JohnC

You need to be discrete about demonstrating your Yankee loyalties. There are still plenty of Confederate never-enders where you are who consider you to be the enemy. Watch your back! Blend in and practice saying ya'll. 😄

If the GM didn't have a grasp on who the replacement players were going to be for the players he sent packing, then he was taking an unnecessary gamble. Mitts was traded and Skinner was bought out. Who is going to fill the void? It's inarguable that Skinner isn't well rounded enough for this staff, but when placed in the right situation he is an accomplished goal scorer. Why not keep him for another year? Mitts wanted to be here. The trade for Byram made sense and is a good trade if a Mitts replacement is brought in. Without an adequate replacement, it becomes in my view a net deficit. I'm not criticizing the GM for not willing to give up substantial assets for players such as Ehler or Necas without their agreeing to sign extensions. But that goes back to my original point that roster holes were created without a plan to satisfactorily fill them. This organization is spinning its wheels in the rut that it created. We're competing against teams that work hard to get better. The arithmetic is simple: When you take two steps forward, and then two steps back you have not moved forward. It just seems that this earnest GM doesn't have the ability to strategically think. It's tiresome to witness.

The job to revamp the team is still incomplete. Mitts and Skinner are gone. Who replaced them? Right now that void has not been filled. It's indisputable that the lower lines were upgraded with more physical players. But the reality is that was the easy part to accomplish. There were plenty of solid fourth liners to choose from. It didn't take much in the way of assets to acquire that category of players. Are the Sabres an improved team? My response is compared to what. The more substantive question is: have the Sabres improved more than their competition? I'm not sure they have. A team is more than pieces. One part of the unit supports the other parts. When there is a void in one area, it undoubtably affects the other parts. From what I have seen so far, more needs to be done. As @dudacek pointed out in one of his smart posts, there are some good pickups that are still available for a reasonable price. You either do or you do not. Again, it comes down to how good are you compared to the opposition, not how good are you compared to last year's team. As far as I'm concerned , so far, the GM gets an incomplete rating.

If the player would have answered he preferred corn flakes he would have been signed. 😃

I bet you that he didn't get a bo--ner out of the calls he received. 😀

I called that number. I ended up with a woman with a sexy voice talking dirty to me. After the titillating call I found out that my credit card had an exorbitant charge for a counseling service. Thanks a lot, pal. 😀

For me, the issue comes down to adding either a top 6 F or 2/3 C. That still is an open issue. I'm optimistic that something happens soon on that front because the GM hasn't really given up any assets to make that higher profile acquisition to replace Mitts. As they say: TBD. The biggest issue after that is whether UPL can play at the same level as he did when he was healthy. And can he stay healthy?

The highlighted line is the simplest and best summarization of how to look at the moves the GM has made so far. If he can get a top 6 F or 2/3C (as you noted), the evaluation of his offseason work goes from being basic to being sold/good. So far, the GM has not given up much in the way of assets to add players. He still has plenty of assets to work with to have a more complete/productive offseason.

The actions taken so far are neither over nor underwhelming. Just solid deals to address lower line needs. Collectively, they remake what lower lines should look like. As @dudacek points out, there still is a big need that needs to be addressed to fill the Mitts departure. If I had to come up with a word or two that best describes what has taken place so far, I would say workmanlike and incomplete.

I'm not a draftnick and don't pretend to be. But it seems to me that these players are in the same ranking strata. When watching portions of the draft it seems some analysts were gushing over Zeev Buium. I'm more than satisfied with the Helenius pick. Only time will tell.

I agree with you that there is a balance between having future assets and smartly using them to put out a more competitive team. Most people would agree with that sentiment. There is also a recognition that the prospect talent is fulsome enough where there is not enough room on the big roster for all of them when they are ready to move up. As you point out, there are enough chips in the system to work out some reasonable deals that will improve and better balance out the roster. As an example, the trade with the Caps was not a major deal but it was a good deal for us. I also agree with you that I expect a more significant deal to happen soon. I don't expect it to be in the blockbuster category but I do expect/hope that it will add a 2/3 C to the roster. And you are being very astute in recognizing that the play of our goalies is going to be critical to our success. Can UPL play up to last year's level and stay healthy?

I understand why you are saying that the GM is focusing more on the 26-27 season, but I don't buy it at all. Our GM is not so clueless of where this team currently is, and its standing with the fanbase. He also has enough self-awareness that if he doesn't show some success soon (playoffs) that he will be another staffing casualty. The Sabres have had many of their best players work feverishly to get out of this deeply stuck franchise. If our GM has a nickel's worth of common sense, he would realize that the constant attention to the future at the expense of the present is a self-crippling approach to continue with that "get me out of here" attitude. I'm simply not receptive to your proposition that the GM is more focused on the future a few years down the road than he is about the near future i.e. next season. That is not to say that he would willing to jettison a lot of his assets for a short-term burst of success that sells out the future. My point is that he is very concerned about the upcoming season and is willing to do what he needs to do, within reason, to have a successful season this year. I'm sure he is now at the stage where his attention is about the now.

You may not be aware of it but the offseason is not over with yet. The GM claims that he offered up his first pick. According to him, he had no takers or whatever offers he had were unacceptable to him. Were prospects included in any proposals? I don't know. However, I'm not criticizing the GM just yet for not making a deal that he considers unfair. If you want to, then that's your prerogative. Ottawa made a deal with Boston that included their first pick for Ullmark. It was a fair deal that made good sense for both organizations. So far, our GM has not been able to make an impactful deal just yet. Again, the offseason is not over yet.

Your last sentence is the point I was highlighting. Let's wait and see what develops. If the GM's collective responses are inadequate, then a torrent of criticism is merited. I agree that the coaching search was blatantly bogus. And I said so when Ruff was hired. This organization is not even good at faking things. Ultimately, it was an acceptable hire. However, the charade was embarrassing and insulting. The big issue for me is the 2/3 C position. That's where my attention is focused on. If that issue isn't properly addressed, the offseason becomes a big fail.

Yes, he was traded to Ottawa for a first. Our GM claimed that he offered our top pick for NHL players. How many of those draft deals were made in this draft? According to him, he got no offers or acceptable offers. What do you want him to do? Give up his pick for a marginal player? If you can't get a reasonable/fair deal, then don't make it.

I can understand your frustration with the lack of activity by this GM, but it is misplaced, at least right now it is. As @shrader points out no team was able to trade their first-round pick for a contributing NHL player. Go back and review last year's draft? How many times were draft picks exchanged for NHL players during the draft? The draft picks are simply not valued as much as many here assume they are. Will deals be made after the draft? Yes. Teams are starting to make their buyouts so more players will be up for grabs. And more trades will be made that will have prospects involved for NHL players. We are entering the part of the offseason where trades are usually made and where more free agents will be on the market. I can understand your frustration with this front office because I also have it. But expecting our GM to make deals when few teams are making consequential deals at this time is unrealistic. After the draft, we should be able to get a better feel for what is going happen.

The salary is too much and the term is too lengthy. No thanks. I just don't see KA going for that type of deal. The odds of him being dealt to Buffalo are infinitesimal. If you think that is possible, that's okay. I see that type of deal being farfetched and basically nonexistent.

If you consider the term still left on Kadri's contract, I would prefer Coleman. I'm not saying he's better. But taking on Kadri's contract will create a cap squeeze when Quinn and JJP's contract need to be addressed. Also, adding Coleman instead of Kadri, would give you more financial flexibility to pursue other players. Interestingly, Craig Button did bring up both of these players as players that KA could pursue on today's WGR Sabre Live show.

I say with confidence: I don't know what they are going to do. But as you note, there are so many options and considerations to consider something has to give this weekend. If little happens, it will be so disappointing.

The interesting question is what player is San Jose homing in on? I agree with you that from a Sabre perspective it is a good deal. We can still get a good player within the same tier of the 11th pick, and we add picks that can be used as chips in a trade deal. This is certainly far from an overwhelming deal but it is a smart deal. Another interesting question regarding our side of the deal is whether in other proposed deals a team/s was asking for more in return to get a deal consummated? Maybe the return from the San Jose deal can be the deciding factor???

What I don't get is the resentment towards a player who wants the terms of his contract honored by the organization that is buying him out. Being passionate doesn't mean that you have to lose your common sense. If you want to express your passion/anger, then direct it towards the inept organization that gave the player this too extended contract with such a limiting clause. The organization limited its options with this particular player by agreeing to this clause in the contract. And now they are limited to what they would like to do. What a freaking surprise! When you shoot yourself in the foot, blame the dumb shooter. You are mistaken about how Captain Kirk would have reacted. He would have been smart enough (or not dumb enough) to write a clause for a subordinate that would come back to sabotage himself and his crew. And if the potential crew member insisted on the NMC clause before signing on, Captain Kirk would have told the aspirant to journey on with another ship. Captain Kirk would not have needed any advice from the robotic Spock because he had enough common sense and good judgment to make a better decision.

Being a Sabre fan doesn't require you to give up logic. Skinner is acting in his own best interest just as the Sabres are in buying him out, assuming that is what is going to happen. The Skinner scenario is not uncommon in hockey. It's not unusual for teams to buy out players, and it is not unusual for players to seek out options that are in their best interest. It's part of the business where sentimentality is set aside.

I don't understand your response. He and the team negotiated a contract that included a NMC. It's likely that he is going hold the organization to the clause within a buyout. What's wrong with that? He's not obligated to do the organization any special favors. His best interest is to maintain the clause and have it honored so he can work the market that best suits him. If anyone is to be criticized about the clause it is the organization that included it when it signed him. It had the option of not signing him with the clause. They didn't do that. The organization made a bad judgment, and now they have to live with the consequences. It's a business.

I don't see it as a black eye for him or anyone else subjected to a buyout. It's a business. And he's smart enough to recognize it.

Skinner is a good nature guy. But he's not dumb. He's veteran enough to recognize that the NHL is a sport and a business.