JohnC

I never understood the logic that because a team has struggled it was imperative to get rid of players for the sake of change. If a player isn't a reason for the team's struggles then why feel compelled to jettison the player for the sake of a change. Maybe the better approach would be is to add more talent so the player/s will be in a better situation to win. There will be changes made to this roster. Few people, if any, believe that it would be smart to continue with the status quo. The right approach is not to shed players for the sake of change but to get the right mix of players that will better balance your imbalanced roster.

The Sabres are not a free agent destination. They never were. That's well known by the organization and won't be the primary approach to improving the team. The team is more likely going to rely on trades, and if it is going to get involved in free agency it won't be for the top echelon players on the market. The second tier free agent players will be targeted. In addition, young players such as Tage, Cozens and Mittelstadt will be given opportunities to contribute. Not all of them will rise to the occasion but the opportunities will be there for them. There are a number of teams that will be squeezed by their cap situation. The Sabres are in a good situation to capitalize on that situation by working out some good deals.

Adding players such as Simmonds and Frolic were basically stopgap acquisitions. Just because you have some cap money to work with doesn't mean that the players you might want to add in the present time are available at that time. You bring up three players such as Simmonds, Frolic and Vesey. They were all added with short term contracts. If you categorize them as garbage that's fine. None of them are worth debating over because that garbage will be gone this season leaving the Sabres in a position (hopefully) to make some impactful deals to fill their spots.

Reworking the contract structure of the team was not going to be done quickly. The contracts that he brought in were mostly short term contracts. He was not looking for the quick fix. It took time to get to the point where we are now. I'm not saying that the former GM didn't make mistakes. He certainly did. But his strategy about contracts and the cap was the right strategy. I do believe that relatively the Sabres are in a good cap situation now. And that is how he planned it.

The majority of the players that he brought in were on short term deals. There is no question that for the short term the cap was tight because his strategy was to have the short term cap stretching contracts expire in the near future so he would have greater flexibility to rework the roster. And that is exactly what happened! Botterill was never going for the quick fix. In handling contracts he was strategic and not tactical. And now the Sabres are in a good situation, the place where he wanted to be. I disagree with you on the handling of the Reinhart contract. Reinhart is a good player who is going to earn a large contract because he demonstrated the caliber of player he is. But it was not imprudent for the GM to challenge Reinhart and through his play earn the big contract. And that's what Reinhart did. How many times has this befuddled franchise rewarded players with long term contracts only to have them fade as players once the lengthy contract is linked? The bridge contract that Reinhart got was not only the right approach for the organization to take it was the right approach for Reinhart. The Sabres are now in a position to bring in players. Not all teams are in that favorable situation. You might find that problematic but I don't.

It was not about the past. It was about the future. Most of the pedestrian players he brought in were short term remedies to get to a situation where he could make better long term investments. Time ran out for him. Now its' up to Kueger/Adams to take advantage of the favorable situation.

Whatever complaints people have about Botterill the one thing he did do is put this franchise in a good financial position to be in a good situation to rework the roster. Would he have taken an advantage of the situation that he painstakingly put this team? That is debatable. But to his credit he didn't go for the quick short term fix that Murray most likely would have taken. Now that Adams/Krueger are at the helm they are in a position to reshape the roster to their liking. It will be interesting to see what their visions are in roster building and what transactions they are going to make this offseason.

Tampa has a financial cap puzzle to work out whether they decide to retain Cirelli or if they move him. If they retain him they will shed players and contracts. If they acquire a player for him and picks the contract that they will bring in will probably be less than the contract that Cirelli would garner if signed. The point is Tampa will have to shed contracts whether they retain him or not.

If the trade was upgraded to Risto plus our first for Cirelli I would make the deal. If a trade was proposed for Cozens and our #1 I would say no.

There is a difference between earthly rumors and Martian out of this world rumors. ?

If someone has a history of being a sexual harasser and is publicly outed what usually follows is a flood stream of anonymous stories about the abuser. If a person has a reputation for inappropriate behavior it will come out. I am not aware of any stories about Roenick being involved in such bad behavior.

Odds are that the Sabres will work out a deal to get a 2C player. I'm not sure the acquisition will meet your lofty standards. When you can't afford a Mercedes Benz then you have to be willing to accept a higher end Toyota.

Cozens is in no way, shape or form a Grigorenko caliber of prospect. Cozens is a better talent, in better shape and much more mature.

I'm not against adding a center who can play the 2C spot. I don't know anyone here who is. But the issue comes down to what is the cost. Much of the discussion here revolves around the Cirelli fixation. It's probable that he will be re-signed in Tampa. And if he is moved it is still unlikely that he will end up in Buffalo. The Cirelli plan needs to be placed where it should be place i.e. the fantasy world of make believe. Cozens will come into camp and will show where he is at as a NHL player. I'm confident that his rush to the NHL is not a reprise of the Mittelstadt rush to the league. Mitts was simply not ready then and maybe (hope not) isn't ready now. I know you are not receptive to the idea about Cozens being assigned to the second line but I'm more open than most. What I'm not willing to do is strip this thin team for a 2C when the hope is that Cozens will be ready to assume that spot in his second year.

If the Sabres can't get a 2C from the market because the price is too rich then a fallback position could be to bring in a very good second line winger and give Cozens a chance to center that line. If he is not quite ready then a short term veteran could be brought in as a temporary center solution for the second line. I'm more open and willing than most here to throw Cozens in the second center mix.

Cozens is on my no touch list. I'm willing to deal my first round pick to get a second line center or winger. But I wouldn't accept the offer you propose. So work on another proposal to get Cirelli who I believe is on Tampa's must retain list.

I appreciate your response and excellent analysis. But I disagree with you. He's a 20 yr old with upside. (my opinion) Because of his youth is why I am placing more value on him than most others. Joki is not a flashy player and going to dazzle you like Dahlin. He is more of a steady and smart player who plays with maturity beyond his age. In fact, he has shown some indications that he has some growth potential to the offensive side of his game. If you are willing to be patient you will be surprised with how more expansive his game will be.

I agree with you that it would be cool if Toronto decided to play in Buffalo. However, it seems that the players are resistant to playing in a minor league stadium because the accommodations don't satisfy them. The attached link is a 13 minute plus segment of a reporter who follows the Blue Jays talking on WGR about the issue of where they might play. Regarding the Buffalo location it is the players who are nixing the deal. That is not to say that it won't happen but it is unlikely. https://wgr550.radio.com/media/audio-channel/07-20-tsn-blue-jays-reporter-scott-mitchell

Unless there is more information behind the scenes it seems that he was fired for his singular juvenile comments on a radio show about two colleagues who he is friends with. I have not heard any comments that Roenick has a history of improper behavior relating to sexual harassment. It's not unusual that more is going on about an incident and individual that the public is privy to. So I won't dismiss that possibility. However, I just haven't heard anyone (anonymous or not) coming forward complaining how he conducts himself.

Being a lawyer or a person experienced in HR doesn't mean that there is only one valid opinion on this topic of discussion. For every lawyer that says it is up---there are other lawyers who say it is down. Unanimity is not guaranteed or automatic within this profession or outside of it. When you are talking about the law and its application judgment is intrinsically part of the equation. That's why there are two tables seating two different views in the courtroom.

As you seem to suggest Girgs is more likely to leave than Larsson. Larsson certainly has a role as a defensive presence but if he departs there are many market options that are reasonably priced that can replace him. Your pegging his market value at the $2-2.25 range seams reasonable. I wouldn't be surprised that players such as Girgs and Larsson with moderate contract valuations might prefer to leave the Sabres simply for the reason that they need a fresh start and more positive outlook on another team. Another factor that might argue to move both of these players is that one of the deficiencies this team needs to address is having more scoring from the lower lines. As it stands there isn't much of a contribution made by the secondary lines. That's why I wouldn't be surprised to see both players wearing different uniforms next year.

We are going in circles. There is not much more that I can add to what I have already stated. For me the issue isn't that Roenick behaved properly or not as it is the proportionality of the response. I respectfully disagree with your position.

Sue for what? A colleague and a friend made boorish comments about her and another male colleague. She was not harassed on the job. It's not even known if she was offended or simply took it as her friend Jeremy behaving as he is known to behave in a rambunctious manner. You bring up the issue of the network being liable? Liable for what? For juvenile behavior of an employee on a single appearance on a jock radio show? The notion of the possibility of a valid (your word) lawsuit is an absurdity. On what basis would they as a company be liable for an employee making foolish comments on a jock radio show? This is one crude incident in which he acted like a high school juvenile. As I said it before it's my opinion the response for firing Roenick is out of proportion to the poor judgment. Don't you find it surprising that the two people who have not criticized Roenick for his comments are the two colleagues, male and female, he was joking about. There are plenty of things for the trigger happy boycott crowd to be upset with. However, this single act of immaturity shouldn't be an incident worthy of pumping up the manufactured outrage industry. note: I didn't intend to highlight my response. Something went wrong in the posting that inadvertently highlighted the post. I apologize for that.

A colleague and friend who makes a raunchy comment about her and another colleague in a bad attempt of humor on a jock radio show does not constitute or come close to constituting a hostile work environment. You are extrapolating a boorish incident outside of the workplace beyond its significance. As far as his legal position I never said that he had a credible legal position.

Why would Tappen sue NBC over raunchy comments made by Roenick? They were colleagues and friends. She vacationed with Roenick and his wife in Portugal. If she was upset with his comments she would have discussed the matter with him and made her feelings known and resolved the issue between them. Roenick on a radio show known for its free wheeling made a gross comment about not only her but another male media colleague. It was a bad attempt at humor. I haven't heard Tappen say that she felt victimized and humiliated by Roenick's comments. (That's not to say she wasn't upset with him. I don't know? If you can point out any comments she made about the episode I would consider it.) As I stated in a prior post Roenick is a loud and brash personality. That's why he was on the set; that's why he was hired. There's an overriding issue here that I find troubling. It goes beyond this incident but is reflected in this incident. There is a too quick "boycott" response if a person has a particular political or values leaning. The pouncing on mistakes and bad judgments that are inevitable in the communication business is becoming too common place. Both sides of the political spectrum are actively involved in this receptivity to be outraged. That's the bigger issue that bothers me