JohnC

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.

Attached is a 10 min interview with David Pagnotta from the Fourth Period on WGR with Howard Simon talking about potential trades for Buffalo and players available on the market. He brought up Laine from Winnipeg and noted that Ehlers would probably be a better fit for the Sabres because he is a more well rounded player. He talked about Domi and some other players and their availability. He brought up the Risto trade value and that Winnipeg would be interested in him. This is some good hockey trade talk. https://www.radio.com/wgr550/authors/howard-and-jeremy

I was just pointing out that ultimately he has the last say on this issue. I didn't suggest that you were saying otherwise.

I agree with you that Lazar is a step down from Larsson and their talents don't equate with one another. And I also agree with you that due to Larsson's established role that it has inhibited his offensive talents. And that is why I believe that Larsson as a free agent will decide to move on to go to a team that offers him more opportunity to expand his game. His primary role as a defensive stalwart is established. He is certainly not an offensive dynamo but there is room for his offensive role to grow. Larsson recognizes that. And that is the reason why I believe that he will make the decision to move on and seek a fresher pasture. Or to put it in a lesser wordy manner: We agree on the Larsson issue.

There's no question that Larsson is a better player than Lazar on a variety of fronts. As you noted he is a more of smothering defensive player who is called on to control the best offensive players. And as you and others have previously noted he does have the ability to show more offensively than his current role and the players he is joined with allow for. But the reality of the offseason and the market is that you can't control and retain all the players you want to. Career-wise Larsson playing for Buffalo from an individual player perspective has to an extent stifled his talents. For sure he is not going to be a prolific offensive player but his role has restricted his numbers. And he is certainly is aware of that. The issue here isn't does Buffalo want to keep as it is does he want to stay. From a career standpoint I don't think he believes that it is in his best interest. (My opinion.) I would love to have him stay because he adds an element of toughness that this team lacks.

I slightly disagree with your take about Larsson. It should be noted that I am a Larsson fan and recognize that he adds an element of toughness that this team lacks. But if he isn't retained I believe that Lazar can adequately fill his role. He might not be as good as Larsson but his style of play can compensate for his loss. I would definitely prefer a top 6 winger who not only would elevate the second line but push down another player to a lower line.

I say this with no equivocation: Unless talent is added from the outside this team is doomed to continue meandering on its road to nowhere meaningful. In my opinion this team needs two second line caliber additions in order to be taken seriously. I believe it is doable because we do have the assets to parlay in order to better balance this very imbalanced roster.

This is a very smart post. I'm sure you know that your thesis applies to all goalies on all teams. The better the team and the more defensively oriented it is the more effective your goalie is going to be. As you are indicating a goalie playing for a team like the Islanders with their defensive orientation is more likely to have consistent and effective goaltending. Can a prolific scoring team win more than a defensive oriented team? Yes, in the regular season. However, when the regular season ends and the playoffs start then your suggested constructive team is more likely to succeed with a tighter played game. I agree with your observation and take on Krueger. He wants a lineup full of responsible players who are aware of their defensive responsibilities not only when they are in their defensive zone but also to a lesser extent when they are in their offensive zone. What he doesn't seem to have an affinity for are players who are floaters. And because of that inclination he doesn't seem to have much affection for Skinner. Where I have a nuanced difference with your astute comments is that Ullmark's progression as a player is very much in his own hands. He's not an island onto himself as a player but to a degree he is. I'm hoping that his progression as a goalie continues but I'm not sure.

Goalies are an odd lot. Sometimes you think that one is on an upward trajectory, and then surprisingly slides back. Sometimes an inconsistent goalie is dealt and then shines in the new location, and then shortly thereafter falls back to the lower pack. Last year, Binnington was the stalwart player who was instrumental in the Blues winning the cup. This year he slid back. You just don't know other than how important that position is for success.

I'm confident that the front office is going to address the 2C position and upgrade the second line this offseason. I also believe that the roster is going to be boosted by the internal improvement of our young players such as Kahun, Joki, Dahlin, Olofsson, Tage etc. The biggest factor that will determine success will be the quality of our goaltending. Will Ullmark be sufficient as a #1 goalie? I don't know. I realize that Hutton had a down year last season but as a sparsely to moderately used backup I consider him adequate enough. My sense is that the organization is going to stick with the current tandem in goal. In my estimation Ullmark is going to be the most important player determining whether this franchise is able to get out of its extended rut.

I'm a Larsson fan. His hardnosed style of play is what is lacking on this mostly soft team. However, from the player's perspective the right thing to do is go to another team and start fresh. For the past couple of years he has had to endure a stale situation for his game. Although he's on an effective checking and defensive line his personal game has been stifled because of the offensive limitations of his wingers. I don't consider Larsson a genuine 2C. But on the Sabres he should have been given more opportunities to play as a 2C with wingers who were more adept on offense than his regular playing mates. He was never going to be a prolific scorer but he did have more to draw from in his offensive game. It simply was not tapped into here. I'm sure he is smart enough to realize that he needs a change of scenery. Coaches such as Trotz and Tortorella, among a lot of other coaches, would love to have him on their teams.

The future contract issue is something that I am concerned with. I'm open to trading for any player/s that improves the roster. There is no debating that the second line and especially the 2C position needs to be addressed. I'm excited about what the transactions will be this offseason to upgrade and rework the roster.

If you had a choice between trading for Danault or Domi which player would you deal for? Factoring in the selection would be the cost for the deal and the contracts carried now and in the future for each player. My sense is that Krueger does not like players who freelance compared to responsible two way players. Skinner seems to be a less favored Krueger player because he is more inclined to float.. Maybe Danault would be a more favored target by the Sabre braintrust?

Thank you for your response. When I made my comment about the primary reason for the former GM's firing I was pilloried by many. Terry and Kim stated that they had on going conversations with the GM after the season about their desire to restructure (downsize) the organization without getting him to agree to it. He was then fired. What's obvious is obvious. Even Inspector Clouseau could figure this out. https://www.bing.com/videos/search?q=inspector+clouseau&docid=608014713287279278&mid=74E5BAB25A8BD316DE7474E5BAB25A8BD316DE74&view=detail&FORM=VIRE

In the top 5-12 players which players are capable of playing in the NHL in their first year, and which players could be ready to play in their 2nd yr, and which players could be ready by their third year?

Let's get back to talking hockey. It's more enjoyable than talking about the imperfect process of a forum.

I texted the dear leader to see if he was interested in serving as a monitor. He quickly said yes. He also stated that he has no qualms with dissenters because he has a disposable and vanishing way of handling the dissenters. ☠️ https://www.bing.com/search?q=picture+of+north+korea+leader&cvid=f72cc3078fdb42eb830b6616cc8d7591&pglt=43&FORM=ANSPA1&PC=HCTS

You hit it on the mark. It is a thankless responsibility that less than a few people are willing to do. Regardless who is monitoring the room there will be some dissatisfaction on how it is run. I'm not denigrating anyone who has a complaint about how the job is being done. There is validity to some of the criticisms. But as someone else noted unless the monitoring is grossly erratic and unfair (and that is not the case here) the most reasonable remedy would be to adjust to the umpire. To those who step up and volunteer to be monitors I say thank you.

Who is volunteering to do that unappealing chore?

Each moderator is going to exercise their own judgment. While you would prefer to allow the discussions to play out on their own, others might prefer a quicker cessation or movement of the disputed topic so that it doesn't spill over to constant rancorous exchanges. Again, it is an exercise in making judgments. That's what moderators do. No one is going to completely agree with a moderator's judgment. Some moderator's prefer a looser format while others prefer a tighter format. However, if one is to give more allowance to someone I'm going to give it to the person who volunteers to do that thankless task. In addition, if you believe a particular moderator is repeatedly exhibiting a judgment/behavior that you find troubling, then PM the person and express those concerns.

The last thing you need is not to have any moderating of a forum. Problems don't take care of themselves. On the contrary they escalate into personal feuds and a breakdown in civil discourse. Factions develop and silos become more impenetrable. Can moderators be biased? Yes they can. But even when there is an observable leaning that doesn't mean that a moderator can't reasonable carry out his/her function. I'm relatively new here. Overall, I have no major complaints how this place is moderated. It is a thankless job that is more likely to attract criticisms than expressions of appreciation. If someone feels that the moderator is not treating him/her fairly then express your complaint and then move on. As far as posters leaving for whatever reason/s--- that is their prerogative. If one gets so aggravated over a discussion in which they have the ability to not participate in then their choosing to leave the site is their decision and right.

Even when Larsson played with his regular linemates he created scoring chances forcing the action and driving to the net. However, there weren't enough supporting finishers. I agree with you that if he regularly played on a line with Skinner his numbers would be much better. But even acknowledging that I don't see Larsson as a 2C. Maybe as a temporary fill-in but not as a regular on a Skinner line. Larsson is a feisty and edgy player. This team doesn't have enough tough players. I hope the organization keeps him.

If you had Larsson centering for better scoring wings his production would easily be in the range that you would hope for. His current role centering between Girgensons and Okposo is more of a checking and defensive role. If he played with a winger such as Skinner, Olofsson or Reinhart his points would definitely go up. The line he is playing on is arguably playing its role as well as any line in the rotation, maybe even better than the top line. It is admittedly a limited and defined role but it is fulfilling its role exceptionally well. I'm not suggesting that Larsson would ever be a prolific scorer but he certainly could be a more contributing scorer with different linemates.

Thank you for the post. As Lysowski points out if option A type of players can't be acquired there are some reasonable option B type of players that could be available at reasonable prices. Arranging big deals to get Monahan or Cirelli are going to be tough to work out. But getting one of those secondary type talents would still upgrade our second line and allow us to not only retain some of our other players but also allow us to parlay them for additional help.

Whether you are talking sports, race, social issues, economics, sports stadiums and who should pay for them etc. politics is inescapably intertwined with most topics. There is an option for people who find any discussion tainted by politics distasteful: Don't respond and don't get involved with the topic. It's as simple as that. Bringing passion to an issue, pro or anti, to these type of discussions doesn't lessen the political nature of the discussion but rather intensifies and prolongs it. There are plenty of topics on this board to choose from. If a particular topic is so irritating there is an obvious solution to the problem. Simply avoid it. One person who declared he was forever leaving this site because he found the intrusion of politics on a sports site so repugnant then gave an extended eloquent response why he chose to leave. That reaction was perplexing. Why even bother to get involved with an issue when there is an option to avoid it?