JohnC

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.

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.

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

What has she said and done after the comments that indicates she wants to legally pursue the matter?

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.

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.

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.

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.

People who are in front of the mike a lot are inevitably going to say stupid stuff. Even people who are not "predisposed" (as you state) are at times going to say something foolish and offensive. If he has a history of saying inappropriate things and has been warned about it by his bosses and ignores the warnings then there are consequences. If he is such a liability in front of the mike then don't hire him or renew his contract. What intensifies the "offensive " comments are that they are then constantly being re-looped by other outlets. What I find troubling is this quick resorting to boycott in a variety of forms with someone who affiliates with someone you don't like or says something that you disagree with. If you don't like what is being said then turn the dial and find another outlet. The quick draw resorting to "cancelling" out is becoming too prevalent to the extent that it is stifling communication.

Sometimes when you read what a person said on TV or radio it appears to be outrageous and unacceptable. But what is often left out is the where the comment was made such as on a shock jock radio show where the environment is freewheeling and juvenile. When something is said in a restaurant/bar scenario among friends (including both sexes) the bantering can get real loose to the point of being raunchy with no one being offended and taking the comments as being demeaning. My understanding is that Roenick and his wife were friends with the people he commented on. My point here is that although he said something that he shouldn't have on the airways the magnitude of the indiscretion is raised by the intensity of this swirling social media world.

Thank you for the terrific analysis and write-up. I was secretly eye-balling him as an added/throw in player in a package deal who given a fresh start might revive his still young career. Even if he doesn't develop into a second line player if he can contribute on a third line that would certainly help address a major deficiency of not having enough secondary scoring to augment our over-weighted first line scoring.

I'm with you. The Sabres had an extended home stand at the end of the season against a number of below average teams. In that sequence of games in their home arena their record was mediocre. There was also a western four game road trip where they did play well but came away with zero points. They had opportunities to get back into the race but failed miserably. No more lame excuses!

What went wrong with Bennett? Was he simply a tool guy who couldn't convert his assets into production or was he the type of player who could dominate at the lower level but simply wasn't good enough to make the leap into the manly NHL league.? Would a change of scenery possibly resuscitate his up to now disappointing career?

Thanks for the response. When I use the word "quality" I'm defining it as someone who after a few years can develop into a contributing lower line and pairing caliber of player.

What prospects could be drafted outside of the top 10 if we traded down? Also, is this draft full enough with good prospects where we could get a quality prospect in the second round?

If the Sabres traded down in order to make a package deal what lower first round picks would appeal to you as interesting prospects?

I always felt that Scandella was unfairly criticized. As a third pairing defenseman with average amount of minutes he was a solid/useful player. When his role was expanded or he played on a pairing beyond his talents he struggled. I thought that when he played with Joki he was a very positive influence on his game. If the Sabres can add a player or two to bolster the second line it will upgrade the lower lines by pushing players down to play where they are more appropriately suited. As the post above by @LGR4GM points out if you can make the right additions it will positively reverberate throughout the lineup.

I'm not suggesting that you are anti-Joki. That is not to say that I don't value him more highly than you might. I also believe that this 20 yr. old youngster has more potential to develop. My stance is that I wouldn't trade him for players such as Monahan, Johansson or Strome to assume the 2C slot. If one believes as I do that in the not too distant future Cozens has the ability to fill the 2C spot then it would make even less sense to trade Joki for the above listed players. With respect to Cirelli I definitely would be willing to trade Joki and a first round pick for the Tampa center with the condition that he will sign a deal with us. If not, then I would say no to a Cirelli deal.

If your trade scenario for Cirelli or Barzal was offered I would quickly make the deal with one qualification. Both of those players would have to be signed for the long term. If not, then I'm not making the deal.

We do have players on the defensive unit such as Montour and Risto that could be assets to bring back a return. Joki is a 20 year old player with upside that I believe will be at worst a second pairing caliber of player. Can he be a first pairing caliber of player? Maybe in another year or two??? I just don't see him being moved. This is going to be a very long offseason for the Sabres. Let's see how prominently his name gets mentioned in proposed deals. I just don't see it.

Your response captures what must of us feel about this team. Many of us are both skeptical and hopeful. That's an unsettling mix. Will the Sabres make a few smart moves that will better balance out the roster and make it more competitive? Will the younger players make the expected/hopeful progression? I wasn't as harsh a critic as most of the former GM with the drab personality. I thought he put the team in a good position with its cap situation and number of UFAs on the roster to be in a favorable position this offseason to make some deals to upgrade the roster? Now that he is gone will the younger and inexperienced replacement GM take the mantel and make enough smart moves to make this team a genuine playoff team? I'm offering up a lot of questions because it would be foolish to make positive assumptions that this organization will be smart about the decisions it will make this offseason. I may be gullible but I am hopeful.

Joki was 20 yrs old last year. How many defensemen that young can play as well as he did in this league? You can use stats in his rookie year to diminish his play. After watching him play last season it isn't a stretch to project that he is going to be better than a good player. His performance level is not static. In another couple to few years he is going to be an established second pairing player for us. For me he is a no touch player.

I respectfully but strenuously disagree with you about Joki. My opinion of him is off the charts. He is one of the most poised and consistent young defensemen that I have seen in a long time. He is smart and knows what his abilities are and doesn't stray beyond them. What impresses me the most is about him beyond his smooth skating is his intelligence on the ice. He rarely makes a wrong decision when he has the puck. (If Risto had his smarts he would be an all star.) Don't get caught up with a player being able to make dazzling plays and muscular hits. That's not who he is. This young guy is already a second pairing caliber of defenseman and quite possibly the most consistent defender on the unit. When Botterill traded Nylander to get him the GM should have been charged with felonious theft. In my unyielding view he is a no touch player!

Please take Joki and Cozens off of the list. There are going to be a number of desirable players on the market. So the Sabres will have options as to not only who they might acquire but also who they will have to deal in order to make the acquisitions. I'm very open to trading our #1 pick; I'm not open to trading the two aforementioned players.

The Sabres had the second worst rated PK in the league. Why was it so bad? Was the problem more related to the players or design of PK? I'm not making excuses because you are what you do. But this past season with an average to a little higher than average PK and with more consistent goaltending this team lost in the vicinity of eight to ten points in the standings. https://www.oddsshark.com/stats/defensivestats/hockey/nhl/penalty_kill_percentage