JohnC

What did Krueger get right? I'm not trying to be sarcastic but it seems that there wasn't an aspect of the game where his approach was superior compared to the post Krueger era.

If other players or coaches are contributing to his success that is a good thing. It shows that he is a good fit. On the other side of the equation when he plays well other players also benefit from his good play. There's a futility in trying to precisely determine why a player is playing well when in reality there are usually many factors. The bottom line is when line mates play well it influences the play of the other players. I just don't see the point in this case in trying to apportion credit for his good play.

With respect to the issue of who should get credit for better play by a particular player I simply don't care that much. The salient point is a player performing better than previously. I would put the C on Okposo. Whether Tuch or Okposo wears the C is irrelevant to me. One can act like a captain without wearing the letter.

Tuch, Tage and Skinner all played better last year under Granato than they did the prior year. Tage and Skinner made quantum leaps forward in their play however one wants to measure it. If you don't think that the coach was a factor in these three players being better is not really an important issue. The substantive fact is that each player was better last year under this coach. Just because you can't objectively measure something (coaching contribution to improved play) that has many elements doesn't alter the fact that Tuch and his line mates individually played better last season than before.

You make a good point that it is difficult to give the coach the credit for Tuch's good play. That's a judgment that is difficult to be precisely accurate for any player or coach. However, it really doesn't matter who should get the credit. Usually, there are a variety of factors for a player's good or poor play. What the real issue is how did the player perform for his new team? The answer is that this acquired player was given an expanded role with his new team and was put on a #1 line that played up to its line designation. What is not difficult to conclude is that the coach put this player in a position to succeed. And he did. That's the important point.

The problem isn't giving up your first round pick at the nine spot for Dubois. The issue is what else are you giving up? It's likely that the Jets would also want a player such as Mitts, Krebs or Cozens, plus additional piece/s included with the first round pick. The GM has been clear about his emphasis on "draft and develop" approach to the rebuild. He isn't going to sign this particular player and jettison a player such as Mitts or Cozens who they have invested in. It's certainly not guaranteed to happen but it wouldn't be a surprise if both Mitts and Cozens have breakout seasons for us next season. No thank you to a Jet deal for Dubois!

All the weak segments in Skinner's game that are often cited such as passing, defense and disconnected play with his line were noticeably improved last year. Skinner is never going to be known as a defensive stalwart, but the effort was always there. He made a countless number of exceptional passes to set up his linemates. Sometimes he was too unselfish in trying to set up his mates. If he comes close to duplicating what he did for us last season in the upcoming season, he will be again one of our most valuable players on the team. He may not live up to being a $9 M per year player but last year he was a $7-7.5 player. I'll gladly take it!

KO was the most consistent player on the team last year. Although I'm not saying he was our best player, I am saying that he was the most consistent contributing player on the team. I can't recall any lulls to his game last year. When his contract runs out and if he has a desire to play longer it would be warranted and smart to have this premium person on your team. With respect to Girgs, he is a consistently tough/muscular player who knows his role and plays within it. His value is not revealed by his stats.

Granato has played centers such as Krebs, Mitts and Cozens on the wing. He has also taken the same players and played them at center. It goes to the point that you are making about Granato in that he is flexible and willing to experiment in trying to get the best out of players. He is open-minded and not limited by rigid thinking. He's the antithesis of Krueger.

Would you give up our lowest first round pick for him? I would seriously consider it.

@dudacekhas been touting him for a long time. He struggled last year. It's not a surprise that the coach lost some confidence in him. He fits the profile of a player who previously showed some promise but for whatever reason struggled last year. A change of scenery could help to revive his career. Because of his age he still fits the profile of the type of player with some upside and that falls within our rebuild plan. Another positive about him is that he would add some size to this smallish roster.

How about a player you have previously touted such as Max Comtois? He adds some size to the wing and is young enough to have some upside. A change of scenery might be good for him.

Every trade scenario is different for the teams involved in a transaction. The calculation of a deal often has many components beyond comparing player to player, such as contract, free agency status, disgruntlement and remaking of a roster. In the Reinhart deal the Sabres got what was expected to be a low first round pick and a goalie prospect. The goalie prospect that Florida gave up, although they had the rights to him, didn't even have him under contract. Florida was already well situated with their goalie staffing and the draft pick they gave up was of little consequence to them because their roster was already loaded. And it wouldn't be surprising that Florida had an understanding with Sam that he would sign a deal with them. Going back to my original point in the possibility of acquiring a Tuch like player for a lower first round--- that is not out of the realm of possibility. There are teams that are going to be squeezed because of their cap situation. So, the financials could be more determinative of a player being dealt than getting back an equal value from a talent standpoint. One of the reasons that Tuch was included in the Jack deal was that Vegas had to send a contract out in order to fit Jack's contract onto their roster. I truly believe because the Sabres are in such a strong cap situation compared to most teams in the league that a favorable deal can be had if the organization desires it. My inclination leads me to believe that they don't have that desire.

If I had my way I would be willing to give up our lowest first round pick and add a hefty contract for a player like Tuch and in his age bracket. I just don't see the GM doing that. My sense (opinion) is that the young GM would be more willing to spend for a second pairing defenseman than he would for a forward. My opinion (again) is that the Sabres are going to be a low budget team for the foreseeable future. The focus will continue to be with players already in the system. As everyone has brought up the critical issue is going to be what goaltender is he going to bring in. I just don't know what his thinking is on that critical position.

This is just my opinion but I don't see the GM bringing in anything significant to add to the forward group. As like everyone else I want to see the goalie position upgraded and one or two additions to the blueline. I agree with you that depth is needed to handle the inevitable injuries from a long and grinding season. It's my sense however that the GM is determined to build from within the system.

Drury's team was competing for the playoffs and the Cup. There is no way that he would be foolish enough to shed good young players for an injured Jack who not only still needed surgery but also his career was in jeopardy.

I agree with you that for the most part we are in accord. However, I do disagree with you on your take on Granato's approach to working with his roster and developing players. There is no doubt that he is adept at working with young player and being instrumental in their improvement. He knows that young players will make mistakes because that is part of the learning process. But that doesn't mean that he doesn't hold them accountable when they make mistakes. And it should be noted that the veteran players played better under him than his predecessor.

I wholeheartedly agree with you on our deficiency at the goalie position. If that position can be significantly upgraded this offseason, our assessment of this team dramatically shoots up. Let's see how the GM handles this issue this offseason. I'm not making any predictions because I just don't know what the GM's is going to do this offseason????

I understand the frustration due to the systemic ineptitude of this organization. But it would be a horrible mistake to deviate from this regime's rebuild plan due to impatience. The resorting to expediency and a quick-fix mentality are what has set this franchise back for half a generation. No one needs to agree with everything this young GM has done in his short tenure. What he has done right is establish a blueprint for the rebuild and with discipline adhere to it. This process is working and is materializing at a faster pace than I thought possible when he first took over the stewardship of this bedraggled franchise. I encourage you to be a little more patient. The last third of the past season should provide you with some realistic hope. Stay the course.

You and I are much aligned in regard to Mitts. I believe that he and Cozens will be vying for the top breakout player. Our lines for the most part will be internally staffed. And team improvement will be mostly derived from internal improvement. The GM needs to add players from the outside to buttress the goalie and defensive unit.

I like you am not a draft afficionado. I appreciate the commentary from those here who are knowledgeable about the prospect pool. From an overview standpoint, although there are specific disagreements about some of the decisions the GM has made, in general, there is a coherency and rationality to how the franchise is being run that hasn't existed for a long time. There is a rebuild plan that emphasizes a draft and development approach that is being implemented. It is a pleasant surprise that it is moving along at a faster pace than I thought possible after KA took over as a GM.

The level of lingering resentment by many fans for players who decide to leave Buffalo for whatever reasons is amazing. They just can't let it go.

First, let's stop making assertions against arguments that weren't made (at least by me). No one is arguing that Gallant isn't a good coach. He is. The hiring of Granato to replace Krueger was not a genius move (as you describe). It was an in-house interim replacement of a coach whose team quit on him. He was hired within the season to stem the copious bleeding of a nearly dead carcass of a team. It was a temporary measure to get by for the rest of the lost season. As it turned out the young team responded to the Italian coach with cool blue framed glasses. The quality of play improved and the style of play became much more palatable to watch. He was hired as the HC in the offseason based on how well he worked with the roster he inherited. Every player under him, young and old, played better for him than they did under the previous coach who shackled his players. He was hired as the HC based on his performance from the previous year. Is Granato going to be a spectacular coach? Let's not get carried away. How many spectacular coaches are in this league? The spectacular coach in one year can become the fired coach in the next year. The crazy life cycle of a coach is unpredictable and can be quickly upended with an in-season slump. The overhanging question is: Will Granato be an effective coach when he is working with a more complete and mature roster? I think so but can't say for sure. That issue will be better clarified once this team gets to the point that it is playing meaningful games throughout the season. When all is said and done the issue comes down to how much talent do you have. We are not there yet.

There is no question that the Gallant has done an exceptional job for the Rangers. But that doesn't mean that he would have been a better coach for the Sabres with the situation they were in. It is difficult to prove that one way or the other whether how he would have done with the Sabres. What we do know for sure is that after Granato took over for Krueger all the players, young and old, played better under him. All you can ask for in any coach is for that coach to maximize the talent he has to work with.