JohnC

You and few others here are exceptional in the analysis of draft prospects. It's a treat reading your views on this draft class. I salute you and the others in your knowledge of the prospects. ? It seems that right now Lafreniere and Byfield are ranked in the top two with Stutzle and Perfetti also considered in the upper echelon by some. If you were asked what couple of players in the second half of the top ten (5-10) could turn out to be very good players who would they be?

I have never said that Adams was hired primarily because he was cheap and easy. You have misconstrued my commentary on this subject.

I don't think you are referring to my comments because I have not said he will be a disaster as the head of the hockey operation. But what I have clearly stated is that the heavy financial structure of the operation was a major reason why there was a GM change. And I have also stated that if the former GM would have been agreeable to the changes mandated by the owners he would have been retained. (Many people disagree with that view.)

I said it before and I will say it again I'm holding my judgment until I see what the hockey decisions are in this critical offseason. Other than that I don't know what else to say.

The games are going to have a lot less than 10,000 people, if any people, at the games because the covid issue will still be a significant factor hovering over the sport, country and world. Although I do have qualms I'm not going to work myself into a frenzy about the structure of the organization and who is running the operation. What I will be watching are the decisions being made in this offseason. Then I will make my judgment.

If you have read my numerous responses on this topic I have openly acknowledged that financial considerations were the driving force behind this dramatic organization change. It certainly is a risky proposition, and as you state a recipe for disaster. But it doesn't have to be. As I have stated success will be dependent on the quality of the hockey decisions made by this thinned out staff. In the end that is what is most meaningful.

As you point out regardless of the stunted hiring process and the thinning out of the staffing when all is said and done the ultimate judgment is going to revolve around the hockey decisions that will be made in this critical offseason.

Under this particular crushing financial scenario I understand what they did and why they did it. My comments do not deal with their decisions prior to this situation. Adams was hired to execute the harsh financial measures that the Pegula wanted done. I still believe that even under this austere setup good hockey decisions can still be made.

Usually when there is an opening for the top hockey job in a franchise the obvious issue is who would be the best candidate to assume the job. The standard response to fill that opening is to advertise for replacement candidates and then make a judgment as to who would be the best replacement. That didn't happen with the Sabres. Essentially there was an in-house installation shortly after the firing of the GM followed by an immediate (the next day) chopping of staff. Kim Pegula publicly stated after the declaration that Botterill was going to be retained that the owners had multiple discussions with him. The owners could not get him to agree to go along with their new business plan. He was subsequently fired, and Adams, who was involved on the business side of the encompassing hockey business that included youth hockey, was hired with no outsiders considered. What's obvious is that what transpired was mostly driven by business/financial considerations. As I have stated in prior posts I'm not criticizing the Pegulas for the dramatic change in direction on how the franchise was going to be managed. This franchise with middling success was hemorrhaging money, and unless a major change in operation was made it was going to continue in this oppressive virus economic environment. I have no criticism for how the Pegulas acted. There certainly was an understandable rational behind it. But anyone who doesn't believe that the main consideration in this abrupt scenario wasn't related to financial considerations is being naive. I also believe that under this now more austere organization good hockey decisions still can be made to make this franchise better.

Yes. ? https://www.bing.com/videos/search?q=discover+card+commercial+yes&docid=608018200497947523&mid=07D77AFEA8AC8CDE6E4E07D77AFEA8AC8CDE6E4E&view=detail&FORM=VIRE

I don't think we are really disagreeing. There are a lot of factors that have to be considered regarding contracts, roster and what the returns can be for the departed players. As you have pointed out these are complicated multifaced decisions. Being in a position to make these decisions because of an abundance of talent is certainly better than seeking ways to add talent to a deficit riddled team. We both agree that Tampa is a smart and forward thinking franchise. They will come out of this challenging offseason making calculated decisions that puts them in the best situation that they can be in.

Bingo! Your comment about the importance of goaltending is the central issue. There are plenty of discussions on this site regarding what new players will be brought in to improve our status. Assuming that another goaltender isn't brought in the most important player on our roster that will determine success or failure next season is Ullmark.

I totally agree with you that if Tampa is able to work out a deal to keep Cirelli it will cost them other good players. Cap arithmetic is cold blooded arithmetic that can't be finagled. And as you have frequently noted because of the no trade clauses Tampa is still going to have challenges moving players in order to keep their priority player/s. As I have previously stated Tampa is a well run organization that has a lot of talented and cheaper young players in the pipeline that can fill in for the departed players. I'm confident that whatever decisions Tampa makes they will be smart decisions. You don't have long-term success by being serendipitous.

The ROR deal was a boondoggle for us. I'm sure there were some behind the curtain issues going on that influenced this deal but it has had a lingering damaging affect on this team. A good topic of discussion is: if we had kept him (ROR) how would it impact our current roster? And by securing that 2C position with him how much more flexibility would this organization have in seeking to address other needs in the offseason? With respect to Tampa and Cirelli my belief still is that the two sides will find a way to come to a deal. We shall see. If he does get dealt I don't see him coming to Buffalo. (My opinion.)

The deal that was proposed for Monahan by the poster doesn't come close to matching his value to Calgary. (My opinion also stated by others.) Monahan is a relatively young player who is locked up for a few more years and has a 6m plus contract that is reasonable relative to his production. Unless there is a higher yield return that would include multiple players I don't see a trade for him materializing. I agree with you that Cirelli won't sign for a discount unless he is willing to sign a bridge deal. But for us to make an offer for Cirelli the Sabres would need to be assured that Cirelli would be willing to agree to a long term deal before a deal would be made by us. I'm not sure that Cirelli would be agreeable to that. I'm aware that Tampa is in a tough position because of the cap but this organization is one of the best run organizations in the league. Odds are that they will find a way. (My opinion.)The Bolts were able to keep Stamkos when he was on the market and I see the Cirelli scenario playing out the same.

Excellent cap projection. It's apparent that a lot of thought went into it. However, I don't see Monahan being dealt. Why would Calgary move on from him and then have to try to replace him? I have the same view on Cirelli and Tampa. They'll get something worked out because it is in each side's interest to do so.

What is sometimes lost after watching Dahlin make some dazzling plays is his fierceness. (As you point out.) When he is roughed up he doesn't shrink from the combat. He engages with the source of the obstruction. He has the same ferocious competitiveness that Jack has but it isn't as apparent on ice because he is such a smooth and stylish player. Both Jack and Dahlin are not only our two best players but also our most competitive players although with different personalities. They both find losing unacceptable and painful. My fear is that if this less than tolerable success rate continues it will affect how both of these elite players view the franchise. This offseason it is imperative that the front office be bold and creative to upgrade the roster and make this a more contending team. Especially with Jack you can see the frustration building. The future is now! I don't see Tage as ever being a physical force. That's not his game and makeup. Although he can be with more physical development more physical on the ice his game is more finesse revolving around his skating and shooting. I also see this as a critical offseason for Mitts. He needs to work on his body!

Not long ago Dahlin was on a video talking about his workout regime and what he was doing to prepare for next season. Even in this short period after the season was cut short it was noticeable that he had gotten bigger. I tried to find it but couldn't retrieve it. But without question he will be a bigger and stronger version of himself.

Your first sentence is exactly what I have been propounding on the Botterill issue. My contention is that he would have been retained if he would have been willing to implement the organizational restructure that the owners sought. Kim stated after his release that they had numerous discussions with him after the season that came to no avail. Which clearly indicates that he wasn't on board. So he was fired. I'm not criticizing the owners because they were presiding over a franchise that was hemorrhaging money (one report was $37 m) with the results not coming close to being satisfactory. Terry P pointed out that under the revamp the scouting department would have less staff, less travel and more video. A change in the operation reflecting the imperative in cutting costs. That's not necessarily a bad thing because when faced with a fiscal calamity you are often forced to be more creative in how you operate. Kevin Adams was an in-house staffer who wasn't part of the hockey operation. He was spearheading the business side of the hockey enterprise that included youth hockey. You don't find it odd that there was no GM search process to find a replacement for the fired GM? The point that I'm driving at is that the imperative to change how the operation was run related to financial considerations. Make no mistake about what I'm saying here. I'm not criticizing the owners in dramatically changing how their hockey business was going to be run. And I do believe that this more austere (smaller) organization has a better ability to be more nimble and cohesive. When all is said and done the success of the franchise relates to the staff making better decisions. You can be a smaller outfit with less operating costs and still be a successful operation.

Skinner on a Jack line is a 35 goal scorer. I really like Reinhart/Jack/Skinner playing on the first line. It is a 1A line that ranks in the top tier in the league. If you want to maximize the return on investment with Skinner he should be playing with Jack. You make a very keen observation about Botts who seemed more bent on accumulating talent than fitting in pieces. As you point out the excess in defensemen are assets that can be used to deal in order to better balance out the roster. Stating the obvious getting that 2C is an absolute necessity.

First, I don't consider your response as an attack and don't take it as such. On the issue of player development I do agree that Mitts and Tage were rushed. That was a mistake. That is not to say that both of them have been irredeemably been damaged. Tage should be a contributor this season. With Mitts I'm not sure. Where I disagree with most posters here is that I believe that Botts had a more long term plan than most people here were willing to tolerate. I'm not arguing that he has been a resounding success because it is obvious that it is not the case. What I do believe is this franchise from a talent standpoint is not as barren as most people portray it to be. It's my opinion that if this staff can make a few consequential personnel decisions this offseason this roster will be be meaningfully upgraded. And I do believe that it was the fired GM who put this franchise in a good position to be able to make those decisions. Will this regime take advantage of the situation this offseason? I certainly hope so.

The methodology changed in how the operation is going to be run. The Pegulas came to the conclusion that the operation could be run more cheaply by using technology. That doesn't necessarily mean that the evaluations were going to be different.

From a financial standpoint the Pegulas will not get rich owning the Sabres. The economics of hockey are not close to the gilded economics of the NFL. But that is not to say that the Sabres are a lost cause from a fanbase standpoint. If the Sabres can get their house in order and remake this stuttering team into a seriously cup contending team this fanbase will be on fire. The past and the present don't necessarily have to reflect the future. With some smart personnel decisions this offseason this team can be put back on track with the arena filled with aroused fans. Success breeds success.

My belief is that Adams/Krueger's evaluations on Botterill's guys are not radically different. The issue for the new regime and the old regime if it were still in place entering this offseason is how best to better balance the roster? Each respective regime can value a player in the system similarly and still be willing to trade them in order to have a more complete roster. The biggest issue this offseason is whether this new regime will be more aggressive and creative in managing their assets in prospective deals. My sense of Botterill is that he is more of a cautious and incremental type of person while maybe this organization is at this time in need of a bolder approach in reworking the roster.

Botterill is rightly evaluated for his performance over the last three years. On the other hand the decisions that are going to be made this offseason by Adams and staff are the same decisions that Botterill would have faced if he were retained. I'm very aware that my opinion on him is contrary to most others opinion of him. It should be acknowledged that the former GM put the Sabres in a good situation to rework and upgrade the roster for next season. He had a more long turn plan to rework the roster and salary structure. Not only did time run out for him his reluctance to sync with the owners' altered plans contributed to his departure.