JohnC

I'm predicting that the Sabres will be competing for a playoff spot all season long. Will they finally qualify? Yes, if the goaltending is consistently respectable. That's the big question. Two years ago, UPL demonstrated that he was at a stage where it seemed that he was going to be a legitimate NHL starter. However, last year, he fell off the cliff Needless to say, he's a fragile player for a position that requires tough-mindedness. Handling failure is a big aspect of that position. Last year, the word resiliency was not part of his vocabulary. In @dudacek's excellent listing of his expectations for most of the players, a good summarization of the group is that the driving force for improvement will be internal improvement of our young players. The players I am very intrigued about who were on the roster last year are Quinn, Benson and Power. I'm hoping they have a leap year. And the new players that I will be following are Doan and Kesserling.

Where the heck are you coming from? You act as if I would be a critic if Tuch got signed to a long term deal. Your responses make no sense to me as it relates to this topic.

I just checked the Sabre site and it noted that the start date hasn’t officially been given yet. The first preseason game is against Columbus on Sept. 22. I suspect camp will start next week.

That all! 😀

Do you know how much he paid for his big boat?

When did I say that everything the Sabres did is bad? You are the one creating a false narrative (as it applies to me) to justify your fawning attitude towards a franchise that hasn't made the playoffs in a generation. Certainly, not all criticisms are merited. But that isn't to say that many aren't.

San Jose took an action that it felt was beneficial for them. And it was within the rules. So what is the problem with that and the reason for criticism of what they did? That's the heart of the discussion on this topic. I simply made the point that I have no criticism for the cap maneuver they made that was within the cap rules.

Whether you or I like the rule is not the point. Teams are allowed to buy or sell a contract without gaining the services of the player in order to reach the cap floor. It comes down to a team taking an action that is permissible that it feels is beneficial. So what's the problem with that? People legally/appropriately take tax deductions even when the specific deduction is outdated. Why would you criticize the person who takes the lawful deduction when it is allowed under the tax rules? Everyone is playing under the same rules. Some organizations use them to their advantage more so than others. And when they do they are acting within the established lines.

How many people are saying that everything the organization does is bad? There is a small slice of posters among the many who reflexively criticize every decision. So what! They don’t represent the prevailing view that the hockey staff doesn’t makes enough good decisions to keep up with their competitors. When you check the record you will find that it is a reasonable view to have.

Read carefully to what I wrote. I said that they are not likely and inclined to do so. I didn’t say never. And that is a fact. The SABRES can handle their contract situation any way they want. That’s not the end all or be all when evaluating them. The bottom line is their record. On that measurement they are lagging.

Why do you have a problem with San Jose taking on a contract to get to the cap minimum? You might not like the contract maneuver but it’s within the rules. It’s not something that the Sabres would likely do, and I’m fine with that. But I’m not going to criticize another organization that is more creative and willing to take unconventional actions to improve their situation.

Are you arguing that he shouldn't be signed for a long-term deal? If you are, it is a perplexing stance to take because not signing him makes the Sabres a lesser team.

This would be a good deal for both parties. I would prefer a 7-year deal. But if he gets an 8-year deal, then so what. From an organizational standpoint, not getting a deal done because of an extra year on a contract would make no sense at all for this lagging franchise.

You are extrapolating from a decidedly minority view in order to justify your lenient view of not holding the organization accountable for their poor record. It was a minority view that Tuch would not extend with Buffalo. There were follow-up discussions regarding what it would mean if he didn't sign. I was involved in that discussion and made the point, also made by many others, that it would be a devasting blow to the team and what it might mean for some of the other players, such as Dahlin and Tage. It's rare that you will get unanimity of viewpoints when you have a large and varied audience. You are taking a minority view and attributing it to the majority in order to support your position. The problem I have with this organization is not that they get all things wrong. That would be an absurd position to take. The problem that I have is that it doesn't do enough things to put the team in a more favorable position. It shouldn't be a surprise that when you have a stolid person as your GM that there will be a lack of imagination and initiative in his actions. I didn't advocate for a substantial roster remake this offseason. However, I expected a little more activity in adding to the roster. Unsurprisingly, it didn't happen.

Your response makes no sense to me. I am assuming that he will sign. And that will be a good thing. Signing an extension with one of your own players is what is normally done. You seem to portray it as if it is an exceptional act. It’s not. It’s how most franchises conduct business. And maybe you are not aware of it but not making the playoffs for a generation is not an example of a normally functioning franchise. That’s why I expected a little more action by the GM this offseason.

Tuch was a young player who projected to be the player that he has become. If that wasn't the case then the Eichel deal made absolutely no sense for us. As it stands, it's still a net loss from a talent standpoint, but in this is the case you have to accept your weak position and try to retrieve as much as possible. I have argued before that the Sabres should have kept Eichel, happy or not. He was under contract. This franchise did what it often does when making personnel decisions, it miscalculated and set the team further back, as demonstrated by the Eichel deal. I liked the additions of McCleod, Zucker and Tuch. But those solid additions have not elevated this team to a playoff spot because the roster still needs additions. That's my basic point. As I said before, if you improve your roster while other teams improve theirs more, then you are falling back.

I di like the acquisitions of Doan and Kesserling for JJP. However, that doesn't mean more couldn't been done to improve the roster. The meaningful issue isn't that the Sabres are improved as it is have they improved enough to be a playoff team. You are not competing against yourself; you are competing against other franchises that are also improving. Ambling along in a road race may be good enough when you are competing against arthritic seniors. But it's not good enough when competing against serious competitors. The Sabres have been out of the playoffs for 15 straight years. Don't be afraid to raise your level of expectations for this systemically mediocre franchise. Dumbing down your standards may be sufficient for some people but it is not for me.

If KA would have added another Tuch like player this offseason, how much different would we have viewed it? Adding another tough and big second line talent to the roster would have not only made this roster better but would have afforded it greater flexibility. Small time thinking and timidity by an unimaginative GM has crippled this inconsequential franchise.

The Sabres will squeak into a playoff spot. I will still remain a critic of the regime. I’m a minimal drinker and don’t do drugs for those who believe that I’m not presently sober. 🫠

You are talking about an activity where even if you don't hit the lottery it is still fun to play. 😄

Are you an only child? 😃

Terrific analysis. Everything you described was observable to the hockey unschooled (like me) because the same patten of play almost always existed. What got me the most irritated about the PP was the resistance to adjust, embodied by a stationary Tage shooting the same blasting shot from the usual location. How about some movement, how about players rotating positions, how about more quickly moving the puck? And as you point out, how about taking the puck behind the net forcing the defense to react to you instead of you reacting to the defense? It's the forcing a square peg in a round hole mentality. In this case being stubborn is being stupid. As @LGR4GM has pointed out on a number of occasions, with hockey, like most sports, there is a basic/standard strategy used in the game. It's not rocket science. However, even within its basic nature there needs to be some variation and adaptability to way the opposition is reacting. The Buffalo Sabres have set the standard for bad ownership, bad GM work and bad coaching. What's worse than being stupid is being stubbornly stupid!

As fans of both the Sabres and Pirates it is apparent that you have masochistic tendencies. 😀 Or maybe you are just frugal and seek cheap tickets in an arena and stadium where you have plenty of room to stretch out because the seats around you are vacant?

After reading your intriguing observation, a question can be asked whether the Sabres would have had a better record with Granato than with Ruff taking over? With both Granato and Ruff, the bigger problem related to the composition of the roster than with the coaching. It just seems that there were roster and structural deficiencies that hindered each coach.

I wonder if there will be a drop of Canadians going to Bills games? I wouldn’t be surprised if the stressed inter- country relations had little effect due to the better product on the field.