JohnC

Considering Hall had the clause in his contract to determine where he would go how do you conclude that the deal to Boston was a bad deal. The GM got the best deal he could get considering the circumstances. When you don't have the leverage then you don't have the leverage.

Excellent observations and post. Two things you mentioned stood out good goaltending is such an important factor in being competitive. If you don't have it on a consistent basis you don't stand a chance. If Ullmark proves to be a genuine #1 goalie then it solves a lot of problems. The critical issue with him is can he stay healthy? I don't want to deviate from the topic but there are a couple of illustrations in this game that scream for retaining Granato as a coach. The Sabres were down 2-0 against a team that doesn't usually lose when ahead, and especially in the first period were being dominated. Hauser was under siege but held up. Yet the team didn't quit as it previously did when facing adversity under the former coach. Weaklings are not going to be tolerated or get ice time. This is a mentally tougher team instilled by the coach. It is apparent that Granato has a feel for the roster. He demoted Skinner to a lower line and elevated Bjork to the Reinhart line, replacing Skinner. Bjork had his best game for the Sabres and was its first star. Even with his demotion Skinner made a nifty pass to Eakin who converted for a crucial score. How's that for smartly and intuitively utilizing your talent? Another example of the coach's influence on this team is exhibited in the play of Olofsson. Compared to before where he played to spots on the ice he is now skating hard all over the ice and giving maximum effort without the puck. That reflects player growth and good coaching. Where I very much differ from you is that I will be glad and relieved when this season is over. Although it's been an exhausting and exasperating season, with the installation of Granato I am more enthusiastic about the offseason and the draft. The one thing that I am grateful to Granato is that he showed that when hockey is played the right way it is fun to watch regardless the outcome. I now have hope.

Granato moved Bjork on the Reinhart line replacing Skinner. Bjork had his best game with the Sabres. Skinner was demoted to a lower line yet he still contributed with a nifty pass to Eakin for a goal. My point is Granato has been very adept and assembling and changing lines in order to find the best fit. While Skinner's role has recently been downgraded at least the coach is getting some production from him. That wouldn't have happened with Krueger because he was determined to bury him.

You got it backwards. It doesn't matter if the goalie is a nondescript player or even a future HOF goalie. As demonstrated in this game it is the quality of play of the goalie that kept the outplayed and less talented Sabres in this game. I'm not criticizing the play of the Sabres because they showed a lot of character by keep pushing on even when they were two goals behind against a team that rarely gives up the lead after it gets it. As you rightly said this is a game that the young guys can gain confidence from.

When the Sabres signed Bylsma they thought they were getting a better coach. When the Sabres signed Housley they thought they were getting a better coach. When the Sabres signed Krueger they thought they were getting a better coach. When the Sabres signed Granato as an interim coach it was considered a temporary hiring until the end of the season when another search for a coach would happen. Based on his performance he has earned the right to become the next coach. If you look at the composition of the roster it is made up of a lot of young players. Under his tutelage they have gotten better and contributed to the revitalization of the team's play. The team has gone from being moribund to a fast paced team that is fun to watch. Why go for a retread coach with uncertainties when you already have the known quantity within your own arena?

Whenever there is a new coaching hire there are obvious questions associated with it. How will the new coach relate to the players and the players to the coach? What system will the new coach install and will it work? With a young roster how does the coach relate to players who are still developing? There are a lot of unknowns with any hire. The advantage of hiring Granato is that he has had a test run in very challenging circumstances and we know the answers to those very tough questions. There is another issue that needs to be considered for this chaotic organization. This unstable franchise needs stability. The constant churning of staff and changing directions has left this franchise rudderless not knowing where to go and how to go. Now those in command have had an opportunity to witness someone who has quickly turned things around record-wise and performance-wise. Why look for a solution outside the house when it is already in the house and it is working?

It can't be overstated that line of demarcation between good and palatable hockey was accomplished without much practice time for the replacement coach. And it should be factored in that this more competitive record was done in the midst of a youth movement. You don't need analytics to come to a judgment about how this team is playing under Granato. All you need to do is to trust your eyes.

As you listed the young players that have come up through our system it is apparent that this youth movement needs to continue to be the central strategy in our rebuild and roster construction. Those who argue that this roster needs to be blown up are advocating for an approach that will only extend the timeline for assembling a competitive roster. The clock is ticking where players such as Jack, Reinhart and even Risto need to see some hope/belief that in the not too distant future this team will become a factor in the league. I agree with much of your post. It fairly and keenly represented where this team is at. However, on the issue of Samuelsson I disagree with your hesitancy to place him on the roster because of his relative inexperience. Samuelsson game can be described as a defensive style of blue liner. He plays with a maturity that belies his inexperience. His positioning and playing within his limitations (skating and speed) shows that he knows what and can and can't do and stays within that perimeter. I have no qualms about him being more than ready to be ensconced on the roster next year.

The Thompson/Mitts/Asplund line does more communicating on the bench than any other line. They are constantly looking at their tablets and talking amongst themselves after their shifts. It seems that they are growing together. Right now they may be our most active line. I thought Thompson had a good game. He was more determined to shoot the puck and be around the net than usually is. I don't want to over-interpret this win. But when this team gets solid to good goaltending (which we did in this game) this team has a chance to beat any team. That is not to say that this team doesn't have plenty of issues to address but getting consistent goaltending will mask some of our deficiencies.

The past is the past. His value has declined. It is questionable that in a trade there would be much return. I'm not a member of the chorus who advocate to get rid of him. I value his ruggedness on a team that lacks it. It has gotten to the point that if he were exposed in the expansion draft I'm not sure Seattle would even take him because of his contract.

I'm not sure what Risto's trade value is? Could he bring back a second-line forward? I don't know? There are plenty of people here who believe that he is a liability. I'm not one of them. He adds an element of ruggedness on a team that lacks it. But if he can be dealt for a second line forward with a contract in the vicinity of the outgoing player then I would be receptive to a trade. As other astute posters have noted addressing the deficiency at forward is a greater priority than worrying about the blue line where we have a collection of upcoming young players.

I say this with sincerity: I hope you are reasonably happy to live a satisfying life. To your credit you have put in the hard work to introspectively examine yourself in order to pursue a more positive life. I wish you the best.

You must have been precocious. However, at 8 you would have had difficulty spelling it in order to look it up. 🤡

In my exchange Perrault he was advocating moving down from our high first round pick. I'm am adamantly opposed to that. Considering where we will be drafting my unyielding stance is that it is an untouchable pick. I'm not against draft maneuvering. We have a number of extra picks where we have the assets to do that. But belaboring a point (apologize for the redundancy) I'm not touching or playing games with the first pick unless it is to move up higher for a player that we covet.

I agree with you that injuries and Covid were factors in playing younger players but contend they were not the main factors when the coaching change was made to go younger. Krueger was much more reluctant to play younger players because of their proclivity to make mistakes. Under Krueger Cozens and Mitts were often watching the games from the team suite. In comparison, Granato believed that making mistakes and learning from them is an essential part of the process in player development. Let's put this excruciating season in context: From a playoff and standing standpoint when Granato took over it was a lost cost. Scraping for a few extra points was meaningless when the hole that the Krueger regime had us in was so deep that it was impossible to come close to climb out. In a fast fading season player assessment was as important, if not more so, as the record. The front office has a lot of decisions to make this offseason. By playing the younger it has a better sense of what they have and don't have in the youth cupboard.

A prospect lacking discipline is a good reason to lower the ranking of that particular type of unruly player. Playing dumb doesn't add points to your ranking----it takes away points from your evaluation score.

If he would have kept his coaching position and maintained his influence he would set this franchise back for years. The only positive takeaway with his disastrous stint this year is that it allowed/forced the organization to give playing time to the youngsters and and give it a better ability to evaluate them.

With the higher pick we are more likely to come away with a top tier prospect. Moving down for a player that you consider a steal lessens the chances for getting the better prospect. If the player that you consider is the steal of the draft then why isn't he ranked higher by scouts that follow the prospects\? I'm not against using our extra picks to trade up for a prospect that we are interested after the first pick. But I'm not going to get cute and try to out-smart everyone else only to end up out-smarting oneself.

Did Mitts last year play well enough to indicate that he could be a second or third line center? Based on his previous sketchy play there were discussions whether he would even be on the roster. Am I projecting that Cozens could be one of our centers next year? Yes. Although it seems that this youngster has hit the wall (not surprising) I still strongly believe that he has the potential to be one of our centers next year. And in the not too distant future I wouldn't be surprised if he ends up as our #2C.

There are a variety of ways to slot the forwards. But I strongly believe that Cozens will ultimately earn the #2C role. I like Mitts a lot and still see him elevating his game. I have pleasantly been surprised at his leap forward this season and encouraged that he will continue with his upward trajectory. But I still believe that Cozens's more natural position is as a center. It may not happen right away but ultimately I believe he will be our #2C. What's heartening about these usage discussions is that it indicates that our talent based is widening to the point that it presents roster flexibility before having to discuss what we have to bring in from the outside. That's a sign of progress.

There are no immediate impact players. Where we are drafting the Sabres should be able to get a good prospect. The strategy should be to draft and development. That's the process that shouldn't be short-circuited. Being smart is better than being impatient.

My guess is the demotion is a commentary on his play. He's going back to his prior play of too much dipsy doodling with the puck instead of making quicker decisions and actions with the puck on his stick. Playing cute is not going to cut it when playing with the big boys.

Maybe my frozen brain? Making a mistake is understandable. Repeating a mistake is a sign of obtuseness. I'm guilty as charged. 🤐

I did it again. I need to master the map. 🤡

I think that that Cozens can become our #2C or, if not, our established #3C next year. He and Mitts will be vying for those positions. I have high expectations for this young and precocious Alaskan. His development will be on a much higher pace than Mitts. He came into the pro ranks already being more than his years would suggest.