JohnC

I understand what you are saying but I disagree with it. He was not going to get healthy until he agreed to accept medical attention. From what I remember it was the organization that helped him find the right medical services. And even when he was no longer associated with the organization it still kept in touch with him to see how he was doing. Anyone who has dealt with people with mental health problems knows that until the troubled soul is willing to acknowledge a problem and accept help for the problem the issue will remain and get worse. Lehner being dealt for a first round pick had little bearing to his health situation. And playing in Buffalo with an inadequate team and being the target of a frustrated fan base was not consequential to his personal demons. He's a NHL hockey player who plays in a stressful business in front of a large audience. It doesn't matter what city he is in because the stresses associated with playing in a pro sport is inescapable everywhere. It wasn't until Lehner received medical treatment for his complicated health issue and continued to do what he had to do (counseling and medication) to remain healthy that he turned around his life and ability to play in his chosen endeavor. My point is that playing in Buffalo or any other location wasn't at the heart of his serious problems that went beyond hockey.

Cirelli would be my #1 preference but I'm not sure he will be attainable. Another player who I think will be a good pickup and might be available with a reasonable deal is Danault. What others have said about him that would make him appealable to Krueger is that he is a good two way player. When one reviews the list posted @Curt what sticks out is that there are plenty of good primary and secondary options to consider.

If it turns out that Mitts doesn't become a capable player in the league or even becomes a player in the league he will be surpassed and replaced by other players. He not developing into what was hoped for when he was drafted will be replaced by a player like Cozens who is more likely to become a consequential player for us. That's how it works. Nylander was a disappointment and was exchanged for Joki. The young defenseman seems to be on a high trajectory. That would be a plus. Sheary and Rodriques were inconsequential players for us. The player who we got for him was Kahun. If he turns out to be a good third liner at worst and a second liner at best then roster would be upgraded. That would be a plus. In this league there is always a lot of player shuffling. What you hope for is when the plusses and minuses are added up it ends up with a positive number.

Tic-tack-goal. Pretty play. (clip taken from nhl.com) https://www.nhl.com/video/nosek-scores-on-odd-man-rush/t-277350912/c-5415391

As you indicate, and everyone else does, finding a genuine 2C is the priority for the front office. And there is an assumption that Cozens will either be the second or third center in another year or so.

Why prematurely make deals when trade options are limited compared to when the playoffs are concluded and when there will be more options? Just because Buffalo hasn't made any deals right now doesn't mean that our GM isn't communicating with teams out of the playoffs and even with teams in the playoffs to work on proposed deals. I would rather have a full menu of options than a partial menu of options.

I agree that it is more of a third line than a second line. But I think it could be a good third line that gets more production and minutes than our third lines usually get. That's why I inched it up in my evaluation of the unit. My point is with this line there will be less chasm between the lines instead of having the big drops in production from the first line to the lower lines.

You are being ridiculous. Go spend your research time on someone else.

I agree with you that Johansson is more of a winger than center. But in the short period of time the line played together last year and with the skating ability of Kahun the line meshed well. Both Kahun and Johansson have good instincts where to an extent they both could be interchangeable at the center position. If this line was assembled again I wouldn't consider it to be a second line so much as a very good third line or even a second tier second line playing behind the established second line.

My problem is not with you. As I stated before with our exchanges you and I are basically in accord. My issue is with another poster who keeps twisting my position when it is clear that it is not what I am saying. This repeated distortion by him irritated me to the point that I responded with needless vigor.

I have said all along that Botterill was fired for not going along with the downsizing. What more can I say. And I have repeatedly stated that the peripheral analytical issue as it pertained to Botterill was not a consequential factor. You keep portraying my position as if it was otherwise. It is not!

With respect to the highlighted segment about why Botterill was fired the reason you gave why he was fired is exactly what I have been saying in the dozens of my posts on this subject. So there is no disagreement on that issue. You didn't respond to what I stated. You distorted it. That's fine. There is no need to continue with this wasteful and foolish duet. Your need to always be right is tiresome. And forcing your self-declared brilliance on to others doesn't work with people who are not receptive to it.

A middle six line of Olofsson/Johansson/Kahun is a high quality middle line. It wouldn't be outlandish to consider this line as a second-tier second line type line.

I agree with most of what you stated. As you noted bigger is not always better. That is not to say that it is always not better. But by culling the staff you hopefully will make it more nimble and creative. With smaller staffs the hockey departments are more likely to be better at interacting/communicating with one another. With respect to the issue of inexperience although Adams has made a lot of new hires that doesn't mean that they are less accomplished than the people they replaced. The bottom line determining success revolves around the hockey decisions that will be made this offseason. Only time will tell. Entering this offseason I'm more encouraged than discouraged.

I disagree with you. It's clear that Botterill was fired because he was not willing to go along with the austerity program. It's easy for us to agree on that point because the reason was stated by the Pegulas. As far as the analytical issue being a significant factor for the firing that is a diversion and a manufactured rationale because analytics were already part of the evaluation system not only for the Sabres under Botts but for all teams. As far as Adams approach appearing to be different I don't know how you can say that because he hasn't made many hockey decisions yet other than staffing decisions. What we do know for sure is that he will be working with a thinned out staff because because he has no other choice. The Pegulas made the determination as to the more austere way of doing business. As I have said on numerous posts the Pegulas have a right to structure the organization any way they want. Ultimately, what is going to matter is the quality of hockey decisions made by the hockey people. It's not unreasonable to believe that a more austere operation can be more nimble and creative and make better hockey decisions than a bulkier run operation. That's what I'm hoping for.

I agree with almost all your responses with a slight difference about Botterill. The issue is as I see it is not that Botterill was adverse to an analytical approach because it is already a factor with all hockey operations. I'm sure that he was willing to cut staff but not to the extent that the Pegulas' were demanding. It certainly was going to be uncomfortable for the former GM to be forced to cut so many people that he hired. Because of the financial hemorrhaging the organization was already faced and with the gloomy future economic climate that their hockey business would have to contend with this austerity program was going to be installed no matter who was going to be the GM. It should be noted that no one outside the organization was considered for the job so it is clear that the owners had the person in hand who was going to implement what they wanted to do. I am not criticizing the owners. From a business standpoint what they did made sense. And they had a good argument that even when they were copiously spending money the results didn't come close to matching the invested resources. So altering their course of action in such a maelstrom made sense. Where I slightly deviate from your take is that I don't believe the issue of analytics was much of a factor for the GM departure. And I'm not getting caught up on how the slimmed down operation will change how things are done. The bottom line is: are Adams and his smaller staff able to make better hockey decisions that can turn the fortunes of this sputtering team? This offseason we should get a better sense of what the answer will be. As I, and others have stated, the organization is in a good situation this offseason to make some important hockey decisions. Will they sufficiently seize the opportunity? I am hopeful that they will. (I want to emphasize that for the most part our views coincide except for a difference on the emphasis on the analytical factor.)

Identifying the mistakes of the past is as easy as shooting fish in a barrel. I'm not going to get weighed down by the glaring mistakes of the past that can't be changed. This offseason the team is in a position to make some deals that upgrade the team and better balance out the roster. Will it be done? I hope so. The opportunities should be there. When you are driving and constantly have your eyes on the rear-view mirror looking to see what is behind you instead of keeping your eyes on the road to see what is in front of you what inevitably happens is you crash. My advice to people who are so sour because of the frustrations of the past is to put your energies into the possibilities of the future. I guarantee that you will be much happier.

Not having enough talent to staff two top lines is the obvious issue. Who is arguing otherwise? Who is not stressing the desperate need to bring in second line talent from the outside? Your point that the Sabres didn't win with Skinner on the top line doesn't resonate with me. What we got the previous year with Skinner on the top line is goal production. The team's floundering in his first year certainly wasn't his fault because he was fulfilling the role that he was initialing brought in for i.e. scoring goals.

The sample size was small but I was impressed with the Kahun/Johansson/Olofsson line. They seemed to mesh well highlighted by their up-tempo skating. This newly constituted line seemed to enliven Johansson and put him in a more comfortable setting. I don't consider this an A second line but it wouldn't be unreasonable to label them a 2B second line. What is evident when watching the playoffs is that most, if not all, of the successful teams have good lines beyond the top two lines. If the organization can bring in some genuine second line talent and construct that line then this team will have more secondary scoring, something it has lacked for a long time. As you noted Bott's deal for Kahun was a terrific deal as was the Joki for Nylander deal.

If you put Skinner on the Jack line it is likely that he will be in the 30-40 range. If Krueger doesn't play him with the right supporting cast he will be wasting his talent (again) to score. Skinner can skate and in tight quarters he is as nifty a skater as any player in the league. Skinner is a premier sniper and not a defensive stalwart. When you have an asset you utilize that asset; and when you have a liability you minimize it. I hope Krueger better manages this season compared to last season the abundant package that Skinner brings to the table, including his liabilities.

If you consider how you rated the players on this roster and project the addition of two second line players such as Ehlers and Danault then it is not unfair to believe that this is an upgraded and competitive roster. Of course you would have to make some subtractions and probably deal your first round pick in order to make those second line acquisitions but it is very doable. What could accelerate the positive projection are some young players making a faster than expected leap forward. What if Ullmark demonstrates that he is a solid to good #1 goalie? What if Skinner gets back to the 30 to 35 goal range? What if Joki and Kahun leap forward? These are a lot of "ifs" but all of the "if players" have already shown that they have the capacity to become established players.

There is no one deal that will turn around this team. That degree of expectation is unrealistic. But a couple to three smart deals that address some obvious needs and better balance this roster can make a big difference. If I can get a legitimate second line winger or center in a deal that requires our first round pick in the package I would take it in a nanosecond.

Excellent analysis and very illuminating. Thank you. After reading your response it seems to me that by changing the mix with a departure or maybe two within the grouping it can enhance the roles of the remaining players. And if handled smartly you can trade an asset to upgrade a deficiency somewhere else and better balance the roster. Just as I felt that Krueger mishandled Skinner I thought he didn't handle Colin Miller very well either. There was a period of time where he was watching the games from upstairs in the team box. I just think that dealing either Miller or Montour will place the remaining player in a better position to succeed.

How would you compare Montour's game with Collin Miller's? Is there an overlap in style of play? I like Montour as a 2nd pairing defenseman and not as a first pairing. As you noted in one of your bullet points it seems that under Krueger his production declined. The coach needs to reassess and adjust to the player. I make the same judgment as to how the coach handled Skinner. There should be more accentuating the talent/asset and less fretting about the deficiency.

Each year the situation is different for most teams. In addition, contract and cap considerations and roster roles constantly change. When one discusses trades it usually is more than a one for one deal. Many deals have multi-layers to it where the basic deal becomes a much more complicated and expanded deal.