JohnC

Crosby should have been called for slashing in the Buffalo game. That's it. With respect to the slash that injured the player whether there was a penalty or no call on the ice when it was reviewed by the league disciplinary office it should have resulted in a disciplinary action. side note: happy about the Okposo discharge news.

With respect to the highlighted area whether you agree with the standard for supplemental discipline isn't the issue. It is the standard whether you agree with it or not. The standard was upheld. The player Risto against the rules hit was injured. The injury is a significant factor in the ruling. Risto certainly didn't intend to hurt the player but he did so on an illegal hit. The ruling didn't consider intent because it wasn't a factor in this case. It was the injury that resulted in the league review and followup punishment. The league doesn't always consider intent when a player is hurt because it is very difficult to determine. A player can be reckless in handling his stick on a play that ends up blinding another player. It doesn't matter that there was no intent because the player is held accountable for the control of his stick. As far as I am concerned the Risto ruling was a fair ruling. The player was held accountable for injuring a player on an illegal hit. This is a simple straightforward issue in which the disciplinary standard was adhered to and applied.

When is this archaic franchise going to learn that if you want a franchise qb you need to select the best qb in the draft and not wait for a lesser player because you are searching for value. The issue shouldn't be who is the best valued qb at a later round but who is the best qb and has the greatest chance to be a franchise qb. Derek Carr was rated as a lower first round to second round type of player. He was selected at the top of the second round. If the Bills would have selected him in the first round would anyone be complaining? If the Bills, a qb starved franchise, would have seized the opportunity then to select a qb then the trajectory and dynamic of this franchise would be dramatically different. This staid franchise has not had a legitimate franchise qb for twenty years or so, since the retirement of Kelly. It still hasn't learned that dithering and passivity on addressing that position are not responses that solve the problem that has kept this franchise stuck in the mud. The cycle of futility never ends because this franchise seems incapable of changing. It's comfort zone is so small that it can't find its way out of the small box that they jumped into.

The issue isn't whether it was dirty or not. The issue is whether it was a legal hit and what were the ramifications from it. You acknowledged it wasn't a legal hit so that point isn't being challenged. I also agree with you that Risto is not a dirty player but that doesn't mean that he isn't accountable for his play. The player Risto hit was knocked out of the game and concussed. The player he hit wasn't looking at him and he was defenseless. That scenario also falls within the boundary of an interference infraction. You are making the point that because Risto had no intent to injure or hit illegally that he should not be held accountable for a play that could have seriously injured a player and jeopardized his career. I disagree with that stance. Let's not forget that the player was knocked out of the game and was hurt. On WGR Marty Biron commenting on the hit said before the ruling was made by the league disciplinary office that Risto is going to be suspended and should be suspended for the dangerous play. His judgment was the same as the ruling. It was the right call on the particular play and the right call for the game in general.

Risto's hit wasn't clean. He hit a defenseless player who didn't have the puck. A secondary issue is that the hit on this player who didn't have the puck also falls into the category of interference. Arguing a point based on a "what if" Girgensons didn't intercept the puck is not a defense, it is a critical reason why the hit was an infraction. Let's not forget that the illegally hit player was knocked out of the game and concussed. The bottom line is Risto made a bad play and a dangerous play. If Eichel would have been injured in a similar play the hometown chorus would be singing a different tune.

I don't want to go through all the transactions you listed but I will address a couple of them. Lemieux was not going to sign with Buffalo for whatever reason (as you noted). So he was a lost player from the beginning. That's something that the franchise had no control over. So including him in the deal isn't a loss because basically we didn't have him. The legend of McNabb is an illusion that keeps coming up. There is nothing special about him. He doesn't dress for a lot of games for the team he is playing on. He's an inconsequential player in a world where plenty of inconsequential can be had. So there is no loss there. With respect to the Kane deal, at least for me, getting back consistent goal scorer is a net plus for the team. I come to the same conclusion on the O'Reilly deal. Getting him in a deal is a plus for the team he lands with. When a team makes a deal you have to give up assets: give talent to get back talent. You're not dealing with fools. The calculation you make for what is overall best for your team is not the same calculation that your trading partner is making for themselves. So the issue really isn't who got the best of the deal ---it comes down to does it improve your roster. I and others have offered our judgment on the Lehner deal. Most of us felt that it wasn't a good deal. But that doesn't mean that it wasn't a reasonable deal. I believe that the deal that the GM declined for Fowler was the right approach to take because I believe in the long run Nylander is going to be a quality player for us. My basic view on Murray's wheeling and dealing is that it is a net plus. And my basic view on him is that I would rather have an active GM than a passive GM who is hesitant to make moves to upgrade the roster.

Don't invite NYC Bill to the event. If the Bills use their first pick on a DB he will go crazy and create a messy scene.

On WGR they were talking about the Nylander, Rodrigues and Ennis line. This is without a doubt a speed line and a skill line. This was by far Ennis's best game. He probably was the standout player in the game for us. As mentioned on the radio Nylander kept his game simple and didn't look out of place. It's obvious that he is skilled but also he has a good feel for the game. If there was one surprise player for us in this disappointing season it was Rodriques. I thought he was a throw in addition but he is better than that. One of the major positive developments for me is the play of Evander Kane. It's not so much that he scored at a good clip but that he tamed his wild game and played within the unit with his linemates. With the news about Okposo it put a pall on this game and the rest of the season. I'm hoping it quickly gets better.

ROR was simply over-used. He played too many minutes, including special units, that left him exhausted. O'Reilly's game is not about flash or explosion. He is one of the best two way players in the game whose game was not near his normal level because he was worn down. I'm also starting to be concerned with the enormous amount of minutes that Risto plays. Although he is a young player the accumulated minutes takes a toll on a player, especially as the season advances.

With respect to Gorges and Fransen I can say with confidence that they are well past their prime. Gorges is a well worn battered and bruised warrior. He is past his prime. I don't care how old or young Fransen he is simply too slow. What irritates me about him is that he has a good shot but he is horribly inaccurate so the best aspect of his game is neutralized. I don't want to pick on a player such as Gorges because he gives you all he has. However, no matter how you try to pretty up the unit collectively it is demonstrably inadequate. It's not a hopeless cause. As you noted Guhle will be added to the mix next year and hopefully we can get lucky with the Russian from the KHL. Murray will still need to come up with at least two defenders who will play at a solid level. As you described it is not an unrealistic expectation for the curmudgeon GM to put together a more solid/decent unit.

My criticism of Murray is that the players he acquired for the blue line, even if it was as a stop gap measure, were way beyond their prime to be adequate defenders. Gorges and Franson simply had little left, Kulikov was simply a misjudgment and Bogo is simply a major disappointment. As a unit they are not only not good but collectively they are a liability that has stunted this team. My position on the Fowler proposed deal is that I am happy that it was not consummated. Nylander is going to be a gem in another two years. Without a doubt I am disappointed how this season has transpired. My feeling at the beginning of the season was that this was a fringe playoff team. And up until the recent collapse that is exactly what they were. Our defense certainly can't be upgraded to an elite level next year. But I believe with a few smart moves the unit can be upgraded to the point that it reaches a competent and workmanlike level. The Sabres have a surplus of big body forwards (Foligno, Carrier, Fashing andBailey) that could be used as currency for a deal or two. In addition, the Sabres are adding a Russian from the KLA to the blue line. That would be a positive step forward.

With respect to the highlighted area many people to the level of consensus felt at the time of the deal that Murray gave up too much for Lehner. That first round pick could have been a top two line player most likely ready to play next year. What made the deal even more questionable was that we already had Chad Johnson who was a solid to good goalie. At the time of the Lehner deal the Sabres were in a major rebuilding mode. That was the time to add more top two line talent to the system and patiently cultivate that talent. In general Murray has done a solid job in rebuilding the franchise. I'm not going to skewer an active GM for some of his deals not working out as well as expected. But it is not unreasonable or unfair to say that he made some egregious miscalculations (mostly on the blue line) that has downgraded his performance as a GM.

If the above happened I would entice Beerball to come back to the room in order to give you back the penalty points that he unfairly assessed you. The sad reality is that your recommendation doesn't fall within the parameters of how the Bills conduct their business. It's a major challenge for an unimaginative organization to take an imaginative act. It goes against their stolid nature.

If Shady doesn't show up for voluntary workouts why is he a distraction?

McCoy is a terrific player and a player who will enter camp physically prepared. When Whaley traded for him he knew exactly who he was as a person. He has an individual approach to the game as opposed to a team oriented approach to the game. That's who he is and how he is. If you don't want that type of player with that attitude on your team then don't trade for him. I would prefer that McCoy showed up for voluntary workouts but I am not disturbed by it. For me it is no big deal. However, for a player such as Dareus who has a history of not being mature and dedicated enough to prepare for the season in the offseason it would be an issue to be concerned with.

I agree with the general tenor of your response. As it stands the Bills don't have a good enough roster to make the playoffs. This year's draft contribution is not going to sufficiently upgrade this team to make it a realistic playoff contending team. Does our front office, coaching staff and ownership accept this hard nosed assessment? I don't know for sure but suspect so. Where I respectfully disagree with many on this board is that I believe that there are qbs in this draft who in the not too distant future can be a franchise qb for us. I accept the fact that there are no qbs in this draft who will provide immediate help. But that is the reality for almost all rookie qbs. The Bills are in a mini-rebuilding situation. Too many people are exaggerating where this team ranks in the league. Getting back into a position of respectability is a multi-year task. The quickest way to accelerate the rebuilding process is to find a franchise qb. I believe that that caliber of player is in this draft while many others don't. That is the core of the disagreement here.

Last year the Browns had an opportunity to use their high draft pick on a qb such as Wentz. Instead, they traded their pick to the Eagles who used that pick to select Wentz. Cleveland got a boatload of picks for the deal. In my estimation Cleveland set their franchise back by not using the dealt pick for a qb selection. Ask yourself which team is in a better situation? The team with the franchise qb or the team still searching for a franchise qb with a lot of picks in its pocket? You are making the point that you can't wait on a qb to continue building the rest of the roster. No one is disagreeing with that obvious point. What I am saying is if you don't have a franchise qb (we haven't had one in twenty years) and there is an opportunity to get one it is imperative that you do so. Our fundamental disagreement revolves around the issue that I believe there are legitimate franchise qb prospects in this draft, and apparently you don't. I also believe that with a little creativity by this organization such as trading down a potential franchise qb can be secured with additional picks in hand to address more positions.

If you improve at the qb position you to a greater extent improve the team compared to improving any other position. If you want better play by your receiving corps one way to do it collectively is have an upgrade at qb. No one can argue the point that by upgrading a position you are also upgrading the team. However, the better argument is that by bolstering the most important position in the game you are having the greatest impact on the team. No one is arguing against upgrading other positions. Making the selection of a qb a priority does little to hinder addressing other positions through the draft and free agency. We currently have a mediocre GM who has gratuitously traded away picks for little to show for it. So I don't understand the angst of using one high pick on an area of need. With respect to the highlighted segment you have the argument backwards. Instead of adding a good receiver to bolster the limited qb why not turn that argument around and have a qb that is good enough to maximize the talents of its playmakers. The bottom line is you get no where serious with a qb who is categorized as a bridge qb. For the past twenty years the Bills have not had a legitimate franchise qb. The ignominious record that has followed has been a reflection of it.

I like Mahommes and want the Bills to use their first pick on a qb. If Whaley trades up giving up future picks for a qb he should be fired on the spot.

Why would the Browns trade up if they can get Watson or whoever their qb preference is at their current drafting position?

Sometimes the best deals are the deals not made. Health and temperament concerns were issues that lessened his value on the market. Murray is now facing a big issue for a player he invested in: Is he worth a big contract and long term commitment? I say no. I would have rather have had the departed steady Johnson over the erratic big crazy goal stopper. The Kane acquisition made the Winnipeg deal a positive deal. Zadorov deal was part of the O'Reilly deal so I consider it a plus. The Kulikov for Pysyk was a negative deal for us. Gorges is at best at this stage of his career a third pairing who should only be playing between 10 to 14 minutes. Bogosian is a major disappointment. His physical talents don't come close to matching up with his play.

The Kulikov deal had little to do with a Fowler trade consideration. Hamilton has spoken before how Murray had little regard for Pysyk and his style of play. The GM simply felt that Kulikov was an upgrade over Pyysk. Hamilton has commented on how Murray openly disparaged Pysyk when he was in Rochester and Buffalo. The pick that Ottawa got in the trade was used for one of the top college players who is considered to be ready or near ready to not only make a NHL roster but is good enough to be a top two line player. What was odd about the deal from a Buffalo standpoint is that Ottawa was not going to keep him because they had better goalie alternatives. Giving up a first round pick in that type of situation made no sense. Murray was instrumental in scouting him and selecting him for Ottawa. It was a bias that carried over to his new job and team. Without a doubt the Uncle schooled the hard nosed nephew in the art of the deal.

According to Hamilton Fowler was also offered to Montreal for their first round pick. They declined the deal. Would Fowler have made much of a difference this year? I'm not so sure that he would have made much of a difference on a unit that is so lacking. My preference is still keeping the pick that was used on Nylander. I also would have preferred that Murray not give up a first round pick for Lehner that could have been used on a player who would now be ready or near ready to play on the top two lines.

I'm not going to get as carried away with the same scathing assessment of the GM that you are presenting here. But where I agree with you is the Lehner deal. The first round pick used for that deal could have been used on a player who would have been a top two line forward. Instead, that caliber of player will be on the Senators. Is Lehner demonstrably better than Chad Johnson or even Nielsson? I would say no. He has moments where he shines but he also has lapses that bring his overall performance back to the pack. The only good things about this season is that it is mercifully coming to a close and the Sabres will have another high pick. The players are obviously dispirited and packing it in. I'm hoping that Murray doesn't act out of desperation and make deals for short term gains that prove to be damaging like the Lehner deal.

It was a universal belief by the hockey experts that the Sabres were entering this season ahead of Toronto in the rebuilding process. What went wrong? Our GM miscalculated how poorly staffed his defensive corps was. It went from being not only a weak spot to an exploitable liability that couldn't be masked. It's not unfair to say that it dragged down the team in general. I agree with you that the Toronto rebuilding process has been in place for a few years. And so has ours. In fact, most hockey experts believed that we were one to two years ahead of them. The glaring hole on defense sucked the juice out of the rest of the lineup to the point that it wasn't good enough to overcome the weakness on the blue line. Toronto had a number of recognized young talent that most people thought were a year or two away. It was that young talent that mushroomed together and played at a high level faster than most thought. Give them credit for the year that they have had (playoffs or not). They are the surprise team while the Sabres are the disappointing team, at least for me.