JohnC

I would go along with those who favor Dahlin. A legitimate argument can be made that he is in the running for the best defenseman in the league. I'm not saying anything negative about Tage. He's now the caliber of player where teams focus their game plans on him. Both are exceptional and entertaining to watch. Each is in the upper tier of players in the league.

The Mule is such a smart player for someone so young. He is not dazzling like Dahlin or regularly carries the puck into the offensive zone like Power does. He simply efficiently gets the puck out of his zone. His hockey instincts are exceptional. He reads and reacts to plays as well as some of the top tier defensemen in the league. Although he isn't what I would call a banger, when it is required he is capable of driving the player he is covering through the boards. He is a genuine top pairing player. Already, I consider him an anchor player for us.

Is he going to join the Sabres or be assigned to Rochester?

There is an economic aspect to the Ullmark issue or any other player transaction that improves the team. If a team becomes more competitive and is at the minimum a playoff contender, doesn't that correspond to more fans attending the games? That translates into more revenue. And also, teams that make the playoffs extend their seasons and generate more money from attendance. That certainly would defray or even offset an increase in salary for a player. No one is arguing to be hellbent on foolishly spending money on players for the sake of being a little more competitive at the expense of financially boxing yourself in the not-too-distant future. But sometimes judiciously extending your financial boundaries a little will more than pay itself both financially and from a competitive standpoint. Showing a little more urgency to improve a roster is a better marketing tool than just talking about the future while constantly lagging in the present.

I agree. We are just going in circles.

This isn't hindsight. At the time, what options did the GM have to Ullmark if he didn't sign with the team? He didn't have an adequate option in place just in case if the contract discussions didn't work out. You keep insisting that Ullmark would have been overpaid if the GM signed him for what the player wanted. That's not the case. It would have been a little more and longer than what he wanted but it still would have fallen within the realm of being a reasonable contract, especially considering what our cap situation was. It would have resulted in minimal or even no cap pressure for the life of his contract. The Sabres had a goaltender who they developed. He was in our system for six years. A little more flexibility on the part of the GM would have resulted in retaining him cost this franchise an opportunity to seriously compete for a playoff spot this year. There is no doubt in my mind that with an Ullmark level of goalie play this year the Sabres would be in serious contention for a playoff spot. The Ullmark issue demonstrated bad judgment that was costly to the team and fanbase.

The issue for me is not whether he lied or not. I don't care. In negotiations it's not surprising that each side leaves room (flexible language) for interpretation. And in the process of negotiations it shouldn't be surprising that positions change during the fluid process. What KA said on WGR is that the goalie would have signed with the Sabres if the organization was willing to pay more and add a year to the offer he had somewhere else. The GM specifically said on the radio that he declined to sign him because it went beyond the contract parameters that the organization set for him. In essence, the player was demanding a premium price to remain with Buffalo rather than go to a more stable and competitive organization i.e. a loser tax. In his first year with the Bruins, he went to the playoffs. And this year he is thriving in Boston with a surging team. What I'm not going to do is criticize a player for acting in his best interest, especially when he is an UFA. This is my opinion: Even if Ullmark's contract demands were higher than what the GM established for him, it wasn't at such an exorbitant level that the organization couldn't have handled the increase, especially considering their copious cap situation. Again, this is my opinion: If we would have had Ullmark caliber goaltending this season, the Sabres would now have around 6 more points in the standings. An Ullmark and Anderson tandem would have given us the level of netminding that would have this team in playoff contention. No one can say for sure that we would make the playoffs with this tandem, but without a doubt the Sabres would be better this season if the GM decided to be less rigid in his contract stance. I want to make it clear that I'm a KA fan. Overall, as a GM he has done a tremendous job. His biggest accomplishment is in rebuilding and better staffing the organization. He put together a rebuilding blueprint and has adhered to it. There is a coherency throughout the organization that didn't exist before. I just think he unnecessarily let a goaltender go because he wasn't willing to bend as much as he should have.

Negotiations are negotiations. The players on both sides of the table aren't always speaking precisely or with clarity. That's not unusual and shouldn't be a surprise. Each side is trying to get a better deal for itself. In the end Ullmark came back to the Sabres and told him what his price was to stay. It was more than what Boston offered. KA said no to that deal. Ullmark then signed with Boston.

Your post is restating what I have been saying all along. And I believe that paying that extra million $$ and year on his term was doable and reasonable considering this franchise's cap situation.

The Ullmark story is complicated. I never said that it was a simple issue. There was no question that the player and his agent were not forthright in their negotiations. That shouldn't be a surprise in the hockey business world. It's part of the negotiating process. What I can declaratively say is that the GM stated on WGR that the player and his agent came back to the GM and gave them what their terms were to sign with the Sabres. It was a longer term and more per year than the proposed Boston deal. The GM publicly stated on the airwaves that it was outside their parameters. I believe that it was a mistake. I'm fine with others having another opinion about whether he should be signed at the elevated price. My point is that there was a price where he would have stayed. And I believe that the franchise even at the increased price should have signed him.

You constantly misrepresent what happened. Ullmark would have stayed if the Sabres would have paid him a premium $$ and term for staying with this franchise. The GM made a decision not to. How do I know? The GM said so on WGR. That's a fact!

I'm reluctant to get into a Jack discussion because of the heat it generates. So let my comment be divorced from a specific player and team. The reality of pro sports (all sports) is that there is nothing new about player and team relationships fracturing. It's simply part of the environment of sports. In reality, it has always been part of the business. But it is now even more of a factor because of contracts and cap considerations and franchises going through different stages of rebuilding. If Wayne Gretsky, the greatest player in the history of hockey can be dealt or moved on more than a few occasions, then anyone can! As I and others have said, Jack being traded was the best thing that happened to him from a career standpoint, and trading him was the right thing for the organization to do because the GM made a decision to move on from him and reboot the roster. Did the GM get an equal value for Jack, one of the best players in the league when healthy? I believe he got a fair return for him. In my view that deal helped to accelerate the rebuild. In this case both sides of the equation should be happy with the outcome. I don't want to start another interminable heated argument but it can be argued that a bigger factor that set this franchise back was not re-signing Ullmark. This team would be in a much better position with Ullmark and Anderson as our goalies.

As you are suggesting salaries go up. So when his contract is up and it is time to negotiate a new deal, the player and agent are going to go for a market deal. Players are not dumb. They are well aware that it is a business. They'll get what the market indicates they should get. A discounted deal for one player doesn't necessarily carry over to another player who is looking for a market value. (As you are stating.)

The difference with this Sabre team is that the goal scoring is spread out throughout the other lines and on both PP units. What we are seeing now are teams are focusing on Tage, and trying to get him off his favored spot. The other lines and shooters are picking up the slack.

That's an excellent way of putting it.

I agree with you that most of his saves were in the routine category. But there was a reason for it. If you watched this game and the play of Anderson what became evident (and noted on the broadcast) was that he anticipated where the play was going to go and better positioned himself for the shot. There were few wasted movements and few frantic plays to stop the puck because he always seemed to be in position. His play certainly wasn't of a "show stopping" category as much as it was simply a veteran goalie who played his position smartly. I hope UPL closely observed how the old guy played the position.

He wanted out and the new GM wanted him out. He ended up in Vegas, got the surgery he wanted and regained his health and form. Now he is the best player on a cup contending team. It worked out well for all the parties involved.

I have to give Don Granato credit in the way he has handled Krebs. He has sat Krebs, limited his playing time and then put him on a line with Girgs and Okposo. He made him accountable for his play. What that shift to the elderly line did is force the youthful player to simplify his game and become more of a battler than a floater as a player. It forced the player to value the puck more and lose it less with low percentage passes. When Krebs scored the goal from an Olofsson pass the credit should go to his playing with Girgs and Okposo who taught him how to play a NHL game. Good coaching resulting in internal improvement.

I don't always agree with your takes. However, when it comes to assessing players in Rochester and how they will translate to the bigger league you are one of the main people I listen to. The short history/pattern of Quinn is that whenever he moves up the ranks he has an adjustment period. And then he solidifies his play. It's going to be fun exciting watching the line he plays on getting better and better. Don Granato was recently on WGR and talked about that youth line. He said that during practice this line often chooses to go against the top (Tage) line and then ferociously battles with them. This line is not only talented but it has that competitive ingredient that will make them a force.

Yes, he made some indirect comments about the locker room having factions. Jack certainly wasn't a chummy guy. So what? That doesn't mean that he was a toxic figure on this team as many try to make him out to be. He wanted out just as ROR, Risto, Reinhart, Ullmark, Hall, Montour etc. wanted out. What's evident is that systemic losing is corrosive. That should be a motivating factor giving urgency to building a winning team. The Jack saga is over for the player and for the organization.

I liked the play of Clague in this game. It was solid. When Bushkin and Joki get back the lower pairings should be better. And if you add Fitz to the mix then the lower pairings will be more than incrementally better, and there will be more depth.

It's going to be fun watching the Cozens line grow together. If you ask me who is going to be better between JJ and Quinn (recognizing different styles) I think it's going to be Quinn. He has a better shot and there is more subtlety to his game (my opinion). Cozens is the driver of that line. As I said in a prior post and as you have been saying for a long time, if the Sabres had the caliber of goalie play that was exhibited in this game by Anderson on a regular basis, this team would be a serious team.

For two periods LA played a suffocating style of game that from an entertaining standpoint is soul-crushing. Once the Sabres broke through in the third period the dam broke and LA's style of play became ineffective when playing from behind. Anderson was the first star. Can you imagine if he were able to be a workhorse goalie how much better our record would be? In this game his anticipation was exceptional and he was always in control. The best pass of the game was Quinn to JJ for a score. Krebs got a goal off of an Olofsson pass. Although he didn't score it when he was on the Okposo/Girgs line he has become a better player because he simplified his game because of his association with the two veteran players. He's a younger player getting better. I thought he didn't deserve the penalty he got along the boards. To his credit he hustled back to chase the player down. I thought Olofsson played well. Good goal and nifty pass to Krebs. How many goalposts has he hit this season? This was a good win against a tough team to play.

The biggest difference in this LA game was that we got top-shelf goaltending throughout this game. It has been consistently pointed out by many that the way for this team to move up the ranks is upgrading the goalie position and adding another defenseman or two. I'm simply not going along with your prescription of what ails this team. Adding talent and creating more depth and not softness in play are what's needed. We just disagree. That's okay.

When you have an insufficient amount of talent and compete against more talented teams you are more likely to lose than win. That's been the problem for the Sabres for the past decade. The era of gladiator and goon hockey is long gone. Speed, skill and even toughness are attributes that contribute to winning games. This looking back to the era of Flyer thuggery as a model to follow is a fantasy laid on top of a delusion. Hooliganism is not a solution to anything but more time in the penalty box. The recipe for success is basic: adding more talent.