JohnC

This issue isn't worth wasting brain power on. Chill out and have a beer.🍺 https://www.gotoliquorstore.com/b/beer/michelob/104

I'm aware that he was referring to the CHL with an abundance of elite talent. My point was that even if the elite talent was on this CHL team it doesn't mean that the team owning the rights to one of the players will be able to designate the player for an AHL assignment because their exemption was already used. My point comes down to that the usage will be very limited and less likely to significantly impact the CHL team.

If the NHL club has one exemption opportunity every five years, I doubt there will be five different NHL teams making the same request at the same time.

I'm looking forward to watching Ryan Johnson in the pairing. I wouldn't be surprised if he gets a call-up within the season. In this camp there will be at least a half a dozen players that I'll be looking forward to watching.

When deciding to take the legal route one needs to be sober-minded. 🍺

Allow a team one exemption every five years to that rule for exceptional prospects who are too talented for the lower league. The occurrence of it would be so limited that it would have little impact on the CHL's viability.

My response is not condescending. You clearly misinterpreted my response@Cascade Youth's responses on this topic were the most illuminating posts on this issue. His responses dealt with the cold-blooded legal issues involved and not the emotional responses that have followed.

It's not a surprise that flashy forwards don't like his defensive scheme because it requires the forwards and blueline players to play a responsible two-way game. Cassidy's defense is not complicated; it requires his players to be tough defenders when the puck is going the other way.

You missed the material point. I agree with you that defense is harder to do. But the system is much simpler for defense than it is for offense. That's the point.

I respectfully disagree. If he pursues this issue in a legal forum it will be around for years. Civil cases often take years to come to trial. Filing a case can be done quickly. Having it come to the point where it will be challenged in court takes years. As I said to another poster @Cascade Youthhas a good grasp of the law on this issue. His responses are worth considering.

Read @Cascade Youth comments on this issue. He addresses the law and not the emotional reaction to this issue.

You did miss his commentary on offense vs defense. He made multiple comments about it on WGR. So, there's a good chance that didn't hear him expound on that issue. He pointed out on a number of occasions that he felt that his first priority after taking over was to stress the offensive side of the game because it was more difficult to implement than installing a defensive system, which is more basic. What's encouraging is that in our end of the season playoff run the team did embrace two-way hockey. Although the scoring was down it was evident that the style of play was much tighter. And what also needs to be emphasized is our PK. It was atrocious last year. The additions of Johnson and Clifton on the backend should help in that regard.

I'm not commenting on the veracity of Trotter's comments because I don't know. Assuming it is not true, or even if it was true, the worst approach for Terry P to take is to sue and then have this issue linger for years in the court system. As you well know as an attorney, civil cases can take years to work through the system. Right or wrong, it's not worth it to Terry P.

Krueger was a disaster. He was a dinosaur in a computer world. He set this franchise back. And the worst part of his coaching philosophy was that it was soul-crushing to watch. He essentially killed the product in order to subordinate it to his rigid system. Foolishness taken to a level beyond one's imagination. You bring up the right issues about Granato and the balance between offensive and defensive play that will determine success this season. He has openly admitted that when he took over as a coach his first emphasis was on offense. Now, his challenge is to properly calibrate the balance between the offense and defense. While most people are fixated on our goalie situation, I'm more concerned about the transition to a better two-way game. Will that change in style affect the offense? Yes. Will that change in style improve the record? Yes.

Do the Bisons draw well?

I enjoy participating on this site. You are one of the main people why it exists and functions so well. Thank you. 🍺

Yes, hockey is hockey. But in all sports there are different systems and approaches to the game. You don't think that Krueger's troglodyte system is different from Granato's system? Boston certainly has a different system from the Sabres. They have very different roster makeups. Smart coaches adjust their systems/ approaches to the roster they are working with emphasizing player strengths while trying to minimize their weaknesses. Your concern over Clifton has me perplexed. We got an upgrade on the blueline, and the coach will determine where he best fits. I don't know what issue you are worried about?

Yes.

Why would Power sign a long term contract now? There is a reasonable assumption that the cap will go up in a few years. The strategy that Power should follow is the Dahlin model i.e. sign a bridge deal, get better with high-end stats when there is more money in the pot. By waiting to sign a longer term deal he will be in a good position to get a lot more money in the long run.

Lyubush wasn't very good last year. He was a major disappointment. If he would have been retained, he would be a fringe player who would have been at best a 4th pairing player. In Granato's system that is predicated on speed and skating ability he was/is an ill-fit. He's not worth getting agitated over.

I'm comfortable in believing that Levi is a demonstrable upgrade from what we had in net last year. If you have a different view, that's okay. A lot of the consternation over our goalie staffing has to do with the concern with UPL and Comrie. As backups, I'm not as concerned as others are here.

As I stated in previous posts there were goalies on the market. Carolina, Islanders and Boston had appealing goalies on the market; they all went back to their respective teams. The goalie that was frequently mentioned here was Helly from Winnipeg. He was on the last year of his contract. The cost for this UFA made no sense for us. What goalies are you suggesting were better options for us than what we had? The organization is placing a lot of trust in Levi. I'm fine with that decision and I'm fine with UPL or Comrie being a backup.

You make decisions based on what your alternatives are. Sometimes your options are not better than what you already have. Apparently, that's the judgment that KA made. As I have stated before, some of the options that many thought were available were not actually available at the price that made sense. There were some appealing goalies to consider. Most of them went back to the teams that they were with. Jersey, Boston and Carolina had goalies on the market that would have been good acquisitions. They all stayed with their teams. What I'm comfortable in saying is that the Sabres are in a better goalie situation entering this season than they were last season. Levi, even as a rookie, is a demonstrable upgrade to the position. I'm more than comfortable with either UPL or Comrie as backups. If the Sabres don't make the playoffs, it won't only be because of the play of the goalies. Team defense will also be a significant factor as to whether the Sabres make the playoffs or not.

Considering what his actual options were he made the right decision.