JohnC

The organization has to be open to trading anyone if the return merits it. It would be foolish not to look at any option that may improve and better balance out the roster. But it should be considered when discussing Olofsson that one player who benefits with his presence is Jack on the PP. What Olofsson does is force the PK unit to spread to cover him on the opposite side where Jack is and giving our star player more room and options with the puck. As you astutely point out we are starting to get to the point where the roster is being filled with genuine NHL caliber players who are meshing and growing together. If you look at our roster our forward line is starting to be filled out with some good young players. But it is still a thin unit. Where we are starting to have a more loaded unit is on the blue line if you factor in the prospects in the system. Parlaying players from that unit might make more sense.

I just don't see Olofsson being traded. In my view that would be a mistake. What I see from him now is a greater willingness to move around the ice instead of being anchored to his primary shooting spot. So he is showing a wider dimension than simply being a shooter. Is Olofsson a genuine first or second line winger? You can reasonably argue that he doesn't merit that status. However, especially for a team that struggles to score goals he is a legitimate sniper. And because he is such a high yield PP player and because he is playing a longer game than he did before I would argue to keep him. If he didn't show much growth to his game I would be more receptive to your position on him. But I still see potential to broaden his game that makes him a contributing component to this roster.

No.

I thought Tage was one of our best players on the ice. Cozens made a bad play because he got too cute with the puck but it was due to being overconfident. That is an excusable offense for a young player who isn't afraid. As everyone is pointing out the effort was there throughout the game. Even when the Penguins controlled the puck in our end our guys were always working. Our goaltending was good and kept us in the game. The one goal he let in on the side from a tough angle was a little weak but the tender made plenty of quality stops that kept us in it. I am not dissatisfied.

Just curious about the pricing of the tickets. Are they discounted or still face value? Even with the limited number of people being allowed into the arena its great watching fans responding to what's happening on ice. I'm hoping you watch an entertaining game with good hockey play regardless of the outcome. The fans deserve it after being subjected to so much uninspiring play and negativity surrounding this team. I'm not sure if the turnaround will carry over for the rest of the season but this belated upswing has gotten my hockey juices activated again. Enjoy yourself.

We all agree that Krueger adhered to his philosophy as if was a religious tenet. He was a rigid believer in his philosophy without tolerating a contrarian view even when it clearly wasn't working. Anyone espousing an alternative approach was not only not going to be listened to but was going to be excised from the staff. He stuck to his guns and essentially shot himself in the foot. What is ironic is that Granato was part of the staff that he assembled. And when the coach was dispatched the interim HC who came from his staff undid a lot of what he was espousing.

He did have a good reason to get rid of Taylor. Chris Taylor and he had different hockey philosophies. There is nothing irrational or even personal in trying to put together a staff who are all on board with the philosophy he is trying to engender on the team and throughout the organization. Krueger had strong beliefs on how the game should be played. From his perspective it wouldn't be productive/wise for one of the primary coaches in the system who prepares the prospects for the NHL to prepare players for a system that he (Taylor) didn't believe in. From a philosophical standpoint Taylor and others (Granato) was right about the better philosophy and system to play in the NHL. That is not an issue worth debating because it is abundantly clear that what Krueger was espousing was out of touch with the NHL of today. But it is wrong to depict Krueger as a vindictive person who jettisoned staff because there wasn't an understandable reason for it. (I'm not suggesting that you are taking that stance but others are.) There are coaches whose philosophical inclinations lean toward a free wheeling offensive style of play. That is not a coach who would fit well in an Islander organization run by Lou Lamoriello who stresses a tight defensive brand of hockey. The bottom line is the organization hired Krueger and gave him a lot of authority to reshape the team and organization. It was grave mistake that set the franchise back. Now it has to untie the knot of backwardness and retie it and make it a more modern knot.

Excellent analysis and write up. You bring up a lot of interesting questions that will have a little more clarity when the season is concluded and the next camp begins. An issue central to your discussion is assuming that Mitts or Cozens continue with their upward trajectory is which of the two players is better suited a #2C with the other taking the #3C? Right now I'm not sure which player eventually earns the higher role? With respect to Mitts and his current linemates although there is a comfort and fit there is an argument to be made to bring in another second line caliber winger and construct an even more potent line. By buttressing the second line you also benefit by improving the lower line/s with the player/s sliding down due to the addition/s. And just maybe instead of categorizing the lines as second and third line maybe you can piece together a 2A and 2B line.

You make a piercing observation lost in the Krueger failure. Hiring Krueger was a gamble to begin with because he was such an out of the box hiring. Needless to say it didn't work out. The bigger failure here was keeping him on longer than he should have. It was apparent at least a dozen games into the ignominious streak that the team quit on him. The owners and the front office should have made the firing a lot sooner. I don't know of another franchise in the league that wouldn't have acted sooner. That is an indictment on the ownership.

Dahlin, Joki and Skinner will strenuously argue otherwise. It would be difficult to name one player who isn't playing better under Granato than Krueger. You don't need analytics to recognize the demarcation point between a team that is moribund and then quickly becoming a team that is revitalized. This is a case where you simply need to trust your eyes.

It is great watching the kids get better.

A couple of short observations in this game: The Sabres are playing with speed and their passing is sharp.

Not really.

Entering the third period the team is playing well in front of him and he seems to being playing with confidence. (I hope I don't jinx the team in the remaining period.)

Odds are that the Sabres will lose to the more talented Capital team. That wouldn't be a surprise. But that is not to say there isn't merit in simply playing hard and being competitive regardless who the opponent is. Also, there is a large contingent of young players on this roster who are being given a lot of playing time that they wouldn't get if they were on a fuller team. This is an opportunity for them to accelerate their development and earn future roster spots. And for a player such as Skinner this is a time for redemption and an opportunity to prove that the dispatched coach who went out of his way to bury him was grossly wrong about him as a player. If Skinner can play at the level when he first joined the team that is like adding a new impacting free agent instead of having a high cost player who faded into oblivion.

After watching a number of games since Granato has taken over behind the bench I can't think of one player (maybe Risto?) who isn't playing better than when Krueger was there. Dahlin immediately morphed into the player that everyone expected of him when the coach who handcuffed him was replaced by the coach who unchained him and instructed him to think less and play with a freedom where his talents can be expressed. Under Krueger Okposo seemed like a worn out plow horse who had nothing left in the tank. Now he is playing with purpose and grit and seems to be a stabilizing influence. The difference between Skinner now and before is night and day. He still has his deficiencies but now at least he is a factor that the other teams have to account for. It just seemed that Krueger went out of his way to bury the player because he didn't represent the type of hockey that he was espousing. When watching the game I thought overall Boston had the edge. They gave full effort just as we did all game long. Although I am biased my takeaway from this game is that we have a larger and better younger core than they do. That presents a glimmer of hope. It's just a question of how long will it take to be realized.

The trade deadline is not the period of time where you can reshape your roster. It's the offseason deals where meaningfully changes usually happen to one's roster. You make it out as if there were alternative trade options that would have brought a better return than what we got for a Hall, a non-productive UFA. There was no team in the league that would have been foolish enough to offer a first round pick or impactful players for a high cost reclamation player. Whether a trade was made with Boston or any other team the return would have been in the same value vicinity.

I agree with you that the operation will go back up to a more NHL standard level. But it is my belief that this short-term approach set the franchise back from both a competitive and financial standpoint stemming from fan participation. However, I believe that they could have kept the organization in tack and made better player contract decisions that would have save the same if not money. Your citing the Hall contract is an example of that. If you dig a hole deeper you end up having to spend more time filling it.

It's not difficult to understand the financial reasons for why the owners took the austerity route. However, they saved a penny in the present in order to lose future dollars. The implications of how they responded to this stressful economic environment will reverberate beyond this season. Now they are dealing with a season where the team is a bottom feeder. And this is after already undergoing a brutal rebuild. How many current fans and future fans have tuned out? And let's not forget that the Pegulas were not the only owners facing this health crisis. My point is that this is a man-made disaster that has made the interminable rebuilding process even longer. The end result is that they lost in the short-term and hurt them in the long-term. That's not very smart.

It's undeniable that he Pegulas have stupendously misruled this franchise. Anyone who is clueless enough to disagree with that obvious assessment should review the team's inglorious record under their stewardship. If they can't be embarrassed by what has transpired this season then they are irretrievably shameless. But let's not forget that when the Pegulas bought the Bills they grossly blundered for the first few years as new owners. The hiring of the clownish Rex Ryan was not only a bad hire but it was also a weird hire! But after a few years they hired the right people (McDermott and Beane) to run the operation, and in short order not only did the team start to excel but the organization is now recognized as one of the better run franchises in the league. Can the same cycle of upswing happen with the hockey franchise? I guardingly believe so assuming the hockey staff is upgraded and fully staffed. If anyone doesn't believe that having the right staff makes a difference then look at the dramatic improvement under the new coach. The level of play is now astoundingly better and more aesthetically pleasing. Truth be told I stopped watching the Sabres and came back to the fold when the product was deserved to be watched.

I listened to that WGR interview and I'm impressed by him. He has a good background in coaching young players and has an awareness of the process to develop players and dealing with individuals. He seems to have an understanding of the situation he is in and knows what it takes to get beyond it. What is apparent is that the the team has responded to what he is promoting. What is even more encouraging is that under his tutelage veterans such as Okposo and more dramatically Skinner have been resuscitated. If Skinner can be restored to something close to what he originally was that would be like adding a major free agent to the team.

Although your take is understandable I view these remaining games differently. Although the Sabres deserve their puny status these games against teams vying for a playoff positions present them with more than enough motivation to play these games as a very meaningful and consequential for them. The last Philly is an example of that. Not only are they in desperate situation to eek into the playoffs this was a game that had implications for how the organization was going to handle the trading deadline. To the Sabres credit even after falling behind they kept pushing. From what I witnessed the Flyers played hard and didn't quit. Yet we still won. That is a good sign especially because of the contributions of the younger players. For me that was a meaningful game in that although this team still doesn't have enough talent and the right fitting pieces what it does have under this coach is the right mind-set. That's an important positive that can be directly credited to the current coach behind the bench.

If this stripped down team plays well against the better teams in the brutal gauntlet of upcoming games Granato will probably be the coach next season. If the team folds against these more talented teams he will be gone and be replaced by a better known and experienced coach. As you and others have stated on a number of occasions the bigger issue is what is going to be done this offseason to add to the staff that includes the front office and scouting department. That is the starting point before the critical hockey decisions should be made. The disastrous belief that a shrunken organization can function as well as a typically staffed NHL organization was not only a horrible decision but it led to ruinous results.

The Krueger effect not only inhibited the play of the young players as you starkly catalogued. It also stifled the play of the veterans and the rest of the roster. Okposo and Skinner are two players who seem to be rejuvenated and are now playing with some verve. These players certainly have deficiencies but they also have assets that are now being utilized while under the former erudite coach they were squandered. It's well understood that with or without Krueger this roster still needs to be bolstered in order to be a serious team. And it is clearly evident that our goaltending tandem, most notably the backup, needs to be upgraded. I hate "what if" discussions because of the futility and loser taint it brings to a discussion. But if this team would have been coached by a lesser ideologue who was in tune with the NHL of today this team even with all of its limitations should have been in the same range in the standings as the Rangers and Flyers are in.

As was side by the TV hockey commentators in the Philly game it is a joke to have a skeleton scouting department within the organization for pro and prospect ranks. As you point out in order to make good hockey decisions you have to have a solid staff in order to internally challenge and hear different voices before making critical player decisions. The Pegulas thought that a cheaper thinned out staff would be able to do as well as a full staff. Especially this year how this organization was austerely structured was a big factor as to why this franchise became a league eye sore and an embarrassment.