JohnC

Would you be reluctant to keep Kulich up with the big club if he shines in camp? I wouldn't be reluctant to reward outstanding play.

Not necessarily so. I agree with you that ideally it would be better to work on their games in the lower levels. But because of the Quinn injury opening up a spot, if either one of them demonstrates in camp and in preseason games that they are capable of playing at the next level, then I wouldn't hold either one of them back. It's not unusual to have surprise players who stick out in camp. If a player merits a look, then I would reward the player and give him an opportunity to play.

Thanks for the information. Just curious. You said that the price at the pump is regulated. Is it regulated by the providence or the central government?

One of the most intriguing roster issues entering camp is whether either Kulich or Savoie, or both, make the roster. If both shine in camp, then what do you do?

There is no need for a swan song. Everyone has different opinions and perspectives. That's just the nature of the setting. It's well known that you and I have very different views on the goalie situation and how the organization has handled it this offseason. That's okay. On this issue we diverge and other issues we are in accord. Very often, it's more productive from a growth standpoint to considers views that are at variance than in accord. It helps to widen one's perspective, or at least consider another perspective. There's no popular demand for anything. When one gets in the ring one gets hit. Sometimes it's fair and sometimes it is not. That's the nature of the environment.

I appreciate your observations. Maybe I should have used the word frequently instead of unceasingly. There is a notion that is being promoted that the GM appears to be oblivious to our goalie situation. I don't believe that to be the case. He's made a judgment for now that doesn't satisfy many here. That's understandable and okay. What I've tried to suggest is that when one considers the "real" options that were available regarding the goalie position, they weren't as appealing, at least to the GM, as many would like to believe.

You keep saying he "should have done this" and he "could have done that". What I'm saying, and you are refusing to acknowledge, is that for a number of reasons those proposed deals that you find appealing couldn't be done. The fantasy trade "context" that your vivid imagination has concocted is a fun sport on bulletin boards. But in the real world of trades and free agency where contracts, term and asset costs are considered a deal that made sense for this team at this time could not be worked out. At least, from our GM's perspective. You act as if the GM is clueless in recognizing the talent he has on his team. I'm confident that he knows what the assets and liabilities of his players are. The issue then becomes what are the replacement costs if there are options in the marketplace. He's made a judgment that is contrary to your judgment. He's concluded that the timing and situation right now aren't favorable to make a deal for an upgrade to the position. That doesn't mean that the situation won't change later. For now, I'll take his judgment over yours. That's the real-world context that the GM is living in comparison to your "fantasy world" context that you unceasingly shout about.

How do you know it hasn't improved? Levi will be better than the goalies we started the season with last year. His end of the season short stint indicates that. If you think otherwise, then why do you think so? Comrie was hurt for much of the season. Can he be a capable backup? I don't know. But I'm not writing him off. There is an assumption by many that UPL is a bust. If you want to write him off, then go ahead. I'm not. He needs to come into camp in better shape (slimmer and quicker) and compete for the backup spot. You are making assumptions and then declaring them to be facts. I don't see it in the declarative manner that you do. You and many others confidently state that there were better options in net this offseason. Marty Biron has on more than a few occasions gone through the number of possible of options to bring in. When the options were more closely examined the end result was that they were unappealing for a number of reason that we have already enumerated. Your point about context on this topic is very murky and is of your own creation. I'm simply not buying the context you are peddling. Again, when going through the goalie options that existed, the one's available were mostly unappealing for a number of reasons.

You assumed condescension when there wasn't any intended. There was a segment on WGR that reviewed the goalie options that were available this offseason. The conclusion was that when reviewing the options and factoring in contracts, who wanted to come here, the cost in assets etc. the realistic options were very limited for the GM. That's the reality that overshadows all the "should have done" this or that talk. What you consider to be plausible is actually very improbable.

It was pointed out to you by @Porous Five Hole that it couldn't be done because he filed for arbitration. What you wanted to do and what you were allowed to do are in conflict. What fantasy goalie did you want the GM to pursue?

I'm just focusing on the depth issue that you brought up. I see it differently. There is no question that the Sabres were fortunate on the injury front compared to most teams. Odds are that our good fortune will not continue at that level. (I'm hoping that the Quinn injury isn't a bad omen.) However, as our talent base has increased, the roster has accumulated more talented players who are capable of moving up the lines and defensive pairings without much diminishment in effectiveness. Mitts, a third line player, was bumped up to the first line when Tage was hurt. The line continued to play at a high level. If Joki gets bumped down to the third pairing and then is moved up to the second pairing due to an injury, he has already demonstrated that he could play as a second pairing player. The same versatility applies to Samuelsson, Clifton and Johnson. In general, this roster will be much more versatile than it has been in a long time.

A couple of reasons why the Sabres should be better next season. The Sabres home record last year was17-20-4. It's not unreasonable to believe that they can be 22-15-4 or better next year. The Sabres road record last year was 25-13-5. I don't expect it to be as good next year. When the Sabres had 15,000 fans or more their record was 13-9-3. I expect the attendance to be better next season with higher fan expectations. As it has already been mentioned, our PK should be much better with the additions of Johnson and Clifton. And I expect better structure on the PK unit because more emphasis will be placed on it by the coaches. https://www.buffalohockeybeat.com/why-did-the-sabres-have-such-a-poor-home-record-in-buffalo/

Interesting. I just think that the coach will go more with a Samuelsson/Dahlin pairing. I see Johnson's major value will be on the PK and end of game critical minutes. We'll see. What's apparent is that there will be a lot of flexibility in the lineup and in-game adjustments.

The roster you envision is very plausible. However, the one pairing that you list that I don't think will materialize is the Dahlin/Johnson pairing. Dahlin is obviously a heavy-duty minute player and will continue to be. Erik Johnson is a 35 year-old player who will also probably be on the PK. At this stage of his career I don't expect him to accumulate a lot of minutes per game. And that is what will happen if paired with Dahlin. My guess is that Dahlin will continue to be paired with Samuelsson and Johnson paired with Joki if he is bumped down a pairing.

Just curious because I simply don't know. How many offer-sheets have the Sabres given over the last five years? I can't recall of any. And if you know I would appreciate it: On average, how many offer-sheets are given per year are made in the league?

You have watched a lot of Sabre games with keen and discerning eyes. There is no doubt that the Sabres last year were prolific on offense. On defense they were simply too loose in their zone, irresponsibly so. It was fun and entertaining to watch. However, that's not the type of play that will be sufficient to get us in the playoffs. The addition of Johnson and Clifton should help. But unless the team places more emphasis on tightening up their game, they will fall short again. Granato has repeatedly stated that his first priority when he took over the team is to emphasize offense. Now this team has to a great degree mastered that part of the game. Now there has to be a shift to put more emphasis on the defensive side of the game. In their end of the season playoff run the team demonstrated that they could alter their game. Can they do it for much of this upcoming season? That's the big question.

I know I'm jumping the gun but I believe that Levi is very quickly going demonstrate that he is a good goalie, and with a little more time become a top tier goalie. What impresses me the most is his fearless and composed makeup. As was demonstrated in his short stint in our end of the season playoff run the big stage and pressurized environment was not too big for him. What makes me hopeful about this upcoming season is that the Sabres at the end of the season did demonstrate that they can play a tighter and more responsible two-way game. The Sabres were playing a lot of good teams in that end of the season sequence. In those meaningful games I never felt that we were outshined by the opposition. The key to success in this upcoming season is whether the team can adjust its game and collectively play a more responsible defensive style.

If your examples about Bailey and Fasching are supposed to underscore the argument that because you usually don't know for sure which prospects are going to develop into a bona fide NHL players, then their value isn't as great as one might think. That's a reasonable perspective to take. There is another side to this issue. Because one doesn't know for sure if and when a high draft pick is going to develop, then it might make sense to have a larger pool of these prospects and more patience in waiting to see which players are capable of becoming NHL players. As you well know, prospects develop at different rates. With some prospects you can quickly see the talent, while with others who may be late bloomers. For players in the late bloomer category it just takes more time to make a concluding judgment. Players such as Tage and Mitts took years before their talents came to fruition. Much of the delayed process can be attributed to physical development. It's apparent that KA values prospects and has collected a pool of them. And it's apparent that he is reluctant to deal his prospects (at least presently so) for more pro ready players. In general, I lean towards how the GM is accumulating and handling his pool of young players.

Goaltending is not a separate issue. It is inextricably linked to how the players in front of them are playing. Vegas went through at least four goaltenders this season because of injuries. Yet they won the cup. The end of the season for the Sabres demonstrated that this team is capable of playing a tighter game. Can they do it for a season? That's the defining issue.

People have different views. Very often, what seems to be a contrary view is in itself not necessarily a total repudiation of what the other party is saying. Sometimes it is simply looking at an issue and focusing on one aspect of it while the other party is focusing on another aspect of the issue. Sometimes the differences aren't as glaring as it seems.

This back and forth is getting too exhausting to continue on. You have your view and I have my view. They don't intersect. That's okay.

I agree with you that the "impending catastrophe" description is hyperbolic. And you are correct that my response on the goalie issue is repetitive, maybe to the ad nauseum level. But you need to exhibit a little more self-awareness in recognizing that your position on this issue has also been repeatedly made. Maybe not to my ad nauseum level but approaching it. My position is a minority position. Whenever the goalie issue is discussed an overwhelming majority end up calling for new blood in the net. I do not have the same view. And up to this point, neither does the GM. If that bothers you, then ignore it and don't respond to it. There's no need for the eye roll emoji because I'm sure you get what I'm saying.

There is little doubt that playing a less freewheeling offensive style of hockey will lower the offensive stats. So what! The template to follow is the tighter style that the Sabres played at the end of the season. Against good teams in a playoff environment the team had a good record. Can the Sabres alter their style of play this season? That's the bigger issue and question. Is the GM going to bring in outside help for the lines? Probably not. And to his credit he did add Johnson and Clifton to the blueline. Is the GM going to bring outside help for the goalie position? I don't think he will. Many observers here believe that if he doesn't it will be an impending catastrophe. I'm not in that lamenting group. The biggest issue (for me) is team defense. That's my main concern.

I'm aware that I'm going against the grain here. I contend that the team defense issue is more important than the goalie issue. Obviously, they are interlinked. In my view, the goalie staffing has been upgraded with the addition of Levi. Am I being presumptuous? Admittingly so. And with the hope/expectation for tighter play of the team, the play of the goalies should also improve. I'm certainly not making the claim that our goalie unit is elite. We're not. But the key to getting better revolves around how this team plays a more responsible two-way game.

Is Levi an upgrade in net? I would say so. How good are our core 4 players? If you put Tage, Tuch, Skinner, Dahlin, Cozens and Power (stretching out the core) I would say they will continue to be good, if not better, because Tuch, Cozens, Power and Dahlin still have some upside to their game. You smartly homed in on what I consider to be the critical issue that will determine whether this team takes the next step forward or gets stuck in the fringe playoff pack i.e. how does this offensive minded unit collectively adjust their style of play and play without the puck. In my opinion, playing a more responsible two-way team game is a more critical issue than even our goaltending issue.