JohnC

I respect your well thought views on Skinner but respectfully and strenuously disagree with it. Without question Skinner is not a two way player and is not an adept passer. That's not the player he is or ever was. He is however one of the best snipers in the league. It's that elite characteristic that makes him valuable. What you are doing is defining him through the prism of his weaknesses instead of doing so from his strengths. Elite shooting and goal scoring ability are prized attributes in this league. Added to the fact that when you have a sniper on a team noted for its scoring impotency then he should be valued even more. The Sabres' roster is made up of a lot of perimeter players. Other than Reinhart what other players hover around the net where the brutal physical action happens and where most of the goals are scored in the league? Skinner is one of the few players who scores with his quick draw shot most of his goals within a perimeter 12'. That instinctive ability to find the hole in that congestion around the net is a talent that is nearly non-existent on this team. My recommendation is focus more on what a player can do and don't be blinded to his unique assets because of what he doesn't do well.

The imperative for this offseason is that there has to be offensive additions to create a decent second line. When there is a shortage of second line caliber of players no matter how you juggle the first two lines it is insufficient. Skinner playing with Jack maximizes his best attribute of being a sniper. Skinner playing on a second line without Jack not only makes him a lesser player on that line but it also diminishes the Jack line without him. As I stated in a prior post my preference is to have a first line made up of Skinner-Jack-Reinhart. As a first line it would rank as one of the better lines in the league. We are not disagreeing.

You make some good points regarding the relationship between Skinner and his coach. Where I disagree with your stance is that Skinner has strengths and weaknesses as a player where his strength as a shooting sniper dominates his weaknesses as a two way player. Put simply his shooting talents more than compensate for his defensive play/lapses. Krueger is a coach who demands/emphasizes that all his players play a two way game. Skinner simply doesn't fit the coach's ideal mold as a player. In this case I wish he would be more tolerant of the player and loosen the tight leash he has on him. The line I would prefer to see Skinner on is on a Jack line that included Reinhart. Not only is it a legitimate first line it is also an upper tier line in the league. My hope is that the coach let's Skinner be Skinner.

I would consider Strome with my #8 pick. Strome would not only fill the 2C role he is young enough where there is still an upside to his game. In this type of deal the team still has the option to make another deal or two to reshuffle the roster. I also wouldn't be against dealing for a player like Henrique if he could be acquired for a very minimal price.

I'm not giving up our #8 pick in a trade for a low-tier veteran 30 yr. old 2C. I would even be uncomfortable giving up Mittelstadt for this solid veteran center.

At least year's draft Yzerman was interviewed and was asked what was his strategy to bring back the downtrodden Red Wings back to prominence. He succinctly said: draft and develop. He then walked away. Detroit is in a major rebuilding project where it might not make sense at their stage of rebuilding to add high cost premium players. It would make more sense in another year or team when the team is more fully developed. That isn't necessarily the case for Montreal.

I have clearly stated that one way or the other Tampa will lose players because of the cap math. Which ones I can't say? And as you have acknowledged Tampa is one of the better managed organizations so it won't be surprising that they will end up making the best of a very fiscally challenging situation. Having a plethora of talent can in of itself be challenging but it certainly is better than having a dearth of talent.

As you point out with the Johnson example there are teams that are cap stressed and need to move good players because of it. We are in a good cap situation and should be able to come up with a second line player or maybe two for a significantly less price. If it isn't for a 2C then getting a second line winger or so is still a good roster move for us.

I'm not fully versed on the ramifications of an offer sheet. My assumption is that Cirelli would prefer to stay with Tampa over accepting an offer sheet from Buffalo. Cirelli knows what his market value is. If Tampa can close to matching that price why would he prefer Buffalo or any other locations? Tampa is without a doubt a good situation for him. The Lightning can offer him less and from a money standpoint yet it still could be a comparable/close $$$ contract because of the favorable tax situation in Florida. As previously noted he would be able to continue playing for a long term cup contending team. There is a major incentive for Tampa to work out a contract deal with Cirelli. Why wouldn't they go all out for a superior young talent? I just think too many people are fixating on a player that won't be attainable for us.

Tampa has a loaded system. They have prospects ready to step in on the cheap. Will they end up moving some talent that under a less cap situation they would prefer to keep? Absolutely. But that's the cap puzzle that abundantly talented teams contend with. I just think that because Cirelli is not only a premier talent but he is also a young talent and will be a mainstay player for a long time that the organization will make him a priority to keep. Tampa will lose some talent in order to keep their preferred talent. There is no way to work around that reality. But as you indicated the Lightening are a smart and forward acting organization that will make the right tough choices. The challenge for our front office is not to get fixated on a positional need to the point that it gives up too much for the benefit of the now at the expense of the near future. I am open to all options. But I'm not afraid to stay the course and counting on internal improvement assuming that are still less high-profile deals made to better balance this roster.

I'm not adverse to considering Mitts or even Cozens as a 2C if another goal scoring second line winger can be brought in to boost the line. The price would certainly be less than in a deal for a second line center, and there would be more players to choose from the market. I'm aware that most commentators here don't want to take that course because they are afraid that Mitts and Cozens are not ready and could possibly regress in their development. I'm not as afraid on that issue. A line with either Cozens or Mitts along with Olofsson, Cozens if not the center and a goal scoring sniper brought in from a deal is an approach that I am open to. There are a number of options to consider that although not necessarily the best options are still good options that will upgrade the roster

I would make the Cirelli deal as you pose it on the condition that the player who will be an URFA next year signs a contract with us. If not, then it makes no sense. If a deal for a 2C can't be made then keep Risto (a Krueger favorite) and utilize your draft pick on a quality prospect. I have no problem including our first round pick in a deal for a 2C. But if the player coming back isn't locked into a longer term contract then you are putting yourself in a vulnerable situation in a year or two. That's not how a smart organization would operate. A lot of attention has been given to Cirelli. But it is more likely that Tampa works out a deal for this high quality young player who will be an instrumental player for them for a long time. Cirelli can take a little less from Tampa and still have a top tier contract because Florida has no state income tax. Also, Cirelli is in a terrific situation with Tampa in that he is on a perennial cup contending team. When all is said and done odds are that he will take the Stamkos route when he was a FA in willing to make a minor contract adjustment to stay in a good situation with the team he is already on.

If in a proposed Cirelli deal he doesn't agree to a contract then there is no deal. That's an obvious call. As far as preferring to move Montour and keep Risto the next question is what is his market value? I don't believe it is much. As I and others have said if you want a genuine caliber 2C it is going to come with a steep price. Montour is not going to be much of a factor in getting a second line player whereas Risto is. I disagree with you that Hutton is done. He is a backup goalie whose starts should be limited. Were his eye issues a factor to his erratic play? I'm not sure. The bigger factor that relates to this team's success beyond other personnel moves is the play of Ullmark. If he can consistently play at a solid (not top tier) level that will be the biggest factor in this team being better. As I stated in a prior post if this team gets consistent solid goaltending and it can clean up its PK problems this is an improved team. That is not to say that other moves don't need to be made that better balances out the roster. It's my strong belief that if this front office makes a few judicious moves with the bulk of this roster still in tact this team can move up the ranks. In the NHL with its designed parity resulting from the cap system the difference between being a playoff team and being middling team is miniscule.

Before trading for Cirelli who is going to be a RFA next season you would have to know whether he would sign a contract with us. It would make no sense to sign this exceptional player by giving up valuable assets only to see him leave in a couple of years. Assuming that he would sign I would be willing to give up Risto, Mitts and our first pick. If our GM could get Tampa's lower first round pick in the deal that would be terrific, however if not I would still make the deal. Most everyone agrees that adding a 2C is an imperative. But if the organization can't swing a deal to fill this void there should still be an awareness that what would make even more of a difference than upgrading the 2C is getting better play from our current goaltenders and better PK play. With improvement in those two areas this team will be given a major boost.

That must have been the long distance call from Pittsburgh that I missed! ?

The issue isn't having elephant sized cajones or having shriveled up miniscule cajones. It's about trading assets to get other asset/s in order to better balance the roster. It was reported that last year that Botterill tried to trade Risto. He couldn't get what he considered a fair value return. So he didn't make a deal. That was the right thing to do especially after being fleeced in the ROR boondoggle. If a fair-value return can be made then it should be made. If it can't then stay the course and upgrade the roster in other areas. Yes be bold but also be smart.

If you are going to acquire a 2C in a deal, even in a packaged deal, I doubt that the trading team will include their lower first round pick. A young but established 2C is a valuable commodity. If you want to secure one you have to pay a steep price.

My prediction is that this pick gets dealt in a package deal that will bring in a genuine 2C or even second line winger who can score goals. The imperative to make this a competitive/playoff team next season is to forestall Jack from getting so frustrated that he publicly declares that he wants out. The fanbase understandably is restless. They deserve some bold moves to inject some hope to an exasperated and fatigued fanbase.

Your reasoning on Mitts makes a lot of sense but I slightly disagree with it. What Mitts needed, and so did Tage, is a lot of playing time and an opportunity to play a number of different roles such as the PP and PK etc. Mitts was a HS star who was supremely better than the players he played with. There was a sense of entitlement that he had when he was given playing time instead of earning playing time. It certainly didn't serve him and help with his development. I still believe that Mitts can be a good NHL player. He certainly has skills. What he needed was the time to emotionally and physically mature. In my opinion playing full time in Rochester when he became a pro would have served him well to the point that he would now be a more established player in the NHL and with a higher trajectory as a player. Ultimately, the short circuiting of the process didn't do him and the organization any favors. With respect to Cozens I consider him to be more emotionally and physically mature than Mitts when he entered the league. I'm not advocating Cozens to start off as a 2C but if he shows he can handle the role then I would have no problem with him assuming the role. My sense is that Cozens is more mature and resilient than Mitts was so if it didn't work out right away it wouldn't set him back.

I've heard from 3 or 4 draft analysts on the radio that if you stay in the top ten range (as you noted) you will come away with a very good prospect. And they all seem to agree that if you are drafting within the top three location you will come out with an exceptional prospect.

It's interesting that you brought up the Staal option because it was discussed on WGR's the Instigator Show. When that scenario was brought up Marty Biron stated that Staal had no interest in leaving Minnesota. Biron mentioned that the Bruins wanted to acquire him this year for a Cup run. Biron noted that Staal would not agree to the move. So although the option of getting a stopgap veteran 2C is a good idea it doesn't apply to an unwilling player like Staal.

You and I are in accord. But I'll even go farther than you on the Mittelstadt mishandling. He should instead have been sent to Rochester when he first entered the pro ranks and fully immersed in the AHL until he demonstrated that he was ready. Mitts has skills but physically and emotionally he was not ready. I hope that this mishandling due to force feeding the development process doesn't result in another Gregerenko (sic) situation, i.e. playing a touted prospect when not ready. My same reasoning applies to Tage Thompson. He should have sooner been sent to Rochester to get more playing time and more time to physically develop. It takes tall and lean young players time to physically mature before they are ready to play with the thicker men in the NHL. It might seem that I am contradicting myself but I'm not in saying if there is a young player ready to make the NHL leap it is Cozens. He probably isn't ready to be a 2C right now but from a physical and maturity standpoint he is ready to play in the big league right now. It's a moot point because due to the AHL rules he is too young to play in the league and too good to benefit playing in the juniors. He is our 2C in waiting, and that wait won't be too long.

Botterill thought that Mitts was ready for the 2C role. He grossly miscalculated and it was a factor in him losing his job. The past is the past and this offseason is a new offseason with opportunities to pursue. Can Adams and the new regime successfully address some of the major needs that have lingered for too long? I hope so. Attached is a 4 minute link from NHL.com with Marty Biron interviewing Cozens and showing some of his highlights. I don't know if Cozens will play any of the center positions this year but I do expect him to contribute. https://www.nhl.com/sabres/

I'll just take one of the players you listed and point out the complicating factors that make such a deal difficult to consummate. Nazem Kadri would have been a terrific addition to the Sabres. He would have filled the second line center role and added some toughness to the roster. But that deal was unlikely because Toronto had little interest in making a deal with a divisional rival that they often played. Even if the Sabres offered more than what Colorado gave up, Barrie plus other considerations, the Leafs wouldn't want to strengthen their cross the border rival. I'm hoping this offseason the new GM and his staff can make a deal for a credible second center. My only caveat is that under no circumstances am I willing to include Cozens in a deal.

What were the asking prices? I said it before and I will continue to maintain my position that using our first round pick for Cozens instead of dealing it away will prove to be the right move.