JohnC

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.

There is a difference between earthly rumors and Martian out of this world rumors. ?

If someone has a history of being a sexual harasser and is publicly outed what usually follows is a flood stream of anonymous stories about the abuser. If a person has a reputation for inappropriate behavior it will come out. I am not aware of any stories about Roenick being involved in such bad behavior.

Odds are that the Sabres will work out a deal to get a 2C player. I'm not sure the acquisition will meet your lofty standards. When you can't afford a Mercedes Benz then you have to be willing to accept a higher end Toyota.

Cozens is in no way, shape or form a Grigorenko caliber of prospect. Cozens is a better talent, in better shape and much more mature.

I'm not against adding a center who can play the 2C spot. I don't know anyone here who is. But the issue comes down to what is the cost. Much of the discussion here revolves around the Cirelli fixation. It's probable that he will be re-signed in Tampa. And if he is moved it is still unlikely that he will end up in Buffalo. The Cirelli plan needs to be placed where it should be place i.e. the fantasy world of make believe. Cozens will come into camp and will show where he is at as a NHL player. I'm confident that his rush to the NHL is not a reprise of the Mittelstadt rush to the league. Mitts was simply not ready then and maybe (hope not) isn't ready now. I know you are not receptive to the idea about Cozens being assigned to the second line but I'm more open than most. What I'm not willing to do is strip this thin team for a 2C when the hope is that Cozens will be ready to assume that spot in his second year.

If the Sabres can't get a 2C from the market because the price is too rich then a fallback position could be to bring in a very good second line winger and give Cozens a chance to center that line. If he is not quite ready then a short term veteran could be brought in as a temporary center solution for the second line. I'm more open and willing than most here to throw Cozens in the second center mix.

Cozens is on my no touch list. I'm willing to deal my first round pick to get a second line center or winger. But I wouldn't accept the offer you propose. So work on another proposal to get Cirelli who I believe is on Tampa's must retain list.

I appreciate your response and excellent analysis. But I disagree with you. He's a 20 yr old with upside. (my opinion) Because of his youth is why I am placing more value on him than most others. Joki is not a flashy player and going to dazzle you like Dahlin. He is more of a steady and smart player who plays with maturity beyond his age. In fact, he has shown some indications that he has some growth potential to the offensive side of his game. If you are willing to be patient you will be surprised with how more expansive his game will be.

I agree with you that it would be cool if Toronto decided to play in Buffalo. However, it seems that the players are resistant to playing in a minor league stadium because the accommodations don't satisfy them. The attached link is a 13 minute plus segment of a reporter who follows the Blue Jays talking on WGR about the issue of where they might play. Regarding the Buffalo location it is the players who are nixing the deal. That is not to say that it won't happen but it is unlikely. https://wgr550.radio.com/media/audio-channel/07-20-tsn-blue-jays-reporter-scott-mitchell

Unless there is more information behind the scenes it seems that he was fired for his singular juvenile comments on a radio show about two colleagues who he is friends with. I have not heard any comments that Roenick has a history of improper behavior relating to sexual harassment. It's not unusual that more is going on about an incident and individual that the public is privy to. So I won't dismiss that possibility. However, I just haven't heard anyone (anonymous or not) coming forward complaining how he conducts himself.

Being a lawyer or a person experienced in HR doesn't mean that there is only one valid opinion on this topic of discussion. For every lawyer that says it is up---there are other lawyers who say it is down. Unanimity is not guaranteed or automatic within this profession or outside of it. When you are talking about the law and its application judgment is intrinsically part of the equation. That's why there are two tables seating two different views in the courtroom.

As you seem to suggest Girgs is more likely to leave than Larsson. Larsson certainly has a role as a defensive presence but if he departs there are many market options that are reasonably priced that can replace him. Your pegging his market value at the $2-2.25 range seams reasonable. I wouldn't be surprised that players such as Girgs and Larsson with moderate contract valuations might prefer to leave the Sabres simply for the reason that they need a fresh start and more positive outlook on another team. Another factor that might argue to move both of these players is that one of the deficiencies this team needs to address is having more scoring from the lower lines. As it stands there isn't much of a contribution made by the secondary lines. That's why I wouldn't be surprised to see both players wearing different uniforms next year.

We are going in circles. There is not much more that I can add to what I have already stated. For me the issue isn't that Roenick behaved properly or not as it is the proportionality of the response. I respectfully disagree with your position.

Sue for what? A colleague and a friend made boorish comments about her and another male colleague. She was not harassed on the job. It's not even known if she was offended or simply took it as her friend Jeremy behaving as he is known to behave in a rambunctious manner. You bring up the issue of the network being liable? Liable for what? For juvenile behavior of an employee on a single appearance on a jock radio show? The notion of the possibility of a valid (your word) lawsuit is an absurdity. On what basis would they as a company be liable for an employee making foolish comments on a jock radio show? This is one crude incident in which he acted like a high school juvenile. As I said it before it's my opinion the response for firing Roenick is out of proportion to the poor judgment. Don't you find it surprising that the two people who have not criticized Roenick for his comments are the two colleagues, male and female, he was joking about. There are plenty of things for the trigger happy boycott crowd to be upset with. However, this single act of immaturity shouldn't be an incident worthy of pumping up the manufactured outrage industry. note: I didn't intend to highlight my response. Something went wrong in the posting that inadvertently highlighted the post. I apologize for that.

A colleague and friend who makes a raunchy comment about her and another colleague in a bad attempt of humor on a jock radio show does not constitute or come close to constituting a hostile work environment. You are extrapolating a boorish incident outside of the workplace beyond its significance. As far as his legal position I never said that he had a credible legal position.

Why would Tappen sue NBC over raunchy comments made by Roenick? They were colleagues and friends. She vacationed with Roenick and his wife in Portugal. If she was upset with his comments she would have discussed the matter with him and made her feelings known and resolved the issue between them. Roenick on a radio show known for its free wheeling made a gross comment about not only her but another male media colleague. It was a bad attempt at humor. I haven't heard Tappen say that she felt victimized and humiliated by Roenick's comments. (That's not to say she wasn't upset with him. I don't know? If you can point out any comments she made about the episode I would consider it.) As I stated in a prior post Roenick is a loud and brash personality. That's why he was on the set; that's why he was hired. There's an overriding issue here that I find troubling. It goes beyond this incident but is reflected in this incident. There is a too quick "boycott" response if a person has a particular political or values leaning. The pouncing on mistakes and bad judgments that are inevitable in the communication business is becoming too common place. Both sides of the political spectrum are actively involved in this receptivity to be outraged. That's the bigger issue that bothers me

What has she said and done after the comments that indicates she wants to legally pursue the matter?

He clearly made inappropriate comments on a radio or podcast show. That's not an issue that I'm disputing. After the storm about his comments about Tappen he pointed out that he knew her beyond the studio. He pointed out that he and his wife have gone out to dinner with Tappen. So there was an acquaintance with him and his wife. Roenick is a loud and rambunctious person. It's safe to say that he was hired not to be a clinical analyst on the set but to be a lively personality who was there to be provocative. The show in which Roenick made his comments was the type of show where the decorum boundaries get stretched. That's the context in which he made those comments. He was trying to be funny and it came back to bite him. I don't believe that he was trying to be malicious or deliberately hurt anyone. It was a poor attempt at humor in a loose setting. It's my opinion that he clearly he used poor judgment in making those comments. If he would have been suspended I would have considered that a more reasonable disciplinary response by the company.

You make an interesting point regarding our goaltending situation. The most important player for us that will determine success is Ullmark. Is he developed enough and good enough? I hope so but can't say for sure.

Why do you think he was hired in the first place? Because he is a genteel and sophisticated personality? Roenick's edgy personality when he was a player and behind the mike were well established and known by everyone in the hockey world. That's why he was hired! He wasn't hired to give powder puff commentary. He was on the set to be edgy. Did he cross the line? Of course he did. So what! If his transgressions were a common occurrence where he was constantly being spanked by his bosses then I have no problem with his ignominious departure. If it wasn't a pattern of behavior then in my opinion he shouldn't have been fired.

He got carried away with his stupid locker room bantering. No one is saying that it was appropriate. Unless there was an accumulation of stupid comments and he was dismissing the warnings of his bosses I thought this situation could have been dealt with in a less punitive manner. We simply disagree on this issue.

People who are in front of the mike a lot are inevitably going to say stupid stuff. Even people who are not "predisposed" (as you state) are at times going to say something foolish and offensive. If he has a history of saying inappropriate things and has been warned about it by his bosses and ignores the warnings then there are consequences. If he is such a liability in front of the mike then don't hire him or renew his contract. What intensifies the "offensive " comments are that they are then constantly being re-looped by other outlets. What I find troubling is this quick resorting to boycott in a variety of forms with someone who affiliates with someone you don't like or says something that you disagree with. If you don't like what is being said then turn the dial and find another outlet. The quick draw resorting to "cancelling" out is becoming too prevalent to the extent that it is stifling communication.

Sometimes when you read what a person said on TV or radio it appears to be outrageous and unacceptable. But what is often left out is the where the comment was made such as on a shock jock radio show where the environment is freewheeling and juvenile. When something is said in a restaurant/bar scenario among friends (including both sexes) the bantering can get real loose to the point of being raunchy with no one being offended and taking the comments as being demeaning. My understanding is that Roenick and his wife were friends with the people he commented on. My point here is that although he said something that he shouldn't have on the airways the magnitude of the indiscretion is raised by the intensity of this swirling social media world.