JohnC

When forming a consensus what you want in the room are people who have independent views and are willing to argue on behalf of their positions even if it goes against conventional wisdom. You don't have to accept them but if the person has credibility and a strong rational behind his views you should seriously consider them. What it comes down to is that you are not challenging people so much as you are challenging ideas. If you only have people in the room who are too willing to conform rather than independently think then you are going to have less creativity and more mediocrity. A good leader is a good listener and is willing to hear many views before making a decision.

I strongly recommend that you keep your pants on if asked for proof of your condition. This is a TMI situation. In this case public ignorance is very appropriate.

I'm not sure how it applies in this mask scenario? As an example if you have children and the school system requires you to have proof that they have the required vaccinations you have to provide the school with the medical documentation.

It's obvious that this trade was a disaster and has had a lingering damaging effect on the team. For the sake of argument if it were Terry P who forced the trade to be made prior to the bonus being paid it put the GM in a difficult position because he couldn't publicly state that it was the owner who created this boondoggle. I suspect now that Botterill is no longer associated with the team that it will come out who was responsible for this ridiculously unbalanced deal.

I will now take the opportunity to ask the esteemed hirsute reporter if you believe Botterill would have been retained if he was more receptive to the restructuring (thinning out) of the hockey operation? Or another way of saying it is when you are not receptive to the boss's suggestion/request you are looked at less favorably by your superiors and put in a very precarious position.

I have heard multiple NHL analysts say that if you are drafting in the top ten to maybe 12 you will have an opportunity to select a very good prospect. Almost all of them are unanimous about the top three with the next grouping of 7 or so players jockeying for position with each other.

The mask rule is actually simple to enforce if the rules are clear and unambiguous with few exceptions. And it needs to originate from the state government with the force of the law/regulations behind it. If you allow exceptions then you are sabotaging the efficacy of the law. If in the very rare case that there is a legitimate medical reason not to wear a mask then a doctor's note should be required. That would stop most of the fakers from trying to skirt the mask rule.

I didn't take it as you suggesting that we shouldn't bring in Dudley. It would be interesting to know what Dudley's plans are now that he is no longer associated with Carolina? I'm wondering if he wants to get back into the grind or be more of of a consultant who works at a more leisurely schedule. He certainly would be a good resource for a young GM and a less than fully staffed scouting department to rely on.

Having his experienced voice in the room when considering trades and draft prospects would be an asset . Even if he isn't the decision maker his point of view would be invaluable in an offseason most of us expect/hope trades will be made to strengthen the roster.

The Home Depot in Maryland that I go to requires masks to enter and they limit the number of people in the establishment at one time. Maryland and the county I live in require masks for indoor activities. What I noticed at this particular Home Depot is that it had to post a security person at the entrance in order to enforce the mask rule. This individual ignorance and selfishness is getting tough to tolerate.

If we keep the pick regardless what teams do who draft ahead of us we will get a good player. What we should be hoping for is a team or two ahead of us select a defenseman so one of the high quality forwards will still be on the board to select from. Most of the analysts indicate that the top three picks will be upper tier prospects and predictable selections. Right now I prefer to keep the pick unless that pick can be used in a trade for a high quality young second line forward.

I consider Risto's contract a reasonable and fair value contract for him. It is probable that Tampa will have to move out players to retain Cirelli. This is a smart and well run franchise. They will get it done. If it were a future #1 I would make the deal. If it was this year's #1 I wouldn't.

The ROR deal was a boondoggle for us. It's remarkable how one bad deal could have such a negative lingering effect. The lesson to be learned in that deal is not to be forced to move a player until you can get fair value for that player. Miller is a good player. However, I wouldn't be willing to give up this year's first round draft pick for him.

In general our views in this topic are in alignment.

When you talk about trading for a top tier 2C there is an assumption that the price is going to be high. That's the only way that type of deal is going to be secured. It will require multiple assets moved out to get that valued type of second line center. As I posted in a prior post if theoretically Cirelli or a similar type talent could be dealt for you have to consider giving up a player such as Risto, Cozens and a first round pick, either this year or next. I wouldn't do it.

The deal you propose is certainly a terrific deal for us. But it is not a reasonable and fair value deal for Tampa. For the sake of discussion if a deal could be made would you deal Risto, Cozens and a 1st next year? I wouldn't. And let's not forget there is an assumption that Cirelli would be willing to sign a long term deal with us. I just don't see the player agreeing to a pre-trade deal in order to make the trade happen.

My understanding is that he could have gotten more gross money signing with Toronto or New York. However, the salary differential was narrowed because Florida has no state income tax. As it stood he was in a good situation playing with a good organization that was a perennial cup contender. Considering all the factors he was in a good situation and decided to stay in a good situation. The same scenario applies to Cirelli as a player and Tampa as an organization. In a year or two it is hoped that Cozens will develop into a 2C. So it doesn't make sense to trade for a top tier center and end up yielding a lot of assets for an already thin team. If I had to guess I would lean toward the front office making a deal for a player such as Anaheim's Adam Henrique to fill the position for the short term until Cozens is ready.

We in general are in accord. My primary point in my post on this Cirelli subject is that I believe it is improbable that Tampa has any interest in trading him to the Sabres. And I don't believe the Sabres are willing to give up the bounty in assets required to acquire him even if he is willing to sign a deal. As I said in my prior post Tampa is a well run organization that is known for its smart decisions. A lot of people thought that Tampa was not in a good position to sign Stamkos when he was a free agent. They got the deal done just as I believe they will do with Cirelli.

Does he have to sign? And if so what would be the length of the contract?

A few years ago when Stamkos was a free agent many people thought he would be too costly for Tampa to keep. At that time it was thought that the front runner in the bidding for his services would be Toronto where he was from. Tampa is one of the best run hockey operations in the league. And they are a perennial cup contender. Stamkos probably could have gotten more money from another team if he desired to leave. Instead, he stayed with a team which consistently wins and lives in a state that has no state income tax so some of the extra money that he could have gotten from another team is offset by the lower state income tax. As others have pointed out Tampa has to contend with a number of no trade clauses making it even more challenging to fit in a fair-value contract for a young star like Cirelli. I just don't see him leaving to go to a team like Buffalo even if he decides to leave. If Tampa was willing to trade him we would have to have him signed to a new long term contract before the deal could be made. There are a few second-tier 2Cs who could be available and would be less costly if traded for. That might be a more feasible and a more realistic route to take in our quest to find a suitable center for the second line.

This line as a checking line did serve its role very well. But the problem is that one of the glaring weaknesses of this team is its lack of secondary scoring. No one expects their checking line to be a high scoring line. But they still need to contribute more to the offense than what it currently does. From the standpoint of fulfilling their role this line may have been the most consistent line. But in my estimation you still need a few more goals to chip in with the scoring. Okposo fits in well with this line. Because of his contract it is unlikely that he could be moved. Larsson is good at taking draws and has some jam to his game. If a player is going to be moved I see it being Girgensons not because he doesn't serve a role but because it might be in his best interest and the team's best interest to have a change of scenery.

It may not be next season but there are strong odds that he will be the 2C or second line forward the following season. He is going to make the roster this year, and if handled properly and playing with the right players will be a contributor in his rookie year. He probably is more advanced that Mitts and Tage. Even as an 18 or 19 year old he is physically very developed with room to grow and very mature. The attacked link is a column on Cozens by Jordan LaBarber from NHL.com. https://www.nhl.com/sabres/news/buffalo-sabres-prospects-rewind-dylan-cozens/c-316649574

Nylander didn't work out for us. He was dealt for Joki who is a better player. So that is a plus replacement. Mitts being rushed was a mistake. Will he be a player worthy of his draft selection? I don't know.

Thank you for your kind and welcoming words. I will add you to my short and exclusive Christmas card list.

When you draft 17-18 yrs old its not surprising that some kids are mature and others are not. Some quickly grow out of it while others have a slower progression. NHL hockey drafting is more unpredictable than NFL drafting because of the age differential when selecting. I'm not as critical as others on the selection of Mitts and Nylander because both players were drafted in the vicinity of where they ranked as prospects. And I still have some hope although not certain that Mitts could develop into a contributing player. As far as Nylander there should be no complaints about this traded player because he was flipped for Joki, who I believe is going to be a good player for us for a long time.