Archie Lee

Going back to your initial posts on this, I think you are correct that had the Sabres reacted to such a thing the same way that the Bruins initially reacted (in the first period and up to the first fight) then Sabres' fans would have been screaming that the team had no guts. However, that would have quickly changed had the Sabres reacted the way the Bruins did in the 2nd and 3rd. With regards to the bolded above, this isn't about how the Tom Wilson-type players of the NHL respond to being challenged; players like Wilson love this stuff. What it is about, is how you respond as a team when a player like Wilson does something like this to your teammate.

I wouldn't blame him for the OT goal either. I thought, though, that goals 2 and especially 3 were more or less classic Hutton cases of getting himself turned around and out of position. Sure he made some good saves, but goalies are supposed to make good saves. The bottom line is he gave up 3 goals in 2 regulation periods and turned in another sub .900 save % game. There really is no excuse to not give Johansson or Tokarski an opportunity. I know that neither has shown to be an NHL goalie, but I'm not sure what you have to lose at this point. Johansson is 10 years younger than Hutton. He has turned in back to back .920+ save % seasons in Rochester the last two seasons. He did not fair so well in his few NHL games, though not worse than Hutton the past two years. It is time to give him an opportunity so we know what we have. Tokarski is 4 years younger than Hutton. He has turned in back to back .930+ save % seasons in the AHL. His career NHL #'s are not great (.904 save %) but they are better than Hutton's from the past two seasons. The likelihood that either Johansson or Tokarski get on a role and lead the team to better things as a back-up or starter is remote, to be sure. Hutton though has been a sub .900 save % NHL goalie going back two years now to January 2019. He is 35. We know what he is and he isn't good enough. There is value in being a good team guy, to buying in and being a good leader. I'm sure Hutton fits the bill with regards to these traits and that his teammates respect him and want him to be successful and a part of the team. The coach and GM though are responsible to the organization. When a player is simply not good enough, reasonable steps must be taken to replace him. If neither Johansson or Tokarski (or Luukkonen) are given the opportunity, then that is simply a failure of leadership.

The contract was an enormous mistake. That was clear from the beginning. The best comparable players to Skinner before he signed his deal were Jordan Eberle and Brendan Gallagher. Why we felt the need to sign him to a $9 mil deal when he was a $5.5 - $6.5 million dollar player is a mystery. When a $5.5 - $6.5 million dollar players demand $10 million per year in free agency, you just let him walk. That said, there is no point in trying to make him a $9 million player or in lamenting it any further. What the Sabres should be trying to do is turn him back into the $5.5 - $6.5 million dollar player that he was/is. If they can do that they the dead cap space isn't $9 million, it's $2.5 - $3.5 million. Jeff Skinner scoring 25ish goals and 45ish points on the 2nd or 3rd line is not a star player...but he is not a lost cause either. Krueger is a disaster if he can't get Skinner to be what Skinner is.

I agree with the above. No NHL team should be more than 2-3 years away from being good on the ice if they are good off the ice. The Pegulas are obviously smart and successful people who have done many good things for the community. I don't think they deserve ridicule. They have been guilty I think of trying to over-correct bad decisions. As you indicate, I think that is more in line with being misguided as owners than it is with being bad owners. My great frustration in the Eichel years is that, with the possible exception of his first year, no season has ended with the level of optimism being higher than when the season began. From the beginning of the Eichel years the organization has been unwilling to commit to simply having a plan, growing the talent and taking some additional lumps. Instead we continually take another shot at shortening the rebuild to the point where taking a step back is no longer an option (it should be an option, but it is treated as though it is not). Even this past off-season was an example. I'm not entirely down on this year's team by any means and still do have hope, but there really was no logical reason for this team at this point in its trajectory to target Taylor Hall as an off-season acquisition. This was done in an attempt to jump ahead 3 spaces when, so long as we have a solid plan and are smart in what we are doing, 1 space would due.

It's maybe outside the scope of the poll, but anytime you have this many significant mistakes you have to find the root cause. In this case the clear root cause is ownership. While the jury is still out on the current management, specifically Adams, we have seen a steady string of bad decisions when it comes to hiring. The first sign of bad things to come, which, in hindsight, was pretty glaring, was the replacement of Regier with Lafontaine and Nolan. Regardless of what anyone thinks of any of these 3 individuals, it's a pretty big red-flag when an owner fires a long-time and respected (in NHL circles) GM and replaces him with two popular figures from the team's past who have long-held grievances over their previous controversial departures that just happen to have been overseen by the newly fired GM. This was a clear indication that ownership decisions would not always be made based on rationale thought.

Watch the puck bounce.

You make great points. On the bolded, I would just say that 5v5 defensive play is different than PK. Eakin/Rieder might not be defensive improvements on Larsson/Vesey at 5v5, but still be upgrades at PK.