JohnC

The middle ground is the same ground that ever team in the league uses to get better. Rigidity in a world of constant change is a strategy that leaves you behind in the real world. When an argument is forcibly made that doing something to work a deal to bring in a good player or two is detrimental because there is too much risk in doing so, then it is time to get out of the business where every transaction that includes drafting, trades, salary contracts, free agency signings is inherently risky. It makes no sense to me.

You are distorting by exaggerating what I am advocating for. Our top prospects such as JJ and Quinn will be on our roster next season. One of our lower first picks included with taking on salary could be parlayed into a good young player or high end prospect who could be projected to be a top two line player. Could our defenseman prospect in Johnson be included in a deal that could help this team? There are options and opportunities to be had with a little creativity and initiative. How about using a second round pick in a deal to acquire a solid goalie? Even if UPL is ready next year we could use another goalie. Repeating what I and others have stated: The Sabres have draft capital and a large cap availability to work with. Using some of the chips on hand doesn't translate into deviating from a rebuild strategy as you suggest.

No it is not! It can be complementary. There are a variety of avenues that all teams use to improve their rosters. What you are suggesting is that the Sabres should only use only one avenue (draft and develop) and foreclose other options to get better. That is akin to using one arm in a fight when your opponent is using both of his arms to kick the dumb asssss who is self-destructively limiting himself. That makes no bloody sense!

I'm not arguing for squandering our assets for a short-term gain at the expense of a more substantive longer-term upgrade. How did the Sabres acquire Jokiharju? It was done in a trade with Chicago for Nylander. That was a terrific deal for us. The point I am stressing is that with our good cap situation and with our abundance of draft picks for the next couple of years some of those assets could be used as chips to bring in a quality player or two. That additional piece or two will make a difference when added to those in our prospect pool who are ready to move up to the big club. With respect to your proposed trade for Toffoli my response is absolutely not!!!! Toffoli will be 30 yrs old and he doesn't fit in with our time scheme to get better. I'm promoting a judicious use of our assets---not a reckless use of them. Last year's team was a bad team coached by an outdated coach whose team quit on him. When you use last year's team as your baseline and talk about improvement you are not offering high praise. In general, I don't think our perspectives diverge much. Where I slightly disagree with you is that I would like to see more creativity and aggressiveness to upgrade this roster this offseason. The Sabres with their good cap situation and draft assets are in a better position to do so than most teams are in. Our positions are more about pace than differences in approach.

It doesn't matter what player or what team was involved. It was a penalty. What made the non-call it even more irritating was that the referee was in position to make the call.

I disagree with you that the rebuild started 6 months ago. It actually started more than a few years back when Botterill took over for Murray. When Botts took over he said his mission statement was to restock the system and not gratuitously throw aways assets for short term gain. If you look at the current roster the young core was mostly brought in during his tenure. In fact, if Botts would have agreed to Pegula's request of basically dissolving the scouting department, he would likely still be our GM. Don't misunderstand what I previously stated. I'm aware that KA is going full throttle rebuild since he took over. I do believe that this franchise needed to do a major re-set. My main point is that with all of our assets that include cap space and an abundance of draft picks this franchise has the wherewithal to bring in one or two good players who could accelerate the rebuild that includes the addition of some of the high-end prospects already in the system. I'm not arguing to abandon the rebuild strategy. What I'm arguing for is a demonstration of more urgency in being proactive to upgrade the talent base and hopefully stop the diminishing fan base from further fading away. When you have only 4000-6000 people attending games having a slow-walking approach to becoming more competitive doesn't seem like the smart thing to do from a competitive and business standpoint. The Sabres are clearly focusing on adding young talent. And that is exactly what they are doing. But that doesn't mean that other teams are standing pat and allowing the Sabres to pass them by. Teams at our low level and teams that are at a higher level are constantly working to upgrade their rosters. So just because our team is getting better doesn't mean that we are passing them and moving up the ranks. In my opinion in the offseason this front office has to be more creative and aggressive in bringing in talent. The pace is simply too slow for me.

Most people here recognized how good he was even on this barren talented team . And most people recognize the inexplicable blunder of not giving him a deserved extension when it should have. The Sabres are what they are because the organization unwisely did what it usually did. The accumulated weight of bad decisions had sunk this ship in deep waters. It's going to take a lot of time and hard work to patch the holes that they themselves created. It's so aggravating!

I'm a Sabre fan. I'm getting numb and fatigued watching this team. It seems that most of our discussions are on the same loop with the same criticisms. After watching the Colorada game I got a spark of hope. Then I was brought back to reality after watching the Columbus game against a team that also played a back to back. It's so sad to see games played on the road in front of a full house with a raucous crowd. That's in stark contrast to games played in a mostly empty home arena with a yawning crowd. Next year, a few more young players will be added to the roster that will continue the rebuild. That's a good thing. The organization still needs to do more to regain its credibility to the many fans that have walked away. What this owner and organization need to understand is that systemic losing is corrosive for the players and the vanishing fans. The organization has to demonstrate some urgency this offseason.

For those who follow the Amerks is Biro on track to be a NHL player? And if so how far away and what is the best line projection for him?

I would prefer VO for 3 yrs at 4 M rather than Burakovsky for 4 yrs at 6.5 to 7 M. In my mind it is a better bargain and allow more flexibility to keep our younger players when their contracts come up. I like your Olofsson/Mitts/Asplund line.

Excluding UPL and JJ, are there any other players in Rochester that you believe will eventually earn roster spots in Buffalo?

I haven't in detail made the projection. What I do know is if the term for Olofsson's contract is within three years it won't be an obstacle to the future required signings. As you well know projections in one year can be far different two or three years down the road due to trades and other in-house transactions. I'm certainly not making an argument for salary recklessness. I just think that what we know about Olofsson's scoring talents prior to his injury a deal at $3.5-4.0 would be a reasonable deal. If you look back at the Ullmark situation the Sabres could have signed him, even if it was on a longer and more lucrative contract than what he signed with Boston. If his term was for 5 years that doesn't mean that he couldn't have been traded in his third year. My point is that there are ways to adjust to the cap situation. There comes a point where you have to compete in the present and not be so obsessed with the future. There are teams with loaded rosters with high many high salary players. Those upper echelon organizations make tough personnel decisions on who to keep and who to move. That's an inescapable part of the business. I'm just more focused on upgrading the roster than worrying about cap ramifications a number of years down the road. Again, I'm not arguing for recklessness when dealing with contracts. This is just my opinion: I believe that Olofsson and the organization will come to a deal in short order after the season because both sides want to get a deal done.

Because of his shoulder injury that not only impacted him when he returned it also didn't allow him to work on his shot while he was rehabbing and practicing. It was evident in his play. It appears that he is now returning to form. I'm basing his next contract on how he played before he was injured. As I said in prior posts the issue is more about the length of his contract than quibbling over the amount in his contract. Our current copious cap situation comfortably allows for the salary that I project. To anyone who has watched the Sabres this year it's clear this team needs additions and not subtractions to its roster.

You bring up an interesting issue. Joki has played well in a pairing with Dahlin this year. But is that pairing the most optimal pairing for Dahlin next year when Power is added to the mix? Samuelsson has played well this year. Who would be the best pairing for him? Is he a second or third pairing type of blueliner? There are a lot of combinations to consider just as there are a lot of line combinations to consider. It's obvious I have more questions than answers!

One of the major deficiencies that this team has had for a number of years is the lack of secondary scoring. If you put Olofsson on a third line with either Krebs, Mitts or even Cozens that problem will be ameliorated. I'm aware that Olofsson isn't scoring much right now. Some of that decline is due to the injury that he had. But what is apparent is that Olofsson has worked on his overall game. He is now more of a full length player rather than just a spot shooter. He's a player worth keeping.

I would be agreeable to 4.5 for 3 yrs. The more important issue for me is length of a deal. Three years seems about right. This team needs to keep and add talent. Subtracting talent is the last thing this thin team needs to do.

Just some quick thoughts on this game: The Sabres have a legitimate first line. Although Tage got the hat trick I thought the best player on the line was Skinner. He was active and made a couple of nice set up passes for Tage to convert. He was the most tenacious player on his line. In general, I thought Tokarski played well except for giving up what I thought was a soft goal. When you are playing against a superior team there is little margin for error. Those soft goals he seems to give up every game are crushers. For a player who hasn't played much this season due to injuries I thought Mitts was moving well. He wasn't making many plays but he was keeping up in a fast paced game. Kadri's goal was on a laser shot. You can't give a hot player like him so much space in a shooting lane. I am befuddled over how some others view the play of Dahlin. Even against one of the best teams in the league loaded with talent he is one of the better players on the ice. At least that is what I am seeing. Making a judgment on an isolated play or two in a fast paced game makes little sense. What I have seen from him this year compared to previous years in his young career is a more physical brand of play. This was a very entertaining game with a lot of flow to it. It was enjoyable to watch. My over-arching thought in watching this game is that it is realistic to believe that with a few more additions this team will be on the rise and become a relevant team in the league. How long will it take? My projection is two years. I have the hope that next year will be a bump up year for us that will lay the stage for future success.

Your post smartly illustrates how the impact of one player can positively reverberate to another player. As you point out with the creation of a top line it allows other players to be better slotted in more appropriate roles. The Sabres for a long time have lacked talent. Obviously so! What that has done is forced third line players to play on higher lines, and third and fourth defensive pairings to play on higher pairings where the disparity of talent is evident when playing against more robust rosters. Is Olofsson a second-line player? I'm not sure, maybe not? But if he plays on a third line and thrives because he has more opportunities to get his shot off, then his biggest asset as a shooter is better utilized. Steadily our roster is adding young players that will eventually put players in the roles that they should be in. If you add JJ, Quinn and Mitts to the mix you can see how the lower lines (second and below) will be better slotted. How many years have the lower lines contributed little in the way of secondary scoring? When you add talents like Tuch and Krebs the benefits reverberate down the line.

I thought the goalie played well. And for the most part there was effort. From an entertainment standpoint it was atrocious.

This game was tough to watch. It was raggedly with little flow to it. Even the RJ, the voice of the Sabres, made a comment that it would be merciful to put the children to bed rather than witness this punishing game. These clunker games can be dispiriting to the fans. So I wouldn't be too critical with the expressions of frustration.

The Skinner issue related to his contract and production is for the most part a closed issue. It is a sunk cost that can't be retrieved. The franchise has to live with its future ramifications. The best way to handle his case is to upgrade the team around him and get as much production as possible from him. He's not movable, so that option is unlikely. As you point out those very long-term deals historically lose their value at the back end of the contracts. The organization is simply stuck with the consequences of that deal. Was that contract worth it? Probably not. The moral of the story is to build a roster with more talent spread out so that the consequences of losing a primary player wouldn't be so damaging. Where we are at is where we are at. If you can't change the situation then you just have to adapt to it. How does the Skinner example relate to Olofsson? I'm not so much worried about what he makes per year. On the other hand I would be against giving him a contract longer than three years. I think we agree on that????

With respect to your argument that Skinner's numbers don't compare to the numbers of good players on upper echelon teams you are without realizing it making my point. Upgrade the team in general and the stats for more players will be elevated. With respect to VO a three year deal at $4.75 to 5 M would in my estimation be a reasonable deal. As I said in a prior post I wouldn't give him a deal longer than 3 yrs. On this issue I believe we are in accord. My sense (opinion) is that getting a suitable deal for him and the organization is not going to be a major issue. TBD.

Is Skinner over-paid? I'm going against the current here and say not necessarily. If he scores 30 + goals for us, he is a valuable player bordering on indispensable. What has turned his game around is that he no longer is playing for a troglodyte coach who is strangling him into oblivion. And when you have a scorer like him and play him with talented players such as Tuch and Tage it translates into production. The Sabres now have a credible first line that can compete with other first-rate first lines. And Skinner is a central member of that unit. What he earns shouldn't be a troubling issue for a franchise that had a challenge to meet the cap floor. When dealing with a roster it is impossible to perfectly calibrate the value/production ratio. Some players are going to be overpaid while some players will be underpaid. The key consideration is to not get so consumed with the salary and focus more on putting a player in a position to maximize his talents and value. That's what Granato has done with Skinner and Dahlin. For those who harshly criticize Skinner for being overpaid my response would be what if he wasn't on the roster? This team would have a gaping hole that would require filling. The next question would be how much would it cost to get a Skinner like scorer? It would not be much different from what we are already paying him. Look at the standings. The reality is that the Sabres are near the bottom of the standings vying with bottom feeding teams such as Ottawa. A primary issue at this time shouldn't be who is over or under paid because the Sabres have plenty of cap space. The critical issue is keeping and adding talent. When the time comes when the cap issue becomes a factor then address it. Make no mistake what I am saying here. I'm not promoting salary profligacy because that would be reckless. What I am saying is that the focus should be on adding talent and not subtracting it for a non-existent cap issue. This team still has a way to go before achieving relevancy. Let's not step back and have to go further to reach the destination.

If he goes on a scoring rampage and his value goes up then I have no problem paying him the going rate. However, I would be reluctant to give him a 5 year contract. If a deal can't get done, then give him a one year contract and let him bet on himself. I would rather have a player excel and then have to deal with an increase in cost than deal with a middling productive player and get him at a cheap price. Having young players who produce and then having to decide who to pay and who to deal is a better situation to be in than having a roster filled with cheap JAGS. For the next few years the Sabres will be able to accommodate an increase in payroll. If, and when, it gets to the point that they have to make tough decisions on who to keep and who to deal off then that's what you do, just like every good team has to do. This is just my impression but I sense that Olofsson wants to get a deal here; and it is my impression that so does the organization.

It's like repeatedly going to the same restaurant in order to complain about the food. ☠️