JohnC

Your first sentence is exactly what I have been propounding on the Botterill issue. My contention is that he would have been retained if he would have been willing to implement the organizational restructure that the owners sought. Kim stated after his release that they had numerous discussions with him after the season that came to no avail. Which clearly indicates that he wasn't on board. So he was fired. I'm not criticizing the owners because they were presiding over a franchise that was hemorrhaging money (one report was $37 m) with the results not coming close to being satisfactory. Terry P pointed out that under the revamp the scouting department would have less staff, less travel and more video. A change in the operation reflecting the imperative in cutting costs. That's not necessarily a bad thing because when faced with a fiscal calamity you are often forced to be more creative in how you operate. Kevin Adams was an in-house staffer who wasn't part of the hockey operation. He was spearheading the business side of the hockey enterprise that included youth hockey. You don't find it odd that there was no GM search process to find a replacement for the fired GM? The point that I'm driving at is that the imperative to change how the operation was run related to financial considerations. Make no mistake about what I'm saying here. I'm not criticizing the owners in dramatically changing how their hockey business was going to be run. And I do believe that this more austere (smaller) organization has a better ability to be more nimble and cohesive. When all is said and done the success of the franchise relates to the staff making better decisions. You can be a smaller outfit with less operating costs and still be a successful operation.

Skinner on a Jack line is a 35 goal scorer. I really like Reinhart/Jack/Skinner playing on the first line. It is a 1A line that ranks in the top tier in the league. If you want to maximize the return on investment with Skinner he should be playing with Jack. You make a very keen observation about Botts who seemed more bent on accumulating talent than fitting in pieces. As you point out the excess in defensemen are assets that can be used to deal in order to better balance out the roster. Stating the obvious getting that 2C is an absolute necessity.

First, I don't consider your response as an attack and don't take it as such. On the issue of player development I do agree that Mitts and Tage were rushed. That was a mistake. That is not to say that both of them have been irredeemably been damaged. Tage should be a contributor this season. With Mitts I'm not sure. Where I disagree with most posters here is that I believe that Botts had a more long term plan than most people here were willing to tolerate. I'm not arguing that he has been a resounding success because it is obvious that it is not the case. What I do believe is this franchise from a talent standpoint is not as barren as most people portray it to be. It's my opinion that if this staff can make a few consequential personnel decisions this offseason this roster will be be meaningfully upgraded. And I do believe that it was the fired GM who put this franchise in a good position to be able to make those decisions. Will this regime take advantage of the situation this offseason? I certainly hope so.

The methodology changed in how the operation is going to be run. The Pegulas came to the conclusion that the operation could be run more cheaply by using technology. That doesn't necessarily mean that the evaluations were going to be different.

From a financial standpoint the Pegulas will not get rich owning the Sabres. The economics of hockey are not close to the gilded economics of the NFL. But that is not to say that the Sabres are a lost cause from a fanbase standpoint. If the Sabres can get their house in order and remake this stuttering team into a seriously cup contending team this fanbase will be on fire. The past and the present don't necessarily have to reflect the future. With some smart personnel decisions this offseason this team can be put back on track with the arena filled with aroused fans. Success breeds success.

My belief is that Adams/Krueger's evaluations on Botterill's guys are not radically different. The issue for the new regime and the old regime if it were still in place entering this offseason is how best to better balance the roster? Each respective regime can value a player in the system similarly and still be willing to trade them in order to have a more complete roster. The biggest issue this offseason is whether this new regime will be more aggressive and creative in managing their assets in prospective deals. My sense of Botterill is that he is more of a cautious and incremental type of person while maybe this organization is at this time in need of a bolder approach in reworking the roster.

Botterill is rightly evaluated for his performance over the last three years. On the other hand the decisions that are going to be made this offseason by Adams and staff are the same decisions that Botterill would have faced if he were retained. I'm very aware that my opinion on him is contrary to most others opinion of him. It should be acknowledged that the former GM put the Sabres in a good situation to rework and upgrade the roster for next season. He had a more long turn plan to rework the roster and salary structure. Not only did time run out for him his reluctance to sync with the owners' altered plans contributed to his departure.

Botterill would have been retained if he would have gone alone with the new Pegula organizational austerity plan. It was pointed out that after it was announced that he was going to be retained on the last year of his contract that there were further discussions with him about the direction of the franchise. He disagreed with the plan to slim down the staff that he hired. So the owners fired him. From a business standpoint the way in which the owners responded to the current turbulent economic climate it is understandable and reasonable what they did. To fortify their position and weaken the GM's standing is that when the status quo is not yielding the expected outcome then arguing to maintain it is not a persuasive position to maintain.

What if team A (Buffalo) believes that Mitts is a borderline 1A then do they get rid of him? On the contrary, I not only don't believe that the Sabres have concluded that he is a bust but they believe that there is still a salvageable upside that is ready to be tapped. That is not to say that in a good deal they wouldn't be reluctant to include him in a deal that fortifies the second line. For me the one untouchable young player on our roster is Cozens with Yoki not far behind in that category.

I agree with you on the importance of goaltending. On the other hand I disagree with you on the Sabres' willingness to let him go. As it stands he's our best goaltender. Is he good enough to be a solid #1 goalie and capable of providing the level of play that will enable the team to make the playoffs? I'm simply not sure? But right now I don't know what option the organization has. I don't think that it is in the interest of the player and the franchise to go for a long term deal at this point. If the player after a short term deal demonstrates that he is a locked in #1 goalie he will be rewarded with with an enriching long-term deal. And if his play warrants a later bonanza deal the franchise would certainly be willing to pay a fair market price for that level of play.

If you factor in our first round pick I don't think it is out of the realm of reality that the Sabres can add a second line center and winger to next year's roster. As you point out you have to also have to consider who we are going to keep and dispatch in order to re-distribute the contracts. But it is doable.

Your prices are highly inflated. My sense is that Reinhart will be re-signed and that either Montour or Risto will be dealt in a deal. Larsson could be retained but if so it will be at a cost effective contract. Lazur is likely to be his replacement if his price is too high. Unless a player like Cirelli is brought in I don't see the second line center commanding an $8 m contract. I still hold to my position that with some smart player and contract action the organization is in a very favorable cap situation compared to most teams.

It hasn't been rebuked. We are in a good position to make our cap situation even better this offseason than many cap stressed teams are. In addition, if you bring in a player that doesn't mean that another player isn't exiting. A little finagling can go far if you are smart about it.

I'm confident that under the threat of being waterboarded you would be more willing to talk??

I'm sure your source is credible regarding the pursuit of a 2C. So I have no intention of dismissing your inside knowledge. But targeting certain centers especially on capped strapped teams isn't a revelation. And it isn't surprising that in the pursuit of a center the Sabres have preferences. But in all potential trades the issue isn't only who you want but what you are willing to give up. Would the Sabres be willing to accept their second preferred center over their first preferred player if the cost were significantly less? Of course they would. Overly stripping a thin team for an addition might solve a problem at the expense of creating another problem. There should be no surprise that there have been, are now, and continue to be talks with numerous teams about players. Organizations are constantly talking amongst themselves. It's standard practice for all organizations to have these exploratory discussions. Leaning towards or locking onto a deal now doesn't seem like a smart way especially when the playoffs are over the trade options will increase. (Not saying that is what you are suggesting.) Because of the Sabres favorable cap situation they are in a good situation to make roster boosting deals. This is going to be an exciting offseason with a lot of speculative trades being mentioned. I'm hoping that this new front office will make the right personnel decisions that will get this team in a better position to seriously compete.

I'm a believer in the draft and develop philosophy as the best approach to building a successful operation. That philosophy assumes a proficiency in evaluating prospects. As you point out this organization has been deficient on that score. However, this year I am more receptive to trading our (relatively) high first round pick if it individually or packaged brings back a genuine second line player. Hopefully, the return would be a # 2 center but I'm willing to accept a winger if it is a young and established high yield player. Make no mistake in interpreting what I'm stating here. I'm not advocating that this franchise has to act out of desperation to address a major need. If a fair value deal can't be made then stay the course and make secondary type deals to more incrementally improve and better balance the roster.

If Kahun becomes a 2nd line player then the trade that Botts made was a gem. Even if he becomes a third line player it will be an upgrade on a lower and more contributing line. As I said in a prior post I was intrigued with the Johansson/Kahun/Olofsson line with Johansson and Kahun being interchangeable between center and winger.

What's your assessment on Kahun. I thought when he was on a line with Johansson and Olofsson that he demonstrated that he could skate and create opportunities. For the short time that they were together at the end of the season I thought they fit well together. Getting a few young players such as Kahun and Tage to show that they can play as good third line players and shake up the roster mix for the lower lines.

If he becomes a solid third line forward then it is a useful role. One of the glaring deficiencies for this team has been the lack of scoring beyond the first line. So he can help in that area. And as you noted there is a possibility that he can develop into a second line winger. (I'm less confident of that higher role.) The ROR deal and calculations are in the past. Too many people use that boondoggle deal to color their perception of TT. It takes time for tall and lanky prospects to physically fill out and be able to play against NHL men. It sure would be nice for him to be ready to make the adjustment.

Maybe a double poop emoji can be used to express the sentiment???

They did cancel the game in Philly. https://www.mlb.com/news/marlins-orioles-yankees-phillies-postponed

Have you given up on Mitts as a 3C?

Terrific breakdown. As you noted players such as Bjorkstrand and Wennberg can be attained for reasonable prices. Instead of trying to make a blockbuster type deal that will strip a thin roster a couple of (somewhat) reclamation projects could be terrific bargain pickups. The approach that you describe in your breakdown that I am more disposed toward is that there are secondary type players who would be terrific value pickups that add to the roster without much diminishing the roster.

Krueger has frequently praised the play of Risto. And he has demonstrated his confidence in him by playing him maximum minutes even after stating that he would like to lower his minutes. At the end of tight games Risto most likely was on the ice. And it is very likely that with Adams as the GM Krueger will have a major say in assembling this roster.

I'm in the distinct minority but I'm willing to throw Cozens immediately into the fray and have him be our 2C with the expectation that another forward can be added to the second line to make it more credible.