Marvin

I have seen NOTHING aside from the chunder spewed on this board which indicates that the Pegulas are anything other than well-intentioned ****-ups. (IMHO, what they have spent money on downtown is more important than the trivialities of the Sabres, so I view them more favourably than most.) There is no evidence of malice with respect to the Sabres whatsoever which cannot be explained by abject incompetence. I just think that his model for always hiring people who are green and grow into the job -- which is what he did to become a billionaire, so what the **** do I know -- is an idiotic way to run a hockey team. And he will keep doing it until he gets to the McBeane of the hockey side.

Is it possible that GMKA winds up keeping both of them and Sabres sustain a roaring start out of the gate? Or are they now preconditioned to not believe this after all these years.

God, I hope you are right. It terrifies me that these could be Russian, Chinese, North Korean, or even well-heeled non-state actors doing this.

Does everyone here assume that every other GM is as dumb as XGMTM or XGMJB on trades? We can expect better than the ROR return, but we are not getting a potential future 1C-in-waiting in return for Eichel, Reinhart, or Ristolainen.

I don't accept that we can't compete for a playoff spot next year. Ice 4 lines of real players (even 12 genuinely 3rd/4th liners), combine that with solid team defence, and then add average goaltending and you can escape the basement. Create a couple of 2-way lines of veterans who are higher-end middle-6 players to insulate the youth after that and you can threaten the playoffs. Start with Skinner-Eichel-Cozens, Ruotsalainen-Reinhart-Olofsson, Asplund-Mittlestadt-Thompson, Bjork-Girgensons-Okposo, Eakin. On defence, you have Dahlin-Bryson, Borgen-Jokiharu, Samuelsson-Ristolainen, McCabe-Miller. Assume the Sabres protect Skinner (NMC), Eichel, Reinhart, Olofsson, Asplund, Mittlestadt, Okposo (mNTC), Dahlin, Borgen and Jokiharu. Let us assume we lose Thompson or Miller, ad arguendum. The Sabres move out Eichel, Reinhart, and Ristolainen. We need to add a couple of veteran defencmen, at least 2 top 6 forwards (preferably 4), and 2 goaltenders. What if we get two each of #2 centres (probably 1 each in from Eichel and Reinhart), a couple of younger potential top-6 prospects, take on a couple of older stay-at-home defencemen with limited term as "cap dumps", and sign a couple of decent goaltenders. That seems eminently feasible with trades and FA. "No one will sign in Buffalo unless they stink" cuts no ice with me. If you make the right kinds of trades for largely the right kinds of players, there is no reason for some FAs to like what we are doing. They key is to find the "right kinds of player." GMKA should look in the mirror and ask, "is this guy a more talented version of myself, Gaustad, Mair, and others like us?" If that answer is "yes", then he is acceptable as part of the return.

I personally would treat these as foreign actors who have access to technology which we can not hold a candle to.

I love Coffee Crisp. Some places around town have the Canadian candies behind the counter if you ask the vendor. Apparently, you are not supposed to sell them in the US.

I love Coffee Crisp. I still eat Snickers because they had a commercial with the Bills in the 1990's.

The Bills did it by accident with Tyrod Taylor, not Josh Allen. Maybe Okposo is the Sabres version of TT.

I would ask, but I do not expect it. If GMKA surprises me, great.

We already saw the analysis from@dudacek and @Thorny on this: that will not happen. Period. We need to think about what a fitty cent piece and two quarters look like for our dollars.

I don't know if I would go that far. The fact that we were at all competitive with the #5 and #6 goalies on our depth chart and without 3 of our initial top 6 speaks well of the coaches and the players. But could it have been done over 82 games instead of 21 with 2 actual NHL-level goaltenders and 6 legitimate middle-6 forwards as my top 6 instead (seems likely if both Eichel and Reinhart go)? That is not at all clear to me.

The one part of the Eichel drama that puzzles me is why are people assuming that Eichel can't eventually understand that the Sabres are following the advice of the doctors and that they might recoil at the player they are paying as a lab rat for this procedure on an athlete of his calibre. Maybe I am just different. In his position, I am quite sure that I would want surgery, but I would have eventually shied away because I would not have liked the risk given my profession. I would not have had neck surgery unless it was absolutely necessary.

Blues fans I know said that Sobotka was done. According to those fans, he was below replacement level. In my book, that is below "run-of-the-mill." Berglund was older, but would qualify as somewhat above average for "run of the mill" by performance and function, but to the high end by age. In an Eichel trade, all "throw-in" players should be at least as defencively capable as Berglund and younger; one of them can even be in Okposo's salary range. No one should even give me a thought about being Sobotka level throughout his remaining contract.

I don't think that's it. I think it is PTSD on the O'Reilly trade. They do.

Berglund and Sobotka were not "run-of-the-mill" NHL-ers. Berglund was years beyond what I thought was acceptable and was a 3rd-4th liner at the time -- albeit a good one. Sobotka was their worst player the year before. What I think we can get are the 2C or 3C with upside who might get pissed at the demotion. Maybe a young guy who is thought of as a supporting player but could evolve into a leader if given a chance. How about a guy buried on the depth chart but who has already shown promise and progress and played acceptably in the NHL. I want those unheralded strong players that even the GM underestimates. I would find those NHLers who have not lived up to ultra-high expectations and reinvented their games to be effective. After my first one, you should recognise these examples of the kinds players I am targetting: DuMont and Drury; Peca and Grier; Hecht and Warrener; Barnes, Briere, Connolly, Larsson, Girgensons, Lazar, and Okposo.

Like it or not, a prime piece of any Eichel trade will be a conditional pick because of the injury. @dudacek showed that a top prospect is already off the table even before factoring in his injury. @Thorny showed why we should want more certainty in our return. When I take those ideas into consideration, I keep returning to my unpopular opinion, particularly with @Buffalonill, that we should expect the Sabres to target more established pieces that strengthen the high end of the middle of the line-up and non-elite, above average prospects: it minimises the risk and guesswork for both sides. I expect even a novice GM to not mistake formerly decent players who are fading for actual 2nd/3rd liners like that idiot who traded ROR for, um,...oh, wait, that was our idiot.

You lost me. I was talking about what the people in Lansing and Ann Arbor are telling me. I figure his base looks like a 20 goal play-making centre. That's hardly a failure and we will need centres in the worst way. I am not talking about a "safe" pick. I value wingers behind both centres and defencemen unless my team is set at centre and defence. As of now, I would not plan on that. Moreover, I expect it will be easier to extract high-end wingers in Eichel and Reinhart trades than centres. Hence, another wing looks redundant. Therefore, I think the (probably) very good centre is more necessary than the potentially (far-)better scoring winger.

Based on what people I know in Ann Arbor and East Lansing tell me, his offence is not weak. They agree that he will not be an elite scorer in the NHL, but rather a set-up centre. Because of my expectations for whom we will be acquiring in return for Eichel and Reinhart (middle-6 centres, mid-pair defencemen, and, if we are lucky, higher-skilled but defencively deficient wingers), I would rather take an eventual 25 goal defencive centre over any wingers.

He wants Guenther in the worst way. Maybe he's right. Maybe he's wrong.

This may sound like going backwards, but there is method to this madness: Should GMKA consider trying to bring Larsson back? One way to protect the youngsters and have them grow up more easily is insulating them by playing LOG line in a majority of difficult defencive situations. And then I would acquire more two-way style players for a second line to help insulate them some more.

[] versus <> And for a brace challenge: {}

IMHO, it's because the surgery offers more immediate relief. That seems to be the most innocent explanation.

Not to be flip: how many players? 1-for-1, 2-for-1, add players on each side? I don't know.