JohnC

I agree with you that Cozens isn't ready to play as a 1C. But what if Cozens is our best option at 2C? Why wouldn't you want to play him there? The Cozens situation is much different from the Mitts situation as to the perils of playing a young player too soon. The biggest difference is that Cozens will be more physically and emotionally mature than Mitts was at that stage. At the time that Mitts first played the real problem wasn't which line was he ready to play as much as was he ready to play at all in the NHL. And the obvious answer was no. He was simply not physically and mature enough to play in the NHL. That's a big difference between Cozens and Mitts when considering where Cozens should play. Cozens is a young player with a lot of potential. But even as a young player what stand outs about him is his maturity. Because of that attribute he will be able to constitutionally/psychologically contend with the inevitable struggles of a young player given responsibility. Because of that I'm not as worried as many people are about elevating his role if he shows in camp that he has earned it.

We here differing reports that make it difficult to know what the actual contract demands were made by Ullmark. But if it is true that Ullmark wanted a six year contract term from Buffalo after he had a four year offer from Boston then Adams made the right call. Did Adams only offer a two year term? It's becomes a moot point if Boston offered a four year term requiring an even lengthier contract from Buffalo in order to stay. Considering what has been claimed by both sides I'm more inclined to side with our GM on his decision.

If you go through your list you can find a half a dozen legitimate prospects who should be ready or close to being ready to move up the ranks to the NHL after another year. Those on the list would include Power, Bryson, Johnson, UPL, Samuelsson, Quinn and JJP and maybe Laaksonen. If you add that group to the young core currently on Buffalo's roster you can see it significantly turning over in another or so. The current core is Dahlin, Joki, Mitts, Thompson, Asplund and Bjork. If you add both groups up the total is more than a dozen players. For the sake of argument let's assume that Jack is traded and we get a high end center prospect such as Rossi, Zegress or Krebs then you can add that player and maybe another player to the mix who should be ready in a year or so. The point I'm making here is that this roster is going to be dramatically turned over after the departure of our old top three core. The Sabre front office has a reasonable plan if not the best plan to reconstruct the roster. The rebuilding process is certainly going to be painful in the short term but if done right it won't be as long as many people think. The key is having the fortitude to stick to it.

As more information comes in the more inclined I am to agree with the GM in not willing to sign Ullmark for the 6 yr. term. (This is a change in my position.) I previously argued that the Sabres should have been willing to pay more within the same 4 year term that he signed with Boston. But as more information comes out (according to the Buff. News) it appears he wanted a 6 year contract. That's too long for a goalie of his caliber and with his injury history. I like Ullmark a lot. But let's not get carried away. The value that this new regime placed on his talents and his contract demands simply didn't match. In my view the GM's decision/judgment was more more than reasonable. Wanting to retain a player is not the same as having to retain a player at a future debilitating cost. The Skinner contract is the embodiment of that mind-set that you have to have a player beyond one's actual value. Acting on a short term temptation can have longer term negative consequences. When talking about a player's worth we are not talking about an endeavor that requires precision. We are talking about value falling within an acceptable range. With the added information that has just come out about the Ullmark saga it seems to me that our young GM used good judgment to not go outside the value parameters he established for Ullmark. This is a case where the player acted in his own best interest and so did the organization. In the long run strategic thinking is better than short term tactical advantage. I wish Ullmark well.

I don't know what point you are getting at with me. I didn't disagree that good players who reach UFA will want to leave such a disheveled disorganization. It's understandable that it would be a normal/rational desire not to want to waste one's career anchored to a team that has been stuck in the mud for half a generation. And contrary to what you just stated I acknowledged the fact that the GM wasn't going to spend at a high level to enhance the roster. How is it known to the audience at large? Because he clearly stated that is what he was going to do. So there is no mystery about the strategy he was going to take in this offseason. What you did is basically miscast what I actually said. For what reason? I don't know and I don't particularly care because that is what you do.

Jack does need surgery. There's no doubt about it. The issue is not whether he needs surgery as it is what type of surgery does he need. Don't misinterpret the fact that just because he is skating and maybe even playing in pickup games that it is an indication that a surgical procedure isn't needed. What he is not doing in his offseason training sessions is hitting anyone or being hit. He still needs surgery. And that is why it is so challenging to work out an acceptable trade that would get back a reasonable return for him.

Winning is without question critical in the development of the young players this organization is going to rely on. The best way to support them and put them in a position to succeed is to back them up with solid goaltending. It's going to take time for the youngsters to play to their potential because they are still growing as players. The reality is that because of this transition to younger players this team is not going to be a contending team. That is not to say that it can't be a very competitive and entertaining team next year. The best way to undergird these rising players (hopefully) is to put them in a better situation to win. If anyone doesn't believe that systemic losing is corrosive then they need to explain why so many of our players want out? I can understand why the front office felt that the contract terms for Ullmark were too long and rich. But paying a premium is the cost of running a ramshackle organization. And on top of that the Sabres have more leeway than most teams because they have such a large cap space to work with. The organization was in a good position to absorb his contract and still be in a good position and help to put the young players in a position to succeed. When you take a step forward and then take two back you end up going backwards. It's getting tiresome.

Did you read what I wrote? They are not retaining the players they drafted and developed. The issue isn't about enticing players to come in. The organization has made it clear that isn't how they are going to operate. (I'm aware you pointed that out.) The problem is that the players they drafted and developed are moving on. The escalator going down is faster than the one going up. That was my point.

There is a another self-sabotaging side to running a dysfunctional operation. It goes beyond enticing players to your team. It's about retaining players that you already have. As you well know contracts have expiration dates. What we are seeing this offseason is that players on the roster who were drafted and developed by us are determined to find better situations when they no longer are contractually obligated to the team that drafted them. The problem this offseason isn't enticing people to come as it is enticing them to remain. Ullmark exemplifies that trend.

If you are going to do it you need to do it right. 🍺 https://www.thekitchn.com/how-to-make-a-classic-martini-240334

How were the Sabres blindsided? If they are offering a player to play on a team that is being deconstructed the same contract as a genuine cup contending team. Why should it be surprising that the player prefers the better situation? When you are running an unstable operation and competing with a stable operation there is a premium to pay for it. If you had a choice to either buy a house in a ghetto or pay the same price in an upscale suburban area what decision do you think the potential buyer is going to make? The Sabres have a history of overpaying for players with long terms who didn't merit it. This is a case where if they reasonably overpaid for Ullmark it would have made sense for a variety of reasons. The first is that the team has plenty of cap space to handle the slightly excessive contract. And the second and more important reason is that by stabilizing the goaltending situation you are providing more support for a very young roster that will need it. The mantra of drafting and developing as the new way of running the hockey operation is spouted out a lot. The shame of the Ullmark saga is that the Sabres drafted and took years to develop him only to see him bolt. This is another example of a self-induced setback for a franchise that it is already so far back that it is out of sight with the rest of the teams. It's maddening!

The organization is scouting the zoos for their big time stopper.

Anderson is a funny guy who will be backstopping a sad team. https://www.google.com/search?q=louie+anderson&rlz=1C1SQJL_enUS802US802&tbm=isch&source=iu&ictx=1&fir=qtR9je1_Nw0MKM%2CW61sB7fqGzOacM%2C_&vet=1&usg=AI4_-kTJvTCWAZVFfIYxsZpdgJ_ib4XfAA&sa=X&sqi=2&ved=2ahUKEwjL07Ptk4fyAhVth_0HHeynD0AQ_h16BAgPEAE&biw=1920&bih=969#imgrc=qtR9je1_Nw0MKM

The hunt for goaltenders is not over. But today Seattle traded Vanacek back to the Capitals for a second round pick. If the Sabres would have offered Seattle a second round pick they would have taken it because we certainly will be drafting higher than Washington. This is another missed opportunity. And it should be recognized that making an offer for Vanacek would have made sense even if Ullmark would have stayed. What this organization has to understand is even with a youth movement you have to give them the proper support in order for them succeed. What's becoming evident is that systemic losing is corrosive in so many ways.

You make a good point that both the front office and the player have an understanding as to what direction the franchise is taking. And both sides of the table recognize that parting ways is the right thing to do for each of their interests. And as you noted the organization was open to moving him last year. So the player shouldn't surprised by the openness in the bidding process. No one should be critical of Jack, Samsnon and Risto preferring to move on and have a chance at starting fresh with teams that are more competitive. And no one should be critical about the organization of wanting to reshuffle the roster that has been stagnating for years. Now it is all about the return.

The front office is looking for players who are consistent.

It doesn't matter what team a deal made with. As like you I will be extremely disappointed if a high end center prospect is not part of the return. Vegas, Minn, Anaheim and LA have assets at that position that would be more than acceptable. That is more of an essential piece of a deal than is a high draft choice. Ideally, both pieces would be part of a deal. Let's get it done!

It's called hedging one's best at an exponential level. In that way no one can say you were wrong when your bet doesn't hit the mark. I know I am not alone in how I feel that I want this Jack issue to be finalized. My standard is not extreme. I simply want a reasonable deal, and want it done sooner rather than later.

I understand your point and it makes sense. You did give an accurate portrayal of how the fans think. My point is simply that this issue is complicated because of Jack's health status. If Jack were healthy the outsized desires of our fans and the fans of the prospective acquiring teams would not only be understandable but also be reasonable. As the Reinhart return demonstrates what fans want isn't always realistic because of some complicating issues. In his case it was his contract status.

Any front office that seriously considers the impulsive desires of its fan base when it makes a consequential decision to acquire an injured star player at the expense of giving up precious assets should be summarily fired for grotesque incompetence. What makes a Jack trade so difficult for both sides of the bargaining table is the player's health status. It's complicated and not an easy call for both the trading and acquiring team.

What does it matter if a goalie prospect is acquired through the draft or trade? The apprenticeship process is so long that there are plenty of opportunities to get a promising prospect from another team's system. That's exactly how it happened when the Sabres got Levi from Florida in the Reinhart deal. If I'm going to use a lower round pick to draft a player I would rather use it on a long shot forward than goalie. If you look at the goalie population there are always a lot of them circulating within the NHL pool of players.

The one thing I like about Linus is that he has gotten better each step of the way in his developmental process. As you point out he played very well for us under very challenging circumstances playing behind an incomplete team and a poorly coached team. The expectation is that he still has some upside to his game. It's imperative that this regime works hard and with urgency to put a good support system (more talent) in front of him.

With the gaping space in the cap if not willing to take back some salary in a player exchange prevents this team from making a deal then shame on this organization.

Getting 4 pieces for an injured Jack might be unrealistic. But getting 3 pieces should be doable. If you examine Minnesota's roster and within their system that includes some attractive prospects (Rossi most appealing) a fair value Jack deal can be envisioned. And if you examine the Anaheim and LA systems there is enough young talent within them that something can be worked out that is fair to both sides of the negotiation. I just think that a priority has to be a high end prospect who is projected to be a near future 1C or 2C. If you asked me to bet money on which team will come to the forefront and make a deal my guess would be Minnesota. But that is not to exclude other teams who have the assets to get a deal done.

If this place is so stressful that you are on the ledge then it's time to take a pause.