JohnC

You hit it on the mark. It is a thankless responsibility that less than a few people are willing to do. Regardless who is monitoring the room there will be some dissatisfaction on how it is run. I'm not denigrating anyone who has a complaint about how the job is being done. There is validity to some of the criticisms. But as someone else noted unless the monitoring is grossly erratic and unfair (and that is not the case here) the most reasonable remedy would be to adjust to the umpire. To those who step up and volunteer to be monitors I say thank you.

Who is volunteering to do that unappealing chore?

Each moderator is going to exercise their own judgment. While you would prefer to allow the discussions to play out on their own, others might prefer a quicker cessation or movement of the disputed topic so that it doesn't spill over to constant rancorous exchanges. Again, it is an exercise in making judgments. That's what moderators do. No one is going to completely agree with a moderator's judgment. Some moderator's prefer a looser format while others prefer a tighter format. However, if one is to give more allowance to someone I'm going to give it to the person who volunteers to do that thankless task. In addition, if you believe a particular moderator is repeatedly exhibiting a judgment/behavior that you find troubling, then PM the person and express those concerns.

The last thing you need is not to have any moderating of a forum. Problems don't take care of themselves. On the contrary they escalate into personal feuds and a breakdown in civil discourse. Factions develop and silos become more impenetrable. Can moderators be biased? Yes they can. But even when there is an observable leaning that doesn't mean that a moderator can't reasonable carry out his/her function. I'm relatively new here. Overall, I have no major complaints how this place is moderated. It is a thankless job that is more likely to attract criticisms than expressions of appreciation. If someone feels that the moderator is not treating him/her fairly then express your complaint and then move on. As far as posters leaving for whatever reason/s--- that is their prerogative. If one gets so aggravated over a discussion in which they have the ability to not participate in then their choosing to leave the site is their decision and right.

Even when Larsson played with his regular linemates he created scoring chances forcing the action and driving to the net. However, there weren't enough supporting finishers. I agree with you that if he regularly played on a line with Skinner his numbers would be much better. But even acknowledging that I don't see Larsson as a 2C. Maybe as a temporary fill-in but not as a regular on a Skinner line. Larsson is a feisty and edgy player. This team doesn't have enough tough players. I hope the organization keeps him.

If you had Larsson centering for better scoring wings his production would easily be in the range that you would hope for. His current role centering between Girgensons and Okposo is more of a checking and defensive role. If he played with a winger such as Skinner, Olofsson or Reinhart his points would definitely go up. The line he is playing on is arguably playing its role as well as any line in the rotation, maybe even better than the top line. It is admittedly a limited and defined role but it is fulfilling its role exceptionally well. I'm not suggesting that Larsson would ever be a prolific scorer but he certainly could be a more contributing scorer with different linemates.

Thank you for the post. As Lysowski points out if option A type of players can't be acquired there are some reasonable option B type of players that could be available at reasonable prices. Arranging big deals to get Monahan or Cirelli are going to be tough to work out. But getting one of those secondary type talents would still upgrade our second line and allow us to not only retain some of our other players but also allow us to parlay them for additional help.

Whether you are talking sports, race, social issues, economics, sports stadiums and who should pay for them etc. politics is inescapably intertwined with most topics. There is an option for people who find any discussion tainted by politics distasteful: Don't respond and don't get involved with the topic. It's as simple as that. Bringing passion to an issue, pro or anti, to these type of discussions doesn't lessen the political nature of the discussion but rather intensifies and prolongs it. There are plenty of topics on this board to choose from. If a particular topic is so irritating there is an obvious solution to the problem. Simply avoid it. One person who declared he was forever leaving this site because he found the intrusion of politics on a sports site so repugnant then gave an extended eloquent response why he chose to leave. That reaction was perplexing. Why even bother to get involved with an issue when there is an option to avoid it?

What do you think a deal with Montreal for Danault would look like? If as you indicate he plays a very strong defensive game it is a quality that Krueger would embrace in a player. Your deal seems a little hefty but I would take it. Maybe I would quarrel over the 2021 2nd round pick.

Since the Pegulas have taken over how many coaches and GMs has the organization gone through? This constant churning of staff and systems is not conducive to a stable and winning franchise. There are teams that have been involved in a rebuilding program for a shorter duration and have successfully made the arduous transition to being a serious team. Different staffs have different reconstruction philosophies that don't shorten the time in a rebuild as much as they prolong it. Based on its prolonged lackluster record Buffalo is a good example of how not to run an operation. I like the Pegulas and are glad that they became the owners. Without question they are well intentioned. However, they have been very misguided in their attempt to manage the franchise. I'm hoping that they will have learned from their mistakes.

The Sabre players that you listed with their ages indicates that they are at a young enough age to play for an extended period of time. They may be older than the players on LA but that doesn't alter the fact that the Buffalo players will be playing as established player for the foreseeable future.

Your comparison shows how well LA is transitioning its team with their young players. However, in the comparison you didn't fully show that the Sabres have also been working in youg players such as Dahlin, Joki, Olofsson, (maybe) Kahun, Ullmark and possibly Tage (as you noted) and Cozens (as you noted). My point is that when you consider that the Sabres are giving a lot of young players substantial playing time then the imbalance isn't so stark.

Your comments about Boston's ability to develop and nurture talent is a reflection of the stability and identity of the team. Compare that to the churning of coaches and GMs in the Sabre world. The standard pattern of behavior of a new GM is to undo what has been done before his ascension and then dispatching the staff throughout the system to start all over again. Players that were invested in are then disinvested in. The hallmark of successful teams such as Tampa and Boston are stability and a belief in their system. Do you remember who won the race between the turtle and the hare? Knowing where you are going and steadily moving in the right direction may not be glitzy but it is predictably the more successful approach.

He will have even more value for us or as a tradeable asset if he shows an appreciable amount improvement while with us. I'm not giving up on him or counting on him as a Buffalo contributor. This is a case where he has to show what he is capable of. In order to start that process he needs to come to camp next year (assuming he is not traded) in impeccable shape and in camp exhibit more aggressiveness to both sides of his game. As I said in a prior post probably the best course for him is to start the season in Rochester and get a lot of playing time. In my estimation that would help his development or show that he needs to be somewhere else for a fresh start.

For the most part our views coincide. One critical difference between the teams is that because the Sabre's talent pool is so much thinner than Boston's they can make personnel mistakes yet be better able to absorb those mistakes and move on. The ROR trade demonstrates the point how a Buffalo mistake can be so debilitating because of a limited roster . We are still trying to find a resolution to that damaging transaction. Another attribute of Boston is that they have a team identity that embodies rugged two way play. And they are good at finding players that fit in with their identity. (Which you have noted.) If a player is not capable or unwilling to play that punishing style then that player is moved.

Right now Casey has little value in the market. What is seen within the market is also seen outside the market. If he goes back to the AHL and upgrades his play and shows some promise then his value increases, maybe not significantly but marginally more. There is some chance, probably unlikely, that he comes into camp physically prepared and with more drive and demonstrates that he can compete and contribute on a NHL roster. With respect to your comment about Casey having a good year in Rochester and then losing him is not an issue that bothers me. If he plays well enough in Rochester he will get an opportunity with the big club. If he plays well in Rochester and we lose him in expansion then I will wish him well and be happy for him.

It's not unusual that players who have a rugged style of play have it take a physical toll on them. When they start the downslide it becomes evident. There is little chance that they can adequately regain what they lost. He's a player I would have loved to have on the roster a few years ago. Now I don't think he is worth keeping. This warhorse is battered and bruised. We need a fresher body to do what he has done in his career.

My takeaway from your post is that the best way to handle him is to start him off in the AHL and give him the time and space to develop his game. That grooming process should have happened sooner. As of right now I don't think he has much value on the market. So most likely the best way to increase his value whether he ultimately remains with the organization or not is to allow him more time to grow as a player. If he eventually develops into the player that is commensurate with his draft status it would be a terrific bonus for this franchise.

Last year the Red Wings took D Moritz Seider with the 6th pick surprising a lot of people. Each team has their own evaluations of players. So it wouldn't be surprising that Sanderson who is the top rated defenseman on many teams' board would go higher than some people think.

You have to admire the Bruins and their team ethos. They have talent on all their lines but what distinguishes them is their relentless style of play. Whether they are up or down their grinding style of play never leaves them. You have to give them credit for their collective team work ethic.

The issue isn't whether Sanderson would be a good NHL player as it would be can you get an equally good or better player at the forward spot that can better balance out your team. If you believe that one of the forwards on the board who is ranked in the same vicinity as Sanderson can be a top two line player then the selection should lean toward the forward. As others have stated we have some good d-men prospects in the pipeline such as Borgen and Johnson in addition to a surplus of blue liners on the roster. What this franchise lacks is second line forward prospects. If the Sabres had a more robust and balanced roster then the smartest and most conventional approach is to draft the best player and allow that player to develop at his own rate. My preference is if the Sabres can get a mid-twenty year old second line forward, preferably center, in exchange for our first pick or in a package I would seize the opportunity.

I'm sure that there are women who feel insulted by his comments. And I'm sure there are women who don't feel insulted by his comments. However, for those who do feel victimized by his inane comments they need to toughen up and deal with the real world. With regards to a Leaf fan making a snide remark about the Sabres my response is who freaking cares how anyone else characterizes this less than successful team. If one can't handle ridiculing words then the person who is bothered is pathetically weak and lame.

This inane comment was not going to result in damage to the company. Why would it? There was nothing wrong with his statement. It was an innocuous comment that got blown out of proportion because it resulted in some people being offended. This willingness and receptivity to being offended is one of the issues that I am complaining about. People need to toughen up and get over themselves. Some people get offended when you call them Miss instead of Ms. I can understand why some people didn't appreciate the comment. But making it rise to a job disqualifying level is not only an absurdity--- it was unfair. When his response was brought to his attention he apologized for it. What ever happened to the concept of proportionality. There are a lot of issues to get exercised over. This isn't one of them.

There are colleges that won't allow professors with different political philosophies into their economic and legal programs for fear of the backlash. There are colleges that won't allow speakers to give lectures because their countervailing views challenge the prevailing view. At one point Jerry Seinfeld said he would no longer perform at colleges because he was tired of the oppressive political correct mentality. (I'm not sure if he has changed his stance on performing at colleges?) So the notion that Mike Milbury made an outdated comment about the bubble. There was little that was wrong with it other than it was a little cringe worthy. Milbury was not fired for boorish behavior. He was fired for a comment that was out of tune with more modern views. There is a difference between bad behavior and his comments. He clearly didn't mean anything untoward. I understand what your position is but I disagree with it.

If Milbury no longer performed at an acceptable standard then his contract should not be renewed. I have no problem with that. He has been on the air for years and he is a known quantity by the company he works for. His job is not to call the game as it is to offer commentary. His job isn't to be bland but to provoke. The comment he made about women not being in the bubble was in my opinion stupid but not malicious. It was an outdated view but far from being misogynistic. As I said in prior posts the more pernicious problem is creating an environment that stifles the free flow of views out of fear of be out of step of the prevailing way of thinking. People who are in the "talking business" are not always judicious in what they say. I'm not bothered by it as much as others. I have the ability to counter the view or ignore the view and tune out.