JohnC

Last year the Red Wings took D Moritz Seider with the 6th pick surprising a lot of people. Each team has their own evaluations of players. So it wouldn't be surprising that Sanderson who is the top rated defenseman on many teams' board would go higher than some people think.

You have to admire the Bruins and their team ethos. They have talent on all their lines but what distinguishes them is their relentless style of play. Whether they are up or down their grinding style of play never leaves them. You have to give them credit for their collective team work ethic.

The issue isn't whether Sanderson would be a good NHL player as it would be can you get an equally good or better player at the forward spot that can better balance out your team. If you believe that one of the forwards on the board who is ranked in the same vicinity as Sanderson can be a top two line player then the selection should lean toward the forward. As others have stated we have some good d-men prospects in the pipeline such as Borgen and Johnson in addition to a surplus of blue liners on the roster. What this franchise lacks is second line forward prospects. If the Sabres had a more robust and balanced roster then the smartest and most conventional approach is to draft the best player and allow that player to develop at his own rate. My preference is if the Sabres can get a mid-twenty year old second line forward, preferably center, in exchange for our first pick or in a package I would seize the opportunity.

I'm sure that there are women who feel insulted by his comments. And I'm sure there are women who don't feel insulted by his comments. However, for those who do feel victimized by his inane comments they need to toughen up and deal with the real world. With regards to a Leaf fan making a snide remark about the Sabres my response is who freaking cares how anyone else characterizes this less than successful team. If one can't handle ridiculing words then the person who is bothered is pathetically weak and lame.

This inane comment was not going to result in damage to the company. Why would it? There was nothing wrong with his statement. It was an innocuous comment that got blown out of proportion because it resulted in some people being offended. This willingness and receptivity to being offended is one of the issues that I am complaining about. People need to toughen up and get over themselves. Some people get offended when you call them Miss instead of Ms. I can understand why some people didn't appreciate the comment. But making it rise to a job disqualifying level is not only an absurdity--- it was unfair. When his response was brought to his attention he apologized for it. What ever happened to the concept of proportionality. There are a lot of issues to get exercised over. This isn't one of them.

There are colleges that won't allow professors with different political philosophies into their economic and legal programs for fear of the backlash. There are colleges that won't allow speakers to give lectures because their countervailing views challenge the prevailing view. At one point Jerry Seinfeld said he would no longer perform at colleges because he was tired of the oppressive political correct mentality. (I'm not sure if he has changed his stance on performing at colleges?) So the notion that Mike Milbury made an outdated comment about the bubble. There was little that was wrong with it other than it was a little cringe worthy. Milbury was not fired for boorish behavior. He was fired for a comment that was out of tune with more modern views. There is a difference between bad behavior and his comments. He clearly didn't mean anything untoward. I understand what your position is but I disagree with it.

If Milbury no longer performed at an acceptable standard then his contract should not be renewed. I have no problem with that. He has been on the air for years and he is a known quantity by the company he works for. His job is not to call the game as it is to offer commentary. His job isn't to be bland but to provoke. The comment he made about women not being in the bubble was in my opinion stupid but not malicious. It was an outdated view but far from being misogynistic. As I said in prior posts the more pernicious problem is creating an environment that stifles the free flow of views out of fear of be out of step of the prevailing way of thinking. People who are in the "talking business" are not always judicious in what they say. I'm not bothered by it as much as others. I have the ability to counter the view or ignore the view and tune out.

I appreciate your well thought out and expressed response. I'll only respond to a couple of the main points. With respect to who to blame for the damaging trade I don't solely blame the GM. It's my belief (opinion) that the owner required the GM to deal him before the the bonus was due. That's the core of my complaint about the deal that has had such a lingering bad effect. There is nothing unusual about players being disgruntled. That's an inevitable part of the landscape in a business composed of talented people with strong personalities. I'm aware that I am judging this transaction in hindsight, and that is easy to do. But there is no way that even with foresight that this was going to be a good deal for us. The return for one of the best two way players in the league was in my estimation grossly inadequate. We all recognize how difficult it is to come up with a credible 2C trade scenario and what it would take to accomplish it. Why did this happen? The reason why it happened as it did because it was a rushed deal. Reacting to the impending bonus due didn't allow for a fuller exploration of the market. As I said before the best way to have handled this disgruntled player was to have a cooling off period and then a forthright discussion between the conflicting parties. I'm placing the onus more on the organization than the unhappy player. With respect to your point how ROR should have been handled with captaincy and in general my response is very indelicate. I'm not worried about his sensitivities and whether he should be the top dog or supporting dog. My muscular response to him is: shut up and play! If you are feeling sad and blue about your status and the team you are my response is: tough shiit! The forcing of the issue should have been on a timetable that allowed the organization to get the best return on their asset if an irreversible decision was made to move him. You cite Boston as an example to follow. I totally agree. What Boston has demonstrated is that when you have a well rounded roster you have more options. If a transaction turns out bad you can easily absorb that mistake. What Buffalo has demonstrated is that when you have a thin and imbalanced roster your options are limited. When a transaction such as the ROR deal goes bad your limited roster has less ability to absorb that mistake. The moral of the story: talent prevails.

You are without question missing my point. Milbury didn't make a comment that reached the disqualifying level that Brennaman said about gays while calling a baseball game. He should have been immediately relieved of his duties. There was nothing misogynistic about Milbury's comment. It certainly was an outdated view but no malice or crudeness was intended. Your comment about the confederate flag makes my point. I agree with you on your position but I disagree with you that just because someone has a different view and perspective on it that they shouldn't be allowed to express it. Your comment about me being an ideologue says more about you than it does about me. Based on your comment I'm clearly less ideological than you are because I'm willing to be receptive to other view points where you are less receptive to them. That is a classic attribute of an ideologue.

You are making a comment that underscores my point. I have no issue with anyone disagreeing with a comment or even finding it to be distasteful. What I find tiresome is the notion that if someone says something that one disagrees with or is uncomfortable with then the reaction should be that the microphone should be taken away from that person. To me that is an overreaction. The comment that Milbury made was not a very bright or classy comment. It wasn't a crude comment but it could be taken as a boorish comment. In my opinion it didn't reach the level of disqualifying him from his job. As I have stated in other posts the bigger danger than listening to verbal gaffes is that an oppressive climate of judgment is being created that stifles speech and thought. I'm not a Milbury in the booth fan. But I don't think he said anything that was so outrageous that should have gotten him cashiered from his job.

There is nothing unusual about a player not being happy with his situation and wanting out. If that was the case then it was incumbent on the organization to get equal value back in a trade. This deal was rushed because a bonus was coming due. If they couldn't get a fair-value deal then the team should have just kept him until a good enough deal materialized. If the player remained unhappy because he felt stuck the organization should have told him to his face: Tough shiit!

The problem I had with the ROR saga is not that he got traded so much as the return. By a number of accounts this transaction was rushed because of the impending bonus time line. My sense is that the owner wanted him gone before the bonus came due. In my estimation if the organization was determined to trade him the smarter approach would have been to pay the bonus and then take the additional time to scan the market. There was a story that Carolina was willing to deal for him but weren't willing to do so if they had to pay the bonus. My criticism as much if not more so relates to the execution of the transaction than the particular transaction. Paul Hamilton when with WGR stated after the deal that it was evident to him that ROR was behaving in ways that indicated that he didn't want to be with the club. He noted that the player who was known to be the last off the ice for practice was not exhibiting that same practice work ethic. So targeting him to be dealt in order to shake up the room is not a surprise. The criticism I am directing to the organization relates to when it was done, how it was done and the return.

Again, you are misinterpreting/misrepresenting what I said. Your hypothesis is not my hypothesis. The organization that includes the owner and GM overreacted by dealing him for pennies on the dollar. The reactionary response by the organization set back this team then, and to this day has had negative repercussions that has not been overcome. The more appropriate and judicious response should have called for a cooling off period and then a meeting with the frustrated player.

You are mistaken that I have a blind spot on this cancel culture mentality. I'm very aware of what my position is and why I hold to it. You are correct that my stance over Roenick is very similar. Both Milbury and Roenick are commentators who are hired not to be bland but to have an edge to them. Do they periodically go over the line? Undoubtedly yes. Milbury sometimes says foolish things. So what! When you are on the air for many hundred if not thousands of hours it is not surprising that foolish things are said. The bigger issue for me is that there is a growing mind-set that if someone says something controversial or stupid the morality mob is ready with the rope to lynch the offending party. Creating a climate of fear to express one's thoughts is a bigger problem than saying dumb things. Again, that is not a blind spot---it is something I am very conscious of.

Let's move on. It's pointless to continue on with this issue.

What are you disagreeing with?

Some women in hockey may find his comment offensive while some other women in hockey might not find it as offensive. A commentator makes a dumb or not very enlightened comment while calling a game and then quickly gets thrown off the broadcast. This trend for seeking justification to be morally outraged over a misplaced and badly tuned comment is getting tiresome. When one is in the talking business (as he is) with instant commentating then not everything one says is going to be smartly thought out and stated. The danger is in stifling thought and speech. Make no mistake what I'm saying here. This isn't a Don Cherry repeated neanderthal commentary or Thom Brennaman "*****" comment on a baseball broadcast. I'm tired of these quick draw relief of duties for an unintended and misguided comment.

I respectively but strenuously disagree with your post about Jack. It's is distorting a history that actually happened. The issue of anointing Jack over the veteran ROR as captain was an irrelevant issue in the ROR trade debacle. ROR simply got tired of the losing and didn't feel that at least in the immediate future that this team had a chance to be a serious team. He felt he was in a bad situation without much ability to alter the situation. That was the heart of his publicly and privately expressed frustration that got him dispatched. Jack is our established star player and the player that this team is centered around. Dahlin will soon become another player along with Jack who are irreplaceable and will be given the most consideration on how this team is directed. The scenario you postulated in your post does not reflect the realities that happened when ROR was with the team.

What Sabre fan on this earth doesn't want a playoff team sooner rather than later?

You missed the point. The obvious point is that unless you are going to get a hefty return for a first round pick they are valuable. And not only are they valuable in adding talent but the developmental time isn't always as long as you indicated.

Are you suggesting that last year's first round pick wasn't worth taking because he didn't immediately play in the NHL? I'm open to dealing our first round pick but it has to be for a young second line player who can play right away. If that type of deal can't be made then you keep the pick.

I understand what you are saying about Reinhart and Olofsson. However, I believe that it would be better to keep Reinhart on the top line with Jack. My sense is that Krueger is more inclined to spread the talent around to get more balanced scoring. My inclination is when you have a golden first line don't subtract from it and make it a silver line.

The Reinhart/Jack/Skinner line is a solid to upper tier first line in this league. From a goal scoring standpoint they click. By adding a second line center or winger this offseason a capable second line can be constructed from what is already on the roster. I believe that this offseason the Sabres will at the minimum have some good secondary options if our primary second line options don't work out to buttress that second line. It is very doable.

You make excellent points. But why not simply play him on the Jack line where you can maximize his shooting talents? Skinner playing on the Jack line becomes a 30 plus goal scorer. If you are going to pay Skinner premium dollars then it makes more sense to get the best return that you can from him. My impression is that Skinner is not a player that Krueger is fond of. The only time I can recall when Krueger responded sharply with irritation in an interview was when he was asked on WGR why Skinner wasn't on the Jack line. That bothers me.

It's not very difficult to find conflicting views on any transaction. Unanimity on any issue is simply unattainable. With the Eichel contract extension the overwhelming consensus within and outside the Buffalo market was that it was a terrific deal for the organization and it demonstrated a commitment by the player to the organization. Because of the steady increase in salaries most people who follow the sport recognized that Jack left long-term money on the table in order to anchor himself to the organization. Your discussion on this topic brings up another important issue relating to Jack and the organization. That is does the organization have a responsibility to the player to do whatever is necessary to make this a relevant team while he is approaching or already is in his prime? I, and most others, would say yes. It's not too difficult to imagine that if this organization doesn't act with urgency it will have a "Jack" problem just as it had a "ROR" problem that had devastating results.