JohnC

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.

We disagree on whether ROR should have been traded. I'm more sympathetic as to why the organization wanted to move him. However, where we are in agreement is that the return for him was ridiculously paltry. As @Brawndo noted there was a reasonable offer from Montreal and it was reported there was a decent (not commensurate) offer from Carolina who was willing to trade for him on the condition that the Sabres paid the upcoming bonus. The Sabres refused. Whether one is using hindsight or even foresight at the time of the trade it was clear that the organization bungled this affair. The GM and the owner were determined to trade the disgruntled player. Clearly, the ROR transaction set this franchise back. That's obvious. But what made the transaction even more damaging is the glaringly unequal return when there were reported opportunities to get more back in a trade.

If you think that it was a single interview where he expressed his loss of love for the game was the reason why the GM and most notably the owner to get his arse out of the locker room you are wrong. It was evident to the staff and others that he wanted out. My criticism of the organization is not that they dealt him. I have no problem with that. The problem was with the return. If they couldn't get the right compensation for him they should have dealt him at a later time when a better deal could have been made. The GM and owner allowed the impending bonus to make a deal sooner than was necessary.

How so?

His observations about ROR that he wasn't invested in the team and showed it was correct. ROR apparently felt that he was trapped in a situation that he wanted out of. His negative demeanor was abundantly evident to everyone including the owner and the GM. The problem wasn't so much that he was dealt as it was the return was not close to being equitable. As I and others have said if he was going to be dealt it should have happened only after a better deal was arranged. And it should be noted that it appears that the GM and owner were determined to get rid of him before his bonus kicked in.

You are right that Reinhart participated in those post practices but then he stopped. I'm not suggesting that it was the wrong thing to do. The player knows what is best for himself from a physical and mental standpoint. Hamilton had mentioned on WGR about his stopping the sessions as a criticism. In my estimation he is making an unfair judgment.

Yes he was the player that Hamilton criticized for stopping participating in ROR's "practice after practice" sessions. He did attend the sessions but he then stopped. That shouldn't be surprising. If a player believes that post practice practices are not benefiting you or is not allowing you to refresh your tired legs and battered body then stopping the sessions would be a smart thing to do. The preparation that suits ROR isn't necessarily suitable for another player.

I respectfully disagree with what you are saying it could be. I don't know of one occasion over the years where anyone reported or hinted that Reinhart was not acting professionally in the games or practice. If that type of negative behavior or attitude was witnessed by players, staff, other reporters it would have come out in the "unnamed source" pipeline. I have watched a lot of post game shows on my NHL package. The interaction between the two after games couldn't be categorized as antagonistic but what was clear was that there was friction between the two. We need to understand Reinhart's situation. For years Reinhart has been on not only losing teams but simply bad teams. Having to go to the podium to answer the same inane questions (that still needed to be asked) can be an exasperating. Let's also remember there were many times when "Jack" went to the podium and more openly expressed his frustration of being interviewed after the game when there was little to be said by the player that hadn't already been said a 1000 times before. The moral of story is that systemic losing for prideful players is frustrating and spills over when standing at the podium. It's part of the business but there is a human element to it. I really believe that the tweet that Paul H put out about Reinhart's attitude reflected his relationship with him and not the player's attitude toward the team.