nfreeman

Not interesting. Knock it off.

Jacob Markstrom -- drafted in 2008 -- 1st year as a starter: 2017-18 Darcy Kuemper -- drafted in 2009 -- 1st year as a starter: 2018-19. Jack Campbell -- drafted in 2010 -- 1st year as a starter: 2021-22. Linus Ullmark -- drafted in 2012 -- 1st year as a starter: 2021-22 (41 starts). Ville Husso -- drafted in 2014 -- 1st year as a starter: 2021-22 (40 starts). Ilya Sorokin -- drafted in 2014 -- 1st year as a starter: 2021-22 ...and none of them was stuck behind Hellebuyck. I think the conversation has shifted a bit here. I was responding to your assertion that KA hasn't shown that he can capably evaluate goalies -- not to your subsequent assertion that, at this point in time, he hasn't adequately addressed the goalie position. Of course if we take a snapshot right now, the goalie situation is, as a factual matter, inadequate, as the goalies are an unproven, shaky rookie and the oldest guy in the league. The point is that taking a snapshot at this moment is a silly and purely academic exercise -- we can't evaluate whether the goalie situation has been adequately addressed by KA until we can evaluate Comrie, i.e. KA's primary means of addressing it. If you want to jump to the conclusion that Comrie's failure to seize a starting job prior to this year means that he won't be able to handle the top job with the Sabres, and therefore that KA has failed to adequately address the goaltending, you are of course free to do so. I will also say, again, that at the end of the day, Comrie's injury, Samuelsson's injury, other injuries, the disinclination of most of the league's players toward coming here, etc. -- none of it in any way reduces KA's accountability for the team's results. He is 100% accountable, including for failure to secure good goaltending if that's how this plays out. My point is simply that we don't know yet how it will play out, since Comrie has only played 11 games here.

Except that no such evidence exists. Before this season he started a total of 28 games, and the bulk of his career was spent behind a no-BS elite goalie in Hellebuyck. Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. Also, if we're going to start "haha"ing at each others' posts, the quality of the dialogue here will be greatly diminished. There are very few opinions here that are laughably wrong or illogical, and I'm pretty confident that you've contributed your share, just like the rest of us.

Yes -- I noted the use of "thus far" in my post, as part of my comment on how its usage, and the analysis it implies, is logically a bit lightweight IMHO when applied in this context. That logic would've similarly been lacking if, after Comrie's 1st 3 starts of the season, when he was 2-1 with a .930 SV% against 3 good teams, posters had been claiming that "thus far, it looks like KA has a good eye for goalies." (Although I'm fairly confident that posters did express similar thoughts.)

Well, yes. Similarly, you could also say that thus far he has failed to build a playoff team -- but since we are 25 games into this season, one could also argue that the results are incomplete. Again, Comrie was brought in to be the #1 this season. He played 11 games and got hurt. If you still want to say that KA failed to adequately address the position, without waiting to see how Comrie does over the course of the season -- presumably by failing to bring in a 2nd starter-quality goalie who could pick up the reins when Comrie went down -- I suppose that is technically true, but also kinda unrealistic and jumping to conclusions IMHO.

I'm not sure where you're going with all of this. I think we can be pretty confident that KA tried to sign Ullmark, Murray and Gibson. Of those 3, 2 of them are looking quite good this year, while one is not. When those 3 rejected the Sabres (despite certain posters' certitude that bringing players to Buffalo who have other options isn't difficult), he brought in Comrie on a show-me deal. Comrie looked pretty good to start the season, then had a few shaky outings, which coincided with the team overall playing poorly during their lengthy losing streak, then got hurt. He's played a total of 11 games in Buffalo -- hardly enough of a sample size to arrive at any conclusions. As for UPL, he's 23 and has played a total of 18 NHL games, including 5 this year. The plan was for him to develop and play 50-60 games in Rochester this year, with perhaps a few in Buffalo. He hasn't looked good in Buffalo this year but again -- very early and very small sample size. So, if your point is "KA's ability to choose good goalies is uncertain" -- I'll say OK, that's fair enough. But I don't think it's fair to say "KA has shown that he's unable to evaluate goalies," if that was your point. More data is needed.

I could be wrong, but I think his contract is structured such that the cap penalties are unmanageable if they keep him for less than 3 seasons. He's an elite athlete who seems to be a pretty driven guy. I wouldn't be at all surprised if he plays well in the playoffs next year and very well in the RS and playoffs the following year. Let's hope so.

Well, many people here might think that this was KA's plan, but we really have no idea -- and there is evidence to the contrary in KA's pursuit of Murray and Gibson.

Dammit. That is a huge blow. He is such a difference-maker. So best case now is getting him back for the playoffs next season?

Does anyone have an injury update on Lyubushkin?

They are 3 games under DeLuca .500. If they don’t fall any further, and rip off a 4-game winning streak, they will be solidly in playoff contention.

Certainly the Deluca .500 concept is rough justice. @Taro T's approach of needing 1.2 pts per game is more precise. I rely on Deluca .500 because (i) it allows you to look at just their record, without checking the standings, to get a sense of where they are, (ii) the loser pts tend to even out over time and (iii) Deluca .500 is a surprisingly accurate barometer despite its shortcomings -- i.e. teams that finish below that line very seldom make the playoffs, and teams that finish above it usually make it and are just about always in the running. For example, if the Sabres rip off a 4-game winning streak starting tonight, I will offer a Sabrespace guarantee that everyone here will be talking playoffs.

They are 3 games under DeLuca .500. If they don’t fall any further, and rip off a 4-game winning streak, they will be solidly in playoff contention.

Well, it's a message board. People disagree, and many who do so will be defending the home team, especially after a couple of wins. But no one is being shouted down, and criticism of KA is far from prohibited. For that matter, I think there is quite a bit of support for calling things as they are, and plenty of recognition that the all-or-nothing perspective is flawed. I think very few here would say that KA is batting 1.000. Speaking only for myself, I take issue with the claims that KA has decided not to improve the team and is sitting on his hands for some unexplained reason, and that it's not difficult to get good players who want to be here. Both of these are demonstrably false and IMHO kinda silly. That doesn't mean that I don't think KA is accountable for the team he ices and the results it produces, including, if Comrie isn't the guy and the goaltending stinks again, for failing to improve one of the most important spots on the roster. He is 100% accountable.

First bolded -- then why did he try to trade for Matt Murray, who, as noted upthread, makes $6.25MM per year (Ottawa retained 25% when they traded him to Toronto, so Toronto is on the hook for $4.6875MM per year)? 2nd bolded -- this is just assuming away the issue by assuming a happy ending. IMHO, the Sabres have had enough disgruntled players here, in full view of KA, for KA to reasonably decide that the wrong attitude about being here is a deal-breaker. You are of course free to disagree. 3rd bolded -- I don't see how Anderson supports your view. Anderson originally signed here as a vet minimum UFA. Obviously he was happy to be here. That's an entirely different situation from trading for someone who is unhappy about being forced to be here against his will. 4th bolded -- was trading for Matt Murray at a high cash and cap hit, after 3 crappy seasons and 2 teams giving up on him, not taking a risk? What about committing long-term and large dollars to TT and Mule after a half-season of strong play?

So, it looks like tomorrow we'll get the following, which is what we saw in the 2nd & 3rd periods vs SJ: VO-Jost-Mitts Zemgus-Krebs-KO VO-Jost-Mitts was terrible vs SJ, while Zemgus-Krebs-KO was lousy in the 2nd period but quite good in the 3rd period. I'm not optimistic about VO-Jost-Mitts, but I want to see it for more than a couple of periods. I'm cautiously optimistic about Zemgus-Krebs-KO, as I think Zemgus' and KO's strengths complement Krebs' weaknesses well, and Krebs brings some playmaking and ability to create chances to the table. As a related matter, DG was on WGR this morning and said that he knows Mitts and VO have been struggling, but he thinks they are improving and on the right track.

First bolded -- I'm pretty sure it means KA wants guys who are psyched to be members of the Sabres, not guys who reluctantly took the $$ because they had no other options or guys who were traded here against their will. 2nd bolded -- you keep saying this too. Again, the trade market isn't a magic solution to the "don't want to be here" issue. KA isn't going to trade for someone who is going to be unhappy if he is traded here. I agree that if they start winning, more guys will want to be here. That doesn't mean that trading for guys who don't want to be here will make them start winning. As for the payroll, I'll ask you the same question I asked SidC: do you not think that if a good goalie or top-4 defenseman, or both, had wanted to join the Sabres last summer at, say, $4MM to $5MM per year, KA would've signed them?

I agree that KA has a plan for the cap, and that it almost certainly includes big contracts for Cozens and Dahlin next summer. I also agree that KA needs to discuss and justify his expenditures to TP. But I also am very confident that if, say, a good goalie or top-4 defenseman, or both, had wanted to join the Sabres last summer at, say, $4MM to $5MM per year, KA would've been able to sign them. Do you not think so?

If TP were limiting the payroll, KA wouldn't have brought in a $2MM per year 4th-liner in Jost, or have attempted to bring in a reclamation project goalie who would've cost between $3.125MM and $6.25MM per year (depending on the amount of salary Ottawa would've retained) in Matt Murray, or have committed to $50MM for TT or $30MM for Mule. Again, you keep saying KA isn't trying to improve the team because he for some incomprehensible reason refuses to acquire a defenseman or another goalie. We know that one of KA's core principles is to bring in only guys who want to be here. Do you have any examples of guys who he could've brought in who would've been happy to come here?

I think I’ve been optimistic and confident about playoffs every single summer during this misbegotten streak, including after Black Sunday. This year they’re really going to make it though.

This is kinda cool: https://streamja.com/krpw1

I don't think it's reasonable to ask someone to prove a negative, or generally possible to prove a negative. If someone asserts that someone else posted something outlandish, it's on the poster making the assertion to prove it -- not on the skeptics to prove it didn't happen.

I too think 55 pts is much more realistic for Cuzzie than 80 is, and that this line will cool off once the opponents get some film on them and start prioritizing defending them, and if and when the Sabres get back to being a team that generally gets the opponents' #1 goalies and A games. Still, I wouldn't be shocked if Cozens hits 60 pts. More importantly, it looks like there is a pretty good likelihood that Cozens will develop into a quality #2 C, which is a precious commodity in the NHL, and gives the Sabres a good shot at a strong C group generally, if Savoie, Kulich, Östlund and/or Krebs can develop into a good #3 C.

I did think about it. Every team has injuries, losing streaks and other idiosyncratic obstacles that it needs to overcome to win in the NHL. The Sabres had some injuries and went to pieces, resulting in an awful losing streak and in turn their current record. If the Sabres are unable to avoid going to pieces when they have injuries -- which are inevitable, including to key players -- then they simply won't be good enough to make the playoffs, and certainly not to be contenders. It's not that complicated.

My point is that it kinda does define them though, at least in part. They lost a key defender -- a guy who is pretty likely to sustain injuries and miss time regularly -- and they went to pieces. If Mule blocks a shot and goes down again for, say, 6 games, are you confident that they won't go 1-5 in those 6 games? A team is what its record says it is.