JohnC

The Sabres have some glaring weaknesses. Face offs and players who know how to maneuver in the tight and punishing spots around the net are two of those deficiencies. We could sure use a player like him on this roster. It's really frustrating to see so many former players playing for Cup contending teams. It's sad and happened because of our own organizational ineptitude.

Your memory doesn't correspond with mine. Reinhart was one of our best and toughest players around the net. In addition, he was one of the smartest players that has ever warn the Buffalo uniform. He left Buffalo as one of our best players. The primary difference between when he was with Buffalo compared to Florida is that he is playing with better players. The Sabre front office has made a telephone book number of mistakes that has kept this franchise mired in the muck of mediocrity. Not signing him when it had the opportunity to do so was a hideously bad decision.

That's a fair way of describing his game. He possesses a willingness to go to areas and compete for the puck that a number of players seem to lack. I expect a lot from him this year. It was a shame that he was plagued with injuries last season.

This is simply my opinion: I do see him as a player with more grit than I expected. I'm not going to get carried away and say that is his main attribute. But when you watch him play, he is willing to go into the corners and battle. And he has the determination to go to the tough areas around the net. In many respects, he plays a more rugged game than JJP.

Based on he played last year, it seems that his style of play is more suitable to the fourth line. My sense is that we should be able to determine what the upper limits of his game will be this year. To be honest, I've been disappointed in him. I thought he had more offensive bandwidth. He plays with energy and grit with not much offensive production. The best approach to take with him is put the onus on him to "show us".

I'm not giving up on Krebs. But that doesn't mean that I'm counting on him to be our 3C this upcoming season. If he plays beyond our expectation, then good on him, and the team benefits. However, it would be a mistake not to bring in a credible 3C from the outside to address a major void on this team. Right now, it is more likely that Krebs is going to be slotted in the 4C role. If he plays above that role, then I will salute him and deal with an excess of talent on the roster. And that is a good problem to have.

What are you talking about? I never said he shouldn't be physical. In fact, I said the opposite. He did to a greater extent play more physically than most of the other players on the roster. The point that I made that you misinterpreted is that he was usually smart when deciding to more physically engage, and when not to.

Dahlin is arguably the best player on the team. I want him more involved in the play than being sidetracked with non-productive hitting. As I said in my prior post, he does play a physical game. But he does it in a judicious and game related manner. Playing a reckless and non-focused hitting game is going to get him more time in the penalty box and keep our best off the ice more. The opposition would love that!

Who are you pursuing as one of our top two or three Cs?

I'm not commenting on how he looks and what his upper body physique should look like. What I can say is that last season Dahlin exhibited as much physicality as any player on the team. He certainly didn't always throw his weight around. You really wouldn't want anyone who was such a central and skilled player for us indiscriminately doing that. But from what I observed, he was not a passive player on the ice. Your point is well taken that it is difficult to keep weight and tone on during the long and grinding season. And most of the physical is done in the offseason. So I'm sure he will soon get back into training. As a related side note: I have often heard that Jeff Skinner is one of the hardest training players in the offseason.

What would you give up for him?

I would not be agreeable to any deal for the irascible Tkachuk that would include either Quinn or Power. I don't care how any deal is configured for the Ottawa player. If either one of these two young players were being dealt, I would give a concrete hardened rejection to it. In my view, both Quinn and Power are going to be very good players for a long time. It seems that I'm higher on Quinn than you are.

If I have to give up either Power or Quinn plus our top pick and Savoie, my response would be absolute not. I'm not diminishing the talent of Tkachuk and the toughness he would add to this roster. My main issue with trading either Power or Quinn in such a deal is that both of these players have a lot more upside. I'm not opposed to giving up our first pick plus any of the prospects in the system. Our GM will have a number of options to add players to improve and better round out this roster. We don't need to make a blockbuster deal that depletes our roster for one player. Again, for your trade proposal, I firmly say no.

Having depth on a unit is not something to lament. It's a good situation to have. Last year, Samuelsson was out for much of the season. Bryson didn't fill in for Samuelsson, but his loss did provide more minutes for Bryson. And when players are dealing with nagging injuries having depth provides you the cushion to temporarily fill in until the player sufficiently recovers. Bryson is a utility player who at best is a fourth pairing player. I thought last year that he played well when on the ice. Although he's never going to garner heavy duty minutes, he can play a utility role. I say the same thing about Ryan Johnson. Even if he starts off in Rochester, when the inevitable injury happens, he can move up the ranks without being a major liability. It's taken the organization a long time to build a quality blue line unit. We seem to have that now. This roster still has a number of needs to address, mostly on the lower lines. If KA re-signs Bryson for two years at the AAV that you conjectured at, that would be fine with me.

It seemed that every time I watched the Sabres on National TV the same critical commentary was stated during the game or intermissions. The point was repeatedly made that the Sabres weren't a bad team or a team that lacked talent. The major flaw cited was that this team's construction was too imbalanced. It's very likely that Ruff is going to bring a greater level of structure compared to the way this team played under Granato. But unless a few additional players are added to toughen up the mixture, this team will continue to lag. (Although there are some vocal advocates here who do insist on a major roster overhaul.) What is likely to happen is that the pieces are already on the roster to put together the top two lines. The challenge is to properly build the lower lines. And that requires additions from the outside.

Look back a few years ago and compare the defensive staffing to what we have now on the roster. The pieces we have now are both quantity and talent-wise exponentially better. This is a young and talented group. It may not perfectly match with how you would assemble a unit, but it is a good young unit that will get better. As a group, this is not an overly physical unit. That's apparent to most of us. This unit is designed to skate and move the puck quickly out of the zone. You need to broaden your vision on what a good blue line unit should look like in how hockey is played today (in the regular season). The blueline hockey of yesterday is not the blueline hockey of today. Ruggedness was the hallmark of the game in the past; speed and skill are the hallmark traits in today's game. In my view, this is a group to be excited about.

Why are you out of hand dismissing a Dahlin/Bryam or a Dahlin/Power or a Dahlin/Samuelsson (you didn't mention Samuelsson) as viable pairings? Bryam started off well for us and then seemed to fade and become a confused player. Let's be fair to him, he came to a new team and had to work with new players in a system he wasn't accustomed to. So, let's be fair and give him the time to adjust to his new and dramatically different setting. For me, I definitely consider him to be a top four player. If he is that level of player, then dealing Mitts was certainly a fair-value trade for each trading team. I agree with you that it is very unlikely that the GM is going to be interested in a Cirelli deal. The main reason will be due to the length and AAV of his contract. That doesn't mean that he won't make a lesser deal that gives him more flexibility to re-sign the near future contracts of some young players already on his roster.

We need a "just kidding" emoji!

If the choice comes between the better faceoff player and a better player, I'm going with the better player. Of course, I would like to add a good faceoff player, but I'm not going to prioritize that skill over the better player.

The lines you are theoretically putting together makes sense. However, if you switched Benson to the line with Cozens and Quinn, and then replaced Benson on the lower line with Greenway, it would make more sense to me. There are so many options for the new HC to consider. Any way you look at your combinations it becomes apparent that a 2/3 C needs to be added to this roster this offseason.

Trading Power makes absolutely no sense! What you would be doing is jettisoning a player who as a rookie did play well, added to the fact that he has so much untapped immense upside to his game. All of that upside is not going to be actualized in one year. Acting out of frustration and impatience is self-sabotaging. It won't take long to come to the realization that the player you let go is now starring on another team. Not too long ago, you wanted Mitts thrown out the door. He became one of our better players. You also wanted to get rid of UPL because he wasn't an instant franchise goalie. Last year, he demonstrated that he could be our long-term franchise goalie. (I'm aware making conclusive judgments on goalies are fraught with inaccuracies.) My point here is simple, it is better to be patient and act with calculation than it is to act out of frustration. It's so aggravating to see many of our former players thriving on cup contending teams while we continue to be stuck in the mud. What you are essentially arguing for is to provide the league with more of our talented players so that we can continue to take futile actions that gets us nowhere.

It's inarguable that the Sabres were not a complete team last year. But adjusting to your limitations and making alterations to compensate for them, is part of the job. Our PP faltered last year yet there were inadequate changes to the unit and strategy as the team struggled in that aspect of the game. Was there enough structure and accountability last year? I don't believe so. I'm not a harsh critic of Granato. He deserves a lot of credit for being adept at handling young player and advancing their game. However, in my view, the coaching change was the right thing to do.

Granato was the right coach to take over for the system rigid Krueger. Under Granato the younger players were allowed to play a looser style that allowed them to express their talent and personally flourish. It seems to me that Granato couldn't make the next transition/adjustment from player development to team development. Individual player and team development are related but also are distinct. Granato is a good and honorable man. He is a credit to his profession. Changing the HC was the right thing to do.

A couple of weeks ago the Bandits played Toronto at home in an elimination game. The arena was fill with a frenzied crowd. The game was exciting. Just by watching the game on TV my juices were in a state of agitation. (And I'm not even knowledgeable about the sport.) You make a great observation that there was a time when hockey was the primary sport at this time of year for the hometown fan base. That level of interest is in the distant past. As a hockey fan I feel cheated. There is no excuse for this fan base to have been steadily eroded because of a generation of incompetent management. I haven't given up on this franchise. However, it is way past due for the organization to demonstrate a commitment to seriously compete. The GM and owner need to show some urgency this offseason to get better. I really don't think that this team is far off. But what I do know is that a status quo and casual approach is not going to get things turned around. The eroded fan base deserves better.

The critical issue that you bring up is the importance of adding a 2/3 C that will allow you more options within the lines. What will be Skinner's role? There will be more line options and flexibility if the Mitts subtraction can be credibly filled. I'm open to all options. What I want to see once camp begins is that players earn their roster spots and roles. If Skinner can be a factor on a lower line, that isn't something to scoff at. And if he can be a positive factor on a higher line, then that isn't something that I'm automatically resistant to. Next season, there will be a new coach who will be open to all options. In camp, there certainly be a lot of line experimentation. The players will ultimately get what they should or shouldn't get.