kas23

Yes, look where “spending to the cap” has got us. This is what Terry was saying about having a leaner, more efficient team. Spending to the cap doesn’t get you any prize and Terry knows this. If Jack and Rhino (and Risto) get traded this off-season, there’s a near 0% probability we will be spending to the cap next season. Who in the world would then be spending that on considering we’re projected to have $20M available?

At the Botterill firing presser, Terry made it abundantly clear that he wanted the Sabres to become a more “leaner”, “more efficient” team. Carolina may or may not have come up as an example, which is a team having success with a much lower budget. It even sounded like he was extending this “efficiency” to the roster as well. Yes, they did sign Hall, but against Hall’s wishes, only for 1 year. They wouldn’t even sign Rhino for more than a year. My guess is that Terry wanted to cut costs, including Jack, upon Adams being hired. Instead, Adams talks him off the ledge and asks for just 1 year to right the ship. One last hurrah before blowing it up. This leads to the 1 year signings. Lastly, and perhaps the biggest proof is that Terry has do this before. ROR was another 1C jettisoned. Was it a hockey decision to trade him before the bonus had to be paid? We supposedly had much more attractive offers if we had paid the bonus. Yes, there were other issues and I don’t want to minimize them, but money seemed the highest priority in that trade, not hockey sense.

And why was Adams brought in and what was his primary job? This whole thing is starting to sound like a cost-cutting measure, rather than a sound hockey decision.

Ironic thing is if we had kept GMTM, or in the very least kept ROR, we’d likely be having a very different conversation. The tank in itself was successful. We drafted a “generational” talent, which we still have the rights to. What we definitely failed is forming a cohesive team beyond the tank. So, the tank itself was not sufficient for forming a competitive team. This is obvious. However, this story hasn’t ended yet. We have Eichel and Rhino, which we’ll likely flip for (hopefully important) assets in the very near future. These are assets we would not be acquiring if not for the tank. I’m still interested in where this goes. And I’m sure everyone else posting here is too.

If Skinner ends up being part of an Eichel trade (which would decrease the value we receive in return), we can all assume Terry was driving this transaction. I can’t think of any other major reason to shed $19M in salary.

Best ability is availability and Jack doesn’t have that. Sam and Jack essentially broke into league at the same time, but Sam has played 79 more games.

I think Sam has a higher value than Jack. He has shown a consistent ability to be on the ice, has demonstrated improvement each year, has excelled during Granato’s tenure, has shown he can be a decent 1C, and is cheaper than Jack. I can’t blame him for vocalizing he’s sick of losing. Would anyone on here say otherwise?

Are you suggesting NHL GMs aren’t currently concerned about Jack’s injury history? I can’t possibly believe that. Keep in mind that any accepting team is on the hook for another $50M and a NMC.

So, you’re saying this is a team sport and even Jack in his prime couldn’t have helped them this past year. I agree. The playoffs are proving this too. There are excellent players, but I don’t see any Jacks, Connors, or Austins. So, maybe we need to take a different view on how we form our roster. This may be with or without Jack, but trading Jack for different assets certainly doesn’t preclude us from playoff hockey.

With his injury, the exact same thing could be said of Jack. He may never get back to the player he was 2 years ago. Then the Ducks are left with nothing.

That pretty much describes 80% of all married men over 40.

If they want a player who will likely be their top LHD for many years (or any other young player they highly covet), then they probably would want to trade up. They have no players right now, so they’ll probably be open to anything. The problem is they’re not likely to part with draft picks. They need as many of those they can get too. The only way I would do it is if we can get Skinner to waive his NMC and they select him.

If we get 8OA too, I’m going with Wallstedt. Sorry, don’t know if he’ll work out, but next to 1C, that’s the most important position on the team.

I really meant the constant bitching and moaning isn’t confined to the summer.

Summer?

Totally. Luck happens when preparation meets opportunity

Yep. The lengths players will go through to avoid playing for the Sabres. He should’ve played it cool like Power and stuck to the letter writing.

No mention of our marque $8M addition playing like an $800,000 scrub? What about our goalie situation? Or still not having a viable 2C. Minor roles? I don’t think a single player makes a team. Look no further than the “Eakins biggest blunder thread”. Every excuse under the sun is in there why we sucked.

I would say that neither of them were responsible for the spectacular success of East Resources. Neither of them were responsible for the development of hydraulic fracturing. I chalk this up to being in the right place at the right time.

Completely agree. If STHs haven’t been scared off by the last 10+ years, Eichel being traded isn’t going to do it. And this is the type of decision I really wouldn’t want made with the STHs in mind. That’s a Terry/Kim move there. This must be a pure hockey decision made by real hockey people with the goal to make our team better.

Can’t say for certain. Doubt any of us can. Too many moving parts. One thing is for sure though. The Sabres can be a highly entertaining team without Jack on the ice. Can they win in a sustained way? Not sure of that either. On the bright side, if we delay this decision to the first month of the season, maybe we demonstrate a winning culture and he has a change of heart and we keep him.

Season ticket holders must be living under a rock if they weren’t aware of the Jack drama going on right now. Plus, I think the team Granato was leading would’ve put more butts in the seats that the Eichel lead team during the beginning of the year.

I think it would be poor judgement for a GM to trade for Jack at this moment, unless this GM (or owner) is completely enamored with him and would take the risk. He’s right in the middle of a injury treatment argument. Wait to see how it plays out first. Worse comes to worse, you see how Eichel responds to training camp or the first few weeks of the season, then you pull the trigger. After all, the centerpiece coming back is not likely going to be a roster player.

I think it’s highly likely the new team will deny the surgery as well. It’s not the conservative approach (with rest/rehab being first, then a partial laminectomy being 2nd). They’re not going to want their player to become this surgeon’s “I was the first to implant an artificial disc in a professional athlete” trophy. So, the question becomes, will the receiving team *have* to be on board with this procedure prior to the trade? It’s widely know what Jack wants at this point. If I were the Sabres, I’d get him to medical arbitration ASAP to eliminate that overhang. I doubt they’ll side with Jack.

I really don’t see KO as this problematic. He may be a little pricey for the position he plays, but he is a vet and a good soldier. Plus, sending KO out produces a new hole, which we’ll have to spend money on. So, what really is the net savings? If we were to do this, I would want a 2nd/3rd rounded coming back too.