Apr. 19, 2013; Buffalo, NY, USA; Buffalo Sabres left wing John Scott (32) throws a check on New York Rangers defenseman John Moore (17) during a game at First Niagara Center. Mandatory Credit: Timothy T. Ludwig-USA TODAY Sports

Do The Buffalo Sabres Really Need John Scott?

Okay . . . time to set myself up for a punch in the face.

I was going through the Buffalo Sabres roster the other day, because I am a nerd and that’s the sort of thing I do when I’m bored.  As I was browsing, my

Apr 13, 2013; Buffalo, NY, USA; Buffalo Sabres left wing John Scott (32) during the game against the Philadelphia Flyers at the First Niagara Center. Sabres beat the Flyers 1-0. Mandatory Credit: Kevin Hoffman-USA TODAY Sports

eyes zoned in on the name John Scott.  It’s not like I didn’t know he was on the roster – I’m not that dumb- but for some reason, the question popped into my head:

Do the Sabres really need to fill a roster spot with John Scott?

Buffalo is currently in the midst of a rebuild, correct?  We’ve all heard the names: Zemgus Girgensons.  Joel Armia.  Rasmus Ristolainen.  Nikita Zadorov.  Jake McCabe.  Johan Larsson.  Corey Tropp.  I could go on!  Lots of young prospects, limited slots available with the blue and the gold.  So why keep a potential up-and-coming player off of the roster because of a man who took far less shots (15) than penalty minutes (69) last season?  Is anyone going to miss Scott’s line of 0-0-0, or his plus/minus of -1?  We’re talking about a guy who averaged 5:26 minutes of ice time per game, playing on about six shifts every shift – do we really need to keep this guy?

(See why I fear for my face right about now?)

I know what some people will argue – he gives us added toughness.  Not if he’s not on the ice, he doesn’t.  And aren’t there tough players who actually possess, you know, hockey skills, too?  Guys who can defend, antagonize, and maybe even – wait for it! – score from time to time?  John Scott is the sort of player who might have been necessary in the 70s or 80s, but can the Sabres really justify keeping him on the roster while a young prospect toils down in the minors?

Keeping John Scott on the roster may not lose the Buffalo Sabres games, but he doesn’t win them, either, so I would rather give a young player some ice time, or have the team go out and grab a tough player who can actually make a contribution to the final score.

But enough about me – time for you to vote!  As always, I love to read your comments or receive your Tweets @theamazingMrS!  Unless you’re John Scott, in which case I’m sorry and please don’t hurt me, sir.

Should the Sabres keep John Scott on the roster?

View Results

Loading ... Loading ...

Tags: Buffalo Sabres John Scott

  • Kevin

    He is a waste of a roster spot. He is not that great of a fighter anyway. And as you pointed out so well, he can’t do his thing from the bench. We need team toughness, not a lone goonman. It’s embarrassing to see him come out after a bad play happens and the other team just laughs at us when he can’t find anybody to go with him and then get’s pissed and instigates and has to go sit in the box while the other team says “haha gotya ya goon”

    • http://SabreNoise.com/ Richard Spalding

      And yet, look at the results: half of the voters want him! What am I missing here? Ah, we’re right and we know it! :D

      • Jes

        I dunno Richard. Many teams do not mess with us since he came here. I dunno if you’d rather have teams bully us around throughout the whole season or be the ones doing the bullying? Sure he makes a bone headed play here and there but it’ basically worth it for the basic impact he makes on the intimidation side of things. It’s not like he’ll be playing all that much. It’s good to have a goon on your team. Once he leaves and no one stands up for our teammates everyone will be crying that we don’t have an enforcer and what a bonehead Darcy is for letting Scott go and or not getting an enforcer.

        • http://SabreNoise.com/ Richard Spalding

          I don’t agree with the goon idea. There are tough players who can actually play the game – Lucic and Chara, for example. Scott is a one-trick pony; why not get a tough-as-nails guy who actually has skill, too? Iginla is another example – he could beat you by scoring, or he could just beat you up. Besides, how much of not getting bullied is due to Scott, or due to Ott? At least Ott scores once in a while!

      • wolfdoctor

        There should have been a 3rd choice:

        Keep him on the team but only dress him when playing cheap-shot teams like the Bruins.

    • Jes

      Not a great fighter ? The guys probably a top 3 enforcer in the league.

  • lee Munn

    I would much rather have not signed him & keep TROPP up for a full season. Since we have him for one more year I am hoping it is for limited games that we need a banger (Bruins/Flyers..) Hopefully in a year Foligno/Tropp/Catenacci & Girgensons will be our banger forwards & we can have Zaderov/McNabb & Ristolanen on D ….unfortunately we wont have a ‘DEFENDER D’ man this year unless one of those three come & stay up (That is why I assume they kept him for one more year until the Power D men come.

    • lee Munn

      I think Weber will be on Ice a lot more than expected this year ’cause he is our only “Defender D” for the year.. The other 6 are either more ‘offensive’ or ‘basic careful’ D.

    • Jes

      Scott’s not a banger. Bangers are players like Kaleta and Ott,. Scott is simply an enforcer

  • Jes

    Hell yes!! We had nobody who stood up to Lucic when Miller went down. We need an enforcer, all good teams have one. Not like he’s gonna be slotted in to play in every game doubt even half. The guy is here to intimidate the opposing side.

  • davidmuscalo

    The Sabres do need John Scott, but they don’t Drew Stafford! I can’t believe people project him playing on the first line. He belongs in the AHL not the NHL.

    • http://SabreNoise.com/ Richard Spalding

      Who in the world thinks Stafford would be on the first line?!? If they work for the Sabres, they will be out of a job in no time!!!

  • PaulR

    Scott is needed just as the US needs nuclear weapons. We aren’t going to use them for regular conflicts, but just in case things get out of hand, the other side needs to know the threat is there.

    The problem is that at many times last season, Scott was playing regular 3rd and 4th line minutes – waaaayyyy too much.

    • http://SabreNoise.com/ Richard Spalding

      I enjoy the analogy, Paul!

      • PaulR

        As I side note, I don’t like the fact that the Sabres feel they must have a tough guy on the roster, even though he contributes nothing else. To that extent, I definitely agree with you.

        This demonstrates the rest of the Sabres are too soft, need to be defended, and that the Sabres have chosen players who are prima donnas, who can not stand up for themselves. While other teams were picking Getzlafs, Perrys, Bickells and Browns, Darcy was picking Pominvilles, Roys and Staffords.

        Chicago, Boston, Pittsburgh, LA, Anaheim, San Jose – are all tough teams whose toughest players are also good players. Its why they will all be back in the playoffs next season.

  • Steve Brillhart

    I agree. His lack of skill frustrated me many times last season, but I would keep him on the roster. It is not that he needs to be on the ice to add toughness. Just having him on the bench keeps other teams cautious. Him being around will make opponents hesitate when having a chance to tee off on some of those up and coming talents you mentioned. Those guys do need time to play, but if you don’t have some respected/feared toughness on the roster, they can be bullied off their games fairly easy.

    • http://SabreNoise.com/ Richard Spalding

      Thanks for the comments! I would rather have a guy who plays AND intimidates – again, Iginla, Lucic, Chara, etc. To me, the idea of having a goon sit on the bench until he is needed to go attack someone is 20 years out of date, at least. A handful of guys who don’t put up with crap is enough, guys like Ott and such.