JohnC

I have always believed that the owner was the main driver of the trade. What seemed to be forcing the issue was the impending bonus payment and the determination not to pay it. Even if an irreversible decision was made to trade him it would have made more sense to pay the bonus and give yourself more time to scan the market for a better deal.

It's remarkable how one major blunder could have such a lingering repercussion. My fear is that unless the roster void is quickly addressed Jack will instruct his agent to get him out of his depressing situation.

I'm not trying to be snarky but if you find it to so miserable to follow this team then I recommend that you follow another team or sport. You are like the guy who hates the food of a particular restaurant but continues to patronize the place because you want to complain about the food. If that makes you happy then enjoy yourself.

I agree with you to an extent. With the majority of teams a few smart moves can make a marked difference. That's what I'm hoping for this offseason. And compared to a lot of teams we are in a good position to make those moves. You may not believe that but I do.

Briere might have been a late bloomer but he was always a full effort player. His competitive makeup was much higher than Mitts. The shorter guy had a natural passion that the taller guy doesn't have. That's the issue that troubles me the most about Mitts. His motor seems to be tuned low. I'm rooting for him but not investing in him.

You are way off the mark. If he doesn't establish himself with this team and organization this year he will fade away and be an afterthought wearing another uniform, assuming he can find any other buyers willing to buy from the bargain bin.

Having jaundiced eyes makes one see everything in a negative light. I really believe that with a couple to few smart moves in this offseason a teetering roster can be uplifted and become capable of getting this team over the hump. Compared to many teams the Sabres have enough cap flexibility to be in position to make some impacting deals. And there are teams that because of their cap situation or need to alter their roster we will have opportunities to make deals with. I understand the fatigue and cynicism with this stumbling franchise. But for me having a new new staff with fresh eyes and outlook this is going to be an exciting offseason.

I also haven't given up on Mitts. But if he doesn't come into camp in impeccable shape and during camp play with a last chance attitude of desperation that so far hasn't been exhibited then his future with this franchise is unlikely. It's not uncommon that some young players don't fully gain traction in the organization they start with. They never seem to get on track and live up to their lofty expectation. Sometimes the best course of action to jolt them out of their lassitude is to be traded and given a fresh start somewhere else. If Mitts can turn it around it would give this flailing team a surprising lift. This offseason and training camp will determine what his course will be in the NHL. I'm wishing for the best but preparing for the least.

You are avoiding the obvious traits that distinguishes success and failure in a player at the NHL level. It's not only talent. Even the third and fourth line muckers at the at the NHL level were dominant players at the lower levels of hockey. It's when you get to the NHL and a little below where the attributes of competitiveness and work ethic determine success. In hockey more than many other sports if the standard isn't consistent intensity the efforts are predictably futile. I have not given up on players such as Mitts and Alex Nylander. Both players intermittently exhibit flashes of eye popping skill. But in between those short intervals of highlight plays there are long periods of invisible play. Don't discount this extended period of lax play as being unimportant in assessing a player. Mitts has more offensive talent than Gergs or Larsson. Yet both players are significantly greater factors on the ice because their intense level of play is constant. You can't say that about Mitts. I'm hoping Mitts comes to camp in tremendous shape and with a renewed drive. But I'm not confident that even if he does it will be sustainable because his makeup that he has so far exhibited indicates otherwise. I'm hoping that he proves many of his skeptics wrong but that is not to say that I am not very wary about his prospects.

Casey Mittelstadt's performance at the combine showed that he wasn't prepared. The lack of physical preparation demonstrably showed that he didn't have the work ethic and maturity required to show that he was close to being ready for the quantum leap to the pros. But that embarrassing performance was a few years ago. He is a prospect who was manifestly mishandled. He was rushed when he shouldn't have been rushed. Will he ever be a functional NHL player with us or any other team? I can't answer that question. If he comes into this camp at a high physical level which indicates that he is committed to his profession then there is a chance that whatever potential he has can be realized. I'm not making a declaration as to his success on him right now because it is impossible to know. We should soon be able to make a more decisive decision about when he comes to training camp (assuming he hasn't been dealt). Needless to say I'm not counting on him but I'm also not giving up on him just yet. It might be prudent to wait a little longer on passing a judgment before throwing him onto the garbage heap of bad hockey decisions.

I'm as open to trading our first pick as anyone here is. But you don't give up a valuable pick if the return isn't high enough. That would be foolish. You are making an assumption that if you don't give up the pick the consequence is that you are automatically precluded from making the playoffs. That's a misguided assumption. You can make trades with the pick included or not included in prospective deals. There is no absolute rule on how to make a roster enhancing deal/s other than you give up assets to get back assets. The bargaining between player and draft assets is something you work out with your trade partners.

We should have paid the bonus and then have better market options. There was one story that Carolina had a better offer but required us to pay the bonus. We declined to make that payment. My sense is that the owner wasn't willing to pay the bonus he wanted out. It isn't what you believe; it is what the organization believes. Obviously, it was an overreaction.

ROR was frustrated and publicly expressed his frustration with the organization. What should have happened is that after a cooling off period of time went by he and the organization should have had a sit down and discussed the situation. The organization didn't do that. The GM made a deal that has proven to this day to have had negative reverberations. That transaction is over with. The issue now is what is the organization going do to add talent to this insufficient roster. I'm more than open to trading our first round pick to upgrade this roster.

I want you to be right with respect to retaining Cirelli. But my money is on them keeping him. If they can't I'm sure that they will manufacture a deal that gives them a very good return.

I can understand why he was dealt. If his behavior and attitude in the locker room was poisonous then dealing him for a commensurate value does make sense. If an adequate return couldn't be made quickly then the organization should have bided its time and waited for the market to become more fertile. My criticism is more about the execution than the decision. '

I am not suggesting a deal for the sake of a deal. It has to make sense. I would love to acquire Cirelli in a deal. I know Tampa is very much squeezed with the cap but they are a smartly run franchise that will keep this talented player. If option A isn't available then there should be other option B's that will suffice and be less costly.

So what you are basically saying is that this boondoggle was a collaboration. ? As I stated before I understand why he was dealt but it was handled in a manner that set this franchise back.

If the Sabres can use that pick for either an individual or package deal for a second line player then it needs to be dealt. I'm usually a staunch believer in keeping your high picks to build a roster in all of the major sports. However, the Sabres are in a situation where the organization has to exhibit urgency to get better to its battered and moribund fanbase. This offseason the front office needs to make aggressive moves to jolt this franchise upwards. Using that pick to acquire an established young second line player needs to be part of their upgrade strategy.

If pick 8 is likely to become a core player (I agree with your assessment) then that pick has value in a deal to bring back a core player in a trade for immediate help. The Sabre organization has to exhibit urgency this offseason to immediately get better and become a more serious contending team with other teams in its conference who are rebuilding on the fly and getting better at a faster pace. The Flyers and the Rangers are a case in point.

The one transaction that hasn't been adequately explained to my satisfaction is who was pushing the ROR deal? The most intriguing aspect of that damaging deal was who was behind it from the organization side? Was it the GM or the owner/s? For me the issue isn't why was he dealt? It's understandable that a disgruntled player gets moved. At the time it was well known that a bonus payment was coming due and probably influencing the trade timetable. Few people can argue that ROR was one of the best two way players in the league. In hindsight, and even foresight at the time, it would have been better to pay the bonus and then scan the market for a better deal. It can't be questioned that even to this day the void he left at the 2C position still needs to be addressed. A bad decision that has had lingering repercussions.

Money was an issue but the bigger issue was the length of the contract. Trotz wanted a five year extension while the organization believed that the lifespan of a coach for a team was shorter. The organization wasn't willing to budge on the length of the contract issue. So he quit and was immediately signed by the Islanders. What can't be denied is that the Lou Lamoriella and Trotz have done a terrific job for the Islanders.

With respect to the prospects that you listed which players did the former staff mishandle and crimp their potential? Sometimes players are who they reveal themselves to be. In my view non of the players that you listed played below their talent level. And non of the players who were on your list and were traded ended up making a dramatic leap forward after changing organizations.

What I don't understand is why the Taylor staff was fired in the first place? The younger players got the requisite playing time that facilitated their development. And they were playing with selected veteran players who knew that one of their primary roles was to develop the younger players on the roster. At the AHL level there is a delicate balance between developing players and competing. These tasks are not mutually exclusive as they are inextricably linked. Without question the Taylor coaching staff was adept at maintaining that delicate and critical balance. I don't believe that the complete change in the AHL will make a significant difference. And I don't believe that it was necessary. Firing in toto a highly functioning staff of the previous administration and replacing them with people you are acquainted with is a classic definition of cronyism. And that makes me wary.

Lehner used to get frustrated after losses. At first in post game interviews he would discretely criticize the play in front of him and then more explicitly. He was right! The players in front of him were not playing with discipline/intelligence or fulfilling their responsibilities. To be blunt Risto was a dumb player who would constantly be sucked into chasing the puck behind the net and leaving the front of the net uncovered. The reality is that the team wasn't talented enough and the blue line unit was inadequate. I was a persistent and harsh critic of Murray giving up a first round pick for him because I thought that it was a too high a cost for a player whose team wanted to move him because it had plenty of depth at that position. With hindsight I have a tad softened my position recognizing that his current level of play would have made a difference in making the playoffs this season. (My opinion.) Unless there is an addition at the goaltending position (And I don't think there will be.) the player who will make the biggest difference between success and continued mediocrity will be Ullmark. (Again, my opinion.)

The Robin Lehner scenario in Buffalo was a sad and complicated human situation. The Sabre organization was very supportive and did the right thing in getting him help to address his mental health problems. Even after he was not associated with the team the former GM kept in touch. Not trying to be dramatic but it isn't an exaggeration to believe that the organization may have saved his life by helping him get the medical attention that he needed. From a hockey standpoint the Lehner saga demonstrates how much this organization is snake bitten. If we would have gotten the level of goaltending that Lehner played at with the Islanders, Blackhawks and Golden Knights this season the Sabres probably would be participating in the playoffs this year.