JohnC

I disagree with your evaluation of the draft. As you noted they drafted players who fit in well with their system and philosophy. It's not glitzy but it is sound. That's the plan that is being followed. The execution is exceptional. That's good drafting.

If this deal is as described and the Sabres refused to retain some of Jack's salary I will be upset and disillusioned to the extent of considering walking away. As you stated the Sabres may be 4 yrs or so away from being a cup contender but at least there will be some hope about the prospects for this franchise. Just because a team isn't a legitimate cup contending team doesn't mean that it can't be an entertaining and competitive team.

If Adams follows the McBeane model of rebuilding with the players that fit what they want to accomplish and culling out the players that don't fit in with their blueprint for the type of roster they want to construct I believe that this roster can be remade in two to three years. Although the Sabres have and will shed some of their established core players the GM will not be starting from scratch. We do have a young core to build around. And we have a few good players in the AHL pipeline who are close to being ready i.e. a year or two away. One of the main reasons that the Bills have been able to make a rather rapid turnaround is because their drafting has been solid. For the most part there is nothing dazzling about their selections that have included a number of value picks in the mid-rounds. And if you review their free agent pickups they are players who fit in well. Other than Diggs I can't recall a high profile free agent acquisition or trade exchange. In general I like would Adams has done. He's had some tough luck that he couldn't control. Jack being injured and thus being devalued on the market hurt with bringing in some good pieces. And Ullmark upping his contract demands with us beyond his value created a big hole at the backstop position. To Adams credit although keeping Ullmark was important his value demands didn't match his talent level. That showed good discipline and judgment on the part of the GM. The big issue is whether the owners will be willing to give this regime the time needed to do what is required to do to successfully rework this roster.

Let me put it a different way. They did try to build around Jack but for a variety of reasons were unsuccessful at doing it to the degree that they needed to. One of the essential things a GM has to do when assembling talent is making sure that the pieces fit (as you noted). It didn't happen to the extent it needed to as their dismal record indicates. The Pegula era has gone on for a decade. During that ignominious period this franchise has floundered. There are a number of people who are not satisfied with KA as our GM. To his credit he has at least a plan and without taking diverting shortcuts he seems determined to execute it. Hopefully, he will be given enough time to do it. .

I agree with you that well run organizations smartly manage their caps. But as you noted once the adjustment period runs its course contracts in general will increase proportionally with the increase in the cap. That was my point.

No doubt that the cap will go up. But so will player salaries that will absorb that increase. Building a team while the team has a high performing qb on a rookie contract is essential. Once that rookie qb contract runs out and is replaced with an exorbitant second contract tough personnel decisions will still have to be made.

When you are a top tier talent and play on a bad team your production is going to be wasted. He lacked the support required for the team to succeed. That's the heart of the problem for this failed franchise. The Sabres had more than enough time to bring in players or develop players in their system to thicken the roster. However, bad personnel decisions and the constant changing of the staff created an instability within the organization that couldn't be overcome. The hockey world has a dim view of this franchise under the stewardship of the Pegulas. They have earned the league wide scorn. All you have to do is check the record. It's embarrassing.

I agree with you that Mitts and his line mates played well under Granato than under Krueger. That comment can apply to every player on the roster after the coaching change. The Mitts line that included Asplund and Thompson would on a more complete team be a solid third line in time. And when I categorize that line at a third line level I am denigrating the line. It's an important role. Reinhart showed that he could be a good second or maybe even a solid first line center. Jack is definitely a first line center. Mitts doesn't come close to that level play. What happens on bad teams with a dearth of talent is that players end up playing a higher role than their talent level. That was evident on our blue line. A third pairing caliber of player ends up playing as a second pairing and gets skewered for his play. The reality is that the player is playing a role beyond his what he is suited for. That pattern of inflating a player's role is going to become evident this season. I liked what I saw from Mitts last season and still see some upside. I thought he was a lost cause but he turned out to be a pleasant surprise. My point here is don't get carried away with your assessment of Mitts.

When it gets to the point that the posting of an emoji becomes the last straw motivating someone to do something that may not be in one's best interest then we have entered the realm of irrationality. Is the emoji a signal that Jack doesn't want to be here? If it does, so what! That's already known. Just as it is already known that the organization wants to move on from him. You don't need to look for hidden meanings when the parties involved are upfront with their intentions. There are plenty of reasons to criticize the organization. How they are handling the Jack situation is not one of them. They are not responding to the commotion (perceived or real) from the other side. They will make a deal when it is the right deal. If it can't be done sooner, then it will be done later. This is the period of time in the offseason prior to training where there isn't much happening. The imaginations and conspiracies are running amok.

There was no intended sarcasm in my response. You did not receive the comments I made correctly. I simply said that a previous year's performance does not always indicate the next year's performance. You don't have to agree with that statement. You are over-interpreting my response.

You are so off the mark that I wasn't even going to respond. For the sake of comity I will. If you believe that I am defending every move this franchise has made then you have not accurately interpreted my many posts. What I can say is that this regime has made a decision to rebuild after so many organizational mistakes during the Pegula stewardship. I do agree that a rebuild is the right strategy to take. How long is it going to take? If done smartly it can in my opinion be done in three years.

Do previous year's stats (especially in an unique year) always indicate one's performance in the next year? I don't believe so. In this year's training camp he will be judged on how he plays. If he earns a spot on the roster he earns a spot on the roster. If he doesn't earn a spot on the roster he will start the season in Rochester.

Please stop with last year's Rochester statistics meaning anything useful. It doesn't because it was such an odd season for a variety of reasons. First, UPL played in an abbreviated and delayed Covid year. And he played in a season where practice time was limited. On top of that he was playing on a team that was stripped of its best players because they were brought up to the big club. So those stats that you cite aren't as useful as you believe them to be. I agree with you that if they do start him up in Buffalo it might not be the best situation for him and his development. On the other hand it could turn out surprisingly well. Right now you are wasting an abundance of energy on something that might not even happen. So be brave and stop fretting over the upcoming abnormal.

Of course there is more pressure on UPL playing in the NHL this year than if he played in Rochester. And of course there are risks associated with rushing prospects. But in the rebuilding situation that the Sabres are in it can also be a situation where you have an opportunity to more quickly explore whether a youngster can play at this higher level. What's the fear? That if he can't handle the higher level of play and is sent down he will be damaged goods? That argument makes no sense to me. Mitts was rushed and failed at his first stint with Buffalo. He was sent back down and then brought back up. He demonstrated that he was capable of playing in the league. He played at a level last year that went beyond my expectation. There is a conventional roadmap associated with the number of games and timeline when developing goalies. Sometimes prospects develop faster than the typical timeline and sometimes they don't. What's the harm in giving him an opportunity to play if he earns the opportunity to play.

That Michigan team is loaded. If they don't win the collegiate championship they will be disappointed. They should be a fun team to watch and a team with a couple of Buffalo prospects (Portillo and Power) who the Sabre fans will follow.

There were plenty of young players last year who played on a losing and deficient team who benefited from their rushed NHL experience. If UPL struggles he will be sent down just as Mitts was sent down for further prepping. Even in failing it is often a better learning experience than succeeding in a lower level. Most of us acknowledge that the Sabres are rebuilding. It's not unusual that young players get rushed in that setting. Some young players such as Cozens demonstrate that they belong while other young players such as Mitts it is evident that they are not ready. They end up being sent down for more schooling. This is a time not to be so timid and be more willing to risk playing a youngster sooner rather than later.

I am not missing the point. I'm well aware that the goaltending staffing is inadequate. That's the stark reality that is apparent to most of us. If UPL beats out the other tenders and his play is inadequate then he gets sent down. That's not a rare occurrence for young players. I don't accept the ingrained concept that so many people are tethered to that a goalie has to play a prescribed number of games before he is ready to play in the NHL. If UPL is the exception to the rule then that is something that should be exalted. If he becomes an example of the rule then he will be demoted to the AHL for further prepping. The notion that he will be irretrievably damaged because of his hard knock experience makes little sense to me. Even if he fails it can be a learning experience for him.

The highlighted segment is what I think is going to materialize this season. That's exactly what I have stated. The test for UPL will come in training camp. Again, that is what I have stated. If UPL demonstrates that he can handle the elevated role he will assume that role. Where I clearly disagree with you is that I don't believe by rushing UPL you are ruining him. If he can't handle this league then he will be shipped back down. I simply don't believe that his psyche is as fragile as you do if his stint doesn't work out well. Would I like to see another credible goalie added to the mix? Of course. The goalie I had my eyes on was Vitek Vanecek, who was a young Washington goalie who played well as a rookie and was selected by Seattle in the expansion draft. After the draft he was flipped back to Washington for a second round pick. Assuming that a pre-draft deal wasn't made between the two teams he would have been a terrific pickup for Buffalo for a second round pick. If you consider a durability factor he might even be better than Ullmark. I agree with you that our goaltending situation is at best precarious. Shoring up that critical position would allow this young roster to at least be competitive. It would also provide a more favorable environment to develop players. I, like you, am hoping that another credible goalie will be added to the mix. If not, then this is another throw-away year with the fanbase continuing on with its fading presence. When you roll the dice you are gambling. That's what is happening here.

Let me be clear with no equivocation: I'm not advocating tanking for whatever reason. It will have more of a damaging than positive effect with this young roster. If UPL isn't ready and is sent down, then so be it. Your list of paltry goaltenders is inadequate. That's not a difficult judgment to make. Maybe Anderson can serve as a useful backup but that group as a unit is grossly inadequate. I don't know if it will happen through a trade or a waiver cut but there needs to be help brought in.

Let his play speak for itself. If he is better than the other players then he should be afforded the opportunity to play. If he can't handle his position at the higher level then send him back down to Rochester.

You have your own narrative and are not responding to what I actually stated. What the heck are you talking about with your throwing to the wolves comment? What I did say is the opposite of your distortion. I said that he should be given the opportunity to compete for a job in training camp. That's a far cry from throwing him into a pack of wolves scenario. If he demonstrates that he can handle the higher level of play and he outperforms the other goalies that he is competing with for a roster spot, then why shouldn't he have a roster spot that he earned? What are you afraid of in giving him an opportunity to compete for a job? You have often stated that the current goaltending staffing is less than stellar. I agree with your assessment. That is an assessment that is obvious to most of us. If he doesn't play well enough in camp, he will be shipped back to Rochester. If he does play well enough to earn a roster spot then good for him. If he plays well to earn a roster spot but falters when the regular season starts then send him back down. What's the problem with that?

The Rochester team was stripped of much of its talent because the better players were brought up to the big club. That's the context in which those stats were based on. What's your fear? He will be given an opportunity to play in training camp and exhibition games. If he can't handle the higher level of play he won't make the roster. If he shows that he can play as well or better than the goalies he is competing with then why shouldn't he be on the roster?

Why are you assuming the organization believes that UPL isn't ready? Why is it not conceivable that the staff is willing to give UPL an opportunity to not only make the roster but also play him, at least to see if he can handle a substantial or less than substantial role in net? Too many people rigidly hold to a tenet that a young goalie has to play so many games at a lower level before being ready to play as a NHL goalie. That conventional approach might be the usual standard but there can be exceptions to the rule that isn't actually an rule. Cozens was rushed to the NHL and he acquitted himself very well until he fizzled at the end of the season. Mitts was rushed before he was ready and he struggled. He made a giant stride last year under Granato. No one who is realistic is going to argue that this is a playoff roster. But because of where this team is in its rebuild it might make sense to be aggressive in playing young players to see exactly what they are capable of. I'm not arguing that you should or should not play young players sooner than usual. What I am saying is let's not close the door on a player just because he is young and inexperienced. Let's be open-minded and allow players to show whether they can handle the jump to the NHL. That should be determined in training camp.

If Tage hits the 20 goal mark I will call that a success. If he plays in most of the games (injuries are an issue for him) it is doable. I'm just hoping there will be a better spread along the lines in goal scoring, and that includes the lower lines that have usually been barren.

The 96% in the survey indicating vaccination rates for doctor may actually be low. Some doctors within that 4% group that have not taken the vaccinations have specific health issues where vaccinations are not recommended. So in reality it is not unreasonable to believe that 98% of the doctors recommend taking the vaccinations unless one's medical conditions indicate otherwise.