JohnC

I'm far from being done with Olofsson. It's easy to feel giddy after a win against a tanking team at the end of an extended and exhausting road trip. But what happens when the Sabres face the inevitable injuries? We've seen that spiraling down phenomenon two often. Are you going to argue that we have enough talent in reserve? When this team is in-tact, even with its known deficiencies, this team can compete with all teams. However, what it doesn't have is an excess in talent who you can casually get rid of only to have created another void when a player or two is out of the lineup.

The broadcast had a graphic that showed our three rookie players in Quinn, JJ and Power, combined, have more points than any rookie group on any team in the league. And watching our guys no one can deny that there is still so much more room to grow.

You go in circles. I don't know what you are talking about or what your point is. To say prospects are prospects is like saying a horse is a horse and a mule is a mule. I'm admittedly very obtuse but I'm aware of that.

Barnaby got playing time in the NHL. It's more likely than not that Pekar never makes it up to the NHL.

Don't buy @PerreaultForever's postulation that stardom was predicted for Pekar. No one who was sober projected Pekar to be a high level NHL player. Quite the contrary. The issue was whether he could ever get to the highest league. There was some noise about him because he had a Marchand nuisance style of game. It was simply a mirage.

When you blame a GM for a problem he wasn't involved in then you are being unreasonable. He took over a struggling hockey operation and made a major change in the roster and operation. If you think that there was going to be a quick fix, then you are being unrealistic. It's called the real world, not a fantasy world.

Putting Krebs on a line with Okposo and Girgs was an intriguing move. As @Doohickienoted it forced him to simplify his game and play a tighter brand of hockey. This was an interesting move by the coach to change the dynamic who seemed to be struggling and searching for his game.

He'll deserve the monetary reward. He's playing really well and putting his young wingers in a position to thrive. What's exciting is that you know that the line he is driving will continue to get better. Our top two lines are good. Steadily, the pieces are falling into place.

It's exasperating when you watch the same problem over and over. It's like when we repeatedly watched Risto cluelessly chase a man leaving the front of the net uncovered. There's no question that Krebs is a pass first center. But sometimes you have to react to the situation and go against your first instincts.

I'm making a prediction: The Mitt/Krebbs/Olofsson line will score a goal in this game. I'm putting my credibility in on the line. When one doesn't have much to give, there is not much to take. 🤡 I have a simple recommendation for Krebbs and also Mitts: If you have a shooting lane, freaking shoot it!

Why worry about another team's goalie. When our own goalie is sinking the ship I would be not pointing fingers at another team's deficiency. When one's own furniture has a lot of dust it takes a lot of nerve to critically tell another person that they need to apply more furniture polish.

Especially for a Sabre fan, no one should be mocking the goaltending of another team. That's like Al Capone calling someone else a crook.

You make an interesting observation (maybe intended or not??). The one thing that KA has done well so far is identify players and project what they would be worth in the present and their worth in the future. With a couple of his identified valued players he has been able to get earlier deals that would be organization friendly than if he waited for their contracts to run out. Two obvious examples of that are Samuelsson and Tage. Both of these deals were good deals for the respective players in that it gave them immediate security while those same deals were extraordinarily good value deals for the Sabres in the short and long-run. With respect to Mitts, as you point out, the player is going to determine his contract value to this franchise. And that is how the GM wants it to be.

Quick fixes are usually temporary and often lead to future impairments. You are including the KA regime with the faltering regimes of the past. That's not a fair description of the situation when he took over the operation. There is a line of demarcation before he took over and after he took over from. Once KA was installed, he then set a change of course, and in a relatively short period of time restructured the organization, the hockey operation and laid out a blueprint to follow. I understand your impatience because I (most others) also experience it, albeit it to a lesser extent. Putting things in perspective this rebuilding timeline which is moving forward has been relatively short.

So would I. But the issue I have isn't so much of the long lost past as it was about recent missed opportunities to get better. I just think that the GM could have done a little more to add depth to the blue line without it impinging on their current rebuilding strategy. A little more depth would have given this team more of a cushion to absorb the inevitable injuries. And let's be clear here, this is a GM issue and not an ownership issue. I don't believe that the owner is being unreasonably intrusive when it comes to hockey decisions. That's not to say that he isn't in constant communication with those running it, but that is as it should be.

Which of the three players mentioned (Rousek, Kulich and Rosen) do you see becoming the better NHL player in a time frame of two to three years?

You follow the Amerks as well as anyone. Could you list two to three players you believe will be ready to move up the ranks in the next couple of years?

As you are highlighting, statistical production doesn't necessarily indicate the important contributions and roles that these two players make. Both on the ice and off these two veterans are leaders on this young team, showing the youngster how to play and prepare properly. These two guys are winners on the ice, in the room and in the community. If you took them off this team, there would be a void that couldn't be immediately filled. There are many players on this roster where it is fair to be critical of, not these two standup guys.

The front office and organization would acknowledge that this team and system currently lacked depth. That's obvious for everyone to see.

I respectfully disagree. Even with a favorable set up they made enough right decisions as an expansion team to be contenders right from the start. I'm not a Pegula basher because I do believe that the course for this franchise is finally set in the right direction. And as much criticism he has received for his stewardship he should be given credit for belatedly getting the right people to restructure this franchise. But let's also acknowledge the fact that in the first few years of ownership the Pegulas made a lot of strategic and personnel blunders that set this franchise back.

Both Vegas and Seattle have had good starts from their inception because the respective organizations made a lot of good decisions. When you make a lot of decisions in the sports business not all of them are going to work out. But overall, there were more plus than minus decisions. I thought that Vegas worked the system like maestros to build a cup contending team right from the start. And the organization has continued to make some big consequential decisions such as for Jack and Stone to continue on with their successful pathway.

Yes. Without even getting into numbering the lines what is evident is that the coach has lessened their time on ice due to their unproductive play.

I disagree with you regarding Mitt's current worth. He's playing as a third line center with his minutes being limited. (Why do you think that DG has curtailed his minutes?) I'm confident in saying that his current market value is very small at this time. I'm not a Mitts basher, at least compared to the consensus assessment made by most on this site. I want him to succeed. Last year, DG said that he was one of the best players in training camp, then he got hurt. From what I have seen this year he seems to be spinning his wheels and not getting enough production to warrant much playing time. When watching him play I see that he has the parts of the game as far as effort, vision, responsible two-way play etc., but the pieces just don't seem to fall together and translate into production. One advantage he has is that he is versatile enough where he can play both the wing and center. So that is an asset. I'm not giving up on him but candidly my view of him has very much dimmed. Sometimes players become stale in one location and a change of a location can result in invigorating a career that has gone stale. With respect to Krebs I believe that a stint in Rochester with extensive playing time would benefit him. In no way am I arguing to deal him unless the return for him is too attractive.

Krebs appears to be a young player who simply isn't ready for regular NHL playing time. Maybe the best approach to build him up as a player would be to send him to Rochester and exhaustingly play him in all situations. DG has talked about the perils of being too quick to make a judgment on a young player. Krebs is the type of player who would fall withing his warnings about being too quick to judge. With respect to Mitts, I think the best thing for him is a change of scenery. The problem is that he has little value on the trade market. I have been more supportive/hopeful about him than others have been. However, that hope for him is fading almost to the point of being extinguished. It's unlikely that the Sabres will make the playoffs this year. However, I still believe that this team can get things together enough to make a legitimate run for a lower playoff spot. Even if the team falls short (as it is likely), I still believe that we can contend up to the end of the season.