JohnC

Arttu is a player in the organization's stable that I'm hoping will make an impression in training camp and make it difficult to keep off the roster. I was hoping that he would have started the season in Rochester to acclimate himself to the smaller north American rinks but that avenue has temporarily been closed. The advantage he has over the sidelined NHL players is that he has been playing a lot of hockey while the other players weren't able to get that game experience. This team is starting to add depth to the point that players will be battling with one another to make the roster. That's a signature change from the gloomy past.

In general I agree with your tepid assessment of Casey's prospects. But that's the point. He has in my opinion little value on the trade market. So what is the harm in giving him more time and allowing his career to play out. As I said in prior posts I think that it would be more beneficial for him to return to the AHL and allow him to play his way either on to or out of our system. But the problem is because of the Covid world we are living in there is a chance that the AHL will start very late or not at all for the upcoming 2021 season. If Casey comes into camp more physically developed and he competes in camp to the extent that he jumps ahead of some of the other players to earn a roster spot I will pleasantly be surprised. It might not be probable but it certainly can be possible.

I, like you, don't believe that Mitts is a lost cause. As you have rightly often stated that Casey is still a very young player who has room to grow. I thought entering this season the best approach toward Mitts was to start him at Rochester and give him a lot of playing time in expanded roles. That added playing time would better prepare him for the hopeful call up to the big league. The delay or even the cancellation of the AHL maybe has precluded that option. If Mitts comes into camp in impeccable shape and through his play earns a spot on the roster then I would not only be surprised but also very happy for him. In my opinion he has received more vilification than he deserves. Where I disagree with you is in your comparison of Casey to Thompson. I think that especially after this offseason where through hard work and the process of natural physical development he will be in a better position than Casey to establish himself this season. Thompson like Casey was a first round selection. It has taken him some time to physically develop in order to endure the rigors of the NHL. What he and Mitts have in common is that to their detriment they were both rushed. Right now I believe that Thompson is ahead of Casey as a player ready to establish himself in the league. Entering the season I'm counting more on Thompson than Casey.

Looking at some of the names that you listed Krueger has a pool of players to assemble two good PP units. If Jack and Hall are on the ice at the end of a shift and a penalty is called the second unit can start on the PP allowing the members of the first PP unit to catch their breath and refresh themselves before jumping back on the ice to finish the PP. With shooters like Jack, Hall, Oloffson, Skinner and Reinhart etc. there is enough quantity to staff two potent PP units. We have the shooters. What we need is better net presence to obstruct the goalies and be in position to deflect more shots.

If you are also insinuating that I am outdated I with pride concur. Long live the horse and buggy. 🤡

@SDSI tried to use the highlight with the old process [b] [/b] but it doesn't work. Any suggestions?

Based on his first year with us and his career with Carolina it was apparent that JS was a prolific goal scorer. From a scoring standpoint he was struggling on a team that was challenged to score. I still believe that it would have been a good move to put him on the Jack line, even for a temporary stint, just to get him going. I agree with you that Krueger played him on another line in order to get more scoring from another line. But I think that it would have helped the team more by putting him on a line that would have put him in a better position to score. The one thing that I don't want to happen as some have suggested is putting Skinner on a third line in order to spread the scoring and upgrade the third line. I strongly believe that getting Skinner back into his usual scoring form is an imperative for this team to do well. And that will more likely be accomplished if he is playing on one of the top two lines and with players who promote his best talent i.e. scoring goals. side note: How do I highlight sections? It seems after the upgrade that the usual highlighting technique doesn't work.

It's going to be interesting to see how the the top two lines are configurated. Although my preference is for Reinhart to play on the top line and Olofsson on the second line switching the two players on the lines also makes sense. One big issue for me associated with assembling the lines is the necessity of piecing together a line that will put Skinner in a position to succeed. If Skinner can return to his scoring form with an enhancing winger on the opposite side, whoever that is, then that is what I'm for. I like Krueger as a coach. However, it appeared to me that Krueger was not enamored with Skinner's game and was stubborn about not playing him with Jack last year when that change might have helped him to get on track.

Your proposed line compositions make sense but I lean toward a few changes from what you listed. What I project is that Reinhart and Olofsson will be vying for a wing position on the first and second line. One of the two will be on the first line and the other will be on the second line. My preference is to have Reinhart on the first line with Eichel and Hall. That line would be one of the better first lines in the league. I would love to see Mitts come in and establish a third line spot but I just don't see it. On the third line I see Cozens and Thompson playing wing on an Eakin centered line. Your Girg/Lazar/KO line makes a lot of sense and serves a role. Not having the AHL starting off when the NHL starts hurts Arttu's and Mitts prospects. I was hoping for Arttu to start off in Rochester to acclimate to the North American game with a later in-season call up and Mitts getting a lot of playing time in Rochester to better prepare himself when/if called up. If there is going to be a player at camp who will force his way onto the roster I think it will be Arttu. And as you and others have noted the Sabres have accumulated enough talent for internal competition and for a healthy group of reserves. What a pleasant change from the past where an injury or two would ravage a thin roster.

In one of the links provided by LGR4GM there was a comparison between Cozens and Mitts and their different routes as prospects. I appreciate your analysis of Cozens. It is consistent with the other high evaluations of him and his style of play. It's understandable why there is such a high expectation for him.

In one of the links provided by LGR4GM there was a comparison between the two and their different routes as prospects. I appreciate your analysis on Cozens. It's consistent with the other breakdowns on him. He's a prospect with a lot of expectation for us.

As I stated in a prior post Cozens's hard driving north/south style of play is a style of play that Krueger favors and is attempting to instill. The contrast in play noted in your link between Cozens and Mitts is evident and stark. Although Cozens is much more advanced as a player/prospect that is not to say that Mitts with a longer time frame can't make it as a player. (However, that is not a given.) And those who are advocating for dealing Cozens for a seasoned veteran who can help us more quickly are misguided.

After reading your succinct analysis I think that Krueger has a tendency to favor players who play a more gritty north/south style which would lean toward a player like Cozens over a Dach type of player. Just my sense of the player type that Krueger would be more inclined toward.

Could you and some of the other knowledgeable prospect posters give a comparison between Kirby Dach and Cozens? Are their ceilings in the same range?

The stat that lends me to be optimistic about the upcoming season, whatever format it will be, is the goaltending stat on five on five. That is an indication that if Ullmark continues with his upward trajectory the goaltending could/should ?? be at a level that allows us to stay into contention. Added to that if the PK can be improved with a change in philosophy (more pressure) and simply more basic/intelligent play there are points in the standings that were gratuitously lost year that now should be retrieved. What made the goaltending issue stick out last year was that there simply wasn't enough goal scoring to cushion the goaltending and defensive lapses. If Skinner and Hall can get back to their standard scoring form that in itself will provide enough of a margin to take some pressure off of our goaltending. The addition of Hall and Staal will also reverberate throughout the lines by pushing some of the scorers down to those secondary lines and providing a wider spread of goals. The bottom line is that with internal improvement of the younger players and some key additions this team should be better.

When ROR won the Stanley Cup with St. Louis one of the first texts he got was from Jack congratulating him.

When the coach makes a suggestion that is more of an explicit request over something that has nothing to do with anything that was done wrong then this manufactured scene is a bush league act of exhibiting authority over the players. He was trying to show a hard arse authority over players who are vying to make the team and earn playing time. To me this seems like old school bull shiiit in order to make an impression. Call me unimpressed.

The school situation is very complicated with no simple and cookie cutter formula. On the one hand it might make sense to mostly go to remote learning at the college level because of the powerful socializing urge at the age of the attendees. But at a lower level such as in a grammar school setting it might make sense to allow attendance where the schools are properly ventilated and the desks have more distance between them than usual. And even within this setup the teachers would require additional protection such as a plastic shield and a face mask. There will also have to be adjustments to handling lunch and the cafeteria set up that might result in students eating at their desks rather than the standard cafeteria format. It should be noted that one person who is strongly advocated for getting the younger students back to school is Dr. Fauci. My point here is that although there are no simple solutions within positions that on the surface appear to be diametrically opposed there are aspects to each position that have merit. Stating the obvious: This is complicated and challenging to execute in this virus environment.

I'm referring to the standard public health responses recommended by the health experts to deal with the epidemic. There is an overwhelming consensus as to how to respond to the pandemic and the spread. The basic tool kit is the same for all countries. The best way to limit the consequences (that you listed) of the spread is to follow the basic guidelines that most of the health experts agree on in order to get control of the contagion sooner rather than later.

There is an overwhelming consensus within the experts in the field as to how to best handle the virus. The basics such as wearing a mask, social distancing, washing hands, quarantining the infected etc are the standard approaches all over the world promoted by the experts. When political influences intrude into the public health sphere you have a less than effective response to this deadly virus.

Has the NFL shut down? Is the NBA going to have a season in some form? Didn't MLB have playoff games and have a World Series? The NHL will do the same thing that these other pro sports leagues are doing. They will in some way adapt to the challenging health environment. The regular season will belatedly start and the games played will not be a full slate of games. And the playoff structure and number of teams qualifying for the playoffs still have to be determined after negotiations between the players and owners. They will do what has already been done i.e. do the best they can to adapt to the circumstances.

You make a good point about how their contracts would weigh down a team willing to deal for either one of those players. The Sabres are starting to get a core of younger players who will get elevated contracts with their next contracts. It would be a boondoggle mistake to make a high cost short term acquisition at the expense of losing financial flexibility to keep your own talent in place. If Hall has a prolific year after signing a one year deal then it would foreclose any opportunity to secure him when he becomes a free agent if we add a high cost veteran to this roster now. And if Reinhart continues his steady climb as a player the Sabres would be in a difficult cap situation to sign him. The reality is because of their bountiful contracts both Toews and Kane would be difficult for the Blackhawks to move if they wanted to do so. Those who advocate for a Kane deal are being very short sighted without recognizing the longer term implications.

I'm not sure what you are getting at. When I say high end I'm saying that he is capable of becoming a legitimate second line center. Whether Cozens is enough or not in a proposed deal isn't an issue for me. As I said before it doesn't make sense to me to deal away your best prospect in the system for a 31 year old player. It's not going to happen. As far as losing Hall after next year I'm not worried about that this year. I'm just hope that he regains his elite form for us, and then deal with the retention issue the following year.

I'm not over-correcting. What history doesn't support is dealing away a high draftee who in his first year as a pro in the juniors demonstrated that he is one of the best players/prospects with players in his age group. It would be impossible to say for sure how good he will be but to make the argument that theoretically he can be a bust is a stretch especially after what you have seen of him in his first year after being drafted. I'm very confident that Cozens will not be dealt in a deal for Kane or in any other imagined proposed deal.

Cozens is 18 or 19 yrs old who is expected to be our 2C in a year or two. It would make no sense to deal this player with expected high end potential for a 31 yr. old player who is likely to have a few more years of top tier production. The Chicago Blackhawks have won two or three Stanley Cups with their core players built with high draft picks such as Kane and Toews. So what you are suggesting is not to follow the standard model for long term success and instead go for the expedient short term gain. That's not a path that I want to follow. As far as I am concerned Cozens is an untouchable.