JohnC

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.

No.

The problem with smart guys like Krueger is that they believe they are smarter than everyone else in the room. He was your typical ideologue who believed his system was superior to all. When his system didn't work his lofty ego couldn't grasp the reality that not only that it didn't work but an alternative approach was needed. His backward approach to coaching was that players were required to adhere to his system whether they were suited to implement it or not. For a person who traveled the world coaching hockey and being involved in the soccer business, he had a very parochial outlook. The worst aspect of his misguided approach to hockey is how he stifled the talents of players such as Dahlin and Skinner. The well-spoken coach didn't understand the basic notion in coaching and teaching that your primary task is to bring out the talents that you oversee. Or to put it in simple terms: put your players in position to succeed. The moral of the story is that being smart doesn't make you wise. And another moral to the story is that talkers should do more listening. The damage he did was incalculable.

If people say that you are a radiating person they may not be referring to your cheerful personality. 🏴‍☠️

I believe that it relates more to will than savvy in making reasonable moves to upgrade this roster. If you look at the drafts that KA has supervised, they have been overall solid. The Quinn selection looks good. And the move up to draft Peterka looks like a smart move. Most people would say that drafting Power was a no-brainer. But that's the point. The GM didn't try to impress by outsmarting the pack. He simply made the obvious pick and the right pick. A decision was made to dispatch our core and reconstruct the roster that he inherited. The return for Jack, Risto and Sam was collectively a reasonable return considering the circumstances. And in the not too distant future those picks and players received should be established players for us for a long time. It wouldn't shock me that getting Levi in the Reinhart trade might turn out to be the most consequential return from the three trades in a couple to few years. The Sabres are in a good position to participate in the market this offseason due to their abundance of draft picks and cap space. Will he judiciously use some of their assets to add talent to the roster? I hope so but am not sure. Another issue is whether the owners will allow him to make the moves required to move forward? I simply don't know. Again, I hope so.

Bjork is the type of player who if in a skills contest for prospects, you would be impressed. However, (so far) he has demonstrated no ability to transfer those skills in a game. As you point out he simply does not have the hockey IQ to react in a sport that requires instant reacting. He's like a qb who can throw well in practice but can't read defenses and make the required adjustments in a game. In practice you salivate at the raw talents but in games your acid reflux entering your mouth makes you want to spit it out. Is he salvageable as a NHL player? Inclined not to think so but haven't completely given up on him as a player.

I strongly believe (as does @Thorny) that with a few smart moves utilizing our cap and draft assets this team can make an appreciable move up the ranks. And I'm convinced it can be done within the framework of the core rebuild strategy of draft and develop. Especially in a cap system the difference between success and failure is not great. It's not a question can it be done as it is an issue of willing to do so.

The best chirper on the team and one of the better chirpers in the league is Skinner. He has an irritating high-pitched gumby voice that makes the opposition want to strangle him.

Are you aware that you have a unique glow? 😄

Is he the weatherman on a porno station?

No. Mostly because I wouldn't be willing to trade Peterka.

I didn't think that Mitts had the gritty style of play to fit in with Cozens and Okie. I was wrong. I think playing with Cozens and Okie has helped round out his game even more. The coach is good at assembling lines. I'm sure when more talent is added the lines will be altered. But the three lines he has put together work well together. How Krueger went about putting together lines in comparison to Granato is ridiculous. I'm sure Skinner has some scathing thoughts on that subject!

Some instant impressions about the game: Mitts is regaining his offensive instincts. He made a number of impressive offensive moves in tight spaces. On top of that he is adding a lot of grit to his game. His battling behind the net to keep the puck in play was a consequential sequence in this win. Skinner's tenacity in getting his shot off inspires his linemates. Tuch made a lot of plays for his linemates because he is drawing a lot of attention. I thought our top three lines all played well. Krebs has incredible vision and playmaking ability. Olofsson is playing so much looser and isn't reluctant to shoot as he had been. I thought that line played well. How can one not be happy for Okposo? He is playing with so much more quickness compared to prior years. He is playing up to his contract. Minn plays a rugged game. There are few long rushes on offense. Their offensive game is mostly playing hard behind the net. Considering that they played a tough game yesterday, you have to give them credit for maintaining that hard style of play on consecutive nights. Their goalie made some exceptional stops. The stop on Krebs was a highlight stop. The Sabres of late are playing a tougher brand of hockey that is reflected by the number of shots they are blocking. You can see more unity by the way players stick up for one another. I'm not one who likes fighting but unquestionably the Fitz fights pumped up his teammates. The MVP in this game was Skinner. The most important takeaway and encouraging thing in this game was the play of Mitts. This was an entertaining game to watch.

Is Reiger Lorenz the grandson of former Sabre and announcer Jim Lorenz?

Nuclear option is still on the table. For Putin that is a very long table. ☠️ https://www.google.com/search?q=putin+long+table&rlz=1C1SQJL_enUS802US802&oq=Putin+long&aqs=chrome.0.0i131i433i512l2j69i57j0i512l3j0i3l2j0i512l2.2818j1j7&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8

Periodically I ask you similar questions and appreciate your thoughts: Give me a couple of prospects you would be ecstatic to see when our draft turn comes up at the bottom of the first round? I would love to have a similar outcome as we had when KA moved up to get Peterka at the area in which he was drafted.

Then her prerogatives are allowable. Some people would say she is being arbitrary and capricious. She would say: Shut up--I'm the boss. The next response is : Yes mam you are correct as usual.

Tell the rule enforcers that you posted from Japan where the day started sooner. So technically you are still adhering to the rule. 😄