JohnC

It hasn't been rebuked. We are in a good position to make our cap situation even better this offseason than many cap stressed teams are. In addition, if you bring in a player that doesn't mean that another player isn't exiting. A little finagling can go far if you are smart about it.

I'm confident that under the threat of being waterboarded you would be more willing to talk??

I'm sure your source is credible regarding the pursuit of a 2C. So I have no intention of dismissing your inside knowledge. But targeting certain centers especially on capped strapped teams isn't a revelation. And it isn't surprising that in the pursuit of a center the Sabres have preferences. But in all potential trades the issue isn't only who you want but what you are willing to give up. Would the Sabres be willing to accept their second preferred center over their first preferred player if the cost were significantly less? Of course they would. Overly stripping a thin team for an addition might solve a problem at the expense of creating another problem. There should be no surprise that there have been, are now, and continue to be talks with numerous teams about players. Organizations are constantly talking amongst themselves. It's standard practice for all organizations to have these exploratory discussions. Leaning towards or locking onto a deal now doesn't seem like a smart way especially when the playoffs are over the trade options will increase. (Not saying that is what you are suggesting.) Because of the Sabres favorable cap situation they are in a good situation to make roster boosting deals. This is going to be an exciting offseason with a lot of speculative trades being mentioned. I'm hoping that this new front office will make the right personnel decisions that will get this team in a better position to seriously compete.

I'm a believer in the draft and develop philosophy as the best approach to building a successful operation. That philosophy assumes a proficiency in evaluating prospects. As you point out this organization has been deficient on that score. However, this year I am more receptive to trading our (relatively) high first round pick if it individually or packaged brings back a genuine second line player. Hopefully, the return would be a # 2 center but I'm willing to accept a winger if it is a young and established high yield player. Make no mistake in interpreting what I'm stating here. I'm not advocating that this franchise has to act out of desperation to address a major need. If a fair value deal can't be made then stay the course and make secondary type deals to more incrementally improve and better balance the roster.

If Kahun becomes a 2nd line player then the trade that Botts made was a gem. Even if he becomes a third line player it will be an upgrade on a lower and more contributing line. As I said in a prior post I was intrigued with the Johansson/Kahun/Olofsson line with Johansson and Kahun being interchangeable between center and winger.

What's your assessment on Kahun. I thought when he was on a line with Johansson and Olofsson that he demonstrated that he could skate and create opportunities. For the short time that they were together at the end of the season I thought they fit well together. Getting a few young players such as Kahun and Tage to show that they can play as good third line players and shake up the roster mix for the lower lines.

If he becomes a solid third line forward then it is a useful role. One of the glaring deficiencies for this team has been the lack of scoring beyond the first line. So he can help in that area. And as you noted there is a possibility that he can develop into a second line winger. (I'm less confident of that higher role.) The ROR deal and calculations are in the past. Too many people use that boondoggle deal to color their perception of TT. It takes time for tall and lanky prospects to physically fill out and be able to play against NHL men. It sure would be nice for him to be ready to make the adjustment.

Maybe a double poop emoji can be used to express the sentiment???

They did cancel the game in Philly. https://www.mlb.com/news/marlins-orioles-yankees-phillies-postponed

Have you given up on Mitts as a 3C?

Terrific breakdown. As you noted players such as Bjorkstrand and Wennberg can be attained for reasonable prices. Instead of trying to make a blockbuster type deal that will strip a thin roster a couple of (somewhat) reclamation projects could be terrific bargain pickups. The approach that you describe in your breakdown that I am more disposed toward is that there are secondary type players who would be terrific value pickups that add to the roster without much diminishing the roster.

Krueger has frequently praised the play of Risto. And he has demonstrated his confidence in him by playing him maximum minutes even after stating that he would like to lower his minutes. At the end of tight games Risto most likely was on the ice. And it is very likely that with Adams as the GM Krueger will have a major say in assembling this roster.

I'm in the distinct minority but I'm willing to throw Cozens immediately into the fray and have him be our 2C with the expectation that another forward can be added to the second line to make it more credible.

I'm not expecting a top line player just for Risto. However, if I throw in a first round pick then I want a first line player or no deal.

If the players are the caliber of players that you judge them to be then I would be hesitant to deal Risto while open to deal Montour in this exchange. I'm open to trading Risto but I want to get better value for him.

Are Kerfoot and Kapanen considered second-line talent? If they aren't I would not make the proposed deal.

I never understood the logic that because a team has struggled it was imperative to get rid of players for the sake of change. If a player isn't a reason for the team's struggles then why feel compelled to jettison the player for the sake of a change. Maybe the better approach would be is to add more talent so the player/s will be in a better situation to win. There will be changes made to this roster. Few people, if any, believe that it would be smart to continue with the status quo. The right approach is not to shed players for the sake of change but to get the right mix of players that will better balance your imbalanced roster.

The Sabres are not a free agent destination. They never were. That's well known by the organization and won't be the primary approach to improving the team. The team is more likely going to rely on trades, and if it is going to get involved in free agency it won't be for the top echelon players on the market. The second tier free agent players will be targeted. In addition, young players such as Tage, Cozens and Mittelstadt will be given opportunities to contribute. Not all of them will rise to the occasion but the opportunities will be there for them. There are a number of teams that will be squeezed by their cap situation. The Sabres are in a good situation to capitalize on that situation by working out some good deals.

Adding players such as Simmonds and Frolic were basically stopgap acquisitions. Just because you have some cap money to work with doesn't mean that the players you might want to add in the present time are available at that time. You bring up three players such as Simmonds, Frolic and Vesey. They were all added with short term contracts. If you categorize them as garbage that's fine. None of them are worth debating over because that garbage will be gone this season leaving the Sabres in a position (hopefully) to make some impactful deals to fill their spots.

Reworking the contract structure of the team was not going to be done quickly. The contracts that he brought in were mostly short term contracts. He was not looking for the quick fix. It took time to get to the point where we are now. I'm not saying that the former GM didn't make mistakes. He certainly did. But his strategy about contracts and the cap was the right strategy. I do believe that relatively the Sabres are in a good cap situation now. And that is how he planned it.

The majority of the players that he brought in were on short term deals. There is no question that for the short term the cap was tight because his strategy was to have the short term cap stretching contracts expire in the near future so he would have greater flexibility to rework the roster. And that is exactly what happened! Botterill was never going for the quick fix. In handling contracts he was strategic and not tactical. And now the Sabres are in a good situation, the place where he wanted to be. I disagree with you on the handling of the Reinhart contract. Reinhart is a good player who is going to earn a large contract because he demonstrated the caliber of player he is. But it was not imprudent for the GM to challenge Reinhart and through his play earn the big contract. And that's what Reinhart did. How many times has this befuddled franchise rewarded players with long term contracts only to have them fade as players once the lengthy contract is linked? The bridge contract that Reinhart got was not only the right approach for the organization to take it was the right approach for Reinhart. The Sabres are now in a position to bring in players. Not all teams are in that favorable situation. You might find that problematic but I don't.

It was not about the past. It was about the future. Most of the pedestrian players he brought in were short term remedies to get to a situation where he could make better long term investments. Time ran out for him. Now its' up to Kueger/Adams to take advantage of the favorable situation.

Whatever complaints people have about Botterill the one thing he did do is put this franchise in a good financial position to be in a good situation to rework the roster. Would he have taken an advantage of the situation that he painstakingly put this team? That is debatable. But to his credit he didn't go for the quick short term fix that Murray most likely would have taken. Now that Adams/Krueger are at the helm they are in a position to reshape the roster to their liking. It will be interesting to see what their visions are in roster building and what transactions they are going to make this offseason.

Tampa has a financial cap puzzle to work out whether they decide to retain Cirelli or if they move him. If they retain him they will shed players and contracts. If they acquire a player for him and picks the contract that they will bring in will probably be less than the contract that Cirelli would garner if signed. The point is Tampa will have to shed contracts whether they retain him or not.

If the trade was upgraded to Risto plus our first for Cirelli I would make the deal. If a trade was proposed for Cozens and our #1 I would say no.