JohnC

I'm a Larsson fan. His hardnosed style of play is what is lacking on this mostly soft team. However, from the player's perspective the right thing to do is go to another team and start fresh. For the past couple of years he has had to endure a stale situation for his game. Although he's on an effective checking and defensive line his personal game has been stifled because of the offensive limitations of his wingers. I don't consider Larsson a genuine 2C. But on the Sabres he should have been given more opportunities to play as a 2C with wingers who were more adept on offense than his regular playing mates. He was never going to be a prolific scorer but he did have more to draw from in his offensive game. It simply was not tapped into here. I'm sure he is smart enough to realize that he needs a change of scenery. Coaches such as Trotz and Tortorella, among a lot of other coaches, would love to have him on their teams.

The future contract issue is something that I am concerned with. I'm open to trading for any player/s that improves the roster. There is no debating that the second line and especially the 2C position needs to be addressed. I'm excited about what the transactions will be this offseason to upgrade and rework the roster.

If you had a choice between trading for Danault or Domi which player would you deal for? Factoring in the selection would be the cost for the deal and the contracts carried now and in the future for each player. My sense is that Krueger does not like players who freelance compared to responsible two way players. Skinner seems to be a less favored Krueger player because he is more inclined to float.. Maybe Danault would be a more favored target by the Sabre braintrust?

Thank you for your response. When I made my comment about the primary reason for the former GM's firing I was pilloried by many. Terry and Kim stated that they had on going conversations with the GM after the season about their desire to restructure (downsize) the organization without getting him to agree to it. He was then fired. What's obvious is obvious. Even Inspector Clouseau could figure this out. https://www.bing.com/videos/search?q=inspector+clouseau&docid=608014713287279278&mid=74E5BAB25A8BD316DE7474E5BAB25A8BD316DE74&view=detail&FORM=VIRE

In the top 5-12 players which players are capable of playing in the NHL in their first year, and which players could be ready to play in their 2nd yr, and which players could be ready by their third year?

Let's get back to talking hockey. It's more enjoyable than talking about the imperfect process of a forum.

I texted the dear leader to see if he was interested in serving as a monitor. He quickly said yes. He also stated that he has no qualms with dissenters because he has a disposable and vanishing way of handling the dissenters. ☠️ https://www.bing.com/search?q=picture+of+north+korea+leader&cvid=f72cc3078fdb42eb830b6616cc8d7591&pglt=43&FORM=ANSPA1&PC=HCTS

You hit it on the mark. It is a thankless responsibility that less than a few people are willing to do. Regardless who is monitoring the room there will be some dissatisfaction on how it is run. I'm not denigrating anyone who has a complaint about how the job is being done. There is validity to some of the criticisms. But as someone else noted unless the monitoring is grossly erratic and unfair (and that is not the case here) the most reasonable remedy would be to adjust to the umpire. To those who step up and volunteer to be monitors I say thank you.

Who is volunteering to do that unappealing chore?

Each moderator is going to exercise their own judgment. While you would prefer to allow the discussions to play out on their own, others might prefer a quicker cessation or movement of the disputed topic so that it doesn't spill over to constant rancorous exchanges. Again, it is an exercise in making judgments. That's what moderators do. No one is going to completely agree with a moderator's judgment. Some moderator's prefer a looser format while others prefer a tighter format. However, if one is to give more allowance to someone I'm going to give it to the person who volunteers to do that thankless task. In addition, if you believe a particular moderator is repeatedly exhibiting a judgment/behavior that you find troubling, then PM the person and express those concerns.

The last thing you need is not to have any moderating of a forum. Problems don't take care of themselves. On the contrary they escalate into personal feuds and a breakdown in civil discourse. Factions develop and silos become more impenetrable. Can moderators be biased? Yes they can. But even when there is an observable leaning that doesn't mean that a moderator can't reasonable carry out his/her function. I'm relatively new here. Overall, I have no major complaints how this place is moderated. It is a thankless job that is more likely to attract criticisms than expressions of appreciation. If someone feels that the moderator is not treating him/her fairly then express your complaint and then move on. As far as posters leaving for whatever reason/s--- that is their prerogative. If one gets so aggravated over a discussion in which they have the ability to not participate in then their choosing to leave the site is their decision and right.

Even when Larsson played with his regular linemates he created scoring chances forcing the action and driving to the net. However, there weren't enough supporting finishers. I agree with you that if he regularly played on a line with Skinner his numbers would be much better. But even acknowledging that I don't see Larsson as a 2C. Maybe as a temporary fill-in but not as a regular on a Skinner line. Larsson is a feisty and edgy player. This team doesn't have enough tough players. I hope the organization keeps him.

If you had Larsson centering for better scoring wings his production would easily be in the range that you would hope for. His current role centering between Girgensons and Okposo is more of a checking and defensive role. If he played with a winger such as Skinner, Olofsson or Reinhart his points would definitely go up. The line he is playing on is arguably playing its role as well as any line in the rotation, maybe even better than the top line. It is admittedly a limited and defined role but it is fulfilling its role exceptionally well. I'm not suggesting that Larsson would ever be a prolific scorer but he certainly could be a more contributing scorer with different linemates.

Thank you for the post. As Lysowski points out if option A type of players can't be acquired there are some reasonable option B type of players that could be available at reasonable prices. Arranging big deals to get Monahan or Cirelli are going to be tough to work out. But getting one of those secondary type talents would still upgrade our second line and allow us to not only retain some of our other players but also allow us to parlay them for additional help.

Whether you are talking sports, race, social issues, economics, sports stadiums and who should pay for them etc. politics is inescapably intertwined with most topics. There is an option for people who find any discussion tainted by politics distasteful: Don't respond and don't get involved with the topic. It's as simple as that. Bringing passion to an issue, pro or anti, to these type of discussions doesn't lessen the political nature of the discussion but rather intensifies and prolongs it. There are plenty of topics on this board to choose from. If a particular topic is so irritating there is an obvious solution to the problem. Simply avoid it. One person who declared he was forever leaving this site because he found the intrusion of politics on a sports site so repugnant then gave an extended eloquent response why he chose to leave. That reaction was perplexing. Why even bother to get involved with an issue when there is an option to avoid it?

What do you think a deal with Montreal for Danault would look like? If as you indicate he plays a very strong defensive game it is a quality that Krueger would embrace in a player. Your deal seems a little hefty but I would take it. Maybe I would quarrel over the 2021 2nd round pick.

Since the Pegulas have taken over how many coaches and GMs has the organization gone through? This constant churning of staff and systems is not conducive to a stable and winning franchise. There are teams that have been involved in a rebuilding program for a shorter duration and have successfully made the arduous transition to being a serious team. Different staffs have different reconstruction philosophies that don't shorten the time in a rebuild as much as they prolong it. Based on its prolonged lackluster record Buffalo is a good example of how not to run an operation. I like the Pegulas and are glad that they became the owners. Without question they are well intentioned. However, they have been very misguided in their attempt to manage the franchise. I'm hoping that they will have learned from their mistakes.

The Sabre players that you listed with their ages indicates that they are at a young enough age to play for an extended period of time. They may be older than the players on LA but that doesn't alter the fact that the Buffalo players will be playing as established player for the foreseeable future.

Your comparison shows how well LA is transitioning its team with their young players. However, in the comparison you didn't fully show that the Sabres have also been working in youg players such as Dahlin, Joki, Olofsson, (maybe) Kahun, Ullmark and possibly Tage (as you noted) and Cozens (as you noted). My point is that when you consider that the Sabres are giving a lot of young players substantial playing time then the imbalance isn't so stark.

Your comments about Boston's ability to develop and nurture talent is a reflection of the stability and identity of the team. Compare that to the churning of coaches and GMs in the Sabre world. The standard pattern of behavior of a new GM is to undo what has been done before his ascension and then dispatching the staff throughout the system to start all over again. Players that were invested in are then disinvested in. The hallmark of successful teams such as Tampa and Boston are stability and a belief in their system. Do you remember who won the race between the turtle and the hare? Knowing where you are going and steadily moving in the right direction may not be glitzy but it is predictably the more successful approach.

He will have even more value for us or as a tradeable asset if he shows an appreciable amount improvement while with us. I'm not giving up on him or counting on him as a Buffalo contributor. This is a case where he has to show what he is capable of. In order to start that process he needs to come to camp next year (assuming he is not traded) in impeccable shape and in camp exhibit more aggressiveness to both sides of his game. As I said in a prior post probably the best course for him is to start the season in Rochester and get a lot of playing time. In my estimation that would help his development or show that he needs to be somewhere else for a fresh start.

For the most part our views coincide. One critical difference between the teams is that because the Sabre's talent pool is so much thinner than Boston's they can make personnel mistakes yet be better able to absorb those mistakes and move on. The ROR trade demonstrates the point how a Buffalo mistake can be so debilitating because of a limited roster . We are still trying to find a resolution to that damaging transaction. Another attribute of Boston is that they have a team identity that embodies rugged two way play. And they are good at finding players that fit in with their identity. (Which you have noted.) If a player is not capable or unwilling to play that punishing style then that player is moved.

Right now Casey has little value in the market. What is seen within the market is also seen outside the market. If he goes back to the AHL and upgrades his play and shows some promise then his value increases, maybe not significantly but marginally more. There is some chance, probably unlikely, that he comes into camp physically prepared and with more drive and demonstrates that he can compete and contribute on a NHL roster. With respect to your comment about Casey having a good year in Rochester and then losing him is not an issue that bothers me. If he plays well enough in Rochester he will get an opportunity with the big club. If he plays well in Rochester and we lose him in expansion then I will wish him well and be happy for him.

It's not unusual that players who have a rugged style of play have it take a physical toll on them. When they start the downslide it becomes evident. There is little chance that they can adequately regain what they lost. He's a player I would have loved to have on the roster a few years ago. Now I don't think he is worth keeping. This warhorse is battered and bruised. We need a fresher body to do what he has done in his career.

My takeaway from your post is that the best way to handle him is to start him off in the AHL and give him the time and space to develop his game. That grooming process should have happened sooner. As of right now I don't think he has much value on the market. So most likely the best way to increase his value whether he ultimately remains with the organization or not is to allow him more time to grow as a player. If he eventually develops into the player that is commensurate with his draft status it would be a terrific bonus for this franchise.