PerreaultForever

I'm going to reply to a few things here that are way off and a spin on what I said. First, I didn't say trade Dahlin, I didn't say he was garbage. What I said was he's very gifted offensively and he's valuable. Makar has Toews. Dahlin has ? Jokiharju? (Samuelsson's made of glass). As for Dahlin growing, he's at prime age now. He is what he is. Now, to my "biggest problem", lol, it's hardly a problem at all. Having them as TEAM B or second team or whatever you want to label them as is the only thing that keeps me sane with the Sabres being as bad as they have been. They have given me joy in watching hockey, unlike the Sabres. It's not a "problem". So, I've never said we have to be Boston, or reach their "levels" but they are an example of a thriving hockey culture that I am familiar with. They do a lot of things the right way and emulating that wouldn't be a terrible idea. No on to Chicago, I think you need to take a closer look at the actual make up of those cup winning teams. Those are not offensive juggernauts, they are well balanced teams. Remember when Chicago pissed off the super skilled Vancouver referring to the Sedins as "the sisters"? The sisters never won a cup. Chicago had more than enough grit and was a well balanced team that could play good defense to go along with Kane and other's offensive skills. Their Toews was one of the best 2 way centers in the league. If we were modelled on those Chicago teams I'd have no problem with that. There's no issue with being fast. I often think the Bruins are too slow and that's part of their playoff woes over the years. Fast is good. But playing defense and having a solid team structure with defensive layers is also good. Our fast exit system is total b***s**t. We also need to use our speed and size and forecheck heavy, finish our checks rush their D and knock people off pucks. All too often we just float and play fair weather hockey. You can defend it all you like, and I've seen you often saying this Sabre is really good or that one just needs more time and so on but LOOK AT THE RESULTS. It's garbage. It doesn't work and it won't work. It's just not how you play winning hockey. We need a new coach, and we need a GM who knows how to construct a proper roster that can play 2 way hockey. Until we get that, you will be stuck with your "problem" in the Sabres bubble of maybe next year. Adams/Pegula is like Lucy holding the ball for Charlie Brown. Next time, it won't get pulled away. Sorry Charlie. Fooled again.

This is possible, but hard to say and it depends on how you measure "better". What makes a D man "better" varies by definition. I will give you an example, on this site most fans would say Dahlin is better than McAvoy and they would never trade Dahlin for McAvoy. On a Bruins site they'd laugh at that and would want 3 firsts along with Dahlin to even consider it. Just one example but if you think about it I think it makes the point. I really liked Jiricek at that draft moment and unless he is a head case (as some suggest) I think he will be a stud D man in time. But we wouldn't know what to do with him and would ruin him too. I'm pretty certain of that. What needs to change on this team imo is the make up and identity of the team itself. Pegula hockey is NOT winning hockey. Fast skating shooty passy possession hockey with no defense and no grit is just never going to win enough games to get us anywhere. We need a Tochet type coach and a GM to change gears on the team structure and composition. Until we get that, it'll just keep floating along the same feeble way no matter which pieces we change.

I'm curious but to the 3 bolded sentences, why? What's so special about Ryan Johnson that makes him untradeable? Or Levi? Peterka's been very good this year and is progressing forward so his price would be high, but he's not indispensable either. I don't give up on D men at Power's age, but there's no question we do not know how to develop D men properly so for the right price........ and what's so special about the "top line"? Who is the "top line" anyway? Mitts Tuch and Greenway now? Tage is inconsistent, Skinner's a liability, and.....it's Okposo right now so idk who you were thinking as the other wing. It's hardly a "top line" Dahlin can be a valuable player, no question, but he's not defensively good enough to build a team around. If that's your number one guy you'll have the same problem Ottawa and then San Jose and now Pittsburgh has with Karlsson. Lots of points, but gets you nowhere. Really I just dont' see how ANYBODY on this team is "untradeable".

One of the reasons for that is that we keep a guy like VO on the roster all season but he can't crack the line up ever so why is he here??? It's as ridiculous as the 3 goalie situation was. Where's the half dozen fringe NHL vets that can be called up when needed and/or waived and sent back down when not needed? Other teams have them. If the kids aren't ready for call ups the organization HAS to have those guys. We don't have any more injuries than any other team (at times) so for the roster to look this bad with a few guys out is just ridiculous and the GM didn't do his job.

Showcasing Kyle and EJ for the trade deadline? Seriously idk, it's not a very impressive looking line up. I'd expect Benson is reaching rookie burn out at this point too. It's a swiss cheese line up unlikely to win more than about 40% of the remaining schedule.

Sort of but not really. I hate all star/break time and have no use for it so I miss hockey in general during this period but the Sabres, not really. There's only been about a half dozen or so Sabres games this year that I found to be truly entertaining or "good" hockey. They generally bore and/or disappoint. Like @Pimlach I wish they would be better and they would give us good hockey but it just doesn't happen and I see no reason to think it will happen this year or even next (unless changes happen).

Don't kid yourself, we're stuck with this line up even if we miss the playoffs (which we will, not sure why anyone would even think that's a possibility at this stage).

Made of glass. I really wish they'd give better details on what it actually is though. "Upper body" is just such bs.

Salt Lake City Sabres actually has a good ring to it. Just saying 🙂

I agree with this. If your core isn't successful, as a GM, your first thought has to be how do I change this core or what do I change to get results and not this is my core and I will wait for them to become successful. The word "core" is a fairly new term for hockey in general. I never remember it being used back in the day. Veterans was used, leadership was used, but never "core". The entire team was seen more as a collective group led by some veterans. I think free agency and the salary cap especially has created this new scenario where teams feel they need a small group (the highly paid) to be the "core" of the team and then they cobble the rest together with lower salaries and entry level deals. So as you say, it's kind of pointless to rally around any "core" if they are not successful. Personally I don't see any indispensable parts to this team right now. There is no star goalie. There is just a couple young prospects in UPL and Levi but no core stud. Dahlin is an offensively gifted defenseman and these are a big deal in the modern NHL so he's important since you have him but not indispensable. His defensive game is lacking for that status. He's nowhere near Hedman level imo. None of our forwards have played to core status either imo. Tage can be very good. Cozens was looking good last year but not so much this year. Mitts has actually been our best forward this year and at times Tuch shows me solid leadership (at times) but not one of them is top level core imo. Not right now anyway. Leadership, work ethic, and consistency is also part of what makes a good core. We really lack that as a whole.

imo that's too many names to be a "core" (whatever a core actually is, just a buzz word really). The team has no VETERAN core. A bunch of young guys with talent doesn't come together into anything unless it has leadership.

He lives in British Columbia, where the reaction to this is basically "aren't you?"

Your bottom sentence is exactly my point. This process/development thing is BS. We should have already been aggressive. They're blowing it and if they blow it for too long we will just end up with another wave of exits like Reinhart/Eichel and yet another round of "development". If the Canucks had chosen to do it our way they'd be right down with us.

He's got a free time year earning $5 million so he's not coming to Buffalo next season unless we gave him $ and term. Pegula will not do that, no way.

You're making excuses. Boston was a "freak". Vancouver is a "strange case". It's just not true. What they are doing is making good moves and being successful. Sabres are not. It's just that simple.

It's not just that though. Your strength matters. How you play the game matters. Your on ice awareness matters. It's too early to say Quinn is injury prone, but imo we are rushing most of these guys and at the same time I do not think we put enough into strength and conditioning, physical development. He's a bit of a light weight. Injuries like this can happen to anybody though. The faster you play the more open you are to bad outcomes should you lose your balance for any reason.

So with the Kings hiring Hiller on an interim basis, https://www.nhl.com/news/todd-mclellan-fired-by-los-angeles That likely means one less good coaching candidate available for next season. Get ready for another year of Granato.

Skinner yaps and whines a lot. If we, as a team, were more relevant I'd bet he'd rank higher on the list. Much higher. We, as a team, are easily dismissed though.

Okay fair enough, but Vancouver was supposed to be just like us and worse this year right? A few young promising stars. A few old stiffs. They found a way to change their circumstances didn't they? We are in the circumstances the franchise creates.

Sell ALL pending UFAs and anybody else he thinks is not part of the future or doesn't fit (if there are any buyers) Buy a player cheap if there's a team that wants to jettison somebody to free up cap space for some other move. Obviously no complete stiffs unless they are pending UFAs too and not unless we get asset(s) back to make it worthwhile, but it should be explored. TBH though we have little of value for deadline deals. EJ should get us something and maybe somebody takes Kyle if we retain salary but I suspect that's about it. Teams will call about Greenway and possibly others but there's no need to move them unless the offer is too good to turn down.

Bringing up L.A. goes against your argument. They've brought in players to go with their young talent and, although they are in some sort of coach killing funk at the moment, their overall rebuild has progressed much faster than the Sabres and their picks and prospects develop our own model has. You can believe the Bruins are some sort of "freak of nature" but they aren't. It's called good asset management, strong team culture, and proper roster construction. You can think of them as some old team ready to fall but they aren't that either. They're about the same age as the Leafs, Tampa and Florida, and hello, those are your division playoff teams. Not only that, they actually have MORE projected cap space for next year than the Sabres. Once again, not freaky, just good management. Could they make poor signings, blow that cap space and take a fall next year? Sure, anybody can, but I wouldn't put money on it if I were you. Their situation is actually pretty solid and although they have few prospects in the system they do have a few that will fill holes as they have done a better job on role players and specific needs. If you have one center hole on your roster you do not need 5 center prospects, you just need one that's good enough. You don't have to limit this to freaky Boston. Florida made moves. Tampa made moves. There's lots of examples of teams in it to win it. Vancouver now joins that group, and where were they a year or two ago? You really think the Sabres way is better??????????????????????

trust the process development year

If he has a good playoff run I'm sure Vancouver will make him a solid offer but I suspect he still goes to free agency regardless. Bruins, among others, will likely be interested in free agency. He will drop down the line up as he ages but he is versatile and a 2 way player so I think he will still be in demand.

Nothing personal, but this is loser logic. You've been in a Sabres bubble too long. I'll contrast what you are saying with how Bruins fans talk about deadline deals. The argument you make would be they've lost a lot of deadline deals. They have a weak prospect pool. GM must be an idiot right? But there they sit year after year in first place. Even though they went out in the first round last year nobody talks about how they shouldn't have gone all in with Bertuzzi and Orlov. Sometimes the deals fail. Sometimes they succeed like when they got so much out of Johanson they made it to the final and that run convinced our GM that Johanson was worth signing the next year. But it's all in and it's playoffs every year and the fans love it and the culture thrives and people want to be there and Sabres fans just hate the Bruins year after year and watch from the outside as they "win trades". Did we "win" the Vegas trade? Did we? Bet there's no Vegas fan that thinks that or cares about any of those picks/prospects they gave up. Vancouver is showing they care. They want to win. It matters. Nobody in Vancouver thinks the owner sucks.

So what? So what if Kuzmenko scores 50 goals next year? Nobody in Vancouver cares. This is an example of how fast a rebuild can work if you hire a good coach and a competent GM. Kuzmenko was a poor fit to Tochet's hard work system and thus he was expendable and they are all in on winning and winning now. The fans are excited, the team is a contender and the Canucks are thriving again. So yay for Calgary they won the trade, and they can enjoy watching the Canucks in the post season. Sabres win trades too. Yay?