JohnC

I respectfully but strenuously disagree with the notion that this team isn't experienced enough to be a playoff team. As I stated in my prior post, this is a relatively young roster but it is more than experienced enough. The lower two lines were reconstituted from the outside. From an age and experienced perspective those players have reached the sweet spot (noted by @dudacek). Our young players on the top two lines have enough experience to be genuine top two line players (JJP, Quinn, Cozens, Tage, Tuch). I'm hoping that another 2nd line forward can be added to the mix before the season starts. If not, you go with what you got and draw from the system. I'm not foolish enough to consider this team a Cup contending team. But I do see it as a lower qualifying playoff team. Much of that depends on the quality of goaltending. If UPL plays at the same level he did when he took over the reigns as the #1 goalie, there should be no excuses not to qualify for the playoffs. Am I asking for too much? No!

Age is not necessarily an accurate reflection of experience. Cozens is a young player but I don't consider him to be an inexperienced player. JJP is a young player but he's had enough playing time where he should not have significant problems due to his inexperience. The number of games Quinn has played has been limited because of injuries. But he has more than enough experience to play well against experienced NHL players. The same argument applies to Samuelsson. There is no question that many of our young players were rushed to the NHL. It was obvious that some were rushed before they were ready. The Sabres were rebuilding so rushing them made more sense than it would for a team contending for the cup. It's now not about the future; it's about the present. We are at a point where being an inexperienced team or a grizzly veteran team should be used as an excuse. Now you simply get judged on your record. No more excuses.

If Samuelsson is included in a Farabee deal, then it should be an unequivocal no! Krebs plus a pick or secondary prospect would be reasonable in my view. However, adding a defenseman, either Samuelsson or Clifton, would have me hanging up the phone. Torts is notorious in creating doghouses that are tough to get out of. If Farabee is locked in one of them, he should be available for a reasonable price. If not, look elsewhere.

What the organization needed was an NHL ready player who can contribute right away. So a good prospect was dealt for immediate help. The organization possessed other prospects in the system who were in the same tier as the dealt player. When you have a redundant talent it makes sense to use that asset for immediate help. This trade made sense for a number of reasons for both teams. At this advanced stage of the rebuild the priority should be more on the NHL roster than on the prospect pool.

There was no way he could run back the same roster from last year. It would be hideous hockey malpractice. There was an evident imbalance on the roster that related to the lower lines. You don't have to be a hockey afficionado to recognize that the roster was poorly constructed. In the numerous games that I watched, all the outside commentators who were not invested in the competing teams said the same thing i.e. the roster had talent but it was a poorly constructed roster with manifest flaws. This offseason, the GM appears to have rectified the roster imbalance. Good for him. He did it without giving up an excessive amount of assets. Again, good for him. And I'm with you that I hope that one more second line forward can be added to the mix. That would make it a superlative offseason for this cautious GM.

I agree with you that Granato's forte and inclination is toward player developmental. But he wasn't a novice in the league. He's been associated with the NHL for a long time in a variety of roles. However, coaching is coaching. You adjust and the opposition then adjusts to you. There is a basic element to it that seemed to elude him. The static PP scheme is an example of that. It will be interesting to see what the difference in coaching translates into from a points and record standpoint. This freaking franchise has been so amateurishly run. It starts from the owner and leaks down. Dam stupid and tough to take.

I just can't figure out why the staff didn't adjust their PP scheme when it was evident to all that it wasn't working? For the most part, it was a stationary approach. As you point out, there was little movement. The Tage wind up and blast away from the wing no longer worked because the opposition adjusted to their most potent weapon. What did our staff expect? The opposition not to adjust? In every sport, teams adjust and the opposition then readjusts. It's an ongoing process. We just seem to be stuck and hard-headed about reacting. The takeaway is: coaching matters.

I'm a Marty Biron fan. He is knowledgeable about the league and in particular the Sabres. Sometimes people can get enamored with his engaging personality and lose sight of his incisive analyses. It's interesting to note that one young Sabre player who he was not impressed with was UPL. I'm sure that particular player evaluation has changed. Another impressive quality about him is that he is not afraid to acknowledge that his initial judgments on players were wrong. Sidenote about the Biron family: He has a son who has entered West Point. He was talking about it on WGR.

It might make more sense to add a second line winger than it would be to add a 2/3 C. Would a Zegress, Farabee or whoever be a better course of action to take? Adding a genuine second line forward to the mix would also upgrade the third line. The speculation about Zegress and Farabee might suggest that is also what the GM is considering.

I strongly believe that the reconstitution of the lower two lines will have a positive effect on our two top lines. (As you and many others have already said.) It seemed to me that last season Cozens had tried to take on an added role of being an enforcer instead of simply playing his normal game. It's both a criticism of him and also a tribute to him that he was willing to take on a greater responsibility than he should have had. I remember when he took the initiative to instigate a fight in order to arouse his mates. He ended up getting his faced smashed in by a palooka, resulting in his play falter because he was hurt. With the new lineup and with Lindy behind the bench he should be in a better position to thrive as a player.

After reading the article it is abundantly clear that there is overlapping talent in the system. We have the chips/assets to work a deal/s to improve the NHL roster. I'm hoping that our cautious GM can still negotiate a deal to bring in a top 6 forward before camp opens up.

As you well know, I was a Casey fan and valued his versatility. My criticism of your comment was the standard you used (Byran being an all-star) in assessing this deal. In general, I considered this a fair deal. However, my preference was to keep Mitts and pursue a more rugged defenseman from the market. It didn't work out that way. But that doesn't mean that this deal is a failure because Byram doesn't turn out to be an all-star, which he will never be. I consider him to be a first or second pairing defenseman. That's nothing to scoff at.

The Caps have been in the playoffs 15 times out of the past 17 years. They are making the transition from their Cup team to a new era of players. That's part of the standard lifespan for teams, the normal cycle of building up and then prudently tearing it down. The Sabres have not been in the playoffs for the past 13 years and still counting. Which organization do you think is managing their business better?

What unrealistic standard are you applying? Who is saying that he has to be a star in order to make his acquisition worthwhile? Odds are very good that he is or will be a first or second pairing defenseman. If that is the case, then it was a fair-value pickup. If your standard in judging this trade in particular is that it has to result in an all-star addition, then you are being unreasonable.

As I stated in my response to @LGR4GM, trading for DuBois and his extended contract is a big risk. It wouldn't have made sense for the Sabres to bring in this type of player. However, they were willing to take the risk that they can stabilize this unstable player and get a return on his untapped talent. We shall see.

You missed the over-arching point. Washington has gone through the challenging transition from a Cup winning team to the next era team without bottoming out. The Ovie quest clearly was a factor in balancing between rebuilding and remaining competitive during his pursuit for hockey history. Compare that to the extended period of time (half a generation) where the Sabres seemed to be spinning its wheels. I'm not looking at this comparison between organizations from a one-year assessment. The rebuilding process can be an extended and excruciating process for all teams. I just think that Washington handled this process with more flexibility and craftiness. I agree with you that the DuBois acquisition is a risk. They were willing to take it for this talented but mercurial player. Let's see how it works out.

When you pause your toast in the toaster, this is what you get: https://www.saveur.com/article/techniques/burn-your-toast-on-purpose/

Washington has done a good job in transitioning from their Cup winning and aging group to steadily bringing in younger and faster players to replace them. They had to make this challenging transition and still be competitive and help Ovie in his quest for Gretzy's goal mark. They are taking a big risk with DuBois but it's worth the risk for this mercurial talent. Their front office recognized where the team was at and managed the transition masterfully. KA should study their playbook and learn how to adjust to the changing circumstances. In a dynamic world you can't be static.

Their two best players are scintillating talents. I can understand why there would be a temptation to over-rely on this duo. Sometimes in the long run it doesn't work in your favor. If you look at the last two Cup winners, the talent was more widespread. I just believe that adding Skinner fills a need. And maybe the Savoie addition will help with spreading out the offense???

That would be a good deal for us. And the return would be respectable for a player whose role appears to be on the decline. (As noted by you.) What's apparent is that there are still deals to be had before camp begins.

I'm not saying the defense can't be improved but scoring was not spread out enough. At the end of the last game, McDavid was on the ice so long that he was exhausted. He understandably ran out of gas. Edmonton was too reliant on McDavid and Draisaitl. Getting Skinner on a Sabre subsidized contract from the buyout certainly should help with the goal scoring. And maybe Savoie will add more offense for another line? Even if the defense needs to be upgraded, the front office at least addressed one of their needs.

https://www.google.com/search?q=goodfellas+joe+pesci+you+find+me+funny&oq=goodfellas+joe+pesci+you+find+me+funny&aqs=chrome..69i57j33i160l4j33i299l3j33i671.17605j0j7&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8#fpstate=ive&vld=cid:8e307876,vid:0d2LAs-WL_4,st:0

Torts is the type of coach that when he joins a struggling franchise he ends up energizing it. But the problem with him is that he has a short self-life. His tyrant act gets tiresome. It doesn't take long for the players and the organization to get tired of his dictatorial act. I'm not denying that he can alter the dynamics when he first joins a team. But he's not a guy that has much appeal to me. No thank you. I'm more than happy that Lindy is now our HC.

You make a keen observation about an organization objectively evaluating their team and season. The penetrating questions were asked: What happened and what do we have to do differently to get across the finish line. Edmonton recognized that scoring had to be spread out more widely beyond the big two. They took decisive actions to make the corrections. That's good management.

Maybe he was simply wrong in his judgments. He wasn't so arrogant this offseason to not to recognize that the course he was resolutely pursuing needed to be altered. I don't see him as being arrogant. I do however see him lacking creativity and flexibility to adjust to changing circumstances to be considered a top tier executive. He resides more in the pedestrian ranking as a GM. Again, my opinion.