JohnC

Your cliff notes are laser sharp. ?

The below link is a WGR interview with Andrew Fillipponit from Pittsburgh. The best thing that happened to the Bills is that the deal for AB was nixed by AB and his representation. When all is said and done from AB's perspective it is about the money. One of the main points in this interview is that the conflict in Pittsburgh was to a great extent manufactured by AB to seek an avenue that would get him a new and bigger contract. This is an 8 min. interview. https://wgr550.radio.com/media/audio-channel/03-08-andrew-fillipponi-937-fan-pittsburgh-howard-and-jeremy

The AB pursuit is different than simply addressing holes on the roster. It represents a dramatic change from the type of player/person they have stated they wanted to bring onto the team. Paying big bucks for a good offensive lineman is far different than pursuing a player who walked out on his team and who publicly feuded with his qb.

The intriguing question in the AB pursuit was what were the Bills willing to give up for him? Would it be a first round pick? I'm not sure? Another interesting aspect of this collapsed deal is that AB's attitude is the opposite of what this regime promotes. I'm not saying that AB is a bad guy but he is a volatile guy who acted out to the detriment of his team. Putting a player on your roster who you know walked out on his team because of an issue is the opposite of everything that McDermott stands for. What the purported AB pursuit says to me is that this organization is going to be aggressive in upgrading the roster this offseason. That is my positive takeaway from this startling and surprising failed pursuit.

I'm not against changing coaches per se. There is a time and place for it. This organization has churned through coaches and GMs and churned through systems. That doesn't deal with the heart of this team's problem. The problem revolves around the talent level. That issue is steadily being addressed but it is going to take a little more time. There is nothing surprising about Skinner hitting free agency. Why wouldn't he do so if it would increase his leverage with the Sabres or allow him to seek higher offers somewhere else? That's the nature of the business. What do you think that Panerin or Bobrovsky at Columbus are doing? Skinner is going to act in his own interest $$$$ just as the Sabres will act in their own interest when it comes to player decisions. Altruism is not a factor while self-interest is. Let me turn around and ask you if you are going to advocate for firing McCermott and Beane because their w/l record isn't stellar during their short tenure? If you do advocate for a change it would be a disastrous decision and set the franchise back. That football regime needs time just as the hockey regime needs time.

There are talent issues that are obvious, at least to me. With the exception of the very elite teams parity is prevalent. When you don't have a margin for error and repeatedly make mistakes that are converted you are going to lose. Yesterday's game against the Oilers is an example of that. The Sabres outplayed the Oilers and had more scoring chances. Ullmark let in a couple of soft goals and our defenders, not just the defensemen, cluelessly lost sight of the people they were supposed to cover. What's the solution? The players who are free lancers and are not conscientious about upholding their defensive responsibilities should be replaced. Risto is a physically imposing defenseman. He is capable of crunching the opposition. But too often he plays like a dope. Hitting someone without a purpose to the detriment of one's defensive responsibility is not acceptable. When you are a first pairing defenseman you are playing against the opposition's best goal scorers who can convert your mistakes into goals. And that happens too often. The difference between winning games during the streak and losing these one goal games is the caliber of the goal tending. Early on the goalies were making the critical stops, not so much now. That's one of the primary factors of this slide. I have said for a long time and I will continue to believe it that the issue/problem isn't the coach. There needs to be added talent and there needs to be players brought in who play responsibly, especially in their own end. The analysis by Travis Yost that you heard on WGR is the same analysis that almost all analysts make about this team regarding its talent pool. I don't believe that this team is far away from being a good team. I strongly believe that changing the coaching staff will set this franchise back. There needs to be added more talent and an excising of the players who don't seem to be capable of playing intelligent hockey.

Check the record and compare it to last year. Your arithmetic is off. Your grade school teachers would be ashamed of your counting ability.

You don't need my permission to like or dislike anything. You can dislike it all you want. You can be enraged with the coaching retention. How you handle it is your business that has absolutely nothing to do with me. I'm not displeased with Housley staying on and you are. Snow will still fall in western NY, regardless. Working yourself into a frenzy on this issue will not alter the reality.

It doesn't matter what I think or you think. The GM is keeping him on for next year. That's the reality whether you like it or not. You can be offended by the retention and argue until you are exhausted that keeping him is foolhardy. It doesn't matter. He's staying in place and will be the coach next year.

Will Ullmark, Dahlin, Mitts, Sage and Pilot be better next year? Because of the playing time they got this year I believe they will be. Are any of the Rochester players ready to move up to the NHL? I can't say for sure but I'm counting on one or two to make the jump. Will the GM make any deals to add talent to the roster? I'm counting on it because there are teams that are cap stretched and have to move players. As far as two years ago I just don't give a dam. There was a new coach introducing a new system to players who were learning to play it or simply not suited to his system. The roster was being reshaped from a slow and sluggish roster to a faster skating roster. Without question there is more to add. Although the Sabres are far from being a complete roster they have been competitive in most games. They have won a lot of games against more talented teams. That's a sign of progress, at least to me. In that ten game streak that you frequently allude to what that segment demonstrated is that the Sabres were involved in close one goal games for an extended period of time. Were we lucky to win all of them? Absolutely. Where you and I depart is probably not so much in the assessment of the roster but more over the perception of the progress. I see it more so than you. Is Housley going to be our long-term coach? I can't say. What I can say with confidence is that making another coaching change so quickly will prove to be more detrimental than helpful

I'm debating whether I should allow you on my bus or not. Is Housley the long-term coaching answer? I can't say for sure. What I can say is that it would be a ruinous mistake to make a coaching change for next season. In my opinion it would set this franchise back. Let's be accurate here in characterizing my position. Yes, I am advocating for patience with respect to the younger players on the roster and in the system. But that doesn't mean that the GM can't be aggressive in pursuing deals, such as the Skinner and Montour acquisitions, that will upgrade the roster. Not only do I expect that to happen this offseason but I will disappointed if it didn't happen. What I can absolutely say for sure is that no matter how many tokens Plenzmd has I am not allowing that morose and dour personality be on my bus and be the buzzkill. That ain't going to happen!

You are misinformed. The Sabres don't have a losing record. Their current record is: 30-27-8. The Sabres were the worst team in hockey last year. They couldn't complete basic passes and were unwatchable. You may not recognize it because you are too consumed with your coaching bogeyman but this is a much improved team that will be 20 points plus better than last year. As I have repeatedly told K-9 to no avail every outside and local analyst predicted that this team, based on its roster talent, was going to be a fringe playoff contender. That's exactly where they are and what they are. You want a scapegoat for how this season has transpired. Your persistent and zealous assault on the coach for a team that is basically playing to its talent level in my opinion makes little sense. It not only doesn't address the core issue of the talent on the roster but if your bloodthirsty desire to dispatch the current coach were implemented it would create more havoc and instability in an already unstable organization. How many coaching and GM changes are you going to require before you realize that constant organizational turmoil is not a road to success but a road to persistent failure? I have often stated that the road to meaningful success if done right is going to take time. You simply can't handle that reality. I'm not a hometown cultish devotee who believes that everything the hometown team does is superlative. However, I'm not a morose and dour person like you who believes that everything that the hometown team does is wrong. Cheer up and be patient. This team and franchise is on course to be in the not too distant future reasonably successful. What you are advocating for not only doesn't help the cause but sets it back.

McDermott is just as bland and vapid as Housley with his post game and interview comments. I like McDermott and believe in what he is doing. But let's not get carried away with over-assessing his record. I'm willing to give McDermott the time, as I am to Housley, to judge them based on the talent each as to work with. If you believe that Housley is so grotesquely inept, then believe it. I'm certainly not going to alter your entrenched opinion. But if your assessment of Housley is as you believe it to be then logically you have to have the same jaundiced opinion of Botterill who is keeping the coach for another year. I'll repeat what I said before. Every outside and local hockey analyst predicted that the Sabres would generally be in the position where they are at. Their predictions were based on the talent level. And that's exactly where they are at.

Housley isn't sparkling behind the podium and neither is McDermott. Who really gives a dam? Just about every outside and local hockey analyst predicted before the season started that the Sabres would be where they currently reside. It's was based on their talent level. Some people blame the coach for what they consider an unexpected failure. I don't. When you have a deficit you work with your deficit. It's as simple as that.

You'll have to keep waiting for another year because he will be back on the bench and behind the podium next year. Whether it is McDermott or Housley the post game responses are nothing but blather. What do you expect: A Shakespearean oration?

The most useless waste of time is giving seriousness to what any coach/manager says after a game in any pro sport. What are people waiting to here from a coach after a game? Is the coach going to publicly say that the other team is demonstrably better? That the other players are more capable? Some people are enamored with the outbursts of volatile coaches such as Tortorella or some other bombastic fools. They are a bore. Why even waste your time with the post-game interviews? What is to be learned from the standard vapid clichés spouted by the coaches and players after the game? The notion that anything can be meaningfully deemed from a post game interview is an absurdity. More often than not the coach at the podium is not the person who is coaching at practice and behind the bench. The idea that one is waiting to hear this or that to prove this or that from a post-game interview makes no sense.

When your captain wants out that is not a good situation be in from a locker room and chemistry standpoints. The captain mantle was then passed on to Jack, someone who was committed and invested in the team and his mates. ROR had a hefty salary with a long term attached to it. You don't think that the GM didn't make phone calls to all the teams that might be interested in him? The GM got what he could get and moved on. I have no problem with that. The Sabres acquired Montour for one of our three first round picks. Whether it was for San Jose's or St. Louis's what does it matter? When the trade with Anaheim was made it wasn't clear which one of the picks would have gone to the Ducks. Neither of these picks are going to be appreciably separated from one another. So if you want to call Montour's acquisition a stretch in being associated with the ROR deal then that's your judgment. I see it differently from that aspect. .

The ROR trade was brought about mostly because he didn't want to be here. He was certainly one of our best players. There's no disputing that. But if he didn't want to be here and he had a big and extended contract is that a player you want to be anchored to for a lot of years? A player wanting out Is not unusual. It happens. Having an additional first round pick facilitated the trade for Montour. So although we didn't get equal value from the ROR deal it looks better with the addition of Montour. In addition, because we shed ROR's bonanza contract it will help in providing more cap flexibility to pursue other players, including Skinner on a long term basis.

I also am not sure that we have a legitimate second-line prospect in the pipeline. Will we be able to acquire a Skinner caliber player in a deal? Maybe not quite as good but there should be opportunities to secure a genuine second-line forward or two because there are teams that will be cap stressed after they deal with their contracts issues. I would have no qualms about using one of our two remaining first round picks in a deal (want to keep one) to secure a good forward. Would I be willing to deal Risto for some forward help? I'm hesitant but if the return is good I'm more open than I have previously been. If you review the Skinner and Montour deals its fair to say the costs were reasonable and extravagant. I can foresee Botterill having the wherewithal to secure additional talent to make this roster more complete.

With respect to the Tage I see room for improvement especially as he physically matures. But like you I see him more of a third line player. There's nothing wrong with that. Upgrading the third line and getting more offensive contributions from the third and fourth checking line is essential in this mostly parity driven league. Sheary in my view is more of a third line player. Again, there is nothing wrong with having a contributing third line to augment the more scoring top two lines. A line with Sheary, Thompson and in the not too distant future Asplund is a credible third line. You can also throw Okposo into that third line mix. Although he would be overpaid he still has utility of buttressing a lower line.

There is only one Plenzmd! That's more than enough for this world to handle. On a sunny day he makes it rain.

Off camera Ethel hated Fred. He was a nasty SOB.

I am a Mittelstadt fan. As you noted he has steadily gotten better. Although from a stat standpoint his production has not been impressive I have rarely felt that he was out of his depth as a NHL player. It has to be remembered that two years ago he was playing HS hockey, and last year college hockey. And it has to be considered that for the most part he has been a second-line center facing skilled second-line players. Usually, young and developing players are gradually eased in by playing against lesser players on the third and fourth line. And as you noted Montour was a terrific pickup for a reasonable price. The Sabres gave up one of their three first round picks, one of which came from the ROR deal. And, although Guhle was a good prospect his spot was replaced by Pilut who was an even better prospect. So when the cost is calculated for that deal we got a legitimate second pairing defenseman whose skill set fits in with what the coach is trying to establish for little cost. If you add up what was given up for Skinner and Montour it is fair to say that our GM did an outstanding job.

A win is a win. I'll take it. The Penguins obviously have more firepower but the Sabres competed. The Sabres are far from being a complete team but I expect them to be at least twenty points better than last year. Maybe not to many but to me that's progress. I expect Dahlin and Mitts to be much better next year. I'm aware that I'm in the minority in this room but I'm upbeat about the near future. The takeaway from this game is that Montour can skate and he is feisty. He was a terrific pickup. I thought Sheary and Ullmark played well. Crosby's quickdraw scoring shot was magnificent. The overtime was exciting. The fans got their money's worth in the extended play.

Is that why you are so cantankerous? On a serious note are there drugs now that are helpful in alleviating the devastating headaches or something you can take when you feel them coming on? Or do people just have to ride the episodes out?