PerreaultForever

He becomes "experienced" once he's fired.

Kid's day. At least the kid's learned an early life lesson in "Refs You Suck!" which will serve them well later in life. Not a terrible effort but still the usual softness leading to turnovers and poor defensive play around the net cost them. Typical result for us facing that type of hockey. Tampa has changed. That was Bylsma hockey. Different look for them. Similar to what the Canucks threw at us. I guess Cooper shifted to that with the early goalie injury and the slightly diminished roster. Team seems to have accepted it. Not exciting, but effective. Nick Paul is an example of exactly the type of player we need to trade for, sign and draft. Peterka was probably the best Sabre today. Power the worst.

More likely "don't play the puck before you step out of the penalty box if you don't want to end up on the year end blooper reels"

No, to clarify, I have absolutely no doubt that he gets calls on Mitts and some other GMs might wonder if he's in the long term plan. We can figure that out without having to know Adams. It seems obvious. The BS part is speculating that it "might happen" when there's nothing to actually suggest that he's in play. Weekes didn't say anything about what he has heard, he just used common sense to say Sabres haven't signed him to a long term deal so he might be potentially dealt. The exact wording matters imo. I personally don't want to trade Mitts or Cozens but I would like us to have a coach that would realize that he should try Cozens on the wing as more and more I think that Cozzens does not see the whole ice well and gets locked in one direction. He's decent along the wall though so imo he should get beefed up and work on being a more straight ahead winger (that hopefully would also drive the net). I do not think that Cozens Quinn Peterka as our second line is a good idea going forward. and I also think that Cozens was paid too much too soon but I suspect they didn't want to do a second Reinhart so Adams rolled the dice thinking he could get lucky again. Trading Cozens seems unlikely to me because of that contract.

Nah, you just seem very passionate about this one topic.

Every time I read the topic title "Greenway on the market" it does make me think I should go buy some fresh vegetables.

If I was KA I would be looking for guys with a few years left on their deals (but not long term, just 1-2 years) that top teams might be willing to shed to make cap space for their own big term deadline deals. For example some team wanting to add one of those Calgary guys might need to move some money to make it possible. Seems to me it would be the perfect time to get a solid 2 way 3rd line guy if some team wants to add a top line guy but lacks cap room. Or a 2nd pairing D man if they want to add a top pairing guy from somewhere. So Calgary gets picks/prospects (in this example), we get some middle value guy cheap (maybe overpaid) and the top contender gets the stud rental. We have the ability to be creative if we want to (and Pegula allows it).

Well there's a lot in there and it can get circular but let me just start with saying I have no idea why this topic is such a bee in your bonnet? I never liked the trade, but in the whole history of the team I think there was worse. Trading away Foligno was a more damaging trade imo. So to 1, 2,3 above, 1) Historically, looking at all trades, you do have to consider time when you evaluate them. 2) Never said it didn't matter, but their hands were tied. Sometimes you need to subtract. ROR left them no choice but to subtract. 3) The aim should always be to "win" but the timeline for when management wants to win doesn't always mesh with fans. There's always two aspects to every trade: The immediate, and the long term. In the immediate, we got killed in the ROR deal. In the long term we did okay and pretty good all things considered. You have to look at Eichel the same way. In the immediate Vegas won big time. In the long term, well, that still remains to be seen but generally people were happier with that deal than the ROR one but unless the picks turn into studs we will have lost that trade worse as Tuch isn't as good as Tage and Krebs isn't as good as Johnson by all early indications. Yet somehow, people at the time here thought we won the Eichel deal didn't they. Deals are funny things. I look at Philly this year and they basically gave Hayes away and they are a better team. But at the same time they had tried to give Sanheim away and he turns around and becomes their best D man. Figure that one out in terms of GM idiocy or genius. Maybe sometimes it's just dumb luck.

? What's the difference? At the time I didn't like it, but I'm trying to look back on it objectively. Since they won a cup I'd guess Blues fans actually think it was their best trade ever and they couldn't care less about Tage Thompson.

Deadline things might be interesting in a few places. Will Pittsburgh give it up and sell? Will Philly actually buy? Can top teams find new ways to use LTIR and cheat on the cap (Boston, Toronto, Vegas etc.). Sabres should be sellers though. What they sell is another matter.

That just sounds like speculative intermission BS. Oh the Sabres are sellers and Mitts doesn't have a long term deal so clearly he's headed out of town. Come on, it's empty of facts. Maroon will be a deadline deal to a contender though. Guaranteed. Chychrun would be amusing. Would new management just put the blame on old? Would they want more than they paid? It's pretty amusing if it happens.

I'm not sure that's true. If I remember correctly St. Louis needed to shed salary as part of it, hence the two veterans who they didn't deem essential to their future. Sabres took what they could get. A body to take ROR's place (or so they thought), some futures and a throw in they thought could help defensively. They may have said any BS at the time, but I really doubt they thought they were "improving". Just getting the best they could. Fortunately, Tage has made the deal palatable. If he'd been a bust then I'd say it was the worst trade ever for sure, but he's not.

idk the stats, but what I do see is that it has the same problems it's had for quite a while. and it's a reflection of how the team plays in general. Perimeter possession, easily kept to the outside with predictable low danger shots and way too much reliance on Dahlin as the central focus. I watch Boston a lot as you know, and their PP has flaws, but it's pretty good. They also rely on one guy a lot (Pasternak) but their motion isn't around the edges, it's cross ice and EVERYBODY goes to the net. It's not that difficult to fix, but you have to have players who go to the front and take the punishment. If you don't, it'll never get where it needs to be.

I agree they treated him badly but I also don't know all the details. The media in Vancouver is a little quick with rumours and they are harder to deal with than the Buffalo media so maybe somebody dropped the ball there but it happens. I wouldn't put it all on Rutherford, but even if it was him being a d&ck he's still a good hockey boss and Sabres would be better off if they'd hired him.

No, I meant his cap number didn't suit Minnesota for what he brought them. That's part of why they ditched him for a pick. We have lots of money at the moment. It's a non issue here.

Ah, maybe, but no. imo I think you want someone hard cold and ruthless at the top of the top to focus solely on winning and if that means some cold harsh decisions so be it. They all know it's a business and they are paid very well so when they get turfed like he was, it's just part of the territory. I've wanted a cold (maybe mean) hockey guy at the top for years. Advocated for Dudley because of Sabres roots but Rutherford would also have been an excellent choice. We need a guy like that instead of Pegula meddling.

Just to be clear, I'm not "removing context" for the sake of arguing and one upmanship, if I remove anything it's to try to stay on the main point of the argument and not to get lost in nuance and tangents. like they tell the dumb hockey players, keep it simple. What was the ROR trade attempting to accomplish in your opinion? I think it was trying to accomplish getting a Debbie Downer who didn't want to be here out of the locker room and getting as much as possible for him before his bonus kicked in (as the owner requested). Don't think there was a better offer out there and in the end we got one star player and one maybe regular D man so it wasn't a total failure, especially with hands being tied as they were. Do you think they were trying to accomplish something else?

I agree, but he should be more physical than he is to be truly effective. Pretty sure this is why Minnesota felt they could ditch him. Not physical enough and they already have more physical guys for those roles. Not good value for what they were paying him and their cap structure. I have zero problems with the trade of a 2nd for him. He's overpaid for what he brings but we have cap room so don't care about that. I'd gladly trade another 2nd for a good face off/PK guy to pair with him.

We did, but it's hard to judge a game like that because when it comes that incredibly easy it does have a tendency to make teams slack and thus a chance gets given up. Chicago's been lulling good teams to sleep as well and occasionally wins one as a result. If you're a better checking team you get an early lead and then coast through a shutdown but since we play wide open most of the time we also give up dumb chances. Worst part was the feeble PP. Showing zero signs of improvement. We should have buried them early with those chances.

I wouldn't trade Greenway because, although he does not play to his size or tough enough for what I want on our bottom 6, he does bring elements that are sorely lacking in many of our offensively leaning forwards. Like his PK ability.

I don't understand what you are arguing so vehemently for. All trades are choices. But both Eichel and ROR wanted out so there was pressure to make a deal but ultimately they are both still choices. I really don't see the difference.

Boy is Chicago ever a big bag of nothing. They literally have nothing with the injured guys out. I think that game set the season record for fasted game of the year. The lack of physical response is laughable.

This makes me think about the Mitts contract thread and the idea of trading a center if Mitts wants top dollars. Perhaps the Sabres want to evaluate Mitts in that 2C role and then field offers for Cozens if they sign Mitts to that money? But more likely it's just because that line hasn't been as good lately and Cozens hasn't been that good so shake it up and see what happens. Clearly, we should beat Chicago, we should be rested and ready to go, but with this team who knows?

That makes the argument/discussion complicated. Any time you trade older for younger (or established for prospect) you have a time component involved. There's very few immediate on both sides trades. Given what you say above you'd be against trading Eichel, Reinhart and Risto as well since those were all for futures (aside from Tuch) and those deals then set the organization back another 5 years right? But really, what was the alternative? I personally give a little acceptance or forgiveness in any forced trade scenarios. Hasek wanted out, ROR wanted out, Eichel wanted out. You never get full value when a deal HAS to be done. Rarely anyway. But sometimes the deal has to happen. A deal that doesn't need to be done but is a choice, like Marcus Foligno, is far worse in terms of grading imo.

Excuse me for not reading and remembering every post on here. You could have just said I'd pay Casey 6-7 million and be done with it. Would have saved you the time for cut and paste just to prove I get distracted easily and have a bad memory. I'd never deny that. All you had to do was ask.