My rebuttals are in bold:
Coaching: On paper, Tarasov is a borderline top-5 coach of all time while Sather is a borderline top-10 coach of all-time. Clear advantage for me here. I'd also like to add that Sather was known for his offensive brand of hockey, but the team you've assembled resembles more like a defensive oriented one. Apart from your 1st line, there's a lack of offensive pop. On paper, Sather is a borderline top-10 coach of all-time, but with the personnel you've assembled, I don't know if you're maximizing his value as one.
Yeah I think Sather was more of a panic pick for me at the end of a coaching run.
He was a good coach though and with the talent on the team things will be fine. Tarasov is a better coach and the familiarity is there on my team with Kharlamov and Tretiak, want to trade coaches? 
First line:
Kharlamov is significantly better than Hay, Lalonde is slightly better than Boucher, and Cook is significantly better than Neely. Is the gap between Kharlamov and Hay enough to bridge the gap between Cook and Neely, and in addition, the gap between Lalonde and Boucher?
I'd also like to add that while Neely and Hay could be considered equal in terms of overall value, Hay is the significantly better offensive producer, while most of Neely's value is derived from his intangibles. Still, both are going to be in over their heads offensively speaking and the play is going to die on their sticks a bit, but I believe it's going to die much more often while on Neely's stick. The only thing Neely should be doing on that line is to crack some heads, play bodyguard, and get into the dirty areas. Anything more, and it could get ugly.
As I said before Lalonde and Cook are a great combo, but seventies does raise a good point. Are these guys to similar to work? Could pose a problem. Hay also is the weakest player on our 1st lines so could be a problem there for you as well. Neely is not the best player in the world either but he has a role here to play policeman for Kharlamov and Boucher and that's what he'll do and do it well.
Second line:
I believe that I have the clear advantage here, since I'm almost sure this is the best 2nd line in the draft. I've got Krutov who could be a weak 1st line LW, Kennedy who could be a weak 1st line C, and Maltsev who could be a below average 1st line RW. Basically I have three guys who wouldn't look too out of place on a 1st line taking second line duties. In comparison, I think your 2nd line is the weak point of your team. You've got Propp who is a weak 2nd line LW, MacKay who is ideally a 3rd line C. Hossa is the only bright spot on this line as he's at minimum elite in his current role.
No arguments from me on your 2nd line. Ted Kennedy could be a 1st line centre here and gives your team a great advantage over mine. Krutov and Maltsev are both good as well. Yeah my 2nd line is "weak" but guys like Propp and Hossa are good players who should be adequate in their roles. Mickey Mackay is no Ted Kennedy but he should do good as well.
Third line:
We've got two different purposes for our 3rd lines. Mine is to score while yours is to defend. In terms of offense, Colville is 163rd in VsX, making him elite offensively for a 3rd liner. Nash was in the upper half of seventies' EVS VsX chart, so he should be at least average, while Oliver is as good as many 2nd liners offensively. However, my 3rd line is also capable of playing defense, as each one of them is at least responsible defensively, with Colville being a significant plus in that department.
You've got an elite shutdown pair in Metz and Tkaczuk, but with Lemieux on their line, their effectiveness could be reduced. Also, even with Lemieux, they're not going to be doing much scoring at all, putting a lot more strain of the 1st line to produce.
Yeah our 3rd lines are completely different. Metz and Tkazuk give my team 2 of the better defensive players ever and could give Nash, Colville and Oliver fits. Claude Lemieux is there to be a pest and I look forward to the matchuo with Nash.
I do like Colville though, will be interesting to see him and Nash together.
Fourth line:
I think we've got two different purposes for our 4th lines here too. Mine is the designated shutdown unit, while yours is to be used as an "energy" line.
Yeah my 4th line will be the energy line. Derek Sanderson vs. Steve Kasper should be a good battle of defensive minded centres. Brian Sutter vs. Tony Leswick should be a fun matchup of tough guys. Frank Finnigan is a guy I've looked at in the past. Could be a chance I match my 3rd line vs. your 4th line to get the checking lines out there vs. 1 another.
Thanks sprague for the rebuttal and the discussion, I'll be back tomorrow to respond to the defenseman and goalie thoughts, looking forward to any discussion you may wish to add.
