JohnC

I don't think the Sabres have any interest in Shattenkirk because of the money and length of contract. It would tighten our cap situation and limit our options in the not too distant future. I'm not arguing that he isn't a top tier player because he is. But smartly piecing together the cap puzzle is as important as acquiring talent. I do believe that the Sabres can come up with a good player for Kane. The return for him won't be of equal value because his contract will run out in a year but by adding a good player or two it bolsters the unit.. If you add in the Russian who is either a second or third pairing type player and you also factor in Guhle then the unit is being reconfigured in a good way.

I took a hard stance with Kane and then relented. But I'm taking a harder stance with dealing Reinhart or Nylander. Under no circumstance do I want either one of them traded. Kane's market value is less than his talent because his contract expires in another year. So unless there is a deal in place for him to get an extension with a new team his value is diminished. But that doesn't mean that the Sabres can't get a good second to third pairing caliber of defenseman. The Sabres are going to get a good puck moving Russian player. And Guhle should make the roster next year. Casey Nelson should be more prepared to be a third or fourth pairing d-man, his style of play is a puck moving playier. If the Sabres can get in a pre-expansion deal a solid defenseman then the back line should be bolstered. The Sabres are not going to have an elite unit. That's a pipe-dream. But if our unit is bolstered to the point that it is a competent unit then that in itself would be a quantum leap forward.

There is a truism that what you give you get back. The boorish individual who harassed me bought a top of the line car. He made the mistake of leaving a window open where someone threw in a skunk smelling product that permanently stunk the interior. His crazed response was priceless.

You sound like a very professional and dedicated employee. What did you in was not your work performance but it was the insecurity of a boss who felt threatened. In the long run the employees (including supervisors) who are fakers and connivers will be discovered and they will get their due. Just do the best you can in your current job and keep your eyes open. My suggestion to you is to be discrete and don't show your frustration at the fact that the job you are doing is not the job that was advertised to you. I had a job in the government where one supervisor for unknown reasons hated me. I never understood why? He went out of his way to harass me and try to force me to quit. He went so far as to have me periodically staked out in the hope of catching me in a mistake. In the end this fool created so many enemies that he ended up sabotaging himself and was forced out. Remember, in the end good people prevail. I'm confident that eventually you will find yourself in a good situation. Good luck.

I've changed my hardcore stance on not trading Evander Kane. If the Sabres can get a top two pairing caliber defenseman and overall get a fair return on him then the team needs to do it. It's important that this team enter the season with a competent defensive unit. The Russian should be a good addition and Guhle probably will make the roster. Because of the expansion draft the Sabres should be able to make a deal for another solid player. Casey Nelson is a solid puck moving defenseman who should be more ready compared to when he played a couple of years ago. Bogo will be tough to deal because of his salary. But with an infusion of additional players resulting in him moving down the ranks as a third pairing type player then he would be a better fit. The Sabres will not enter the season with a top unit but it is attainable for them to have a competent unit that will not be a major liability like last year's unit.

Rob didn't punch the person. That person was the person who shoved his brother. Rob was more than reasonable in his actions, and so was Rex.

I just don't understand your response. Whether he or his brother had a bombastic or meek personality traits they had no bearing in this incident in which happened to them. The brothers didn't instigate anything. My point in my prior post is regardless what one thinks of them as coaches or people that neither one of them acted inappropriately. For me it is just a small issue of fairness.

From the links that have been shown what did the brothers do wrong? Rex was pushed by a punk and the brother responded in a reasonable manner. What does their chaotic coaching style have to do with this incident in the bar? There was no one who was more critical than I was regarding Rex and his "coaching show". Alluding to this bar scene to their incompetence on the sidelines is not only off base but unfair. There are plenty of reasons to criticize Rex as a coach. Associating this pushing and shoving match which they didn't initiate is unfair.

They Ryans did nothing wrong. Some punk pushed Rex out of the way. Both of the brothers reacted but did so with a degree of control. No punches were thrown. Rob grabbed the punk by the throat and held him back. Rex reacted by shrugging the idiot away from him. The brothers went into the bar to watch a hockey game and have some brews. Rex and Rob did nothing wrong. Rex was accosted and the brother stepped up. Good for him. The punk who first put his hands on Rex deserved an arse-whipping, but not in the joint. The incident is not a big deal. In my view it is unfair to categorize either of the brothers as behaving inappropriately.

With respect to the highlighted area I'm not saying you are wrong. I just don't know for sure if new HC was involved with the tendering offer or if it went through Oberdorf who handled the contracts. I've stated in many posts that I wish we would have kept Gillislee and handled the tendering offer more smartly.

I agree with you. Lesson to be learned: Dithering is not a good strategy for job retention.

I agree with you that this offseason is on McDermott and his crew. But it isn't clear if he was the person responsible for handling the Gillislee tender.

Ask Whaley if he handled the qb position smartly. Don't bother calling OBD because he doesn't work there any longer.

Watkins and especially Clay because he was a free agency acquisition are two talented players who haven't come close to realizing their talents with the Bills because the qb position was not at a level it needed to be. You can accumulate all the offensive pieces you want and still not get a good return if the trigger man is inadequate. It is approaching a quarter century since the Bills have not had a legitimate long term qb. Addressing that position should be the priority! Whaley had more than enough time to address that issue. He dithered. He ended up losing his job. One of his first responses after being fired was that he should have made finding a franchise more of a priority. No shiiit Sherlock! No more excuses!

I don't understand the complaint of selecting a player who fills a need? If a player is drafted in the range of his ranking and also replaces a player at a position that needs to be filled then what is the complaint? The Bills traded down and took a corner back to replace Gilmore who was too costly to keep. On most draft boards the selected CB had a lower first round grade, and that is exactly where he was drafted. Addressing a weakened backfield corps was more of a necessity pick than a luxury pick. I not especially enamored with trading up for the receiver and giving up another pick. But when you tabulate the result of that transaction they ending up getting a receiver they liked to replace Robert Woods, another player who wasn't worth the contract he was asking for. Again, a player who was drafted in the range of where he was ranked and also addressed a critical need. What's to criticize? On balance the top two/three picks not only addressed positions that were undermanned but just as importantly it starting balancing out the cap distribution. Or another way of looking at it started the process of undoing the handiwork of Whaley, a GM you have consistently excoriated.

I don't like it when receivers exhibit their frustration on the field and show up the qb. But I'm going to give him some slack because his talents, and Clay's also, were wasted. What was the point of richly paying for the acquisition of Clay when few passes were directed at him because the qb can't him the ball? It's simply wasted talents and cap expenditures. It's tiresome and stupid.

I have not read all of the posts so I'm sure the point has been made before. Sammy certainly is not a bust. From what I have seen of him I consider him a special talent. But that doesn't mean that it was wise to give up that extra first round pick for him in a receiver rich year. What irritates me about this situation isn't about his talents as a receiver. It is by every measure elite. From an eyeball test there were interludes of eye popping play. But what is the point of expending additional resources on a talented player whose talents could never be maximized because of the limitations of the qb/s he was playing with. Getting skill players to prop up the play of marginal qbs is an arse backwards approach to take with such talented skill players. The right approach to take is finding a qb who can maximize the abundant talents of the skill players instead of hoping that the costly skill players can elevate the marginal qbs to being adequate players. During his stint with the Bills Whaley thought he could get by by bolstering the roster without making his first priority bolstering the qb position. Where is the common sense? After he got fired he realized his mistake.

I stated from the beginning that I was uncomfortable with the complete empowering of the wrestling coach. On the other hand the reconstitution of the front office with the new GM and subordinates seem to be well done. The Chip Kelly comparison is off base for the major reason that McDermott had extensive experience in the NFL while Kelly without any NFL experience was trying to transpose his successful college system to the NFL without the right adjustments. You are doing what Badol does. Criticizing everything now being done based on what previously went wrong. The empowering of McDermott may have been premature but what has happened afterwards makes a lot of sense. The coaching staff he assembled is credible. The front office that is now together does seem credible. How is it legitimate to criticize those moves simply because prior moves went wayward. Strong prejudicial views have a tendency to distort objectivity when judging current matters. Sometimes history is a good indicator and sometimes history clouds the reality of the presence. You don't need to list all of the owners mistakes for me. They are well documented and the repercussions are starkly evident. That doesn't mean he hasn't learned from them. With the Sabres he certainly made some odd decisions. But what I'm not going to do is criticize his selection of the current GM (widely acclaimed) based on the fact of his prior missteps. In general, I am cautiously optimistic. Your eyes seem to be much more jaundiced than mine. That's okay. Only time will tell.

With respect to the highlighted segment I think you are significantly misreading the situation. ( I say this respectfully.) Do you really believe that the Pegulas would essentially blow up the organization and start from scratch and expect a quick turnaround? Let's get serious here. If Pegula was satisfied with the Bills being stuck as a fringe team with the potential of being at best an 8-8 team he would have kept Whaley and the front office staff in tack and then separately hired a new HC. Not only did he fire Whaley but he in total dismissed the scouting staff. That isn't a sign of an owner looking for incremental changes. That is a sign of an owner/s willing to sacrifice in the short term with the hope that in the long term the franchise will be reconstituted and result in a contending team. You and I completely agree on the qb issue and the opportunity that existed to address that issue in this draft. So there is no point in rehashing that issue. The empowered HC appears to believe that he will have better opportunities to get a franchise qb at a later time. We both disagree with his thinking but the decision has been made. With respect to some of the other moves that the HC/GM made I'm not stressing over individual moves. Every decision can be challenged and every decision can be supported. When all is said and done what is really going to count is the overall body of work that will inevitably include mistakes. The challenge as fans is not to get too consumed with a particular decision (except for the qb decision) but to try to keep the mind-set of how is the bigger picture being developed as time goes on. If fans are so frustrated and aren't willing to handle the predictable losses and set backs over the next two or maybe even three seasons then it might be better to get off the bus and then get back on at a later time.

If winter is coming put on a heavy coat and deal with the storm. Staying locked up in a house with the heat cranked up is a stifling way to encounter the cycles of life. As far as your preferring a top X's and O's guy you are misinterpreting why teams usually win. For the most part more talent usually prevails over less talent. And to carry that notion out further the team usually with the better qb prevails over the team with the lesser qb. With the exception of Belichick coaches don't win because they outsmart other coaches. In fact, coaches who usually try to outsmart the opposition more often than not end up outsmarting themselves. Our dumb former HC thought he could out-design the opposition rather than have his team prepared to outplay the opposition. What a freaking dope! Your criticism that the Bills mistakenly drafted to replace players thus forcing them to focus on need rather than talent is off the mark. As long as the drafted player is drafted in the approximate range of his ranking then what is the problem with that? If you don't reach because of a need then why complain that you are filling a hole that needs to be addressed one way or the other? From a production and salary standpoint it made sense to let Robert Woods go. He was replaced by a cheaper and hopefully as talented receiver. Player movement and cap management are an inescapable part of the landscape that all teams have to contend with. I have said this on many posts much to the consternation of the loyalists. Now that a new organizational structure and complete new staffing is in place it is going to take at least three years to sort out the mess that preceded this new regime. There is no quick fix. Over time consistently acting competently instead of erratically will result in success. That's all you can hope for. This lurching back and forth resulted in a lot of motion accompanied with little intelligence. Where has it gotten us?

I think that you would be surprised at the fact that the majority of people do believe patience is required to get this franchise back on track to accomplishing something that is meaningful. This battered fan base has historically been exposed to short term deals that at best could get us to the margins of being a wild-card contender. This franchise has lived by the motto of : Striving to be mediocre. And the fans know it and are tired of it. What I have witnessed is a complete overhaul of the front office and scouting department. All the selected front office staffers are credible selections who although are mostly youthful still have much experience. Is McDermott's selection to be the HC a tremendous hire? No. It is simply a good hire. And to his credit the young HC started off well by wisely assembling a veteran coaching staff to work with. Success is predicated on long term competency. Making gimmicky moves to manufacture interest to get by on a year to year basis in not good enough. The product on the field and not the annual marketing theme is going to be the focus of the organization. I'm as much of a skeptic as anyone. But I do get the sense that this new regime is more purposeful with their individual decisions to act within the outline of their vision. There are no guarantees. But if you consistently do things well there will be a good payoff.

Do you seriously believe that I am critical of BB and the Pat organization? They are the model to follow. On personnel issues, cap management, coaching etc. they are ahead of the curve. Belichick certainly does focus on winning games, as do most other organizations and staffers. The difference is he is smarter and established an organization where he everyone on the staff from top to bottom are imbued with the same ethos and approach to their jobs. Compare that to the Bills who have a history of ill-fitting misfits working in cross purposes throughout the organization? Let me say what I have said in prior posts that has drawn scathing responses: There is no quick fix to the mess that the new regime inherited. At the minimum it is going to take at least three years before getting to the point of being taken seriously. That's what happens when you go a quarter of a century without a franchise qb. When the spendthrift Pegula hired Rex he lost a lot of credibility and allowed the buffoon coach to set this franchise back a number of years. On that malignant hire the onus is on the owners. I don't believe you and I differ in our assessment of the organization and how it has functioned over the past generation or so. This backwater organization desperately needed to be restaffed and modernized. Only time will tell but I think the earnest but confused owner has learned from some of his glaring mistakes. So far I'm encouraged by the reorganization and new staff. There seems to be more of a vision and less of an incremental and patchwork approach to running the operation. I'm cautiously optimistic but realize that it is going to take more time than most others do.

Your logic escapes me. He selected a qb that didn't come close to being a good enough prospect. Drafting him in the first round was a mistake. You can argue fairly that it was Nix who took him in the first round but it was Whaley who graded EJ. Just because you draft a qb that doesn't mean that you then stop trying to get better at the position. Marrone was the first HC who EJ played for. The cantankerous HC immediately concluded that EJ wasn't good enough. The GM continued to invest in him as a player while the coaches went in another direction. Your argument that because EJ was on the roster that the GM shouldn't/couldn't continue to act to upgrade the position makes little sense to me. It certainly was a factor in his dismissal.

With respect to the highlighted segment the issue isn't whether taking Dak over Cardale was the specific transaction that collapsed his regime. It represented how he operated and what his priorities were. During his stint he didn't address the qb position to the extent that he needed to not only at that point but all during his tenure. In an interview shortly after being fired he acknowledged that if he had to do it over he would have made it more of a priority to secure a franchise qb. You point out that Carr is a different discussion. Hold on there---it is part of the same continuum of the qb issue. The Bills could have traded down and selected him and got additional picks. It was another missed opportunity for a team with a desperate need for a high end qb prospect. You then point out that we already had EJ on the roster so it wasn't a good time and situation to add another qb. That's the point I and others have made. It was Whaley who scouted him and ranked him. It was Whaley who mistakenly invested in him. Those were his gross misjudgments and miscalculations. You and I are in accord regarding the Rex hire and how it hindered the GM. No one is dismissing that obvious point. But not blaming the GM for something he was responsible for with respect to the qb issue because he wasn't blameworthy for the coaching hires doesn't absolve him from the areas in which he did have control of.

I appreciate your thoughtful responses. The only point I was making and you are acknowledging to a degree is that we all receive some subsidies in one form or another. Sometimes the form of the subsidy is different. A tax deduction or a tax discount or relief or a write off may not seem to you as being a direct subsidy but it is still a real subsidy. Paying less taxes than the stated rate due to whatever reason is a subsidy. Communities are competing for jobs and businesses to locate in their areas. Is it right for Solar City to get such large subsidies in a variety of forms to locate in NYS? Some people say yes that is the price to be paid for the businesses to be located there and others are unalterably opposed to the inducements. It's ironical that the so called low tax states very often offer the largest inducements to relocate to their areas. My primary point in my responses is that many of us are receiving subsidies/benefits and not only are not aware of it but also receive benefits but call or categorize them as something else. Although I don't fully agree with the tilt of your view I appreciate your thoughtful responses.