JohnC

Moving Mitts into Quinn's spot seems to make the most sense. It allows Mitts to play on a higher line and puts him on a better position to produce points. I also like your idea of Krebs moving up to another line where he can be more offensively engaged. What's apparent is that coach Don G will have a lot of options when assembling and juggling lines.

I don't think he had much interest in bolstering the forward ranks this offseason from the outside. His focus was on the blueline. He added Clifton and Johnson to that unit. Was it enough? I'm not sure.

Probably so. I believe that Levi is going to be the primary goalie with UPL and Comrie competing to be the backup. Odds are that UPL will win the competition between them. As you well know I have felt for a long time that the GM was not going to make a significant move to address the position. Usually before a trade is made there are rumors or rumblings about a targeted player. I haven't heard a whisper yet about a goalie the Sabres are interested in. Have you? I just think that Levi's performance in his end of season stint influenced how the GM viewed the position for the next season. The bigger issue for me is better team defense. As has been stated before: We shall see.

We'll just have to wait to see what will happen on the goalie front. On the other hand, I do agree with you that the GM misread and mishandled the Ullmark situation. If he could have retained him, the Sabres would have been a playoff team last year and our current prospects would be more solidified.

Just curious. Why do you say that the organization's assessment of UPL is lower than their public posture? I take the opposite view. If it had a low expectation for UPL, the GM would have been more aggressive in the offseason to address the position. It's still the offseason so there's time to bring in another goalie. I just don't see it happening. My sense is that Levi and UPL are going to be our goalie tandem when the season starts.

The Sabres had a winning record last season, 42-33-7. And they accomplished that winning record with one of the youngest rosters in the league. We are going in circles and the discussion is not productive. We simply have different perspectives. A few years ago, the Sabres were one of the worst teams in the league and were an irrelevant NHL franchise. And to make things even worse we were a boring team. That's not the case now. There's a process to getting better and becoming a serious team. It's not automatic and takes time. As far as I'm concerned, the GM is one year ahead of the schedule that I thought it would take to rebuild this ramshackle franchise and make it a factor in the league.

With respect to your characterization of my position you are grossly off the mark. What has the GM accomplished over the past three years (not counting his first year because of Krueger's influence in hockey operations)? The GM has rebuilt the front office, the scouting department, the analytical department and selected the current HC to guide the young roster. By any common-sense measure that's a success. The team gained 16 points from the previous year with one of the youngest rosters in the league. By any common-sense measure that's a success. Our farm system is acknowledged to be one of the best in the league. That's a success. The characterization that I'm a fanatical fawning fan of this current GM because I'm a biased hometown fan is way off the mark. I'm basing my opinion on performance. You don't get to being a top tier team without going through the hard steps of getting better. And that's exactly the process that this franchise is undergoing. It can't be questioned that much has been accomplished in a relatively short period of time. Obviously, more needs to be done. My expectation is that the Sabres will be a playoff team this season. It's the same expectation that the organization and most fair-minded fans of this team have. That's not based on blindness as it is based on realism.

I have said on a number of occasions that my time frame for expecting this team to be a playoff team is next season. That has nothing to do with peacocking any glorious optimism. I say yes he has; he says no.

Then what assumption are you making? My view is more upbeat based on what has transpired the past couple of years, especially how the team played last year. Your view is more pessimistic based on what has transpired the previous five years. I want to make a point in response to people who disagree with my take. I understand your lesser optimistic viewpoints and appreciate them. It's a very understandable stance to take. It's not difficult to understand why others have their different views. I will go as far to say that when others disagree with my position I seriously consider why they disagree and why they have a different perspective. That's how you grow.

You are making an assumption that the Sabres are going to have a disappointing season this year. I have a different view. It's not based on irrational optimism. You act as if time was squandered by playing the younger players for developmental reasons. That's where you and I part company. It was the willingness to play the younger players at the expense of playing more veteran players that puts me in the optimism camp rather than the demoralized camp. Cozens, Quinn, Samuelsson, Power, Levi, JJP and Mitts to a lesser extent etc. accelerated their development because they played on a team that looked toward the near future than the present. I'm sure that's upsetting to some. It's not to me. At least to me, it was the right course of action to take.

I don't know anyone who believed that entering the season last year that the Sabres were a playoff team, especially after the Krueger carnage. I'm comfortable in saying (speaking for myself) that last year was an entertaining and successful season. I agree with you that the NHL is a performance-based business. I can positively say that the team outperformed my expectations.

I am going to use the word success because I believe rebuilding a team into a contending team takes time and is a process. In my view, the Sabres had a successful season last year. Were there disappointments? Of course. But in general, it was a successful season and left me encouraged entering this season.

You have a unique vantage on the Sabres because you are following them from afar and are able to receive more outside commentary. Most of the out-of-town commentators that I listened to when watching the opposing team's coverage were usually complimentary about the team and its near future prospects. Would you consider a 96 point season a failure? Every year there are a few teams that are racked with an inordinate number of injuries. If that happens to the Sabres and they aren't able to make the playoffs, then is the season a failure? There are no guarantees.

What deal did you want the GM to make last season? He attempted to trade for Chycrun, and was willing to give up a first round pick (reported). The deal wasn't consummated because Ottawa wanted more. So he declined. That was the right move. As it turned out he kept the first-round pick and used it to draft Benson. Most commentators believed that it was a good pick. It's often repeated that the future is not guaranteed. That's not a revelation to anyone. I'm sure that the GM looked at the goalie options this offseason. Which one do you think is a difference maker? Some people were advocating for Hellebuyck. Hell no! I'm not giving up valuable assets for a rental. There were those who were advocating for trading for Saros. As far as I know he wasn't on the trade market. And if he were the price would be exorbitant. Again, hell no! The point you make about KA's way not bearing fruit is inconsistent with what is actually going on. The Sabres improved by 16 points from the previous year with one of the youngest rosters in the league. If that is not an indication of being on a steep upward trajectory, then what standard are you using? If you consider immense improvement to be a failure, then you and I are using different measuring sticks. If you strongly desire to see more moves this offseason, I'm confident that you are going to be deeply disappointed. Listen to what the GM says. There is no hidden agenda. What he says is what he does.

Our core is for the most part developed. The team improved by 16 points from the previous season. The argument that this franchise has failed for 15 years so the GM has to take a radical route to pursue success is a bogus argument. Our current GM had full authority to run the organization for three years. (In his first year, Krueger had a lot of authority). Our GM has done a superb job in the short stint he has overseen the operation. What more do you want? If you want to see magic you should go to a magic show where creating an illusion is the act. That has nothing to do with the reality of pro sports.

I have no problem being double-teamed. There's nothing wrong with that. What you are basically saying is that we won't know for sure what the best approach is until we see the results. That's like saying water is wet. Of course that is obvious and true. We are all giving opinions here. The notion that KA is playing a dangerous game is an odd thing to say. His team improved by 16 points from the previous season. And that was done by playing one of the youngest rosters in the league. This franchise is clearly on the right course. How anyone can say that the GM is playing a dangerous game is very befuddling.

That's my point. Although I understand your caution. What I'm emphasizing in my previous response is that the front office hasn't pursued a quick-fix approach for a short-term gain. Rather, it is doing things the right way with a longer-term perspective. Draft picks are not being dealt for immediate help. Instead, players are being drafted and developed. I don't think it is unreasonable to say that under KA the operation has been well managed.

Perspicacious.

I disagree with your characterization that he has had a pedestrian summer. There shouldn't be a surprise that he was mostly going to rely on the players already on the roster and in the system because that is, and has been, his strategy in rebuilding the roster since he took over. He has repeatedly stated since he took over that was how he was going to rebuild the roster. And there is no question that the return he has gotten from dealing off the old core has accelerated the rebuild. Is the addition of Johnson and Clifton enough to buttress our blueline, a unit that was thin last season? Maybe. Is the GM taking a risk by not adding another goalie? Yes. For me, the bigger issue is whether the team in general can play a more responsible game. I will even go as far as to say that our defensive play in general is a bigger issue than how our goalies play. I recognize that this is a minority view here. I don't expect that there will be more transactions prior to the season. With respect to your questioning last sentence: Absolutely yes! Don Granato's priority this season is on winning and less so on development. And as you have pointed out in prior posts: He has so stated that.

I'm basing my positive contracts comments that include and go beyond the Tage deal. Cozens rich contract was certainly based on a projection. But making it wasn't a challenge based on his steady improvement and last year's breakout performance that included 31 goals and 68 points. The Samuelsson contract is certainly based on a projection but it is not too difficult to see what his value is to this team. Johnson, Lyubushkin, Girgs and Okposo are not anchor players by any means. But I would say that all of these players who are on now on one-year deals are well worth their contracts. None of the players you listed are on what I would consider excessive contracts. And even if one felt that they were, they are mostly on expiring contracts that won't have much drag when negotiating with the prime players whose contracts are coming up. I agree with you that in the not too-distant future the contract judgments will become more challenging. But that's the point. The GM has put himself in a good position to sign his top tier players, such as Dahlin, because he has been prudent in how he has handled negotiating contracts up to now.

You are not the only one excited about the upcoming season. What makes the hometown hockey situation even more exciting is that this team is in a good situation to have sustained success. Also, there is the recognition that this franchise is being run in a very competent manner. There is a stability and solid foundation that now exists that didn't previously exit in this previously erratically run franchise. It took a while for the new owners to learn that there were no quick fixes in each of their franchises. It appears that the Pegulas have learned from their mistakes. It's a good time to be a Buffalo sports fan.

https://www.audacy.com/wgr550/hosts/sabres-live In the Shayna Goldman segment she talks about the Wilson signing and contract. She was scathing in her criticism for the amount and especially for the extended term. The one thing that KA has done well is how he has handled contracts.

What would you be willing to give up for him? And what do you think that Edmonton would want in a trade? If they asked for Tage, Quinn, JJ and Samuelsson would you deal? I wouldn't. If they asked for Tage, Quinn and JJL, I still would decline.

I have often stated my position that I don't believe that the GM is going to add another goalie to the mix. For the reasons you stated, I have to be candid that I'm queasy about the position entering the seasons.

Twitter and social media in general are replete with snide and snarky comments. It's a junkyard environment. It's not a place where diplomacy and genteel civility abound. Some bars are known to have a raucous and rough environment while other bars may have a more sophisticated and upper crust to them. So, it shouldn't be surprising that MH's comments in this setting had some bite to them. Considering where Harrington made his post, I think you are over-reacting to his blunt comments that reflect what he thought. I didn't see anything wrong with what he said considering where it was said.