JohnC

If Milbury no longer performed at an acceptable standard then his contract should not be renewed. I have no problem with that. He has been on the air for years and he is a known quantity by the company he works for. His job is not to call the game as it is to offer commentary. His job isn't to be bland but to provoke. The comment he made about women not being in the bubble was in my opinion stupid but not malicious. It was an outdated view but far from being misogynistic. As I said in prior posts the more pernicious problem is creating an environment that stifles the free flow of views out of fear of be out of step of the prevailing way of thinking. People who are in the "talking business" are not always judicious in what they say. I'm not bothered by it as much as others. I have the ability to counter the view or ignore the view and tune out.

I appreciate your well thought out and expressed response. I'll only respond to a couple of the main points. With respect to who to blame for the damaging trade I don't solely blame the GM. It's my belief (opinion) that the owner required the GM to deal him before the the bonus was due. That's the core of my complaint about the deal that has had such a lingering bad effect. There is nothing unusual about players being disgruntled. That's an inevitable part of the landscape in a business composed of talented people with strong personalities. I'm aware that I am judging this transaction in hindsight, and that is easy to do. But there is no way that even with foresight that this was going to be a good deal for us. The return for one of the best two way players in the league was in my estimation grossly inadequate. We all recognize how difficult it is to come up with a credible 2C trade scenario and what it would take to accomplish it. Why did this happen? The reason why it happened as it did because it was a rushed deal. Reacting to the impending bonus due didn't allow for a fuller exploration of the market. As I said before the best way to have handled this disgruntled player was to have a cooling off period and then a forthright discussion between the conflicting parties. I'm placing the onus more on the organization than the unhappy player. With respect to your point how ROR should have been handled with captaincy and in general my response is very indelicate. I'm not worried about his sensitivities and whether he should be the top dog or supporting dog. My muscular response to him is: shut up and play! If you are feeling sad and blue about your status and the team you are my response is: tough shiit! The forcing of the issue should have been on a timetable that allowed the organization to get the best return on their asset if an irreversible decision was made to move him. You cite Boston as an example to follow. I totally agree. What Boston has demonstrated is that when you have a well rounded roster you have more options. If a transaction turns out bad you can easily absorb that mistake. What Buffalo has demonstrated is that when you have a thin and imbalanced roster your options are limited. When a transaction such as the ROR deal goes bad your limited roster has less ability to absorb that mistake. The moral of the story: talent prevails.

You are without question missing my point. Milbury didn't make a comment that reached the disqualifying level that Brennaman said about gays while calling a baseball game. He should have been immediately relieved of his duties. There was nothing misogynistic about Milbury's comment. It certainly was an outdated view but no malice or crudeness was intended. Your comment about the confederate flag makes my point. I agree with you on your position but I disagree with you that just because someone has a different view and perspective on it that they shouldn't be allowed to express it. Your comment about me being an ideologue says more about you than it does about me. Based on your comment I'm clearly less ideological than you are because I'm willing to be receptive to other view points where you are less receptive to them. That is a classic attribute of an ideologue.

You are making a comment that underscores my point. I have no issue with anyone disagreeing with a comment or even finding it to be distasteful. What I find tiresome is the notion that if someone says something that one disagrees with or is uncomfortable with then the reaction should be that the microphone should be taken away from that person. To me that is an overreaction. The comment that Milbury made was not a very bright or classy comment. It wasn't a crude comment but it could be taken as a boorish comment. In my opinion it didn't reach the level of disqualifying him from his job. As I have stated in other posts the bigger danger than listening to verbal gaffes is that an oppressive climate of judgment is being created that stifles speech and thought. I'm not a Milbury in the booth fan. But I don't think he said anything that was so outrageous that should have gotten him cashiered from his job.

There is nothing unusual about a player not being happy with his situation and wanting out. If that was the case then it was incumbent on the organization to get equal value back in a trade. This deal was rushed because a bonus was coming due. If they couldn't get a fair-value deal then the team should have just kept him until a good enough deal materialized. If the player remained unhappy because he felt stuck the organization should have told him to his face: Tough shiit!

The problem I had with the ROR saga is not that he got traded so much as the return. By a number of accounts this transaction was rushed because of the impending bonus time line. My sense is that the owner wanted him gone before the bonus came due. In my estimation if the organization was determined to trade him the smarter approach would have been to pay the bonus and then take the additional time to scan the market. There was a story that Carolina was willing to deal for him but weren't willing to do so if they had to pay the bonus. My criticism as much if not more so relates to the execution of the transaction than the particular transaction. Paul Hamilton when with WGR stated after the deal that it was evident to him that ROR was behaving in ways that indicated that he didn't want to be with the club. He noted that the player who was known to be the last off the ice for practice was not exhibiting that same practice work ethic. So targeting him to be dealt in order to shake up the room is not a surprise. The criticism I am directing to the organization relates to when it was done, how it was done and the return.

Again, you are misinterpreting/misrepresenting what I said. Your hypothesis is not my hypothesis. The organization that includes the owner and GM overreacted by dealing him for pennies on the dollar. The reactionary response by the organization set back this team then, and to this day has had negative repercussions that has not been overcome. The more appropriate and judicious response should have called for a cooling off period and then a meeting with the frustrated player.

You are mistaken that I have a blind spot on this cancel culture mentality. I'm very aware of what my position is and why I hold to it. You are correct that my stance over Roenick is very similar. Both Milbury and Roenick are commentators who are hired not to be bland but to have an edge to them. Do they periodically go over the line? Undoubtedly yes. Milbury sometimes says foolish things. So what! When you are on the air for many hundred if not thousands of hours it is not surprising that foolish things are said. The bigger issue for me is that there is a growing mind-set that if someone says something controversial or stupid the morality mob is ready with the rope to lynch the offending party. Creating a climate of fear to express one's thoughts is a bigger problem than saying dumb things. Again, that is not a blind spot---it is something I am very conscious of.

Let's move on. It's pointless to continue on with this issue.

What are you disagreeing with?

Some women in hockey may find his comment offensive while some other women in hockey might not find it as offensive. A commentator makes a dumb or not very enlightened comment while calling a game and then quickly gets thrown off the broadcast. This trend for seeking justification to be morally outraged over a misplaced and badly tuned comment is getting tiresome. When one is in the talking business (as he is) with instant commentating then not everything one says is going to be smartly thought out and stated. The danger is in stifling thought and speech. Make no mistake what I'm saying here. This isn't a Don Cherry repeated neanderthal commentary or Thom Brennaman "*****" comment on a baseball broadcast. I'm tired of these quick draw relief of duties for an unintended and misguided comment.

I respectively but strenuously disagree with your post about Jack. It's is distorting a history that actually happened. The issue of anointing Jack over the veteran ROR as captain was an irrelevant issue in the ROR trade debacle. ROR simply got tired of the losing and didn't feel that at least in the immediate future that this team had a chance to be a serious team. He felt he was in a bad situation without much ability to alter the situation. That was the heart of his publicly and privately expressed frustration that got him dispatched. Jack is our established star player and the player that this team is centered around. Dahlin will soon become another player along with Jack who are irreplaceable and will be given the most consideration on how this team is directed. The scenario you postulated in your post does not reflect the realities that happened when ROR was with the team.

What Sabre fan on this earth doesn't want a playoff team sooner rather than later?

You missed the point. The obvious point is that unless you are going to get a hefty return for a first round pick they are valuable. And not only are they valuable in adding talent but the developmental time isn't always as long as you indicated.

Are you suggesting that last year's first round pick wasn't worth taking because he didn't immediately play in the NHL? I'm open to dealing our first round pick but it has to be for a young second line player who can play right away. If that type of deal can't be made then you keep the pick.

I understand what you are saying about Reinhart and Olofsson. However, I believe that it would be better to keep Reinhart on the top line with Jack. My sense is that Krueger is more inclined to spread the talent around to get more balanced scoring. My inclination is when you have a golden first line don't subtract from it and make it a silver line.

The Reinhart/Jack/Skinner line is a solid to upper tier first line in this league. From a goal scoring standpoint they click. By adding a second line center or winger this offseason a capable second line can be constructed from what is already on the roster. I believe that this offseason the Sabres will at the minimum have some good secondary options if our primary second line options don't work out to buttress that second line. It is very doable.

You make excellent points. But why not simply play him on the Jack line where you can maximize his shooting talents? Skinner playing on the Jack line becomes a 30 plus goal scorer. If you are going to pay Skinner premium dollars then it makes more sense to get the best return that you can from him. My impression is that Skinner is not a player that Krueger is fond of. The only time I can recall when Krueger responded sharply with irritation in an interview was when he was asked on WGR why Skinner wasn't on the Jack line. That bothers me.

It's not very difficult to find conflicting views on any transaction. Unanimity on any issue is simply unattainable. With the Eichel contract extension the overwhelming consensus within and outside the Buffalo market was that it was a terrific deal for the organization and it demonstrated a commitment by the player to the organization. Because of the steady increase in salaries most people who follow the sport recognized that Jack left long-term money on the table in order to anchor himself to the organization. Your discussion on this topic brings up another important issue relating to Jack and the organization. That is does the organization have a responsibility to the player to do whatever is necessary to make this a relevant team while he is approaching or already is in his prime? I, and most others, would say yes. It's not too difficult to imagine that if this organization doesn't act with urgency it will have a "Jack" problem just as it had a "ROR" problem that had devastating results.

You make a good point about Cozens and the 2C position. Putting him on a second line with an added center (as you noted) would be a better alternative than taking Reinhart off of the first line in my opinion. At the end of the abbreviated season Krueger put together a line of KahunJohansson/Olofsson. I thought they blended in well as an effective line. Assuming that a player or two can be brought in to staff the second line this reconstituted Johansson line would make for a more contributing third line. What is apparent is that pieces need to be brought in order to figure out the puzzle of putting together properly fitting lines

Why tamper with moving Reinhart away from the Jack line where he has helped to establish a high yield first line? I like Reinhart a lot. He is one of the few consistent scoring threats on this team and one of the best instinctive passers we have. The primary reason I want him to remain on the first line is I don't consider him the type of player who can drive a line. So if he is one of the more productive scorers on the Jack line then why put him in a position to be less successful? If the second line is going to be upgraded it will have to be done by bringing in one or two players from the market. Diluting the first line by moving Reinhart off of it would not in my estimation be a good move.

I have always believed that the owner was the main driver of the trade. What seemed to be forcing the issue was the impending bonus payment and the determination not to pay it. Even if an irreversible decision was made to trade him it would have made more sense to pay the bonus and give yourself more time to scan the market for a better deal.

It's remarkable how one major blunder could have such a lingering repercussion. My fear is that unless the roster void is quickly addressed Jack will instruct his agent to get him out of his depressing situation.

I'm not trying to be snarky but if you find it to so miserable to follow this team then I recommend that you follow another team or sport. You are like the guy who hates the food of a particular restaurant but continues to patronize the place because you want to complain about the food. If that makes you happy then enjoy yourself.

I agree with you to an extent. With the majority of teams a few smart moves can make a marked difference. That's what I'm hoping for this offseason. And compared to a lot of teams we are in a good position to make those moves. You may not believe that but I do.