JohnC

We are in accord. 🍺

I would be receptive to acquiring Kuemper but not for the price you are willing to pay. Kevin Adams has been wise in being patient and waiting for the market to settle before jumping the gun on his transactions. He needs to continue on with that approach. There is still time to seize opportunities if they become available. Be patient and you will be rewarded. Act with impatience and you will be taken advantage of.

It's fair to criticize Botts for deals he made on his watch. It's not fair to include him for criticism for transactions made on someone else's watch. What's fair is fair.

I've asked this question before but I will ask it again: What goalie/s do you consider worth paying a hefty price of a first round pick plus additional assets and who is available? If the current Lehner of the Vegas version was available I would consider a deal for him. However, that's not the case.

If I'm not mistaken wasn't Murray the GM who traded a first round pick for Lehner?

I'm not giving up on Mitts but I'm not counting on him. It is going to be interesting to see if he comes into training camp in peak condition and plays beyond expectations. He is a player that the organization glaringly mishandled. He should have been playing full time in the the AHL right from the start and allowed to develop at his own pace and earn his move up the ranks. Based on his comments the GM still believes that he can become a player that was worthy of his draft status. My primary concern about Mitts is not his talent level but his compete level. He reminds me too much of Nylander where intermittently he will show you some tantalizing ability and then mostly fade away as an invisible player. If he surprises and earn his spot on the roster it would be an unexpected bonus.

So what you are essentially saying is that he is not worth our first round pick. That's what I have been saying all along. As I stated in a prior post if I had an opportunity to acquire a goalie such as Tampa's Vasilevskiy or Dallas's Ben Bishop I would make the deal.

I can go along with that view as a winger. That is why I want him to be retained.

Name a goalie that you believe is available that will elevate this team and is worth a first round pick? I would certainly give up a first round pick for Tampa's starter and Dallas's Ben Bishop but those upper tier goalies are not on the market. I agree with the highlighted segment in your last sentence. So there is something we agree on.

Black and white positions are easy to differentiate. On this issue you go this way while I go that way. 🍺

There is an assumption on your part that one of the goalies available will be the difference/reason that gets you into the playoffs. If you scan the market now name the goalie who you believe is of the caliber that will make such a difference? Again, make no mistake what I am saying here. I'm not against upgrading the position, and that position is more likely to be for the backup. I'm just not willing to pay the extravagant price of giving up a Risto and/or a first round for that type of addition.

Your position about Sam is sound but I disagree with it. What's telling is that the Sabre brain trust was determined to make it a priority to trade for Staal to center the second line. It was this new staff's first order of business. If there was a belief that Sam could be the 2C it wouldn't have been such a priority to seek an alternative from a deal. There is no doubt that with more talent that Sam could be a more effective 2C. But that skirts the issue that the organization believed that it could find a better center for the second line with another player. I'm a Sam fan. He has unparalleled vision and a nuance to his game that can't be taught. As a winger he has attributes that will enhance the line he is playing. There is no question that with more talent on his line the more benefit will be derived from his exceptional cerebral play. That can happen with him on the wing.

Excellent point! As you made clear whether he is playing on the first line with Jack or the second line with another composition he is enhancing the line he is on. I don't consider him as a player capable of driving one of the top two lines but what he does do is brings cohesion to the line he is playing on. And that attribute in itself is a valuable asset.

I wouldn't give up a first round pick for any goalie in a trade. We used a first round pick for Cozens. The hope is that in his second year he will make the roster and in the not too distant future will be our 2C. With our first pick in this year's draft we selected Quinn who was arguably one of the best goal scorers/shooters in the draft. In two or three years the hope is that he will be a forward on one of our top two lines. The point is these first round picks are valuable assets that shouldn't be dealt for at best a second tier/pedestrian goalie. Hutton was a decent backup when he was first acquired. He noticeably slipped last season. Were his eye issues the main factor in that slippage? I'm not sure. If it was then if a replacement couldn't be found for a less costly price than you are advocating for, I would prefer to keep him. Marty Biron has repeatedly made the point that if Hutton is not overloaded with games he is effective. It's when he gets overused that he predictably fades. Make no mistake what I'm saying here. I'm not saying don't trade for an upgrade in goal if the price is right. But I would rather keep a player such as Risto or Montour and our first round pick then overpay for a second tier goaltender.

When it comes to spelling I'm incorrigible. 🤡

No question the Skinner contract is not a value laden contract. However, if he returns to his 30 plus goal production on a line with an enhancing center then the money issue is not as troublesome. If he is not on the Jack line yet is still able to get back to his sniper form then his contract although not a best practice contract is at least more acceptable.

You are right that if the Krueger is trying to change the profile of players he wants to a faster and more aggressive in forechecking style of play he doesn't fit it. But w he is probably our best set up player with the exceptional vision on the team. He may not be the fastest skater but he makes quick reads and anticipates the play so that the speed issue is not much of a problem. He also provides net presence on offense for a team that mostly shies away from the tough area. I'm very much am a Rienhart fan. He's not a scintillating player but he is a player who has been very consistent in production. For me he is a keeper.

Could you be a little more revealing what was problematic with his off-ice interactions? Was it just that he was more aloof or more fractious with his teammates during his own time?

You are right that moving at least one of our well paid RHD is a good response in saving cap space and rebalancing the unit. But the stringent financial environment for the Sabres is the same for most teams. Even the Leafs are shedding more talented and costly players in order to contend with their cap challenges and priority of maintaining the elite core. Montour is on a one year deal that leads him to UFA next year. Because of his contract status his value on the market doesn't come close to matching his talent level. What's the value of Miller? Because he didn't get much playing time under Krueger and with the size of his contract his value has been severely diminished. (If Miller plays on a regular basis his contract is reasonable but if he regularly sits as he did last year then his contract is a drag.) The issue comes down to are you willing to keep a player like Montour and play him or another defenseman on his offhand side or move the player for much less than value? I'm starting to lean toward keeping your imbalanced players and work out it as best you can. With a compressed schedule where injuries lead to more missed games what you believe to be an overloaded unit can quickly become a depleted unit.

Throughout Europe it is seeing a resurgence. And although the morbidity rate is down in the US the infections are increasing in almost all states but a few. The virus is going to be a big factor next year on how the game/schedule is changed. Presently, Canada will not allow border crossings without quarantining. (It shouldn't be forgotten that in baseball the Toronto Blue Jays played in Buffalo instead of having to cross the border.) What I see happening is that conferences will be altered to limit travel and there will be a separate Canadian conference. As it stands the league and the players don't know how the season is going to play out. Needless to say there is a lot to work out.

Dallas's backup goalie played as well as if not better than our #1 goalie, Ullmark. I'm not arguing who is better but I am making the point that if your goalie plays at a high enough level of play that it will be one of the primary reasons for success. Ben Bishop is a good #1 goalie. But he got hurt. Khudobin the backup filled in for him and played well enough to get his team into the finals. The obvious moral of the story is that you need two dependable goalies, and even more so if there is a compressed schedule as seems likely.

Outscoring your opponent. Who would have thought?

For the sake of argument if the defensive unit stays in tact (I believe there will be some changes) and the goaltending plays at a little above last year's level ( reasonable expectation) and you figure in more potency on offense then even without a significant upgrade in PK performance the effect on the record should be positive. As others have alluded to there are two sides to the offensive/defensive equation. If your offense is better and the defense plays at the same level you are better off and if your offense stays the same (don't expect that) and your defense is better (Dahlin and Joki upward trajectory) than you are at an a minimum offsetting or better status.

Improving goal scoring is an obvious need that doesn't take much analysis. But your second point is more incisive because it goes to the central issue of the preferred style of play and players needed to execute the change. As you point out this offseason there is theme to the players that are being brought in. This roster is being reshaped with players who play a harder brand of hockey and replacing less physical players. Trading Johansson for Staal embodies that change in philosophy.

As you point out the Blues paid the bonus. It is obvious that the impending bonus payment was driving the timing of the trade. And it was reported that there was a Carolina deal that was being considered but the Sabres couldn't get them to pay the bonus. So the deal was not consummated.