JohnC

The one point he made about Byfield is that he is still really young. He's a talent but may be a couple years away from being a contributing player. I would be ecstatic to get him with the realization that there won't be a quick output.

Attached is a 12 min link from WGR with Dennis Bernstein who covers the Kings talking about a Jack Eichel trade. Interesting commentary. https://www.audacy.com/wgr550/authors/howard-and-jeremy

You make some keen observations. KA on WGR has stated that he has had extensive talks with Beane and McDermott about team building. He said they both stressed that it is just as important, if not more important, to get the right person as it is the right talent. After the Jack "disconnect" comments Adam went public multiple times about building a roster with players who want to be here. I'm not making the point that any player is a good or bad guy. Players can get stale being in a frustrating situation for an extended period of time. With Jack and to a lesser extent Reinhart and Risto a change of scenery and a fresh start can be invigorating for both the players and even the team.

I agree with you that if Sam showed a desire to be part of another interminable building project the organization would want him back. But there are two sides to this coin here that reinforce one another. One is that Sam can't fake his fatigue with the mounting losses and lack of meaningful games. The player's understandable attitude is not compatible with the buy-in attitude he is trying to foster here. And the second part is that because of his history of consistent play his value is very high. This is a case where the player essentially made the decision for the GM.

I just get the sense that by moving some of the prime players who have been here for a while that the young GM is making a statement that this is a new era separate from the failed and stale previous era. Could the GM retain Eichel and Samson and try to build around them? Yes he could but I don't believe he wants to. He just seems determined to shake up this roster and have more of a fresh start.

There was a game last year when Tage took a foolish and ill-timed penalty. And in that game he also started reverting to his loping style of play instead of playing with more decisiveness. If I recall correctly he benched him for a game or so and then he sparingly played him making him earn back his playing time. His play improved and his playing time increased. He made his players accountable and they played better.

Granato's success is predicated on KA adding enough talent to give him a chance to succeed. If the expected departing assets don't bring enough of a return to spread out and add to the talent base, and if the increased cap room is not smartly utilized then Granato is not going to succeed, or would any other coaching hire. The one position that would have the most positive influence is solidifying the goaltending. It's unlikely that the talent that will be shipped out will be matched with the talent coming, at least for the short term. But that doesn't mean that next year's roster can't be thickened and improved upon. What it comes down to is that Granato's chances of succeeding is predicated on Adams doing a smart job this offseason.

You are being punctilious.

When 90% of the hockey prospect analysts say the same thing about who should be the first pick then it isn't a stretch for someone to say that they have extreme confidence in who the first pick should be. If you disagree with that then so be it.

And I say with with extreme confidence that it will be Power.

The HC should be able to bring in the coaches he wants to work with. It would be a mistake for the organization to dictate who should be on his staff. It is reasonable for the front office to review the prospective coaches before approving of the hiring but it should be Granato to have the most say in the assembling of his staff.

I got the timing wrong but the candidate right. I'm more than happy with this obvious selection. When the Sabres make the first pick it needs to be Power. Let's stick to the basics and not outsmart ourselves. I'm sure almost everyone will agree that Adams is going to be judged by the more difficult and complicated task of getting a return on his departing assets.

I was commenting on what he said on WGR. I should have been more explicit. But it wasn't his original thought because he credited to Bulldog.

Leave Paulie alone. The view that he cited came from Bulldog on the Shoop and the Bulldog Show. Some of the criticism that Paul draws is merited; and much of the scathing criticism he receives is not merited. It's not a very positive experience to handle post game interviews for the press or the players. Covering this erratic organization for a long time when the storyline is the same has to be exasperating and exhausting.

Yes.

Added to what has been said a recommendation was given on behalf of this individual who got another job.

Yes.

What the Sabres are asking for is what the Rangers are saying absolutely not to, at least according to what some people who follow the Rangers are saying.

What we do know for sure is that whatever happened was reported within the organization. Then it wasn't referred to the proper public authorities to do their job in investigating this matter.

I not only believe that Granato is the best coaching candidate for this team but also am inclined to believe that he already has been notified that he is the choice or at least the heavy favorite to be the coach. And it shouldn't be surprising that if his hiring news conference was called before the trades that it would be the focus of attention of the reporters at the conference.

You make a keen observation about fan disinterest and the disconnect between the fans and business interest in their diminished product. What is worse than antipathy is apathy. Adams is very aware of the community disinterest and it is reflected in his numerous public references to it. What does this mean from a hockey and business standpoint? It's not too difficult to conclude that he will make a number of high profile moves to jolt the organization and establish a line of demarcation between the old failed era and this new and era. From a hockey standpoint it might make more sense to reconcile the Jack issue and keep your star player in the fold. But from a business sense if you want to jolt the fan base and promote interest in a remade product making some major change makes a lot of sense. What's obvious to me is that Adams has set a course and he is determined to implement it. Where he is going to be judged is the return on the departing assets. I'm not saying anything new here. But what I am emphasizing is that the GM has set a course and he is not deviating from it. There is no question that the Buffalo franchise has been an invisible franchise on the NHL stage. As the draft approaches and the Cup series concludes I see the Sabres getting a lot of attention. That in itself is a change.

This issue was talked about on WGR. It was theorized that Granato may already be the designated coach but the public announcement is not being made until the Eichel trade is made. The reasoning/conjecture is that if a press conference was called to make the coaching announcement before the high profile trade that questions about Eichel and other trade deals would dominate the coaching hire. Does this line of thinking have merit? It makes sense but I can't say for sure.

I have heard at least three people who cover the Rangers say that under no circumstances will the team give up LaFreniere. Miller is another player that they will be unlikely to deal, while Kappo would be considered in a trade. The Rangers already have a number of top tier young players playing who in the not too distant future will require lucrative contracts. It wouldn't be difficult to fit in Eichel in their current contract structure but when the other contracts need to be upgraded his hefty long term contract will make it difficult to keep their emerging talents. My understanding is that the Rangers have a sizeable talent pool in their system who are not quite ready to play in the NHL. It doesn't seem to me that the Sabres are willing to make a deal where they give up Eichel for mostly futures. The centerpiece of a deal with any team needs to be a young player with a lot of potential who can play right away, even if the player is not ready to immediately play a prominent role. Would I be willing to trade Jack to the Rangers for LaFreniere and Kappo/Miller plus their top pick? Yes. Would they? Probably not.

Thanks for the information.

The more I think about the ROR trade and the return the more I want to blow my top. I don't care who the GM is not every trade deal or transaction is going to work out. But even with a deal that doesn't work out that doesn't mean that it has to more than marginally set you back. The ROR trade is emblematic of how badly run this franchise has been since the Pegula takeover. When there is little thought and coherency to the operation you get sustained failure.