JohnC

Putting aside the stunning Hall signing your first listed transaction in the trade for Staal has has had major reverberations. The first positive is obvious in that we now have a genuine 2C. Flowing from that is that Skinner on the second line with him is in a better position to succeed. In addition, with the departure of Johansson the team is moving in the direction of reshaping the roster toward a more gritty and north/style of play. And in the player exchange for Staal the team saved some cap money. And because of the trade where we got our 2C the Sabres were able to keep their first round pick to draft a quality prospect. Not bad for a novice GM.

You make an excellent point that the timing isn't right because such a financial commitment doesn't match their rebuilding schedule . As you point out Ottawa is in a rebuild mode and their timetable to become a serious team is still another year or two down the road. However, you have to be impressed with the number of young talents that they are accumulating. I'm aware that hockey is a business as much for the players as it is for franchises. But it would be a difficult transition for a player to play on reliable cup contending and cup championship team to go to Ottawa. Tampa is one of the best run hockey operations. It is going to be interesting to see how they handle their onerous cap situation. There is a lot of tough personnel decisions that have to be faced.

My sense is that Ullmark is going to be used a workhorse starting goalie even in a compressed schedule. If the season is configured within a bubble type of arrangement with less traveling that might make it easier for him to carry a heavy load. Will there be need to replace Hutton prior to the season or during the season based on performance? Maybe. My sense (opinion) is that the organization is going to start of with Ullmark as the #1 and Hutton as the #2. Of course it is subject to change. I'm sure the organization is aware that there needs to be a backup plan just in case.

We are talking past one another. The point I am making is that he has on a number of occasions stated that he didn't recommend changing the goalie situation with the tandem of Ullmark as the starter and Hutton as the backup. He felt that Hutton was overused as a backup. His position is that he is an acceptable backup if used more sparingly. Those are his thoughts. I'm not asking you to agree with him but what I am noting is what he has stated and recommended. Hopefully, this will clarify the issue.

Marty has repeatedly stated that he didn't believe it should be a priority for the team to change their goaltending staffing this offseason. He felt that Hutton was an acceptable backup if he wasn't overused. And he has repeatedly stated last season and this offseason the priority should be to upgrade the offense with more goal scorers. And that is exactly what the organization focused on this offseason. Rob Ray is smart enough to use the edit button in his head and avoid the trouble he knows he can get himself into.

He has for a long time repeatedly say that he doesn't believe that the Sabres should make a change in net. That is not to say that he hasn't ever said the opposite.

I agree with you that money can be (is) a factor in upgrading the backup position. But the issue is does the staff believe that Hutton can be a reliable backup if judiciously used? I think they do. Is it a gamble? Yes. But it seems to me (opinion) that the organization is comfortable with Ullmark as the dominant starter. Because of that I believe that they are willing to have Hutton as their backup. We shall see how this plays out. That's exactly what I said in my post.

I don't smell the taint that you are getting a sniff of. He is giving his opinion without any reservations. That's what people in the opinion business do. Rob Ray also works for the Sabres as an analyst and he isn't afraid to give his unfettered opinion on WGR. Habitual cynicism can be a contaminant.

I'm going to make a prediction that is going to rile you up and the rest of the smart gang that resides here. I'm not saying what I think is going to happen with the goalie position simply to be a contrarian. While the overwhelming sentiment is to replace Hutton as the backup I don't think that is what is going to happen. My sense of the situation is that the organization is going to stick with Hutton as the backup and rely on Ullmark as the heavy duty #1 goalie. Even with a compressed schedule I see Ullmark as being the workhorse goaltender with Hutton sparingly used as a starter, maybe once every three or four games. I have a lot of respect for Marty Biron's ability to evaluate goalies. He believes that Hutton has a tendency to fade when he gets overused. Marty also believes that worrying about Hutton's play is an overblown issue. It should also be noted that Hutton has a mentoring relationship with Ullmark and is very supportive of him. They clearly work will together. Assuming Hutton's eye issue is resolved I trust Biron's judgment on this issue.

If he gets back to his standard and is able to do it on a second line without Jack then I would be ecstatic. He had plenty of scoring opportunities last year but he seemed to repeatedly hit the pipes or miss the the gaping holes that were staring him in the face. The more he missed the more frustrated he got and pressed even more. Hitting on some of those opportunities will help loosen him up more. With him we need more bang for the $$$$$!

The one player I will be keying on is Skinner. If he can get on track with Staal as his center and whoever is designated as the opposite winger it would provide a major offensive boost. The one concern I have is that I got the impression that Skinner is not a Krueger guy. The only time I saw Krueger get testy is when he was asked about Skinner and why he wasn't playing on the Jack line. Krueger is a coach who demands responsible end to end play. And Skinner has a tendency at times to float. And that is a tendency that the coach is intolerant of. There needs to be more accommodation between the player and coach. If Skinner can return to his goal scoring form (30 goals) this team will be elevated. He's simply too good of a shooter to not fully utilize.

Your position is well stated and reasoned. However, I'm taking the same position that Rob Ray is taking. My preference is that Sam stays on the first line with Jack. With a line made up of Hall/Jack/Sam it would not be unfair to believe that it would be top tier first line. And it would also be one of the most exciting lines to watch in the league.

This issue of who should be the third person on the Jack and Hall line (presumptive line mates) was discussed on WGR's the Instigator Show with Rob Ray and Craig Rivet. Ray argued forcefully that he felt that it was a more effective line with Reinhart on that line because he believed that he was the more complementary player to those two more dynamic players than another player such as Olofsson or another finisher. I agree with his reasoning. Rob Ray also pointed out that with Reinhart on the first line with Jack and Hall that his scoring would be at least 20 points higher than if he played on the Staal line. One can argue over how much more effective Reinhart would be from a scoring standpoint if he were on the first line but it is a reasonable expectation that he would score much more on the Jack line. I'm a ardent supporter of Reinhart. The issue isn't whether he could also play on the second line and make it a better line to balance out the more potent first line. The answer to that question is certainly yes. The bigger issue for me is whether Sam better balances the first line and whether he is demonstrably more productive on that line. I say yes to both issues. I'm not saying that the people who would want Sam on the second line are wrong because there is merit to that stance. However, I strongly agree with Rob Ray's position that Sam should be on the Jack line with Hall.

Wishing you the best. The worst part of the Covid era is that when one gets sick horrible thoughts first come to mind. Take care and get some rest.

Krueger has stated that Hall will play on the Jack line. Of course that could change. Then the issue is whether Reinhart will play on one of the top two lines. Reinhart has played well with Jack and has individually excelled as a linemate. If you look at the style of both Hall and Jack they are speedsters who like to carry the puck. To balance it out they need a facilitator (assist oriented) to form a more cohesive line. At this point the line projections are simply line projections.

I appreciate your comments. I will walk it back and clarify what I wanted to stress in a response to Thorny. He was arguing that it would be a good ideal to play Reinhart on a lower line in order to spread the scoring around the lines beyond the top two. That is a reasonable position but I disagree with it, especially as it relates to Reinhart. My position is that Reinhart should be on one of the top two lines and not moved to a third line in order for more balanced scoring. On that issue as it relates to Reinhart I'm very resolute if not bordering on absolute. And on the issue whether the "ideal notion" of spreading the scoring talent over 3 lines exists there are a few teams in which that situation exists. However, I'm comfortable in saying that with the amount of talent on the Sabres's team that "ideal notion" doesn't exist.

Is Bennett now what he is and will continue to be or does he have more in his quiver to draw from? Is he simply maybe a better version of Curtis Lazar and will carve out a role as a gritty player who is fast?

Odds are the first line is going to have Hall/Jack/Reinhart. Reinhart in my opinion is a probable but not a definite. The second line appears to be Skinner/Staal/with the winger maybe Olofsson? The winger on that line is an open issue. The five players that I have mentioned are arguably our top five players who will most likely staff the two lines. Reinhart can be a candidate as a winger for either of the two top lines. My point and opinion is that it is most likely that our top players will be staffing our top two lines.

The problem I have with your non-hierarchy of lines is that I don't believe that this ideal notion exists in reality. The top two lines are inevitably going to get more minutes than the lower (applicable to the third line in this discussion.) lines. I'm aware that Krueger constantly proclaims that he doesn't number his lines. But when the minutes are tabulated the top two lines do get the most minutes. And it should get the most minutes because your best forwards are on those lines. Because of the offseason acquisitions (Staal and Hall) the staff not only has enough top two line players to fill those lines but enough quality players to put together a good third line. Eakins should be the center on the line with Cozens on one of the wings. The training camp and practice games will be used to determine who the wingers will be on the three lines which already have their assigned centers in Jack/Staal/ Eakins. There are some people who are advocating to have Reinhart center the third line. I'm not one of them. If he is not playing on the wing in one of the top two lines (my preference on the first line with Hall and Jack) his talents will be wasted.

I recognize that my position is very much a minority position. And it should be noted that the owners were going to keep the GM that you and others have so much disdain for except for the reason that he wasn't willing to agree to the austere organizational restructuring. He was then fired.

We simply have a different assessment of his tenure. I consider it more of a mixed bag than your stark black and white unyielding view. In my opinion Adams is now taking advantage of where the former GM placed this franchise. (I'm well aware that you and many others resolutely disagree with that judgment but that's how I see it.) Right now it seems that Krueger and Adams are on the same wavelength and are working in a cohesive and coherent fashion that benefits the franchise. It should be remembered that it was Botts who brought Krueger into the organization.

The cold-blooded truth about the Sabre team is that they didn't have enough talent. At best they were a fringe playoff team, and that is stretching the issue. You pointed out that the Sabres were near the top of the NHL when Berglund walked. I can say with supreme confidence that he wasn't a primary reason why the Sabres plummeted after his ignominious departure. The NHL regular season is a marathon and a grind. Whatever weaknesses that you have and are compensating for will eventually be exposed and exploited. Or to put it in simple terms during that period of time we didn't have enough talent and enough depth to deal with any setbacks that will inevitably occur during the season. Could Botts have done more to bring in talent during the season? He sure could have if he would have been willing to give up prized assets such as high round picks and good prospects who were not that far away from moving up the ranks. To his credit and to his fault Botts was playing the long game in building the franchise. Time simply ran out for him.

I'm still not receptive to your argument about trading good players when they are contributing. With respect to Skinner he was well on his way to a 40 goal season on a team that lacked scorers. That's why he got such a grandiose contract. The former GM did overpay but doing what he had to do to re-sign him did make sense for a 40 goal scorer on a team with a dearth of scorers. And if he was dealt at the trade deadline he was not going to give you much of a return. Your argument that they could be dealt at the deadline for assets and then acquired in the offseason is very improbable. The same argument applies to Hall. He is an UFA. If the Sabres are floundering and they decide to deal him the return is going to be miniscule for a player who is more than likely a rental player for the team acquiring him. I'll repeat what I have already said about the Skinner contract. If you want to get a better value for that lucrative contract the best way to do that is to put him in a position to succeed. The market return on his contract which includes a very long term is minimum. And with respect to Hall if you want to increase the chances of working out a deal at the end of the season the best way to do that is for the team to be successful making it an appealing place to play.

If you consider the number of snipers we have (Olofsson, Jack, Hall Skinner) we have enough shooters to staff two potent PP units. Jack has the ability to attract penalties. If it happens near the end of the shift he would be able to go to the bench and catch his breath while the second unit starts off the PP allowing him to get back on the ice refreshed and with the other unit. There are enough good shooting parts to mix and match within the units. And if you factor in the defensemen who could shoot like Montour, Dahlin, Miller and Risto you have enough players to draw from to get the puck to the net. Stating the obvious: with more talent you have more options.

Maybe after another year or so when this roster gets settled with its best players locked in or not there will be a better basis to make a judgment on him. For the sake of an argument if he becomes a dependable 20-25 goal scorer then his value on the market will increase. And in another year or so the organization should have an understanding of what Quinn, their first round pick, is as a prospect and a potential replacement for him. I understand why people make the distinction between a player who mostly scores goals at ES and a player who scores a disproportionate amount of his goals on the PP. I'm not bothered by that distinction so much. If a shooter can score a total of thirty goals and more with half of them coming from the PP the team is still scoring goals. My point is that I am not devaluing goals scored on the PP. Goals are goals. A specialty player who scores goals is still scoring goals that go on the scoreboard.