JohnC

We certainly don't have the right makeup. It's primarily due to the lack of talent. And it's also due to an incongruent mixture of players. When you have an extended history of bad management and constantly changing of staffs what do you expect? You certainly are not going to have a stable franchise when it is erratically run. No matter how many oldsters you want to bring back to the future they will not be the solution to a failed operation in this modern NHL era. A preponderance of bad decisions predictably are going to lead to bad results. If you want to believe that the Rangers fighting in the last or second last game of the season is going to be a meaningful bonding factor then go ahead and believe that old school fantasy/bullllshiiit. That adrenalin rush will have absolutely no carryover. I'm not saying that teammates shouldn't stick up for one another. But what I am saying is thuggish hockey doesn't trump more talented teams that play well together. You are absolutely right that the Imlach era had an identity. And it should be understood that every era has its own identity. I'm confident that the Imlach era/approach would be an abject failure if it was applied to this era. Change is inevitable in the sports world as it is in life. Looking back for solutions is not going to lead you to success.

The Punch Imlach era was half a century ago! How management handled players in that era is long gun. It's a different world with contracts and free agency. If you want to look back to the bygone days for issues associated with today's hockey world then keep up with your search. If you want to look back then do so. I'm looking forward.

I'm not advocating a trade for Jack. But if he were dealt I would rather see him go to the Rangers for young players such as Kakko and LaFreniere plus a high end prospect. This would be a fair trade for both teams and a good situation for Jack in a more sparkling market. In my view this proposed trade would not set the franchise back in the short run. It would add more talent to the roster and continue with the trend of accumulating young players who still have a lot of upside.

Pamper the superstars? What the heck are you talking about? The problem isn't that our one and only superstar (who was injured for most of the season) is pampered as it is not enough talent on the team. That's the heart of the matter for this failed franchise. And on top of that it is foolishly managed. Compare the difference how this team performed with Granato behind the bench instead of the prior more eloquent coach who was a disaster. Granato took a team that cratered under Krueger and infused it with children from the AHL resulting in this team playing dramatically better. Maybe you are not able to see the difference in the quality of play but it was evident to anyone who had a penny's worth of objectivity. You may have noticed it but Babcock was fired. And you may not be aware of it that this team has performed better without his tiresome scowling phony tough guy act. You want Tortorella? He's on the market because he was fired, again, and again, and again, and again. The worst thing this franchise needs is an old time Neanderthal coach for this young team. When one has to resort to going back to the Imlach era to find a solution to what's going on now in hockey is beyond being absurd.

Toronto's goaltending has been good. They have a talented roster with a number of high cost players. I don't see them making a major expenditure for a goalie. They are doing very well without needing to go outside and outbidding the market to bring in Ullmark, a goalie who has durability issues. I just don't see it happening.

I'm not sure that Ullmark is going to get a better offer with someone else. The bigger issue with him is who is going to give him the longest term contract. My sense is that Ullmark realizes that in Buffalo he will be in a better position to be a #1 goalie than any other place. And hopefully since Granato took over there is more upside with this young roster than most other places that will be a consideration for him. The issue that this organization has to consider when placing a value on McCabe is his durability. His injury record is troublesome. I like him as a player and as a mature presence in the room. But because of his injury history I would be very wary about giving him an extended deal. If I had a choice between keeping Risto or McCabe I would take Risto because of his ability to stay in the lineup.

The Leafs are doing better without him. His dictatorial style of coaching and managing players is antiquated and ineffective. The bullying and tyrannical approach that worked in a prior era no longer works. The players of today are more independent and influence because of their rich contracts and the free agency. Blustering old time coaches can't handle this new reality. Tough. Get the hell out of the way and talk about the good old days at the local tavern.

Sure. If Jack wants to be on a serious cup contending team next year or the year after its not going to happen in Buffalo. Even with some good additions this offseason I still see this team as a marginal playoff team scratching to get into the playoffs. I believe the Sabres are capable of being a playoff team as a fringe participant. In my estimation that is where we are at.

I like everyone else don't know what Jack's state of mind. When healthy I consider Jack to be a top 10-12 player in the league. What I have been saying in these multiple posts is that I am willing to listen to offers for players (any players) if I believe the deal will in the end make this a better team after the transaction. Would a Kakko, LaFreniere plus a high end prospect who is ready or near ready to play be a good return for Jack? Some would say yes and others no. I would equivocate and say I'm not sure. But what I can say for sure is that I would listen to offers. I want to make the playoffs next year as much as anyone. On the other hand I would not give up a young asset such as Cozens for a short term benefit of squeaking into the playoffs at the expense of a player who is going to be a long term asset.

If one believed that a current deal could make this roster better in a year or two then it is certainly worthy of being considered.

I agree with you that if Jack is dealt the players replacing him would be lesser players. That doesn't mean that there can't be a return of multiple players that wouldn't make this roster better. As an example would a trade with the Rangers in which Kakko, LaFraniere and another high end prospect be a good return that could make this a better and fuller roster? Maybe yes or no?

As you stated if a deal were to be made I would want the two kids plus another piece. In that scenario you would thicken the roster and have more of a buffer for the inevitable injuries.

I do believe that the Sabres can win next year. But that is not to say that I wouldn't consider deals that might improve the roster. Could a bonanza return on Jack potentially upgrade the roster by adding talent and thickening the roster? It could. I'm not advocating for trading our best player. But that doesn't foreclose listening to any offers for him or anyone else.

Management doesn't want to get rid of Jack. The Sabres fielded calls on him as they would do for any player. Just the same way as other organizations field calls for any of their players. You keep the lines of communication open to everyone and you keep your options open for now and the future. Jack is a great player. Does that mean that if someone would make an eye-popping offer that could potentially improve the roster that we wouldn't consider it?

Does trading Jack to the Rangers for Kakko and La Freniere and a high end prospect seem like a reasonable return? I'm not advocating for Jack to be moved. I'm just not sure that the team's timeline is acceptable to his timeline for competitiveness.

Emotional maturity also has to be included with the issue of physical maturity. They are intertwined when discussing the maturation process. My sense is that Cozen's baseline physical and emotional maturity level were higher than Mitt's at the start of their respective NHL careers. I'm really excited about the Yukon kid. Next year he is going to be better, and the year after he is going to be much better, etc. I believe that in the not distant future he is going to be an anchor player for us. One of the primary reasons I'm such a strong advocate for Granato to be our HC is that he has a talent for understanding the development process of young players. He knows how to handle the unique requirements of individual players. Considering the young makeup of this roster that is where our future lies.

You are correct that Cozens played better under Krueger than he has under Granato. But for a reason that is not associated with coaching. Cozens like a lot of young players hit the brick wall of a long and grinding pro season in his rookie year. And it has to be factored in that the compressed schedule made it even more difficult for him. He's still physically developing and has not come close to the mature level he will get to in another couple to few years. You can see the physical maturation process taking time with both Thompson and Mitts.

I don't know one player who played under Krueger who didn't get better under Granato. This would have been a tragically wasted season for the younger players' development if he wasn't replaced by Granato.

Excellent post and analysis. We are both on the same page. I don't think there is going to be a dramatic change in the roster. Much is gong to be dependent on the caliber of goaltending. (As you noted. We need Ullmark to play at a #1 level and stay healthy.) And as you noted the hope is thatthrough internal improvement by the youngsters getting even better the team will be more competitive. Add a healthy Jack and continuing on with the guidance of good coaching that knows how to utilize the talents on the roster this franchise should be able to move up the ranks. As I have repeatedly stated I am a strong advocate for Granato. We also need some good luck. My hope is that Skinner can get near to what he once was. That in sense would be like adding a major free agent talent. https://www.nhl.com/video/skinner-trims-deficit-with-ppg/t-324184266/c-8277828

I listened to the clip from WGR. Paul Hamilton was simply giving his opinion/speculating as to which one of the two players the organization would protect with the ownership factoring in on the decision. I'm not sure that it is a factor at all. The discussion between protecting Asplund over Thompson is an interesting discussion. In my view Asplund is more of a well rounded player while Thompson has more goal scoring upside. If I had a say I would prefer to expose Girgs and Bjork and hope to keep Asplund and Thompson protected. If I had to protect either Asplund or Thompson I would protect Thompson and lament the loses of Asplund if that materialized. I would not criticize anyone protecting the other player. It's a tough call.

The league felt that there had to be a buffer of (reserve) days just in case there were game cancellations due to Covid. It was an approach of planning for the worst case scenario and hope for the best. It was a prudent and reasonable approach to take. The worst thing that could have happened is that the season runs out with teams playing a different number of games when there were still playoff implications.

Waited for what? Do you think a miraculous bonanza deal would have popped up in another day? The player wanted to go to Boston. The GM had no other option other than to retain him and continue to pay his hefty salary while he sat out because the organization wanted to play younger players in this futile season. What you fail to consider is that Hall was an UFA. And the market rate for UFAs traded on the deadline is a paltry price. And for the acquiring team there is no guarantee that the player dealt for is going to sign a future contract with Boston. Sometimes you are in a good position to dictate the terms of a deal and sometimes you are not. Our GM got what he could get. That's how the market works.

Considering Hall had the clause in his contract to determine where he would go how do you conclude that the deal to Boston was a bad deal. The GM got the best deal he could get considering the circumstances. When you don't have the leverage then you don't have the leverage.

Excellent observations and post. Two things you mentioned stood out good goaltending is such an important factor in being competitive. If you don't have it on a consistent basis you don't stand a chance. If Ullmark proves to be a genuine #1 goalie then it solves a lot of problems. The critical issue with him is can he stay healthy? I don't want to deviate from the topic but there are a couple of illustrations in this game that scream for retaining Granato as a coach. The Sabres were down 2-0 against a team that doesn't usually lose when ahead, and especially in the first period were being dominated. Hauser was under siege but held up. Yet the team didn't quit as it previously did when facing adversity under the former coach. Weaklings are not going to be tolerated or get ice time. This is a mentally tougher team instilled by the coach. It is apparent that Granato has a feel for the roster. He demoted Skinner to a lower line and elevated Bjork to the Reinhart line, replacing Skinner. Bjork had his best game for the Sabres and was its first star. Even with his demotion Skinner made a nifty pass to Eakin who converted for a crucial score. How's that for smartly and intuitively utilizing your talent? Another example of the coach's influence on this team is exhibited in the play of Olofsson. Compared to before where he played to spots on the ice he is now skating hard all over the ice and giving maximum effort without the puck. That reflects player growth and good coaching. Where I very much differ from you is that I will be glad and relieved when this season is over. Although it's been an exhausting and exasperating season, with the installation of Granato I am more enthusiastic about the offseason and the draft. The one thing that I am grateful to Granato is that he showed that when hockey is played the right way it is fun to watch regardless the outcome. I now have hope.