JohnC

I understand your sentiment but I have a different perspective. Under the current system where teams mostly control players the Sabres have been not only bad but also boring for a decade. What's outrageous is a cap system exists where high revenue teams can't steamroll the lower revenue teams because they have to stay within the cap limits like everyone else. The system is designed for parity. There is no question that there are extremely smart organizations that are exceptional at accumulating talent. And there is no question that there are a number of inept organizations that don't know how to assess talent and build rosters. In some ways the better run organizations are disadvantaged because of their ability to evaluate and accumulate talent. Under the current system these well run organizations can't retain all the talent they have assembled because with expiring contracts it is difficult to do and stay within the cap. Carolina is certainly not a high revenue franchise. But they have been consistently competitive because they are a well run operation. The owners of the Sabres deserve a lot of criticisms but it not due to a lack of adequately financing the operation. The extended failure of the Sabres is mostly due to bad decisions. The problem isn't that the rich get ahead at the expense of the less resourced teams. The source of the team's failure is that for a long time this dumbly run franchise has gotten even dumber in running the franchise.

When the new McDermott regime took over they had a plan right from the start and went on to resolutely implement it. With the hockey operation there have been so many different coaches and GMs that the rebuilding plan has constantly changed. Because of the instability in staffing and changes in philosophy there was no single plan to follow. There was a pattern of lurching forward and then starting over. That was a major difference between the football and hockey operations. I agree with you that Jack entered a dilapidated hockey house. But last year in Jack's fourth or fifth year the Sabres ended the season with the worst record in hockey. I'm aware that Jack was hurt last year but not only has there been little progress during Jack's career but there has been little meaningful progress over the past decade of the Pegulas' reign. That is a freaking pathetic record! And it shouldn't be a surprise as to why Jack, Samson and even Risto (among others) are exasperated and fatigued by this franchise's hideous ineptitude. I'm hoping that under KA things will positively change.

I'm sure you have watched Jack play when he was healthy. Right from the start it was evident that he had unparalleled talent. The difference between the Bills and the Sabres is that the Bills were quickly able to give Allen the support for him and the team to succeed. In contrast the Sabres have not surrounded him with enough support to put him and the team in a good situation. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=itt_BnQXqYI

I want to make it clear that I don't question their (owners) earnestness. As new owners they have made a lot of mistakes. What I find hopeful is that in their constant pursuit of finding solutions they will eventually come up with it. That was evident when they bought the Bills. They mistakenly tried to create a splash for their non-descript franchise by the atrocious hire of the clownish Rex Ryan. It didn't take long to expunge that grotesque and costly mistake. They rebounded by hiring McDermott and then followed up with the hiring of Beane. In a relatively short period of time that including the cleansing of the organization and much of the roster. The Bills are now known as one of the best run operations. The Bills have gone from being a ridiculed organization to an admired organization. Although I have negatively commented on the past I am encouraged with how the new GM has steadily made good hires to his staff. It seems that a blueprint for the future has been established. It is now in the early stage of being implemented. What this organization desperately needs is stability and follow-up. The constant changing of staff and philosophies has repeatedly set this organization back. There has been a lot of activity and motion but little coherent direction. I believe that things have changed for the better and now what is needed is a little patience. So put me in the cautiously optimistic category.

What isn't overblown is that the Sabres have had one of the worst records in the NHL stretching for a decade. I don't care who recommended who regarding the staffing. The owner ultimately makes the decision who to hire. You can ask anyone involved in the hockey business and covering the sport and there will be no one who would be foolish enough to say that the Sabres are a well run operation. The Pegula tenure is replete with staffing turmoil and turnover. The Sabres' reputation of running a chaotic and mercurial operation is reflected in their extended dismal record. It starts at the top. No more excuses.

If we trade the three players you listed we will be getting back players/contracts to fill the cap $$ sent out. It most likely won't be as much but it will be more than you are suggesting. The organization blundered signing Skinner to that costly and long-termed contract. I don't see any team willing to take Skinner off our hands unless there are significant inducements added to the deal. As reflected in our last place showing this team doesn't have an adequate supply of assets to induce anyone to take him. And when discussing moving Skinner it shouldn't be forgotten that he has an iron-clad NMC that he controls. In addition, what organization would be foolish enough to trade for Reinhart (even giving up nothing) provided that they take Skinner and his burdensome contract when Reinhart who is an RFA this year will be an UFA the following year. That would make little sense.

The problem is that the Sabres don't have much in the way of excess assets to make up for the deficits created by an induced Skinner trade. And the desire to move him are stymied by his NMC clause. The next best option is to put him in a better position to succeed knowing full well that he will not come close to living up to his contract. If he can return to his goal scoring form in the range of 25-28 goals then that would be a bonus for this team that hasn't received much production from him over the past two years. Can Granato be more successful in handling Skinner compared to the previous coach? He can't do worse.

Attached is a WGR link. There are two segments that deal with hockey. There is a 21 min segment with Craig Buttons who talks about the draft and the Sabres' trade situation. His top player in this draft is Power. He is also high on Beniers. The more I hear the commentary on the draft the firmer I become on selecting Power. However, I understand why others are advocating for Beniers. The second segment is an interview with the former coach of JJ Peterka. This is a 9 min segment. https://www.audacy.com/wgr550/authors/howard-and-jeremy

I have a better understanding at what you are getting at. I agree with your opportunity/cost argument. The point I was making is that it would be very difficult to the point of improbable to induce another team to take the Skinner contract off our hands unless we included assets to make the deal appealing enough. On the one hand the Sabres are at a rebuilding stage where we don't have enough assets to jettison in a deal. And on the other side of the equation the Skinner contract is so out of whack that few teams would be interested in taking on such a poor production/value contract even if they had the room. The length of that contract makes it such an unappealing contract. The issue comes down to is Skinner a salvageable player? I believe to a certain extent he is. If his production can be increased to a 25-28 goal scoring level then at least we are getting an adequate return for his hefty contract. This is where I hope that coaching will elevate a player who has recently been moribund.

I'm not sure I understand your response. Whether a team has plenty of cap space or is tightly squeezed it is damaging to add a long term and hefty contract because it would consume a large portion of your allotted cap money. There are teams that are in a better position to take on a burdensome Skinner contract but the cost to the Sabres would be valuable assets added to the deal to get it done. For a team like the Sabres that lack talent it would be a setback in order to be shorn of bad mistake.

Skinner is not going anywhere. His contract is unmovable unless you give away valuable assets that this rebuilding team can't afford to give up. And no matter what the organization's desires are the player has a NMC. Why would he give it up when he was the one who got the restrictive clause inserted into the contract? The next best option to get a better return on his debilitating contract is to get him back to his prolific goal scoring form. Can he get back to his highest scoring range? Probably not. But that doesn't mean that just because he can't play up to his contract value that he can't play to a productive level scoring in the 25-28 goal scoring range. On a team where scoring goals is a challenge production from him is valuable. If his production can be significantly increased in contrast to his past barren years that will be like adding a free agent to the roster. This is where coaching matters. There is no doubt that Granato will put Skinner in a better position to succeed than Krueger did. He buried the player and did little to try to revive him. The moral of the story is when you make a glaring mistake you usually have to live with it. Expecting others to generously clean your mess is divorced from reality. If something isn't working at all that doesn't mean that it can't at least improve and work better.

If it's Granato the stats guy is going to get his face punched in.

I appreciate your responses to me more when you and some thoughtful others disagree with me. It gives me something to consider even when it is contrary to my original positions. I'm always open to my ideas being challenged. For that I say thank you. 🍺

I disagree. We'll see how this plays out this offseason.

Why not just give Risto the right support? If it doesn't work out then trade him at the deadline. If you look at the makeup of the current blue line there are few players who play with any physicality. In this league a mostly finesse unit that lacks physicality is a subpar unit.

When you get miscast for 8 years you get miscast for 8 years. It's obvious that Risto has limitations. No one is arguing otherwise. On a team that had the worst record in hockey and with less than a robust roster what this team can't cavalierly do is throw away all the players who have limitations/faults. If such an exacting standard was applied every player this roster would be barren. Risto is a 2B second pairing defender. It's well known that he doesn't see the ice well and anticipate the play. Needless to say he isn't much of a thinker. But that doesn't mean that in a more simplified role as the 2B in the pairing that he can't competently fill that role. As I stated before in contrast to Sam and Eichel I don't believe that his trade value will be diminished as much if he is kept until the next trade deadline. Granato is much more adept at smartly slotting a player and giving a role that is more suitable for a players talents, including limitations. So I disagree with you that he can't play better under Granato. Risto has been unfairly singled out for criticisms that are unwarranted because they are associated with his role that he is not suited for. He is a case where using him less and using him differently will maximize what he can do well.

If Granato believes that he can make Risto a more effective player his voice will resonate in the room. Another consideration is that McCabe will still be rehabilitating when the season starts.

Refer to @dudacek's reply. My response is the same.

I didn't take it in a negative or personal way. It flowed from some previous responses.

They recipient party is going to make full use of their medical staff and consultants. As an example Anaheim wouldn't be foolish to give up Zegras or even their high pick if their medical staff had serious concerns about Jack's ability to fully recover. There is simply too much at stake to act otherwise.

If a hockey board isn't the place to make predictions then where is the right place for it. That's like saying swimming pools shouldn't be a place to swim. Being wrong about predictions is a more likely occurrence than being right for most participants. That's the nature of this untamed beast.

No one's pretending anything. Your preference is your preference. And my preference is my preference. And who is guaranteeing the the #1 pick is going to be the best player in the top-10? Where did that come from? Your straw man is your straw man.

Ask @LGR4GM. He's leading the search. I'm confident that if a trade proposal is materializing the air will be swirling with plenty of factual and non-factual stories. Stand by. Even if you have your ears covered you will hear them.

The source of the leaks don't have to come from the Sabre side of the ship. There will be a number of teams communicating with the Sabres. Those teams' whispers will be loud enough for a lot of people to hear. Also, there will be a lot of posturing through a variety of media channels in the sweepstake for the trade.

You are right that we don't know what his actual health status is. However, what has been reported is that numerous teams have inquired. And it has been reported from a variety of sources that the Sabres are asking for a bonanza for him. I'm confident that as the draft approaches the rumors will start to swirl about an upcoming Jack trade. You'll then recognize that the ship isn't as tight as you think because there will be many leaks.