JohnC

When Tage was plagued with injuries the HC moved Mitts up to center the first line. That line excelled. How many teams can lose their 1C and still have the line play at an optimal level? For me, Mitts brought a greater degree of lineup flexibility than Byram in that he could center three lines or play wing on the top two lines. I'm not diminishing Byram's talent as a top one or two pairing defenseman, rather I am arguing that Mitts brought more value because of his ability to play more roles.

A definite no for me. As you point out, the age issue is what makes this proposed deal very unappealing. In addition, young players such as Quinn and JJP will soon be getting richer new contracts. So I would rather not be squeezed for funds because of a player on his downside. A Kadri deal would have made a lot of sense a few years ago, but not now. The timeline for this deal has passed by. Would I like to see a winger added for the second line? Yes. However,I don't see our GM inclined to make such an aggressive move.

Terrific explanation. Succinct, clear and understandable. Lawyers have a tendency to be verbose and lean on legal jargon. You didn't do that beyond what was required to explain the issue. I think what is confusing some people are the distinctions between the definition of murder and manslaughter. As you point out states have a separate category for vehicular homicide/manslaughter. A thumbs up 👍for the in-house lawyer.

You can be one of the best college defensemen in college and still not fall in the category of being a super star prospect. So your predictable bull hockey response is not surprise coming from someone who has a tendency to be intermittently insufferable.

He was the consensus #1 pick prospect in that draft. No one made the claim that he was a super star in college. That's your manufactured red herring you created to argue against. In time, he's going to be an upper tier defenseman in the NHL. If you think otherwise, that's okay. Time will tell.

Power is a young player playing a challenging position on a top two pairing. I'm confident that he will get steadily better the more he plays. He was an elite player in college in his short stint there. That doesn't mean that the dominance he demonstrated in college will immediately translate to the NHL. Speaking for myself, he's one young player that I am not worried about.

I'm a believer that Power is eventually going to be categorized as an elite defenseman. With tall defensemen, and players in general, it takes more time for them to develop. Hedman, and to an extent Tage, are examples of taller players getting better as they physically mature. It's my opinion that many local fans are more critical of Power than he deserves because he doesn't play an overly physical and a banger stye of game. With a little more experience this guy is going to be a gem. There was a reason why he was the first pick in his draft year.

When a contract is signed between a player and franchise it doesn't become official until it is reviewed by the league office so that it is in accord with the labor agreement between the league and PA. The baseball business model is completely different. It doesn't have a hard salary cap but does have a luxury tax clause for teams that go over it. The Dodgers are in a unique financial position where $$$ directed towards salaries isn't a major consideration.

Under the current rules it is legal. As far as changing how the cap is calculated it won't be as simple as you believe it to be. I assume it will have to be negotiated between the league and PA. In this particular contract both the player and the organization are fine with how it was structured.

What's wrong with deferring money to limit the cap hit. The organization is being creative while still working within the cap rules. Both the player and the organization agreed to the terms of the contract. It isn't so much that this deferring of salary wasn't noticed before as it was acceptable within the negotiated terms between management and players. Carolina should be saluted.

Making a point that you are right until proven wrong is a credible argument. It may be an irritating argument to be constantly subjected to, but being right with respect to the past and up to the present, if can't be refuted, could be considered to be a reasonable position to take. I have a different view but that doesn't mean that his view should be dismissed out of hand.

This google search may help you figure out what the issue is. There could be a number of reasons for the brake problem. https://www.google.com/search?q=auto+problems+squeaky+brakes&oq=auto+problems+squeaky+brakes&aqs=chrome..69i57j33i160l5j33i671l4.12186j0j7&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8

I don't see as a problem a willingness of the Sabres in a proposed Zegras deal to to trading prospects. The issue is whether the receiving team insists on getting one of their upcoming players who is already on the roster, such as Quinn, JJP, Benson or Power. I don't see KA agreeing to that.

We simply have different perspectives on the general approach that our GM operates. Overall, I consider his approach more conservative than many GMs. There is a lot of player movement in the NHL. I don't consider our GM as being as active as many of the bolder GMs. It's gotten to the futile the point where we are going in circles on this topic. You see it differently. I'm fine with a different take.

Adams was not going signing Mitts. That was made clear when Mitts's agent stated that the GM never talked to him about the contract. That also means that Mitts was not going to get a contract worth his value here. So he wasn't going to sign here. This is a case where A=B or B=A. The GM didn't want him, so he traded him for a one-on-one deal for a young defenseman who was also highly drafted, and who played meaningful minutes in Colorado's cup year. There is no question that there was a drop off in play. But that isn't surprising for a young defenseman. Is there an element of risk in the Byram deal because of his contract status? There certainly is. But there is an element of risk for every deal, and contract offering. The bottom line is that the GM traded a player he didn't want. In that context, I don't consider this transaction a bold move. If others want to put that label on it, so be it. What has seemed to irritate some people is my description of our GM's style of operating as being cautious. For some people that word has a negative connotation. It doesn't for me. Our GM has frequently stressed (publicly stated) that his emphasis will be mostly rebuilding from within the system. And that's mostly what he has done. If you look at the composition of our top two lines and our top to pairings it is mostly done with players from within the system, with the exception being Byram who was traded for. I consider the GM for the Buffalo Bills to be a much bolder operator than the more cautious GM for the Sabres. If someone believes that KA is a bold and willing to take major risks in the way he functions, then they just have a different view than I do. That's okay.

I simply don't see the Mitts for Byram as a bold deal, especially when it appears that the GM was not going to offer him a contract that he expected to get. Both players were high draft picks that addressed different needs. And trading a second-round pick for a player who is going to get immediate playing time on a lower line is not what I consider to be risky. Your calculation is different from mine. Different eyes seeing things differently. That's okay.

Is it more acceptable and less irritating to shout out only on even numbered days? 😁

@LGR4GM is not the only one occupying the same hill. It may be more crowded than you think. 😃

Yes, I am hanging on to my description of KA as a cautious GM. None of the moves that you listed can be described as a river boat style of acting. Mitts for Bryam can be described as an equal type transaction where the GM was moving a player he decided he wasn't going to invest a contract in. The Savoie for McCleod was trading a prospect from a large pool of prospects in the same talent range. Using a second-round pick for a fourth line player who was going to play right away certainly can't be categorized as a high-roll transaction. You may think that my view of him as a cautious GM means it is a negative depiction. You are wrong in your interpretation.

What would Anaheim want in return? What would our GM be willing to give up? I don't see it happening.

Anaheim isn't compelled to make a deal; and neither is our GM compelled to make a deal. It's unlikely that this type of higher profile deal will be made by our cautious GM. I'm not even sure that another secondary type of deal will be made before camp starts. If Quinn wasn't able to return to health, maybe the GM would be more inclined to pursue a first or second line forward. However, that's not the case.

I doubt that a Zegras deal would be so costly. I don't think that even Anaheim would seriously believe that the Sabres would include Cozens, Peterka or Quinn in any deal. Your proposed deal would be an absolutely no deal from a Sabre perspective. The Buffalo phone should be slammed down if any of the three players were asked for.

What do you think Anaheim would want in return? Not what you think the Sabres would be willing to trade for him. I don't see KA trading for him. (My opinion.)

Our defense should be better now that Samuelsson is back. Also, Byram should be more comfortable in his role since he will have a full training camp to work out with the unit. And as @LGR4GM pointed out, under Lindy there should be better team structure. Last year, UPL played well for the Sabres for an extended period of time. In fact, during that interlude he was one of the better goalies in the league. I really believe that reconstituting the fourth line is going to have a cascading positive effect for the top two lines and for the goalies who are in net. I'm very optimistic about our team goalie situation.

I also listened to the interview on WGR. He's a very articulate and engaging person, quite impressive. The offseason upgrading of the fourth line is demonstrably better than last year's fourth line. It better balances the roster and will have a positive impact on our top two lines because it will allow them to focus more on what they do better as offensive players. Although the GM hasn't so far brought in big name players, what he has done is created a more coherent team roster. The Lindy effect?