagree that it was possible to do so.

I don't think there's anything wrong with speculating as to what's going on behind the scenes -- it's a high percentage of this board's content. IMHO, it's entirely logical to consider Reino's career, especially last season, and the fact that players generally prefer long-term deals, and JBott's various public statements about his team-building philosophy, and conclude that JBott wants a short-term deal while Reino wants a long-term deal.

Serious question: do you think they should not have made any changes to their core? Or do you think a different member of the core (like Reino or Risto) should've been traded? Or do you think JBott should've gotten a better package for ROR (despite him being openly on the market for months)? Or other? The ELCs of the first 3 guys you named were wasted when the decision to tank was made, which was before JBott arrived. Having some vets on moderately priced contracts does not mean that the ELC years of Dahlin and Casey will be wasted. And as Liger pointed out, taking on some of those contracts was part of the purchase price for guys like Scandy and Sheary.

Well, by this logic, no assistant coaches would ever get hired for HC positions.

I thought Allen had 2 bad throws in a row on the same possession in the first quarter. Otherwise he was on target. There were also 2 drops IIRC. I'd probably blame him or at least hope for a better avoidance play from him on a couple of the sacks. Certain the O-line play was pretty poor too. It sure didn't make me happy for springing for Sunday Ticket.

I don't think a Karlsson contract will require an annual salary quite that high -- i.e. I'd guess in the $10.5MM per year range -- but I think it will take 8 years to get it done. I don't think it's the contract that has held up a trade. I think it's just Ottawa holding out for the best trade offer.

Do tell!

FWIW, I kinda think Hunwick will beat out Nelson, beaulieu and Guhle for the #6 D slot, at least to start the season.

Sure, there's a way to pay someone else to take a bad contract off your hands, but that's a move that a team makes when it's in a cap crunch. It doesn't seem likely that the Sabres will have that kind of urgency next summer, especially not with Sobotka.

You won't regret it. Their Bills and Sabres coverage/analysis is significantly better than any other publication's.

Well, Cleveland isn't really a good example of a sound organization that makes good decisions. While I continue to think that TT was generally underappreciated, and that he didn't really get a fair shot here, since his teams for the 1st 2 years were coached by a buffoon who was mailing it in and since once Harvin got hurt in TT's first year here, TT never had even a decent group of receivers to work with, I can't dispute McD's and Beane's conclusion that it was time to move on from TT. There were quite a few games during TT's tenure here where he was simply unable to produce any offense whatsoever.

Regarding both of these posts: if the Sabres don't want Sobotka or Hunwick, it's pretty likely that no one else will either -- which means the Sabres will be stuck with them.

Outstanding article in the Athletic today on Casey: https://theathletic.com/486383/2018/08/24/the-gifted-sabres-super-prospect-casey-mittelstadt-a-playmaker-in-the-truest-sense/

That cracked me right up.

Agree on all except the bolded, and you might be right on that too.

Well, I thought Jackie boy spoke pretty positively about ROR. He said a couple of times that they were good friends. There was no throwing ROR under the bus.

I'd guess that they offered him a 2-way deal and made it clear that it was reasonably likely he'd be in Rochester and have to compete for an NHL spot.

There is no doubt in my mind that teams play differently (and better!) in front of goalies they respect. The Sabres played better in front of Dominik than in front of his backups, and better in front of Miller than in front of Lalime.

First, Dahlin, Casey and Skinner are each better than Reino and Risto. Second, Faulk will cost more than McCabe and a low first. Third, the bolded is a reasonable view, although I would make the trade I proposed in a heartbeat.