JohnC

I can state with confidence that he is also a much better man than I am. I can also state with no hesitation that I set a low bar. 😃

Thank you for this terrific clip. It captured the type of empathetic person he is. An example of his empathy was on display last year when he was asked about Eichel and his situation. He didn't take any cheap shots about wanting players who wanted to be here. What he said is that Jack is a young man whose entire life revolved around hockey. It was his life passion. And because of his injury it was not only taken away from him for the short term but also possibly forever. So he understood the emotions that Jack was undergoing. He stated no matter how things work out he wished Jack the best and wanted him to succeed in the game that he loved. That's a good guy and wonderful human being.

Granato possess a pleasant persona. But don't be fooled into believing that he doesn't hold his players accountable. He does. He's not afraid to sit a player down or curtail minutes. But to his credit he doesn't do it in a demeaning way by publicly singling the player out. Granato has been in the business long enough to know that coaching survival revolves around winning. As you suggest winning isn't the priority right now compared to player development. Next year, the pressure will build for him to get the winning/losing ratio in better balance.

What matters more in the defensive and offensive zone is having your more talented defenders/players on the ice. I would prefer having the more talented player adjust to his off-hand than play the less talented player. I would also carry out this logic to the wingers. I'm not saying that the hand preference shouldn't be a consideration. But it should be subordinated to the talent issue.

Much of Granato's career dealt with working with young players at lower levels. He learned what worked with individual players and what didn't work. And he innately understood that different players responded differently. So he adapted an approach that focuses on the individual. He has people skills that for the most part can't be taught. He's not an idealogue who has a prescriptive response. He is open-minded and is constantly searching for solutions. (How he handled Skinner is an example of that.) I like him a lot. There are many established coaches who wouldn't be able to handle working in a rebuilding situation that jettisoned its best players and replaced them with prospects and younger players. The constant losing would demoralize them. Granato has a big picture and step by step approach that allows him to handle the trials and tribulations that a rebuild requires. He has a future vision that a lot of veteran coaches can't see because they are enmeshed with the punishing present situation. Or to put it more briefly: He has the right makeup to coach this team.

Within this WGR link Granato talks with Howard and Jeremy. This is a 15 min. segment. He brings up Mitts, Skinner, Krebs. Bjork and other topics. When listening to Granato his hockey perspective revolves around player development. He leans more toward the psychology of the player than toward a system. The contrast to Krueger is stark. Don G is always a good listen. https://www.audacy.com/wgr550/authors/howard-and-jeremy-show

I thought that Asplund had a good game against Philly. VO is not the same player he was after the being injured. He's playing a little better than when he returned from the injury list. But it doesn't seem that he is back to his pre-injury sniper form. It might take an offseason to get him fully restored to health?

It certainly is better to have "handedness" balance than not. But I don't consider it as much of an issue as most here do. I would rather have an overload of left d-men if it is due to the fact that they are our best players to draw from. If a player is more of a stay home defenseman, does it really matter what side he plays on? And for a team that is trying to play a faster north/south game I see the hand issue becoming even less of a factor. The focus should be more about adding more talent and less about what hand the player plays with.

There is a role for veterans such as KO and Zemgus. If KO can play at the same level he is currently playing at he is going to be fitted in somewhere. Krebs in my view can start off as a winger and then eventually work his way to the center position. He and Quinn need to get stronger, and they will. What this injury plagued year has taught us is that having depth is not something to worry about. The inevitability of injuries will create opportunities for players waiting in the wings. In addition, internal competition makes the team better. If a player such as Olofsson struggles his playing time will go to someone else. The hockey season is a long hard grind where bodies get battered and need to be substituted for materializes. A congestion of talent is not something I worry about.

If you add Krebs to your top three line mix you can see a variety of interesting line combos that can be assembled and even juggled during the games. And if you look a little down the road and add Peterka to the mix then you can start to see even more flexibility and depth within those lines. It would really be helpful if Olofsson can regain his sharpshooting form and be more of a contributor. Ever since he was hurt he hasn't been the same player. What's interesting is that while there are a variety of proposals for the assembling of lines, they all seem to be viable. This team is approaching the point (not there yet) that there are a lot of good options because the pool of players to draw from is getting deeper.

Hell no! Keep Krebs, Samuelsson and Quinn (when healthy) with the big club. Samuelsson has certainly earned the right to stay. And Krebs has demonstrated that he can play and grow at this level while contributing. Of course, Krebs and Quinn need to get stronger. But the offseason and the passing of time will take care of that. These young players are far from being finished products. However, that doesn't mean that they are being overwhelmed playing in the higher league. In fact, I would argue that playing in the NHL this year will make them better players next year.

I agree with your comments. His production is not going to match his salary-scale. But considering the empty return on investment under Krueger compared to under Granato it is a significant increase. And you make an excellent point that most of his scores are done at ES.

Miller is not the caliber of player who is a critical missing piece to any contending team. And, it is very unlikely that the Sabres would retain salary on him or any player. If our GM could get a second round pick for Miller at the trade deadline he should be arrested for felonious theft. It's not going to happen. Maybe a third round pick could be had for him? Don't miss interpret what I'm saying. I'm not a Miller basher. I wouldn't be against retaining him if he wants to stay and work out a fair-value contract. In my mind he is not a key piece so much as a useful piece. I consider him to be a third pairing caliber defenseman who is a good skater and has a hard shot that can be useful on the PP.

Because Miller is currently hurt if dealt I see bringing back maybe a fourth round pick. I agree with you that Montour was a better player. I know there are plenty of critics here of Miller but I'm not one of them. I see him as a third pairing player who can skate and shoot. If he wanted to stay I would have no problem retaining him if his contract was commensurate with his role.

Granato earned his salary in putting our highest paid player in a position to succeed. Instead of being lost in the abyss he is now producing at a level where there is a reasonable return on a high cost investment. Does his production match his contract? Maybe not. But at least now because of his goal scoring prowess he is key contributor. Coaching matters!

On the post game show Marty Biron stated that Quinn is going to be out a month. Buzzard's luck!

There is nothing flashy or stylish about Cozens's game in comparison to a player such as Krebs or Tage. He is a meat and potato type player who doesn't dazzle you with his game. This is a player whose game is more substance than style. Even when he isn't producing stats he is a positive player for us. He and Samuelsson are not so much noticeable players as they are good players. I really like both of them.

Hinostroza is not a top two line player. That's understood. But on the third or fourth line he would be a good fit. I also think that there has to be enough veterans to help support the development of the younger players. For sure, he is not a prominent player but there is a support role that he can provide. It may not be fashionable to discuss the lowers line but upgrading them and raising the floor of the lines helps in the building of a more well-rounded team/roster. With respect to Vogl's opinion that the players he mentions are going to bring good value if dealt, I highly doubt it. The returns on the departed players, including Miller, will be inconsequential.

I doubt that Hinostroza will be traded. Overall, he has been a good value addition. And I doubt that Bjork will be traded. He has value on the PK.

I agree with you that defensive effort can't simply be turned on/off like a light switch. But the reality with this team is that it lacks enough talent spread out throughout the roster. The organization is steadily adding young talent. But the process is far from complete. In my view we haven't reached the critical mass of talent yet that will allow this team to be a serious team. I get frustrated watching them because there are tantalizing interludes of good play that is followed by interludes of mediocre play. That is simply due to not being talented enough, at least at this stage. However, I'm not at the point of discouragement because when I see new players such as Samuelsson added to our young core it is a reason to be hopeful. It can be exasperating watching this team but I still retain a glimmer of hope for the near future. Attached is a link of a column on the game by Lance Lysowski of the Buff News that is a fair assessment of the game and situation. https://buffalonews.com/sports/sabres/observations-sabres-young-core-takes-flight-learns-another-harsh-lesson/article_165e493a-7a40-11ec-8396-1f8e3585fb53.html

He is our best player who has kept the faith in trying times. He has bought in and is carrying a heavy load that most young players couldn't handle. He should be saluted. 🍺

He's simply not the same player after returning from his injured. Granato said that because of the nature of his injury he was not able to practice shooting while rehabbing. It's apparent that it is still bothering him.

I agree with your take on the goalie issue. However, it is my sense that KA believes that UPL is ready or near ready to be slotted for the #1 goalie role. I believe he is taking a great risk in rushing the young netminder for that more prominent role. As like you, my preference would have been to make it a priority to bring in a goalie and give UPL a subordinate role to ease him into the higher stakes NHL game. It just seems to me that KA doesn't want to use up much cap space and assets to bring in a more upscale goalie. Considering where this franchise is with its cap situation it is an unnecessary gamble.

With respect to the highlighted comments this is where I am at. The GM has essentially wiped much of the slate clean from the inherited roster. Now he is at the stage of putting the pieces together to replace the jettisoned players. Are the younger players in the system ready to make the move up? By next year I believe a number of them will be. Will the GM wisely use the large cap space or will it not be utilized for the betterment of the team? On this issue I'm not sure what the plans are. I don't believe ownership wants his GM to spend to the upper limit, at least at this stage in the rebuild. I don't consider that to be realistic expectation. However, what I will be watching to see is whether the GM is going to wisely use his cap money to add enough mid-range players who can make this team better and provide a more positive environment for the young players. As it stands, they have been too exposed to persistent losing. It is corrosive. As @ducacek stated that is TBD.

Few people are making the claim that the rebuilding approach the GM is taking was the only course of action he could have taken. However, he chose a particular clean the slate course of action that was much more leaning toward futures than a hybrid approach that would have involved keeping more of his old core. Jack simply didn't want to be here any longer. (I don't blame him.) And he made it clear to the GM. In addition, the surgery issue was another issue where neither side was yielding. So the GM bided his team and got a reasonable deal for him. It is a fair criticism that this organization should have signed Rheinhart to a longer term contract a few years back. I'm not sure why an extension couldn't be done, especially when there were indications that the player was receptive to a longer deal? It then got to the point where Sam indicated that once he got to his UFA year he was going to depart. (Again, I don't blame the player for wanting out.) So he was dealt. The point I am making is that the GM made a decision that he was going to institute a full scale rebuild that was going to dramatically reshape the roster that he inherited. Was money a factor? Of course it was. That shouldn't be a surprise to anyone. He envisioned a roster not built around our unhappy super star player but a roster that had more talent spread around the roster. And that's where we are. How long will this excruciating process take? My opinion it will take three years. What our GM decided to do is take the standard rebuild approach that mostly relies on drafting and developing. That is the same approach that Detroit is taking under Yzerman.