JohnC

Of course, the Bruins not only have wide disparity in talent/s in net but they also have a fuller roster. When players go down for us, a team that lacks depth, it has a cascading negative effect on the team. The injury to Samuelsson demonstrates that. The difference between Buffalo and Boston is talent. Their willingness to engage in fisticuffs compared to our willingness is a trivial and inconsequential issue as to why one team is better than the other.

Greenway is hurt. So don't expect him to be your designated gladiator. Fighting is very limited in the playoffs. The playoffs are noted for hard and tough play. Hooligans and goons are not getting ice time because there is too much at stake. The main problem with the Sabres has little to do with having enough tough guys. The undercutting problem relates to having enough talent, especially in net and on the blue line. That's a reality that too many people don't want to face. To many people want to create this mirage (falsehood) that this team is too weak. It's not. It's the lack of talent at critical positions.

I agree with your general view and big picture perspective. The reason why Quinn and Peterka were playing with the Sabres rather down in Rochester is that a determination was made by the staff that both of these prospects' development would be better served playing with the big club. There was a conversation on the radio with their Rochester coach who said in effect that they both got to the point where both players outgrew the level of competition in this lower league. There isn't any surprise to the staff that moving up was going to be a major adjustment for each player. So it shouldn't be a surprise that although they have intermittently sparkled this season, there were interludes where they struggled, especially Peterka. In the longer view (as you are astutely making), playing in the NHL this year will serve them well next year compared to playing them in Rochester this year and moving them up next year.

Attached is a mailbag column by Lance Lysowski from the Buffalo News. It discusses topics associated with the current and future lineups and the moves that could be made. This question/answer column is similar to what we discuss here. https://buffalonews.com/sports/sabres/sabres-mailbag-how-should-gm-kevyn-adams-react-to-the-recent-struggles/article_f62e13ec-c986-11ed-8ebb-3721855fda92.html#tracking-source=home-top-story

Do you want to know the primary reason why Boston has had a sterling seaon while the Sabres are now plummeting? Their goalie tandem is Ullmark and Swayman while our goalie unit is composed of Anderson, Comrie and UPL. There is no question that the Sabres can and should play a tighter and tougher brand of hockey. But the main problem centers around the talent base in net and the blueline. That's the heart of the problem.

I'm in sync with you. I would be very reluctant to include one of our top two prospects. Your Rosen and draft pick deal is where I would like to be at. However, there is a realization that acquiring an upper tier goalie immediately changes the dynamic of this team. I have little doubt that if the the Sabres had Saros this year, we would already be talking playoff matchups. I would also go so far to say that if we had an Ullmark caliber goalie, not necessarily him, the Sabres would be participating in post season games.

This is simply speculation on my: If the Sabres had Saros they would be in the playoffs this year.

I agree with you that most goalies don't garner a first round pick or high end prospect. That is not to say that a goalie who is in the upper echelon category wouldn't be worth it for a team where his addition would be the difference of being a playoff team or not. Then the question would be which prospect would you give up if that is what the other team wanted?

Individual players often get days off during the season whether required to or not. There is nothing unusual about that. Some players get it due to being banged up and some get it to refreshen their legs. You are right not everything associated with the past is archaic. But there are attitudes associated with the dictatorial past that are no longer tolerated by organizations that have a modern attitude toward players and the best way to handle them during a long season. The hockey and sports world in general have very much changed from the past practices.

Attached is a WGR link from the Shoop and the Bulldog Show. There is a 20 min segments where Travis Yost talks about the Sabres and the goalie situation. You only need to listen to the first 12 minutes or so for this particular discussion. His general conclusion on this topic is that even if you can't get a top tier goalie, you still have to get a goalie who is capable of giving you a level of netminding that will allow your team to be competitive. He noted that Comrie never showed that he was that caliber of goalie. He cited the Capitals and their acquisition of Kuemper as a good example to follow. Much of it is a reprise of what we discuss here. The full segment is worth listening to. https://www.audacy.com/wgr550/authors/schopp-and-bulldog

It Nashville proposed a trade of Saros for Kulich and our first round pick, would you make the deal? Or if Nashville proposed a trade of Saros for Savoie and our first round pick would you make the trade. If you had to choose between either of the options, which one would you make?

I don't find it strange at all that players get days off. Whether this was league mandated because of union contract stipulations or periodic days offs to freshen the legs or give players a break from the grinding routine there is nothing wrong with judicious decisions not to practice. The neanderthal era of coaching and handling players is in the past, the very long past.

Levi is practicing and working out. It may not be fully with the team but it is enough to start the process of getting acclimated to NHL play. I suspect that he will be able to start in net for some games when the team falls out of the playoff race. I have said this before, so I apologize for the redundancy, our GM's acquisition of Levi from the Reinhart deal might turn out to be one of his most consequential deals. It took some time for the organization to realize the benefits from the ROR trade that got us Tage. In hindsight, it ended up being a major deal in our favor. I see the same results happening with the acquisition of Levi. The next obvious question is how long is it going to take before Levi becomes our primary goalie?

Is Levi practicing at all?

I heard on a militia radio broadcast that I regularly listen to that if the internet shuts down because of a nuclear war initiated by our government that the backup source of communication will be moon beams. The militia warned me that if it is cloudy it may interrupt the broadcast. Then I was instructed to patiently wait for the weather to clear up.

I read and heard on the internet that Covid did not exist. That it was a creation of the deep state. So that shouldn't be the source of the problem. ☠️

This immigration issue is perplexing. I can understand a short delay but not this length. What makes it even more odd is that he played for an American school. I understand that his permitting relates to employment but I don't know what could be the cause of this delay.

I'm as vocal as anyone for the need of adding a quality goalie this offseason. With respect to when Levi is ready to play NHL games I see the preparation period of being one year or less. That doesn't mean that he will be our primary goalie within that timeframe but I do see him being on a NHL roster within that time.

There is no question that his Cup experience at Carolina influenced him. He has talked about not building a roster around one player (referring to Jack). His priority was to have a more complete reinforcing roster. The weakness in relating it to Buffalo is that Carolina did have a fuller roster that played a tighter and more defensive oriented game. Their forwards from a collective standpoint were more defensively oriented. That's not how our roster is built. The game has changed. It is a faster north/south game. The stark reality that we are witnessing now is that no matter how your team is built quality goaltending is essential for success. That also applies to the blueline. We simply don't have enough depth to absorb injuries. Look what happened when Samuelsson got hurt? The defense cratered not because he is such a special player (he is a good to solid player). The unit failed because it wasn't able to fill the loss of one particular player, resulting in a cascading failure from the unit in general. In my view it will be easier for the GM to address the depth issue on the blueline this offseason. The greater challenge for the GM this offseason is to significantly upgrade the goalie position. If the GM believes that he can continue with the status quo approach and hope that Levi is the immediate answer, he will be making a big gamble that will again sabotage this team and fanbase next year.

I'll gladly answer your question: Yes. But there is a good reason for the approach he is taking. The rebuild constituted mostly young players (including the players who replaced the previous core). Look what happened to Skinner's and Dahlin's production under the tighter defense shackling system from his predecessor. It stifled the players and crushed the audience. Granato's often stated approach is that you have to go from A to J before you can get to Z. DG has openly acknowledged that his first priority was to establish an offensive system before focusing on a defensive system. Much more is involved in establishing the offense than the more basic defensive system. There is no hidden agenda. He has publicly spoken about it on a number of occasions. Let's not got sidetracked here. The coach's approach has absolutely nothing to do with the current catastrophic void at the goalie position, also acerbated with inadequate blue line depth. Those staffing inadequacies come under the purview of the GM. I strongly argue that this coach is the right coach for this team. Even with this recent downward spiral this team was still in the playoff race. Now that possibility is unlikely because our glaring inadequacies at certain positions have to an extent sabotaged what was positive about this team. That's on the GM!

I didn't say people can't state a different position regarding his contract. What I did say is that I disagree with them.

The one area where I have a scathing criticism for KA is how he has addressed the goalie issue since he assumed the position of GM. He appears to have minimized the importance of the position. It just seemed as if it wasn't a priority for him. I honestly don't understand it. What's done is done; where we are at is where we are at. If the GM doesn't seriously address the position this offseason, then he is placing this team and his job in a precarious position. I'm excited about Levi as our future goaltender. However, if the GM is assuming that this young goalie is the immediate answer to solving the backstop issue he is making a big mistake.

On any team there are going to be players who are overpaid and players who are underpaid. There is never a perfect calibration between salary and production. What you want to avoid is being stuck with a long-term gilded contract where the production doesn't come close to matching the value of the contract. Skinner got the rich and extended contract because he is considered a high end goal scorer. That's exactly what he is doing. There are other targets to take aim on. He shouldn't be one of them.

The one player you can't criticize for earning his salary is Skinner. Krueger straitjacked Skinner to the point that he crippled him as a player. He may be more of a $7-8 million player but he's not a player I would focus on as being not worth the dollar vs production.

You don't pay attention to what I have said over a 100 times because you are too invested clinging to your critical narrative. The Sabres could have signed Ullmarki. The GM declined because he didn't like the terms that the player was demanding. It was a premium for staying with his losing team. He wanted a year longer on term and he wanted more per annum. It was essentially a loser's tax. The GM said no because his terms were outside of the parameters that he and his analytic staff established. How do I know that to be true? Because he stated why he didn't sign the goalie on WGR. So the goalie went to a better situation for a lesser contract. The GM was too inflexible and unwilling to bend. Losing this player was a big mistake. As far as the other goalies you listed we don't know which players were willing to come here. There were goalies that we targeted but because of their trade clauses they said no. I don't disagree with you that the GM didn't have an adequate fallback position in place for the possibility of not being able to sign Ullmark. The reality is that the Sabres are considered an unappealing place to go to by many players if there are other options.