JohnC

I'm basing my positive contracts comments that include and go beyond the Tage deal. Cozens rich contract was certainly based on a projection. But making it wasn't a challenge based on his steady improvement and last year's breakout performance that included 31 goals and 68 points. The Samuelsson contract is certainly based on a projection but it is not too difficult to see what his value is to this team. Johnson, Lyubushkin, Girgs and Okposo are not anchor players by any means. But I would say that all of these players who are on now on one-year deals are well worth their contracts. None of the players you listed are on what I would consider excessive contracts. And even if one felt that they were, they are mostly on expiring contracts that won't have much drag when negotiating with the prime players whose contracts are coming up. I agree with you that in the not too-distant future the contract judgments will become more challenging. But that's the point. The GM has put himself in a good position to sign his top tier players, such as Dahlin, because he has been prudent in how he has handled negotiating contracts up to now.

You are not the only one excited about the upcoming season. What makes the hometown hockey situation even more exciting is that this team is in a good situation to have sustained success. Also, there is the recognition that this franchise is being run in a very competent manner. There is a stability and solid foundation that now exists that didn't previously exit in this previously erratically run franchise. It took a while for the new owners to learn that there were no quick fixes in each of their franchises. It appears that the Pegulas have learned from their mistakes. It's a good time to be a Buffalo sports fan.

https://www.audacy.com/wgr550/hosts/sabres-live In the Shayna Goldman segment she talks about the Wilson signing and contract. She was scathing in her criticism for the amount and especially for the extended term. The one thing that KA has done well is how he has handled contracts.

What would you be willing to give up for him? And what do you think that Edmonton would want in a trade? If they asked for Tage, Quinn, JJ and Samuelsson would you deal? I wouldn't. If they asked for Tage, Quinn and JJL, I still would decline.

I have often stated my position that I don't believe that the GM is going to add another goalie to the mix. For the reasons you stated, I have to be candid that I'm queasy about the position entering the seasons.

Twitter and social media in general are replete with snide and snarky comments. It's a junkyard environment. It's not a place where diplomacy and genteel civility abound. Some bars are known to have a raucous and rough environment while other bars may have a more sophisticated and upper crust to them. So, it shouldn't be surprising that MH's comments in this setting had some bite to them. Considering where Harrington made his post, I think you are over-reacting to his blunt comments that reflect what he thought. I didn't see anything wrong with what he said considering where it was said.

In general, your point that prospects are given preference over veterans is clearly evident based on the recent history. However, I think that the GM and staff have come to the recognition that this team is at a stage where it should not only be competing for a playoff spot but is a playoff caliber of team. If Comrie decisively out performs UPL in camp and in preseason, I see him winning the backup role. And if UPL decisively, or even is comparable, in his competition with Comrie in camp, I see him winning the backup role. From a broad organizational overview, this franchise has gone beyond the team building and player development stage to the team competing against the best teams in the league. Player growth is important but now winning is the priority.

The issue isn't so much whether Boston will be as good as they were last year. That is unlikely. As you point out they lost a number of contributing players. It's clear from a roster standpoint they won't be as good as they were. The more intriguing issue is whether this year Buffalo will be better than Boston. From an overall talent comparison, I do believe that the Sabres do match, if not surpass them. Of course, they do have a noticeable edge in net. The issue is: can Buffalo alter its more free-wheeling offensive style and play a more responsible two-way game. If they can, then Buffalo surpassing Boston isn't an outlandish notion.

As you point out, the Bruins have a distinct advantage in net, the most important position in the game. When you compare the two teams it is a mistake to become overly enamored with our offensive talent without factoring in the overall defensive deficiencies of that same prolific group. That's where Boston has a distinct advantage. Their team advantage that includes the forwards, blueliners and goalies clearly resides with Boston. I'm hoping and expecting that our team will modify its style of play where there is more emphasis on team defense, even if it is at the expense of offense. If the Sabres can make that adjustment, then it is not a stretch to believe that the Sabres can come closer to matching Boston from a team point standpoint.

Hockey has some unique traits that are not as prevalent as other sports. As you point out, because of the exceptional play of your goaltender, although your team is thoroughly outplayed, can result in a win. Conversely, your own team can thoroughly outplay the opposition, and you can still lose because of a flukish goal from an unintentional deflection off of your own player's skate. There are more flukish plays that affect the outcome than in many other sports. Over a long season, it usually balances out.

What's self-defeating about your example of blatant age discrimination is the reality that for the most part younger workers don't have loyalty to the companies they work for. If there is a better opportunity while employed, the employee will move on. I'm not making a criticism because it is a rational adjustment to the current employer/employee relationship. The disposable worker realizes their vulnerable situation and accordingly adjust by pursuing their individual interest. The irony is that it is more probable than not that you, as an older worker, would do a better job and would end up staying longer than the younger worker. As you demonstrate that discrimination comes in many forms. In the end it works against the discriminator. Good luck to you.

If Donnie G would have been the hire instead of Krueger, how much better would the team be? When he assumed stewardship of the team, he moved Tage to center and in short order revitalized Skinner's sunken career. The coach has made a number of smart moves when dealing with young talents. One of his best moves was putting Krebs in between Okposo and Girgs. That move placing him between two veteran players altered his game and made him play a more disciplined and tighter game that was suitable for the NHL.

The problem with "we should have won" these games approach to reviewing the past season is that every team has the same "we should have won" these games. It's a long and grinding season that includes long and exhausting road trips and not always well known injured/impaired players. It's simply part of the season. What often isn't noted in these type of "we should have " reviews is the recognition that the Sabres won a number of games that they were fortunate to have won. The vicissitudes of a season are experienced by every team in the league. The bottom line is that your record is your record.

Why do you think that there will be more moves for the Sabres this summer? If a goalie trade or transaction isn't made, then what other positions do you think will be addressed? I would love to see another 4/5 defenseman added to the blueline mix. However, I'm not confident that it will happen. Other than the additions of Johnson and Clifton, this has been an uneventful offseason. My sense is that is what KA wanted.

You don't have to be cynical to believe that the GM really didn't expect to make the playoffs last year. The team's end of the reason playoff press was probably not expected by most people associated with the franchise, including the fans. Speaking for myself, I consider them to be one year ahead of the planned rebuild timetable. Next year is a different situation. If this team doesn't make the playoffs, I will be very disappointed. No more excuses.

After the season, it was reported on WGR that Levi went down to Florida to meet with Anderson to continue picking his wise hockey brain about playing the position. He bonded with Anderson during the season and continued his association with him even after he retired. As you point out, Levi is a smart and inquisitive individual who is constantly striving to get better. There is no such thing as a guarantee that a young player is going to succeed at the highest level of hockey. However, the odds are certainly in his favor. In his young hockey career, he's already demonstrated that he not only doesn't run away from challenges but he embraces them. I'm more concerned with the backups than with this young starter.

The central issue for me is whether the coaching staff can adjust the team's style of play from a more freestyle play to a more disciplined and tighter brand of hockey? Will the additions of Clifton and Johnson make a marked difference to our blueline? And just as important, if not more important, will our lines be more conscious of their defensive responsibilities? If the coaching staff can get the team more focused on the defensive end of the game, our goalies will be in a better position to succeed. If that happens, the wins should be more frequent although the entertainment value from the more conservative offense might be less so. I'll take substance over style this upcoming season. There is a good reason why so many people are "trepidatious" (your terrific word) about next season: The expectations have increased to the point where if this team doesn't make the playoffs next season, it will be perceived as a failed season. And rightly so.

There's no question that the GM's approach is focused on building a winner relying on mostly building through the system. He's clearly stated that was his philosophy when he took over the reigns as a GM. He has often stated that it was his belief that primarily building from within the system was the most sustainable to being competitive. However, I have different reading on the GM's expectations than some have. Based on last year's nearly miss for qualifying for the playoffs, the expectation for the GM, players, organization, ownership and fans is that this reconstructed team should make the playoffs next year. My sense is that the primary consideration for the coaching staff right now is centered on winning more than player development. That wasn't the case last year.

I don't know anyone who would be happy with not making the playoffs. That's the near universal expectation.

You are absolutely right in stating that there is validity to criticizing the moves or lack of moves of the GM. You and many others (majority of contributors) believe that the GM is possibly making a big mistake that will undercut the roster he has assembled by not bringing in another goalie. That certainly is a reasonable position to take. And there is a great deal of validity to the idea of wanting a deal for a more established defenseman for one of the top two pairings. Is the GM taking a risk by taking a less aggressive acquisition approach this offseason? While you and I are on opposite sides of this issue, we both agree (I think) that the GM is taking a risk on how he has handled this offseason.

I'm not as bothered by our goalie situation as most are. The bigger issue for me is the overall play of the defense that includes the blue line unit and the forwards. Is the GM taking a risk staying with the goalies he has on the roster? Absolutely.

You are likely to be right that KA isn't going to add a veteran goalie this offseason. That doesn't mean that not doing so will be as disastrous as you are projecting. Let's just wait and see what the consequences will be with his status quo approach to the position. As far as rating the GM's offseason, I would categorize it as being solid. The additions of Johnson and Clfiton were solid additions. I would still like to see another 4/5 defenseman added to the unit. The GM has said right from the start that he was going to mostly build from within. And that's exactly what he is doing.

What difference does it make why a deal was made? Whether it was for reasons of disgruntlement, cap, better players in the system or whatever, the measurement of success of a deal is the impact on the team. The fundamental issue is: does the transaction make the team better and/or do the cumulative transactions improve the team. The Jack deal, for whatever reason it was made for, was a good deal for both teams involved. You are reflexive contrarian to the point where everyone knows what your position is on a topic before you even post it. You make @PerreaultForeverlook like a Polly Anna Optimist. That is quite an accomplishment.

I agree with your comments. No one is worried about the 2024-25 season. When you have a hole in your pipe you patch it for a temporary solution, and then later on replace that segment of the pipe. If VO places well, then his value goes up as a trade asset.

Let's cool the temperature. What's changed is that Quinn got hurt and will be out for an extended period of time. I'm not got going to casually dismiss a player, although not well-rounded, who could help to this team even if it is for the short-term. The Sabres are at a stage where they should be very competitive. If VO, or any other player, can contribute in a fashion that will allow the team to a degree to absorb the loss of a key player, then I'm all for it.