JohnC

When I read the column the first thing that came to mind was that the hiring of Don Granato to steward the influx of young players is the key to success. If a standard coaching hire was made from the carousel of NHL coaching retreads, the rebuild primarily based on the development of young players would fail. It just seems to me that from the top of the organization, to the coaching staff, to the young players and mentoring veterans everyone is in sync. There is a coherency to the plan that is being followed.

If a player has a debilitating case of hemorrhoids is it described as a mbi (middle body injury)? ☠️

What is LBI? Is it lower back injury?

You make a good observation. Samuelsson is obviously the more talented and impactful player. Fitzgerald on the other hand is a player who knows his limitations and plays within his talents. He's more of a support player who isn't very noticeable on the ice yet he is effective. We could use another Fitzgerald type of player on the backend.

One player who has really impressed me is Samuelsson. He plays like a composed veteran defenseman. Although this big fellow is not a thumper he does play big. His efficiency and positioning are those of an experienced defenseman. ( @nfreemanalso cited his play.) What's evident is the plan to play him extensively in Rochester before bringing him up has worked out marvelously. Next year, when Power is added to the blue line you can see the formation of a talented unit. Dahlin/Joki/Samuelsson/Power make for a promising core. Adding another player or two to the group as support players will make this unit even better. After Skinner signed his big contract he was the target of much derision. Much of it deserved. And playing for Krueger he was a lost soul on the ice. To the player's credit he is a revitalized player and arguably the biggest offensive threat for this team. Granato deserves credit for putting him in a position to succeed.

As like you, I wasn't particularly keen on the way KA handled the goaltending issue this past offseason. On that we can agree on. But there is a benefit to having a veteran like Anderson on the roster that in a variety of ways positively effects a novice player such as UPL. As a mentor for the young goalie the veteran can serve as an example in how best to prepare for games, not only in practice but also in video sessions. He is also a respected player/person who can serve as a sounding board when the inevitable struggles happen for the inexperienced goalie. On most teams there are a few veteran players whose value goes beyond their statistics. The benefit to their team due to their "presence" in practice and in games can't accurately be quantified. Okposo is a player who falls in that "positive presence" category. In my opinion, Anderson also falls in that category.

I agree with your comment. Giving up assets for the wrong players was a mistake.

We just disagree. Anderson gives the Sabres a better chance to be respectable. Not only does he allow us to be competitive but in no way does his presence hinder the younger players. In fact, I would argue by allowing us to be respectable he is helping the younger players to develop. When UPL gets healthy he will get enough playing time to enhance his development and demonstrate what he is capable of. So at least for this season I don't see his presence as hurting any player or the rebuild plan. In my view you gain nothing by shipping out a player who helps the team for a meaningless return. Next year the situation is different. But this year trading the old goalie makes no sense to me.

No it doesn't? What do you expect to get for Anderson in a trade? His value to the Sabres is that he gives them a chance to win more games.

I don't understand your reasoning in expecting/hoping that Anderson gets traded? When he plays the record is respectable; when he doesn't play the team plunges. What would be the point in trading a veteran goalie who would return you little? What the young players on this team desperately need is some current success that will provide some realistic optimism for the future. Trading Anderson would be a damaging move with little benefit. I'm simply perplexed by your stance.

The "what if" game is a game of futility played by losers. But "what if" the Sabres had Anderson caliber netminding all season? How many more points would this team have earned? My conservative guess is in the range of 6-8 more points. It wouldn't be a great difference but it would provide a better outlook on this team and season.

I watched the first two periods. Anderson was terrific. He got right into it with no apparent rust from the long layoff. What is evident is that in a short period of time the GM is reshaping the roster with his acquisitions that included drafting Quinn, Peterka and acquiring Krebs and Tuch in the Jack trade. From the two periods that I watched not only was I impressed with the play of Krebs but also the potential in the near future. He has exceptional vision and his passing is top shelf.

The oldsters are chuckling while the youngsters don't know what you are talking about.😁

The lesson to be learned by the TM tenure is to be judicious with your assets and wisely utilize them. That wasn't a trademark of his tenure that looked for a quick fix. There are a number of avenues to upgrade a roster. Foreclosing or limiting any one of them due to fear of previous failings is the wrong lesson to be learned. What is evident with this regime under KA is that this franchise is not going to act out of desperation or expediency. That was evident by the way KA handled the Jack Eichel situation. He bided his time and waited until a reasonable deal materialized, and then he made the transaction. Taking steps to move forward is better than standing in place when the destination is still some distance away.

Potently stated! The Murray mistakes of the past that are reflexively brought up whenever someone brings up options to improve this team. That hesitancy due to fear of past failure in the long run is more franchise crippling than taking some actions that don't work. Few people here are advocating for a dramatic change in the draft and develop rebuild process. Without question that is the core of the rebuild strategy. However, when one has an excess in draft capital that includes a number of second and third round picks on top of a low cap figure, then those are assets that can be parlayed into contributing players. Anyone who believes that this team has enough contributing players isn't watching the same games that I am watching.

I don't see what Sabre player has value in the market. As you point out Miller is hurt diminishing what value he ever had. I still believe that Olofsson is dealing with the effect of his injury. He simply isn't close to what he was since he came back from his injury. Because of his diminished play he has little value and because he may be impaired because of an injury I would be reluctant to part with him. I'm more intrigued with what the organization does in the offseason than what happens at the trade deadline. That's where there will be opportunities to add some useful pieces to this rebuilding roster.

Walking away from Ullmark was not the problem. The problem was that the GM didn't have an adequate fallback position if he couldn't sign the UFA goalie at the price he deemed acceptable. That's the indictable offense. However, I absolutely agree that paying Ullmark a million dollars more on a four year term (your example) would be worth it. That extra million would have had a negligible impact for a franchise that is at the bottom of cap spending. The combination of Ullmark and UPL (now injured) would have made more sense than bringing in Anderson and pairing him up with anyone else. The Sabres have had bad luck with injuries at the goalie position this year. But when the season started the position was thin to begin with. I'm not getting carried away and proclaiming Ullmark to be an upper tier player. But as a Sabre he played well for us, and his record was starkly better than other goalies in the net. The past is the past. The lesson to be learned is to be better prepared to respond to contingencies such as having options for a player who is an UFA. That was the failure with in this situation.

The Ullmark issue has a number of aspects to it. One is that the GM declined to sign Ullmark to the contract that he was willing to sign in order to stay. And the other side of it is that Boston signed him for a reasonable contract. What it came down to is that Ullmark wanted the Sabres to pay a premium price for him to stay with a struggling and rebuilding team as opposed to signing a lesser contract with a more complete and playoff contending team. As an UFA Ullmark was looking out for his best interest. There was nothing unreasonable about Ullmark's stance. The GM who had plenty of cap space and an acknowledged major void at the position could have easily kept the player at the price the player was demanding and still continue on with his rebuild without hindering it at all in the short or long term. The point I'm making here irrespective to this particular example is that there are ways to accelerate the upgrade of this team if there is a little more creativity and desire to do so. I'm not talking about fanciful blockbuster deals as I'm talking about being a little more aggressive in improving this incomplete team. When you are walking and increase your pace just a little you will get to your destination quicker than if you continue at an ambling pace.

There are opportunities for players who are underperforming where they are at and who need a change of scenery. Sam Bennett has been a tremendous pickup for Florida. Although the deal was not costly it turned out to be impactful. I don't expect such a deal to turn out as auspiciously as this one but there are deals that could be made that would improve the roster. The Sabres have cap space and they have draft assets. An enterprising GM would be able to judiciously use them. Again, I want to make it clear that I am not advocating for a major depletion of our resources/assets to upgrade the team simply for a short-term benefit at the expense of the longer term. https://www.nhl.com/news/florida-acquires-sam-bennett-from-calgary/c-323572260

I'm not giving up a first for any netminder. But I would consider a third, or if the player was good enough, I would consider a second round pick. As an example I would trade a second round pick for Washington's Vanacek or a player like him. Draft picks (not first round picks) can be used as currency, especially if combined with taking on a salary that another team wants to ship out. And that same line of thinking applies to other positions. Even if you don't make dramatic improvements you still can make improvements that make your team better.

A couple of judicious trades with cash strapped teams can be made without giving up much in the way of assets other than taking on some salary. The Sabres have a lot of cap space than can be smartly used on a couple to three players that would not only improve the roster but provide better support for our young players. What I'm suggesting is not taking dramatic action that will in the long-run set back the rebuild. I'm suggesting the opposite. If you have an opportunity to improve the team within the confines of the planned rebuild, then it should be done. The Sabres are currently playing in front of mostly an empty building inhabited by listless fans. Taking a passive approach to improving the team is taking a longer road to continuing irrelevancy. It need not be that way.

I'm not just looking at the UFA market. Trades can be made without giving up high draft picks.

You are mistakenly extrapolating my position to an extreme. You are citing past failures and attaching them to the present and approaching offseason. That is not close to what I am suggesting. There is a reasonable middle here that I believe can accelerate the rebuild without mortgaging/sabotaging the rebuild. How Murray functioned during his tenure is not the model that I am advocating for. It's the opposite of his approach and it more favors the KA approach. What I would like to see is some of the large available cap money being used for maybe two, three or four quality (not elite) players that will replace some of the very pedestrian players that are currently on the roster. That certainly isn't a high cost or asset depleting change of direction of the current course this franchise is on. I have stated on more than a few occasions that I believe this is a three year rebuild with this year being the first year. I still believe that. I also believe that because of the vanishing fan base and the damage done by constant losing to the young core that the accelerator has to be stepped down on a little harder in order to gain more credibility with the fanbase and the hockey world. You may have forgotten that we lost our previous core for a variety of reasons but much of it due to the corrosion of constant losing. I don't want to see that happen again. The Sabres have

When Tuch was in LV he was on a cup contending team and playing in front of capacity and raucous crowds. Now he is in Buffalo playing in front of a mostly empty arena and is playing on a losing team. I'm not bringing this up to suggest that he isn't happy to be here and be closer to his family. My fear is that unless there is a quicker turn-around his initial enthusiasm of returning home will soon wane. I have this same concern of disillusionment from our new young core that has known nothing but team failure. My hope is that this ownership and front office lean toward the side of being aggressive in accelerating the rebuild. This offseason this franchise will have cap resources to increase the pace of the rebuild. I hope they take advantage of it.

Many people are arguing that Adams needs to be aggressive in bringing in another goalie to upgrade the position. (That's where I stand.) But it is more likely that the GM is going to stay the course and go with UPL as his primary goalie, and continue with his low cost and short term options as backups. If Levi is going to turn pro as many people expect, he'll end up in Rochester and be the main goalie there so he can be fast tracked to the NHL. This approach will fit in with the building from within approach and will be the cheaper approach to take. There was a discussion on another thread that discussed the usage of cap space. My sense is that for the near future (another year or two) from a cap standpoint this organization is going to be at or near the bottom pay scale in the league. The course of this rebuild has been set; I don't see much deviation from it. I would like to see more urgency but I wouldn't count on it.