JohnC

What UPL surely is thinking is that with Levi in the fold he has to come into camp in shape and be prepared to compete with Levi and Comrie to earn a spot and playing time. Competition and pressure are what he will be facing. He will be judged on his performance in camp. He's not entitled to anything. And that is how it should be. I'm sure he understands that.

You are right that Greenway wasn't in the best condition. However, there was a reason for that. He was injured and because of it his conditioning wasn't at the top level. I'm confident that the second-round pick that was used to acquire him will turn out to be a good deal when he reports to camp in top shape.

You get a new hat and end up shaving off that bandito mustache. Life is full of compromises and adjustments.

Overall team defense that includes the blueliners and the play of the lines is the biggest priority for me. As far as upgrading the goalie position the issue becomes what is available on the market and what are you willing to give up to make that change. What I'm adamantly opposed to is giving up prime assets in high draft picks and high-end prospects for a goalie such as Hellybuyck who will be a UFA in a year. That makes no sense to me. Again, if you can get an upgrade on a player at any position and you can do it for an acceptable price, you do it. That's what GM's get paid to do. My stance on that point has never changed.

You haven't accurately read my posts. I am very comfortable with Joki as our number 4D. I have stated that point on many occasions. I have also frequently pointed out that Power excelled while being paired with Joki. However, if you can find a better second pairing player to pair with Power and move Joki to the third pairing it would improve the unit. If you get a better player that moves a player to a lower pairing or line you are upgrading the roster. Why would I be against that and how is that a contradiction to what I have previously stated? With respect to the goalie position I'm not as worried about it as most are here. My priority is addressing the blueline this offseason.

You don't think that Quinn, JJ, Power, Joki and Mitts will continue to get better? I expect Quinn, Power and maybe JJ to get make noticeable leaps forward next year. If the GM decides to mostly stand pat the team will be better through internal improvement of players already on the roster.

To the draftniks who contribute to this board I say thank you. You guys are great! Although there are variances in opinions, there is a great deal of agreement among this adroit evaluating group about this class. KA values draft picks and is adept at picking players. That is the right approach to take.

What is evident is that the Sabres should come away from this draft with a high-quality prospect. Would I give up this pick for a top two pairing defenseman or goalie? Not unless they had some term left on their contract or were assured that an extension would be made before departing with the pick. Our GM has made some astute picks during his tenure. My inclination is to hang on to the pick and continue on with the roster building process that he has established since he took over. I'm receptive to dealing the pick but it has to be a very appealing offer to let that first round pick go.

Great work. If you had a choice of one of the players in the 8-11 group, who would you take? If you had to take a player in the 12-18 group. who would it be.

Assuming the GM decides to work with the goalies he has on the roster, which of the three players do you believe would be the primary goalie?

Yes. The Sabres are in a good position to roll the dice on a player who may not be available for a number of years. If it doesn't work out, you still are well stocked with prospects in your system. Taking a gamble on a high-end talent is worth the risk.

I agree with your comment. And I believe that the proliferation of "Special Nights" dilutes the special nature of some causes. The organization can support a number of causes by community outreach efforts (which it does) instead of increasing the number of "Cause Nights".

I was talking about individual players. And I agree with the notion that there are too many causes and nights at sporting events. I'm not saying that they shouldn't exist, but I am saying that there are too many of them at these entertainment venues.

What would you do to a player who didn't want to participate in Pride Night? Would you punish him? I wouldn't.

Comrie was hurt for much of the season and it had an effect on his play. I'm not giving up on a young goalie such as UPL based on his play last year. It should be remembered that the expectation was for UPL to play the season in Rochester for further development. Because of injuries he was brought up sooner than expected. We shall see how the GM handles this position prior to training camp.

You misread or misinterpreted my comments. As far as forcing views on people it goes both ways. If someone for whatever reason, not necessarily religious but mostly so, doesn't want to participate in this designated celebration for whatever reason, then why should the player be forced to? Does a player who doesn't want to wear the pride uniform in warmups have a right to not be out there in warmups?I would say yes. I'm not extending this issue to the public or political arena. I'm addressing this issue of participation or not in a sporting venue. If a player doesn't want to participate, he shouldn't be forced to. I believe Lybushkin was the only player who didn't come out for the pride day warmup while everyone else did. I have no problem with that individual decision.

This issue should be brought up by the owners to the commissioner. This is a worthy topic to consider. They can do it individually or collectively. The issue isn't simple and can be a PR nightmare if not handled in a respectful and empathetic manner. You can still support the respective groups through community outreach instead of having so many dedicated "Nights". Sometime stoking the fires of controversy can be avoided by simply stoking fewer fires. I support the groups that are under discussion here. I also understand that there are players and fans who for a variety of legitimate reasons (mostly related to religion) who have a different view/perspective. Very often avoiding an issue is a good strategy to take, especially in an entertainment venue.

The GM was willing to trade a first round pick for Chyrun last year.

As you point out there are a lot of unknowns. Organizations prefer not dealing with unknowns. If you were a scout or in some way associated with a team, would you want to go to Russia and risk being arrested on some manufactured charged and be used as a hostage and trade chip? What a mess!

As you smartly point out sometimes less is more and less is better. There is a time and place to do and a time and a place to not do.

I don't think the issue is so much enlisting players for the military as it would be allowing people to leave Russia. I agree with @Buffalonill(unusual to do so) that the war and the internal conflict within the country is a potentially complicating feature to drafting Russian prospects. There is another aspect to this situation. Because of the situation that is getting more out of control by the day, the Sabres might be able to get a high end prospect at a lower draft spot because some teams would be reluctant to risk losing out on a prospect due to availability concerns.

You make a terrific point that the Sabres are in a good position to deal compared to most teams. And there is no question based on our roster and last year's performance that this team should be more appealing to players who will be moved. The negative perception of the organization has turned to a positive perception based on how it has recently played and the expected continued upward trajectory of this team in the near future. I'm hopeful and excited about the transactions that will be made to continue with this franchise's advance. Just a few judicious and impactful moves can make such a big difference.

I agree with the general tenor of your response with a slight difference. I see Levi as our primary goalie with Comrie and UPL vying for the backup spot. It gets somewhat complicated because of their status of being subjected to being claimed if sent to Rochester. That's the challenging situation that the GM has to deal with. Repeating what I have said before: the key to improving the play of our netminders is improving the overall defensive play of the players in front of him. Granato has openly stated that his first priority was to emphasize offense at the expense of defense. That was the first stage. Now, this team is at a more advanced stage where this team is at a higher competitive level. The team simply has to be more balanced on how it plays.

No.

I agree with you that the goaltending position is difficult to project because the mercurial nature of the position. Unless you have one of the few elite netminders there is a level of unpredictability that should make anyone uncomfortable. Almost everyone agrees that the caliber of last year's netminding was below average. And what everyone should also agree is that our blueline, especially the lower half, was below par and the unit lacked depth. But also, what is often not being mentioned here is that the forward lines were average to below average in their defensive play. My contention is that if the blueline is upgraded and the forwards in general play a more responsible two-way game, the goalie play should improve. The end of the season playoff run demonstrated that the team was capable of adjusting their game and playing a tighter brand of winning hockey against good teams. If the GM didn't have Levi, I would have had a much more dire view of the goalie situation. Are my expectations too high for him? Maybe. But from what I saw last year, I am very excited about him being able to immediately step in and play on a rotational basis as our primary goalie. While others are dismissing Comrie and UPL as players, I am not. My sense (guess) is that the GM, although willing to seek an upgrade, is not afraid to stand pat with his group if the price for a change can't be worked out. The majority of responders are clamoring for a change in net. That is a reasonable position to take. However, I see it otherwise. The issue for me is as much on the team's general defensive play as it is on the goalies.