JohnC

I'm not sure that prior to free agency that KA knew what caliber of goalie he was going to be. Or whether at that point he wanted to make a conclusive judgment about him as his franchise goalie. Was it the wrong decision? It certainly was because he didn't seem too interested in finding better options. That's the source of my complaint about the GM on this issue. As you indicate how things have turned out only makes sense if the plan was to tank. And I have no doubt that the Pegulas would be receptive to this strategy because in the short run the contract obligations would be much smaller than if this focused on winning in the present.

With respect to the Ullmark negotiating or any negotiations for that matter there is usually movement from both parties. That wouldn't be surprising. We don't have all the details about the negotiations but one story I heard is that when Boston made an offer his agent took it back to Buffalo and required them to exceed the Boston offer in price and term. (Is that true? I can't say for sure.) The answer was no. My main criticism for KA is not focused on the inability to signing Ullmark as it is not having an adequate fallback position if a deal couldn't be consummated. It shouldn't be much of a surprise that a Buffalo free agent would want to go somewhere else where he had a chance to win, especially after being stuck in a losing organization and facing another rebuild. That's mostly why Risto, Jack and Reinhart wanted out. In general, I don't think our thoughts on how the organization handled the goaltending situation are much different. And I agree with you that the organization made a decision to go through a rebuild without the disillusioned former core. Was it a calculated tank? I would say yes. My fear is that the psychology of losing will contaminate another young core to the extent that it did with the previous young core. As you well know as someone who is a paying customer this franchise needs a jolt of action before the withering fan base withers to the point of near extinction.

You are correct that the year to year play of goaltenders is very mercurial. But the situation in Buffalo isn't so much about finding an elite long-term goalie who will anchor this franchise. Rather it is about finding a capable netminder who can play at a level that will allow this incomplete team to reasonably compete for this year or a little longer. Ullmark would certainly be a goalie who would have played at an acceptable level. That didn't materialize. The GM should have had better fallback positions. I don't fault our goalies for all of the ills of this team. But there shouldn't be much dispute that they are one of the main factors for the rapid descent of this team.

I made some related comments in a prior post so I apologize for the redundancy. KA on WGR made comments about Ullmark's departure. He stated that when negotiating a contract he places a value on the player and then he wasn't going to go beyond the boundaries of the designated value/cost. Without explicitly saying it he wasn't going to go take the same route that resulted in an over-compensated player such as Skinner. I have no problem with that approach. The problem is that when negotiating with any player in a free agent status, such as Ullmark, you have to have a reasonable fallback position just in case a deal can't get done. In business you don't always have a perfect or even a good option. But you still have to come up with an acceptable option that will tide you over until a better solution can be found for your problem. That didn't happen here. The options that he took with the goaltending position put this fragile team in a precarious position. He played some long odds and lost the bet. It has proved to be very damaging.

My main criticism of the GM is that even if he couldn't secure a long-term quality goalie to build around he could have done a much better job at securing a better quality goalie/s for the short term. Not having that baseline level of competent netminding is sabotaging the rest of the rebuild.

He was traded in July but prior to that he was put on waivers in January. It is very likely that KA thought that he was going to get a deal done with Ullmark who was going to be a free agent. It didn't work out as the GM hoped. He should have had some better options ready for the possibility of not being able to sign Ullmark. https://www.espn.com/nhl/story/_/id/31863098/carolina-hurricanes-trade-goalie-alex-nedeljkovic-detroit-red-wings

Anderson in general did play well for us. But it was a major gamble from a durability standpoint to rely on such an older player who was on the precipice of retirement. As you and others have pointed out the GM made a damning mistake by not having an adequate fallback position for the possibility of losing Ullmark, a free agent goalie. He should have had a much better option in his pocket for that possibility. You can't control what a player decides to do when he is a free agent but you should be prepared with reasonable options for the potential loss. Compare what Yzerman did in the offseason to address the goalie position with how KA did? He acquired Alex Nedeljkovic for a reasonable price. And there were other reasonable options due to goalies being exposed for the expansion draft. We could have offered a draft pick for a goalie who could have been a better option than going for the riskier route of getting Anderson as your primary goalie. He would have been a better option as your secondary goalie. The Sabres have a number of deficiencies that go beyond the goalie position. So I don't want to get carried away by blaming all problems with this roster on that position. But by buttressing that position you can at least for the short-term compensate for the other problematic areas. My worry is that the psychology of losing is going to demoralize our young players. In the Carolina game (I intermittently watched) it seemed as if Dahlin was a beaten man. That bothers me very much. https://www.espn.com/nhl/story/_/id/31863098/carolina-hurricanes-trade-goalie-alex-nedeljkovic-detroit-red-wings

As you noted there should be a worry about the mounting losses creating a psychology of losing that demoralizes the young core as it did with the last core. The situation that resulted in Jack/Risto/Reinhart wanting out primarily revolved around the issue of constant losing and the inability to foresee a change in the near future. Does anyone doubt that Reinhart was glad that he was on the home bench instead of the visiting bench in the Florida game? I'm not a pessimist regarding the near future of the Sabres. The organization seems to have a number of high end prospects ready to make the jump next season, or soon thereafter. But my fear is that another season laid on top of the past few seasons will dispirit this promising young core to the point where some of them will want another place to play.

You can have an upgrade in net and still be scored upon. Whether you have mediocre to bad backstopping it becomes even more exposed with inadequate defensive coverage. I'm not arguing which issue is more important because they are linked. The Sabres currently have insufficient staffing at the goalie position. That's obvious. It becomes even more manifested when you have a sieve defense. There are just too many glaring coverage mistakes that lead to opportunities that are easily converted. A goal by deflection is one thing but an easy tap in because a player is uncovered is a major problem. It happens too often.

The Sabres would have a better record if Ullmark was our primary goalie. Few people would argue otherwise. But I'm not convinced that this would be a playoff team because the defensive coverage is atrocious. It's obvious why so many are fixated on our goaltending deficiencies. It's a problem that is starkly evident. However, when you have below average backstopping along with weak defensive coverage then your goaltending deficiency becomes exponentially worse. When mediocre goalies constantly get bombarded with ripe scoring chances then you get this repeated flurry of goals in short periods. The Florida game, among other games, was an example of this. How many people truly believed that after the Sabres scored the first three goals that the Sabres would coast to a victiory? I didn't. This team has a number of issues that go beyond the goalie issue related to the overall talent level of its roster. I just don't see this front office willing to expend resources to significantly upgrade the position this season. It's going to be a tough year.

Thank you for your terrific analysis. I was listening to Paul Hamilton discuss Perterka on WGR awhile back. Everything you stated corresponded to what he said about JJ. And what he emphasized (as you noted) is that he had a way to go to learn the defensive side of the game. He was very positive about him but felt that he had a lot more work to do on his defensive game before moving up to the next level. Kevin Adams moved up in the draft to pick him. In the not too distant future that maneuver to select him could prove to be an exceptional move.

@inkmanand @dudacek thank you for your matching evaluations. How about your respective evaluations of Peterka? Will he be ready to move up by next season?

For those contributors such as @Norcal, @dudacek, @inkmanand anyone else who watch Rochester games how do you rate Krebs's play so far? Is he playing up to the expectation of some that he will be on the Sabres' roster next year or maybe even sometime this season? Just curious.

When I look at the list of young players that you presented the issue becomes how long is it going to take before the critical mass of these young players become a factor with the Sabres. Next year, I see an infusion of half a dozen players (including Tuch to this group) that will reshape this roster. In my estimation it will take another year or two for those players to become more established. When I look at the sparse crowds in the arena I'm just hope that the organization does something like upgrading the netminding to accelerate the rebuilding process and give the fans something to hold on to.

You two are a couple of the more knowledgeable hockey people here. You don't have to like the person to engage with that person. When it gets to the point where it gets personal then it is time to stand back and let things cool down. Sometimes when strong-willed and opinionated people duel it gets more heated than necessary. Very often you learn more from people you disagree with than with people you agree with. You just have to listen harder and dig through to what is actually being said. And you know very well that on a few occasions I have been the target of your bombardments. On those occasions you pissed me off! But I stood back and let the embers cool. I'm glad I did. The point here is that you don't have to go to the wall on every point you disagree with, especially when it is with someone you have some animus toward. I appreciate @Taro T and your contributions. That is not to say that I always agree or am happy with the sharp retorts given back. The operative word for the day is: Tolerance. I apologize if I come off as preachy or sanctimonious.

I read @Taro T and your comments about Levi's ability to handle rugged play. I agree more with your take than with his take on the player. But that isn't the problem with the exchange here. In my opinion you framed your response to him in a hard challenging way that wasn't required. If you would have asked in less pugnacious/antagonistic way to elaborate as to why he felt that Levi was more vulnerable than bigger goalies the response back would have been less sharp. Very often in a dialogue the tone can drown out the point. I believe that is what happened here. It can't be denied that the stature of a goalie has become an important consideration when evaluating prospects. In the NHL of today most franchises prefer bigger goalies than smaller players. That's one of the main considerations when evaluating the position. The issue is more related to how the position is played in today's NHL than it is related to durability. However, it can't be denied that Levi's play has been outstanding in college. And it isn't a stretch to believe that right now he might be our best goalie prospect in the system.

As you point out Tanev basically out-muscled him and Dahlin struggled to keep up. He's certainly not a finished product. And he has the raw skills where there is more room to grow. From my vantage he's the least of this team's problems. There are occasions where our defense puts the goalie in a vulnerable situation; and there are situations where the goalie doesn't do enough to support the defense. This team needs more additions starting with the backstops.

I simply don't see what other people are seeing when evaluating Dahlin. It is obvious that he had some lapses last night that proved costly. But overall when you review how he has played thus far he has played very well. What I have seen in his game is less razzle dazzle and simpler and more efficient play. He is playing a lot more disciplined game. In my eyes that is a progression. There is a broader context that needs to be considered when evaluating him. It shouldn't be forgotten that he is playing on a less than fully staffed team. Thus there is less support and more individual exposure. A lot is being asked of him. He is playing more minutes than he probably should at this point. A lot is being asked of this young defenseman and for the most part he is holding up reasonably well.

I also want an upgrade in goaltending. I don't know anyone who has stated otherwise. Putting aside the goaltending issue last night's game demonstrated to me that there was a clear difference in effort between the two teams. I'm starting to see it more and more as the losses mount. I'm bothered by it. I'm hoping that trend doesn't continue. I've attached a WGR link that includes a 10 min segment with Granato. He talks about the game, Dahlin and the injured players. He seems to believe that this faltering is all part of a learning process. I'm a strong believer in Granato as a coach for this team in this rebuilding situation. There's just a long way to go. One hurdle at a time. https://www.audacy.com/wgr550/authors/howard-and-jeremy

What was most disappointing about this game was evident right from the beginning: Seattle had more energy and was forcing the play. They were a road team at the end of a long cross country trip while we were at home. Yet they played with more vigor. The home record for the Sabres is dismal. They are playing in an arena that is 3/4s empty while on the road they are playing in front of near capacity and enthusiastic crowds. (Not blaming the customers.) My fear is that the mounting losses accumulated over the past few years will dispirit our young core as it did with our previous young core that was dispatched. The truth of the matter is that there isn't enough talent on the current roster. What's positive and provides some hope is that there are some young players in the pipeline that are close to being ready to move up. But my concern is that this steady stream of losing will mushroom into a malaise as it did under Krueger. I'm hoping that the return of Mitts, and a little later Tuch, will help to jolt this lackluster playing team . My big worry is that the psychology of losing infects the young core as it did with the previous core.

Will Laaksonen make the roster next year? What's his style of play? If Power, Samuelsson and Laaksonen are on the roster next year that's quite a young group on the blue line. If you add them with Joki and Dahlin you are looking at a unit with a lot of young players.

What's apparent is that the label that Olofsson is basically only a PP scorer and spot shooter no longer applies. He's become a full-length player who is developing a well-rounded two-way game that includes good passing. He made one pass to Tage that gave him a gaping open area to score on. Another young player that I'm impressed with is Asplund. He's become a solid NHL player and one of our most consistent players. There is little flash in his fundamentally sound game. I'm hoping that when Mitts gets back he continues on with the progression in his game like these other young players. As @dudacek and others have stated not only is Okposa is currently one of our better players but he is also a positive influence on the youngsters. He's embracing a mentoring role that not all veteran players are keen on doing. He's classy leader and person. There isn't a player I admire more on this team than him.

My observations are very similar to @Norcal and @dudacek's observations. This is one of the best games I have seen Skinner play from an all-around game. He made some nifty passes that contributed to Tage scores. And what is even more appreciated is his consistent effort along the boards and tracking his man. There has been a lot less floating and a lot more play within his unit. (Coaching matters.) And repeating what others observed in this game I liked the play of Eakin. He's possibly our most tenacious player. It took a year to understand why he was signed. The time off due to injury didn't seem to hurt Joki's game. I thought he was our best defenseman in this game. He logged a lot of minutes. He's not a flashy player so much as an efficient player. When the Sabres get good goaltending without the soft goal mishaps this team can keep up with the opposition even against the more talented teams. Tok was very efficient and I thought the defense played well around him. If you are a Sabre fan you are not in a position to disparage any other team. But Montreal was very lackluster. It seems as if their players are just going through the motions. They already look like a demoralized team. A win against Detroit would be big especially when the next game is against Seattle. It would be terrific to string some wins together.

What was even worse than the mounting losses under Krueger were the steady stream of blah games. It just sucked the life out of the audience. At least under Granato not are the players more energized after the life had been sucked out of them but watching them has become more than palatable. For now that might be acceptable but the wins need to follow soon.

As a coach Granato's forte revolves more around the psychology of developing players more than it does around systems. You are right that from a starting point he places more emphasis on offense, and then builds from there. Interestingly, he noted that he was also in the business of entertainment and was conscious in providing a style of play that highlights that aspect of the game. No one can deny that even with the mounting losses this is a more entertaining team than from the past.