JohnC

I may have previously mentioned this to you about David Kindred going back home to cover high school sports. Your post reminded me again of him going home to cover women high school sports. Sports at a more pure form without the egos and frills associated with sports. I'm sure you will call a great game. https://www.cbsnews.com/news/dave-kindred-local-sportswriter-60-minutes-2021-03-28/

The departure of Briere and Drury happened more than a decade ago. What has kept them franchise stuck in the morass of mediocrity is a collection of bad decisions. There isn't a team in the league that hasn't lost instrumental players due to cap/contract, free agency, trades etc. reasons. There was more than enough time to compensate for the loss of the key players that you listed. Our extended futility was due to ingrained incompetence. Excuses are for losers. I'm not a reflexive critic. I believe that the owner has learned some lessons from his own mistakes. I believe that the Sabres and the hockey operation are on the right track. Some patience and better goaltending will accelerate the pace of this rebuilding process.

The one trait that has astonished/surprised me is his speed. How many times have you witnessed him racing past the defense for a good scoring opportunity? Krebs clearly has to get stronger but watching him during his short stint with us it is not outlandish to say that he has the best vision on this team. There is so much upside to his game to be excited about.

What is your point? You don't understand what I have been saying about our goalie situation. Anderson winning today reinforces my point, not diminishing what I have been saying. Bringing in the forty year old Anderson to be a primary goalie was a mistake. I have no problem with adding Anderson to the roster. It was the role that he was given that I take issue with. What this game demonstrated is that when he is periodically used, he is effective. A better role for him would have been for him to be our backup goalie and used in maybe a third of the games. At this stage of his career he is not a heavy-duty/workhorse type of goalie who should be your primary netminder.

I have no criticism for Golisano. The financial books for this organization was in a state of disarray. There was a lot of intermingling of franchise funds with personal expenses. What Golisano did was set a hard budget and forced financial discipline on an undisciplined and chaotic business. He made the hockey operation staff work within the budget. Were there player casualties as a result? Yes, but overall, he stabilized an operation that was financially insolvent. To Golisano's credit he paid vendors he had no legal obligation to pay because of the organization's bankruptcy status. When asked why he did that he said because although he wasn't legally obligated to do so it was the right thing to do. Golisano made money when he sold the franchise to the Pegulas. Good for him! He could have sold the franchise to someone else who would have paid more and then moved the franchise. He didn't. (I'm aware that the Commissioner would not have approved of a move.)

I agree wholeheartedly with you. There were better options to upgrade the most important position in hockey. Some people are attempting to mischaracterize my comments on this topic making it appear that I am shooting for the moon here. That's not the point of my comments. My desire was to simply get a competent goalie in place if Ullmark departed. It was well known that Ullmark was entering his UFA year. A reasonable fallback position should have been in the plans entering last offseason. If the market was barren then one option would have been to pay the premium price and term that Ullmark wanted in order to stay. And then when our goalie situation stabilized he could have been traded before the conclusion of his contract. That's how other organizations do it. The focus of my attention is not this season. The situation we are in is the situation we are in. Lamenting does not change the situation. My focus is on how the GM handles the issue next season. I'm worried about the GM's status quo mind-set.

But again, again,and again! We didn't need to sign a goalie for three seasons and have an upgrade in net. There were better options. And even if Ullmark would have been signed for an extended term he could have been traded before his contract was concluded. With a little imagination and creativity the GM could have had better options in net. When you reach for excuses you will continue being stuck in the mud of mediocrity. Our goalie situation didn't have to be at this level this season.

Craig Anderson has been on the shelf for most of the season. Whatever stats you are drawing from are inconclusive because of the miniscule sample size that applies to Anderson.

With respect to the highlighted section that is the issue. I'm not sure the GM does. My sense is that he is going to stay within his own pipeline and ride it out. I believe that it would be a mistake.

The GM doesn't have to give up a first round pick in order to get a quality goalie in a trade. The Sabres have plenty of second and third round picks over the next two years that can be parlayed in a deal, along with a willingness to take on some salary for a goalie coming in. And it should be noted that the Sabres have plenty of cap space to work with and still have cap space after a deal. The game against Columbus was very winnable. Overall, you can't criticize the team's effort. The difference in this game between the Sabres and Columbus was the goalie play. If the issue isn't addressed in the offseason the same scenario will play out again. There is a reason why for every four seats on game day three of them are empty!

The problem wasn't not signing Ullmark. It was not having a fallback position if he couldn't get him signed within the GM's contract parameters. There was no surprise about the player's UFA status was. The GM had more than enough time to have a better option A or B. With respect to Ullmark's contract higher contract demand for Buffalo compared to Boston although the terms were higher they weren't unrealistic, especially for a team that had plenty of cap space. The vulnerable situation that the Sabres were left in at goal was unnecessary.

Go back and look what Yzerman did to get a goaltender in a trade with Carolina last offseason. He acquired a good goaltender at a minimum price. The Sabres have a lot more in assets to parlay to come up with a competent netminder this offseason. https://www.freep.com/story/sports/nhl/red-wings/2021/07/22/detroit-red-wings-alex-nedeljkovic-trade-carolina-hurricanes/8058139002/ I have cited this example not to highlight any particular player but to make the point that there are/were opportunities to improve the most important position on a hockey team if there would have been a willingness to do so. Our team is rebuilding and obviously the roster is far from incomplete. With quality goaltending this team would be in a much better situation. If the GM would have paid a little more than he wanted to retain Ullmark this team's record would be a lot more respectable. The moral of the story is when you don't have an adequate fallback position you fall back. And that's exactly what happened. It didn't have to be that way.

Anderson didn't start and we lost. He's been out of action for most of the season due to injury. When you get a 40 yr old goalie who was expected to be the secondary goalie and put him in position to be your primary goalie you are putting the team in a precarious position. And that is exactly how it played out this season.

Even if UPL is ready now there is a need to add a competent goalie in the interim before the other goalie prospects are ready. If you are referring to the Florida trade for Levi I'm sure you are aware that it will be another couple or more years before he is ready as a full-time goalie. I'm talking about the now. Yesterday's game was winnable. We didn't win because of the current goalie deficiency.

You are creating a false scenario. There is no need to give up a first round pick for another team's second goalie. That doesn't mean that you can't make a deal in a trade where you come away with a quality goalie in a package that includes maybe a second or third round pick for a goalie that dramatically improves our goalie situation. When you consider the fact that over the next two years the Sabres possess multiple second and third round picks on top of our multiple first round picks then the organization undoubtably has the assets to get a deal done for the most important and impactful position on the ice. Yesterday's game illustrated how a deficiency in net sabotages a good effort.

If the Sabres would have had an Ullmark caliber of netminding this season in my opinion the Sabres have at least 10-12 more points in the standings. The second goal that Tokarski let in was a shot that a below average NHL goalie would stop 99% of the time. It was a crusher!

I can't say for sure if we can add a goalie from the scenario that you put together. But what I am saying is that given our cap situation, reservoir of picks for the next couple of years and teams being forced to make tough roster decisions because of their cap stress there will be opportunities to add a few more good players to the young players that will soon move up the ranks. I support what KA is doing to reconstruct this roster. But what I am advocating for is to be a little more aggressive this offseason to upgrade the roster and quicken the timetable to become a serious team. The few fans who attend the game deserve it. A half generation of irrelevancy is depleting.

With respect to the highlighted segment that is not what I am advocating for. I believe that a quality goalie can be added in a judicious trade. Because it wasn't done last offseason it unnecessarily hurt the competitiveness of the team.

You are creating scenarios that don't come close to what I have been saying. Hockey is a cap sport. When teams bring in a high talented player like Jack or any high end talent they often have to balance out the high yield acquisition with a shedding of a contract of a quality player. As was mentioned in prior posts teams had to deal off players in order to maneuver in the expansion draft. As I noted Yzerman made a good goalie acquisition for Detroit last year in such a scenario. And it was done at a bargain price. To be honest I don't know what you are getting at. You make it seem that it is better to foreclose trade and the free agent market (mid-range pickups) in order to maintain what you already have in players in assets. Parlaying your assets in a judicious manner is a way of improving team. That's simply my point. A little creativity and initiative in addressing your incomplete roster is a good thing.

Detroit traded for a goalie in an expansion year for a minimal price. You don't think that the Sabres couldn't have competed with the Detroit offer? Washington made a prearranged deal with Seattle to reacquire a goalie they lost in the expansion draft for a second round pick. When you sit on your hands and do nothing you end up sitting on your hands when there are opportunities to be explored to find talent! Last year, when Ullmark was an UFA the GM didn't have a reasonable fallback position if the player decided to move on. That is on the GM. On top of that he did have an opportunity to sign Ullmark but the condition was that he was going to pay a $$$ premium compared to what Boston offered. The GM declined when he was in a bottom tier cap situation. The GM could have signed him at the higher cost without having a consequential effect on our cap situation. The main problem is not the GM not signing the goalie who was on his team. However, I do have a lot of criticism for him in not having an adequate backup plan if he couldn't get him signed. In addition, would I be willing to give up a first round pick in a package to acquire a player of the caliber of Tuch this offseason? As long as it wasn't our highest first I would absolutely do so. Being a passive participant when competing with the other teams working hard to get better is going to get you to continue on the long road of irrelevancy.

I respectfully disagree. Tage and Casey have been in this organization for around four years. They have not witnessed success. My genral point is that this organization has to have a greater degree of urgency in turning things around. I believe that after the trade of Jack, Reinhart and Risto there needed to be a reset. This offseason there needs to be a greater degree of urgency and energy in adding talent to this roster. I'm not suggesting foolishly giving up assets for short term gain as much as I'm suggesting more creativity in adding talent to the roster for next season. I believe in the step-by-step approach to getting better. That doesn't mean that the pace can't be quickened.

The players you mentioned have known nothing but losing as Sabres in NHL games. That's my point. My contention is that by playing on a competitive team with meaningful games up to the end of the season it will enhance their development even more. And coming from winning backgrounds prior to entering the NHL doesn't mean that they won't be worn down by the constant losing after they become pros. Ask yourself why did Jack, Reinhart and Risto who experienced success prior to entering the pro league eventually wanted out? It wasn't because they enjoyed the experience of constant losing. I agree with you that the fans for a long time have known nothing but losing. They deserve better. Quality goaltending doesn't solve all the team's problems associated with a lack of talent. But it's not only a good start but also a necessity.

The gratuitous lack of attention of the goalie position by the GM really bothers me. The Sabres have a lot of young players on its roster who have known nothing but losing. My contention is that by having competent NHL goalie play on a regular basis that allows your team to be consistently more competitive and enhances the development of the younger players. Also, as enthusiastic as Tuch is coming back east to Buffalo how long will it take before the constant losing and less than competitive situation here dispirit him like it did with Jack, Reinhart and Risto? It shouldn't be forgotten that Tuch left a cup contending team. It's acknowledged by all that the Sabres are rebuilding. That doesn't mean that you can't be competitive while the process is going on. You do that by having competent goaltending. That wasn't done here. And that could have been accomplished within a reasonable price as it was done in Detroi. Yzermant traded with Carolina for a goalie in the last offseason. https://www.espn.com/nhl/story/_/id/31863098/carolina-hurricanes-trade-goalie-alex-nedeljkovic-detroit-red-wings

I agree with how you calculate the plus/minus in the trade of players. If Jack regains his health and plays at his previous level there is no question that Vegas comes out ahead in the trade. Jack is an elite player who in my mind is a top 15 player in the league. However, given the situation with him wanting out and the GM wanting him out layered on top of the impasse on the surgical procedure the Sabres got a reasonable (not equal) return for him. The one positive way of looking at this deal from a Sabre perspective is that by adding a couple of good players in the return who can play now plus the expectation/hope that the future first round pick will be a future contributor the Sabres will be widening the talent base on the NHL roster. The failure to add talent when Jack was here that would have provided him with more support is clearly an organizational and not a player failure. Jack made the decision that he needed to be moved. It worked out for him in that he is with a cup contending team. Reinhart also made a decision that he was not going to sign a deal and give up an opportunity to become a UFA in another year. He ended up in a serious cup contender. Which of these two players is more happy? Just maybe in a few years if Levi turns out to be a #1 goalie for us the Reinhart can deal turn out to be the most consequential deal for us from the departing core?????

Does anyone know what the timetable is for Quinn to return to action?