JohnC

I think we are more in accord than discord. I say let his play dictate his worth. If he regains his scoring touch and excels on a line with Krebs and Cousins, then his value/contract cost increases. If he struggles and his production lags, then his value/contract cost declines. That's how the system works. When talking about the Sabres financial situation there is a context here. It is that the Sabres currently have a lot of cap space. The GM certainly won't find himself being squeezed by Olof's salary requirements. As I previously stated this franchise needs to add talent, not subtract it. It's time to move up and advance. Creating additional holes and then having to go back to fill them is an act of futility that the fan base shouldn't have to be subjected to. It's time to get serious and do what you have to do to compete with the big boys.

If Olofsson is on a good third line because the team has enough good players to make up two good top lines, then what is wrong with that? Having a deep team instead of a thin team is a better situation to be in especially when you factor for the inevitable injuries. The Sabres have struggled for more than a decade. I'm more worried about the present then worried about the salary implications a few years down the road. If the time comes when there is a cap squeeze then you do what every other team does---you make the necessary moves to adjust to that situation.

As you accurately describe the situation both parties wanted out. There was no secret about either sides desire. The end result is both parties basically got what they wanted. It's not an issue who is the good guy and who is the bad guy in this conflict. In many respects it was a business decision where both sides came to the same conclusion. The issue for the GM was whether he was going to get a reasonable return on his asset. And the GM had to contend with the complicating feature of Jack's health and desired surgery procedure. Considering the circumstances, I believe the GM got a fair return.

I would say $3.5 to $4.5 per year on a medium length term, three years at most. I'm not glossing over what he is capable of as a player. Before he was hurt he was arguably the best shooter on the team. And when he was healthy he was an exceptional scorer on the PP. The organization knows what he is capable of when healthy. What shouldn't be minimized is the injury to his shoulder and how it affected his play. The season is slightly over the half way mark. How he plays in the remaining portion of the season will certainly have an influence on the size of his next contract. I just don't think that it is smart to shed a player that was developed in the system on a team that requires more additions. My evaluation on him relates to how he played when healthy. In my opinion it will be a big mistake to make an evaluation of him based on his limited production when he was hurt.

As you put it the water is under the bridge. My sense is that the organization was taking a hard stance with Jack. There was clearly bad blood between the parties involved. I just think that it eventually worked out well for Jack and the organization. I have no animosity toward Jack. I wish him well and the organization well. Irreconcilable differences happen in sports and in life. A change of scenery was required by all in order to move on. I'm more than happy with the return.

Thanks for the listing of picks. If Olofsson returns to form he would be more valuable to this team for the present and future than an additional pick. Unless his contract demands is out of line with his talent level I prefer that he is kept.

If Olofsson regains his scoring and shooting form, he is a valuable asset for this team right now. It's time to consider the present instead of worrying about the horizon. The Sabres have plenty of draft assets for the next couple of years. Subtracting talent that has been developed within our system would in my opinion would be a mistake. Olof the shooter would be a great complement to Krebs on a line. Unless there is an unrealistic offer I say no with a potential trade.

I wouldn't trade him for a first. We have three first round picks this year, and I believe two first round picks ??? the next year. In addition, we have multiple second and third round picks for the next couple of years. Assuming that his contract demand is reasonable, and if it appears that he has regained his scoring form, it would make no sense to give up a player that we developed in our system. What this team needs are additions and not subtractions to its talent base. There needs to be a commitment to win sooner rather than later. You do it with players on hand rather with future assets.

What you left out is that Eichel and the organization were at an impasse in regards to the surgery he should have. The Sabres would not permit him to have the surgery he wanted, and thus couldn't play at all. Vegas who traded for him allowed the preferred surgery. He is now back on the ice. If he were still with the Sabres he would not be playing. Jack already lost a year because of the surgery issue. It was time for him to go and for the organization to move on. If you were at the game and wanted to boo that would be your prerogative. If I were at the game I would act differently. As the saying goes: To each their own.

I understand why some people have an animus toward Jack. But when he is healthy he is a top 12 player in this league. (I don't have any animus toward Jack as much as I do for the organization's ineptitude that he was subjected to.) The trade of Jack worked out reasonably well for us. Both Tuch and Krebs will both be good players for us. They are part of the building blocks for the on- going rebuild. Just my opinion: If Jack gets booed when he returns for a game I will be disappointed. I would consider it to be classless. Cheer for your team and be silent instead of booing this particular departed player. It didn't work out for him here. Trading him was the right move for him and the organization.

Thought Cozens played a terrific game. Dahlin is playing with a level of confidence where he knows that he is a top tier player in this league. And based on his play, he is. Tuch is such a terrific addition. In addition to being one of our best players he is embracing his role as a leader. The pass from Krebs to Olofsson was outstanding. Overall, I thought Tokarski played well. However, I thought the third goal he gave up was a bad goal to give up. When the Islanders tied the score in the third period the Sabres didn't back off. Joki is playing well. As others have noted this team is fun to watch.

I may have previously mentioned this to you about David Kindred going back home to cover high school sports. Your post reminded me again of him going home to cover women high school sports. Sports at a more pure form without the egos and frills associated with sports. I'm sure you will call a great game. https://www.cbsnews.com/news/dave-kindred-local-sportswriter-60-minutes-2021-03-28/

The departure of Briere and Drury happened more than a decade ago. What has kept them franchise stuck in the morass of mediocrity is a collection of bad decisions. There isn't a team in the league that hasn't lost instrumental players due to cap/contract, free agency, trades etc. reasons. There was more than enough time to compensate for the loss of the key players that you listed. Our extended futility was due to ingrained incompetence. Excuses are for losers. I'm not a reflexive critic. I believe that the owner has learned some lessons from his own mistakes. I believe that the Sabres and the hockey operation are on the right track. Some patience and better goaltending will accelerate the pace of this rebuilding process.

The one trait that has astonished/surprised me is his speed. How many times have you witnessed him racing past the defense for a good scoring opportunity? Krebs clearly has to get stronger but watching him during his short stint with us it is not outlandish to say that he has the best vision on this team. There is so much upside to his game to be excited about.

What is your point? You don't understand what I have been saying about our goalie situation. Anderson winning today reinforces my point, not diminishing what I have been saying. Bringing in the forty year old Anderson to be a primary goalie was a mistake. I have no problem with adding Anderson to the roster. It was the role that he was given that I take issue with. What this game demonstrated is that when he is periodically used, he is effective. A better role for him would have been for him to be our backup goalie and used in maybe a third of the games. At this stage of his career he is not a heavy-duty/workhorse type of goalie who should be your primary netminder.

I have no criticism for Golisano. The financial books for this organization was in a state of disarray. There was a lot of intermingling of franchise funds with personal expenses. What Golisano did was set a hard budget and forced financial discipline on an undisciplined and chaotic business. He made the hockey operation staff work within the budget. Were there player casualties as a result? Yes, but overall, he stabilized an operation that was financially insolvent. To Golisano's credit he paid vendors he had no legal obligation to pay because of the organization's bankruptcy status. When asked why he did that he said because although he wasn't legally obligated to do so it was the right thing to do. Golisano made money when he sold the franchise to the Pegulas. Good for him! He could have sold the franchise to someone else who would have paid more and then moved the franchise. He didn't. (I'm aware that the Commissioner would not have approved of a move.)

I agree wholeheartedly with you. There were better options to upgrade the most important position in hockey. Some people are attempting to mischaracterize my comments on this topic making it appear that I am shooting for the moon here. That's not the point of my comments. My desire was to simply get a competent goalie in place if Ullmark departed. It was well known that Ullmark was entering his UFA year. A reasonable fallback position should have been in the plans entering last offseason. If the market was barren then one option would have been to pay the premium price and term that Ullmark wanted in order to stay. And then when our goalie situation stabilized he could have been traded before the conclusion of his contract. That's how other organizations do it. The focus of my attention is not this season. The situation we are in is the situation we are in. Lamenting does not change the situation. My focus is on how the GM handles the issue next season. I'm worried about the GM's status quo mind-set.

But again, again,and again! We didn't need to sign a goalie for three seasons and have an upgrade in net. There were better options. And even if Ullmark would have been signed for an extended term he could have been traded before his contract was concluded. With a little imagination and creativity the GM could have had better options in net. When you reach for excuses you will continue being stuck in the mud of mediocrity. Our goalie situation didn't have to be at this level this season.

Craig Anderson has been on the shelf for most of the season. Whatever stats you are drawing from are inconclusive because of the miniscule sample size that applies to Anderson.

With respect to the highlighted section that is the issue. I'm not sure the GM does. My sense is that he is going to stay within his own pipeline and ride it out. I believe that it would be a mistake.

The GM doesn't have to give up a first round pick in order to get a quality goalie in a trade. The Sabres have plenty of second and third round picks over the next two years that can be parlayed in a deal, along with a willingness to take on some salary for a goalie coming in. And it should be noted that the Sabres have plenty of cap space to work with and still have cap space after a deal. The game against Columbus was very winnable. Overall, you can't criticize the team's effort. The difference in this game between the Sabres and Columbus was the goalie play. If the issue isn't addressed in the offseason the same scenario will play out again. There is a reason why for every four seats on game day three of them are empty!

The problem wasn't not signing Ullmark. It was not having a fallback position if he couldn't get him signed within the GM's contract parameters. There was no surprise about the player's UFA status was. The GM had more than enough time to have a better option A or B. With respect to Ullmark's contract higher contract demand for Buffalo compared to Boston although the terms were higher they weren't unrealistic, especially for a team that had plenty of cap space. The vulnerable situation that the Sabres were left in at goal was unnecessary.

Go back and look what Yzerman did to get a goaltender in a trade with Carolina last offseason. He acquired a good goaltender at a minimum price. The Sabres have a lot more in assets to parlay to come up with a competent netminder this offseason. https://www.freep.com/story/sports/nhl/red-wings/2021/07/22/detroit-red-wings-alex-nedeljkovic-trade-carolina-hurricanes/8058139002/ I have cited this example not to highlight any particular player but to make the point that there are/were opportunities to improve the most important position on a hockey team if there would have been a willingness to do so. Our team is rebuilding and obviously the roster is far from incomplete. With quality goaltending this team would be in a much better situation. If the GM would have paid a little more than he wanted to retain Ullmark this team's record would be a lot more respectable. The moral of the story is when you don't have an adequate fallback position you fall back. And that's exactly what happened. It didn't have to be that way.

Anderson didn't start and we lost. He's been out of action for most of the season due to injury. When you get a 40 yr old goalie who was expected to be the secondary goalie and put him in position to be your primary goalie you are putting the team in a precarious position. And that is exactly how it played out this season.

Even if UPL is ready now there is a need to add a competent goalie in the interim before the other goalie prospects are ready. If you are referring to the Florida trade for Levi I'm sure you are aware that it will be another couple or more years before he is ready as a full-time goalie. I'm talking about the now. Yesterday's game was winnable. We didn't win because of the current goalie deficiency.