JohnC

I consider you a realist with respect to how the Sabres are managing the franchise. I agree with you that a strong argument can be made justifying spending to the cap (as you noted). Based on how this franchise has recently been run there is not a scintilla of a chance that the Sabres will come close to the cap. The greater challenge is going to be meeting the cap floor than it will be to spend money beyond anywhere near the cap ceiling. The below link shows that the Sabres had an operating income at minus $40 M. You have to consider the covid situation when factoring in the financial picture. The primary point that I'm making and sticking with is that money considerations are a major factor in how this team operates for the next couple of years. I agree with you that by judiciously increasing spending it will bring back greater return on investment by increasing attendance revenue but I'm skeptical that for the near future that it will happen. https://www.statista.com/statistics/374838/buffalo-sabres-operating-income/

My understanding is that what @Taro T stated is accurate. The Sabres were willing to match the Boston offer but Ullmark wanted a year longer term and a higher average salary from Buffalo in order to stay with Buffalo. The GM declined. The GM candidly talked about the Ullmark negotiations on WGR. He said that the organization set a value on the player and were not willing to go beyond it. He pointed out in that radio segment that is how the organization was going to handle personnel decisions i.e. place a value on a player and have the discipline to stay with it.

Panarin was not going to sign another contract with Chicago. My understanding is that he wanted to go to NY to play. So he was dealt. He eventually ended up in NY. This was a case where contract considerations and approaching free agency status drove the decision on this player. The Sabres were in a similar situation with Reinhart, Montour and Risto. You get what you can get and then move on. It's a tough and complicating part of the business that all organization have to deal with.

Whether the cap is increased or not I don't believe the Sabres are going to significantly increase their payroll. The owners are, at least for the short-term, dealing with a challenging cash/flow situation. It's going to be a challenge to meet the cap floor let alone consider increasing payroll to add any impact players. I'm not criticizing how money is currently being spent because keeping the payroll low is the right business decision considering where this team is with its young roster. In my view, the best business and financial strategy is to assemble a playoff contending team so that the diminished fanbase because more invested in the product.

I'm aware you addressed your question to @GASabresIUFAN but if you would allow me to intrude and answer the question I would say definitely yes. Is a 5 year deal significantly different than a 4 year deal? I would say no, especially for an organization that didn't have much of a backup option. How many years away is UPL from being a #1 goalie, assuming he will be? How many years away is Levi away from being a starting goalie in this league, assuming he will continue on the upward projection? Just because you sign Ullmark to a five year deal that doesn't mean that you can't deal him after a couple to three years later if a better option is found. If he is an average starter (which I consider him to be) there would be a market for him.

There is a saying that I always found to be wise: Don't let perfect be the enemy of the good. I strongly believe (not provable) that if Ullmark would have been our #1 goalie last year the Sabres would have earned at least ten more points. That's not a trivial amount for an impact of one player. The full impact of not signing Ullmark can not be determined until we know how the GM addresses the position this offseason. If he finds a superior goalie, then the impact was minimal. If the GM doesn't come away with a dependable goalie this year then the negative impact would have had a lingering effect beyond the one season.

You watch AHL games while I don't. So it would be unfair for me to comment about the Rochester goalies. But after reading your observations about UPL and his deficiencies, what is the appeal of him as a NHL prospect? It is often mentioned that when he is on his game he can be stellar. But it is his lapses and lack of consistency that bother me. Even in the games he played in Buffalo there were extended spells in which he was tremendous. And then there would be that inexplicable long-distant shot with little obstruction in front of him where he would whiff. Giving up those types of goals are crushing and dispiriting! It just seems that the GM is invested in UPL as a Sabre goalie next year. If the GM doesn't bring in one or two more experienced NHL goalies next season, he is taking a big risk in undercutting a team that seems to be moving in the right direction.

Fleury is certainly better than Ullmark. That isn't the issue. The issue is whether he would sign with Buffalo. And that is unlikely. Fleury has had a stellar career. He is at the end of his career where he most likely would be signing short-term deals. If he has options to sign with a number of teams it will be with a team that gives him a chance to be on a cup contending team. The Sabres are not at that competitive juncture yet. Our GM was not willing to give Ullmark a contract that he was willing to sign. The irony is that he will now have to go out and sign an Ullmark caliber goalie for the market price that was in the range that he refused to give to the departed goalie. That was a gaffe that has come back to plague this team. There will be some good goalies available on the market for a variety of reasons, most notably cap reasons. But the problem is that on the other side of the equation there will be a number of teams needing goalies. It's a tough market for a critical position. Make no mistake what I'm saying here. I'm aware of the caliber of goalie Ullmark is. He is at best a mid-tier or even a little lower starting goaltender. That is better than what we currently have.

I've never said that their GM is a genius. However, there is a cycle when a team is ready to compete for a cup as compared to a team like the Sabres who are still in a preliminary stage as a serious cup contender. The big challenge for all GMs is not so much giving out high annual salaries as it is the length of contracts. To retain or acquire top tier players organizations are not only required to pay high annual salaries but also give them long term deals. Those same issues happened when Skinner's contract was up after we acquired him from Carolina. When you have players such as Marner and Mathews you have to pay them the premium going rate for annual salaries and the required long term deals. And the same issue happened when the organization decided to sign Tavares as a free agent. A lot of tough decisions need to be made. In a few years the Sabres will also be facing the same tough decisions when our talented young players are entering their second contracts.

Their roster was loaded with talent. They dealt a high cost player and a draft pick to keep their best players. When you have a loaded roster you have to make tough decisions and do what you have to do to keep the players that you want to. It's a problem that talent laden teams have to contend with. I would rather be in that situation than have a roster full of budget players that don't get you anywhere meaningful.

For a team in their cap situation giving up a lower first round pick to take a high cost contract off of their hands makes a lot of sense. That pick is unlikely to be on the roster in the next three to four years. And that lower pick is also not guaranteed to move ahead of the young players already in their system when the player is more developed. Selling off contracts is what happens when you have a roster full of talented players. You can't keep them all. I would rather be in a roster situation that Toronto is in where there are a number of high end players on the roster squeezing the cap than be in a situation where you don't have enough good players with commensurate contracts. Considering where the Sabres are with their bottom-feeding cap situation, I'm hoping that the Sabres can add a good player to their roster by selectively adding a player that another team can't fit onto their roster because of the cap squeeze. Vegas is in that tight money situation. That's a fertile roster to poach a good player from.

In some situations, as it was in this case, the issue isn't whether you win a trade or not because a decision was made to deal him. The organization and owner (apparently) were determined to deal him before his bonus kicked in. When the trade first happened it seemed as if the organization got fleeced. As time goes by it doesn't seem as imbalanced a deal as it first did. Just as with the Jack deal you make the best deal you can and then move on.

Wasn't it J. Botts who got Tage Thompson in return for ROR? It took some time for the fruits of that trade to manifest itself but as time goes by that deal looks better, or at a minimum can be considered a fair value trade.

Attached is an article from a WGR site by Paul Hamilton. He brought up comments from the Rochester coach on JJ and Rousek. His comments on Rousek suggest that the organization has another quality NHL prospect in the system. It was pointed out that Rousek was a J Botts draft selection. https://www.audacy.com/wgr550/sports/sabres/amerks-hit-stride-at-right-time-of-season

Blaming Jack for this team's failure because he was sold as the franchise savior makes little sense. If you want to attach blame for this team's dismal record while he was here, a better target would be the owner and hockey operation. He was not the cause of why this franchise was mismanaged.

Simply stated don't give out your SS# and address. With those two pieces of information you can end up in the morass of being a victim to identity theft.

We are going in circles. Again, what is the evidence that he was a negative influence in the room? There is none other than a few oblique references. Was he a positive influence in the room? I can't say. I'm not the one throwing out character judgments about him. It may be that he simply wasn't an influential presence in the room one way or the other. If that characterization is accurate (don't really know) then that is far from being a toxic presence.

I'm not taking any of your comments with any sense of hostility. I agree with you that Jack was not going to be part of the solution. The player understood that and so did the GM. As I have said on other posts moving him was the right thing to do for him and for the Sabres. It gave him an opportunity for a fresh start, and it accelerated the rebuild by adding two good players and hopefully a good prospect. In addition, although the Sabres are in an excellent cap shape it provided the front office more options in adding talent due to the elimination of his high salary. This flailing franchise desperately needed a reset----and it got it.

I not reframing the issue. What is being called for is to disprove a negative characterization. My complaint is how can you disprove a negative when there isn't much evidence that he was a toxic presence? The burden is on those who are making the claim. I'm aware of Brian Gionta's oblique negative comments about him. I heard him comment on this issue on WGR. It wasn't as negative as many are trying to portray. I'm not suggesting Jack was an angel. But if you look at the totality of comments about him from his many former teammates there were very few comments that suggested that he was a negative influence in the room.

Brian Gionta has discretely been critical of Eichel. So what! He wasn't the leader that many people hoped for. He was simply too young and ill-equipped for the role. The idea that I should have to prove a negative that he was a toxic presence is an absurdity. He may not have been an exceptional leader but that doesn't mean that he was a destructive presence in the locker room. I'm not the one making the scathing claim about him as a person. It's not my responsibility to prove the unsubstantiated claims of others.

You can talk about any player you want. And so can I.

In my opinion Marty Biron is one of the better hockey analysts in the game. Don't let his congenial manner mask the fact that he is very knowledgeable about what is going on in the league. He was asked on the Instigator Show which he co-hosts if Cal Petersen, a goalie in college who became a free agent and signed with the LA Kings, was a big loss for Buffalo. He said no. The reason that he gave was that if he would have signed with the Sabres when they had his rights he would not have succeeded here because the organization was in a state of chaos and dysfunction. Jack felt stuck in that unstable franchise situation. I don't blame him for wanting out. This franchise failed him, other players and the fans. I'm confident that now things have turned in a positive direction for Buffalo. The GM in my opinion was right that the old core needed to be flushed out in order for the new core to start anew. In my view the trade worked out for the best for the dealt player and the franchise that sent him to another destination.

Jack may not have been the best teammate. Even if that is the case to attribute a large role for the failure of this dismally functioning franchise is unfair and unreasonable. Searching for a specific demon when the stench of incompetence oozed throughout the organization, starting with the ownership, makes little sense. The player is gone. Find another bogeyman to pursue!

The issue for the Leafs is not so much do they want to keep him as it is can they afford to keep him. If I were advising the Sabres he would be a goalie that I would recommend targeting this offseason. If I'm going to overpay a player on a short to medium term deal he is the caliber of goalie I would do it for.

What kind of ridiculous and biased question are you posing? Eichel played in an organization that was recognized for its half generation of stupendous dysfunction. And it is well known that most of its prominent players wanted out. Some of them are ROR, Reinhart, Risto, McCabe, Montour and etc. And as you point out I'm not aware of any of his former teammates speaking critically of him. Everyone is looking for a fall guy for an organization that reeked with incompetence. A cheap shot might get you an applause from this audience but no clapping will be coming from me.