JohnC

I'm sure there were a number of teams eyeballing him in proposed trade scenarios. Were the Rangers or Islanders the teams keenly interested in Kulich? I can understand why for reasons of confidentiality you wouldn't be interested in saying. How about a clue? Gotham City area?

A line of Kulich/Cozens/Quinn is intriguing. They can all skate and have some grit to their game. If Quinn makes the big club roster, I can see him on starting off on a third line with the potential to move up to the second line. As you and others point out, the GM and the new HC were determined to remake the lower lines this offseason for the purpose of better balancing out this roster. Hopefully, their efforts will accomplish that.

Is there a link to watch the game?

I haven't seen him play. As he gets more physically developed is his game getting more physical indicating that he can handle the rigors of the NHL?

I appreciate these interesting factoids. You may not have intended it but I feel more stupid for not knowing these particular historical hockey facts. 😀

Your last sentence captures the source of my exasperation with how this franchise has been run during the TP tenure. The churning of staff has resulted in countless resets. It's like walking up a down escalator when it is moving faster than the person on it. The punches that are bruising us are self-inflected. Stating the obvious: bad decisions lead to bad results. Futility magnified by more futility. I'm not a despondent pessimist. I don't think that it is out of the realm of possibility (maybe even near probability) if the Sabres can get the caliber of goaltending that UPL provided for half of the season last year and do it for most of the season this year.

I'm an acknowledged dope. Assuming Early Grey is a drink: What are the ingredients of an Earl Grey?

There is not one franchise in the league that wouldn't have made a coaching team in the situation that the Sabres were in. If you count that typical transaction that every franchise in the league would have made as exhibiting urgency, then we have different standards in judging actions.

My basic point about this particular owner is that during his tenure his team's record is a beyond being disappointing. The measurement is basic: the team's W/L record. He needs to show more urgency in making this team more competitive. It's inexcusable that in a sport that has a cap system that the team that he presides over continues to be stuck for nearly a generation. That's unacceptable.

This offseason really ticked me off. I thought the GM with the influence of Ruff did well in reconstituting the lower lines. The team's roster is now better structured. On the other hand, with the dispatching of Mitts there was a hole in the second line that needed to be addressed. I wasn't looking for a blockbuster deal or an overly rich contract for a FA or in a trade acquisition. It didn't happen. I find that disappointing. For a team that has been lagging for so long I thought the owner and front office would have demonstrated more urgency in getting better.

What are you talking about? You didn't understand what I posted. For the past decade and beyond, this team has been an unmitigated failure on the ice. The lagging performance of this team has corresponded with his tenure. That's an incontrovertible fact! This very involved owner did much of the hiring for the critical positions. Are you suggesting that the owner didn't make the decision to hire Krueger? Are you making the claim that he wasn't the most instrumental person for the major staff hirings? If you are, you are wrong. Again, you are missing the central point. Money isn't the main reason why the franchise has stalled for such an extended period. It's not about spending money on players as it is about wisely spending money for players to build a competitive roster. It's bad hirings and subsequent inordinate number of bad decisions that has kept this so long irrelevant franchise stuck in the muck of generational mediocrity. It starts at the top. No more excuses!

I don't care whether the Sabres play in a gilded new arena or an antiquated eye sore of a facility. The adequacy of a facility isn't the issue. That issue is a distraction from the disgusting reality that the Sabres under Pegula's tenure have been a failure for almost a generation. If the owner can't even meet the bare minimum of qualifying for the playoffs in a generation, then it's time to sell, take your profits and get out of the hockey business. This never-ending cycle of unceasing failure is ridiculous. By all account Terry Pegula is a hands-on owner. He is responsible for its failure. Either get serious or get out!

Dahlin, Byram, Power, Samuelsson, Joki and Clifton are in a blueline group. I don't see him as a top D player on our team unless one of them is moved out.

A Cozens/Mitts/Quinn line would have been an interesting line. As would a Mitts/Cozens/Quinn line. Not to be.

The critical issue for me isn't whether Mitts is better than Byram or vice versa. In general, I consider this trade to be an equal value trade. Or simply put, a sensible hockey trade. As it stood, to start off Mitts appeared to be our 3C. But for me, his added value was that he could be a good replacement center for either of the two top lines when injuries happened. He also had the ability to move up and play forward when needed. You keenly noted that KA looked at the Mitts deal from a timeline perspective influenced by the future options that he had in the system. That strategic thinking influenced by the future, even if it is the near future, bothers me. My view is that the dominant influence should be about the now, not later.

What was perplexing about the Mitts contract and trade situation was the inexplicable disinterest of our GM in keeping Mitts at all. After Mitts was dealt, his agent let it be known that there was no attempt to negotiate with him about the contract. Here was a player that the organization developed (took some time), was versatile and became arguably our best wall player. He went from being a soft player to a grittier and more muscular player. What's exasperating was that the player wanted to be here, and his contract requirement would have been very reasonable and manageable. This was a GM initiative for whatever reason didn't value him. I'm very much perplexed how this situation transpired.

When Tage was plagued with injuries the HC moved Mitts up to center the first line. That line excelled. How many teams can lose their 1C and still have the line play at an optimal level? For me, Mitts brought a greater degree of lineup flexibility than Byram in that he could center three lines or play wing on the top two lines. I'm not diminishing Byram's talent as a top one or two pairing defenseman, rather I am arguing that Mitts brought more value because of his ability to play more roles.

A definite no for me. As you point out, the age issue is what makes this proposed deal very unappealing. In addition, young players such as Quinn and JJP will soon be getting richer new contracts. So I would rather not be squeezed for funds because of a player on his downside. A Kadri deal would have made a lot of sense a few years ago, but not now. The timeline for this deal has passed by. Would I like to see a winger added for the second line? Yes. However,I don't see our GM inclined to make such an aggressive move.

Terrific explanation. Succinct, clear and understandable. Lawyers have a tendency to be verbose and lean on legal jargon. You didn't do that beyond what was required to explain the issue. I think what is confusing some people are the distinctions between the definition of murder and manslaughter. As you point out states have a separate category for vehicular homicide/manslaughter. A thumbs up 👍for the in-house lawyer.

You can be one of the best college defensemen in college and still not fall in the category of being a super star prospect. So your predictable bull hockey response is not surprise coming from someone who has a tendency to be intermittently insufferable.

He was the consensus #1 pick prospect in that draft. No one made the claim that he was a super star in college. That's your manufactured red herring you created to argue against. In time, he's going to be an upper tier defenseman in the NHL. If you think otherwise, that's okay. Time will tell.

Power is a young player playing a challenging position on a top two pairing. I'm confident that he will get steadily better the more he plays. He was an elite player in college in his short stint there. That doesn't mean that the dominance he demonstrated in college will immediately translate to the NHL. Speaking for myself, he's one young player that I am not worried about.

I'm a believer that Power is eventually going to be categorized as an elite defenseman. With tall defensemen, and players in general, it takes more time for them to develop. Hedman, and to an extent Tage, are examples of taller players getting better as they physically mature. It's my opinion that many local fans are more critical of Power than he deserves because he doesn't play an overly physical and a banger stye of game. With a little more experience this guy is going to be a gem. There was a reason why he was the first pick in his draft year.

When a contract is signed between a player and franchise it doesn't become official until it is reviewed by the league office so that it is in accord with the labor agreement between the league and PA. The baseball business model is completely different. It doesn't have a hard salary cap but does have a luxury tax clause for teams that go over it. The Dodgers are in a unique financial position where $$$ directed towards salaries isn't a major consideration.

Under the current rules it is legal. As far as changing how the cap is calculated it won't be as simple as you believe it to be. I assume it will have to be negotiated between the league and PA. In this particular contract both the player and the organization are fine with how it was structured.