JohnC

Your position is well stated and reasoned. However, I'm taking the same position that Rob Ray is taking. My preference is that Sam stays on the first line with Jack. With a line made up of Hall/Jack/Sam it would not be unfair to believe that it would be top tier first line. And it would also be one of the most exciting lines to watch in the league.

This issue of who should be the third person on the Jack and Hall line (presumptive line mates) was discussed on WGR's the Instigator Show with Rob Ray and Craig Rivet. Ray argued forcefully that he felt that it was a more effective line with Reinhart on that line because he believed that he was the more complementary player to those two more dynamic players than another player such as Olofsson or another finisher. I agree with his reasoning. Rob Ray also pointed out that with Reinhart on the first line with Jack and Hall that his scoring would be at least 20 points higher than if he played on the Staal line. One can argue over how much more effective Reinhart would be from a scoring standpoint if he were on the first line but it is a reasonable expectation that he would score much more on the Jack line. I'm a ardent supporter of Reinhart. The issue isn't whether he could also play on the second line and make it a better line to balance out the more potent first line. The answer to that question is certainly yes. The bigger issue for me is whether Sam better balances the first line and whether he is demonstrably more productive on that line. I say yes to both issues. I'm not saying that the people who would want Sam on the second line are wrong because there is merit to that stance. However, I strongly agree with Rob Ray's position that Sam should be on the Jack line with Hall.

Wishing you the best. The worst part of the Covid era is that when one gets sick horrible thoughts first come to mind. Take care and get some rest.

Krueger has stated that Hall will play on the Jack line. Of course that could change. Then the issue is whether Reinhart will play on one of the top two lines. Reinhart has played well with Jack and has individually excelled as a linemate. If you look at the style of both Hall and Jack they are speedsters who like to carry the puck. To balance it out they need a facilitator (assist oriented) to form a more cohesive line. At this point the line projections are simply line projections.

I appreciate your comments. I will walk it back and clarify what I wanted to stress in a response to Thorny. He was arguing that it would be a good ideal to play Reinhart on a lower line in order to spread the scoring around the lines beyond the top two. That is a reasonable position but I disagree with it, especially as it relates to Reinhart. My position is that Reinhart should be on one of the top two lines and not moved to a third line in order for more balanced scoring. On that issue as it relates to Reinhart I'm very resolute if not bordering on absolute. And on the issue whether the "ideal notion" of spreading the scoring talent over 3 lines exists there are a few teams in which that situation exists. However, I'm comfortable in saying that with the amount of talent on the Sabres's team that "ideal notion" doesn't exist.

Is Bennett now what he is and will continue to be or does he have more in his quiver to draw from? Is he simply maybe a better version of Curtis Lazar and will carve out a role as a gritty player who is fast?

Odds are the first line is going to have Hall/Jack/Reinhart. Reinhart in my opinion is a probable but not a definite. The second line appears to be Skinner/Staal/with the winger maybe Olofsson? The winger on that line is an open issue. The five players that I have mentioned are arguably our top five players who will most likely staff the two lines. Reinhart can be a candidate as a winger for either of the two top lines. My point and opinion is that it is most likely that our top players will be staffing our top two lines.

The problem I have with your non-hierarchy of lines is that I don't believe that this ideal notion exists in reality. The top two lines are inevitably going to get more minutes than the lower (applicable to the third line in this discussion.) lines. I'm aware that Krueger constantly proclaims that he doesn't number his lines. But when the minutes are tabulated the top two lines do get the most minutes. And it should get the most minutes because your best forwards are on those lines. Because of the offseason acquisitions (Staal and Hall) the staff not only has enough top two line players to fill those lines but enough quality players to put together a good third line. Eakins should be the center on the line with Cozens on one of the wings. The training camp and practice games will be used to determine who the wingers will be on the three lines which already have their assigned centers in Jack/Staal/ Eakins. There are some people who are advocating to have Reinhart center the third line. I'm not one of them. If he is not playing on the wing in one of the top two lines (my preference on the first line with Hall and Jack) his talents will be wasted.

I recognize that my position is very much a minority position. And it should be noted that the owners were going to keep the GM that you and others have so much disdain for except for the reason that he wasn't willing to agree to the austere organizational restructuring. He was then fired.

We simply have a different assessment of his tenure. I consider it more of a mixed bag than your stark black and white unyielding view. In my opinion Adams is now taking advantage of where the former GM placed this franchise. (I'm well aware that you and many others resolutely disagree with that judgment but that's how I see it.) Right now it seems that Krueger and Adams are on the same wavelength and are working in a cohesive and coherent fashion that benefits the franchise. It should be remembered that it was Botts who brought Krueger into the organization.

The cold-blooded truth about the Sabre team is that they didn't have enough talent. At best they were a fringe playoff team, and that is stretching the issue. You pointed out that the Sabres were near the top of the NHL when Berglund walked. I can say with supreme confidence that he wasn't a primary reason why the Sabres plummeted after his ignominious departure. The NHL regular season is a marathon and a grind. Whatever weaknesses that you have and are compensating for will eventually be exposed and exploited. Or to put it in simple terms during that period of time we didn't have enough talent and enough depth to deal with any setbacks that will inevitably occur during the season. Could Botts have done more to bring in talent during the season? He sure could have if he would have been willing to give up prized assets such as high round picks and good prospects who were not that far away from moving up the ranks. To his credit and to his fault Botts was playing the long game in building the franchise. Time simply ran out for him.

I'm still not receptive to your argument about trading good players when they are contributing. With respect to Skinner he was well on his way to a 40 goal season on a team that lacked scorers. That's why he got such a grandiose contract. The former GM did overpay but doing what he had to do to re-sign him did make sense for a 40 goal scorer on a team with a dearth of scorers. And if he was dealt at the trade deadline he was not going to give you much of a return. Your argument that they could be dealt at the deadline for assets and then acquired in the offseason is very improbable. The same argument applies to Hall. He is an UFA. If the Sabres are floundering and they decide to deal him the return is going to be miniscule for a player who is more than likely a rental player for the team acquiring him. I'll repeat what I have already said about the Skinner contract. If you want to get a better value for that lucrative contract the best way to do that is to put him in a position to succeed. The market return on his contract which includes a very long term is minimum. And with respect to Hall if you want to increase the chances of working out a deal at the end of the season the best way to do that is for the team to be successful making it an appealing place to play.

If you consider the number of snipers we have (Olofsson, Jack, Hall Skinner) we have enough shooters to staff two potent PP units. Jack has the ability to attract penalties. If it happens near the end of the shift he would be able to go to the bench and catch his breath while the second unit starts off the PP allowing him to get back on the ice refreshed and with the other unit. There are enough good shooting parts to mix and match within the units. And if you factor in the defensemen who could shoot like Montour, Dahlin, Miller and Risto you have enough players to draw from to get the puck to the net. Stating the obvious: with more talent you have more options.

Maybe after another year or so when this roster gets settled with its best players locked in or not there will be a better basis to make a judgment on him. For the sake of an argument if he becomes a dependable 20-25 goal scorer then his value on the market will increase. And in another year or so the organization should have an understanding of what Quinn, their first round pick, is as a prospect and a potential replacement for him. I understand why people make the distinction between a player who mostly scores goals at ES and a player who scores a disproportionate amount of his goals on the PP. I'm not bothered by that distinction so much. If a shooter can score a total of thirty goals and more with half of them coming from the PP the team is still scoring goals. My point is that I am not devaluing goals scored on the PP. Goals are goals. A specialty player who scores goals is still scoring goals that go on the scoreboard.

I would rather have a player on a short contract who plays well than have a player who is locked up for a long time and not distinguishing himself on the ice. If the organization wants to keep a player it will work it out. If the organization wants to move a player it will have the flexibility to do it with these shorter term deals. Some talented players (ex.Hall) want long term deals but can't secure them because of the Covid economy. And there are organizations that want to lock players up but because of the uncertainty of the Covid revenue stream can't commit itself to such a lengthy deal. In other words both players and organizations are dealing with and coping with unexpected financial challenges that couldn't be foreseen. You adjust to the circumstances. That's life!

I saw him listed at 211 lbs on one site and 215 lbs on other site. https://www.nhl.com/player/tage-thompson-8479420

The last thing this franchise would want to do if Skinner gets back on track and the team is positioning itself for the playoffs is to deal the contributing player for future considerations that will probably get you little in return. That makes little sense to me. I don't understand the constant talk about taking actions that set you back in the present in order to theoretically put your team in a better situation for the future. This team has been struggling for more than a decade and the fan base is withering because of the futility of this franchise. It's about time to focus on the now. The future can be addressed when it becomes the now. If you are an ardent believer that Skinner's contract is a grandiose mistake don't you think that the market will also have the same assessment? And if that is what the market believes then why would it be receptive to taking him on from a team that is determined to shed him? Okposo certainly has an onerous contract compared to his contribution. How many GMs are burning our phone lines to make a deal for him? The solution to get a better return on our money is to put him in a position to score goals. That's not only the best solution but the most realistic solution.

There is no argument that he is overpaid. But if he scores 30 or more goals on one of the top two lines then he as a player is an asset. There is too much fixation on a player being under or overpaid. Once a contract is signed for whatever price then the issue is whether the player is productive or not. Okposo is certainly overpaid and to a lesser extent so is Girgs. But even with an unappealing price tag if a player is productive and serves a role that contributes to team success then there is no need to despair over the size of a contract. If you review any roster there are players who are overpaid, there are players that are underpaid and there are players who play exactly to their contract size. There is never going to be a perfect calibration of contracts to production. The best way to look at this issue is view it from an overall roster perspective.

If Skinner can be put in a situation where he can get 30 plus goals then his contract wouldn't be such a concern. Two years ago he was added to a team that had a dearth of goal scorers and ended up scoring 40 goals. His plus/minus was 0. Last year was certainly a down year playing 59 games and scoring only 14 goals with a plus/minus of -26. Was last year an aberration where he struggled to adjust to the new coach with his new system? Let's face it playing on the second line or lower last year was a situation that didn't enhance so much as encumber him. Based on how he was used last year it was apparent that Skinner was not a Krueger type of player. I'm hoping that the HC will be a little more accommodating to Skinner's weaknesses so that his scoring assets can be accentuated. As I said before getting him back to form will be a factor in whether the team is successful or not.

As far as the line combinations go I have preferences just like everyone else but I'm not worried how they shake out. That's what training camp and preseason games are to determine. Right now it appears that Hall and Jack will be playing together and probably Reinhart. The key player in my mind regarding the makeup of the top two lines and most notably on the second line is Skinner. For me one of the keys to success this season is putting Skinner in a position to succeed. If he can regain his scoring form then our offense will take a quantum leap forward. I'm not worried about Cozens, Tage or Olofsson's roles are or what lines they will be placed on. Including Cozens each of they players will demonstrate what they can or not handle and accordingly they will earn their positions and roles. It seems you are determined to protect Cozens and not give him too much responsibility. The model to follow for Cozens is the Chicago approach on how they handled Kirby Dach. They started him off on the wing with limited playing time and as the season advanced he moved up on his ice time and assignment. In every training camp there are unsuspecting surprises where a player/s play above or below expectation. My guess is Tage can be on the positive side and establish himself as a player ready to go. This is going to be a fun camp.

If Ullmark or Reinhart or Hall play well this team will succeed in this upcoming season. Will it make them difficult to re-sign or more appealing on the market? Of course it will. What's the option? The incentive is for them to play well as it is for every player on this team and player in the league. To worry about players playing too well because it will affect their next contract is wasted energy. The challenges that the Sabres will face in the season following this one is the same cap challenges that almost every team goes through. That's an inescapable part of the business. For me what will be an even greater incentive for some of our prime players to stay with the Sabres is for this team to be successful and be a serious team. There will always be tough contract choices to make. The business side of the hockey business will work itself out. I'm more concerned about fielding a competitive team this year and not worried about the year following. The attention should be on the present and less so on the future. Especially when our ignominious past has existed for so long.

I wouldn't say that he is a better passer than Eichel or Dahlin but I would be comfortable in saying that he is on par with them in a less dynamic way . Eichel and Dahlin can be dazzling passers but I won't say that either of them is more of an instinctive or subtle passer. In my opinion Dahlin has the most growth potential in that area.

If the Sabres bring up Jonas Johansson during the season could he be considered an exposed goalie?

What Sam is not is a natural top two line center. The Sabres had a desperate need for a second line center last year yet the staff decided not to play him there. Sam certainly has center traits such as intelligence and instincts. But he still can use those important traits as a winger on one of the top two lines.

With the signing of Reinhart we have at least five players who are genuine top two line players. There are those who argue that Reinhart should/could be centering a third line in order to upgrade that lower line and better balance out the lines. That doesn't seem to me to be the best approach to take. Instead, the smarter approach to take is put your top six players on the top two lines. My preference is for Sam to be on the Jack line because they already have good chemistry, and with the addition of Hall it should be even more of a potent line. The addition of Staal and Hall not only builds up the top two lines but it allows for other players to start off on the lower lines and work their way up the ranks. It wouldn't be surprising if one of the trio of Cozens, Tage and Olofsson finishes trading camp by earning a spot on the second line. But that still means that with the addition of Eakins that a credible third line can be constructed that improves the secondary scoring for this team.