JohnC

If you review the signings that were made this offseason, it becomes apparent that they were doable last offseason. For the most part, they fall in the category of lower line acquisitions that better balance out the roster and add an element of toughness to the style of play. It seems to me that the GM got fixated on the top two lines and the prospects in the system while losing sight of how teams are built and play in the NHL. (My opinion.)

I read (looked at) at what I considered to be an adventure book. It had a lot of naked pictures with busty girls demonstrating their flexibility. I was told that I was a naughty boy. I ended up being severely disciplined. It was well worth the punishment. 😀

Is Iafallo a top six player?

You have been posting for a long time. The one thing you are not is a "Storm Cloud". You may be other things but regarding the Sabres you are usually fair-minded.

I don't believe that the organization soured on him. It's more of an issue where he was a good prospect who was in the same tier as a number of our other prospects. When you have a surplus of assets that are similar then it makes a lot of sense to parlay that asset for another that has immediate utility for your NHL team. Edmonton had a different roster situation that required a deal, as we did. The issue isn't who got the better deal as does this deal serve one another's interest. I think it did.

Did Terry P divest himself of all his hotels and restaurants?

In normal circumstances, he wouldn't be worth a 2nd round pick. However, from a Sabre perspective this year, it is absolutely worth a second-round pick. The Sabres had an abundance of draft picks that most likely wouldn't materialize as NHL players. So an asset was used to help address a structural problem associated with a lower line and style of play. Assessing the collective actions of the GM, he did a good job in adding players who will alter the makeup of the roster that needed to be remade. A little more than a year ago, KA gave up a second-round pick to acquire Greenway. Was it an overpay? Maybe. So what. We added a NHL player who was a solid player for us. I simply don't know what you are complaining about.

As the saying goes: Sometimes less is more. 😃

After reading the comments about McCleod, I like this deal. We gave up a good prospect but still have a plenty of comparable or better prospects in the system. Still, would love to add a top six forward to the mix. Getting a player like Ehlers would be wonderful.

If @SwampD and @GASabresIUFAN are positive about this trade, then I'm on board.

My ears may be out of tune. Doesn't this fellow sound like Chubby Checkers?

I worry about his well-being. If he gets shiiiit faced, his wife will pummel him. He doesn't need that arse whipping humiliation in front of his friends. 😀

I didn't take your comments as arguing with me. One of my points about this issue is that Mitts has a versatility that goes beyond playing a single position. Assuming that he could have signed a contract similar to what he signed with Colorada, it would be, in my view, a good value contract. Again, I didn't take your post in a negative. way.

Do not over-imbibe. We need a sober report from your Sabre connections. 🍺

My money is on your first conspiracy theory.

The contract that Mitts signed with Colorada, essentially a bridge contract, was a contract that the Sabres could easily have handled within their cap situation. Mitts is a 2C caliber player (my opinion) whose value is increased because of his versatility. He can play center or wing on any of our three lines. I like Byram, and from a talent standpoint this was a fair trade. As of right now, from a roster building standpoint, it set us back. (My opinion.)

When one depends on too many "ifs", you are already starting off in a precarious position. Injuries are inevitable. Our team is not in a position to handle those setbacks, especially to a primary player, without being derailed. There is a thinness to this roster that bothers me a lot. As you noted, there are simply too many "ifs/assumptions" built into the starting roster. It makes me very queasy.

Maybe or maybe not? I really don't know. The bigger issue is whether the team would be better with both of them on the team. I believe so. And it should be noted that I have said for a while (as you have also) that Quinn is going to be a very good player in this league.

https://www.google.com/search?q=lighten+up+francsi&oq=lighten+up+francsi&aqs=chrome..69i57j0i22i30l9.4399j0j7&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8#fpstate=ive&vld=cid:d439af8c,vid:2H-Cs-fi5tA,st:0

You would put Savoie ahead of Kulich as a prospect? I'm not saying you are wrong, just surprised at your ranking. As you point out, sometimes what seems like a vulnerability can in the end turn out to be a fortuitous opportunity. If any three of the prospects you mentioned become this year's version of a Benson, then the angst is reduced.

It's very likely he would have signed a similar deal with Buffalo. The deal he signed with Colorada was essentially a bridge deal that would expire when he was 28, and in his prime. That type of deal would have worked for him here. The agent for Mitts stated that KA barely communicated with him, showing little interest in retaining him. For the superior team that traded for him he becomes a 2C. They valued his talents enough to let go a promising young defenseman who contributed in is rookie year in their Cup run. That tells you that they valued Mitts a lot, much more than KA did. In my mind, and in Colorado's view, Mitts is a 2C talent. If he would have played as a 3C in Buffalo, so what. There is nothing wrong playing a 2C talent on a lower line. That's an indication of team depth. As I have said, the issue isn't whether the trade of Mitts for Byram was a fair/good trade. It was. But from a roster building standpoint, because there wasn't an adequate fallback position (so far) it seems to be a negative deal.

We agree on the caliber of player Byram will be. With respect to your first point, I strenuously disagree that Mitts wouldn't have signed a similar (bridge deal) with Buffalo. By all accounts he liked it here and was invested in this team. With respect to your second point regarding preferred skill sets, he may not fit perfectly with what you want in style of play, but it can't be argued that he wasn't a legitimate 2/3 C who can also move up to the top line (as he did) and keep it functioning as a top line. He also has the versatility to play wing when needed. In essence, what you are saying is that with a cup contending and superior team he fits in but with a less talented team he doesn't. That argument doesn't resonate with me. As I have repeatedly stated, this was a good and fair trade for each team as a one on one transaction. But in my view, because there wasn't an adequate fallback position to replace the departed player, it turned out to be a negative deal from a roster building standpoint. Why hasn't the GM found a replacement for Mitts? Because the cost to replace him is extremely high. That's my point. Our GM is a checker player competing against chess players. This was a stolid performance by the GM that lacked vision and anticipation.

In hindsight, wouldn't it have been better to re-sign Mitts at the contract that he signed with Colorado (3yrs, 5.75 AAP)? Looking at the asking price for even rental top six forwards seems to be very steep. It just seems that not retaining a player that was already on the roster (and wanted to be here) resulted in a cascading effect that in the end left us in a bind. I'm not knocking Byram as a player. I see him as a legitimate first or second pairing defenseman. It just seems to me that losing Mitts created a bigger negative than adding Byram created a positive. Some GMs play one dimensional chess while others play a three dimensional game.

Byram potentially is an upgrade in the defensive group. But there is a balancing act that has to be considered. By dispatching Mitts without adequately replacing him, we lost a player who not only was a 2/3 C player, but also a player who can fill in on the top line when required and still maintain a top line proficiency. (That's exacrly what happened when he filled in for Tage the prior year.) On top of that, Mitts was versatile enough where we can also play the wing when required. So far, we haven't filled the void of a Mitts departure. In my view, it would have been better to keep Mitts and bring in a lesser defenseman who maybe plays a more physical game. I have said all along that this trade was a good trade for both teams. However, if the Mitts hole is not adequately replaced, then the balance tilts away from the Sabres. (My opinion. )

I have no problem with moving on from Skinner. That's not the issue. Who is replacing him or Mitts? If you don't have a plan to fill the void, you are creating more deficits. Subtracting talent is easy to do. Adding talent to surpass the talent you dispatched is what a GM is supposed to do. As things stand right now, he hasn't done what he gets paid to do.