JohnC

What has she said and done after the comments that indicates she wants to legally pursue the matter?

He clearly made inappropriate comments on a radio or podcast show. That's not an issue that I'm disputing. After the storm about his comments about Tappen he pointed out that he knew her beyond the studio. He pointed out that he and his wife have gone out to dinner with Tappen. So there was an acquaintance with him and his wife. Roenick is a loud and rambunctious person. It's safe to say that he was hired not to be a clinical analyst on the set but to be a lively personality who was there to be provocative. The show in which Roenick made his comments was the type of show where the decorum boundaries get stretched. That's the context in which he made those comments. He was trying to be funny and it came back to bite him. I don't believe that he was trying to be malicious or deliberately hurt anyone. It was a poor attempt at humor in a loose setting. It's my opinion that he clearly he used poor judgment in making those comments. If he would have been suspended I would have considered that a more reasonable disciplinary response by the company.

You make an interesting point regarding our goaltending situation. The most important player for us that will determine success is Ullmark. Is he developed enough and good enough? I hope so but can't say for sure.

Why do you think he was hired in the first place? Because he is a genteel and sophisticated personality? Roenick's edgy personality when he was a player and behind the mike were well established and known by everyone in the hockey world. That's why he was hired! He wasn't hired to give powder puff commentary. He was on the set to be edgy. Did he cross the line? Of course he did. So what! If his transgressions were a common occurrence where he was constantly being spanked by his bosses then I have no problem with his ignominious departure. If it wasn't a pattern of behavior then in my opinion he shouldn't have been fired.

He got carried away with his stupid locker room bantering. No one is saying that it was appropriate. Unless there was an accumulation of stupid comments and he was dismissing the warnings of his bosses I thought this situation could have been dealt with in a less punitive manner. We simply disagree on this issue.

People who are in front of the mike a lot are inevitably going to say stupid stuff. Even people who are not "predisposed" (as you state) are at times going to say something foolish and offensive. If he has a history of saying inappropriate things and has been warned about it by his bosses and ignores the warnings then there are consequences. If he is such a liability in front of the mike then don't hire him or renew his contract. What intensifies the "offensive " comments are that they are then constantly being re-looped by other outlets. What I find troubling is this quick resorting to boycott in a variety of forms with someone who affiliates with someone you don't like or says something that you disagree with. If you don't like what is being said then turn the dial and find another outlet. The quick draw resorting to "cancelling" out is becoming too prevalent to the extent that it is stifling communication.

Sometimes when you read what a person said on TV or radio it appears to be outrageous and unacceptable. But what is often left out is the where the comment was made such as on a shock jock radio show where the environment is freewheeling and juvenile. When something is said in a restaurant/bar scenario among friends (including both sexes) the bantering can get real loose to the point of being raunchy with no one being offended and taking the comments as being demeaning. My understanding is that Roenick and his wife were friends with the people he commented on. My point here is that although he said something that he shouldn't have on the airways the magnitude of the indiscretion is raised by the intensity of this swirling social media world.

Thank you for the terrific analysis and write-up. I was secretly eye-balling him as an added/throw in player in a package deal who given a fresh start might revive his still young career. Even if he doesn't develop into a second line player if he can contribute on a third line that would certainly help address a major deficiency of not having enough secondary scoring to augment our over-weighted first line scoring.

I'm with you. The Sabres had an extended home stand at the end of the season against a number of below average teams. In that sequence of games in their home arena their record was mediocre. There was also a western four game road trip where they did play well but came away with zero points. They had opportunities to get back into the race but failed miserably. No more lame excuses!

What went wrong with Bennett? Was he simply a tool guy who couldn't convert his assets into production or was he the type of player who could dominate at the lower level but simply wasn't good enough to make the leap into the manly NHL league.? Would a change of scenery possibly resuscitate his up to now disappointing career?

Thanks for the response. When I use the word "quality" I'm defining it as someone who after a few years can develop into a contributing lower line and pairing caliber of player.

What prospects could be drafted outside of the top 10 if we traded down? Also, is this draft full enough with good prospects where we could get a quality prospect in the second round?

If the Sabres traded down in order to make a package deal what lower first round picks would appeal to you as interesting prospects?

I always felt that Scandella was unfairly criticized. As a third pairing defenseman with average amount of minutes he was a solid/useful player. When his role was expanded or he played on a pairing beyond his talents he struggled. I thought that when he played with Joki he was a very positive influence on his game. If the Sabres can add a player or two to bolster the second line it will upgrade the lower lines by pushing players down to play where they are more appropriately suited. As the post above by @LGR4GM points out if you can make the right additions it will positively reverberate throughout the lineup.

I'm not suggesting that you are anti-Joki. That is not to say that I don't value him more highly than you might. I also believe that this 20 yr. old youngster has more potential to develop. My stance is that I wouldn't trade him for players such as Monahan, Johansson or Strome to assume the 2C slot. If one believes as I do that in the not too distant future Cozens has the ability to fill the 2C spot then it would make even less sense to trade Joki for the above listed players. With respect to Cirelli I definitely would be willing to trade Joki and a first round pick for the Tampa center with the condition that he will sign a deal with us. If not, then I would say no to a Cirelli deal.

If your trade scenario for Cirelli or Barzal was offered I would quickly make the deal with one qualification. Both of those players would have to be signed for the long term. If not, then I'm not making the deal.

We do have players on the defensive unit such as Montour and Risto that could be assets to bring back a return. Joki is a 20 year old player with upside that I believe will be at worst a second pairing caliber of player. Can he be a first pairing caliber of player? Maybe in another year or two??? I just don't see him being moved. This is going to be a very long offseason for the Sabres. Let's see how prominently his name gets mentioned in proposed deals. I just don't see it.

Your response captures what must of us feel about this team. Many of us are both skeptical and hopeful. That's an unsettling mix. Will the Sabres make a few smart moves that will better balance out the roster and make it more competitive? Will the younger players make the expected/hopeful progression? I wasn't as harsh a critic as most of the former GM with the drab personality. I thought he put the team in a good position with its cap situation and number of UFAs on the roster to be in a favorable position this offseason to make some deals to upgrade the roster? Now that he is gone will the younger and inexperienced replacement GM take the mantel and make enough smart moves to make this team a genuine playoff team? I'm offering up a lot of questions because it would be foolish to make positive assumptions that this organization will be smart about the decisions it will make this offseason. I may be gullible but I am hopeful.

Joki was 20 yrs old last year. How many defensemen that young can play as well as he did in this league? You can use stats in his rookie year to diminish his play. After watching him play last season it isn't a stretch to project that he is going to be better than a good player. His performance level is not static. In another couple to few years he is going to be an established second pairing player for us. For me he is a no touch player.

I respectfully but strenuously disagree with you about Joki. My opinion of him is off the charts. He is one of the most poised and consistent young defensemen that I have seen in a long time. He is smart and knows what his abilities are and doesn't stray beyond them. What impresses me the most is about him beyond his smooth skating is his intelligence on the ice. He rarely makes a wrong decision when he has the puck. (If Risto had his smarts he would be an all star.) Don't get caught up with a player being able to make dazzling plays and muscular hits. That's not who he is. This young guy is already a second pairing caliber of defenseman and quite possibly the most consistent defender on the unit. When Botterill traded Nylander to get him the GM should have been charged with felonious theft. In my unyielding view he is a no touch player!

Please take Joki and Cozens off of the list. There are going to be a number of desirable players on the market. So the Sabres will have options as to not only who they might acquire but also who they will have to deal in order to make the acquisitions. I'm very open to trading our #1 pick; I'm not open to trading the two aforementioned players.

The Sabres had the second worst rated PK in the league. Why was it so bad? Was the problem more related to the players or design of PK? I'm not making excuses because you are what you do. But this past season with an average to a little higher than average PK and with more consistent goaltending this team lost in the vicinity of eight to ten points in the standings. https://www.oddsshark.com/stats/defensivestats/hockey/nhl/penalty_kill_percentage

The hockey of today is not the hockey of yesterday. The team that has more talent and skilled players will usually prevail over the lunch bucket team. The well coached team with a balanced roster will prevail over the less talented and earnest team.

I have read a few breakdowns from a number of people that when taken from an overview perspective regarding the reconstruction of the roster what is obvious to me is that there are a menu of good options to work with. As others have frequently pointed out a number of teams will be capped stressed and forced to deal good players in order to retain some of their core players. Will this organization be creative enough and bold enough to take advantage of the situation? (Right now I believe that it is more likely than not that we deal our first round pick in order to make a substantial deal.) The most important office in the organization will be the pro scouting office. In my view we don't need a dramatic remake of the roster. If we can bring in two second line caliber of players that will also allow us to reconstruct the third line and make it a more contributing line for a team that desperately needs to spread out its scoring. I like Krueger a lot but I do have one concern about him which you intentionally or not alluded to in your comment about how he handled Dahlin. Krueger is a coach who believes in discipline and line coherence. Will he loosen up on the reigns for Dahlin and Skinner and allow them to play a little more freelance game? The player that I thought he stifled the most with his tight system was Skinner. He needs to allow him to play his sharpshooting and roaming game without harping on maintaining his positional responsibilities. Let's not forget that Krueger's coaching history in Europe with the Swiss team was that he was coaching less talented teams against demonstrably superior teams. In order to have a chance he needed his team to play a tight brand of hockey where the focus was more on preventing the other team from scoring rather than focus on your team's offense. I'm hoping that Krueger will adjust his mindset a tad. To his defense he was coaching a team last year that had a limited range of scorers. So I understand his conservative approach. I have said it before so I apologize for the redundancy. While we all are focusing on bringing in talent for our lines the most important player/s for us will be the goaltenders. If they in tandem can provide consistently solid play then that in itself will be a key ingredient to a successful season.

Were the people who invested in the hotel, airline and restaurant business smart enough to predict that there was gong to be a pernicious pandemic? The Pegulas were to an extent cashing out of the energy business and diversifying into other businesses. They were not able to see into the future like everyone else wasn't able to.