JohnC

You are absolutely right in stating that there is validity to criticizing the moves or lack of moves of the GM. You and many others (majority of contributors) believe that the GM is possibly making a big mistake that will undercut the roster he has assembled by not bringing in another goalie. That certainly is a reasonable position to take. And there is a great deal of validity to the idea of wanting a deal for a more established defenseman for one of the top two pairings. Is the GM taking a risk by taking a less aggressive acquisition approach this offseason? While you and I are on opposite sides of this issue, we both agree (I think) that the GM is taking a risk on how he has handled this offseason.

I'm not as bothered by our goalie situation as most are. The bigger issue for me is the overall play of the defense that includes the blue line unit and the forwards. Is the GM taking a risk staying with the goalies he has on the roster? Absolutely.

You are likely to be right that KA isn't going to add a veteran goalie this offseason. That doesn't mean that not doing so will be as disastrous as you are projecting. Let's just wait and see what the consequences will be with his status quo approach to the position. As far as rating the GM's offseason, I would categorize it as being solid. The additions of Johnson and Clfiton were solid additions. I would still like to see another 4/5 defenseman added to the unit. The GM has said right from the start that he was going to mostly build from within. And that's exactly what he is doing.

What difference does it make why a deal was made? Whether it was for reasons of disgruntlement, cap, better players in the system or whatever, the measurement of success of a deal is the impact on the team. The fundamental issue is: does the transaction make the team better and/or do the cumulative transactions improve the team. The Jack deal, for whatever reason it was made for, was a good deal for both teams involved. You are reflexive contrarian to the point where everyone knows what your position is on a topic before you even post it. You make @PerreaultForeverlook like a Polly Anna Optimist. That is quite an accomplishment.

I agree with your comments. No one is worried about the 2024-25 season. When you have a hole in your pipe you patch it for a temporary solution, and then later on replace that segment of the pipe. If VO places well, then his value goes up as a trade asset.

Let's cool the temperature. What's changed is that Quinn got hurt and will be out for an extended period of time. I'm not got going to casually dismiss a player, although not well-rounded, who could help to this team even if it is for the short-term. The Sabres are at a stage where they should be very competitive. If VO, or any other player, can contribute in a fashion that will allow the team to a degree to absorb the loss of a key player, then I'm all for it.

Let's cool the temperature.

Do you really believe that coach Granato is going to be hoodwinked by VO when he competes with other players in camp? I'll trust the judgment of the coach watching players in camp vying for roster spots and roles over people who have already made a determination on a player before the season even starts. If VO beats out other players, then so be it. If other players beat him out, then so be it. Is there a long-term role for VO? Probably not. Is there a short-term role for VO? Maybe. That's TBD.

It's almost as if a segment of the crowd here is afraid that he might play well because it is not aligned with their preconceived notion of this player. It's fair to say that he is not an all-around player. (Obviously so.) But he has demonstrated that he can shoot and score goals. Is he a second-line player? No. But with Quinn hurt there is an opening for him somewhere on the lower lines and second PP unit. If he plays reasonably well his value as an asset will increase when he will most likely be dealt. Sabre fans should be rooting for him to be a contributor. It's a reprise of the Mitts syndrome where a player is prematurely targeted as a failure when the story has yet to be completed.

You are right that he is great to listen to. I have often heard coach Don G on WGR and in his post-game comments. What sets him apart from many of his coaching colleagues is how he keenly listens to questions, and then with clarity answers them. He thinks before he speaks. It's not unusual for him to respond to a question by saying that's an interesting question. I haven't thought about the issue in the way you framed. He's more of a listener than an expansive talker. (Contrast to Krueger.) What sets him apart from other coaches is that his coaching philosophy is more psychologically based than tactically base. That's not to say that he isn't well schooled in tactics because he is. But his strength as a coach is anchored in how well he works with individual players.

That's a great question. The expansion teams are given favorable conditions to succeed sooner rather than later. By making the right decisions at their inceptions they are seizing the opportunity presented to them. At least exhibited by their public appearances, this family seems to be made up of very nice people who are also very competitive people. I'm a Don Granato fan. It's obvious he is adept working with young players and developing them. His next challenge is working with a more developed roster and being able to compete with the top teams for a cup. We shall see.

The Atlanta region market has substantially changed from the Thrasher era. As I said before, I'm not inclined toward expansion. But if Arizona can't get their arena situation resolved in some reasonable fashion, I can see them moved to either the Atlanta or Houston market. You make a potent point saying that the caliber of ownership matters in the success or failure of the franchise.

I, like you, am not an advocate for expansion. I'm sure @GASabresIUFANwould argue that the Atlanta hockey market has become more robust compared to when the thrashers existed. The one thing that the NHL has done that I like very much is create a system where expansion teams have the ability to become competitive right from the start if they make smart decisions when selecting from the expansion pool of players.

Coach Granato's sister is a trailblazer. https://www.nhl.com/news/cammi-granato-named-vancouver-assistant-general-manager/c-330672070

It's obvious that you have a preference for southern cooking. You are a former Yankee who joined the Confederacy. 😃 https://millerhats.com/store/military_hats/Civil_War_Hats

The goalie and the trade issue are inextricably linked. Those who are arguing for a change to our current group usually give their opinion on what other goalies they would prefer. It's not unusual for some threads to overlap. I'm not a stickler on maintaining topic discipline. However, I agree with you that when the responses to a topic don't come close to relating to the topic, the issue should be raised.

Of course, your best defensemen and even forwards are going to get the most minutes. But if you can lessen the minutes by two or three minutes for these workhorse players, it will have an accumulating effect as the grinding season winds on. Our best players are also playing on the PK and PP. I'm hoping that the additions of Clifton and Johnson could absorb some of those added minutes on the special teams. By upgrading the pairings and even forward lines I'm hoping that there will be a more balanced distribution of playing time. I'm not suggesting equal time as I am making the minutes less top heavy.

I'm not disputing the fact that Ullmark was a UFA. Ullmark was willing to re-sign with the Sabres if they would have given him a contract that was more than what Boston offered and on a longer term, I believe a year longer. The GM was on a WGR show that I listened to and when asked why he didn't sign Ullmark, he said that what the goalie wanted was more than what he was willing to give him. In my view it was a consequential mistake.

The "if" goalies you mentioned are an extreme longshot possibility to be wearing a Sabre uniform when the season starts. If you look at all the deals that KA has made during his tenure, it's apparent that he is not inclined to give up the assets that would be required to get the first two goalies you mentioned. I have said it before, the only decision that our GM has made that I have strenuously disagreed with is not re-signing Ullmark. It was a decision that I believe cost us a playoff spot last year. A goalie tandem of Ullmark/Levi would have made this team formidable.

I don't know who is going to be the backup to Levi. If Comrie demonstrates in camp and in the preseason that he is a better backup alternative than UPL, then so be it. And if UPL outperforms Comrie, then he will have earned the backup role. As far as losing either player when waived that's simply a function of the waiver system. If neither one of these two players separates themselves from one another, then the determining issue becomes who has more upside. Other teams are also wrestling with the same issue regarding waiver considerations. If we lose one of our goalies, then the market will provide another player, even if it is only for the short-term. @Thornyhas made the potent point that the Sabres are at a later stage in their rebuild where the primary consideration is player competition and not entitlement. There is no question that Levi is going to start the season as the primary goalie. Internal competition will decide who will be the backup. If one of our goalies is lost on waivers, I'm not going to consider it to be a major setback. It's the system that all franchises have to deal with.

As you seem to be saying: Very often, the smartest deal a GM can make is not to make a deal. What you don't do is sometimes a wiser approach to take than what you could have done. The cardinal rule in medicine is: Do no harm.

With all due respect, your response makes no sense. What if the players you mentioned are not quite ready and would be less effective than the more experience VO. Would you play them ahead of a player who in the short term would be more productive? You are the unceasing wailing guy who complains about the need to win now. Now you sing a different discordant sound. Your logic is illogical. Most people would agree that VO is not in the long-term plans for this organization. So what! Neither is Eric Johnson. Maybe a third of the team falls into that category. At this point, I'm not casually writing off any player (as you are doing) who can help us win right now. The Sabres have gone through a relatively short but grueling rebuilding process under KA. I'm not writing off anyone who can help us win next season. Players compete and earn the spots and roles. And that's how it should be.

VO doesn't have a long-term future here. That's easy to recognize. But that doesn't mean that for the short-term he can't be used to fill the void left by the injury of Quinn. I'm not suggesting that he will take Quinn's spot on the second line. But the roster spot made available can be filled by VO and utilized on a lower line. The bottom line is that VO will have to compete for a roster spot and role this year. He will need to upgrade and round his game for him to earn playing time.

I understand your position about "not blocking" young players when a more experience player could play the position more proficiently. It goes against the concept of competing to earn a spot and role. But the GM has made it clear what his rebuilding plan was. He was going to play younger players in order to accelerate their development. For the most part, I would say that the strategy worked. It was recognizable to all that JJP and in intervals Quinn struggled during the season. But the extended playing time they got should benefit the team in the near term because they will be better players sooner rather than later. I think the Sabres are now at a different competitive standpoint. As was demonstrated at the end of the season in the playoff race the coaches relied heavily on the players who gave the team a better chance to win at the expense of some other players who were relegated to the bench.

Most people would agree with that assessment. It shouldn't be a surprise that as the talent base increases he will drop down in the line assignment. I just think that because of Quinn's injury he will have some utility this season. Maybe he will or not? We shall see how this plays out.