JohnC
-
Posts
5,958 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Events
Posts posted by JohnC
-
-
16 minutes ago, Taro T said:
Hunwick, Sobotka, Frolik, & Simmonds all coming off the books plus trading Scandella, Sheary, & Rodrigues away along with Bogosian willingly walking away clears a ton of useless salary off the books. That alone is a 1/3 of a roster's worth of players. All but Scandella can be replaced with cheaper & better players & he can be replaced with cheaper.
They also have Larsson & Girgensons who might not get re-signed and Vesey who likely won't be re-signed.
You said it: That is a huge swing in cap room.
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.
-
2
-
-
18 minutes ago, Andrew Amerk said:
Again, TBL is in the position to lose a Cirelli because they need to move salary OUT.
They would not be in a position to take IN a contract like Ristos - or even Montours.
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.
-
3 minutes ago, LGR4GM said:
Risto straight for Cirelli would robbery on the Sabres part. Cirelli just got nominated for the Selke at age 22 and went from .476 to .647 ppg all while getting almost no powerplay time, in fact only 5 of his 44 points in 68 games came with the man advantage. Risto is so far below Cirelli that a 1v1 trade is laughable from Tampa's standpoint... or they have a worse GM than Botts
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.
-
12 hours ago, dudacek said:
It is. What else did you thing the trade rumours and speculation thread was for? ?
There is a difference between earthly rumors and Martian out of this world rumors. ?
-
33 minutes ago, Doohickie said:
They have no reason to. If this was part of a pattern, it's over. No sense in rehashing it. Anyone who does (even anonymously) risks losing their job if they work at NBC and possibly further legal action from Roenick. When people have been fired for disciplinary reasons where I work, no one who knows anything says anything about the incident. That's basic corporate culture.
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.
-
1
-
-
Just now, Thorny said:
The bolded is a very poor way to build a hockey team, sorry.
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.
-
15 minutes ago, SABRES 0311 said:
Yeah man I hope Cozens pans out but the center position can be tricky. Filling that 2C spot would mean a good number of minutes. The season takes its toll and young players need to build that endurance. If he gets rushed he may go the way [Grigorenko. I’m fine with Cozens doing time in the minors.
If the price is too high I can see going for a good winger though. Then again like the commercial says, give extra get extra. If you want a 2C you’re gonna have to send something the other way.
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.
-
12 minutes ago, Thorny said:
*Absolutely* not, Mr. Botterill. Would instantly tarnish the new GM's rep in my eyes. He'd be repeating the biggest mistake of the last GM's three year tenure.
The veteran 2C (would except TRUE 3C playing capable stop gap) needs to be on this roster for Cozens to hypothetically (though, it's unlikely) beat out for the role, not something we attempt to acquire mid season after we have zero NHL Cs behind Eichel again and are 10 points out of a playoff spot. We've seen our recent track record with in season additions.
Add centres. It's the mandate.
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.
-
1 minute ago, Taro T said:
Fair enough. And definitely hope he's better than a 3 or 4 in his prime. If he could be a true 2 the Sabres could have their own version of Pronger/Neidermayer (or at least Keith/Seabrook) brewing. Just doubt that's his ceiling. And he could end up as Dahlin's partner LT even if he isn't a true 2 and still be good enough because Dahlin will be that good.
But right now, if they have to part with him to get the 2C, won't be thrilled but won't be despondent either. (Now, if they DON'T get a real 2C that's where true despondence will set in.)
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.
-
1 hour ago, sweetlou said:
I know the writing is on the wall for Cozens as being a very good prospect. You also never know what you are going to get at #8.
But to get a proven player in the league that could be your #2 center for the next seven years behind Jack, would it be worth the risk to get a player that is already ready!!
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.
-
1 hour ago, Taro T said:
Eichel has company in the untouchable category w/ Dahlin, IMHO. Don't know that he'll live up to the hype of being another Potvin or Robinson (but won't rule it out), but would be surprised if he isn't at least a slightly better Hedman when he's in his prime. Teams would have to give up an incredible bounty to land Hedman & truly believe when all is said and done Radsmus will be better.
My gut feel is that Jokiharju ends up either a very good 4th D-man or an adequate 3rd D-man. Neither of which is untouchable as the team currently has 2-3 other RHD's that are in that category.
Jokiharju looked "great" paired with Scandella but not nearly as good on other pairings. He'll still get better, but really don't expect his ceiling is much higher than what we've seen to date. (Tyler Myers NEVER looked as good as he did his rookie year, not even after they brought Tallinder back again. Sometimes these young guys do play near their peak at an early age.) Too many Gragnani's have come through town hyped to the extraordinaire to be fully sold on Joker being any more than a 4 LT & possibly only a 5.
Wouldn't be trying to trade him as my guess is Ristolainen or Montour would bring back more as part of a trade package, but for the right deal would part with Henri in a heartbeat. (And he's a good player that is worth watching play; but for the right offer ...)
And as a total aside: if Montour had been healthy at the end of TC, would Joker have gotten any time with the Sabres this season? Montour & Bogosian both being on IR created the opportunity for him to stay up but he hadn't beat out any of the 3 we'd expected to see in the lineup had they all been healthy. And, he would've definitely been in Ra-cha-cha if all 4 RHD vets were healthy & very likely even if only 3 of them were healthy. Good for him, he made the best of an unexpected opportunity & at times early in the year was arguably their best D-man. (Doesn't change the fact he was still only 2nd pairing quality. ? )
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.
-
On 7/18/2020 at 3:27 PM, LGR4GM said:
It would be really cool if they played here. I hope it happens.
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
-
22 minutes ago, That Aud Smell said:
It's a weird test case (given how I feel about Roenick (he's a somewhat entertaining blowhard, and a total Delta Bravo)), but I agree with this sentiment. Cancel culture stinks. And it would stink if Roenick was fired for this lone lapse in judgment. I think that's a pretty big "if".
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.
-
3
-
-
55 minutes ago, Eleven said:
The reason you are going in circles (the rest of us are not) is that you are arguing with several lawyers with considerable experience and at least one person, if not more, with considerable HR experience.
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.
-
4
-
1
-
-
33 minutes ago, DarthEbriate said:
Ah. This thread. And yes I was kidding on the numbers earlier.
Without kidding, a flat cap and suppressed mid-6 salaries the next couple years, I think Larry is just as valuable as he’s been. Replace Girgs w Cozens or another ELC , and roll Larry Okposo other as the third line, providing we can find a 2C. Larry could still be in the 2-2.25 range if that LW is cheap.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.
-
1
-
-
58 minutes ago, Weave said:
Their employer is duty bound to ensure a work environment free from sexual harassment whether either of them complain about this incident or not. Company management has to act in the interests of company ownership and reduce their liability. They know these comments were out there. They know it was about a co-worker. It most definitely requires the company to do what is necessary to prevent an environment of sexual harassment. Could they have suspended Roenick? Sure but, see below.
Frankly, being a media company, they need to protect their reputation to protect their brand. No media company will want to associate what Roenick said with their brand. This really is a zero tolerance situation.
Edit to add- Victims often don't complain. For many reasons. Her silence is most definitely not evidence of acceptance. Given company awareness of the comments, lack of a complaint doesn't absolve the company from legal liability in the event that there is legal action somewhere down the road. This was a very public statement. The company knows it was said, and everyone else knows as well. Maybe she feels pressured to keep her mouth shut this time. Maybe 3 or 4 times down the road she decides to no longer keep her mouth shut and files suit. No company can afford that potential liability. Are you willing to bet that a jury of peers won't find that the company should have been reasonably aware of the possibility of a harassing environment after this?
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.
-
2 hours ago, Weave said:
Its not about whether she will sue or not. It is about the likelihood of a valid lawsuit over the incident if she were to decide she wanted to do it. The network now has liability regardless of whether anyone thinks she is the kind to sue or not. No network is going to accept that kind of liability.
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.
-
1
-
-
15 minutes ago, Eleven said:
Hostile work environment. Not saying she would, but she has a case. He probably doesn't.
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.
-
14 hours ago, Eleven said:
Let's assume, for a minute, that your last sentence is right. Problem is, he doesn't bring much value to the company so he's not worth preserving.
Now, let's get into reality. Does NBC want to be sued by Tappen, who has a case, or Roenick, who probably does not? This is an easy decision for NBC.
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
-
3
-
-
1 hour ago, Eleven said:
Let's assume, for a minute, that your last sentence is right. Problem is, he doesn't bring much value to the company so he's not worth preserving.
Now, let's get into reality. Does NBC want to be sued by Tappen, who has a case, or Roenick, who probably does not? This is an easy decision for NBC.
What has she said and done after the comments that indicates she wants to legally pursue the matter?
-
5 minutes ago, Eleven said:
Why he was hired to begin with (I tend to think you are correct) has nothing to do with why he was fired (which absolutely must have happened given his comments on Tappen and Sharp). Can you even think about NBC's liability if they had allowed him to coexist with Tappen?
Just because she's good-looking doesn't mean you're allowed to broadcast what you'd like to do with her.
He's an ass. He acted like one. He finally got his. Let's see what comes out of the NYS court system on this; I'm betting that it isn't sympathetic to poor Jeremy.
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.
-
1
-
-
3 hours ago, dudacek said:
If the Sabres and Jets swapped goalies last fall, the Sabres would be playing right now while the Jets fans would be arguing about which players to give up to get a 2C.
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.
-
3 hours ago, New Scotland (NS) said:
He went well beyond that and not in a locker room. Your take is not a good one, IMHO.
This guy has a well established reputation as being a first rate ass.
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.
-
1 minute ago, Weave said:
Stating that you want to have sex with a co-worker (or whatever the exact detail was) isn't garden variety stupid stuff though. That is termination material every time. It's self evident, really. And has nothing to do with "the world we live in today". It violates every workplace norm, and every broadcast norm outside of shock jock broadcasting.
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.
2020-21 Trade Rumors and Speculation
in The Aud Club
Posted
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.