JohnC

One of the biggest boosters of Buffalo architecture is Douglas Jemal, an out-of-town developer. He has done a lot of restoration projects in DC, Jersey and NYC. Over the past ten years or so he has gotten involved in a number of projects in Buffalo and western NY. There isn't anyone in the country who praises the rich history of its architecture more than he does. And there isn't anyone in the country or local area who has successfully taken on as many projects as he has. The Statler is now one of his current major projects.

I have been out of town for a long time. Is Allen St. still a little off-beat part of town? I mean that as a good thing. Or has it gone through gentrification and lost its character?

https://www.audacy.com/wgr550/authors/schopp-and-bulldog Within this WGR link is a 23 min segment with Tony Ferrari on the Schoop and the Bulldog Show talking about the draft. He talks about who he thinks Buffalo might draft and about the draft class. At the end of the interview Benson's name was brought up. He gave a glowingly assessment of him.

As you observantly point out, KA has restocked the system. When he took over, he said it was a priority to accomplish that mission. Most observers will acknowledge that he has done that well. The Sabres are now at the next stage where winning now trumps not only the development of players but also the accumulation of players/prospects. As you have frequently noted (rightly so), this franchise has the cap space, prospects in the system and draft picks to parlay to upgrade this current roster. This is going to be a critical offseason. The hiring of Lindy was a good decision. He needs to follow up this critical hire by bringing in enough players to improve and better balance this roster. At this point, excuses can no longer be tolerated. Your record is your record.

The question of are we better with the trades than not in of itself reflects the distorted way in which this franchise has been run. For the most part, we gave up developed players only to bring on developing players. It's like running a race, and then when you get to the halfway point, you go back to the starting line. With the new collection of players, you may or not be better. But the reality is that because you went back to the drawing board, you are closer to the starting line. It's like panning for fools' gold. As @Thorny keenly pointed out, instead of focusing on the return, put your efforts into surrounding your own top tier players with the right support players, so that they would in a position to succeed. We lost sight of the goal and got captured by the never-ending process. This franchise has churned through players, coaches and front offices. There has been too much motion and not enough wisdom. Taking two steps forward to then go two steps back doesn't move you forward. Foolishness followed by more foolishness. The reality is that players such as Eichel, Reinhart, Montour, Ullmark have had outstanding success with other teams. They are not better players now than when they were with the Sabres. They are simply on better teams. Our front office never understood something that should have been quite obvious.

The "diss" the fans issue was blown out of proportion. The raising or not raising of the sticks became a meaningless gesture. The stark reality is that the team was not only not talented enough but also wasn't well constructed. Too many people got caught up on a meaningless gesture and used that issue to express their frustration with this exasperating franchise. The attention should be on adding talent, playing better and better coaching. Distractions don't lead to solutions.

Stamkos is not coming here under any circumstances. He has no desire to come to Buffalo. Kane is another matter. If offered a better contract than others bidding for his services, I'm sure he would be interested to come back home. I think adding Kane to this roster would be a terrific move that not only could jolt this lineup but also the fanbase.

I don't understand your fixation on this particular player. Your point that he was part of a failed 3rd rebuild doesn't resonate with me. So were a lot of players who will be on this season's roster! Are you arguing that Dahlin should be sent packing because he has been part of this failed reconstruction? Of course you are not. Girgs is a fourth line player, nothing more. He's an earnest player who consistently plays hard. And he is a good PK player. If he remains with the Sabres it will be as a fourth line player who plays that role well. So why are you so zealous about dispatching him for a player who most likely plays a similar game and isn't better? I'm not arguing to keep him or not. I don't believe that it is a consequential decision. But what I'm not going to do is point the finger at an honest player (as you are doing) who has nothing to do with the underperformance of this team. It's indisputable that this roster needs some reshaping. However you want to look at it, he's not the problem, and never has been.

It's obvious this roster needs players who play a tougher brand of game. But that will be insufficient if the rest of the lineup collectively doesn't also add a more disciplined element to their game. Obviously, not every player is built to play a rugged style of game. But that doesn't mean that there can't be a greater emphasis on responsible two-way and consistent energetic play. How many games did you watch where it seemed that this team played like it was fatigued while the opposition played with energy. Especially on back to back games, the teams simply won't have it. That's the reality of a long and grinding season. It just seems that it happened to us more than it did to other teams. We now have a coach that will hold the players accountable. That in itself should make a big difference.

I have somewhat of a different take on Greenway. I agree with you and @dudacek's assessments that Greenway's play lacks a grit component to it. That dog on bone style doesn't describe how he plays. (As both of you accurately describe.) On the other hand, I will say that he plays to his size and plays a strong game. He isn't easily moved in either of the zones and he rarely gets knocked off the puck. In my view, he and Benson are the two players who give us net presence, something that this team is dismal at. There is no question that Greenway lacks the speed and quickness to be able to excel in the tight man on man style of play. Yet, although he lacks the required quickness, he's a moose on the ice that is difficult for the opposition to move. In my view, he was a solid cost/benefit pickup.

If either player demonstrably outplays the players in camp assembled by the GM, then they should make the roster. If Adams doesn't bring in enough talent, then that is another issue. It's not inconceivable, but less likely, that one of these rookies makes the team even with an infusion of outside talent.

Considering the roster assembled entering camp, Benson earned a spot. Whether the GM failed to start off with a more robust roster in camp is another issue. Not only did Benson legitimately earned a spot but he also acquitted himself quite well throughout the season.

We are in accord on the issue of rookies earning a spot/s and the necessity of bringing in talent from the outside. The 3C issue is a big question. Is the GM going to be bold or timid in his approach this offseason? As has been discussed before, if the GM adds a 2/3 C player to the roster, there will be a lot of flexibility in how the lines get assembled.

What happens if Kulich and/or Savoie shine in camp and demonstratively outperform other players competing for a roster spot? Do you send them down because you are wedded to an approach that is usually the right way to go. Or do you make a judgment on an individual case that goes against the norm. I was surprised when Benson made the roster last year. As it turned out, he was an asset and not a liability. In general, the patient approach you are advocating for is the right approach to take. But sometimes, a player playing beyond expectations should be judged on performance. It's a delicate balance that calls for a lot of judgment. In general, I so agree with you that when in doubt take the longer development route. But there are exceptions to every rule.

Most people would agree that Okposo was at the end of his fading career. It just would have been a difficult/harsh thing to do was to cut him (little value on the market) sooner than when they did trade him to Florida for a small return. The GM handled this delicate situation with class and dignity for this loyal and class guy. Okposo was asked if he was willing to be dealt (or it could have been vice versa?) to a team that was a serious cup contender. In general, I thought it was handled properly. The point I'm making is that there was a human element to the Okposo situation.

Assuming he is on this roster and not traded out, it's going to be intriguing to see what roster role he earns. Right now, I would project him more as a fourth C than a 3C. I have liked the energy he plays with but have been disappointed with the output. TBD.

I think with him the issue is more does he want to stay in this environment or does he want a fresh start somewhere else. He's certainly not a central player, but he can be a contributor on the fourth line. He also can contribute as a PK player. We both can agree that whether he stays or not we still need an infusion of new players to better balance the roster and change the chemistry of the roster. For the most part, I would say we are mostly in accord.

If you believe that he would be a good 4th line player for a good team, then why he wouldn't be a good 4th line player for us? His style of play is suitable as a 4th line player. My thought regarding retaining him is what does he want to do, and does I want to move on. If he wants to move on, then I would wish him the best. Another aspect about his game where he is a solid contributor is as a PK. Even if Girgs is kept, the GM will still need to add another player or two to the fourth line.

Nothing you have said about Tuch can be construed as a criticism of his leadership qualities. At least that is my takeaway from your responses on this topic.

Is it known when a Captain is going to be announced? My expectation is that Dahlin is going to be selected as the captain. How many A selections are made? Two or three? If it is three, I expect Tuch, Tage and Cozens will be given the A designation. If it two, I expect Tuch and Tage will be the A letter sown on their jerseys.

I have a different perspective on leadership roles whether it is officially designated as a C or A on the uniform. With players like Okposo, Girgs or Tuch, to a lesser extent, it doesn't matter whether they have that official designation. This type of player leads more by example than by vocally expressing themselves. If I have to predict who is going to be the next captain, it's likely to be Dahlin.

I have no problem with him as a fourth line player at a fourth line price. Don't waste your bountiful reservoir of angst on his re-signing. My sense is that he wants a fresh start somewhere else. Seeing Okposo on a probable cup winning team has to get him thinking about leaving his stale situation.

Your point is well taken but I have a slightly different take. I'm not against bridge contracts. In fact, that is probably the best approach to take with Quinn, JJ and UPL. However, if the organization has a belief that a particular young player is soon to emerge, then strategically, signing that particular potential talent sooner is the smarter way to go. As you well know, cap management is a juggling act that requires a lot of flexibility and judgment. Sometimes, a bad contract decision is made; and sometimes making the right contract decision to extend will allow greater flexibility in the near future. Right now, the Sabres are in a good cap situation that will allow them to add talent. They are not being handcuffed because of their overall contract situation. There is no excuse for them not to bolster and reshape this roster under the current situation.

I agree that there isn't a necessity to sign young players such as JJ and Quinn to extended contracts right away. There's plenty of time to face that long-term deal/issue. Yet, if the organization has a belief that players such as Quinn and JJ will reach the next level, then from a financial standpoint it makes more sense to get that type of deal in place sooner. Players such as Dahlin and Tage are already contractually locked up. From a longer perspective, I think the organization was smart in securing them for the long term. Some people believe that the organization jumped the gun extending a deal to Samuelsson. Although he has been plagued with injuries, my view is that he will prove to be worth his contract. However, there are no guarantees. My basic point is that young players that have demonstrated the expected progression/development, especially those who come from within your system, should be signed sooner to those extended contracts than later. I'm not arguing that all their promising young players should be given those type of long and rich contracts, but wisely selectively the right candidates for that type of gilded contract is the right thing to do.

https://www.audacy.com/wgr550/hosts/sabres-live Within this link is a 15 segment where the two hosts talk about the players they would want the Sabres to pursue in the offsesason. Many of the players they are interested in are the same players that many here mention.