JohnC

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.

I'm not strongly advocating for him to be on the first line, but I'm open to it. Will the change in coaching have an effect on how he plays? Maybe so. What Skinner can do is score goals. And over the past few years his set up skills has improved. It just seems to me that the third and fourth lines should have the characteristic of being tough to play against. I don't see him in that mold as a player.

I'm reluctant to go along where you placed Cozens. The Benson/Cozens/Quinn is an appealing line to me. I'm aware that Skinner is scorned in this room. But I wouldn't be resistant to moving Skinner back up to the top line with Tage and Tuch, and then moving JJP to the wing playing with Cozens and Quinn on the second line. What that would do is move Benson to the third line with the expectation that the GM brings in a credible 2/3 C to be on the third line. I agree with you that ideally, Greenway is more suited as a fourth line player with the hope that the GM brings in a player or two to fortify that lower line. With respect to what role will Krebs have? My response would be for him to earn whatever role he can get. Where I am aligned with you is that the GM needs to add talent from the outside. If it is mostly for bulking up the lower lines, I would be fine with that assuming he brings in a 2/3 C to replace Mitts.

The youngsters in this raucous room don't know who Ed McMahon is. However, the old hipsters here do:

I don't get your point. If a player the GM is interested doesn't want to waive his no-trade/move clause to come here, then you go to your next player option in the pursuit of players. In the sports business and in life if option A is not attainable, then you go to option B-Z. And it should be pointed out that every franchise in the league has to contend with no trade clauses in the hockey business.

Buffalo has become an inconsequential and irrelevant franchise. That's what happens when your franchise falters for nearly a generation. The pro lacrosse team is more of a sports factor in the community than its pro hockey team. That's sad and pathetic.

If you expect a radical makeover of this team, you are going to be deeply disappointed. The GM has been fairly candid about what he intends to do this offseason. Dramatic action is not on his agenda. If there is, I will be surprised. It's very likely that the GM is going to take some actions to alter the roster. I'm sure you will be disappointed at what he ends up doing. We shall see.

One of the biggest weaknesses that this GM has, and you seem to allude to, is his ability to assess pro talent. The Sabre organization has been solid in evaluating prospects but not too adept in assessing talent in the market. Apparently, it is more by design not to get involved in the market, and instead emphasize what one has in the system. That's a mistake simply because you are limiting your options to improve when some avenues are deliberately taken off the table. As far as I'm concerned, at this point, I simply don't care if a transaction is strategically made or are done reactively. The issue comes down to adding talent to the roster, one way or the other. I have not been as harsh a critic of this GM as many here are. But if he doesn't show a greater level of urgency this offseason through deeds, then my patience with him and his approach will be exhausted. There is no excuse for him not to make moves to improve and better balance this roster.

The Mitts trade that brought us Byram would look even better if a comparable replacement is brought in for Mitts. I haven't given up on Krebs, but I don't see him having much value in the market right now. A Necas trade that cost us our first pick and a mid-level prospect appeals to me a lot. With respect to you questioning the size of KA's cajónes, I wouldn't consider the proposed Necas trade a major/daring deal. In my view, it would be a fair-value deal for each team for a player who probably won't be on either of our top two lines.

If the Sabres get the same level of netminding from UPL next season with some tweaks to the current roster, do you consider this team a playoff team?

The proposed Bennett deal is too rich for me. Although I like the grit he would add to the lineup. However, I would be reluctant to give him the length and per annum amount that you also indicate would be problematic. The Vegas deal for Roy makes sense. The remaining portion of Palmieri's contract seems too high for me. What your proposals demonstrate is that there are options for the GM to pursue this offseason. They don't have to be blockbuster deals so much as medium range deals that better round out our roster, i.e. the lower half of it.

I agree that the GM overestimated where the team was at based on the surprisingly good results of the 22-23 season. Instead of building on that success, he made an assumption that this team was on track to move up the ranks. He was wrong in his assessment. He should have built on that prior success (meaning adding players) instead of coasting from that prior success. As a lot of people have already stated: He miscalculated. Each year is a new year. It's not just about improving your team, it's also about competing with teams that are also taking actions to improve. It's not a static league. Our GM seemed to be too comfortable with where his team was at. He should have been less nonchalant (@Thorny's incisively biting word) and more proactive.

You have a good perspective on where we were and where we are now. @dudacek demonstrates in detail that the GM decided on a major deconstruction, and then reconstruction. Based on how the GM wanted to rebuild this flattened franchise, it was never going to be a quick fix (@dudacek's central point.) There was a tsunami of bad decisions that led to Jack and multiple UFAs on this team (now thriving on cup contending teams) to be determined to get out of this wrecked franchise. It has gotten fatiguing reprising the past and pointing out what went wrong. That's not a major challenge to do. It's like shooting at fish in a well-stocked barrel and then act as if you accomplished something challenging. By the time the upcoming season arrives, the GM will have had enough time to show that his long-term strategy to rebuild is a success or failure. (Your point.) This has to be a constructive offseason where he adds the necessary pieces so at the minimum get this team into the playoffs. If our GM succumbs to his conservative instincts and sticks with the status-quo, then his tenure will clearly and fairly be labeled a failure.

Was that a full-capacity crowd last night?