JohnC

As you point out, the Bruins have a distinct advantage in net, the most important position in the game. When you compare the two teams it is a mistake to become overly enamored with our offensive talent without factoring in the overall defensive deficiencies of that same prolific group. That's where Boston has a distinct advantage. Their team advantage that includes the forwards, blueliners and goalies clearly resides with Boston. I'm hoping and expecting that our team will modify its style of play where there is more emphasis on team defense, even if it is at the expense of offense. If the Sabres can make that adjustment, then it is not a stretch to believe that the Sabres can come closer to matching Boston from a team point standpoint.

Hockey has some unique traits that are not as prevalent as other sports. As you point out, because of the exceptional play of your goaltender, although your team is thoroughly outplayed, can result in a win. Conversely, your own team can thoroughly outplay the opposition, and you can still lose because of a flukish goal from an unintentional deflection off of your own player's skate. There are more flukish plays that affect the outcome than in many other sports. Over a long season, it usually balances out.

What's self-defeating about your example of blatant age discrimination is the reality that for the most part younger workers don't have loyalty to the companies they work for. If there is a better opportunity while employed, the employee will move on. I'm not making a criticism because it is a rational adjustment to the current employer/employee relationship. The disposable worker realizes their vulnerable situation and accordingly adjust by pursuing their individual interest. The irony is that it is more probable than not that you, as an older worker, would do a better job and would end up staying longer than the younger worker. As you demonstrate that discrimination comes in many forms. In the end it works against the discriminator. Good luck to you.

If Donnie G would have been the hire instead of Krueger, how much better would the team be? When he assumed stewardship of the team, he moved Tage to center and in short order revitalized Skinner's sunken career. The coach has made a number of smart moves when dealing with young talents. One of his best moves was putting Krebs in between Okposo and Girgs. That move placing him between two veteran players altered his game and made him play a more disciplined and tighter game that was suitable for the NHL.

The problem with "we should have won" these games approach to reviewing the past season is that every team has the same "we should have won" these games. It's a long and grinding season that includes long and exhausting road trips and not always well known injured/impaired players. It's simply part of the season. What often isn't noted in these type of "we should have " reviews is the recognition that the Sabres won a number of games that they were fortunate to have won. The vicissitudes of a season are experienced by every team in the league. The bottom line is that your record is your record.

Why do you think that there will be more moves for the Sabres this summer? If a goalie trade or transaction isn't made, then what other positions do you think will be addressed? I would love to see another 4/5 defenseman added to the blueline mix. However, I'm not confident that it will happen. Other than the additions of Johnson and Clifton, this has been an uneventful offseason. My sense is that is what KA wanted.

You don't have to be cynical to believe that the GM really didn't expect to make the playoffs last year. The team's end of the reason playoff press was probably not expected by most people associated with the franchise, including the fans. Speaking for myself, I consider them to be one year ahead of the planned rebuild timetable. Next year is a different situation. If this team doesn't make the playoffs, I will be very disappointed. No more excuses.

After the season, it was reported on WGR that Levi went down to Florida to meet with Anderson to continue picking his wise hockey brain about playing the position. He bonded with Anderson during the season and continued his association with him even after he retired. As you point out, Levi is a smart and inquisitive individual who is constantly striving to get better. There is no such thing as a guarantee that a young player is going to succeed at the highest level of hockey. However, the odds are certainly in his favor. In his young hockey career, he's already demonstrated that he not only doesn't run away from challenges but he embraces them. I'm more concerned with the backups than with this young starter.

The central issue for me is whether the coaching staff can adjust the team's style of play from a more freestyle play to a more disciplined and tighter brand of hockey? Will the additions of Clifton and Johnson make a marked difference to our blueline? And just as important, if not more important, will our lines be more conscious of their defensive responsibilities? If the coaching staff can get the team more focused on the defensive end of the game, our goalies will be in a better position to succeed. If that happens, the wins should be more frequent although the entertainment value from the more conservative offense might be less so. I'll take substance over style this upcoming season. There is a good reason why so many people are "trepidatious" (your terrific word) about next season: The expectations have increased to the point where if this team doesn't make the playoffs next season, it will be perceived as a failed season. And rightly so.

There's no question that the GM's approach is focused on building a winner relying on mostly building through the system. He's clearly stated that was his philosophy when he took over the reigns as a GM. He has often stated that it was his belief that primarily building from within the system was the most sustainable to being competitive. However, I have different reading on the GM's expectations than some have. Based on last year's nearly miss for qualifying for the playoffs, the expectation for the GM, players, organization, ownership and fans is that this reconstructed team should make the playoffs next year. My sense is that the primary consideration for the coaching staff right now is centered on winning more than player development. That wasn't the case last year.

I don't know anyone who would be happy with not making the playoffs. That's the near universal expectation.

You are absolutely right in stating that there is validity to criticizing the moves or lack of moves of the GM. You and many others (majority of contributors) believe that the GM is possibly making a big mistake that will undercut the roster he has assembled by not bringing in another goalie. That certainly is a reasonable position to take. And there is a great deal of validity to the idea of wanting a deal for a more established defenseman for one of the top two pairings. Is the GM taking a risk by taking a less aggressive acquisition approach this offseason? While you and I are on opposite sides of this issue, we both agree (I think) that the GM is taking a risk on how he has handled this offseason.

I'm not as bothered by our goalie situation as most are. The bigger issue for me is the overall play of the defense that includes the blue line unit and the forwards. Is the GM taking a risk staying with the goalies he has on the roster? Absolutely.

You are likely to be right that KA isn't going to add a veteran goalie this offseason. That doesn't mean that not doing so will be as disastrous as you are projecting. Let's just wait and see what the consequences will be with his status quo approach to the position. As far as rating the GM's offseason, I would categorize it as being solid. The additions of Johnson and Clfiton were solid additions. I would still like to see another 4/5 defenseman added to the unit. The GM has said right from the start that he was going to mostly build from within. And that's exactly what he is doing.

What difference does it make why a deal was made? Whether it was for reasons of disgruntlement, cap, better players in the system or whatever, the measurement of success of a deal is the impact on the team. The fundamental issue is: does the transaction make the team better and/or do the cumulative transactions improve the team. The Jack deal, for whatever reason it was made for, was a good deal for both teams involved. You are reflexive contrarian to the point where everyone knows what your position is on a topic before you even post it. You make @PerreaultForeverlook like a Polly Anna Optimist. That is quite an accomplishment.

I agree with your comments. No one is worried about the 2024-25 season. When you have a hole in your pipe you patch it for a temporary solution, and then later on replace that segment of the pipe. If VO places well, then his value goes up as a trade asset.

Let's cool the temperature. What's changed is that Quinn got hurt and will be out for an extended period of time. I'm not got going to casually dismiss a player, although not well-rounded, who could help to this team even if it is for the short-term. The Sabres are at a stage where they should be very competitive. If VO, or any other player, can contribute in a fashion that will allow the team to a degree to absorb the loss of a key player, then I'm all for it.

Let's cool the temperature.

Do you really believe that coach Granato is going to be hoodwinked by VO when he competes with other players in camp? I'll trust the judgment of the coach watching players in camp vying for roster spots and roles over people who have already made a determination on a player before the season even starts. If VO beats out other players, then so be it. If other players beat him out, then so be it. Is there a long-term role for VO? Probably not. Is there a short-term role for VO? Maybe. That's TBD.

It's almost as if a segment of the crowd here is afraid that he might play well because it is not aligned with their preconceived notion of this player. It's fair to say that he is not an all-around player. (Obviously so.) But he has demonstrated that he can shoot and score goals. Is he a second-line player? No. But with Quinn hurt there is an opening for him somewhere on the lower lines and second PP unit. If he plays reasonably well his value as an asset will increase when he will most likely be dealt. Sabre fans should be rooting for him to be a contributor. It's a reprise of the Mitts syndrome where a player is prematurely targeted as a failure when the story has yet to be completed.

You are right that he is great to listen to. I have often heard coach Don G on WGR and in his post-game comments. What sets him apart from many of his coaching colleagues is how he keenly listens to questions, and then with clarity answers them. He thinks before he speaks. It's not unusual for him to respond to a question by saying that's an interesting question. I haven't thought about the issue in the way you framed. He's more of a listener than an expansive talker. (Contrast to Krueger.) What sets him apart from other coaches is that his coaching philosophy is more psychologically based than tactically base. That's not to say that he isn't well schooled in tactics because he is. But his strength as a coach is anchored in how well he works with individual players.

That's a great question. The expansion teams are given favorable conditions to succeed sooner rather than later. By making the right decisions at their inceptions they are seizing the opportunity presented to them. At least exhibited by their public appearances, this family seems to be made up of very nice people who are also very competitive people. I'm a Don Granato fan. It's obvious he is adept working with young players and developing them. His next challenge is working with a more developed roster and being able to compete with the top teams for a cup. We shall see.

The Atlanta region market has substantially changed from the Thrasher era. As I said before, I'm not inclined toward expansion. But if Arizona can't get their arena situation resolved in some reasonable fashion, I can see them moved to either the Atlanta or Houston market. You make a potent point saying that the caliber of ownership matters in the success or failure of the franchise.

I, like you, am not an advocate for expansion. I'm sure @GASabresIUFANwould argue that the Atlanta hockey market has become more robust compared to when the thrashers existed. The one thing that the NHL has done that I like very much is create a system where expansion teams have the ability to become competitive right from the start if they make smart decisions when selecting from the expansion pool of players.

Coach Granato's sister is a trailblazer. https://www.nhl.com/news/cammi-granato-named-vancouver-assistant-general-manager/c-330672070