dudacek

The bolded is a far more salient point. The flip side of “lock ‘em up while you can still afford them”. Pretty hard to judge Adams 1 year into a half-dozen long-term deals. But each one he adds makes the next one harder to accommodate and he has to get most of them right.

Most poor decisions can be justified at the time. Most good decisions can be justifiably criticized at the time. I thought Victor Olofsson could serve as adequate insurance for Jack Quinn because he scored 28 last year. I was wrong. I thought the goalie situation was extraordinarily risky to start this year. Turns out Adams was right that his goalies were good enough, it just took him too long to figure out how to deploy them.

I’m not saying adding competition is bad. On the contrary, I’d like it. I am saying it’s necessity at this position in my mind has greatly diminished.

It’s not at all the same principle. This year, three unproven goalies, toss them in a blender, and hope 2 emerge in some shape or form as a competent duo. Next year, clear-cut #1 coming off a strong year, promising #2 who has looked fine in limited rookie sample size. Devon Levi is 22, not 20, and he’ll turn 23 by Christmas. He’s 15-10-2 as an NHL goalie. He’s also 11-5-3 with a .927 save percentage in the AHL after a few seasons of being one of the best goalies in NCAA. Looking at the numbers, pencilling him in as 1 of 2 goalies this October is very much in line with doing the same for Jake Oettinger with Holtby in 20/21, or Jeremy Swayman with Ullmark in 21/22. It’s a risk, but a justifiable one. In fact, looking around the league, I’d wager the odds of having 2 good goalies at the same time is far more likely rolling the dice in this fashion than signing or trading for the “best goalie available.”

Just so everybody is clear on the facts. Dylan Cozens signed his extension in the middle of his career year. Tage Thompson signed his big contract before his career year. Mattias Samuelsson signed his deal the year before his “career” year too (if you can call it that.) Rasmus Dahlin had a year left on his contract when he signed his extension. It was after his best year, but the year after signing has been his 2nd best. He has yet to collect a penny from his big deal. Owen Power signed his after just 87 NHL games and also had a year left on his deal. He has yet to collect a penny of his big deal either. He’s going to finish with roughly the same numbers as in his only other full season. I don’t think the bolded is as obvious as you say.

I think the fundamental disagreement here is in our rating of Levi. Simply put, I think he’s a better bet to give us 3.06, .901 goaltending or better for 30 games next season than most of the goalies you’d consider to be in the 25-50 range of NHL goalies. And that tempers how much I’m willing to invest in another goalie like the 20 or so I listed upthread. Or you’re saying that every team needs 3 NHL goalies when likely playoff teams we’re chasing like Washington, Detroit, Tampa and Toronto clearly don’t. Wants 3? Of course we do. As to the bold, absolutely my stance has moved on our goalie situation, because this year has given me reason to believe we have 2 good ones when last summer it was only blind faith in Levi that led me to believe we had any. Like I said, the frame of reference has changed.

Basically you started last season with 3 unproven goalies, none of them with a defined role, one of them with negligible pro experience, and a loose, unearned pecking order Next season you’d be starting with a clear number one, who played very well in his single year in that role, and an unproven number 2 who was dominant in the AHL and put up a winning record along with a respectable .901 and 3.06 over 27 NHL starts. Would I like to add a 200-game vet on a 1-year deal and similar numbers to Levi? Absolutely because I too want to cover my bases. UPL could go all Tage Thompson on us. But I don’t think it’s the same situation at all as it was last summer in terms of risk management. The context has significantly changed.

Not many NHL goalie situations that aren’t inherently risky. See, the latter sentence gets to the nut of it. And it gets back to my initial question: what exactly is the “problem” you’re trying to solve? It sounds like something that can only be addressed with a Hellebuyck or a Shesterkin. Because to me, the rest of them all look like hypothetical or potential solutions.

Boy is finally on a bender. 9 goals, 8 assists, 17 points, +12 in his last 12 games. Team is 7-5 over that stretch.

I was thinking this while watching last night and running the tape back to Adams trade deadline presser. Plug Greenway into Rousek’s slot with Krebs and Skinner, add 3 fast, tenacious forecheckers, one of which is a defensively strong 3/4C and we’re looking at next year’s roster. Its going to make the place really hard to read this summer but it’s going to happen. Come November, most of Sabrespace will either be eating crow, or praying it’s not too late for our new coach to get us back in the race.

Maybe, but the conversation I’m trying to have is about this summer, not last summer. Is starting the season with Luukkonen (by this season’s numbers a good starter) and Levi (by this season’s numbers an average backup) a problem in need of an active solution?

Why should it be considered a problem?

There needs to be some acknowledgement that the context to this debate has shifted since last summer. I loosely defined "backup" as goalies who have played 15-35 games this year Devon Levi ranks 18th in SV%, and 20th in GAA I defined "starter" as goalies who have played more than 35 games. UPL ranks 12th and 8th Overall, Luukkonen is 21st and 13th and Levi 47th and 49th out of 68 goalies. Of course the question remains 'Yeah, but they're so young. Where's the track record?" One response might be "Tell me who has a dependable track record? Merzlikins, Korpisalo, Raanta, Vanecek, Husso, Allen, Gibson, Kahkonen, Vejmalka, Kuemper, Forsberg, Blackwood, Gustafsson, Mrazek, Jarry, Lankinen, Grubauer, Samsonov, Fleury...did any of these guys significantly outplay Levi this year? Or this: .899 3.10 .900 2.86 One is Devon Levi, the other Andrei Vasilevskiy Ideally, I want a proven NHL backup who Levi will clearly have to beat out to be in the NHL. How much would we have to give up to acquire a goalie we "know" is going to be better than Levi? How much are we willing to spend on a "just in case"? How many proven NHL backups will be interested in coming here knowing what the Sabres feel about Levi?

While my previous post is my direct answer to @tom webster's thread-starting question, I think I also need to answer his subtext: and that is not whether this season is a failure, but whether this rebuild and its architects are a failure. And my answer to that is: not yet, but crunch time is arriving. Adams made no secret of the fact that his plan was to collect a critical mass of young talent, then have it learn and grow together into a team that could contend for a decade. Our cynics rolled their eyes at that as just a way of making his leash as long as possible. But I believe it is a legitimate path to success and one I think works if you are right on your talent evaluations. Because Jeff Skinner is an outlier. Skinner made the NHL at 18, scored 30 goals and 65 points, played crappy defence and got under a lot of people’s skins. He’s been that player for most of his 14 seasons and he remains that player today. But — like Webster’s opening post implies — most NHL players and youthful rebuilds don’t work that way. Players arrive unfinished and spend a few years learning how they can best succeed at NHL hockey. They don’t establish a level and an identity until sometime into their 3rd or 4th season, after they have 200 or 300 games under their belts. Consider these Sabres: Tuch broke out in season 6, after 305 games Dahlin broke out in season 5 after 277 games Thompson broke out in season 5 (he missed all of season 3 due to injury) after 145 games Mittelstadt broke out in season 5 after 195 games The first 3 are now young veterans and key members of Adams handpicked core. And as much as many of you hate this, the rest of his “blinding light brigade” is still cooking: Cozens 270 games, about to enter season 5 (and probably broke out in season 3 after 120 games) Krebs 205, about to enter season 3 Byram 155, about to enter season 4 Power 153, about to enter season 3 Peterka 151, about to enter season 3 Samuelsson 150, about to enter season 3 Quinn 94, about to enter season 3 Luukkonen 92, about to enter season 3 Benson 61, about to enter season 2 Levi 28, about to enter season 2 This season failed because that group was not good enough yet and because Adams and Granato didn’t give them the support they needed. And they need to make sure they don’t repeat the latter mistake this summer. But - like it or not - their big picture plan succeeds or fails on how many of those young players take a step and their windows are just starting to open. Many of you will see it differently, but I see the first 2 seasons of the Adams rebuild as successful in terms of the path he was walking. Season 3 has been a failure, but I have no interest in firing him at this point. Growth is never smooth. He gets a chance to react and adjust to this year. Granato, I like and want to see succeed, but this is pro sports. I make the call on his future based on player interviews and his plans for revamping his staff and fixing the offence. If I decide to retain him, it’s on a short leash. But chucking the plan at this juncture seems premature to me.

Absolutely we should have expected more from this year. And that’s even if you subscribe to my personal belief that this is more realistically described as year 3 of a ripped-down-to-the-studs rebuild. (People seem to forget that we started ‘Adams 2.0’ with our top 6 forwards coming off seasons of 13, 10, 8, 7, 4 and 2 goals, respectively, and for 3 of those guys, those were career bests). Last year’s Sabres team missed the playoffs by just 1 point coming off 2 years of steady improvement. It clearly had talent given the offence it had just put up. It was resilient, fast and explosive. Its holes — goaltending, PK, commitment to team defence, stoutness up front, and depth on the blue line were pretty obvious and should have been fixable. Ironically, the team looks to have fixed, or at least improved, most of those holes. But in the process it got slower and easier to frustrate. Sabrespace has wrongly excoriated this team as being terrible when really it’s kinda like it was last year — just a different shade of mediocre. But the pieces and the opportunities were there last summer for Adams and Granato to make this year something more and they were unable to do so. Sure the core is callow, but Adams did not bring in the right pieces, nor Granato push the right buttons to smooth or mask the pitfalls of that reality. I can’t see any way to describe this year as anything other than a failure. And they have to own that.

Doubling down? 4 of the past 6 Stanley Cup winners were coached by men who never played NHL hockey. A 5th played just 36 games. John Tortorella, Claude Julien, Mike Babcock, Bob Hartley, Pat Burns, Scotty freaking Bowman — half of this century's cup-winners never played NHL hockey. Bowman, Burns, Hartley, Babcock and Cooper never even played pro hockey at all. Barry Trotz had a worse record than Granato in each of his first 5 NHL seasons — under .500 and missed the playoffs in every single one. Cup. Granato may or may not be a good coach, but the fact he didn't play in the NHL has nothing to do with it.

And/or that they don't have Nathan MacKinnon setting the pace or the tone? Do people actually find it particularly revelatory the Avalanche practice and play faster than the Sabres? Don't the Avalanche play faster than pretty much everybody? Hasn't Granato been urging the team to play faster all season long? This is not an endorsement of Granato, it's my attempt to point out that there is an equally plausible argument that Mitts' comment illustrates that the Sabres players are immature. That's been their story all season. Those are the cards the coach has been dealt. Suddenly surrounded by talented, driven adults, maybe it's dawning on Casey that there really is another level. Or let me put it this way, you add MacKinnon to the Sabres and Granato would suddenly become a much-better coach. Lindy Ruff coached the Sabres to 82, 72 and 85-point seasons from 2002-05 — or basically 3 straight years of what we have watched this year. And then Darcy gave him Chris Drury.

Jared Bednar Jon Cooper Barry Trotz Not exactly the best argument I've seen for rejecting a coach.

The gist of it is pretty simple: he believes in his people and he believes in his plan. When the fanbase absolutely believes neither, and is essentially told - yet again - to be patient, depression sets in. I'm signing off, probably for the duration of the season unless something notable happens. I like this place most of the time, but sharing in the lamentations isn't really my thing. The past few days brought back some good hockey talk though. Thanks for that.

So have we kept him? Honestly, I think I'd rather watch him and VO than Tyson Jost and Brett Murray down the stretch if we were only getting a couple fifths.

You alluded to it earlier, but Benson's playmaking and Thompson's physical gifts always made sense to me. First thing I though of when we picked him was "Skinner replacement"

Yes. I don't think Mitts for Byram is that — Byram is a Stanley Cup winning top 4 NHL defenceman with upside, not a prospect and a pick. Okposo played here for 8 years and was the captain, so he's not just any player. And Johnson is simply done. Trading him to the highest bidder is GM 101. But it certainly happened with Ullmark and Reinhart and O'Reilly, so the parallels are easy to draw and the track record is impossible to ignore. Nothing screams winning culture like winning.

Saw that one coming. RJ needed to be on the clear-day roster so he can help Roch on a playoff run and Tyson was the most logical call-up to fill in for the trades. I think Ryan is more likely to upset over missing the prayer meetings than the parties, but to each his own I guess.

It's what I would have done and thought was the plan looking at all the very talented, but probably not elite pieces we had up front. The reason I'm not dismissing the trade is because, in theory, having three 1st-pairing defencemen is also path that could work.

Watching the forwards last night without Mitts and Tage got me thinking about how bad it's going to look subbing guys like Rousek and Jost in for guys who can hold their own against NHLers like Kyle and Gus. Might get ugly. I doubt there were many contenders who wouldn't be interested in a 220-pound leader with 12 goals and experience on both special teams. It's the epitome of the kind of depth guy that gets traded at the deadline. He was sent to the team he wanted to go to and feels gives him the best shot at winning a cup before he retires. Doesn't hurt that his short time there will be spent in nice weather, hanging out with his good buddy Sam. This had nothing to do with shopping for the best return. Kyle called his shot and Adams got what he could. This was a reward.