JohnC

The Ducks are finishing up on an extended eastern trip while the Sabres are coming off of a decisive win against the Rangers. A win would make it 6 wins in 7 games. Let's finish the last quarter of the season on a positive note.

I will again state what I have often stated: Power should not be moved. Full stop. That doesn't mean that I'm against making deals. There is no question that a player such as Tkachuk could have a material impact on our roster. But I'm not sure he would want to come here and I'm not sure that he would be willing to sign an extension to remain here. This organization certainly does have assets in players, prospects and draft picks to parlay. My concern right now is that our GM is not in a strong position when negotiating deals. If your desire is to have a significant deal done, I would rather wait until the offseason. I have taken the position that with a few smart midsized deals (not bonanza deals) that this roster can be upgraded and more prudently constructed to be a competitive team. The model I would like to follow is the Washington Capitals. Their smart organization made a series of smart medium deals that made it one of the better teams in the league and a serious cup contender.

I want Zucker and Greenway back. Why deal either one of them even if there is a risk that they might prefer to move on? They are UFAs so the return would be miniscule. I'm not writing off either one of them for next year.

He actually was on a high ground and didn't realize it. He didn't have to trade Eichel at all. Eichel was contractual bound by an extended contract. If he couldn't get a higher return for his elite player, he should simply not have made a deal at that time. If he was so determined to deal him, then he should have waited for a more favorable time. His motto is buy high and sell short. Stupid!

No! Not for me. Power stays. It's time to add talent and not subtract it. We traded Eichel and Reinhart. The return didn't come close to what was sent out. And to be perfectly candid, I don't want our current GM to make a deal this season. He's in a weak position that can be exploited.

No. I live in the MD/DC metro area. There has been no word or even speculation of his retirement, even if he passes Gretzky in goals.

The more central issue is more focused on getting a legitimate 2C than putting Cozens on wing where he is more suited (my opinion). Would dealing Byram for that 2C be worth the exchange? Maybe or maybe not? As I said in prior posts, I do like the play of Byram and his pairing with Dahlin. But a top second line center also is a need. And to get that caliber of player it would require a Byram type talent to get such a deal done.

As far as dealing Power: Absolutely not!

The turn outs have been quite impressive. It's obvious that there is a big market for the woman's game.

https://buffalonews.com/sports/professional/pwhls-fleet-sirens-give-buffalo-hockey-fans-an-exciting-show-at-keybank-center/article_106690c0-f222-11ef-96f8-330a291f640f.html#tracking-source=home-top-story I don't know if this link can be read because of the pay wall. But in this article the attendance for these exhibitions in a variety of cities has been quite impressive.

The one thing that the Sabres don't need is adding a floater to one of your two top lines. That particular attribute is exactly the opposite of what you want to add to this team. Watching a player with high skill levels is aesthetically appealing. But when you are trying to instill a tougher and more responsible two-way play to your team, he doesn't add to that feature. You also pointed out a trait that makes him not only less appealing but someone whom I want to avoid i.e. he uses it (skill) at times. I'll always take the less talented player who consistently plays hard over the more naturally talented player who turns it off and on. He's a bad fit for what this organization is trying to do.

The Sabres are losing because of the way they play and correspondingly winning because of the way they play. I'm critical just like everyone else when defensively they don't cover well and lose. But on the other hand, when they play consistently hard and responsibly and win, then they should be given credit. In general, their play has recently improved. I'm not making excuses because your record is your record and can't run away from it. However, if you take away that ugly 13 non-winning interlude, this team would be ranked where many of us expected them to be.

@PromoTheRobot is the person in the know on that issue.

He’s been better than I first thought. Buffalo is a good place for him because here he is getting a bigger role than in prior years.

Buffalo certainly would be a good market if the product is worthy, entertaining and reasonably priced. The Bandits demonstrate that. The arena is usually filled with a raucous crowd supporting their competitive team. I'm hoping that in the not-too-distant future the arena will be filled with avid hockey fans rooting on a serious team. I'm hoping that Terry P recognizes that and demonstrates more urgency with his hockey franchise. My understanding is that last night's game was at capacity. That's a positive sign.

Why are they playing this game in Buffalo? Promote the women's league? Is Buffalo going to get a team?

The mocking was so subtle that only the special people could detect it. I'm very fortunate that when I get mocked it is so apparent that even a dullard like me can recognize it. 😁

Pervasive negativity can turn into a neurosis if left unchecked.😄

Those are reasonable suggestions. On the other hand, I do like the Zucker, McCleud and Tuch line. That is a manly line that can also score. That line also embodies a tougher brand of play that this team needs more of on a consistent basis. A few smart moves can reverberate positively throughout the lineup. That was evident with the return of Greenway last night.

I agree with you that we don't currently have the center to properly place Cozens. That's one of the reasons why I had reservations about the Mitts deal. (However, I do like Byram.) Our roster is miscast. My recommendation would be to deal Byram plus assets (draft picks and prospects) and get the caliber of center to move Cozens to the wing. How do you do that when your GM is a dullard and lacks the imagination to make such a deal?

I agree that our views are mostly in sync. I slightly disagree with you in that I have a higher estimation of his play as a winger. He's has more of a grittier makeup than a visual player that a center should have. Or another way of saying it is that he's the type of physical player that many people are screaming for to add to this roster. I don't need this organization to declare that Cozens will be moved to the wing where he is more suited. What we need is bringing a suitable 2C center so that he can be moved to the wing position. I believe that Sabres do have an asset in Cozens that is being squandered because this organization lacks the wisdom and imagination to fit players in the right position to maximize their talents. Powers is a no touch/trade player for me. However, although I like Byram, if we could get the caliber of center we need to move Cozens to the wing, then I would make that trade. My sense is that Cozens is going to be dealt; and my sense is that he will thrive in a better managed organization.

As I have stated in other posts, Cozens is being mishandled. He should be playing wing instead of center. In the international tournaments, when placed on wing with talented centers, he has thrived. You make an excellent point and observation that Cozens is putting too much pressure on himself. You can see it in his play and reactions to mishaps. My recommendation is to put him on wing where there is more basic play and less thinking.

I have made the point (and so have many others) that making a few more judicial moves in the offseason that brought it would have made a significant difference that would have sustained this team when facing turbulence. Instead of losing confidence when facing adversity, as they did in that ignominious non-winning streak, the team would have had enough maturity to deal with setbacks. The GM felt that the youngster laden roster was on an upward trajectory. So he was complacent in addressing the roster misconstruction. What is well known in all sports is that there is not always a smooth and even trajectory for young players. There are advances and setbacks. That's the norm. Was it a money consideration or miscalculation on his part? Probably both factors came into play. And what irritates me to no end is that what was needed to be added was very attainable and manageable to do. separate note: I have a much different view on Cozens than you do. There is a good chance that he will be dealt. And it wouldn't surprise me that when wearing another uniform he would perform much better. He needs to be on the wing with a good center. He's being mishandled here.

Others have astutely brought up the issue of the repeated squandering of leads that has tarnished the season. I don't want to overstate the effect of one player but having a more veteran presence, as exemplified by the return of Greenway, does make a difference in withstanding the predictable onslaught from the losing team when the tide turns against you in a game. I strongly believe that if the GM would have added another one or two Zucker or Greenway-like veterans to this youngish roster, it would have made a big difference. I'm confident that if that roster maturity deficiency would have been addressed, this team would not have had a 13-game winless streak that from a playoff standpoint has sunk the season.

Bown is a terrific name. It's somewhat unique yet not so exotic that a bearer of that name will have to be subjected to school yard ridicule. What makes it appealing is that there is a meaningful cultural history behind it. That's in contrast to my name John whose history relates to a toilet and excrement. 😄