JohnC

Maybe or maybe not. Odds are if a deal is made for Tkachuk, and Quinn is still with the team, he will be on a wing with Cozens in the middle.

Let me say thanks to you and others who follow the draft and report on it. It's very illuminating. My biggest takeaway from the reporting on this draft class is that we are in a good position to end up with a high-end prospect if we make the selection. That's a valuable asset that can't be wasted. If we deal it, the minimum return needs to be a 3C player. There are those who want to deal that asset for less than its worth. If we can't get that value back in return, then we should keep it. Acting out of desperation is a bad way to do business.

There is no question that this feisty player attracts the ire of the opposition resulting in penalties. (As you point out.) Skinner has some obvious deficiencies but on balance his offense compensates for them. (As you also point out.) This team attracts a lot of negative commentary related to its lapses in effort. The one thing that Skinner can't be criticized for is his consistent effort no matter what his role is. He's a full effort player in the games and in his preparation. In my opinion, he needs to be better utilized so his biggest asset (goal scoring) is maximized.

If Quinn is part of a proposed trade deal, I'm strongly against it. If Power is part of a proposed trade deal, I'm strongly against it. If Peterka is part of a trade deal that includes our first-round pick, I'm receptive to a deal.

https://www.audacy.com/wgr550/hosts/sabres-live There is a segment within the link from WGR's Sabre Live having the hosts talking about players that the organization should consider. This is a 26 minute segment. Good discussion that parallels the discussion here.

We both agree that he should be kept this year. We disagree on how to best utilize him this year. That's okay. TBD.

An absolute no for me. Another issue that many people are not considering is whether he would want to come here.

You missed the point regarding the Mitts comparison. My central point regarding the Mitts scenario related to how too many people were locked in about in their assessment about him. The same dynamic appears to apply to the Skinner scenario. You are misinterpreting my point about him if you believe I'm talking about the long-term implications about him as a player on this team. My focus is on this upcoming season. Is Skinner a defensive liability? Maybe so, but not to the extent that many people believe it to be. In fact, I would argue that he is less of a defensive liability, or at the least not more, than JJP is. In my view, it is not out of the range of possibility that on the top line he can end up as a 30-35 goal scorer. And if allowed to play on the second PP unit, it is not inconceivable that he can approach the 40 goal mark. Others may scoff at that goal production but I don't. My overriding point is that more attention should be directed toward his offensive asset than his defensive liability.

I'm aware of the dominant view that Skinner should be dealt or if necessary bought out. Why not simply keep him and put him on the first line? On that line it is not unrealistic to believe that he can score around 35 goals. Moving him up to the first line then allows you to move JJP to the second line with Cozens the center and Quinn on the other wing. That should be a very vibrant line. The issue then becomes who is going to be added on a third line that has Benson? It seems that Skinner has beeb dismissed as a player by many, just like Mitts was a few years back. He does have some liabilities but his biggest asset is that he is a goal scorer. Does his biggest asset make up for his limitations? I think so but most do not.

Is it an unrealistic expectation to believe that Savoie can follow the Benson example and make this roster out of camp?

On the issue of the speed of the rebuild we have had some divergences. However, regarding this offseason our positions coincide. He needs to be proactive. I don't expect any blockbuster deals. I'm fine with that. But he needs to make enough moves that will result in this roster being upgraded and more well-rounded. Compared to other organizations going through a major rebuild he's had more than enough time to solidify the roster and make it a playoff team. There's no question that he has accumulated enough assets to parlay. He's at a stage now where it's more about actually competing than about his theory on how he wants to rebuild. No more talk and no more excuses.

I think he has to make moves for the simple reason that spots are open with departures such as Olofosson and Okposo. There are spots that need to be filled. Even if he is inclined to stick to his inclination of staying within the system, there are vacancies that need to be addressed. There is an interesting consideration that should be noted with your Savoie mention. Could he be next year's roster surprise like Benson was this past season?

This is a terrific post that has a lot of thought behind it. Your list of players who potentially can be targeted is encouraging that options will be available. Is KA creative enough and has the fortitude to act? I hope so.

Responding to your second paragraph, the answer to what KA is going do is not a mystery. He's frequently stated that his center of attention is on the lower lines. Clearly, that makes it unlikely to make some blockbuster deal to bring in a player such as Thachuk is going to materialize. That bothers a lot of people; it doesn't bother me as much. Although, if a 3C is not added, I will be disappointed. I agree with you that it's more likely that KA is going to focus his attention on the lower lines than on the top two line. As you point out, he has been candid about what his intentions are this offseason. But that doesn't mean that nothing has changed from last year. As you astutely pointed out in another post, both Quinn and Samuelsson will be back. Those are two significant return additions from last year's roster. The source of many posters' disagreement with my view about the roster is that I strongly believe that remaking the lower two lines by bringing in players from the outside are consequential moves in that it centers around the issue of roster construction. As an example, I thought the Greenway acquisition was a good deal for a reasonable price (second round pick). He added an element of toughness that was lacking in this roster. We need a few more similar deals to better round out the roster.

Your response is perplexing? Who is arguing to do nothing? No one is, including the organization. The Cup finals haven't even started. The draft is still a little way off---a time where many deals are made. Who is arguing that we shouldn't use our potential assets to address the present roster? No one is! You are making an assumption that something isn't going to happen during a period of time when transactions usually don't happen. Before getting intensely agitated about the inaction during a period of inaction, how about waiting for the period when most transactions happen. If you assess the number of post season transactions league wise, you'll find that there haven't been many deals made at this point yet. I'm confident as the finals wind down the rumors will be flying about deals for the Sabres and all teams in the league. TBD!

You and others make the assumption that the Sabres can't make a better deal than the proposed three UFA deal. That's at the heart of the disagreement. If I'm going to include in a trade our first-round pick, I would expect a better return on players and contract terms. We'll just have to wait and see.

Cirelli is brought up a lot in this site about an attractive player to target. I'm aware that Tampa will be squeezed somewhat in trying to work a deal for Stamkos. However, I haven't heard anything about Tampa being interested in shedding this particularly player. Tampa may be in the beginning in their down cycle but why would they shed one of their instrumental players when they are still a very competitive team? An interesting question regarding Tampa is would it be better for Tampa to lose Stamkos if his contract demands are too high if it was the reason for not being able to retain Cirelli who recently signed a long-term contract? I simply don't see Cirelli being available for any team at this point.

In general terms, we both are in accord that our GM has to be proactive in adding talent to this team this offseason. I totally agree that we have some excess assets to parlay. In how that should be done we have some space between us. We shall see.

In all likelihood the focus of attention for the GM relates to redoing the lower lines. (That's what he has stated.) That caliber of player/s is available. Overpaying in assets is not the right way to pursue this level of talent. I'm open to all sensible options. And that includes trading our first pick. But I'm opposed to dispatching that valuable pick for the proposed UFAs. That makes no sense to me.

An organization that acts out of desperation instead of measured calculation is a sign that the organization continues to ineptly handle its business. That's not how you attract players; it's how you continue to make players shun your franchise. There are deals to be made this offseason. The proposed deal is an example what not to do. There is a myth here that no one wants to come here. That's far from the case. Buffalo certainly is not appealing to a lot of players. That doesn't mean that other players can't be brought in. Players can be added through trades and free agency. If option A isn't attainable, then go to option B-Z.

If the proposed deal was for Sam Bennett, I would be open to it. I'm adamantly opposed to giving up assets, that includes our #11 pick, for three UFAs. That makes no sense to me. Acting out of desperation is putting yourself in a vulnerable position when getting involved in the trade market. We can do better in the market.

I respectfully but strenuously disagree. You are making an assumption that getting those three UFAs will be the difference in making the playoffs or not. There is also another false assumption regarding that proposed trade that alternative options for other players won't be collectively as good if not better than the proposed trade. I feel strongly that if you are going to deal your valuable #1 pick, that you can get a better return in a different deal for players that more likely will not be one-year rentals.

Absolutely no! I'm not giving up Quinn in any trade unless it is a zany deal that is overwhelmingly in our favor. Quinn returning to health and form is going to be one of our key players.

The prospects in our system are not going to push this team over the hump. Most people agree to that view. That's not what is being arguing here. The proposed trade of dealing away Joki, Krebs and our #1 pick for three UFAs make little sense to me. As you acknowledged, it is an overpay. So why do it, especially if the lower lines can be improved and reconfigured with attainable players without giving up much in assets? As you keenly observed, the source of this team's improvement is going to come from the half a dozen players you have listed. And as @LGR4GM noted the return to health of Quinn and Samuelsson will certainly bolster this roster. And don't discount the importance of the new coach installing more structure and accountability to this loose team being important additions. If our GM doesn't act to improve this roster (most notably bottom half), then he should be sent packing. A passive offseason strategy shouldn't be tolerated. I'm certainly not against making deals. But to make a bad deal (overpay) just to demonstrate you are taking some action isn't the right course of action to take.

Your last sentence precisely captures the issue of the balance between cost and outcome. There is no one here who doesn't want to urge this middling organization to extend itself to do what is required to make this a playoff team. That doesn't mean that it shouldn't do it in a smart and balanced way. I just think that @Archie Lee has it right that there should be a better cost/balance ratio when considering player trades. It doesn't seem to me that the proposal that included our #1 pick for three UFAs meets calculation.