How concerned is Sabrespace about the defense and goaltending?

[DarthEbriate]

In the spirit of the long-running "everything GMKA has done" thread that I can't seem to find...  here's everything GM Sheevyn has done with regards to goaltending since his Order 66 overthrow of the Sabres leadership and naming himself Emperor General Manager.

1. Didn't draft a goalie;
2. Kept post- eye trauma Hutton on the roster;
3. Traded away Johanson for a 6th rather than just waiving him [good move]
4. Didn't extend or trade Ullmark before UFA
5. Signed Toker (1 of 3)
6. Didn't draft a goalie [Wallstedt was available, Cossa too though he was consensus #2 and a reach by Detroit]
7. Traded a #2 overall pick for a 7th round goalie in Levi [when Levi pans out, yes, kudos all around, but it didn't make the Sabres roster any better at the time]
8. Signed Houser to a NHL contract [statistically, the Sabres' best goalie the last 5 seasons] 
9. Signed a 40 year-old goalie out of retirement who was instantly the best (signed) goalie in the system
10. Signed Dell
11. Signed Bishop for LTIR only rather than just get a starting goalie
12. Re-signed a 41 year-old goalie who was still the best (signed) goalie in the system 
13. Drafted a goalie (the #1 ranked European goalie no less; but who was nowhere near as highly rated as Wallstedt or Cossa; who has not impressed in any capacity since being drafted. I mean... his last name has Leino in it. It's in the name! What the hell were you thinking?) 
14. Signed AHL veteran Comrie
15. Signed Toker again
16. RFA'ed UPL (no brainer)
17. Traded Portillo for a 3rd (excellent deal! considering he wasn't signing in Buffalo)
18. Signed Levi to 3-yr ELC (no brainer)
19. Drafted Ratzlaff (which is promising, as he could be Canada's goalie at the WJC this year)
20. Signed Cooley and Toker (for the third time); And Houser signed an AHL deal

That's a lot of moves. And it could easily be argued that the only move that wasn't a no brainer (sign Levi to his ELC) that immediately made the Sabres better was signing a 40 year-old Anderson out of retirement.

Edited October 8, 2023 by DarthEbriate
grammar fixes

[Taro T]

8 minutes ago, DarthEbriate said:

In the spirit of the long-running "everything GMKA has done" thread that I can't seem to find...  here's everything GM Sheevyn has done with regards to goaltending since his Order 66 overthrow of the Sabres leadership and naming himself Emperor General Manager.

1. Didn't draft a goalie;
2. Kept post eye-trauma Hutton on the roster;
3. Traded away Johanson for a 6th rather than just waiving him
4. Not extended or traded Ullmark before UFA
5. Signed Toker (1 of 3)
6. Didn't draft a goalie [Wallstedt was available, Cossa too though he was consensus #2 and a reach by Detroit]
7. Traded a #2 overall pick for a 7th round goalie in Levi [when Levi pans out, yes, kudos all around, but it didn't make the Sabres roster any better at the time]
8. Signed Houser to a NHL contract [statistically, the Sabres' best goalie the last 5 seasons] 
9. Signed a 40 year-old goalie out of retirement who was instantly the best (signed) goalie in the system
10. Signed Dell
11. Signed Bishop for LTIR only rather than just get a starting goalie
12. Re-signed a 41 year-old goalie who was still the best (signed) goalie in the system 
13. Drafted a goalie -- the #1 ranked European goalie no less; but who was nowhere near as highly rated as Wallstedt or Cossa; who has not impressed in any capacity since being drafted. I mean... his last name has Leino in it. It's in the name! What the hell were you thinking? 
14. Signed AHL veteran Comrie
15. Signed Toker again
16. RFA'ed UPL (no brainer)
17. Traded Portillo for a 3rd (excellent deal! considering he wasn't signing in Buffalo)
18. Signed Levi to 3-yr ELC (no brainer)
19. Drafted Ratzlaff (which is promising, as he could be Canada's goalie at the WJC this year)
20. Signed Cooley and Toker (for the third time); And Houser signed an AHL deal

That's a lot of moves. And it could easily be argued that the only move that wasn't a no brainer (sign Levi to his ELC) immediately made the Sabres better was signing a 40 year-old Anderson out of retirement.

Nice comprehensive list.  You forgot to add the anthem singer to the mix though.

[LGR4GM]

I'm concerned about the defense. Not just the defenders but the forwards ability to support the defenders.

[Gatorman0519]

Very concerned.  In the long run we will be a good team.  But maybe not yet.

[nfreeman]

My order of concerns:

#1 with a bullet:  team defense — both coaching and focus/determination on the part of the players.

2 - goaltending.  For some reason I am kinda confident that they are going to get good starting goaltending from Levi and adequate #2 goaltending from UPL/Comrie.  Still, there is a significant likelihood that it doesn’t play out that way.

3 - defensive personnel.  I am reasonably comfortable with the top 6 — they just need to learn and execute a team D system much better than we’ve seen this far.    I certainly would’ve preferred a Pesce or Greaves, but either of those would’ve required a fat multi-year deal at a time when they are trying to sign Dahlin and Power.  I think the net result would’ve been losing someone good like Quinn or JJP in a couple of years.  

[GASabresIUFAN]

1 hour ago, DarthEbriate said:

In the spirit of the long-running "everything GMKA has done" thread that I can't seem to find...  here's everything GM Sheevyn has done with regards to goaltending since his Order 66 overthrow of the Sabres leadership and naming himself Emperor General Manager.

1. Didn't draft a goalie;
2. Kept post eye-trauma Hutton on the roster;
3. Traded away Johanson for a 6th rather than just waiving him
4. Not extended or traded Ullmark before UFA
5. Signed Toker (1 of 3)
6. Didn't draft a goalie [Wallstedt was available, Cossa too though he was consensus #2 and a reach by Detroit]
7. Traded a #2 overall pick for a 7th round goalie in Levi [when Levi pans out, yes, kudos all around, but it didn't make the Sabres roster any better at the time]
8. Signed Houser to a NHL contract [statistically, the Sabres' best goalie the last 5 seasons] 
9. Signed a 40 year-old goalie out of retirement who was instantly the best (signed) goalie in the system
10. Signed Dell
11. Signed Bishop for LTIR only rather than just get a starting goalie
12. Re-signed a 41 year-old goalie who was still the best (signed) goalie in the system 
13. Drafted a goalie -- the #1 ranked European goalie no less; but who was nowhere near as highly rated as Wallstedt or Cossa; who has not impressed in any capacity since being drafted. I mean... his last name has Leino in it. It's in the name! What the hell were you thinking? 
14. Signed AHL veteran Comrie
15. Signed Toker again
16. RFA'ed UPL (no brainer)
17. Traded Portillo for a 3rd (excellent deal! considering he wasn't signing in Buffalo)
18. Signed Levi to 3-yr ELC (no brainer)
19. Drafted Ratzlaff (which is promising, as he could be Canada's goalie at the WJC this year)
20. Signed Cooley and Toker (for the third time); And Houser signed an AHL deal

That's a lot of moves. And it could easily be argued that the only move that wasn't a no brainer (sign Levi to his ELC) immediately made the Sabres better was signing a 40 year-old Anderson out of retirement.

So 20 moves regarding goaltending and signing a 40 year old goalie who could only play a limited amount of games was then only one to give us NHL average goaltending.  Talk about wasting 3 years and failing to adequately support the young roster.  This list is shameful.  Also you forget calling up UPL when injuries hit and he also failed to give is NHL average goaltending.  

[PerreaultForever]

I got nothing more to say about the goaltending but regarding the D I'm not sure they have it right in terms of the pairings. They seem to be very concerned with the right/left aspect and myself, I think they should focus more on the players styles and how they combine. To me we should have stuck with the Dahlin-Samuelson pairing, gone Power-Clifton and then Joker-Johnson. If Clifton continues to not fit you swap Joker and Cliffy as he has played his off side often as well. 

To me, Dahlin needs a stability guy and Clifton isn't that guy. We have 2 guys who both like to jump into the rush and both get caught. Really don't think this will work. 

[GASabresIUFAN]

My concern about the goaltending is growing.  Keeping all 3 is a sign that they lack confidence in all 3 and are playing wait and see if any of them step up.  How many wins will that cost this team.  It’s also a sign that they are putting to much on Levi and KA’s lack of realistic goaltending plan since Ullmark walked is still plaguing this franchise.  

Edited October 8, 2023 by GASabresIUFAN

[RochesterExpat]

5 minutes ago, nfreeman said:

My order of concerns:

#1 with a bullet:  team defense — both coaching and focus/determination on the part of the players.

2 - goaltending.  For some reason I am kinda confident that they are going to get good starting goaltending from Levi and adequate #2 goaltending from UPL/Comrie.  Still, there is a significant likelihood that it doesn’t play out that way.

3 - defensive personnel.  I am reasonably comfortable with the top 6 — they just need to learn and execute a team D system much better than we’ve seen this far.    I certainly would’ve preferred a Pesce or Greaves, but either of those would’ve required a fat multi-year deal at a time when they are trying to sign Dahlin and Power.  I think the net result would’ve been losing someone good like Quinn or JJP in a couple of years.  

More or less this is how I feel.

Team defense is the issue--specifically the lack of a visible system. I realize this is bordering on insulting to the NHL coaches and staff out there to use this as a reference point, but I agree with DG that teaching offense is more difficult than teaching defense based on my experience coaching 8U hockey. Offense comes with confidence. It takes a lot more work to get kids to feel confident enough to skate with the puck, go toward the net, and shoot the puck than it does to get them to "come back and help out our goalie." It's remarkable the transformation that happens when you a kid gets the first goal. It's like a switch flipped in their brain. Even from personal experience playing hockey, when I made the jump to high school hockey as a freshman, I went 8 games without a point. Then I scored a fluke of a goal off what was supposed to be a dump in and proceeded to get 21 points in the next 18 games. 

To some extent we know it happens in the NHL as well. How often is player confidence discussed? It's part of what makes Benson stand out so much. If nothing else, the kid has confidence. It's also why I think Krebs will have a breakout season. I think it's a large reason Mitts had his breakout last season.

I just don't know how quickly DG and his staff can get the player buy-in to play the other side of the ice and that's what worries me the most. If this season doesn't show development, it's probably time to look at the staff and evaluate their fit. I'm especially worried because I don't see a system in place. It's overly fluid and players are either ignoring their roles, don't understand their roles, or simply don't have roles. That to me is a coaching issue and one that--at least from my peanut gallery perspective--is less on DG than the assistant coaches. Unless there really is no structure at all in which case fire the lot of them.

As for goaltending, I'm more optimistic than I am for defensive structure, but I'm probably less optimistic than you are. I am disappointed we didn't bring in a veteran goalie to mentor Levi but I recognize there weren't FA options available and reported trade prices were astronomical. I hate the idea of the three-headed dragon. I am confident in Levi's ability to play goalie, but I'm less confident in his ability to play 50+ games in a season. If we had a true starter, I'd be confident in keeping Comrie as a backup as well since I think he plays fine in limited use (not a 1B but a traditional backup goalie). I don't have confidence in UPL finding consistency. I don't think UPL is able to respond to other NHL teams figuring him out. 

Your #3 I am in full agreement with. I'm happy with the top 6. Not happy with the apparent 7th, but that's a minor gripe.

I guess I'll add a #4 which is Benson. I have confidence that Benson can play on the top line with Skinner and Thompson or he can play on the 3rd line with Mitts and Greenway. I'm confident that he'll perform better than we would hope/expect an 18-year-old rookie to do; however, similar to Levi carrying a starting workload, I am worried about Benson's ability to play a full 82-game season at an NHL pace. Someone referred to the NHL as an "80 percent league" meaning players play at 80% instead of a full 100% because the season is so long. Benson clearly was giving 110% in the preseason to prove he can skate with the team. My concern with him is whether he can pace himself over the season. They can always send him back to juniors, but it does affect the future cap situation if he burns a year of his ELC by sticking around for more than 9 games, but doesn't make the full season.

It's similar to why Quinn and Peterka--the latter especially--had a more productive first part of the season than the second. Peterka even recognized this publicly. It's pretty common among rookies. The difference with Peterka is he was older and had played in the AHL for a full season before hitting the Sabres roster. Benson doesn't have that luxury.

15 minutes ago, GASabresIUFAN said:

It’s also a sign that they are putting to much on Levi and KA’s lack of realistic goaltending plan since Ullmark walked is still plaguing this franchise.  

I'm not as negative about this as you because I think we need to (mentally) let Ullmark go the same way KA did. Ullmark wanted more money to stay in Buffalo and Buffalo said his number was over their internal amount. It is what it is. If he really wanted the $6+m that was reported, that would have been an overpay by Buffalo for his production at the time he signed the contract (especially in light of his health issues). Obviously hindsight is 20/20.

KA's mistake wasn't letting Ullmark walk in 2021. His mistake was signing him to a one-year prove-it deal in October 2020--and I think that deal is part of the fallout from the internal cap by the Pegulas. I refuse to believe they didn't set an internal cap considering the other spending cuts made. I think it also explains the roster decisions from 21-22.

I agree that KA's real issue is not replacing losing NHL-caliber goaltending with NHL-caliber goaltending, but I don't think it's that cut and dry.

[GoPuckYourself]

On 10/7/2023 at 10:32 AM, GASabresIUFAN said:

Lets be honest, the defense and goaltending, especially the last 2 preseason games, has been lousy. So how concerned are you heading into the season?  

I don’t like the D pairings. I don’t care about R/L balance.  I do care about players that work well together and the early returns on Dahlin/Clifton aren’t good.  I also don’t like the return of Power/Joki.  I’m glad Joki is healthy and he has had some positive moments on the offensive side, but his defense is clearly still lacking.  There is no excuse, even in pre-season, for giving up 7 goals.  During the CBJ broadcast, they showed the High Danger chances allowed in the 1st 2 periods and we had allowed 15 and it wasn’t any better in the 3rd.  Against Pitt, the chances were worse. This is not acceptable any longer and can’t continue into the season.  If it does, this won’t be a playoff team.

I also don’t like that DG hasn’t played the new players more in pre-season.

As to the goaltending, I’m not sure what condition it’s in because they haven’t been given much of a chance.  Levi let in some softies against Pitt and UPL has as well in each of his starts.  Given they have started the last 2 games, I suspect they are 1 & 2 in the G rotation.  

DG has a pile of work to do before the season starts on the 12th.  Most of all, he needs to get the team playing with some urgency coming out of the gate.  Pitts and CBJ had urgency already, the question is why didn’t we?

D pairings I’d like DG to try

1. Bring back Mule and Dahlin.

2. Power Clifton

3. Joki and Johnson - This would allow Joki to be the O catalyst for this pair.

We should all be concerned, UPL is who he is and Comrie isn't an NHL goalie. I'm not really sure what Adams is thinking here but it very well could lead to his exit which would suck because I really like alot about him but this seems like his achilles heel. 

[mjd1001]

4 hours ago, LGR4GM said:

I'm concerned about the defense. Not just the defenders but the forwards ability to support the defenders.

This is what I am hoping to see change once the regular season starts:

-Krebs got slightly better as the year went on, but there were many, MANY times goals were scored against the Sabres or big time chances were allowed when Krebs either was 1/2 step too slow getting back or he lost a battle on the boards.  Hoping he is better this year.

-Cozens. As good as he is, and a large part of how good he is has to do with how aggressive he is....he needs to show better decision making. I can't remember how many (it was a lot) goals were allowed last year when Cozens was on the ice, not due to him not giving effort, but due to him chasing the puck relentlessly, often times when another Sabre was closer to the puck, and putting himself out of position. Effort isn't the issue with Cozens, but hopefully one more year of experience will help him with his decision making for knowing when to NOT chase the puck full speed no matter where it is.

-Peterka and Quinn. Honestly, by the end of the year I thought they already were much better than the beginning of the year, but when they started they were losing a lot of loose puck battles.  If they can pick up where they left off at the end of last year (whenever Quinn gets back) that will be a good step.

-Tuch is a great forechecker. I don't analyze the entire league but with how relentless he is on the forecheck I can't imagine a lot of players being better than him. His linemates just have to be aware of where he is in the Offensive zone so they can cover any opponents exit from the zone in case Tuch gets caught deep.

[dudacek]

Interesting comments from Adams on the goaltending in his presser this morning.

He essentially said they’ve been “having conversations” about it right up until yesterday, and the “situation around the league” was a major factor in keeping 3 goalies.

Not clear if those conversations were internal or external, but he certainly implied that Comrie and UPL have value and he was not going to give either away for nothing.

Sounded to me like he is waiting for a shoe to drop: team(s) (Tampa?) in need of a goalie making a move to acquire one. Maybe that goalie is one of ours, maybe it’s someone else’s but it reduces the risk of one of ours not clearing waivers?

Maybe one of our goalies cracks, or pouts, or (god forbid) plays well enough to remove the logjam.

But it sounds like even though the 3-headed monster is not something that will be around indefinitely, it will be in place until a reason materializes for it not to be.

[LTS]

10 minutes ago, dudacek said:

Interesting comments from Adams on the goaltending in his presser this morning.

He essentially said they’ve been “having conversations” about it right up until yesterday, and the “situation around the league” was a major factor in keeping 3 goalies.

Not clear if those conversations were internal or external, but he certainly implied that Comrie and UPL have value and he was not going to give either away for nothing.

Sounded to me like he is waiting for a shoe to drop: team(s) (Tampa?) in need of a goalie making a move to acquire one. Maybe that goalie is one of ours, maybe it’s someone else’s but it reduces the risk of one of ours not clearing waivers?

Maybe one of our goalies cracks, or pouts, or (god forbid) plays well enough to remove the logjam.

But it sounds like even though the 3-headed monster is not something that will be around indefinitely, it will be in place until a reason materializes for it not to be.

This makes sense.  The Sabres clearly do not want to just get rid of a goalie and so they are forced to keep all 3.  They might want a trade, but at the same time teams know that no team wants to carry 3 goaltenders.  It's a battle of wills, are teams like Tampa willing to go into the season with their goaltenders or are they willing to make a trade?

Of course with more players still to hit waivers, and doing so now, that might change things.  For example, is Martin Jones now an option for Tampa?

[Porous Five Hole]

1 hour ago, dudacek said:

Interesting comments from Adams on the goaltending in his presser this morning.

He essentially said they’ve been “having conversations” about it right up until yesterday, and the “situation around the league” was a major factor in keeping 3 goalies.

Not clear if those conversations were internal or external, but he certainly implied that Comrie and UPL have value and he was not going to give either away for nothing.

Sounded to me like he is waiting for a shoe to drop: team(s) (Tampa?) in need of a goalie making a move to acquire one. Maybe that goalie is one of ours, maybe it’s someone else’s but it reduces the risk of one of ours not clearing waivers?

Maybe one of our goalies cracks, or pouts, or (god forbid) plays well enough to remove the logjam.

But it sounds like even though the 3-headed monster is not something that will be around indefinitely, it will be in place until a reason materializes for it not to be.

It really says something about the depth of goaltending league-wide when this team is rolling with a rookie starter & is afraid to send down a fringe NHLer to the minors (fringe is being kind to UPL).  

[LabattBlue]

How many other teams are carrying 3 goalies on their 23 man roster?

[Thorner]

Not worried, just interested.

Some house cleaning, for my part, on Ullmark before we can hopefully leave that in the past because Levi demands it so:

Adams failure re ullmark, to this point, was two fold:

A) failing to sign him

B) not having an adequate backup plan after making that choice

The key point I’d raise in this context is that an asset being overpaid as determined by *market value* isn’t the same thing as an asset being overpaid by true value, ie, value to one specific team. Just because the market may have said that we’d have to slightly “overpay” to keep Linus, doesn’t mean it’s an *actual* overpay re: value to our team. The goal of a successful team of course supersedes the evaluation of any one move by way of market in a vacuum.

Particularly, particularly, if there is no viable backup plan, failing option A. What good is coming out “right” by the market and declining on Ullmark, if the detriment for failing to do so to your actual team is a greater negative? That’s winning battle and losing the war. That’s prioritizing a desire to never “lose” a single move in a vacuum, over the net result. It’s an imbalance of priorities.

In short, KA didn’t have to pay Linus, but paying him was certainly the lesser of two evils IF the other option was failing to adequately address the position. That’s not hindsight: If KA *knew* the goaltending output would be significantly dented he made the incorrect choice, and if he didn’t, “well, I thought I could adequately replace him” isn’t an argument at all if you don’t actually do it. Every GM *thinks* they are making the correct decisions by the prism of the moment - unfortunately for them they get evaluated based on what actually happens. Merely the output Ullmark provided in Buffalo, not what he’d go on to do in Boston, represented a significantly higher degree of aptitude from what we’ve seen since at the position (again, at least until Levi)

By the same token, it won’t matter that at the time we were all disappointed in our rostered backup goalies if UPL or Comrie emerge to provide adequate backup output this season - Adams would be due proper credit for the result he achieved. 

[dudacek]

Colorado claimed the Coyotes #3G today on waivers.

Im not familiar with him, but UPL and Comrie certainly appear to have better resumes.

https://www.hockeydb.com/ihdb/stats/pdisplay.php?pid=196998

[Taro T]

1 hour ago, Thorny said:

Not worried, just interested.

Some house cleaning, for my part, on Ullmark before we can hopefully leave that in the past because Levi demands it so:

Adams failure re ullmark, to this point, was two fold:

A) failing to sign him

B) not having an adequate backup plan after making that choice

The key point I’d raise in this context is that an asset being overpaid as determined by *market value* isn’t the same thing as an asset being overpaid by true value, ie, value to one specific team. Just because the market may have said that we’d have to slightly “overpay” to keep Linus, doesn’t mean it’s an *actual* overpay re: value to our team. The goal of a successful team of course supersedes the evaluation of any one move by way of market in a vacuum.

Particularly, particularly, if there is no viable backup plan, failing option A. What good is coming out “right” by the market and declining on Ullmark, if the detriment for failing to do so to your actual team is a greater negative? That’s winning battle and losing the war. That’s prioritizing a desire to never “lose” a single move in a vacuum, over the net result. It’s an imbalance of priorities.

In short, KA didn’t have to pay Linus, but paying him was certainly the lesser of two evils IF the other option was failing to adequately address the position. That’s not hindsight: If KA *knew* the goaltending output would be significantly dented he made the incorrect choice, and if he didn’t, “well, I thought I could adequately replace him” isn’t an argument at all if you don’t actually do it. Every GM *thinks* they are making the correct decisions by the prism of the moment - unfortunately for them they get evaluated based on what actually happens. Merely the output Ullmark provided in Buffalo, not what he’d go on to do in Boston, represented a significantly higher degree of aptitude from what we’ve seen since at the position (again, at least until Levi)

By the same token, it won’t matter that at the time we were all disappointed in our rostered backup goalies if UPL or Comrie emerge to provide adequate backup output this season - Adams would be due proper credit for the result he achieved. 

Agree with most all this.

The one wildcard that personally still haven't fully come around to is still am not convinced that the "backup" plan wasn't a realization that the team even if it somehow snuck into the playoffs in the last year or two still wasn't ready to legitimately compete for the SC so he wasn't all that upset at the team falling short of where fans wanted it to be the last 2 years because that meant acquiring higher end prospects that would soon (not immediately) but soon be able to support the young talent he'd already brought into the fold.  (And except for Anderson in the past and Johnson this year, ALL the talent he's brought it has been young.  Even Tuch is in the early stages of his prime.)

Hoping that's too cynical, but it would explain why true upgrades between the pipes didn't arrive in the interim from when Ullmark left through to now that Levi appears ready to take a shot at grabbing the reins.

[Hank]

1 hour ago, Taro T said:

Agree with most all this.

The one wildcard that personally still haven't fully come around to is still am not convinced that the "backup" plan wasn't a realization that the team even if it somehow snuck into the playoffs in the last year or two still wasn't ready to legitimately compete for the SC so he wasn't all that upset at the team falling short of where fans wanted it to be the last 2 years because that meant acquiring higher end prospects that would soon (not immediately) but soon be able to support the young talent he'd already brought into the fold.  (And except for Anderson in the past and Johnson this year, ALL the talent he's brought it has been young.  Even Tuch is in the early stages of his prime.)

Hoping that's too cynical, but it would explain why true upgrades between the pipes didn't arrive in the interim from when Ullmark left through to now that Levi appears ready to take a shot at grabbing the reins.

This poses an interesting question...

Given what we have seen from Benson, and what we think he could be, how many posters would prefer a first round playoff exit last year and not getting him?

[Taro T]

18 minutes ago, Hank said:

This poses an interesting question...

Given what we have seen from Benson, and what we think he could be, how many posters would prefer a first round playoff exit last year and not getting him?

The answer would likely vary for many depending upon whether they were asked that question prior to the last draft (or even at the trade deadline) or now that we've seen what he could be.

There is no way ANYBODY (including the Sabres brass, considering how many times they attempted to move up) expected Benson to be available at 13.  And given he was available at 13, might he have been available at 17?  OR if he would only make it to 13, would the Sabres (with or without a 1st rounder, which presumably went in the package to get the player that pushed them over the edge but not necessarily) have been able to come up with a package good enough to get up to 13.  (The Sabres would've been drafting 17 had they been able to keep their 1st rounder and ended up the last seed in the dance while getting eliminted in the 1st or 2nd round.)

Considering how that draft went, it isn't absolutely impossible that both items (Sabres making the playoffs AND landing Benson) occurred in that alternative reality.

Edited October 9, 2023 by Taro T

[Hank]

13 minutes ago, Taro T said:

The answer would likely vary for many depending upon whether they were asked that question prior to the last draft (or even at the trade deadline) or now that we've seen what he could be.

There is no way ANYBODY (including the Sabres brass, considering how many times they attempted to move up) expected Benson to be available at 13.  And given he was available at 13, might he have been available at 17?  OR if he would only make it to 13, would the Sabres (with or without a 1st rounder, which presumably went in the package to get the player that pushed them over the edge but not necessarily) have been able to come up with a package good enough to get up to 13.  (The Sabres would've been drafting 17 had they been able to keep their 1st rounder and ended up the last seed in the dance while getting eliminted in the 1st or 2nd round.)

Considering how that draft went, it isn't absolutely impossible that both items (Sabres making the playoffs AND landing Benson) occurred in that alternative reality.

No, there's only two answers. I would, or, I wouldn't. Neither are wrong. You could have chosen to ignore it. 

[Taro T]

59 minutes ago, Hank said:

No, there's only two answers. I would, or, I wouldn't. Neither are wrong. You could have chosen to ignore it. 

In your binary world, there may only be 2 answers.  😜

But, in the future, should you hope to have a person ignore a question you pose, probably shouldn't pose the question in a post responding to the other poster.  Just sayin'.  😉

Edited October 9, 2023 by Taro T

[Hank]

2 hours ago, Taro T said:

In your binary world, there may only be 2 answers.  😜

But, in the future, should you hope to have a person ignore a question you pose, probably shouldn't pose the question in a post responding to the other poster.  Just sayin'.  😉

That is a very fair point. My apologies. 

[CallawaySabres]

I really still cannot believe that this organization is putting all of their eggs into the Levi basket. If this kid is not the second coming, this team will go nowhere again. I just don’t understand how they can roll the dice with all of the other talent, across-the-board.

[GASabresIUFAN]

2 minutes ago, CallawaySabres said:

I really still cannot believe that this organization is putting all of their eggs into the Levi basket. If this kid is not the second coming, this team will go nowhere again. I just don’t understand how they can roll the dice with all of the other talent, across-the-board.

It doesn’t make much sense does it.