Official Don Granato Named New Sabres Head Coach

[ExWNYer]

53 minutes ago, Taro T said:

Any thoughts on how he'll answer the inevitable Q's about Eichel's status on Thursday?

"Certainly we'd love to have Jack leading the way for us us next year but, again, we're in the process of evaluating the entire organization and readying for free agency and the draft with the full intention of moving forward with players who want to be here and contribute to a winning culture..."

Translation: Here are a lot of buzz words with no new or useful information in hopes of appeasing the fans who want to keep Jack as well as those who want him traded.

[WildCard]

2 minutes ago, Thorny said:

Hopefully Cozens is a blip 

Almost doubled his production pace, no? Went from .24ppg to .44ppg

Edited June 29, 2021 by WildCard

[Thorner]

1 hour ago, darksabre said:

The thing about Granato is that if this doesn't work out he probably still escapes it relatively unscathed in the eyes of the fans. He's got no baggage from old jobs. He's not a coach fans are primed to hate. We're all going to end up rooting for him to succeed and we probably won't fault him if he doesn't. 

This is salient and definitely IMO factored into why he was the hire. Very high on the Sabres' list this offseason has been PR, quite clearly 

[Stoner]

He got the Sabres going?

[Kong]

1 hour ago, GASabresIUFAN said:

...and proved last season he can coach in the NHL and keep a team at the bottom of the standings playing hard every night at the bottom of the standings.

 

There, fixed it for you.

Edited June 29, 2021 by Kong

[Thorner]

3 minutes ago, WildCard said:

Almost doubled his production pace, no? Went from .24ppg to .44ppg

Even strength goal differential went down.

 By memory he had a few more empty calorie second helpers

Edited June 29, 2021 by Thorny
edit for clarity

[Thorner]

4 minutes ago, WildCard said:

Almost doubled his production pace, no? Went from .24ppg to .44ppg

I don't believe he had a goal in his last 20 games

[Thorner]

1 hour ago, JohnC said:

I got the timing wrong but the candidate right. I'm more than happy with this obvious selection. 

When the Sabres make the first pick it needs to be Power. Let's stick to the basics and not outsmart ourselves. 

I'm sure almost everyone will agree that Adams is going to be judged by the more difficult and complicated task of getting a return on his departing assets. 

No, it doesn't need to be Power. It needs to be the guy THEY'VE adjudged to be at the top of their list

[PromoTheRobot]

1 hour ago, darksabre said:

To expand on this and my thoughts further, it'll be interesting if this hire ends up looking like a bold/risky move, or the safe bet. There are a lot of variables that can go in to it.

Did Adams/the Pegulas want someone more experienced, but they couldn't get them? Or didn't want to pay them?

Did the Pegulas decide they would stay out of the way and not worry about their GM making a hire that would make them look bad?

Did Adams make this hire because he's not worried about it blowing up in his face? He could have hired an experienced coach who would born more of the blame. Is this a confident move? Or is it the safe bet?

Time, and details, will tell I suppose. At the moment I think it's a bold move. But...

Or did they see a guy do some good in difficult circumstances and said "let's ride this"?

[Thorner]

1 hour ago, Brawndo said:

They did go big game hunting and were told thanks but no thanks 

If this is true, I'd be shocked if that wasn't a function of the coaches hearing about Adams' plans, re: Eichel 

[JohnC]

25 minutes ago, Thorny said:

No, it doesn't need to be Power. It needs to be the guy THEY'VE adjudged to be at the top of their list

And I say with with extreme confidence that it will be Power. 

Edited June 29, 2021 by JohnC

[SabresVet]

1 hour ago, Brawndo said:

They did go big game hunting and were told thanks but no thanks 

 

32 minutes ago, Thorny said:

They cut the scouting budget drastically...why not cut down on the budget re: all of these "extensive searches" they conduct, when they just end up always having the right person here aaaallllll along, anyways?

- - - 

Anyways, I like Granato as a coach for a rebuilding team with zero expectations. Seems like a genuinely good dude, too. 

Social media team remains ridiculously cringe. 

Owners cutting costs in the front office, the top 2 forwards on the way out, and a youth movement in process.  Of course their options at HC were limited.

I had hopes they would hire someone with a NHL track record, but that would probably threaten a rookie GM and ever-insulated owners who don't see how much of a cluster they are. 

Granato won't be the problem, because it goes up the ladder for that.   

[Gatorman0519]

Wow the Don knows his stuff..... this is fascinating.... 

 

[Thorner]

5 minutes ago, JohnC said:

And I say with with extreme confidence that it will be Power. 

I've been saying it was going to be power for like 6 months. 

Realistically we only know that because dems the odds, given how we've seen other drafts unfold in regards to consensus (or close to consensus, whatever) 1s. 

Any "confidence" beyond that is just wishfulness. 

Edited June 29, 2021 by Thorny

[Thorner]

6 minutes ago, SabresVet said:

 

Owners cutting costs in the front office, the top 2 forwards on the way out, and a youth movement in process.  Of course their options at HC were limited.

I had hopes they would hire someone with a NHL track record, but that would probably threaten a rookie GM and ever-insulated owners who don't see how much of a cluster they are. 

Granato won't be the problem, because it goes up the ladder for that.   

Tend to agree. Granato seemed to me to be pretty much the plan all along, because rebuilding sans Jack has pretty much been the plan all along, IMO. Those two seemed to be hand in hand - would be doubtful the experienced guy signs up for the youth movement, like we both alluded to.

I think Granato is a good pick for that strategy 

[JohnC]

Just now, Thorny said:

I've been saying it was going to be power for like 6 months. 

Realistically we only know that because dems the odds, given how we've seen other drafts unfold in regards to consensus (or close to consensus, whatever) 1s. 

Any "confidence" beyond that is just wishfulness. 

When 90% of the hockey prospect analysts say the same thing about who should be the first pick then it isn't a stretch for someone to say that they have extreme confidence in who the first pick should be. If you disagree with that then so be it. 

[Thorner]

3 minutes ago, JohnC said:

When 90% of the hockey prospect analysts say the same thing about who should be the first pick then it isn't a stretch for someone to say that they have extreme confidence in who the first pick should be. If you disagree with that then so be it. 

I don't disagree. 

Well, maybe with your clumsy wording. I've been saying Power will be the pick, not who it should be. I seemingly don't have the foresight you do for future NHL successfulness 

90% is also a bad choice of number. As liger has pointed out many times it's closer to a 60% split. An EXTREMELY CONFIDENT SPLIT, I am sure, though, don't worry. 

Edited June 29, 2021 by Thorny

[JohnC]

1 minute ago, Thorny said:

I don't disagree. 

Well, maybe with your clumsy wording. I've been saying Power will be the pick, not who it should be. I seemingly don't have the foresight you do for future NHL successfulness 

You are being punctilious. 

[The Jokeman]

4 minutes ago, Thorny said:

 

 

1 minute ago, Thorny said:

Tend to agree. Granato seemed to me to be pretty much the plan all along, because rebuilding sans Jack has pretty much been the plan all along, IMO. Those two seemed to be hand in hand - would be doubtful the experienced guy signs up for the youth movement, like we both alluded to.

I think Granato is a good pick for that strategy 

If we're truly rebuilding aka trading both Jack and Sam then taking Power makes little to no sense since we have no one in the piplline to be as good, to me you take Beniers. 

[Thorner]

1 minute ago, JohnC said:

You are being punctilious. 

I mean jeeze, if you think the difference between what "will" and what "should" is a trivial distinction....

I don't really have anything clever to end that sentence with. But you'd be wrong. 

[Gatorman0519]

1 minute ago, The Jokeman said:

 

If we're truly rebuilding aka trading both Jack and Sam then taking Power makes little to no sense since we have no one in the piplline to be as good, to me you take Beniers. 

The return on Jack and Sam SHOULD BE their replacements in the pipeline. At number one you must take the BPA.

[Thorner]

3 minutes ago, The Jokeman said:

 

If we're truly rebuilding aka trading both Jack and Sam then taking Power makes little to no sense since we have no one in the piplline to be as good, to me you take Beniers. 

I can see solid arguments for Power - if he's who they adjudge to be the most talented overall, there is merit to the "best player available" strategy. Personally I do think system strength should factor in - there's obviously a line: if the best player available was a LHD 3 years in a row, you wouldn't select a LHD 3 straight years. To me I like the idea of adding a Beniers over Power, too, as additionally I'm not convinced, in a year I don't think there really is a number 1, that we should attribute much of any talent difference between Beniers and Power with any kind of certainty to the point where I'd avoid factoring in position, in this case. 

3 minutes ago, Gatorman0519 said:

The return on Jack and Sam SHOULD BE their replacements in the pipeline. At number one you must take the BPA.

What if the return is 30A and 12 OA and they have Power at 1, Beniers at 2 (and he goes 2) and Clarke at 3? Do you take two d-men in the top 5? And a d-man twelfth if the highest on your board at that time is a D man? 

Actually asking. I don't think "talent with no regard to position", aka BPA, actually works in absolutes 

[Gatorman0519]

3 minutes ago, Thorny said:

I can see solid arguments for Power - if he's who they adjudge to be the most talented overall, there is merit to the "best player available" strategy. Personally I do think system strength should factor in - there's obviously a line: if the best player available was a LHD 3 years in a row, you wouldn't select a LHD 3 straight years. To me I like the idea of adding a Beniers over Power, too, as additionally I'm not convinced, in a year I don't think there really is a number 1, that we should attribute much of any talent difference between Beniers and Power with any kind of certainty to the point where I'd avoid factoring in position, in this case. 

What if the return is 30A and 12 OA and they have Power at 1, Beniers at 2 (and he goes 2) and Clarke at 3? Do you take two d-men in the top 5? And a d-man twelfth if the highest on your board at that time is a D man? 

Actually asking. I don't think "talent with no regard to position", aka BPA, actually works in absolutes 

I believe number one must be the consensus best player in the draft board. That is what winning the lottery is for. As you drift further from number one then those things come into play.

[Gatorman0519]

33 minutes ago, Gatorman0519 said:

Wow the Don knows his stuff..... this is fascinating.... 

 

go 18 minutes in about the negative impact certain types of coaches have on a players skill... this is good stuff, interestingly mentioned Eichel and Tage Thompson at about 30:00 mark

Edited June 29, 2021 by Gatorman0519

[LGR4GM]

8 minutes ago, Gatorman0519 said:

I believe number one must be the consensus best player in the draft board. That is what winning the lottery is for. As you drift further from number one then those things come into play.

Consensus among your scouts. 

That said Power is not in my top 3 and isn't my highest ranked defenseman.