JohnC

Dahlin is a player who was confident in his abilities (as you smartly and concisely stated) was amenable to a short-term bridge deal. It didn't take him too long under the tutelage of his new coach to demonstrate that he has the talent and to be considered one of the elite defenders in the league. His strategic approach to negotiating contract will pay off handsomely for him.

KA has often stated that he would rather error in over-developing a player in the minors than error in rushing a prospect before he is ready for the NHL. He believed that even if a rushed player could play at the NHL level, he would be a better player in the NHL if he had more development time. The young GM has brought a stability and coherence to the organization that it lacked before he took over. Last year, Quinn was sent back down to Rochester for a rehab stint. He and JJ could have been brought up at the end of the season. They weren't. That extended stay will in the long-run will have served them better than if they were rushed.

Barry Trotz is a terrific coach. He is a better human being. He has been actively involved and a strong advocate in that community to make lives better for the families and make them feel a part of the community at large.

You are giving the organizations' perspective in getting players signed sooner rather than later because it would be cheaper. (I've been making the point with Tage.) On the other hand from the players' perspective it might make more financial sense to sign short term bridge deals now and then sign longer term deals later when the cap goes up.

I agree with you that Risto would have benefited with a better development program. My point remains that he with better preparation, there still would have been a low ceiling in his ability to anticipate and react to plays. In my view the best role for him would have been as a #2 player on a second pairing. He needed a structured and simplified role. In basketball there are guards who can't adequately play the point guard position because they don't have sufficient court vision, and never will. And in football there are qbs who although have all the physical tools will never become good qbs because they lack the ability to make quick and sound reads on the defense. My point with him is that he has a particular limitation that can be improved somewhat but will never be at a level that makes him really good as a defenseman.

The issue with Risto has little to do with not being properly developed. His inherent weakness was always going to be his inability to think the game and anticipate the play. Although Samuelsson wasn't rushed like Risto, he always possessed the required instincts that Risto would never have, even as a veteran player. Reinhart was a player who always possessed the intelligence that gave him an ability to anticipate the play and make the right reads. Risto's strengths were associated with his physicality; and Risto's weaknesses were associated with his hockey intelligence. That's what he is and what he will always be. The best approach in utilizing a player like him is to simplify his role and benefit from what he can do, and not get frustrated from what he couldn't do. It should be noted that I liked Risto a lot but I understood who he was as a player.

You may already be aware of it that Barry Trotz has a special needs son. So there are family considerations when he considers relocating for jobs. https://eyesonisles.com/2020/04/09/islanders-barry-trotz-bond-son/

I respectfully but strenuously disagree with your conclusion about the risk of giving Tage an overvalued contract. You have to look at the makeup of this team with an overload of young players who will command rich contracts when they negotiate their next contracts. Does anyone doubt that Dahlin, Power, Cozens and to a lesser extent maybe even Mitts will be in position to garner a dramatic increase in contracts? If you can get Tage on a lesser contract with early negotiations rather than a more costly contract with a later negotiation, then why wouldn't you? Tage's ability to play as a #1 center is known. For a full season he played as a #1 center whose stats, especially scoring goals, reflected the production of an upper tier player. According to his head coach, whose expertise is in developing young players, believes that as a player and #1 center he has more potential to draw from. My recommendation is to sign him to a generous contract with term sooner rather than later. I rather bet on him getting better than worry about him not becoming an established top tier player he has already demonstrated that he is capable of. In this case timidity can be costly in $$$$.

As you project, in a couple of years our young core players will require a major boost in salary in order to retain them. If the GM sticks with his build from within strategy (as the GM has often stated), the current low budget Sabres will become a mid to high budget team. So how he is handling contracts and avoiding the high end free agent market is a prudent course. Based on the future contract projections it is unlikely that the GM is going to splurge on outside players or commit to any long-term contracts from players on the market. But even under the constraints of a conservative payroll approach, the GM has enough wherewithal to make a few meaningful player moves that will positively impact this mostly assembled roster. That's what I'm hoping for. With respect to the Skinner contract, if he is able to continue with his 30 goal pace, the 9 M per year won't be so debilitating. Even if he is more of a $7 M player at his current performance level, that overpayment isn't so problematic. It is the term. If it was 2 to 3 yrs shorter it would have been a more reasonable contract.

You historically have been one of the strongest advocates for trading Olofsson. How many trade scenarios have you proposed with him included in a deal? However, I acknowledge that it has recently changed. I have consistently argued in keeping him if a reasonable contract deal can be worked out. You are allowing aggregated stats to distort his recent stats. Tage made a major turn-around after the astute Italian coach moved him to center. In addition, it took Tage a few years for him to physically mature and fill out. Where he is now as a player in contrast to his earlier development stage is how he should be judged and projected as a player. And based on his quantum leap forward as a player, I would invest in him sooner with an extended contract rather than wait longer when the cost will climb even more. If you are waiting until you are absolutely sure about what caliber of player he will be, you are betting against the player and giving him leverage in his next negotiation. You are getting too entangled with his cumulative stats and allowing the distorted aggregate number to come to your conclusion. His play was on display for a full season. Trust your eyes! He centered a #1 line that was worthy of being considered a legitimate good #1 NHL line. You have a player in your system who is producing. There is no need to look outward. My recommendation is to pay him sooner and lock him up so that you can move on to address other areas of need, especially the goalie position.

Although Skinner is over paid if he keeps up at the same production level that he had last year, I'm not complaining. If Tage has the same production rate that he had last year, I would be for him to be given an extended contract sooner rather than later.

I would love for you to be right. But I'm not bold enough to go to the casino and lay some Dineros on that bet.

Who was the coach those two players played for? Under the coach that Granato took over for the performances for most of the players under his guidance declined. Tage had a breakout year under Granato when he was moved to center. Under Granato's tutelage Tage will get even better. The sooner Tage secures an extended contract the better value the organization will get. Wait now and pay later the company ends up paying more.

Expecting TT to be in the 50 goal range is overly high. (Obviously, I prefer your lofty expectations to be more correct than my less lofty expectations.) If Tage is centering a ling where he is scoring 30 to 35 goals, Skinner hovering around 30 and Tuch in the 20 to 25 goal range, that would comprise a top tier first line. I'll take those combined numbers and walk away with satisfied shiiit grin. A while back on WGR Granato was asked about Tage and what was his upside. The coach said that he hasn't come close to tapping his passing and assist potential. And he stated that as well as he has played this year he believed that he had more potential to draw from in being a well rounded hockey player. My recommendation would be to lock him up with a long-term contract sooner rather than later. The pay scale usually doesn't go down. And if Granato is right in his assessment of this tall player, it would make financial sense for the organization to get a deal done sooner rather than later.

People get irritated when I bring up the Ullmark negotiation. So, I apologize for the belabored responses on this issue. Many don't understand what my position is on this goalie issue. Ullmark was an UFA player. And it was apparent that his contract demands were increasing (as you noted). My criticism of the GM on this issue is that he didn't have an adequate fallback position if a deal couldn't be worked out with the goalie. Finding an adequate goalie is not an easy task under any circumstances. But when your primary goalie is an UFA, and he is equivocating in his negotiations, then a better backup option should have been prepared prior to the conclusion of the futile negotiations. I'm hoping this offseason the GM will be able to come up with a better option for the position. In my view, how he addresses the issue will be the most significant transaction he will make this offseason.

As you suggest, there are opportunities to bring in players on the downside of their careers who can help your team and provide a support system for this young roster. And if done smartly it can be done for reasonable contracts. Assuming Quinn and JJ are added to the roster it will be a very young roster. Just a few selected veteran additions to a roster that is mostly designated can better balance out the roster and make a difference.

Most everyone would agree with you that Subban has declined as a player. That's not a surprise for someone who has played as long as he has. It is inarguable that he is on the downside of his career. But that doesn't mean even as a diminished player that he couldn't contribute as a good third pairing player for us. The one attribute that stands out with him is his skating ability. He has the ability to fit in and provide more experience for this young unit. The Hall situation is much different than it would be with a Subban addition to this roster. The Sabres are a fuller roster and they have better coaching that is able to provide a system that accentuates the assets of players and minimizes their liabilities. Assuming that a reasonable contract can be negotiated adding Subban does make sense.

The argument that agents will use the necessity to meet the cap floor as a leverage doesn't resonate with me. KA has clearly stated that when signing players in-house or out they will place a value on the player and stick with it. He stated that is what happened in the Ullmark negotiations. That same stance would apply to an Olofsson negotiation. If Olofsson wants more than what the GM is willing to pay, he will simply allow that player to walk. I agree with you that the organization has to add some experience to the roster. How does buying contracts without adding players advance that preference? Instead of buying a contract in order to write it off why not dedicate the dead money to players that could be brought in? As I have repeatedly stated, I don't give a dam how much or how little the organization is willing to spend. Even spending at the cap floor they are still in position to add a goalie or whoever at whatever position.

When Vegas made the deal for Jack, I'm sure they were aware that in the near future they would lose other players. That's the tough trade-off decision they knew when they were going to make when they decided to bring him in. Clearly, they felt that his talent warranted the reshuffling of some of their players. With respect to Lehner: When you add a volatile Lehner type personality to your team, you get the expected complications. If you eat a hot pepper your mouth burns. In other words, you get what you buy.

I'm not against adding mature talent to the roster. It just seems that it goes against the GMs often stated comments about blocking the ice time of developing young players. In addition, what makes it even more unlikely in my opinion if Kane is dealt is that he would be more inclined to go to a serious cup contending team after leaving his current rebuilding team. Another issue is what would the GM be willing to give up to make the transaction happen? I don't see it happening although it would be exciting if it actually did happen. How did trading for Bishop's cap hit create more flexibility? If Chicago, in a rebuilding mode, trades Kane, they would want high upside prospects back in return. I just don't see KA deviating from his rebuild from within approach by giving up some of his prized young players or prospects to add Kane. There is no doubt that the addition of Kane would excite the fanbase. But this type of transaction would be an obvious deviation from how he has been running the operation. Chicago is not in the charity business. Many are focusing on what a Kane trade would do for the Sabres without giving much consideration on what the return would be for Chicago for its valuable asset.

There is no doubt that adding Kane will improve the roster. I've never argued otherwise. I just think that his high salary makes it unlikely that it will happen this year even though there is plenty of cap space to handle his acquisition. My sense is that the Sabres are again going to be a low budget team. Again, I'm not criticizing the expenditure strategy. That's how I see things unfolding.

If you meant to say surprised my response would be no as far as this being an active offseason. That doesn't bother me very much because most of the additions will come from within the system. As far as the goalie position, I simply don't know who is going to be brought in?

The upcoming draft is of course important. However, the over-riding issue for me is addressing the goalie position. I'm realistic enough to be aware that whoever is brought in isn't necessarily going to be a long-term solution. Recognizing that, there needs to be an upgrade so that this roster that is coming together can be supported. If you are looking for an impactful jumpstart--- it is at the goalie position. If a goalie such as Fleury could be had, even for a rich price, that we be a significant jumpstart that would reverberate throughout the lineup.

Even on this forum with a number of astute prospect evaluators there has been a diverse evaluation of this class. There will be some selections that many will boo but eventually cheer; and there will be some selections that many will cheer but eventually boo. This is going to be an intriguing draft.

If he wants to play another year, then why not? He wasn't our best player but he was our most consistent two way player. He's a good player and a special person. Not only has he been productive but his stats don't come close to reveal his contribution to the team.