JohnC

Since the Pegulas have taken over how many coaches and GMs has the organization gone through? This constant churning of staff and systems is not conducive to a stable and winning franchise. There are teams that have been involved in a rebuilding program for a shorter duration and have successfully made the arduous transition to being a serious team. Different staffs have different reconstruction philosophies that don't shorten the time in a rebuild as much as they prolong it. Based on its prolonged lackluster record Buffalo is a good example of how not to run an operation. I like the Pegulas and are glad that they became the owners. Without question they are well intentioned. However, they have been very misguided in their attempt to manage the franchise. I'm hoping that they will have learned from their mistakes.

The Sabre players that you listed with their ages indicates that they are at a young enough age to play for an extended period of time. They may be older than the players on LA but that doesn't alter the fact that the Buffalo players will be playing as established player for the foreseeable future.

Your comparison shows how well LA is transitioning its team with their young players. However, in the comparison you didn't fully show that the Sabres have also been working in youg players such as Dahlin, Joki, Olofsson, (maybe) Kahun, Ullmark and possibly Tage (as you noted) and Cozens (as you noted). My point is that when you consider that the Sabres are giving a lot of young players substantial playing time then the imbalance isn't so stark.

Your comments about Boston's ability to develop and nurture talent is a reflection of the stability and identity of the team. Compare that to the churning of coaches and GMs in the Sabre world. The standard pattern of behavior of a new GM is to undo what has been done before his ascension and then dispatching the staff throughout the system to start all over again. Players that were invested in are then disinvested in. The hallmark of successful teams such as Tampa and Boston are stability and a belief in their system. Do you remember who won the race between the turtle and the hare? Knowing where you are going and steadily moving in the right direction may not be glitzy but it is predictably the more successful approach.

He will have even more value for us or as a tradeable asset if he shows an appreciable amount improvement while with us. I'm not giving up on him or counting on him as a Buffalo contributor. This is a case where he has to show what he is capable of. In order to start that process he needs to come to camp next year (assuming he is not traded) in impeccable shape and in camp exhibit more aggressiveness to both sides of his game. As I said in a prior post probably the best course for him is to start the season in Rochester and get a lot of playing time. In my estimation that would help his development or show that he needs to be somewhere else for a fresh start.

For the most part our views coincide. One critical difference between the teams is that because the Sabre's talent pool is so much thinner than Boston's they can make personnel mistakes yet be better able to absorb those mistakes and move on. The ROR trade demonstrates the point how a Buffalo mistake can be so debilitating because of a limited roster . We are still trying to find a resolution to that damaging transaction. Another attribute of Boston is that they have a team identity that embodies rugged two way play. And they are good at finding players that fit in with their identity. (Which you have noted.) If a player is not capable or unwilling to play that punishing style then that player is moved.

Right now Casey has little value in the market. What is seen within the market is also seen outside the market. If he goes back to the AHL and upgrades his play and shows some promise then his value increases, maybe not significantly but marginally more. There is some chance, probably unlikely, that he comes into camp physically prepared and with more drive and demonstrates that he can compete and contribute on a NHL roster. With respect to your comment about Casey having a good year in Rochester and then losing him is not an issue that bothers me. If he plays well enough in Rochester he will get an opportunity with the big club. If he plays well in Rochester and we lose him in expansion then I will wish him well and be happy for him.

It's not unusual that players who have a rugged style of play have it take a physical toll on them. When they start the downslide it becomes evident. There is little chance that they can adequately regain what they lost. He's a player I would have loved to have on the roster a few years ago. Now I don't think he is worth keeping. This warhorse is battered and bruised. We need a fresher body to do what he has done in his career.

My takeaway from your post is that the best way to handle him is to start him off in the AHL and give him the time and space to develop his game. That grooming process should have happened sooner. As of right now I don't think he has much value on the market. So most likely the best way to increase his value whether he ultimately remains with the organization or not is to allow him more time to grow as a player. If he eventually develops into the player that is commensurate with his draft status it would be a terrific bonus for this franchise.

Last year the Red Wings took D Moritz Seider with the 6th pick surprising a lot of people. Each team has their own evaluations of players. So it wouldn't be surprising that Sanderson who is the top rated defenseman on many teams' board would go higher than some people think.

You have to admire the Bruins and their team ethos. They have talent on all their lines but what distinguishes them is their relentless style of play. Whether they are up or down their grinding style of play never leaves them. You have to give them credit for their collective team work ethic.

The issue isn't whether Sanderson would be a good NHL player as it would be can you get an equally good or better player at the forward spot that can better balance out your team. If you believe that one of the forwards on the board who is ranked in the same vicinity as Sanderson can be a top two line player then the selection should lean toward the forward. As others have stated we have some good d-men prospects in the pipeline such as Borgen and Johnson in addition to a surplus of blue liners on the roster. What this franchise lacks is second line forward prospects. If the Sabres had a more robust and balanced roster then the smartest and most conventional approach is to draft the best player and allow that player to develop at his own rate. My preference is if the Sabres can get a mid-twenty year old second line forward, preferably center, in exchange for our first pick or in a package I would seize the opportunity.

I'm sure that there are women who feel insulted by his comments. And I'm sure there are women who don't feel insulted by his comments. However, for those who do feel victimized by his inane comments they need to toughen up and deal with the real world. With regards to a Leaf fan making a snide remark about the Sabres my response is who freaking cares how anyone else characterizes this less than successful team. If one can't handle ridiculing words then the person who is bothered is pathetically weak and lame.

This inane comment was not going to result in damage to the company. Why would it? There was nothing wrong with his statement. It was an innocuous comment that got blown out of proportion because it resulted in some people being offended. This willingness and receptivity to being offended is one of the issues that I am complaining about. People need to toughen up and get over themselves. Some people get offended when you call them Miss instead of Ms. I can understand why some people didn't appreciate the comment. But making it rise to a job disqualifying level is not only an absurdity--- it was unfair. When his response was brought to his attention he apologized for it. What ever happened to the concept of proportionality. There are a lot of issues to get exercised over. This isn't one of them.

There are colleges that won't allow professors with different political philosophies into their economic and legal programs for fear of the backlash. There are colleges that won't allow speakers to give lectures because their countervailing views challenge the prevailing view. At one point Jerry Seinfeld said he would no longer perform at colleges because he was tired of the oppressive political correct mentality. (I'm not sure if he has changed his stance on performing at colleges?) So the notion that Mike Milbury made an outdated comment about the bubble. There was little that was wrong with it other than it was a little cringe worthy. Milbury was not fired for boorish behavior. He was fired for a comment that was out of tune with more modern views. There is a difference between bad behavior and his comments. He clearly didn't mean anything untoward. I understand what your position is but I disagree with it.

If Milbury no longer performed at an acceptable standard then his contract should not be renewed. I have no problem with that. He has been on the air for years and he is a known quantity by the company he works for. His job is not to call the game as it is to offer commentary. His job isn't to be bland but to provoke. The comment he made about women not being in the bubble was in my opinion stupid but not malicious. It was an outdated view but far from being misogynistic. As I said in prior posts the more pernicious problem is creating an environment that stifles the free flow of views out of fear of be out of step of the prevailing way of thinking. People who are in the "talking business" are not always judicious in what they say. I'm not bothered by it as much as others. I have the ability to counter the view or ignore the view and tune out.

I appreciate your well thought out and expressed response. I'll only respond to a couple of the main points. With respect to who to blame for the damaging trade I don't solely blame the GM. It's my belief (opinion) that the owner required the GM to deal him before the the bonus was due. That's the core of my complaint about the deal that has had such a lingering bad effect. There is nothing unusual about players being disgruntled. That's an inevitable part of the landscape in a business composed of talented people with strong personalities. I'm aware that I am judging this transaction in hindsight, and that is easy to do. But there is no way that even with foresight that this was going to be a good deal for us. The return for one of the best two way players in the league was in my estimation grossly inadequate. We all recognize how difficult it is to come up with a credible 2C trade scenario and what it would take to accomplish it. Why did this happen? The reason why it happened as it did because it was a rushed deal. Reacting to the impending bonus due didn't allow for a fuller exploration of the market. As I said before the best way to have handled this disgruntled player was to have a cooling off period and then a forthright discussion between the conflicting parties. I'm placing the onus more on the organization than the unhappy player. With respect to your point how ROR should have been handled with captaincy and in general my response is very indelicate. I'm not worried about his sensitivities and whether he should be the top dog or supporting dog. My muscular response to him is: shut up and play! If you are feeling sad and blue about your status and the team you are my response is: tough shiit! The forcing of the issue should have been on a timetable that allowed the organization to get the best return on their asset if an irreversible decision was made to move him. You cite Boston as an example to follow. I totally agree. What Boston has demonstrated is that when you have a well rounded roster you have more options. If a transaction turns out bad you can easily absorb that mistake. What Buffalo has demonstrated is that when you have a thin and imbalanced roster your options are limited. When a transaction such as the ROR deal goes bad your limited roster has less ability to absorb that mistake. The moral of the story: talent prevails.

You are without question missing my point. Milbury didn't make a comment that reached the disqualifying level that Brennaman said about gays while calling a baseball game. He should have been immediately relieved of his duties. There was nothing misogynistic about Milbury's comment. It certainly was an outdated view but no malice or crudeness was intended. Your comment about the confederate flag makes my point. I agree with you on your position but I disagree with you that just because someone has a different view and perspective on it that they shouldn't be allowed to express it. Your comment about me being an ideologue says more about you than it does about me. Based on your comment I'm clearly less ideological than you are because I'm willing to be receptive to other view points where you are less receptive to them. That is a classic attribute of an ideologue.

You are making a comment that underscores my point. I have no issue with anyone disagreeing with a comment or even finding it to be distasteful. What I find tiresome is the notion that if someone says something that one disagrees with or is uncomfortable with then the reaction should be that the microphone should be taken away from that person. To me that is an overreaction. The comment that Milbury made was not a very bright or classy comment. It wasn't a crude comment but it could be taken as a boorish comment. In my opinion it didn't reach the level of disqualifying him from his job. As I have stated in other posts the bigger danger than listening to verbal gaffes is that an oppressive climate of judgment is being created that stifles speech and thought. I'm not a Milbury in the booth fan. But I don't think he said anything that was so outrageous that should have gotten him cashiered from his job.

There is nothing unusual about a player not being happy with his situation and wanting out. If that was the case then it was incumbent on the organization to get equal value back in a trade. This deal was rushed because a bonus was coming due. If they couldn't get a fair-value deal then the team should have just kept him until a good enough deal materialized. If the player remained unhappy because he felt stuck the organization should have told him to his face: Tough shiit!

The problem I had with the ROR saga is not that he got traded so much as the return. By a number of accounts this transaction was rushed because of the impending bonus time line. My sense is that the owner wanted him gone before the bonus came due. In my estimation if the organization was determined to trade him the smarter approach would have been to pay the bonus and then take the additional time to scan the market. There was a story that Carolina was willing to deal for him but weren't willing to do so if they had to pay the bonus. My criticism as much if not more so relates to the execution of the transaction than the particular transaction. Paul Hamilton when with WGR stated after the deal that it was evident to him that ROR was behaving in ways that indicated that he didn't want to be with the club. He noted that the player who was known to be the last off the ice for practice was not exhibiting that same practice work ethic. So targeting him to be dealt in order to shake up the room is not a surprise. The criticism I am directing to the organization relates to when it was done, how it was done and the return.

Again, you are misinterpreting/misrepresenting what I said. Your hypothesis is not my hypothesis. The organization that includes the owner and GM overreacted by dealing him for pennies on the dollar. The reactionary response by the organization set back this team then, and to this day has had negative repercussions that has not been overcome. The more appropriate and judicious response should have called for a cooling off period and then a meeting with the frustrated player.

You are mistaken that I have a blind spot on this cancel culture mentality. I'm very aware of what my position is and why I hold to it. You are correct that my stance over Roenick is very similar. Both Milbury and Roenick are commentators who are hired not to be bland but to have an edge to them. Do they periodically go over the line? Undoubtedly yes. Milbury sometimes says foolish things. So what! When you are on the air for many hundred if not thousands of hours it is not surprising that foolish things are said. The bigger issue for me is that there is a growing mind-set that if someone says something controversial or stupid the morality mob is ready with the rope to lynch the offending party. Creating a climate of fear to express one's thoughts is a bigger problem than saying dumb things. Again, that is not a blind spot---it is something I am very conscious of.

Let's move on. It's pointless to continue on with this issue.

What are you disagreeing with?