JohnC

He looks like a porno star. ☠️

The attached link is a 9 min interview of Craig Button on by WKBW's Adam Unger. He was discussing some of the decisions that KA will have to make this offseason. Two of Button's main recommendations are to use the first pick on Power and hire Granato as the HC. The more commentary I hear about this draft the more convinced that I am that Power should be our first selection. And I continue to be convinced that Granato should be our coaching hire. https://www.wkbw.com/sports/sabres/tsns-craig-button-breaks-down-the-sabres-offseason-with-adam-unger

What are the sources of the many spoken words that support your theory? Are they coming from the ether of the internet? I haven't heard any coming from any credible sources. What I have repeatedly heard and explicitly stated by the GM is that he doesn't want players who don't want to be here. Take a guess who he is primarily referring to. No one denies that the injury issue is a factor in his trade value. But it is not by far the most influential factor in the GM wanting to move him. If even with his injury status Jack made it publicly and privately known that he was 100% committed to leading this team and turning around this sinking ship would the GM be so determined to move him? Of course not. Your opinion is your opinion; and my opinion is my opinion. But your flimsy theory is based on vague comments that can't be traced. At least my view and @Weavecome from a source who is substantive and credible i.e. the GM.

I strenuously don't believe that a stand alone 3OA trade meets the GM's baseline. Although it could be the centerpiece of a deal. If Zegras or Drysdale are not part of the package then there needs to be other pieces that can play next year. In my view the GM is very aware that he needs to bulk up his current roster next year.

In that ignominious deal we saved a penny and lost a dollar. I agree with you that the owner instigated the transaction.

Our views are not really that far apart. I agree with you that many here have expectations that are too exorbitant. Where we fundamentally disagree is how high is the floor for Adams. You think that it is lower than I do. I definitely don't believe, as you appear to believe, that if only a 3OA was on the table from Anaheim it would be sufficient. I would be willing to accept a Zegras or Dyrsdale and a 3OA for Jack if that was the best offer or a Dach plus their first pick for Jack. In my mind I have to get a young high grade player as part of a deal. It seems that the different horses we are riding on are going in the same direction. And these long rides are wearing my arse out. 🤡

You are missing my point. I'm not disputing that the GM wants to move Jack. A person has to be obtuse not to understand the meaning of the GM's comments about wanting players who want to be here. Of course there is a de-facto auction to see what the best offers are. But even with teams competing to trade for Jack that doesn't mean that there isn't a baseline level of return for us to accept a deal. If the best offer doesn't rise to the minimum level of an acceptable return then a trade shouldn't be made him until it does meet that standard. How many people here believe that the ROR deal was a good deal? It was a rushed deal to avoid executing bonus clause. The result was a team that was diminished. I have repeatedly said that I don't expect to get equal value back in a Jack trade. That doesn't mean that I have to get an unfair return for him, especially when there is not a requirement to trade him. I hope this clarifies the issue. Our horses are starting to ride in circles and are getting tired. 🙂

Where I diverge from your view is that the issue for me isn't who is making the best offer. The position that I am advocating is that unless a level of return is at a certain level the Sabres shouldn't make a deal regardless who is making the best offer.

He would reject this offer simply because it wasn't good enough. I don't see how rejecting this particular offer is going to drive up other offers. It appears that he has a baseline value return that he is not going to go below for any team. Are offers coming in and increasing as the draft approaches? I don't know.

My head is spinning. Let's just simplify the issue. Trade Jack to Chicago for Dach and Debrincat, straight up. If we can get their first round pick in exchange for one of our second round picks I would make the exchange. If not, I would be willing to give up Jack for Dach and Debrincat. Plain and simple one lane highway with no curves.

Not necessarily. Columbus may have established a limit below what the Sabres are willing to accept. That doesn't mean that any other team is offering more. What it indicates is that the Sabres know what they are willing to accept and what they are not. So far it appears that the offers don't match our expectation. The situation/market should become clearer as the draft approaches. Right now the situation is fluid.

Respectfully, we are riding different horses on this issue. The horse you are saddling up is not the one I'm choosing to saddle up with.

I agree with you that odds are that the GM has decided to move Jack. But that doesn't mean that it has to done this offseason if a fair-value (not equal) deal can't be made. After next year Jack has a trade clause kick in where he has a say to where he can go. That's fine. If a good deal can't be made then so be it. You simply keep him. When you have an asset you don't give it away for 10 cents on the dollar. I would rather wait until I can get 35 cents on the dollar.

The overwhelming majority of sensible people here know that we are not going to get equal value for a Jack or even on Samson deal. But not attaining a maximum deal doesn't mean that you shouldn't be able to get a fair/reasonable return for him/them. The organization may prefer to trade Jack but they are not obligated to do so, especially if a solid deal can't be had. Reinhart is a different situation. He has leverage to induce a deal because of his contract status. But even with him if a reasonable deal can't be made then keep him until he becomes an UFA. Is there a possibility that he might change his mind and eventually decides to sign a long term contract? The chances increase if the Sabres are able to be a more serious team. No more ROR stupid deals. If a front office can't learn from its stupid mistakes that setback the franchise, then it should be cleansed of its incompetent staff.

Absolutely not. If you can't get Zegras (preference) or Drysdale included in a trade with Anaheim then move on. If Chicago is willing to trade Dach and their pick I would be open to it. But if Dach isn't included in a deal with Chicago then the response is the same i.e. absolutely not. We don't have to trade Jack if the return doesn't include a high end prospect plus additional pieces. The notion that due to resentment Jack would fake his health status doesn't make sense. He's a person who has so much passion for the game that he was willing to subject himself to a riskier procedure so that he could get back on the ice sooner. If the organization is determined to move him but can't get a fair return for him right now then it should bide its time and make a deal at another time. If that makes the player unhappy, then so be it. Buffalo has had a lot of unhappy players for them. One more player added to this large agitated group is not going to hurt the team compared to making a bad deal. No more foolish ROR deals; learn from your mistakes---not repeat them!

The hiring of a coach will not have much of a ripple effect in the hockey world because it doesn't really interest many people. When your franchise earned its way to irrelevancy it shouldn't be much of a surprise. However, the trading of Jack or Reinhart will be attention grabbing.

What players are you expecting to get back from Anaheim besides Comtois and the 3OA pick? Unless Zegras or Drysdale (preferably Zegras) come back from a Jack trade the deal is not a good deal for us. The lineup you assembled post trade has a lot of promise. What you are illustrating is that if our primary players do get traded (as expected) and the transactions are handled smartly we can come away with a promising lineup that will get us out of the deep rut of futility.

Last year was a tough year for him. His father passed away and he couldn't attend the funeral and be with his family. So it was a tough grieving process period for him. On top of that he had some injuries that were plaguing him. The Covid year was an extremely challenging period of time for him especially because his family stayed back in the home country. It was just an emotionally painful year for him so it shouldn't be surprising that he wasn't very exuberant at post game news conferences and being on a team that mightily struggled.

Why do you say that?

A durable Ullmark is a valued asset when healthy. That is not what you can count on. Odds are that he is not going to get an extended length contract because of the durability issue from us or anywhere else. When discussing the other players you listed the issue isn't whether he is better as it is whether what his worth is at his price compared to the other more reasonably priced options. Marty Biron has frequently stated that he would like to see Ullmark back. But he always qualifies it with if his price becomes outside the responsible range there will be plenty of options in the expansive goalie market that includes free agency and trades. I'm going with the loquacious Marty when discussing goalies.

The market value for Ullmark isn't as high as many people think. The goalie market is loaded with mid-tier goalies who are in the same talent range as him. The issue for Ullmark is his durability. If he can't be had on a reasonable contract with a modest length then the fallback options are plenty. I don't think you are far off on the price range if that figure is the ceiling. If that is not satisfactory to the player then it is time to seek other options. In my mind he is a mid-tier caliber goalie with major durability questions. Buffalo is a good situation for him and he is a player I would want to keep. But I be very wary about overestimating his value.

Granato took over a team that was in a state of disarray and spiraling into the abyss. His overall of 9-16-3 (21 pts) doesn't fairly portray the difference he made compared to the coach he replaced. If you expected him to instantaneously change the course of this sinking ship then you are not being realistic. When he first took over their were few opportunities to practice. Even under such challenging circumstances he was able to significantly changed the outdated system of the prior eloquent coach. What was evident is that every player performed better and played with more commitment with him behind the bench. In addition, you are not factoring in the fact that the front office made a decision to play the young players on the roster and those brought up from Rochester a lot more. What we know for sure compared to other candidates is that we know that the players on the roster responded to him. That wouldn't necessarily be the case with another coach. And what he know for sure is that he is excellent in developing young talent and holding them accountable for their player. On a roster with a lot of youngsters that is an important quality to lead this roster. It would be foolish not to hire Granato.

I don't consider the pick of Quinn as a shock. If you would have stated a surprise I could go along with that. If I recall correctly as the draft approached his draft status seemed to move up the ranks.

Obviously their board.

Last year KA made a mildly surprising pick in Quinn. So I don't think that social pressure is going to be much of a factor. I prefer Power but if the selection is Beniers that would also be a worthy pick. If a deal is made for Zegras or Dach in a Jack trade it might make even more sense to draft Power. Whatever the Sarbres decide to do they are going to have good options to choose from.