JohnC

My problem is not with you. As I stated before with our exchanges you and I are basically in accord. My issue is with another poster who keeps twisting my position when it is clear that it is not what I am saying. This repeated distortion by him irritated me to the point that I responded with needless vigor.

I have said all along that Botterill was fired for not going along with the downsizing. What more can I say. And I have repeatedly stated that the peripheral analytical issue as it pertained to Botterill was not a consequential factor. You keep portraying my position as if it was otherwise. It is not!

With respect to the highlighted segment about why Botterill was fired the reason you gave why he was fired is exactly what I have been saying in the dozens of my posts on this subject. So there is no disagreement on that issue. You didn't respond to what I stated. You distorted it. That's fine. There is no need to continue with this wasteful and foolish duet. Your need to always be right is tiresome. And forcing your self-declared brilliance on to others doesn't work with people who are not receptive to it.

A middle six line of Olofsson/Johansson/Kahun is a high quality middle line. It wouldn't be outlandish to consider this line as a second-tier second line type line.

I agree with most of what you stated. As you noted bigger is not always better. That is not to say that it is always not better. But by culling the staff you hopefully will make it more nimble and creative. With smaller staffs the hockey departments are more likely to be better at interacting/communicating with one another. With respect to the issue of inexperience although Adams has made a lot of new hires that doesn't mean that they are less accomplished than the people they replaced. The bottom line determining success revolves around the hockey decisions that will be made this offseason. Only time will tell. Entering this offseason I'm more encouraged than discouraged.

I disagree with you. It's clear that Botterill was fired because he was not willing to go along with the austerity program. It's easy for us to agree on that point because the reason was stated by the Pegulas. As far as the analytical issue being a significant factor for the firing that is a diversion and a manufactured rationale because analytics were already part of the evaluation system not only for the Sabres under Botts but for all teams. As far as Adams approach appearing to be different I don't know how you can say that because he hasn't made many hockey decisions yet other than staffing decisions. What we do know for sure is that he will be working with a thinned out staff because because he has no other choice. The Pegulas made the determination as to the more austere way of doing business. As I have said on numerous posts the Pegulas have a right to structure the organization any way they want. Ultimately, what is going to matter is the quality of hockey decisions made by the hockey people. It's not unreasonable to believe that a more austere operation can be more nimble and creative and make better hockey decisions than a bulkier run operation. That's what I'm hoping for.

I agree with almost all your responses with a slight difference about Botterill. The issue is as I see it is not that Botterill was adverse to an analytical approach because it is already a factor with all hockey operations. I'm sure that he was willing to cut staff but not to the extent that the Pegulas' were demanding. It certainly was going to be uncomfortable for the former GM to be forced to cut so many people that he hired. Because of the financial hemorrhaging the organization was already faced and with the gloomy future economic climate that their hockey business would have to contend with this austerity program was going to be installed no matter who was going to be the GM. It should be noted that no one outside the organization was considered for the job so it is clear that the owners had the person in hand who was going to implement what they wanted to do. I am not criticizing the owners. From a business standpoint what they did made sense. And they had a good argument that even when they were copiously spending money the results didn't come close to matching the invested resources. So altering their course of action in such a maelstrom made sense. Where I slightly deviate from your take is that I don't believe the issue of analytics was much of a factor for the GM departure. And I'm not getting caught up on how the slimmed down operation will change how things are done. The bottom line is: are Adams and his smaller staff able to make better hockey decisions that can turn the fortunes of this sputtering team? This offseason we should get a better sense of what the answer will be. As I, and others have stated, the organization is in a good situation this offseason to make some important hockey decisions. Will they sufficiently seize the opportunity? I am hopeful that they will. (I want to emphasize that for the most part our views coincide except for a difference on the emphasis on the analytical factor.)

Identifying the mistakes of the past is as easy as shooting fish in a barrel. I'm not going to get weighed down by the glaring mistakes of the past that can't be changed. This offseason the team is in a position to make some deals that upgrade the team and better balance out the roster. Will it be done? I hope so. The opportunities should be there. When you are driving and constantly have your eyes on the rear-view mirror looking to see what is behind you instead of keeping your eyes on the road to see what is in front of you what inevitably happens is you crash. My advice to people who are so sour because of the frustrations of the past is to put your energies into the possibilities of the future. I guarantee that you will be much happier.

Not having enough talent to staff two top lines is the obvious issue. Who is arguing otherwise? Who is not stressing the desperate need to bring in second line talent from the outside? Your point that the Sabres didn't win with Skinner on the top line doesn't resonate with me. What we got the previous year with Skinner on the top line is goal production. The team's floundering in his first year certainly wasn't his fault because he was fulfilling the role that he was initialing brought in for i.e. scoring goals.

The sample size was small but I was impressed with the Kahun/Johansson/Olofsson line. They seemed to mesh well highlighted by their up-tempo skating. This newly constituted line seemed to enliven Johansson and put him in a more comfortable setting. I don't consider this an A second line but it wouldn't be unreasonable to label them a 2B second line. What is evident when watching the playoffs is that most, if not all, of the successful teams have good lines beyond the top two lines. If the organization can bring in some genuine second line talent and construct that line then this team will have more secondary scoring, something it has lacked for a long time. As you noted Bott's deal for Kahun was a terrific deal as was the Joki for Nylander deal.

If you put Skinner on the Jack line it is likely that he will be in the 30-40 range. If Krueger doesn't play him with the right supporting cast he will be wasting his talent (again) to score. Skinner can skate and in tight quarters he is as nifty a skater as any player in the league. Skinner is a premier sniper and not a defensive stalwart. When you have an asset you utilize that asset; and when you have a liability you minimize it. I hope Krueger better manages this season compared to last season the abundant package that Skinner brings to the table, including his liabilities.

If you consider how you rated the players on this roster and project the addition of two second line players such as Ehlers and Danault then it is not unfair to believe that this is an upgraded and competitive roster. Of course you would have to make some subtractions and probably deal your first round pick in order to make those second line acquisitions but it is very doable. What could accelerate the positive projection are some young players making a faster than expected leap forward. What if Ullmark demonstrates that he is a solid to good #1 goalie? What if Skinner gets back to the 30 to 35 goal range? What if Joki and Kahun leap forward? These are a lot of "ifs" but all of the "if players" have already shown that they have the capacity to become established players.

There is no one deal that will turn around this team. That degree of expectation is unrealistic. But a couple to three smart deals that address some obvious needs and better balance this roster can make a big difference. If I can get a legitimate second line winger or center in a deal that requires our first round pick in the package I would take it in a nanosecond.

Excellent analysis and very illuminating. Thank you. After reading your response it seems to me that by changing the mix with a departure or maybe two within the grouping it can enhance the roles of the remaining players. And if handled smartly you can trade an asset to upgrade a deficiency somewhere else and better balance the roster. Just as I felt that Krueger mishandled Skinner I thought he didn't handle Colin Miller very well either. There was a period of time where he was watching the games from upstairs in the team box. I just think that dealing either Miller or Montour will place the remaining player in a better position to succeed.

How would you compare Montour's game with Collin Miller's? Is there an overlap in style of play? I like Montour as a 2nd pairing defenseman and not as a first pairing. As you noted in one of your bullet points it seems that under Krueger his production declined. The coach needs to reassess and adjust to the player. I make the same judgment as to how the coach handled Skinner. There should be more accentuating the talent/asset and less fretting about the deficiency.

Each year the situation is different for most teams. In addition, contract and cap considerations and roster roles constantly change. When one discusses trades it usually is more than a one for one deal. Many deals have multi-layers to it where the basic deal becomes a much more complicated and expanded deal.

Attached is a 10 min interview with David Pagnotta from the Fourth Period on WGR with Howard Simon talking about potential trades for Buffalo and players available on the market. He brought up Laine from Winnipeg and noted that Ehlers would probably be a better fit for the Sabres because he is a more well rounded player. He talked about Domi and some other players and their availability. He brought up the Risto trade value and that Winnipeg would be interested in him. This is some good hockey trade talk. https://www.radio.com/wgr550/authors/howard-and-jeremy

I was just pointing out that ultimately he has the last say on this issue. I didn't suggest that you were saying otherwise.

I agree with you that Lazar is a step down from Larsson and their talents don't equate with one another. And I also agree with you that due to Larsson's established role that it has inhibited his offensive talents. And that is why I believe that Larsson as a free agent will decide to move on to go to a team that offers him more opportunity to expand his game. His primary role as a defensive stalwart is established. He is certainly not an offensive dynamo but there is room for his offensive role to grow. Larsson recognizes that. And that is the reason why I believe that he will make the decision to move on and seek a fresher pasture. Or to put it in a lesser wordy manner: We agree on the Larsson issue.

There's no question that Larsson is a better player than Lazar on a variety of fronts. As you noted he is a more of smothering defensive player who is called on to control the best offensive players. And as you and others have previously noted he does have the ability to show more offensively than his current role and the players he is joined with allow for. But the reality of the offseason and the market is that you can't control and retain all the players you want to. Career-wise Larsson playing for Buffalo from an individual player perspective has to an extent stifled his talents. For sure he is not going to be a prolific offensive player but his role has restricted his numbers. And he is certainly is aware of that. The issue here isn't does Buffalo want to keep as it is does he want to stay. From a career standpoint I don't think he believes that it is in his best interest. (My opinion.) I would love to have him stay because he adds an element of toughness that this team lacks.

I slightly disagree with your take about Larsson. It should be noted that I am a Larsson fan and recognize that he adds an element of toughness that this team lacks. But if he isn't retained I believe that Lazar can adequately fill his role. He might not be as good as Larsson but his style of play can compensate for his loss. I would definitely prefer a top 6 winger who not only would elevate the second line but push down another player to a lower line.

I say this with no equivocation: Unless talent is added from the outside this team is doomed to continue meandering on its road to nowhere meaningful. In my opinion this team needs two second line caliber additions in order to be taken seriously. I believe it is doable because we do have the assets to parlay in order to better balance this very imbalanced roster.

This is a very smart post. I'm sure you know that your thesis applies to all goalies on all teams. The better the team and the more defensively oriented it is the more effective your goalie is going to be. As you are indicating a goalie playing for a team like the Islanders with their defensive orientation is more likely to have consistent and effective goaltending. Can a prolific scoring team win more than a defensive oriented team? Yes, in the regular season. However, when the regular season ends and the playoffs start then your suggested constructive team is more likely to succeed with a tighter played game. I agree with your observation and take on Krueger. He wants a lineup full of responsible players who are aware of their defensive responsibilities not only when they are in their defensive zone but also to a lesser extent when they are in their offensive zone. What he doesn't seem to have an affinity for are players who are floaters. And because of that inclination he doesn't seem to have much affection for Skinner. Where I have a nuanced difference with your astute comments is that Ullmark's progression as a player is very much in his own hands. He's not an island onto himself as a player but to a degree he is. I'm hoping that his progression as a goalie continues but I'm not sure.

Goalies are an odd lot. Sometimes you think that one is on an upward trajectory, and then surprisingly slides back. Sometimes an inconsistent goalie is dealt and then shines in the new location, and then shortly thereafter falls back to the lower pack. Last year, Binnington was the stalwart player who was instrumental in the Blues winning the cup. This year he slid back. You just don't know other than how important that position is for success.

I'm confident that the front office is going to address the 2C position and upgrade the second line this offseason. I also believe that the roster is going to be boosted by the internal improvement of our young players such as Kahun, Joki, Dahlin, Olofsson, Tage etc. The biggest factor that will determine success will be the quality of our goaltending. Will Ullmark be sufficient as a #1 goalie? I don't know. I realize that Hutton had a down year last season but as a sparsely to moderately used backup I consider him adequate enough. My sense is that the organization is going to stick with the current tandem in goal. In my estimation Ullmark is going to be the most important player determining whether this franchise is able to get out of its extended rut.