Taro T

Well, the silver lining in losing UPL to waivers is if he is claimed the claiming team needs to get him into 10 games (dressing as the backup counts) or keep him up for at least 30 days before sending him down or else the Sabres jump to the front of the line to reclaim him. (After any other teams that made a claim at that time.) So, if the Sabres really want him back, they'll likely be able to do so. And if they aren't able to reclaim him, he still may be helping the Sabres by losing games for a TB or other rival.

It makes a ton of sense. The Amerks are the development wing of the or-gan-i-za-tion. There is no room on the Sabres on any sort of consistent LT basis for Johnson to be running the PP. Let him spend his time becoming a stud PKer and focus on breaking up plays and moving the puck up ice at 5v5.

Dang, we're even using versions of the same analogies now. 😄

Well, they've said they won't use Johnson on the PP down in Ra-cha-cha because that job is locked up in Buffalo between Dahlin and Power. So, if you aren't going to use him there, why bother in exhibition season? Wouldn't minded seeing Metsa get a chance there but after Johnson gets called up to Buffalo Clague and Bryson could very well be Ra-cha-cha's PP QBs. And though really respect @Weave's opinions really don't believe that both Comrie and UPL will be Sabres on October 11. Either 1's an Amerk or he's wearing some other team's logo either due to a trade or simply getting claimed off waivers.

Thompson just totally got toasted on that. 3-1 on the empty netter from O'Connor.

2nd unit - Mittelstadt, Biro, Bryson, Cederqvist, and Peterka.

Can the Sabres do anything on the PP when the final TV timeout of the night is over? Didn't pay attention to who we had out there on the earlier one. Thompson, Mittelstadt, Benson, Peterka, and Johnson? Thompson, Benson, Clague, Greenway, and believe Peterka. Kulich.

Comrie was expecting that to get past the man in front that tipped that. And he legitimately had reason to fear the backdoor play because that guy was completely open.

Biro came so close to getting the goal off the takeaway. Just caught the wrong side of the post.

And we're basically talking past each other. You are right that Fantilli will be 19 when this season opens. And Eichel was 19 for almost the entire year his rookie year, but he started out at 18. Dahlin was 18 essentially his entire rookie year. But your argument seems to be that well, in general, 18 yo's don't make the NHL and even fewer are impactful. We are in agreement on that. But that doesn't really color the discussion about Zach Benson at this point in time. Because he is passing the eye test a week and a half ahead of the NHL season actually beginning. Heck, the "smart" opinion is that Levi will be in over his head, if not immediately then soon after a book is out on him. But he passes the eye test too. And at this point, it doesn't make sense to view him in relation to the entire set of college goalies. One of these things is not like the others. IMHO, Benson has earned the opportunity to demonstrate that he might not be also. Doubt we'll see eye to eye on this. And that's fine. We'll see 2 weeks from now how it ends up playing out.

And they DID give up Fitzgerald for nothing. So, it happens that they do give up on players. Personally expect Clague to be the 8 if they keep 8 up. And should they need to bring the 8 into the lineup, as soon as the injured guy is on IR we'll see R. Johnson get his opportunity to show what he can do.

And Ryan O'Reilly was a 2nd rounder who made the show out of the gate too. (Much different body type and player than either Skinner or Benson and he wasn't a scorer early in his career; but it DOES happen on occassion.)

But that's the inverse of the same logic that people who weren't paying attention to how he was playing were using for keeping Sam Reinhart on the big club after his 9 game look had passed. "Well, the last guy drafted in the top 3 that DIDN'T make the NHL right off was Dumont. So, they will keep him." (Then it became they have to keep him.) Reinhart wasn't ready for it. Well, he wasn't ready for it. He was good sized for an 18 yo but was getting knocked around a lot and he wasn't strong enough nor strong enough on his skates to be effective in the NHL. Even the Murray run Sabres ended up smart enough to see that he was better off rounding out his game in the W than getting knocked around in the show. There are always exceptions to every "rule." Only 2-3 18 year olds any given year are ready for the NHL and actually make it and belong there. Just because the Sabres lucked out and got this kid to slide to 13 doesn't mean he doesn't belong nor that he doesn't even deserve a shot and that he ISN'T one of those 2-3 that deserve that opportunity this season. He's looking really good so far. Don't believe so. As stated above, there truly are only 2-3 kids each year that belong in the NHL at 18 (and occasionally not even that many). But IMHO saying only a couple or a handful are good enough to make that jump and even fewer truly belong doesn't really matter. This discussion isn't about a generic 18 yo. It is about Benson specifically. And he hasn't looked out of place at all and IMHO has been one of the 10 best Sabres forwards that have been put out onto the ice. And agree that he will end up where he's supposed to. Adams and Granato seem to have a good handle on that aspect of the game.

Game isn't on TV. it's on the Sabres website. (Pens broadcast though.)

Cool, so we're on the same page.

The Bolts likely do have to do something. Which is why with having the 20th spot in the waiver claim order they might not want to chance one of 19 other teams taking the guy they want when they could give up a 2nd or 3rd rounder and land the guy. Not saying they'll want UPL or Comrie, but they might. And if they do, they might not want to risk getting one for free.

True to the bolded. But, if Benson earns a regular season look over these next 4 games (that he might legitimately play in 3 of them) see no harm in giving him his 9 game look see. But, the reason Eichel wasn't playing well in the NHL at 18 wasn't because he wasn't good enough. It's because most of his 18 year old year was spent tearing up the NCAA waiting for his draft class to be selected. And apologies for the repetition, but really don't see why Benson should be kept off the Sabres IF he earns a spot and makes the Sabres better just because he's 18.

Even if they do bring somebody from the outside in it needs to be a Saros or Hellebucyk to even think about dropping Levi down to the backup role. EVERYBODY has Levi in as the starter in magic marker at this point.

Not sure who their backup is. But they'll be pretty far down the waiver wire list for the 1st couple of weeks of the year regardless of their on-ice results. That's the sort of team that might be open to a trade for a backup with NHL experience. (Even if it isn't exactly stellar experience. Sometimes beggars can't be choosers.)

IF the difference between the 2 is truly negligible, then yes. Not sure that they actually believe the 2 are essentially interchangable in the results they'll get from them. And still believe the reason they have Tokarski at 4 on the depth chart (and even Cooley at 5) is because they expect they're waiving or trading one 1/3 of the 3 headed monster and they don't expect the guy they send down to clear waiver and Tokarski is really the 3 (or Cooley is).

If he earns it, you keep him up. This team is on a 12 year playoff-less drought. Management is on record as saying they want not just playoffs this year, but to actually legitimately compete for the Stanley Cup. This team already decided to avoid losing any of its precious lottery tickets to upgrade the G2 role. That doesn't mesh with that stated goal. Sending Benson down IF he has earned a spot in the top 9 also works against that particular stated goal. IF Benson really is that good 4 years from now that an LT deal would push the team to cap issues, 1st off that's a really good problem to have considering how young this team is (and still will be) and how Adams is constantly talking about the plan being to build from within - he'll have to have been nailing these picks and many of these kids that look like they'll be great must actually be getting there. 2nd off, at that time, then give him a 1 year (or 2 year deal) which gives him arbitration rights that next year IIRC but it keeps him far from becoming an UFA (he'd still have to play 3 more seasons after that 1 year deal expires to become a UFA. Agree that they always should be looking big picture; but sometimes you can let yourself become too cute by 1/2. Sending Benson down even though he IS one of your 10 best F's today because you want 1 extra year on his ELC even though the window opens NOW would seem to be an example of just that.

They do seem to like UPL more; but down the stretch last year he was usually the odd man out. Even moreso than Comrie. And personally have nearly 0 faith in UPL, so am hoping Comrie truly shines tonight (not expecting it, but hoping for it). Because, again, from this point of view Comrie has a higher floor than UPL does. And that's what they need in a backup. Answer the question of who is more likely to give them competent goaltending 30-35 times this season? Personally, expect it to be Comrie. But like you, kind of expect Bales and Granato expect it's UPL.

Disagree. This game they're giving Comrie the chance to earn the backup job. He looked better against scrubs than UPL did. IF he can still look good against an NHL roster with a D even worse than he had in front of him in the Sabres darkest days last year, he earns it. (Wouldn't have money on it.) If not, UPL still has a shot to win the cripple fight.

If he's one of the top 9 or 10 (not sure they'll give him a roster spot if he's only the 11th or 12th guy because they wouldn't be seeing that much of a team improvement between that and #13) then it would certainly seem his development would be best served playing against NHLers. The cool thing is, they have more than a single keep/cut decision deadline for him and as he evolves the decision could change. (And realize you know these milestones. This spot is just a good spot to put them.) Obviously the 1st one is on the 1st day of the season when they have to be cap compliant. Unless something major changes in these next several days am expecting him to make the keep threshold there because as soon as he's sent back to WA he's gone until their season is done barring a ST emergency callup that might never be possible unless there are serious injury issues, so hopefully that's not a possible option. After that, there's when he's played 9 games. If they give him 1 more game, he burns a year off his ELC. Less obvious he'll clear that hurdle, but wouldn't bet against it. After that, there'd be when he's been active roster for 39 games (and active roster includes games he misses due to injury while on the official roster). Because the 40th game gets him an accrued season towards FA and most all the rest. That's the tricky one. If he's still here by then is he still getting regular ice time or is he seeming to burn out a bit. Am really interested to see how it plays out for him. Guys drafted outside the top 2 or 3 slots rarely play their D+1 year in the NHL. Would be cool if he's good enough to earn that. He just might be. And probably is.

They likely will send 2/3's of the Amerks down sometime after Saturday's game and then leave 8 or so guys that they are still considering for roster spots and 1st callups with the team until after the last preseason game. The 1st RS game isn't until the 11th so there'll be plenty of time for practicing with the "real" lines after exhibition season is done for the guys that actually are Sabres. Will be interesting to see how they deploy the goalies these last 4 games. Could see them giving Levi the start tonight and in the last game and giving Comrie and UPL the others to see if either will claim the backup role. And should Cooley (sp?) or Tokarski get a start, expect Eric and Ukka need to be on the phone to their agents saying "tell them to trade me right ####ing now." (But doubt that's the plan. Though we shall see.)