JohnC

You would put Savoie ahead of Kulich as a prospect? I'm not saying you are wrong, just surprised at your ranking. As you point out, sometimes what seems like a vulnerability can in the end turn out to be a fortuitous opportunity. If any three of the prospects you mentioned become this year's version of a Benson, then the angst is reduced.

It's very likely he would have signed a similar deal with Buffalo. The deal he signed with Colorada was essentially a bridge deal that would expire when he was 28, and in his prime. That type of deal would have worked for him here. The agent for Mitts stated that KA barely communicated with him, showing little interest in retaining him. For the superior team that traded for him he becomes a 2C. They valued his talents enough to let go a promising young defenseman who contributed in is rookie year in their Cup run. That tells you that they valued Mitts a lot, much more than KA did. In my mind, and in Colorado's view, Mitts is a 2C talent. If he would have played as a 3C in Buffalo, so what. There is nothing wrong playing a 2C talent on a lower line. That's an indication of team depth. As I have said, the issue isn't whether the trade of Mitts for Byram was a fair/good trade. It was. But from a roster building standpoint, because there wasn't an adequate fallback position (so far) it seems to be a negative deal.

We agree on the caliber of player Byram will be. With respect to your first point, I strenuously disagree that Mitts wouldn't have signed a similar (bridge deal) with Buffalo. By all accounts he liked it here and was invested in this team. With respect to your second point regarding preferred skill sets, he may not fit perfectly with what you want in style of play, but it can't be argued that he wasn't a legitimate 2/3 C who can also move up to the top line (as he did) and keep it functioning as a top line. He also has the versatility to play wing when needed. In essence, what you are saying is that with a cup contending and superior team he fits in but with a less talented team he doesn't. That argument doesn't resonate with me. As I have repeatedly stated, this was a good and fair trade for each team as a one on one transaction. But in my view, because there wasn't an adequate fallback position to replace the departed player, it turned out to be a negative deal from a roster building standpoint. Why hasn't the GM found a replacement for Mitts? Because the cost to replace him is extremely high. That's my point. Our GM is a checker player competing against chess players. This was a stolid performance by the GM that lacked vision and anticipation.

In hindsight, wouldn't it have been better to re-sign Mitts at the contract that he signed with Colorado (3yrs, 5.75 AAP)? Looking at the asking price for even rental top six forwards seems to be very steep. It just seems that not retaining a player that was already on the roster (and wanted to be here) resulted in a cascading effect that in the end left us in a bind. I'm not knocking Byram as a player. I see him as a legitimate first or second pairing defenseman. It just seems to me that losing Mitts created a bigger negative than adding Byram created a positive. Some GMs play one dimensional chess while others play a three dimensional game.

Byram potentially is an upgrade in the defensive group. But there is a balancing act that has to be considered. By dispatching Mitts without adequately replacing him, we lost a player who not only was a 2/3 C player, but also a player who can fill in on the top line when required and still maintain a top line proficiency. (That's exacrly what happened when he filled in for Tage the prior year.) On top of that, Mitts was versatile enough where we can also play the wing when required. So far, we haven't filled the void of a Mitts departure. In my view, it would have been better to keep Mitts and bring in a lesser defenseman who maybe plays a more physical game. I have said all along that this trade was a good trade for both teams. However, if the Mitts hole is not adequately replaced, then the balance tilts away from the Sabres. (My opinion. )

I have no problem with moving on from Skinner. That's not the issue. Who is replacing him or Mitts? If you don't have a plan to fill the void, you are creating more deficits. Subtracting talent is easy to do. Adding talent to surpass the talent you dispatched is what a GM is supposed to do. As things stand right now, he hasn't done what he gets paid to do.

He's a checkers player competing with chess players. A tactical thinker who is incapable of thinking strategically.

The contract that Mitts signed with Colorada was a very reasonable/manageable contract with respect to term and AAV. Mitts was a 2/3 C who could move up to the top line when needed and keep it functioning as a top line. He was also versatile enough to play the wing. My issue with the Mitts trade is that there didn't seem to be a backup plan to replace him.

It shouldn't be a surprise that a player joining a more talented team is going to do well with the more robust team after leaving the lesser team. One doesn't have to be a hockey insider to recognize that the Sabres not only lacked talent but that the talent deficit was more exposed because of the coaching and roster construction. The Mitts departure is magnified because (so far) there a credible replacement hasn't been found. It just seems that we are spinning our wheels. We fill a hole and then create another hole. You can't catch up to the big boys when you keep spinning your wheels. When will this carcass be resuscitated? It gets so tiresome to see the same futile behavior repeat itself. We're buying the same ticket to nowhere.

I agree with you and @tom websterthat the price for rental players such as Ehlers and Naces is too high. That's why in hindsight, the trading of Mitts for Byram appears to be a misjudgment. Wouldn't it been better to sign Mitts to a deal and then pursue a lesser talent than Byram but a more available physical defenseman? I have said it before that the trading of Mitts for Byram was a fair deal for us assuming that there would be a credible 2/3 C replacement for Mitts. This is still an open issue that can be reasonably resolved.

Maybe you can bump into @GASabresIUFAN. Whatever you do don't talk about the Sabres, and especially about the GM. He'll go ballistic on you! Based on his postings, he's at the boiling point and ready to explode. 🙂

KA is no longer a novice. He's been in the position for 4-5 years now. Of course it is not an easy job. It's a multi-faceted and complicated position that requires a staff that he hires for support. He accepted the job and the responsibility that went with in. In the first few years he was candid enough to let everyone know that his first priority was to rebuild. That stage is past. It's time to compete. He's at a stage where it is not simply about accumulating talent as it is about your record. I just don't see the urgency that I see with other organizations. Too much caution and incrementalism for a generational failed franchise. One's record determines success or failure. Right now, it continues to be a failure. That's disappointing and sad.

Looking back, the Mitts deal doesn't look too appealing. I have said all along that the trade for Byram was a good hockey trade for the parties involved. However, there was an assumption that the Mitts subtraction would eventually include a replacement for the departed player. Even if the replacement wasn't equal, if it came close to comparable, the totality of the deal would have been a net plus for us. It didn't happen. The GM's job requires strategic thinking. At best, KA is a mediocre tactician. This organization is spinning its wheels while most organizations are working hard to move forward.

You need to be discrete about demonstrating your Yankee loyalties. There are still plenty of Confederate never-enders where you are who consider you to be the enemy. Watch your back! Blend in and practice saying ya'll. 😄

If the GM didn't have a grasp on who the replacement players were going to be for the players he sent packing, then he was taking an unnecessary gamble. Mitts was traded and Skinner was bought out. Who is going to fill the void? It's inarguable that Skinner isn't well rounded enough for this staff, but when placed in the right situation he is an accomplished goal scorer. Why not keep him for another year? Mitts wanted to be here. The trade for Byram made sense and is a good trade if a Mitts replacement is brought in. Without an adequate replacement, it becomes in my view a net deficit. I'm not criticizing the GM for not willing to give up substantial assets for players such as Ehler or Necas without their agreeing to sign extensions. But that goes back to my original point that roster holes were created without a plan to satisfactorily fill them. This organization is spinning its wheels in the rut that it created. We're competing against teams that work hard to get better. The arithmetic is simple: When you take two steps forward, and then two steps back you have not moved forward. It just seems that this earnest GM doesn't have the ability to strategically think. It's tiresome to witness.

The job to revamp the team is still incomplete. Mitts and Skinner are gone. Who replaced them? Right now that void has not been filled. It's indisputable that the lower lines were upgraded with more physical players. But the reality is that was the easy part to accomplish. There were plenty of solid fourth liners to choose from. It didn't take much in the way of assets to acquire that category of players. Are the Sabres an improved team? My response is compared to what. The more substantive question is: have the Sabres improved more than their competition? I'm not sure they have. A team is more than pieces. One part of the unit supports the other parts. When there is a void in one area, it undoubtably affects the other parts. From what I have seen so far, more needs to be done. As @dudacek pointed out in one of his smart posts, there are some good pickups that are still available for a reasonable price. You either do or you do not. Again, it comes down to how good are you compared to the opposition, not how good are you compared to last year's team. As far as I'm concerned , so far, the GM gets an incomplete rating.

If the player would have answered he preferred corn flakes he would have been signed. 😃

I bet you that he didn't get a bo--ner out of the calls he received. 😀

I called that number. I ended up with a woman with a sexy voice talking dirty to me. After the titillating call I found out that my credit card had an exorbitant charge for a counseling service. Thanks a lot, pal. 😀

For me, the issue comes down to adding either a top 6 F or 2/3 C. That still is an open issue. I'm optimistic that something happens soon on that front because the GM hasn't really given up any assets to make that higher profile acquisition to replace Mitts. As they say: TBD. The biggest issue after that is whether UPL can play at the same level as he did when he was healthy. And can he stay healthy?

The highlighted line is the simplest and best summarization of how to look at the moves the GM has made so far. If he can get a top 6 F or 2/3C (as you noted), the evaluation of his offseason work goes from being basic to being sold/good. So far, the GM has not given up much in the way of assets to add players. He still has plenty of assets to work with to have a more complete/productive offseason.

The actions taken so far are neither over nor underwhelming. Just solid deals to address lower line needs. Collectively, they remake what lower lines should look like. As @dudacek points out, there still is a big need that needs to be addressed to fill the Mitts departure. If I had to come up with a word or two that best describes what has taken place so far, I would say workmanlike and incomplete.

I'm not a draftnick and don't pretend to be. But it seems to me that these players are in the same ranking strata. When watching portions of the draft it seems some analysts were gushing over Zeev Buium. I'm more than satisfied with the Helenius pick. Only time will tell.

I agree with you that there is a balance between having future assets and smartly using them to put out a more competitive team. Most people would agree with that sentiment. There is also a recognition that the prospect talent is fulsome enough where there is not enough room on the big roster for all of them when they are ready to move up. As you point out, there are enough chips in the system to work out some reasonable deals that will improve and better balance out the roster. As an example, the trade with the Caps was not a major deal but it was a good deal for us. I also agree with you that I expect a more significant deal to happen soon. I don't expect it to be in the blockbuster category but I do expect/hope that it will add a 2/3 C to the roster. And you are being very astute in recognizing that the play of our goalies is going to be critical to our success. Can UPL play up to last year's level and stay healthy?

I understand why you are saying that the GM is focusing more on the 26-27 season, but I don't buy it at all. Our GM is not so clueless of where this team currently is, and its standing with the fanbase. He also has enough self-awareness that if he doesn't show some success soon (playoffs) that he will be another staffing casualty. The Sabres have had many of their best players work feverishly to get out of this deeply stuck franchise. If our GM has a nickel's worth of common sense, he would realize that the constant attention to the future at the expense of the present is a self-crippling approach to continue with that "get me out of here" attitude. I'm simply not receptive to your proposition that the GM is more focused on the future a few years down the road than he is about the near future i.e. next season. That is not to say that he would willing to jettison a lot of his assets for a short-term burst of success that sells out the future. My point is that he is very concerned about the upcoming season and is willing to do what he needs to do, within reason, to have a successful season this year. I'm sure he is now at the stage where his attention is about the now.