JohnC

I don't see as a problem a willingness of the Sabres in a proposed Zegras deal to to trading prospects. The issue is whether the receiving team insists on getting one of their upcoming players who is already on the roster, such as Quinn, JJP, Benson or Power. I don't see KA agreeing to that.

We simply have different perspectives on the general approach that our GM operates. Overall, I consider his approach more conservative than many GMs. There is a lot of player movement in the NHL. I don't consider our GM as being as active as many of the bolder GMs. It's gotten to the futile the point where we are going in circles on this topic. You see it differently. I'm fine with a different take.

Adams was not going signing Mitts. That was made clear when Mitts's agent stated that the GM never talked to him about the contract. That also means that Mitts was not going to get a contract worth his value here. So he wasn't going to sign here. This is a case where A=B or B=A. The GM didn't want him, so he traded him for a one-on-one deal for a young defenseman who was also highly drafted, and who played meaningful minutes in Colorado's cup year. There is no question that there was a drop off in play. But that isn't surprising for a young defenseman. Is there an element of risk in the Byram deal because of his contract status? There certainly is. But there is an element of risk for every deal, and contract offering. The bottom line is that the GM traded a player he didn't want. In that context, I don't consider this transaction a bold move. If others want to put that label on it, so be it. What has seemed to irritate some people is my description of our GM's style of operating as being cautious. For some people that word has a negative connotation. It doesn't for me. Our GM has frequently stressed (publicly stated) that his emphasis will be mostly rebuilding from within the system. And that's mostly what he has done. If you look at the composition of our top two lines and our top to pairings it is mostly done with players from within the system, with the exception being Byram who was traded for. I consider the GM for the Buffalo Bills to be a much bolder operator than the more cautious GM for the Sabres. If someone believes that KA is a bold and willing to take major risks in the way he functions, then they just have a different view than I do. That's okay.

I simply don't see the Mitts for Byram as a bold deal, especially when it appears that the GM was not going to offer him a contract that he expected to get. Both players were high draft picks that addressed different needs. And trading a second-round pick for a player who is going to get immediate playing time on a lower line is not what I consider to be risky. Your calculation is different from mine. Different eyes seeing things differently. That's okay.

Is it more acceptable and less irritating to shout out only on even numbered days? 😁

@LGR4GM is not the only one occupying the same hill. It may be more crowded than you think. 😃

Yes, I am hanging on to my description of KA as a cautious GM. None of the moves that you listed can be described as a river boat style of acting. Mitts for Bryam can be described as an equal type transaction where the GM was moving a player he decided he wasn't going to invest a contract in. The Savoie for McCleod was trading a prospect from a large pool of prospects in the same talent range. Using a second-round pick for a fourth line player who was going to play right away certainly can't be categorized as a high-roll transaction. You may think that my view of him as a cautious GM means it is a negative depiction. You are wrong in your interpretation.

What would Anaheim want in return? What would our GM be willing to give up? I don't see it happening.

Anaheim isn't compelled to make a deal; and neither is our GM compelled to make a deal. It's unlikely that this type of higher profile deal will be made by our cautious GM. I'm not even sure that another secondary type of deal will be made before camp starts. If Quinn wasn't able to return to health, maybe the GM would be more inclined to pursue a first or second line forward. However, that's not the case.

I doubt that a Zegras deal would be so costly. I don't think that even Anaheim would seriously believe that the Sabres would include Cozens, Peterka or Quinn in any deal. Your proposed deal would be an absolutely no deal from a Sabre perspective. The Buffalo phone should be slammed down if any of the three players were asked for.

What do you think Anaheim would want in return? Not what you think the Sabres would be willing to trade for him. I don't see KA trading for him. (My opinion.)

Our defense should be better now that Samuelsson is back. Also, Byram should be more comfortable in his role since he will have a full training camp to work out with the unit. And as @LGR4GM pointed out, under Lindy there should be better team structure. Last year, UPL played well for the Sabres for an extended period of time. In fact, during that interlude he was one of the better goalies in the league. I really believe that reconstituting the fourth line is going to have a cascading positive effect for the top two lines and for the goalies who are in net. I'm very optimistic about our team goalie situation.

I also listened to the interview on WGR. He's a very articulate and engaging person, quite impressive. The offseason upgrading of the fourth line is demonstrably better than last year's fourth line. It better balances the roster and will have a positive impact on our top two lines because it will allow them to focus more on what they do better as offensive players. Although the GM hasn't so far brought in big name players, what he has done is created a more coherent team roster. The Lindy effect?

As you point out, there are no guarantees how players are going to perform. If, hypothetically, Levi outshines UPL, that is not a problem. Internal competition makes players better, not worse. That's exactly what you want. A number of people are making the "what if" argument about another player beating out a more richly signed player. That's not something to stew over; it's something to celebrate. The better player earning more playing time than the less productive player. Benson was the surprise player in last year's camp. He earned his spot and based on his play showed that keeping him on the NHL roster was the right decision. If Kulich or any other prospect demonstrates in camp and in the exhibition games that he is better than another competing player, then that's a situation that should be celebrated.

I don't get overly concerned with the AAP as I am with the length of the term. If you look at the goalie position it becomes apparent that there is a lot of player movement even for players who have big contracts. My point here is that you are never stuck with a player that doesn't work out or your roster situation changes. One way or the other you can move a player with an onerous contract when the situation calls for it. Skinner is an example of it. There was a buyout. Sometimes an organization has to retain some salary when moving a player or accept a player in a trade in order to balance out the contracts. Those are a few options the organization has when the situation calls for a roster adjustment. There is never going to be a perfect match between a player's contract and production. Sometimes you are going to get a player outperforming his contract that will be balanced out with players underperforming their contracts. In the end, the real issue is the makeup of the roster and their overall performance. In general, the GM has done a decent job in handling the contract side of his responsibilities. KA is more inclined to give a young and upcoming player an extended contract sooner rather than later. In my view, he's done it in a responsible way where it is a reasonable gamble. My recommendation to you is not to get so hung up with the contracting side of the business and instead focus more on the talent and fit side of the roster.

You are right that the arbitration proceeding in itself, regardless of the outcome, often leads to resentment on the part of the player. There's the human element of a player witnessing their organization arguing why you are not worth what you are asking for. It's easy to claim that it's simply part of the business, but what you feel is what you feel. Some players understand that this process is part of the business, while others who are more sensitive take it personally.

If any player regresses, regardless of position, it becomes more challenging to move the player. UPL's contract is reasonable. Maybe it is a year longer than many would have preferred, so what! It still falls within the boundary of being reasonable. As you well know, goalies regularly get moved before their contracts expire. So I don't understand why there is so much lamenting. It just seems that it has gotten to the weird point where people complain when a player hasn't gotten signed, and then when a deal is worked out, there are complaints about the size and length of a contract. I guess you can call it: reflexive cynicism, a byproduct of a legacy of losing.

I don't think the GM will. (My opinion.) Unless a contract or two is subtracted, I don't see a Zegress level contract added to a Pegula owned team. At least right now.

How else are you going to make a salary argument if you don't use other player stats as comparisons when making a case for a particular salary range? It's the way it is done in all sports when negotiating in an arbitration setting or when negotiating with management outside of an arbitration structure.

Quinn has been subjected to a couple of unfortunate injuries that have kept him off the ice for extended periods of time. However, if you watched him in his small sample size of games it is evident that he has the potential to be a good first or second line forward. If I had the choice of keeping either JJP or Quinn, I would without hesitation take Quinn. Not only am I happy that we have him, but I'm also excited to see what he will do this season. I'm confident that he and Power are going to take a quantum leap forward in their games this season.

If Benson is in a proposed deal: Absolutely not. If Quinn is in a proposed deal: Absolute not. If JJP is in a proposed deal: Absolutely not. There can be a reasonable trade to work out for a Zegress trade. None of them should include the three players you mentioned.

If they insist on Benson I emphatically say no. End of conversation. I would be willing to give them Krebs, a high-end prospect or two (Kulich, Johnson, Rosen) and Joki. I would not give up next year's first round pick, a second would be okay. My sense is that KA is more inclined to not make a deal for a second line forward but instead stick with his plan of building from within.

Great point. This team needs to get greater net presence. It's current inability to do so demonstrated that the makeup of the team was inadequate and too inclined to play at the perimeters. I thought that Benson and Greenway were two of our best inside players. That's not good enough. I'm hoping that Lindy will instill and require a different mindset in that critical area of the game.

Did you read my post? I said the opposite. It's well known that you do attend local hockey games, and also football games.

Absolutely! But the biggest difference is that the product is not only better but also the team over a sustained period has been one of the top teams in that particular sport. For nearly half a generation, the Sabres have been in a state malaise due to its own organizational incompetence. As a result, the arena is often half full with a sleeping and too often agitated crowd. If the Sabres become a serious team in this league instead of being one of the most irrelevant franchises in the sport, the arena will be full and the place will be rocking and rolling. A half a generation of ownership/organizational incompetence has suffocated this market to near death. However, I do see the tide turning in a positive direction.