JohnC

The lesson to be learned by the TM tenure is to be judicious with your assets and wisely utilize them. That wasn't a trademark of his tenure that looked for a quick fix. There are a number of avenues to upgrade a roster. Foreclosing or limiting any one of them due to fear of previous failings is the wrong lesson to be learned. What is evident with this regime under KA is that this franchise is not going to act out of desperation or expediency. That was evident by the way KA handled the Jack Eichel situation. He bided his time and waited until a reasonable deal materialized, and then he made the transaction. Taking steps to move forward is better than standing in place when the destination is still some distance away.

Potently stated! The Murray mistakes of the past that are reflexively brought up whenever someone brings up options to improve this team. That hesitancy due to fear of past failure in the long run is more franchise crippling than taking some actions that don't work. Few people here are advocating for a dramatic change in the draft and develop rebuild process. Without question that is the core of the rebuild strategy. However, when one has an excess in draft capital that includes a number of second and third round picks on top of a low cap figure, then those are assets that can be parlayed into contributing players. Anyone who believes that this team has enough contributing players isn't watching the same games that I am watching.

I don't see what Sabre player has value in the market. As you point out Miller is hurt diminishing what value he ever had. I still believe that Olofsson is dealing with the effect of his injury. He simply isn't close to what he was since he came back from his injury. Because of his diminished play he has little value and because he may be impaired because of an injury I would be reluctant to part with him. I'm more intrigued with what the organization does in the offseason than what happens at the trade deadline. That's where there will be opportunities to add some useful pieces to this rebuilding roster.

Walking away from Ullmark was not the problem. The problem was that the GM didn't have an adequate fallback position if he couldn't sign the UFA goalie at the price he deemed acceptable. That's the indictable offense. However, I absolutely agree that paying Ullmark a million dollars more on a four year term (your example) would be worth it. That extra million would have had a negligible impact for a franchise that is at the bottom of cap spending. The combination of Ullmark and UPL (now injured) would have made more sense than bringing in Anderson and pairing him up with anyone else. The Sabres have had bad luck with injuries at the goalie position this year. But when the season started the position was thin to begin with. I'm not getting carried away and proclaiming Ullmark to be an upper tier player. But as a Sabre he played well for us, and his record was starkly better than other goalies in the net. The past is the past. The lesson to be learned is to be better prepared to respond to contingencies such as having options for a player who is an UFA. That was the failure with in this situation.

The Ullmark issue has a number of aspects to it. One is that the GM declined to sign Ullmark to the contract that he was willing to sign in order to stay. And the other side of it is that Boston signed him for a reasonable contract. What it came down to is that Ullmark wanted the Sabres to pay a premium price for him to stay with a struggling and rebuilding team as opposed to signing a lesser contract with a more complete and playoff contending team. As an UFA Ullmark was looking out for his best interest. There was nothing unreasonable about Ullmark's stance. The GM who had plenty of cap space and an acknowledged major void at the position could have easily kept the player at the price the player was demanding and still continue on with his rebuild without hindering it at all in the short or long term. The point I'm making here irrespective to this particular example is that there are ways to accelerate the upgrade of this team if there is a little more creativity and desire to do so. I'm not talking about fanciful blockbuster deals as I'm talking about being a little more aggressive in improving this incomplete team. When you are walking and increase your pace just a little you will get to your destination quicker than if you continue at an ambling pace.

There are opportunities for players who are underperforming where they are at and who need a change of scenery. Sam Bennett has been a tremendous pickup for Florida. Although the deal was not costly it turned out to be impactful. I don't expect such a deal to turn out as auspiciously as this one but there are deals that could be made that would improve the roster. The Sabres have cap space and they have draft assets. An enterprising GM would be able to judiciously use them. Again, I want to make it clear that I am not advocating for a major depletion of our resources/assets to upgrade the team simply for a short-term benefit at the expense of the longer term. https://www.nhl.com/news/florida-acquires-sam-bennett-from-calgary/c-323572260

I'm not giving up a first for any netminder. But I would consider a third, or if the player was good enough, I would consider a second round pick. As an example I would trade a second round pick for Washington's Vanacek or a player like him. Draft picks (not first round picks) can be used as currency, especially if combined with taking on a salary that another team wants to ship out. And that same line of thinking applies to other positions. Even if you don't make dramatic improvements you still can make improvements that make your team better.

A couple of judicious trades with cash strapped teams can be made without giving up much in the way of assets other than taking on some salary. The Sabres have a lot of cap space than can be smartly used on a couple to three players that would not only improve the roster but provide better support for our young players. What I'm suggesting is not taking dramatic action that will in the long-run set back the rebuild. I'm suggesting the opposite. If you have an opportunity to improve the team within the confines of the planned rebuild, then it should be done. The Sabres are currently playing in front of mostly an empty building inhabited by listless fans. Taking a passive approach to improving the team is taking a longer road to continuing irrelevancy. It need not be that way.

I'm not just looking at the UFA market. Trades can be made without giving up high draft picks.

You are mistakenly extrapolating my position to an extreme. You are citing past failures and attaching them to the present and approaching offseason. That is not close to what I am suggesting. There is a reasonable middle here that I believe can accelerate the rebuild without mortgaging/sabotaging the rebuild. How Murray functioned during his tenure is not the model that I am advocating for. It's the opposite of his approach and it more favors the KA approach. What I would like to see is some of the large available cap money being used for maybe two, three or four quality (not elite) players that will replace some of the very pedestrian players that are currently on the roster. That certainly isn't a high cost or asset depleting change of direction of the current course this franchise is on. I have stated on more than a few occasions that I believe this is a three year rebuild with this year being the first year. I still believe that. I also believe that because of the vanishing fan base and the damage done by constant losing to the young core that the accelerator has to be stepped down on a little harder in order to gain more credibility with the fanbase and the hockey world. You may have forgotten that we lost our previous core for a variety of reasons but much of it due to the corrosion of constant losing. I don't want to see that happen again. The Sabres have

When Tuch was in LV he was on a cup contending team and playing in front of capacity and raucous crowds. Now he is in Buffalo playing in front of a mostly empty arena and is playing on a losing team. I'm not bringing this up to suggest that he isn't happy to be here and be closer to his family. My fear is that unless there is a quicker turn-around his initial enthusiasm of returning home will soon wane. I have this same concern of disillusionment from our new young core that has known nothing but team failure. My hope is that this ownership and front office lean toward the side of being aggressive in accelerating the rebuild. This offseason this franchise will have cap resources to increase the pace of the rebuild. I hope they take advantage of it.

Many people are arguing that Adams needs to be aggressive in bringing in another goalie to upgrade the position. (That's where I stand.) But it is more likely that the GM is going to stay the course and go with UPL as his primary goalie, and continue with his low cost and short term options as backups. If Levi is going to turn pro as many people expect, he'll end up in Rochester and be the main goalie there so he can be fast tracked to the NHL. This approach will fit in with the building from within approach and will be the cheaper approach to take. There was a discussion on another thread that discussed the usage of cap space. My sense is that for the near future (another year or two) from a cap standpoint this organization is going to be at or near the bottom pay scale in the league. The course of this rebuild has been set; I don't see much deviation from it. I would like to see more urgency but I wouldn't count on it.

I'm not making excuses for the Sabres. It is just painfully evident that there simply isn't enough talent on this roster that would give this team enough margin of error when things go wrong or injuries are sustained. Your examples of Skinner's goal being waved off and Tage missing an open net are good examples where the tenor of game could have been much different. And if you overlay our goaltending inadequacy on top of our manifest deficiencies then what is occurring shouldn't be surprising. The season still has a long way to go. But if the GM doesn't act with urgency this offseason in addressing the goaltending position, and if he doesn't make enough moves to strengthen glaring weaknesses, he is going to set back his own rebuild. The direction of this rebuild has been set. It needs additional action to give it a boost. A passive mindset by the GM is going to further erode and already eroded fanbase.

I understand your point. But all you can ask for as a coach is for a player to play within his abilities and experience level. With the roster he has to work with, that includes a lot of young players, overloading your players with detailed instructions in the end hinders a player's development more than it promotes it. A case in point is that Dahlin seemed to be thinking too much under Krueger while he seemed to be liberated and played freer and better under Granato. As Granato stated in a recent interview over-coaching can be more damaging than less coaching. That contrast is evident in the way Krueger coached in comparison to Granato. And the respective results demonstrate that point. I'm confident that Granato will adjust in how he coaches next year in comparison to this year. He seems amenable to adjusting to different circumstances. I agree with you that Granto's forte is not as a tactician. I'm sure he would even admit to that. His coaching philosophy relies more on player psychology and motivation.

You are misconstruing what I have previously stated. I agree with you that as a blue line unit you need a mix of players with different styles of play. I just don't give much weight to whether a player is more suited as a right or left defenseman. The talent issue becomes the paramount issue for me.

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.