2023-24 Sabres Early Thoughts

[Flashsabre]

1 minute ago, Thorny said:

Yes. They are. You don’t just isolate one stat and call it a day - this is exactly the point of my post. 

the exact same people who are coming up with the stat that tells you Comrie is facing more high danger shots than others, break down the same numbers to tell you Comrie is saying WELL below expected *on those chances*. You don’t get to cherry pick one 

it’s both. It’s definitively both 

No one is arguing they are playing well but the problems with the team are bigger then just the goalies. There need to be a fundamental change in how they play defence. That includes forwards and d corps. 

[Thorny]

1 minute ago, Flashsabre said:

No one is arguing they are playing well but the problems with the team are bigger then just the goalies. There need to be a fundamental change in how they play defence. That includes forwards and d corps. 

I agree. Part of the reason we’ve been scoring 5 goals is because we’ve been willing to give up 5 goals 

[Marvin]

10 minutes ago, PASabreFan said:

How is it possible this is lacking in an NHL team?

I pointed it out a couple of times.  Over the history of the NHL going back to WWII, when a team rises from the bottom of the barrel with a massive change to youth and minimal additions from outside, they normally improve the offence in one year and the defence the next.  You often see the GA stay about the same the first year, which includes a minor rise in the standings.  The second season, when the youth learn a commitment to defence, is when the team rises significantly in the standings.

Most young players who get to the top end of offence learn team defence after they learn to play in the NHL unless the coaching staff and management push a defencive emphasis throughout the organisation from day 1.  Most hockey people think teaching young players defence first at least partially stunts their offencive growth permanently.  Moreover, most talented players learn team defence only after a few years.

[Thorny]

2 minutes ago, Marvin said:

I pointed it out a couple of times.  Over the history of the NHL going back to WWII, when a team rises from the bottom of the barrel with a massive change to youth and minimal additions from outside, they normally improve the offence in one year and the defence the next.  You often see the GA stay about the same the first year, which includes a minor rise in the standings.  The second season, when the youth learn a commitment to defence, is when the team rises significantly in the standings.

Most young players who get to the top end of offence learn team defence after they learn to play in the NHL unless the coaching staff and management push a defencive emphasis throughout the organisation from day 1.  Most hockey people think teaching young players defence first at least partially stunts their offencive growth permanently.  Moreover, most talented players learn team defence only after a few years.

I’m curious about the “stunting offensive growth” thing, in the case where you learn D first. Can you elaborate on the theory being expressed by the hockey people in question? 

As mentioned I don’t have a stance here on if/why/when teams would do this 

[Marvin]

Addendum: those who improve offence and defence from one season to the next make historic jumps in winning percentage.  For instance, the #10 team since WWII increased their GF from about 200 to 257 and decreased their GA from almost 300 to 219.  Meet your 1972-3 Buffalo Sabres.

[Pimlach]

3 hours ago, thewookie1 said:

Really the issue with vet Dmen is they either want absurd contracts or are almost surely going to go the way of Gorges

Ehhh, not really.   Don't get one as old and as broken down as Gorges was.   Think Lydman, think Teppo.   

Key attributes:  good size, strong, mobile, accurate first pass, heady, smart, and calm - a player that can help Power and Dahlin with his know-how and can lead by example.   A player that can let them create and not get burned.  

No more Bryson and Clague getting banged up and throwing the puck around.  We should not have to watch that much longer, we have assets and cap room. 

 

[Marvin]

7 minutes ago, Thorny said:

I’m curious about the “stunting offensive growth” thing, in the case where you learn D first. Can you elaborate on the theory being expressed by the hockey people in question? 

As mentioned I don’t have a stance here on if/why/when teams would do this 

Sure.

First, it is typical that most offencively gifted players in College or Juniors have at best a minimal idea of how to play team defence because, frankly, they could be very effective without it.  When they get to the pros, they find out that most of their tricks and moves don't work.  If the coaching and management emphasise team defence at the expense of offence, then the player never learns what he can do offencively in the pros.

As an example, take Zemgus Girgensons.  He was drafted as a scorer who could play physically.  During his first season in the NHL, Ted Nolan used him for both PP and PK and gave him the freedom to experiment on offence.  He made moves and plays as a rookie on seasoned veterans that we have not seen from him since.  After getting berated and benched by Abysmal Bylsma, his game was a mess.  Only when Housley put him with Larsson and Okposo did he find a way to be effective again.  Even with his simplified game and unfavourable match-ups, he scored at the rate of 15G and 15A per 82 games for a few years.  I keep thinking if he had been allowed to develop, he would have become the ideal #3C: defencively responsible with some offencive touch.

[Thorny]

16 minutes ago, Marvin said:

Sure.

First, it is typical that most offencively gifted players in College or Juniors have at best a minimal idea of how to play team defence because, frankly, they could be very effective without it.  When they get to the pros, they find out that most of their tricks and moves don't work.  If the coaching and management emphasise team defence at the expense of offence, then the player never learns what he can do offencively in the pros.

As an example, take Zemgus Girgensons.  He was drafted as a scorer who could play physically.  During his first season in the NHL, Ted Nolan used him for both PP and PK and gave him the freedom to experiment on offence.  He made moves and plays as a rookie on seasoned veterans that we have not seen from him since.  After getting berated and benched by Abysmal Bylsma, his game was a mess.  Only when Housley put him with Larsson and Okposo did he find a way to be effective again.  Even with his simplified game and unfavourable match-ups, he scored at the rate of 15G and 15A per 82 games for a few years.  I keep thinking if he had been allowed to develop, he would have become the ideal #3C: defencively responsible with some offencive touch.

I buy the idea these kids by and large come in to the NHL far more developed on the offensive side of the equation, I guess I’m just not sold on the idea that, should defence be the first area of attention once player is in the pros, that that would result in the stunting of offensive growth. Why can’t the attention to offence be second? It particularly needs to be first? It was the use of “permanently” re: stunted offensive growth that caught my eye. 

like, (reading up, it appears to be a myth?) but say the old idea: you add a ton of muscle mass before your growth spurt, you can stunt your growth. The operating thought at least was that you could actively hamper future growth. I’m not sure why rounding out your D game before the offensive game at the pro level* would necessarily stunt the potential for offensive growth - it very well might, I just don’t see the connection 

*If it’s coach mandated that’s more a case of being pigeonholed, I’d argue, rather than any kind of “permanence”

ymmv 

Edited March 11, 2023 by Thorny

[Marvin]

1 minute ago, Thorny said:

I buy the idea these kids by and large come in to the NHL far more developed on the offensive side of the equation, I guess I’m just not sold on the idea that, should defence be the first area of attention once player is in the pros, that that would result in the stunting of offensive growth. Why can’t the attention to offence be second? It particularly needs to be first? It was the use of “permanently” re: stunted offensive growth that caught my eye. 

like, (reading up, it appears to be a myth?) but say the old idea: you add a ton of muscle mass before your growth spurt, you can stunt your growth. The operating thought at least was that you could actively hamper future growth. I’m not sure why rounding out your D game would necessarily stunt the potential for offensive growth - it very well might, I just don’t see the connection 

You hit on the logical flaw in the argument: you can't know what would have happen on The Road Not Taken.  Some do use the examples of great two-way veterans who were defencively clueless as youths: Joe Sakic, Steve Yzerman, Doug Gilmour, Marcel Dionne, etc.  Heck, Gil Perreault had the worst team-adjusted +/- in the league from 1970-2, but jumped to +10  in 1972-3 to become the defencive conscience of "The Dream Line", Perreault-Gretzky-LaFleur.  I mentally scream "correlation is not causality" every time I hear this argument.

[Pimlach]

22 minutes ago, Marvin said:

Addendum: those who improve offence and defence from one season to the next make historic jumps in winning percentage.  For instance, the #10 team since WWII increased their GF from about 200 to 257 and decreased their GA from almost 300 to 219.  Meet your 1972-3 Buffalo Sabres.

Punch made a lot of shrewd trades constantly upgrading the lineup since day 1.  

Starting with the goalies, and many old veterans that had a few miles left, to actual long term help like Robert, Lorentz, Horton, and Luce.  

Drafting four impact players in 3 drafts didn't hurt either:  Perreault, Martin, Ramsay and Schoenfeld 

Those teams did not settle for losing.  If the defense was week he bought in Pratt, Robey, Horton.  If they got pushed around, he traded for fighters.  If they needed goals, he traded for scorers.  

That was in the days of $3.50 Oranges and the Aud was loud and sold out every night - forget about getting tickets, you had to know someone.   The crowd pumped up the team back then.  

[GASabresIUFAN]

4 hours ago, Thorny said:

Don’t really get what people mean when they say no goalie can “succeed” here without upgrading the D. What does that mean? They can’t put up Vezina numbers? Well, ya, I agree. But like... rosters... players.. teams..they don’t operate on an “all or nothing” plane.

our goalies aren’t “good”. They aren’t even “average”. Bringing in a “good” or “great” goalie wouldn’t represent a magic wand that solves all the issues - but since when is getting *more* saves and a few *more* points a bad thing? Since when is good the enemy of great? Even after upgrading the D, we’d be looking at needing better goaltending. The numbers clearly suggest we had below average tending made terrible by team D, not good GT made terrible 

just upgrade both 

No question both need to be upgraded, but when I said no goalie can succeed with how we play I mean it.  Put Saros under the barrage the guys play under, we’d still need to score 5 a night to win.  

That’s not acceptable and no FA or player with an NTC will come here until the defense is fixed. 

[Thorny]

3 minutes ago, GASabresIUFAN said:

No question both need to be upgraded, but when I said no goalie can succeed with how we play I mean it.  Put Saros under the barrage the guys play under, we’d still need to score 5 a night to win.  

That’s not acceptable and no FA or player with an NTC will come here until the defense is fixed. 

I can’t agree with this. “Still need 5 every night.” Even leaving the D exactly the same a really good goalie opposed to a poor goalie will make SOME difference. It’ll get us half way there 

And yes, fix the D. That’s the other half.

anyways...

[dudacek]

I think past two games was evidence that the problem with the defence is not so much the ability of the defencemen as it is the structure around them.

Jokiharju and Lyubushkin looked outstanding tonight.

In my opinion that's largely because the structure and the effort around them was strong and allowed them to succeed.

UPL looked good tonight, in part, because of the same reasons.

@Marvin has been banging this drum recently and Donnie used to talk about a lot last year: defence can be taught a lot more easily than offence.

This year they learned they can score goals and make plays with the best of them.

With the proper coaching and dedication, why can't they learn to defend the way they did tonight on a regular basis?

[Thorny]

12 minutes ago, dudacek said:

I think past two games was evidence that the problem with the defence is not so much the ability of the defencemen as it is the structure around them.

Jokiharju and Lyubushkin looked outstanding tonight.

In my opinion that's largely because the structure and the effort around them was strong and allowed them to succeed.

UPL looked good tonight, in part, because of the same reasons.

@Marvin has been banging this drum recently and Donnie used to talk about a lot last year: defence can be taught a lot more easily than offence.

This year they learned they can score goals and make plays with the best of them.

With the proper coaching and dedication, why can't they learn to defend the way they did tonight on a regular basis?

A lot of our best players are in their primes, they know how to play defence. They don’t need to learn how, they already know how. Of course the rookies can be an exception but I think we already *can* play like we did today on a regular basis - it’s just that it comes with a sacrifice of offence. We’ll get better when the talent can accomplish more while playing within either option or a combination or both, ie, a better Quinn will defend as well as today but find a way to get on the scoreboard once, as well). Also, KA can help by improving the roster ie defenders who don’t NEED the system protection a lyubushkin needs. By and large next year Granato can’t just say “ok now do both” and wave a magic wand. Our goal differential has been reflective all year 

and like they said themselves, they’re tired. Some of the top guys aren’t producing at the clip they were (skinner notwithstanding) because we’ve relied upon them pretty heavily all year + how condensed the schedule is hurts. But if we had a bit more depth they’d probably have a bit more tread on the tires here, again, going with KO’s own admission 

Edited March 12, 2023 by Thorny

[dudacek]

20 minutes ago, Thorny said:

A lot of our best players are in their primes, they know how to play defence. They don’t need to learn how, they already know how. Of course the rookies can be an exception but I think we already *can* play like we did today on a regular basis - it’s just that it comes with a sacrifice of offence. We’ll get better when the talent can accomplish more while playing within either option or a combination or both, ie, a better Quinn will defend as well as today but find a way to get on the scoreboard once, as well). Also, KA can help by improving the roster ie defenders who don’t NEED the system protection a lyubushkin needs. By and large next year Granato can’t just say “ok now do both” and wave a magic wand. Our goal differential has been reflective all year 

and like they said themselves, they’re tired. Some of the top guys aren’t producing at the clip they were (skinner notwithstanding) because we’ve relied upon them pretty heavily all year + how condensed the schedule is hurts. But if we had a bit more depth they’d probably have a bit more tread on the tires here, again, going with KO’s own admission 

"A lot" is a relative term.

Tuch, Dahlin, Skinner (can't believe I wrote that), Zemgus, Kyle... and now they've added Greenway and Jost. Am I missing anyone?

Thompson, Mitts, Jokiharju, Boosh and Vic might be "vets," but they are what 250 games into their NHL careers? And how many of those games have been tough games against good players?

And Power, Mule, Quinn, Krebs, Peterka, Cozens — they're NHL babies.

Conservatively, at least half of our lineup is still learning and it's games like this week that are teaching them.

Edited March 12, 2023 by dudacek

[Thorny]

11 minutes ago, dudacek said:

"A lot" is a relative term.

Tuch, Dahlin, Skinner (can't believe I wrote that), Zemgus, Kyle... and now they've added Greenway and Jost. Am I missing anyone?

Thompson, Mitts, Jokiharju, Boosh and Vic might be "vets," but they are what 250 games into their NHL careers? And how many of those games have been tough games against good players?

And Power, Mule, Quinn, Krebs, Peterka, Cozens — they're NHL babies.

Conservatively, at least half of our lineup is still learning and it's games like this week that are teaching them.

 We have players like Tage Thompson, Dylan Cozens, and Mattias Samuelsson signed to long-term extensions, and we know they have not hit their ceilings as players. They are going to continue to get better, just like the rest of our players. 
 

ya, I know 

Edited March 12, 2023 by Thorny

[PerreaultForever]

6 hours ago, Marvin said:

I pointed it out a couple of times.  Over the history of the NHL going back to WWII, when a team rises from the bottom of the barrel with a massive change to youth and minimal additions from outside, they normally improve the offence in one year and the defence the next.  You often see the GA stay about the same the first year, which includes a minor rise in the standings.  The second season, when the youth learn a commitment to defence, is when the team rises significantly in the standings.

Most young players who get to the top end of offence learn team defence after they learn to play in the NHL unless the coaching staff and management push a defencive emphasis throughout the organisation from day 1.  Most hockey people think teaching young players defence first at least partially stunts their offencive growth permanently.  Moreover, most talented players learn team defence only after a few years.

I don't think this is true. It really depends on the team and what that system puts emphasis on. Toronto for example are STILL trying to learn defense and this year their solution was bring in a bunch from the outside and maybe that'll work. Boston on the other hand makes you play defense first and you don't get to crack the line up until you learn it. 

I don't think there's a universal methodology for any team and players are all different. It's the team structure that matters and if you insert too many rookies all at once you will have defensive lapses, it's inevitable. idk if Granato will put more emphasis on defense next year or not, but if he does what will the plan be? If (hypothetical example) Quinn makes defensive errors will he be benched or lose ice time or will he still play and learn because he scores? It's hard to say what will happen. The only thing I know right now, is we can score against teams that let us play wide open, we struggle against tight checking, and our net front presence is still poor. Goaltending and D need to be improved most of all. 

[Randall Flagg]

2 hours ago, dudacek said:

I think past two games was evidence that the problem with the defence is not so much the ability of the defencemen as it is the structure around them.

Jokiharju and Lyubushkin looked outstanding tonight.

In my opinion that's largely because the structure and the effort around them was strong and allowed them to succeed.

UPL looked good tonight, in part, because of the same reasons.

@Marvin has been banging this drum recently and Donnie used to talk about a lot last year: defence can be taught a lot more easily than offence.

This year they learned they can score goals and make plays with the best of them.

With the proper coaching and dedication, why can't they learn to defend the way they did tonight on a regular basis?

On hfboards and maybe twitter, a lot of people have been loudly complaining about Joki this year. But I've been thrilled with the season he's been having (provided he's not eating minutes he shouldn't be). 

[GASabresIUFAN]

How do we actually fix the defense?

Dahlin, Power, and Samuelsson are the core and not going anywhere.

Jokiharju, 23, RHD,  has one more year at 2.5 and then is an RFA.

Lyubushkin, 28, RHD, has one more year at 2.75 and then is a UFA

Stillman, 25, LHD, has one more year at 1.35 and then is an RFA

Bryson, 25, LHD (but can also play RD), has one more year at 1.85 and then in as RFA

Clague, 25, LHD (but can also play RD), is an RFA

That's 8 D under contract or control.

Assuming for argument's sake that KA brings in two D this summer, who is retained, who is traded, and who will be waived because they value? How do they structure the defense going forward?

Does Bryson have any trade value?  How likely is it that Clague is re-signed? Will KA be willing to move on from either Bush or Stillman?  How much trade value does Joki have and how do you allocate the D if you don't trade him?

Edited March 12, 2023 by GASabresIUFAN

[Taro T]

3 hours ago, dudacek said:

I think past two games was evidence that the problem with the defence is not so much the ability of the defencemen as it is the structure around them.

Jokiharju and Lyubushkin looked outstanding tonight.

In my opinion that's largely because the structure and the effort around them was strong and allowed them to succeed.

UPL looked good tonight, in part, because of the same reasons.

@Marvin has been banging this drum recently and Donnie used to talk about a lot last year: defence can be taught a lot more easily than offence.

This year they learned they can score goals and make plays with the best of them.

With the proper coaching and dedication, why can't they learn to defend the way they did tonight on a regular basis?

And there's the conundrum.  They played great team defense in the Ryan Miller game, they were boxing guys out in front of the net and F's were being responsible as well.  They didn't score much, but that was more a function of Sorokin than their being defensively responsible.

Tonight, they played soundly in their own end.  Yes, they only scored once, but that was due in large part to a horribly unfortunately timed attempt at a line change and it also was a function of Shesterkin.  It wasn't due to their being defensively responsible.

REALLY thought they were going to start being defensively responsible (or at least adequately defensively responsible after that 1st Aisles game.  It's only happened on occassion.  And am very confused as to why that is.  They CAN do that and when they've done it, they've still generated chances.  If they didn't get chances when they play responsibly it would be understandable why they abandon it after only a single game.  But they DO generate chances.  And as long as guys that can shoot like these ones can can get chances, eventually they'll start burying them again.

Would LOVE to hear Granato's thoughts on this particular item.

[SABRES 0311]

6 hours ago, GASabresIUFAN said:

How do we actually fix the defense?

Dahlin, Power, and Samuelsson are the core and not going anywhere.

Jokiharju, 23, RHD,  has one more year at 2.5 and then is an RFA.

Lyubushkin, 28, RHD, has one more year at 2.75 and then is a UFA

Stillman, 25, LHD, has one more year at 1.35 and then is an RFA

Bryson, 25, LHD (but can also play RD), has one more year at 1.85 and then in as RFA

Clague, 25, LHD (but can also play RD), is an RFA

That's 8 D under contract or control.

Assuming for argument's sake that KA brings in two D this summer, who is retained, who is traded, and who will be waived because they value? How do they structure the defense going forward?

Does Bryson have any trade value?  How likely is it that Clague is re-signed? Will KA be willing to move on from either Bush or Stillman?  How much trade value does Joki have and how do you allocate the D if you don't trade him?

I think Clague gets resigned for injury call ups.

Of the other D I’d say Joker has the highest trade value. Maybe they move Lybushkin for a third pair guy.

If we are looking to get an upgrade on the second pair it might cost us a forward and prospect. Have to see what the market is this summer

Bryson I’m fine with moving or keep for no other solution injury call up.

Dahlin Muel 

Power New Guy

Joker New Guy

[steveoath]

Isn't boosh signed for next year? And we have stillman for 2 more. I'm not convinced that GMKA will bring in more D. Unless it's of the tweener variety. I think he should though. Power would benefit from a wiley vet IMHO.

 

 

 

 

[thewookie1]

Effectively 1/2 spots are open on the D at most.

Samuelsson - Dahlin is more or less a lock

Power - ??? In theory Power can also play his off hand and play with Muel but then we’d need another 1LHD

??? - Jokiharju. While much maligned, he is usually average 

The Bush as our 7 seems like a very solid role for him due to his injury frequency and having a specific physical role when playing. 
 

What we have already:

Riley Stillman - could possibly be a solid 3LHD if he can return to his Florida play. Otherwise we likely carry 8 D next year.

Jacob Bryson - seems to be on the outs based on both Adams attempting to get Chychrun and acquiring Stillman. May hold minor value in a trade akin to a pick in the 4th possibly?

Kale Clague - brought in to be depth and Rochester’s player. Ended up being a pleasant surprise but isn’t more than a depth player at best.

Ryan Johnson - as long as he signs, he’s another young LHD with solid skill and possible NHL readiness. I’d like him to stay in Rochester for a year though to give Levi at least 1 defensively stable youngster to work with

 

Ideally we bring in one vet RHD to play with Power who can give us a vet playoff presence back there. To be honest, I liked the idea of Ekholm more than Chychrun only because he’s a far more seasoned player who has experienced playoff hockey.

 

So at minimum I’d like to see a depth chart of

Dahlin

Power

Samuelsson

Vet RHD

Jokiharju

Stillman/Bush

Stillman/Bush

Clague (or a similar tweener for the 8 slot)

Johnson

Possibly another AHLer with NHL experience 

 

Trade Bryson

Edited March 12, 2023 by thewookie1

[GASabresIUFAN]

4 hours ago, SABRES 0311 said:

I think Clague gets resigned for injury call ups.

Of the other D I’d say Joker has the highest trade value. Maybe they move Lybushkin for a third pair guy.

If we are looking to get an upgrade on the second pair it might cost us a forward and prospect. Have to see what the market is this summer

Bryson I’m fine with moving or keep for no other solution injury call up.

Dahlin Muel 

Power New Guy

Joker New Guy

Ideally we’d keep the top 3, demote Joki to the 3rd pair and bring in 2 new pieces.  However, I’m in the camp that KA is not willing to make that big a change.  He brought Stillman in because they think he fits their style of play (he does - he is historically poor at in zone coverage) and has another year left on his deal. I also don’t see them  walking away from the 2nd year on Bush’s deal.  

However, the attempted trade for Chychrun and the acquisition of Stillman is at least a clear indication that KA realizes what he has isn’t good enough.

To me this make Jokiharju the biggest question mark on the D.  Does KA denote him to the 3rd creating a RHD/RHD pair with Bush, moving Stillman to 7 and Bryson to 8? This opens the 2nd pair job with Power.

or 

Given the demand for RHD, does he trade Joki to open a roster spot for a new partner for Power? The trade could be to acquire assets to help acquire the partner or if the new guy is a UFA, assets for the draft or a new prospect.  

The other question is how does KA acquire the partner for Power?  Does he make a trade or does he sign a UFA? I doubt he’d commit to more than 3 years on a UFA.  So that likely leaves the trade market as the likely source of the new player.  Who is even available?  Jensen was re-signed and is no longer available.  

While I said a UFA is unlikely, I do wonder if KA could get Orlov to sign here for 3 or 5 years? He’d answer our veteran need, is a Cup winner and still plays solid two way hockey.  

 

[JohnC]

52 minutes ago, GASabresIUFAN said:

Ideally we’d keep the top 3, demote Joki to the 3rd pair and bring in 2 new pieces.  However, I’m in the camp that KA is not willing to make that big a change.  He brought Stillman in because they think he fits their style of play (he does - he is historically poor at in zone coverage) and has another year left on his deal. I also don’t see them  walking away from the 2nd year on Bush’s deal.  

However, the attempted trade for Chychrun and the acquisition of Stillman is at least a clear indication that KA realizes what he has isn’t good enough.

To me this make Jokiharju the biggest question mark on the D.  Does KA denote him to the 3rd creating a RHD/RHD pair with Bush, moving Stillman to 7 and Bryson to 8? This opens the 2nd pair job with Power.

or 

Given the demand for RHD, does he trade Joki to open a roster spot for a new partner for Power? The trade could be to acquire assets to help acquire the partner or if the new guy is a UFA, assets for the draft or a new prospect.  

The other question is how does KA acquire the partner for Power?  Does he make a trade or does he sign a UFA? I doubt he’d commit to more than 3 years on a UFA.  So that likely leaves the trade market as the likely source of the new player.  Who is even available?  Jensen was re-signed and is no longer available.  

While I said a UFA is unlikely, I do wonder if KA could get Orlov to sign here for 3 or 5 years? He’d answer our veteran need, is a Cup winner and still plays solid two way hockey.  

 

With respect to the highlighted segment: Absolutely not! Joki had an exceptional game last night. It seems as if he has replaced Mitts as the designated target for fans frustrated with the team. Please stop with these reflexive negative responses about him that don't reflect how he has actually played.  He was one of our better blueline players last night. I thought this was one of his best games as a Sabre. And I say the same for Lyubushkin's play yesterday. 

Don Granato has on more than a few occasions extolled Joki's upside as a player. Joki is not a weakness on the blueline. Being a partner to Power is one of the reasons why Power has prospered as a rookie player. As @dudacekpointed out on his comments in this game, Joki was exceptional in this game. There were more than a few occasions where he got back to forestall a Ranger odd man rush. I also have noticed him to be more aggressive participating in the offense. It's apparent to me (maybe not to you) that he is expanding his game.

I'm not against moving him down a pairing if the GM brings in a better player to pair with Power. That would certainly upgrade the blueline unit. I would have to see who is brought in, assuming that type of player is added to the mix. I still believe that a third pairing player is more likely to be acquired than a genuine second-pairing player. 

Just like the Mitts bashing this Joki denigration makes no sense to me. Despite how many have negatively categorized him, he has become one of the core players that the GM and coach are counting on.