JohnC

Anyone who knows what the shape of a hockey puck was fully aware that this year's team wouldn't contend for a playoff spot. The question that the fans and hockey world were discussing was how close to the bottom was this team going to get. No one is surprised because the outcome was obvious and preordained before the hockey season started.

I agree with you that the organization has to do a major review to assess itself. With respect to my comment about conditioning it was directed to the younger players such as Krebs and Quinn who need to get stronger to compete against men. An example of my point is it wasn't until Tage and Mitts got stronger (took years) that they able to hold their own from a physical standpoint.

At this point I don't know what the discussion is about. I'm one that can be easily befuddled. That's okay. It isn't a big enough issue to duel over.

The fitness plan will be executed in the offseason. Krebs and Quinn will have a lot of work to do this offseason.

Mitts said the exact same complimentary things about Jack after he was traded. And after Jack was traded Okposo gave positive remarks about Jack and wished him well. Everyone knew that it was inevitable that Jack was going to be traded. After he was dealt I can't recall any negative comments about him.

How about trading our lowest first round pick for Comtois?

I agree with you that Golden Knights are a better team with Tuch and Krebs because they have an immensely better roster to begin with. But (my opinion) with a healthy and committed Jack the Sabres are a better team with him than without.

Don Granato has said on the radio on more than one occasion that he felt that Quinn has outgrown the AHL. He stated from even a developmental standpoint he would benefit more playing in the NHL.

I'll try to answer your response in simpler terms. The Sabres are a better team with a healthy and committed Jack than they are with Tuch, Krebs and minus Jack. Vegas is a better team with a healthy Jack and without Tuch and Krebs. (My opinion.) The point I'm making doesn't revolve around who is the best player in this trade because it is obvious who the best player is in this transaction. (We both agree on that.) My contention is that Jack's benefit for Vegas is greater than the sum of the two players who departed. And correspondingly, Jacks departure from Buffalo that added Tuch, Krebs and a probable late first when summarized is a minus for the Sabre. (My opinion.) With respect to Jack's health and how it plays in how this deal can be assessed I believe that by the end of the season, if not sooner, we should be able to determine if has returned to form. It also could take an offseason to get a better assessment of where he is as a player. The health issue was a gamble that Vegas was willing to take. The context that both of us recognize is that the Jack trade wasn't simply a plus/minus transaction. There were a number of considerations beyond the talent and even the health issue that motivated this trade. With all the underlying issues that were associated with Jack and with where this team was in the rebuilding process I have no problem with the deal that our GM made.

If Olofsson can be signed in the range of 4 yrs per $4 M or the contract that you that you listed at 3 yrs per $4.5, I would keep him. This bottom feeding team needs to add talent, not let them go. As far as getting winger prospects in the draft, that is fine. But any player drafted this year is mostly at the minimum two to three years away. What this season highlights is the necessity of having depth. And what is also apparent that when the organization struggles to meet the salary floor there should be little concern about the salary that VO will command.

I understand your point but disagree with it. For such an incomplete and talent lacking team like Buffalo adding two players improves it more than a player added to a an already fuller and robust lineup. Metaphorically, for Buffalo it's like adding water to a glass that is nearly empty. For a team like Vegas where the glass is nearly full (from a talent standpoint) the addition is less. Jack is in an elite talent category while I would place Tuch and Krebs in the future in the good category. There are few players in Jack's lofty category as compared to the number of players in the good category. It is rare that a player like Jack is available while that is not the case for players in Tuch's category that can be had in trades. As far as the Stanley Cup argument I don't accept the premise that if Vegas doesn't make the finals or wins the cup that the deal was somewhat of a failure. There are a lot of factors that come into play as to why an upper team makes or not make the finals. As an example having a hot goalie or not. Again, I understand your point but respectfully disagree with it. I still contend that if Jack returns to form and remains health that Vegas will be more of a beneficiary of the deal I apologize for the change of color of the type. I don't know what happened.

My opinion is assuming Jack remains healthy and regains his forms I would say that Vegas got the better of the deal. Even assuming he returns to form I am comfortable on the return for Jack.

This is an issue where it isn't so much about being right or wrong as it is about making judgments about the data you have on hand. Each side sought medical opinions from a variety of sources. And both sides used respective medical sources. And another issue is that the perspective of this particular player differed from the perspective of an organization. This medical conflict also had the additional complication that the player desperately wanted out. What it came down to is that the parties had different interests in a complicated medical situation. In the end each of the parties got a result that they can live with.

As you point out few people have made the claim that DG can be categorized as a good NHL coach because at this time we simply don't know. What we do know is that players such as Dahlin, Mitts, Skinner, Tage have played demonstrably better under him than his predecessor. And as you point out this team has been stripped of its old core and replaced with another younger core. I'm hoping that this organization makes a more concerted effort to upgrade the roster sooner than later. When and if that happens a fairer judgment can be made on his coaching performance.

You make a keen observation about how refreshing he is when being interviewed. There were more than a few occasions on WGR on his weekly Howard and Jeremy segments where he would listen to the question and then mull it over and respond: "That is an good point. I haven't looked at this particular issue that way." He is open-minded and willing to give a candid answer. He's not insecure and defensive when criticized about the play of his team. There is little pretense and bluster when he is at the podium. How he handles himself in interviews certainly doesn't make him a good coach. Although how he responds to the media is part of his job. What distinguishes him is how he has gotten players such as Skinner, Dahlin, Mitts and the team in general to play better. And what distinguishes him as a coach that it is evident is that under him players get better. He's not a savior or at this time can be categorized as an elite coach. But in my opinion he is the right coach at the right time for this team.

My comment related to a former player and team/organization that we are playing tonight. So it is relevant to this thread. Your takeaway that I'm being disrespectful to the person who started the thread is off the wall and nonsensical. The Ghost of Doohickie is a very active and one of the better posters here. He doesn't need you to speak for him.

The conclusion you draw from my comment is totally wrong. The point that was made is that teams can make moves to improve and do it in a responsible manner. That's the point!

Last offseason, Florida made a trade to acquired Sam Bennett and a sixth round pick for a prospect and a second round pick. He has scored 24 goals so far this season. Florida also acquired Sam Reinhart for a first round pick (very low in the round) and a goalie prospect (Levi). Reinhart is averaging a point a game. Many people are satisfied that the Sabres are getting better. But they fail to include the context that so are other teams, including the top tier teams. In the two cases that I cited Florida acquired contributing players that for different reasons needed to be moved. They ended up getting two good players at bargain prices. There is no reason why with our favorable cap and draft assets this offseason the Sabres can't take advantage of the market as Florida did last offseason. The relevant issue isn't are you getting better. It is are you getting better relative to the competition. This offseason we will see how serious this franchise is in making this team a serious team.

Is it safe to assume that Tuch won't play tonight?

I'm aware what he is saying. I'm saying that it isn't.

You are off the mark. The current talent level is insufficient. This organization is in position to make some moves to add talent to the roster. Will it do so? You demonstrate a commitment to winning by being proactive in addressing your deficiencies.

When commenting on this game there isn't much to say. You can't criticize the Sabres for their effort. It was there throughout the game. Toks was good in the net. LA executed the trap all game long. It flummoxed the Sabres. They had no remedy to that suffocating brand of hockey. We had few shots and scoring opportunities. The style of game that LA played today is a recipe to kill interest in hockey. It was like watching the Devils of old where the league had to change the rules to force more flow. LA was the better team. On the other hand, the difference between these two teams isn't so great that it can't be bridge with a few upgrades. I hope that Tuch isn't hurt too badly. He was in a vulnerable position when he slid into the net. For most fans this game had little entertainment value. It was tough to watch. The kids on the broadcast were cute and charming.

If a defenseman who is playing on his offside is better than a player who is playing on his appropriate hand side, which player would you prefer? I understand on why you would prefer to have a balance on defense. But if the staffing isn't there you make the adjustment and accommodation for the situation. If it is more of an imperative for the top pairing to have that balance that doesn't mean that the lower pairings have to do so if the staffing isn't sufficient.

There is an advantage with having players who are versatile and whose roles can't be strictly defined by the position they are playing. When the inevitable injuries happen they can easily be moved to what some perceive to be their more natural position. Krebs and Mitts certainly fit that category as wing/centers and center/wingers. This flexibility also becomes useful when the lines are jumbled by the coach for the sake of rejuvenating a line that has gone stale. I'm aware that there is a lot of discussion here about the issue of right and left handed defensemen. I consider it to be an overrated issue. My leaning is simply play your best players. The players will adapt to their offhand position without much trouble. I would argue that with a fast paced team that plays a north/style it is less of a factor. Ideally, you would want a balance on which side to play. But the more important issue is getting your best players on the ice.

Excellent observation. As a winger Mitts played like a center. On the Okposo goal Mitts got the puck on the wing and made a nice move to go up the center of the ice where he got a shot off that rebounded to Okposo who put it in the net. What Granato has done is put his best players on a line regardless of the usual position assignment for that particular player. In other games he has played Krebs on a wing. As like Mitts in this game he played the wing like a center. Using flexibility in order to play your best players.