JohnC

You make a good point about the dependence on attendance for revenue in hockey. As a contrast the rich national TV contract for the NFL allows for every team, well run or not, to be profitable. That's not the situation in hockey when the arenas are empty. Different sports and different calculations.

Who isn't criticizing the ownership and organization for their lack of success and bumbling operation? That's fair to do. But what I am not going to do is criticize the Pegulas for trying to take actions to weather the fiscal storm due to circumstances they had no control over. They are adapting as are (or will) most franchises to the situation. One of the most successful developers in Western NY is Roco Termini. He is converting some rooms in the hotels he owns into apartments because the pandemic has affected his hotel business. The point is a lot of people and businesses are adjusting how they do business in this extraordinary environment. https://www.bizjournals.com/buffalo/news/2020/08/19/hotel-rooms-check-out-of-two-buffalo-buildings.html

You are being unfairly harsh. The judicious fiscal approach that the Pegulas will be taking will be the same approach that a lot of owners will be taking. The stress that this organization is subjected to is the same stress that other organizations are subjected to. Few organizations will be untouched by the Covid era.

Excellent work. I looked at your proposal and the other proposals made by the members. What's apparent is that there are a lot of pieces to the roster puzzle. Adams has a lot of considerations/judgments involving players and contracts. With some creativity and boldness this roster can be reshaped and made into a competitive team. The linchpin is coming away with a genuine 2C. And if that is accomplished then some of the other pieces will fall into place.

Most people agree that Larsson is a tough defensive player who can play against the top lines. And I agree that with better wingers he could be a better scorer than he has been with his current unit. But overall I just can't envision him playing on the second line. I'm hoping that Skinner will be put on the top line with Jack. But if he is directed to play on the second line he will need a much better offensive player than Larsson to get the enough out of him to get a return on his investment.

He may be worth more but as you noted he is not liquid. With respect to his energy business he will be sitting on his resources until it will be worth drawing from. I have no complaint with how the Pegulas are adjusting to the financial environment in the hockey business. They simply are being prudent.

You are right that there are billionaires who have made an extraordinary amount of money in this covid era. A lot of money has been made in the financial and tech sectors. But in the sectors that the Pegulas are mostly involved are very troubled.

I don't believe that the Sabres will spend to the cap. Paul Hamilton made the point that Terry Pegula stated that he has spent a lot of money without getting a commensurate return on the ice. The very unsubtle comment/s indicate that for the near term at least he will no longer be a profligate spender in his hockey business. That shouldn't be surprising as evident by the slimming down of the organization. With respect to your question about all the billionaires gaining money during the covid I would say no, especially someone like him who is in the energy, hotel, Nashville production and hospitality business. He's adjusting to the harsh economic reality like a lot of other businesses are.

Paul Hamilton was on WGR's Instigator Show and stated that he wouldn't be surprised if the Sabres don't spend up to their salary cap. This shouldn't be so surprising because not only are the Sabres in a tight financial bind but so are many other teams. What this probably means is that trade deals will be for players/contracts coming in and players/contracts going out. Another point he made regarding the probable lower salary structure is that more young players with lower contracts will make the roster to allow some more expensive players to be brought in. Your point that Botterill followed a strategy to get to this cap situation in order to be in a position of greater roster flexibility is true. However, no one could have planned for the health calamity that has been thrust upon us. Sometimes when you are forced to adjust to the stark reality of unexpected challenges you become more creative and flexible in dealing with it. I'm still hopeful that the brain trust can make some good hockey deals that upgrade and better balance the roster.

I understand what you are saying but I disagree with it. He was not going to get healthy until he agreed to accept medical attention. From what I remember it was the organization that helped him find the right medical services. And even when he was no longer associated with the organization it still kept in touch with him to see how he was doing. Anyone who has dealt with people with mental health problems knows that until the troubled soul is willing to acknowledge a problem and accept help for the problem the issue will remain and get worse. Lehner being dealt for a first round pick had little bearing to his health situation. And playing in Buffalo with an inadequate team and being the target of a frustrated fan base was not consequential to his personal demons. He's a NHL hockey player who plays in a stressful business in front of a large audience. It doesn't matter what city he is in because the stresses associated with playing in a pro sport is inescapable everywhere. It wasn't until Lehner received medical treatment for his complicated health issue and continued to do what he had to do (counseling and medication) to remain healthy that he turned around his life and ability to play in his chosen endeavor. My point is that playing in Buffalo or any other location wasn't at the heart of his serious problems that went beyond hockey.

Cirelli would be my #1 preference but I'm not sure he will be attainable. Another player who I think will be a good pickup and might be available with a reasonable deal is Danault. What others have said about him that would make him appealable to Krueger is that he is a good two way player. When one reviews the list posted @Curt what sticks out is that there are plenty of good primary and secondary options to consider.

If it turns out that Mitts doesn't become a capable player in the league or even becomes a player in the league he will be surpassed and replaced by other players. He not developing into what was hoped for when he was drafted will be replaced by a player like Cozens who is more likely to become a consequential player for us. That's how it works. Nylander was a disappointment and was exchanged for Joki. The young defenseman seems to be on a high trajectory. That would be a plus. Sheary and Rodriques were inconsequential players for us. The player who we got for him was Kahun. If he turns out to be a good third liner at worst and a second liner at best then roster would be upgraded. That would be a plus. In this league there is always a lot of player shuffling. What you hope for is when the plusses and minuses are added up it ends up with a positive number.

Tic-tack-goal. Pretty play. (clip taken from nhl.com) https://www.nhl.com/video/nosek-scores-on-odd-man-rush/t-277350912/c-5415391

As you indicate, and everyone else does, finding a genuine 2C is the priority for the front office. And there is an assumption that Cozens will either be the second or third center in another year or so.

Why prematurely make deals when trade options are limited compared to when the playoffs are concluded and when there will be more options? Just because Buffalo hasn't made any deals right now doesn't mean that our GM isn't communicating with teams out of the playoffs and even with teams in the playoffs to work on proposed deals. I would rather have a full menu of options than a partial menu of options.

I agree that it is more of a third line than a second line. But I think it could be a good third line that gets more production and minutes than our third lines usually get. That's why I inched it up in my evaluation of the unit. My point is with this line there will be less chasm between the lines instead of having the big drops in production from the first line to the lower lines.

You are being ridiculous. Go spend your research time on someone else.

I agree with you that Johansson is more of a winger than center. But in the short period of time the line played together last year and with the skating ability of Kahun the line meshed well. Both Kahun and Johansson have good instincts where to an extent they both could be interchangeable at the center position. If this line was assembled again I wouldn't consider it to be a second line so much as a very good third line or even a second tier second line playing behind the established second line.

My problem is not with you. As I stated before with our exchanges you and I are basically in accord. My issue is with another poster who keeps twisting my position when it is clear that it is not what I am saying. This repeated distortion by him irritated me to the point that I responded with needless vigor.

I have said all along that Botterill was fired for not going along with the downsizing. What more can I say. And I have repeatedly stated that the peripheral analytical issue as it pertained to Botterill was not a consequential factor. You keep portraying my position as if it was otherwise. It is not!

With respect to the highlighted segment about why Botterill was fired the reason you gave why he was fired is exactly what I have been saying in the dozens of my posts on this subject. So there is no disagreement on that issue. You didn't respond to what I stated. You distorted it. That's fine. There is no need to continue with this wasteful and foolish duet. Your need to always be right is tiresome. And forcing your self-declared brilliance on to others doesn't work with people who are not receptive to it.

A middle six line of Olofsson/Johansson/Kahun is a high quality middle line. It wouldn't be outlandish to consider this line as a second-tier second line type line.

I agree with most of what you stated. As you noted bigger is not always better. That is not to say that it is always not better. But by culling the staff you hopefully will make it more nimble and creative. With smaller staffs the hockey departments are more likely to be better at interacting/communicating with one another. With respect to the issue of inexperience although Adams has made a lot of new hires that doesn't mean that they are less accomplished than the people they replaced. The bottom line determining success revolves around the hockey decisions that will be made this offseason. Only time will tell. Entering this offseason I'm more encouraged than discouraged.

I disagree with you. It's clear that Botterill was fired because he was not willing to go along with the austerity program. It's easy for us to agree on that point because the reason was stated by the Pegulas. As far as the analytical issue being a significant factor for the firing that is a diversion and a manufactured rationale because analytics were already part of the evaluation system not only for the Sabres under Botts but for all teams. As far as Adams approach appearing to be different I don't know how you can say that because he hasn't made many hockey decisions yet other than staffing decisions. What we do know for sure is that he will be working with a thinned out staff because because he has no other choice. The Pegulas made the determination as to the more austere way of doing business. As I have said on numerous posts the Pegulas have a right to structure the organization any way they want. Ultimately, what is going to matter is the quality of hockey decisions made by the hockey people. It's not unreasonable to believe that a more austere operation can be more nimble and creative and make better hockey decisions than a bulkier run operation. That's what I'm hoping for.

I agree with almost all your responses with a slight difference about Botterill. The issue is as I see it is not that Botterill was adverse to an analytical approach because it is already a factor with all hockey operations. I'm sure that he was willing to cut staff but not to the extent that the Pegulas' were demanding. It certainly was going to be uncomfortable for the former GM to be forced to cut so many people that he hired. Because of the financial hemorrhaging the organization was already faced and with the gloomy future economic climate that their hockey business would have to contend with this austerity program was going to be installed no matter who was going to be the GM. It should be noted that no one outside the organization was considered for the job so it is clear that the owners had the person in hand who was going to implement what they wanted to do. I am not criticizing the owners. From a business standpoint what they did made sense. And they had a good argument that even when they were copiously spending money the results didn't come close to matching the invested resources. So altering their course of action in such a maelstrom made sense. Where I slightly deviate from your take is that I don't believe the issue of analytics was much of a factor for the GM departure. And I'm not getting caught up on how the slimmed down operation will change how things are done. The bottom line is: are Adams and his smaller staff able to make better hockey decisions that can turn the fortunes of this sputtering team? This offseason we should get a better sense of what the answer will be. As I, and others have stated, the organization is in a good situation this offseason to make some important hockey decisions. Will they sufficiently seize the opportunity? I am hopeful that they will. (I want to emphasize that for the most part our views coincide except for a difference on the emphasis on the analytical factor.)