JohnC

The issue isn't that ROR got traded. The issue is that he got traded in an imbalanced deal. It's obvious to me that this deal was forced before a reasonable deal could be made because the organization wasn't willing to wait for a better deal because it didn't want to pay him a bonus. ROR was tired of the losing and publicly expressed his frustration. Big freaking deal! So the response by the organization was to jettison a key player on the team and get less than value back. That makes no sense. That's like getting into a duel and before the count down is finished you shoot yourself in the foot. How smart is that? You can minimize how damaging this trade fiasco was but the reality is that this foolish transaction still haunts this troubled franchise because it is still trying to fill the void left by the departed player. So what is the lesson to be learned? Acting in a dumb manner is not a smart way to do business!

You are astute and perspicacious. What is made evident with your wise commentary is if this bedraggled franchise acts smartly and seizes the opportunities available in the market this team can be meaningfully improved. It's not about spending unwisely as it is about being judicious with your resources.

I agree with you. That was my point. I certainly understand why the organization, and most notably the owner, would be upset with a highly paid player who was soon to collect a sizeable bonus publicly expressing his unhappiness with the team he was on. However, by reacting too quickly to dispatch him before a fair-value deal could be worked out it ended up being an act of self-sabotage. It's not unfair to say that because of the two deals that I mentioned (the first round pick for Lenher and the ROR deal) this franchise was demonstrably set back. Instead of building on what it had it had to fill the holes that it dug.

AP's John Wawrow has not conclusively stated but has indicated that there were strong suggestions that the owner was not willing to pay the bonus and wanted the player moved out before the bonus payment.

I don't understand your response. Could you elaborate? This selection was a reasonable pick. That is not to say that the trade package made much sense. I have always felt that the ROR trade deal was influenced by the owner who wasn't willing to pay the bonus to the disgruntled player than it was by the GM. If the organization would have paid the bonus and then scanned the market the return for him would have been significantly greater.

Giving up that first round pick for a goalie that his former team wanted to move cost us a future second line player that the Sabres are now desperately searching for. Would a first round pick been worthy of the Islander's Lehner caliber of play after he addressed his mental health issues? I still say no. In addition, the ROR deal turned out to be a boondoggle that set this franchise back. If you combine just these two deals and consider the repercussions that resulted from those ill-conceived transactions you can see why smart organizations find a way to win and foolish organizations find a way to lose. The moral of the story is being patient and judicious is always better than being impatient and injudicious. If a fair-valued deal isn't there then don't force the issue. Just wait until a more favorable/balanced deal can be made. Common sense 101!

I'm not arguing to overpay him or anyone else. What you are not considering is that he was hurt last year, and when he finally returned to action he wasn't fully healthy. I don't know what his contract average will be but if it is a short term deal hovering around what you suggest ($3.5 to what I think he will get $3.75-4.00) then I would consider that a fair compensation. The Sabres had a number of structural deficiencies. One of the most damaging and obvious deficiencies is that this team didn't have enough scorers. And without question he is one of our best scorers. In the end Olofsson is going to be signed and get paid what his worth is. As you noted it probably will be more of a bridge deal than a long-term deal.

I agree with you that either Montour or Risto will be traded. As you indicate it will be for cap reasons and in order to balance out the roster to boost the second line, for either the 2C or one of the wing positions on that line. You can get gritty players on reasonable contracts from the market. What is difficult to acquire are players who can score goals. Olofsson is a sniper, as is Skinner, playing on a team that lacks goal scorers. One of the obvious problems for this impotent team is that there are not enough contributing lines beyond the potent Jack line. When you have a player such as Olofsson who may be the first or second best shooter on the team after Jack you pay the market price. Olofsson is not going to be cheap but he is going to get paid according to his value.

I appreciate your draft evaluations. Your knowledge of this draft class is impressive. It's apparent that the forwards dominate the top half of this draft class. Acknowledging that fact where would Calgary's Sam Bennett rank in this class?

I didn't read your response when I posted after you. In short I agree with what you posted other than Adams being able to convince him to come to Buffalo. Sorry of the redundancy in my post. There will be other reasonable options to consider this offseason.

There was a tentative deal made for Stall to be traded to Boston for their playoff run. Staal nixed the deal. I doubt that he will accept coming to Buffalo let alone anywhere else. There will be reasonable options in the market for a short term 2C for next season. When the playoffs are concluded there will be a number of mid tier options to consider.

Your trade proposal is impermissible. I will not allow Jokharju or Cozens to be dealt in any deal. So please perish the thought. I would consider Risto or Montour and a #1 pick for Boeser but my untouchables are untouchable. In my scenario I would expect a draft pick back, maybe a second round.?

As on display I do have my stupido verbal gaffe moments. Since I am prone to these type of mistakes I readily accept and embrace my moments of confusion. ? My worry with trading him so soon is that he would eventually mature and get the focus required to play in this tough bruising league and benefit another team. The one young player on the roster who based on his play at the end of the season I am intrigued with is Kahun. Another player that I am enamored with in the organization that I hope can surprise is Arttu Ruolsalainen. This self-sabotaging franchise needs some unexpected good luck from some of its young players.

Mittelstadt should not have been in the NFL unless it was for a short stint as an introduction to NHL play. After his one year in college he should have been in Rochester getting a lot of playing and grinding it out with the other prospects. When he played for the Sabres it was apparent that he wasn't physically and emotionally ready to play against men. There were brief episodes of play where he displayed some nifty offensive skills. But usually he was an invisible and no impact player. That's not a good sign for a first round pick. I don't know if he will ever develop into the player the organization hoped for when he was drafted. With the extended offseason he needs to come into the late camp physically ready with a determination required for a player in a do or die situation. If he can finally make the leap it would be such a big bonus for the team.

Judd Brackett was just signed by Minnesota to take over their scouting department. When you are widely respected in your field of endeavor you don't last long on the market. https://www.thetelegram.com/sports/hockey/report-judd-brackett-hired-by-minnesota-wild-471550/

You ask the key question. Can a thinned out staff make enough smart hockey decisions or even better decisions than a more fully staffed organization? Is a smaller staff with less bureaucracy and more interaction be more creative and flexible than an organization with a lot of divisions? If you hire the right people and everyone is in sync from top to bottom there should be good results. If you consider what is happening with the changes in how the organization is going to be run the most influential person in the organization appears to be Krueger. He has made a career on the lecture circuit talking about recreating organizations to maximize output. I don't know how things are going to turn out with the Pegula mandated changes. What all of us will be watching are the player decisions that will be made this offseason. If the brain trust can make some smart decisions with the players they bring in and better balance this roster then I will be encouraged. If not, it will be very discouraging.

What a lot of people aren't considering is that the impetus for this organizational restructure was primarily a business decision and not a hockey decision. The owners were going to keep Botterill and allow him finish the last year on his contract. They even made a public announcement about that. However, the affects of the pandemic devastated every business endeavor the owners were involved with. In this bleak economic environment the Pegulas were requiring/ordering Botterill to dramatically thin out the staff. It was understandable why he wasn't keen on firing the staff that he hired to the gutting extent that the Pegulas wanted. While the PR storyline that the Pegulas gave revolved around the issue of communication the reality is that they couldn't persuade him to do what they wanted him to do. So he was fired. Adams was an internal hire. It's obvious why there was no outside searching for a new GM. What outside candidate would have found the Sabre GM appealing knowing that the organization was undergoing a severe austerity program. While a lot of us are scrutinizing the ownership moves through the prism of hockey they were/are acting through the prism of financial considerations. When you are in a difficult business situation it shouldn't be surprising that tough business decisions will be made. That's the reality of what is going on here.

I certainly understand the skepticism toward the Pegulas hiring talents. Their history of churning over the staff doesn't promote confidence in their ability to make good hires. But if they deserve criticism for the past hires what doesn't make sense is to criticize them for not quickly making a hire before scanning the full range of candidates that might be available to them not only now but in the near future. Right now we don't know what the position will entail that will make a candidate such as Dudley suitable or not. And what we don't know is who the new GM wants to hire and what responsibilities will be assigned to the new hire. As far as I am concerned not quickly making a decision on an important hire (if there is to be one) is a sign of prudence. And that is not something to complain about.

Due to the corona situation this is going to be an extended offseason that will allow the organization a lot of time to scan the market for new staff. Why would it be wise to quickly hire someone for an important position when there are other candidates that this organization might have an interest in. Dudley is an experienced hockey staffer who has a variety of experiences in the business. That doesn't mean that there aren't other high qualified candidates for whatever positions the organization wants to fill. It was reported that Dudley had an interest in working for the Sabres. Assuming that is true what we don't know is what roles would he be willing to accept if offered a position. I'm not diminishing Dudley's hockey knowledge but that doesn't mean that he would be a good fit under this new organizational structure. And if he is so indispensable why is he not being retained by the Canes?

Why do you believe that Dudley would be a good tutor? If you want to argue that he would be a good GM or assistant GM then that is a separate issue than he being a good subordinate or mentor. Dudley is known to be strong-will. Those traits are contrary to the direction this organization wants to go to. So why would you hire someone to a high level position whose management/personal style is incompatible to what you want to establish with the recent changes in management? I would love to have Dudley be involved in the scouting department. It doesn't seem that the organization was interested in bringing him on. I'm not diminishing Dudley's knowledge as a hockey executive. But if an organization is attempting to remake itself and it doesn't believe that a candidate for employment doesn't fit its culture then it is understandable why he wasn't hired.

I appreciate your clarifying comments on this issue. But at least for me the argument about Cozen's role has never been about bestowing anything on him because he was considered a highly rated prospect. The issue is what role will he earn. As I stated before the mistake with how Mitts was handled was that he didn't earn his role and playing time. He was thrusted into a role that he was not prepared for because there was a gaping hole in the lineup created by the ROR debacle. (side note: I'm more inclined to blame the owner rather the GM for that catastrophic trade.) In general our positions on Cozens are similar. Where I slightly disagree with you and others is that I'm not so worried about Cozens being damaged or his development derailed if struggles early on if that should happen. The difference between Cozens and Mitts when he entered the league is that I believe last year's rookie is more physically and emotionally developed. Or another way of framing it is this guy is not fragile----he is tougher than a lot of people think. He is going to be a gem.

I still don't buy the reasoning for such trepidation about the expectations for Cozens. Whatever it is prior to the season (high or low) doesn't preclude the front office from addressing the team's manifest needs in the offseason. The Sabres are not Tampa where it is a loaded team that needs to shed players due to cap stress. The Sabres are a team that needs to add talent to a roster that needs bolstering. If Cozens surprises the organization and plays at a level higher than expected then that is an uplifting bonus. If he struggles in adjusting to the league and his role is diminished then so be it. Then (hopefully) the added talent can pick up the slack and help to fortify the roster. Again, I stress that whatever plans the organization has to upgrade the roster this offseason should not be predicated on their expectations about this exciting prospect. The Mitts situation was clearly a poorly handled situation. Allowing that miscalculation to influence how Cozens is handled compounds the original mistake. That would be the wrong lesson to be learned.

There is no reason why he should be sent to the juniors next year. His play is way above that level so there is nothing for him to learn playing there. If Cozens is placed on the second line as a center or winger and it doesn't work out then put him on a lower line. I just don't understand the fear of playing him there if he shows that he is capable of handling that responsibility in training camp and in the preseason. If he can adequately play on the second line that is fine; if he can't adequately do so then adjust his role where he is more comfortable. The notion that his development will be irreparably damaged if he is given a substantive role in the NHL in his second year makes no sense to me. There is no question that Mitts was rushed. He not only wasn't ready to immediately play at the NHL level he didn't earn the promotion to the big league. Cozens right now is probably more physically developed and mature as a player that Mitts is right now. If that isn't the case then for sure he is certainly more physically developed and more mature as a player than when Mitts first entered the league. Cozens is not as fragile as a player and person as many people think. He will demonstrate what he can handle and what he can't handle. I don't understand this constant fretting about him.

We'll have to wait and see how different the board will be under the new regime. I still believe that for the most part the top dozen players will be nearly be same with some variation due to a team's need. For obvious reasons we really can't know how Botterill would handle this draft because he is no longer with the organization.

If you review a number of the hockey sites the players coming off the board are pretty close to matching the same players indicated in LGR's link. As you noted the best scenario for us is that the two top ranked defensemen come off the board before our pick so some forwards get pushed down. Unless the Sabres trade the pick or trade down the Sabres should come away with a good prospect who could be ready in two years or so. You bring up an interesting issue as to whether the "new way of scouting" with the Adam regime would have an appreciably different ranking board than the Botterill board would have. I'm not sure that for the top rated prospects it would be much different.