JohnC

As you noted making this deal without giving up assets that could be used on other transactions makes this deal even more applealing. As many others have already stated this deal not only addresses (for the short term) a critical need at the 2C spot but it gives us more financial flexibility to use on our less than complimentary assets to better balance out the roster. This team doesn't need a major overhaul as much as it needs a reshaping. And without question the GM's first transaction is a good first step in that endeavor.

Most people understood what the poster meant. Over the years the Bills have had a number of starting qbs. None of them came close to being a franchise qb. The same logic that applies to the NFL starting qbs applies to #1 pitcher in baseball. You can have a good pitching staff without having an authentic #1 pitcher. In hockey, as in most pro sports, the salary structure directly relates to the caliber of player at the position than it does to the position. A true ace on one team is going to get a different pay scale than another #1 starting pitcher. The poster was using the scouting evaluation and categorization framework in which scouts rank players and their potential. That's the point the poster was trying to get across.

The internal cap is a reality for the Sabres as well as it is a reality for most teams. Many teams have had this fiscal restraint before the Covid era and will continue to have this fiscal restraint after the Covid era. You don't think that teams such as Carolina or Jersey have already been subjected to this fiscal discipline for years? The cap that Arizona has been subjected to since its entrance into the league has been markedly more onerous than what most teams have been subjected to. When Golisano bought the team out of bankruptcy the first thing he did is clean up the books and establish a hard budget that the hockey people had to adhere to. What I'm saying here is that although the hockey financial environment has become more restrictive for almost all teams that doesn't mean that a smart and well run organization can't make smart deals and upgrade the talent base. This recent Staal deal is an example of that. The GM traded a more costly player who was who was playing out of position for a player who is less costly and playing his true position that at least for the short term fills a position of great need. This is a good example of smart financial analytics and performance analytics. What we need is more of that this offseason.

He got caught up in WGR's downsizing. Shortly thereafter he found a job with WGRZ as a hockey contributor. https://www.wgrz.com/article/sports/paul-hamilton-sabres-wgrz/71-5973aee8-218b-45d5-99c7-4df613a9267b

You are right that this move alone doesn't make us a playoff team. But it does make us a better team and addresses the center spot on the second line for the present. What it also does is give us a little more cap room (under the imposed cap) to address some other positions. This isn't a major roster shaking deal but it is a solid deal. And it adds the toughness of a very competitive player to a team noted more for its soft style of play. Even if the team adds another 2C who is younger to the roster there is still a role for Staal to play. This transaction isn't the type of move that one gets excited over but it should give you some satisfaction. It's not a giant leap forward but it is a step forward.

Excellent post and analysis. There are a couple of your most cogent points that resonated with me. As you point out the conditions/restraints that will apply to the Sabres are the same conditions/restraints that will apply to most teams. And the second point that even under the tougher conditions what is essential is to get a few critical moves right. The necessity to get a few critical moves right is obvious and it is also doable. The organization has some surplus assets on the blue line and a high draft pick that can be parlayed to address some critical needs on the second line, most notably a credible 2C and maybe another winger. I'm not sure what you mean by getting the goaltending fixed because it appears that the organization is invested in Ullmark as their #1 tender and Hutton as the backup. That may be a gamble but that's where we are at. It may turn out that the most important player determining success or failure next season is the play of Ullmark. As I have said before whether the organization is lean or fat ultimately success is still going to be determined by the quality of the hockey decisions. And at least for the short term a leaner organization could be more nimble and creative when making those tough decisions.

Absolutely! I've said that all along. It was clearly stated by the Pegulas who said that after a number of discussions they couldn't get him to agree to the downsizing. So he was fired. But even if he agreed to the conditions that doesn't mean that the owners were enamored with his performance. What they wouldn't have done, even if he remained, is commit to give him an extension until after his contract ran out. What the owners didn't want to do, but were forced to do, was fire him and end up eating the last year of his contract.

I don't know what you heard but the fact is that he was not given an extension which is typical for coaches in their last contract year. His last year was a do or die year. If he would have agreed to the Pegula restructuring and had a good offseason that led to a successful season he would have earned another contract. Under no circumstances was he going to be given an extension until his last contract year was over with.

Botterill was on the last year of his contract with no chance of him receiving an extension until after the season. That tells you that beyond the money issue there was no allegiance to him or expression of confidence in him. The owners were simply willing to let him finish the contract and then make a determination about extending his contract after the season. So just because they were willing to ride out the contract that didn't reflect a satisfaction in his stewardship.

You should have added the Kahun deal to your list.

Ever since Thompson became a member of the organization Craig has been infatuated with him. He's stated right from the start that it was going to take time for him to grow into his body. And he has felt that when that physical benchmark arrived he could be a second line forward. I sure hope that he is right. It's a shame that he got hurt last year. He certainly could have used that experience to help him develop his game.

Most people agree with the reality that all teams except a few franchises will have major challenges adjusting to the the stringent economics of the next couple of years. A minority of teams such as Toronto and NY Rangers will have little difficulty in absorbing the revenue loss for the short term because of their more prosperous TV and radio revenue streams. What is most aggravating for a team like the Sabres is that under their prior GM the strategy was to put itself in a good position to bring in talent because other teams were not in a favorable cap position to retain a segment of their roster. That's where we were until the Covid issue came into play. Now the concern relates more to financial survivability than on ice optimization. I still believe that if our front office acts with creativity it can upgrade this team by moving some players and contracts out to bring in some players and contracts in to better balance this roster. What is frustrating is that the opportunities that we thought we were going to have entering the offseason will still be there only to a lot lesser extent. The moral of the story is to be more concerned about winning in the present than putting to much emphasis on building for the unpredictable future.

Do you consider Copp a 2C caliber player or a temporary player at that role?

This excruciating financial environment that the Sabres are subjected to will be the same excruciating financial environment that many other teams will be subjected to. One way to adjust to this more stringent environment is to have a lower internal cap. That will be the same way that a lot of other teams will adjust. Paul Hamilton who used to work for WGR said he believed that there will be a lower internal cap. Elliotte Friedman on the Instigator Show stated that he believed that the Sabres, like many other franchises, will have a lower internal cap. Even under the current circumstances I'm not ruling out the Sabres being able to upgrade the roster this offseason. The front office will have to be more creative in order to contend to the challenging fiscal environment. Trades for players/contracts coming in will be offset by players/contracts going out. And I suspect there will be more younger players with cheaper contracts on the roster. I'm somewhat disappointed because I felt that the former GM put us in a good cap position to make some major changes to the roster this offseaon. However, the financial climate has altered that ability to pursue a number of enticing players. But that doesn't mean that even under the current circumstances the organization can't make some impacting acquisitions to make this a better teams. I'm eager to see what transpires this offseason.

If the owner is going to ask the coaching staff for a second round of salary cuts (that they declined) then how does anyone not believe the many reports that there is going to be an internal cap that is lower than the established cap. This probable lower internal cap is a response to this Covid era of lower revenues. And the lower cap that the Sabres will institute will be similar to lower internal caps that many other teams will institute. The owners have fired their GM because they couldn't convince him to go along with thinning out the staff and cutting expenses. You may think that this is "negative" news that the gullible are willing to swallow when it is realistic news that is associated within the context of a dramatic decline of revenue in the industry.

Wow. Is it because he is a better two way player? Would a Risto or Montour and Reinhart plus a second round pick be a reasonable deal for each team?

I would appreciate some opinions on Elias Lindholm as a player. And also some opinions on what would it take for a fair valued trade. Would a Risto or Montour plus Mitts and maybe a second round pick thrown in be a reasonable deal?

I disagree with your take that the Pegulas buying the Bills was bad for the Sabres. When they bought the Bills they initially made a number of horrible hiring decisions. Bringing in the buffoonish Rex Ryan on a rich and extended contract never made much sense. It was not only a bad decisions but it was also peculiar decision. After many bad hires he finally got it right with the McDermott hire. The fortunes of the bedraggled Bills franchise didn't turn around until he got the right people to run the operation. As you noted the economics of the football business are dramatically different than the hockey business. They knew that when they bought into the hockey business. The reality is that the failures of the Sabres revolved around the owners' bad hires and the resulting bad hockey decisions. The failure of the Sabres are due to their own mismanagement and dumbness. As far as who recommended who to the owners I don't care. The owners have the ability to seek out as much counsel and information from a wide variety of sources. The owners made the bad hiring decisions. The onus is on them. When all is said and done the Sabres are in the same situation that many other hockey franchises are in. Ultimately, what is going to matter are the hockey decisions they make. That's what we should be watching for this offseason.

Very often what you do is not as big a problem as how you do it. https://www.shutterstock.com/search/shooting+yourself+in+the+foot

SDS, thank you for everything you do to keep this community engaged. Out of gratitude I am mailing you a check for $1000 for your unstinting services. If you don't receive it in the next day or two it will probably be because the postal service is in a state of turmoil and there are major delays to delivery. I suggest that you forward your complaint to the Director of the USPS. You can be assured that I am acting out of a spirit of generosity. 🤡

What I and others will be watching for is to see how much the financial situation affects the hockey decisions that could upgrade the roster. I really don't know how much the fiscal restraints will influence the personnel decisions. We will soon find out this offseason.

You paint an accurate picture of the situation. Paul Hamilton who for a long time covered the Sabres for WGR said on the radio during that departure period that ROR who used to be the hardest worker on the team in practice and a supportive teammate, especially to the younger players, noticeably changed his demeanor. Whether he should or should not have been dealt or handled in a different way is another discussion. His attitude changed and it was apparent to all. So the decision to move on from him was made and rushed to be implemented. My major criticism of the trade was not that he was dealt but that the bonus should have been paid to allow more time to get a better deal. But as you point out the organization's jaundiced attitude to this enriched player was more than understandable. The problem is that you don't get back at someone by shooting yourself in the foot.

It was a disastrous hockey decision that to this day has affected the team. I agree with you that a financial consideration was a factor in that decision to move him out.

I'm not saying you are wrong in not having confidence to successfully run a hockey organization. There is certainly merit and history for your position. Your opinion is very understandable. What's obvious is obvious. The record is the record. However, my central point on this topic is that I understand why from a business sense that they will be running their hockey business with more financial restraint as will a lot of other owners.

As I said in a prior post criticizing the Pegulas for their hockey decisions is fair game. Without question they made bad hires and bad hockey decisions. And there is no question that when they first took over they foolishly and recklessly spent money without getting back much return. Those days are over with. The Pegulas are still billionaires. However, they don't have the cash flow to wastefully throw away money. So they are tightening how they run not only the hockey operation but their other businesses as well until the environment becomes more favorable. Whether you like it or not for the foreseeable future the free flowing money spigot has been tighten. You may not be aware of it but there is a real world out where a lot of people have to adjust to.