JohnC

I have a different perspective than you presented in your post. We all can agree that there is a fluky aspect to this sport that can't always being measured, such as deflections, being screened and unpredictable bounces off the boards etc. But in the NHL where the season is long and grinding, as with the NBA, MLB there are team weaknesses that in the long run can't be hidden. In the short run a weakness in not always evident. However, in the long run a weakness gets exposed and exploited. In baseball if you don't have good starting or relief pitching that vulnerability will manifest itself. In basketball you can get away with not having a good defense but in a playoff setting it will hurt your chances to win a series. Before the Sabres even started the season most of us were aware that they were deficient at the position that is most influential in determining success. I believe that the organization was aware of it but had other priorities to address in the rebuild. Yesterday's game against the Blues was an example that one of our main weaknesses couldn't be hidden and was exploited by the opposition to garner the win. Yesterday's loss was not a demonstration of the fluky nature of the sport as it was an exposing and exploitation of a glaring weakness.

When watching this game it becomes evident that difference between winning and losing is not great. As others have stated the score didn't reflect how this game was played. Ultimately, the quality chances we had were not converted; the fewer quality chances they had were converted. The Blues are a well rounded veteran team. Even when the tide was working against them they continued to play their game. When discussing the goalie situation its like beating a dead horse, over and over again. This game is an example of what the difference is between good goalie play and average to below average goalie play. When there is a discussion about what the options are this offseason to upgrade the position most of them are unappealing. I don't know what the solution is. What I do know until that issue is satisfactorily addressed this team will not become a serious team. Anyone who is fair-minded has to acknowledge that the roster is steadily being upgraded. That positive step will be undercut until the goalie position is solidified.

You make an incisive observation. Granato on WGR was asked if he was getting discouraged with so much losing. (Before this past month's resurgence.) He said no. He said since he took over from Krueger that his priority for this team was to consistently get better. He pointed out that he would rather play younger players who make mistakes and learn than play veteran players that give you a better opportunity to win in the short term. He has said on more than a few occasions that what he sees from his young players in practice and how they are invested in getting better that he remains optimistic of what the near future outcome is going to be. He's great to listen to. He's transparent and thoughtful in responses to the questions that he is asked. I have never seen him shirk a question or make excuses. I admire him as a coach and leader.

Don Granato was being polite. (As you astutely suggested.) He knew what was going on behind the scenes and the GM's intention to trade him. There was no secret about that. Both sides of this dispute knew what the eventual outcome was going to be. It was just a question of the GM getting back a reasonable return. There was a segment on WGR in which Granato was asked about the Jack situation and what was going to be the outcome. As a testament to Granto the man he spoke about how he felt for Jack and his situation. He said something to the effect that people should empathize with Jack the person because the sport in which his young life revolved around was not only presently taken away but there was also the possibility that his injury could result in him never playing again. So however Jack was responding in front and behind the scenes it needed to be recognized that his career was in jeopardy. It should be noted that no player has publicly or even privately insinuated that Jack was a bad guy and a negative influence. Okposo (who is one of my favorite players/people) was asked about the Jack situation. He said in a respectful and empathetic manner that sometimes in this hockey business the best outcome in some situations is that a change in teams needed to be made for the best interest for the player and for the organization. He didn't say this in a critical manner. He made this statement with the wisdom that comes from being the high character and veteran player that he is. He pointed out that Jack is a passionate person and player who can't hide his emotions. Some people don't like that. But that's who he is. He's an intense competitor and it is unlikely that it will ever change. I'm one of the few people in this forum who is not critical of Jack. In this case the circumstance dictated what needed to happen. As I said in a previous post the best thing that happened to Jack is that he got traded. And for where this franchise was heading in its rebuild he being dealt was the right thing to have happen for this franchise. I strenuously object to the demonizing of this player. A player and organization moving on is not an unusual circumstance in this sports business.

There was no secret about Jack wanting out. That was out in the open. He clearly stated so in public. He wanted out just like Reinhart and Risto wanted out. Just like Montour wasn't going to sign an extension when his contract ran out. Both Reinhart and Risto said that they were not going to sign an extension. And it was no secret that the GM was putting him out in the market. In fact, the GM told him don't come back onto the premises. That's not a criticism of the GM because it was a recognition that the breech could not be closed. The best thing that happened to Jack is that he got dealt. The best thing that happened to this organization is that he got dealt and that we got a reasonable return for him. This attempt to smear him for not wanting to be part of a rebuild and continue on in a dysfunctional organization is want I find unfair. This type of breaking in relationships between players and organizations happens in all sports. There's nothing unusual about that. It was a bad situation for him and for the organization. On top of that I understand his resentment toward the organization because it wouldn't allow him to get a surgery that he preferred. He lost a year of playing because of that refusal. After he got dealt Vegas allowed him to have the surgery he wanted. He was back on the ice in three months. It shouldn't be difficult to understand why he had some animosity toward the Sabre organization. With respect to Granato speaking highly of Girgs and Okposo that is a testament to those players. Jack is Jack. He is who he is. He doesn't come close to measuring up to them from a leadership standpoint. So what? Different people and different personalities. If there was a mistake made it was giving Jack the captaincy when he was not only not ready for the responsibility but also not suited for it. That was an organization decision/blunder. The Ullmark fiasco is on the GM. If an UFA player hasn't signed a contract at a certain point then the GM should have a fallback position if he couldn't sign the player. The agent doesn't work for the team. He works for what's best for his client. So the player bolted when he couldn't get an extra year on the contract with more money than was offered by Boston.

The player on the Sabres who Power reminded me in his first game is Samuelsson. In his inaugural game Power played with an awareness of where to be and where to go with the puck. And both players seem to be aware of their size and know how to use it by screening off plays before they develop. Although neither is a banger each knows how to utilize their size. Power certainly has more potential to tap into but stylistically there are similarities. Power understandably got a lot of attention in his first game in Toronto. But it should also be recognized that Samuelsson comfortably played as a top pairing defenseman with Dahlin. Assuming good health we now seem to have the talent to staff two legitimate top pairings. Looking back from the end of last season to now the organization has learned a lot about what the organization has on hand and how to use it. The GM deserves credit and the coach also deserves a lot of credit. The HC with the stylish blue framed glasses knows how to utilize what he has on hand and how to put the pieces together so they fit. The best decision that the GM has made over the past couple of years is hiring DG to guide this youthful ship.

Why would the GM want to move him? As you accurately describe he is playing a well rounded game, not just shooter. As far as signing him to an affordable contract he deserves what he would approximately get if he were on the market. The Sabres are in a very good cap situation. They should be able to afford him. The vexing issue when negotiating with him should not be the annual salary as it would be the length of the contract.

Your recollection of the situation is scrambled nonsense. How could Captain Jack be involved in a mutiny when he wasn't with the team? If you believe that it was his lingering spirit sabotaging the locker room, then maybe you have been watching too many Ghostbuster movies! The idea that that the GM got blindsided by an UFA goalie is utter nonsense. How can you be blindsided when your UFA player has not signed a contract?

The three players listed as stars is a good representation of the players who were the most influential players in this game. I thought that Tuch was the primary driver of his line. He seemed to be flying past defenders all game. His pass to Skinner for a score was exceptional. Power played a controlled game. He kept it simple and didn't try to force the issue. As a defenseman he has natural instincts. On more than a few occasions he guided the opposing played out of the danger zone. Quite impressive for an inaugural game. I thought he worked well with Joki and Samuelsson worked well with Dahlin. Granato is astute in putting together pairings and lines. Olofsson made a couple of gorgeous passes that ended up for scores. I thought he was going to shoot the puck but instead passed to the open Dahlin for a goal. Asplund's value isn't reflected by stats as much as it is by his consistent effort. In a sport that has an ebb and flow I can't recall any Sabres lapses in this game. The effort was constant. Dahlin is one of the top tier players in the league. The biggest surprise player for me is Okposo. Upon entering this season I thought he would start to decline. He has been our most consistent player throughout this season. With good goaltending this team can keep up with any team. Great win. I'm hoping that this team can finish on a positive note.

You don't understand my stance. Ullmark is not an end-all solution to our goaltending problem. He was our best option that we had. The GM had an UFA goalie on the premises. He let the player go when he had no solid backup plan for a possible departure. Now this franchise is trying to address a problem of its own making. Poor foresight and judgment by the front office. I hope this clarifies the matter for you. There is a saying that is apt here: Don't let perfect be the enemy of the good.

Asplund does put himself in position to have scoring opportunities. He just doesn't seem to have a talent to finish. He can get better but for the most part he is more of a grinder. Eakin is Eakin. He's at the end of his career. He's a good guy whose time has come to a conclusion.

I'm not sure if he or Gergs will be the center on that line. Maybe interchangeable? Regardless, a point of emphasis this offseason for a number of players is to work on improving taking faceoffs. As far as what his flow is I'm not sure what you mean?

Yes. Eakin is at the end of his long career. Asplund is faster and would fit in well with Gergs and Okposo. Clearly, Asplund doesn't offer much offensively but as a member of a checking line he would have a useful role.

With respect to your comment that Ullmark decided to leave that doesn't fully reflect the situation at the time. When he got his Boston offer he made it known that the Sabres would have to pay a premium relative to the Boston offer in order to stay. Our GM said no. That is the backdrop to the current situation. And it shouldn't be forgotten that the Sabres were dramatically below the cap and their options for the position were limited when they told him no. I listened to the Instigator Show that focused on the goalie issue. Marty Biron listed a number of options to consider. He pointed out that the main problem is that many of the goalies that he would be interested in, even as stopgap goalies, are probably not attainable. So answering your basic question about what goalie do I like: my answer is that I don't know?

Is Ullmark a SC goalie? No. However, 95% of the goalies in the league don't fall in the elite status that help a team to win a SC. What I can say for sure is that he is a goalie that would have given this team a better chance to succeed than the goalies we had this year. And it should not be forgotten that when he was with the Sabres with a very pedestrian roster playing in front of him the team had a winning record.

The general point that I took away from that Instigator Show was that there really aren't that many good goalie options to address our void at the position. Yet, there are people who still argue that signing Ullmark would have been a bad decision. That makes no sense to me. If the GM would have signed him, or made arrangements for a reasonable replacement at the time, we would have had better goaltending this year and we wouldn't have to worry about giving up assets to shore up a weakness at the most important position in the game. We had an in-house solution and we let it walk out the door.

Whether Ullmark was signed on a four or five year contract should not have been an obstacle to signing him. As long as a "no trade" clause is not part of the contract, he can be dealt before the expiration of the contract. The range of games that I would estimate for more wins with Ullmark would be 6 plus. That would put a more upbeat color to this season. In my opinion KA outsmarted himself. He ended up handcuffing himself. It shouldn't have happened. Who?

The organization was willing to sign him two a 4 year deal. His request of an extra year compared to the Boston offer was a line the GM was not willing to cross. What I can say with confidence is that Ullmark would have been a better GT than the other players we have used. As I have repeatedly have stated even with a 5 year contract the team is not obligated to keep him for the full term. As far as asking for money from Buffalo per year compared to Boston that is also not a significant issue for a team that struggled to meet the cap floor. There is a saying: Don't let perfect be the enemy of the good. In my opinion the GM blundered and is still in search of a goalie option. A miscalculation is a miscalculation.

I still contend that not signing Ullmark, even on a 5 year term, was a mistake. It put this team in a bind in searching for better options. Many argue that Ullmark isn't the caliber of goalie to invest in. My response is that he is better than what we have. And even if signed on a 5 year term that doesn't necessarily mean that you have to keep him to the end of his contract.

The hosts start the show talking about the goalie situation. Marty starts off saying that since neither of the two college prospects went pro the organization needs to address the issue with greater urgency. https://www.audacy.com/wgr550/hosts/the-instigators

Everyone in the hockey world knows the hand he has. To carry that logic even farther: everyone in the business knows what everyone has and doesn't have as far as player needs. There are no secrets because everything is on display when teams play. I'm hoping you are right about the probability of a hockey trade or deal for a goalie.

Few would argue that this team needs a major upgrade in net. Based on how the GM has seemed to minimize the position I'm not even sure if it is a priority for him. My sense (opinion) is that the GM is banking on UPL as being his primary goalie with another second-tier goalie added to the position. That lack of urgency to address that position is risking another middling season played in front of an even more declining audience. As much as there is a lot of attention on the goalie position this team still has glaring weaknesses. Out of the 11 offensive categories the Sabres have no player listed in the top 20 in any of the categories. How many times has the opposition capitalized on our defensive lapses and converted while the Sabres attempted to capitalize on the opposition's mistakes with near misses? There is an assumption that Quinn and JJ will make the roster. That should help the offense. However, this organization needs to use its cap and draft capital to bring in at least another couple players in order to bulk up the roster sooner rather than later. I believe that the GM in general is taking the right approach in rebuilding the roster. However, he will be making a mistake if he doesn't accelerate the rebuild process with a couple to few aggressive moves to add more talent to the roster.

The grueling compressed schedule that we are subjected to is the same grueling compressed schedule that everyone else is dealing with. Anyone that is fair-minded recognizes that the Sabres are reconstructing this roster for the better. However, we are still at the stage where this team has less margin of error than good teams with a more complete roster have. When the Sabres play with energy and up to their capabilities, they can compete. When for whatever reason the Sabres play a lackluster game they are simply overmatched.

You don't need to provide a disclaimer. When opinions of Amerk players are solicited you are one of the two or three go to guys. You are a member of the AHL/Amerk wisdom club. That means in that area you are astute and perspicacious. 🍺