All Activity

I stand corrected, he won this one

The sound of truthi-ness. Helenius seems like he might be our top prospect right now. But he’s still a big unknown. There is value in moving an unknown for a known quantity, especially when success has been so hard to find. It would have to be for a substantial player, but moving even our top prospects needs to be on the table right now.

McLeod made them better than they would have been with Savoie

Ryan McLeod might be a better player than Matt Savoie right now, but in no way did McLeod make the Sabres a better team. And now the Sabres are up against the cap and McLeod is going to demand a contract that he probably won't be capable of living up to as a 3C, or be forced to play over his head as a 2C, while the Sabres move out better players to keep him. Nothing Adams does is right and the team is doomed to fail so long as he remains.

It’s because trades aren’t a zero sum game. Trades are also a means to an end, not a valuable metric in and of themselves. if winning trades is a thing, yes the blues won the trade because the trade facilitated their goal. Two teams can win a trade, 2 teams can lose. A good example of a trade both teams lost is Byram Mittelstadt To your point, the sabres have already lost the ROR deal: that’s another thing people don’t tabulate properly - time isn’t a negligible competent in trades lol. Our goal when trading ROR wasn’t to get a guy who was better in 5 years. The trade torpedoed an entire regime and set the team back years If you can analyze that swap as a “win”, it’s a pyrrhic victory at best but in reality with an awareness for context, it can only be construed as a colossal error

I also haven’t read a strong argument that he’s won any trades, ftr

Dealing who?

I don't want to trade Helenius for Rakell either. But I have to point out that Dylan Cozens, Jack Quinn and Owen Power were far better prospects than any player currently in the Buffalo pipeline. In terms how they rank a prospects — which is not proof of how they will be as players — Helenius and Östlund are similar to where Peyton Krebs was 2 or 3 years after he was selected.

Conservatives doing victory laps is par for the course with these traitors. MAGA. Scum.

Who won the Mitts-Byram trade is strange hill to die on. The Sabres as a team did not improve in the standings, they regressed. Colorado had another post season that disappointed them, but that Sabres fans would absolutely love to experience. It looks to me like Byram is the better player of the two. That’s my opinion based on comparing two players on different teams that play different positions. As @LGR4GM stated, it appears Byram has more value today than Mitts had (he was traded for 3rd line player Charlie Coyle), supporting the notion that Byram is the better player. Did the trade improve the Sabres? That answer unfortunately is NO. The Sabres finished lower in the standings with 5 fewer points, but certainly there were other factors at play as well. Where Byram would fit was always a question. Did we hurt our center spline by removing Mitts was also a question. Mitts clearly did not cut it as a 2C in Colorado, and while Byram was effective when playing with Dahlin (as all other Sabres defensemen were) he did not much bring otherwise. He (and others) did not step up when Dahlin was hurt which is when it was needed most. A big team need is still there - a solid and steady defense first player at RHD to compliment Power or Dahlin. Adams, always late to the party, said himself that he wasn’t sure how to use Byram. A big consideration, since Mitts is a center, is to evaluate the play of the Sabres centers. Lindy most definitely considered the center spline to be a weak spot on the team. There was much line shuffling because of the center play. Cozens folded under the weight of the “A” and the 2C role and was moved out. Even after bringing in McLeod in a separate deal, who was good, the center spline was an area of concern and it still is. Getting the better player is nice. Now they have to somehow leverage that to improve the roster. At some point this was to about improving the team, and not “winning trades”.

So he's not another undersized finesse player? Who knew? Who. Knew.

Agreed - bring me a superstar and every prospect is available.

My worst fear is that Jeff Skinner, Evander Kane, Jake McCabe, Nic DesLauriers, and Hudson Fasching all end up with their name on the Stanley Cup while Sheevyn is still the leader of the Hockey Ops department with the Sabres and is the one direct conduit to ownership and churns thorough GMs who listen to the master for eternity.

I don't like moving helenius because he actually profiles as a middle-six center. Seeing the scarcity and difficulty acquiring two-way centers makes it tough to want to move him.

Draisaitl is something else, man. I'd take him over Auston Matthews without a moment's hesitation.

The only way I am dealing Helenius is in a package for a player like Jordan Kyrou or Jason Robertson

Correct. But our GM has acknowledged he had no plan for Byram, and our record regressed with Byram (not his fault), and we now, it seems, have to trade Byram and we don’t know what we are getting for him. Sometimes there are no winners in a trade. It’s early to conclude on this one, in my view.

Good thing we aren’t trading Benson for Rust. If anyone has access to the Athletic’s player cards, they rank Rust as a +7 overall (Benson a +2, Peterka a +4). They have Rust’s contract value at $1.5 million higher than his actual $5.125 AAV. Their summary makes clear he is not great defensively. That said, I am not big on a Helenius for Rust or Rakell trade. Quinn, Rosen, and a 2nd? Sure. But as we are plagued by the same things that plagued the Sabres in the Eichel, O’Reilly, Reinhart days (a bad GM and a bad HC), I prefer we hold on to our best future assets out of hope that Pegula gets lucky with his next GM/HC hirings. My worst fears may be unfolding. Our near historically bad GM is about to trade our best future assets in a desperate attempt to save his job.

Fascism. I noticed all the conservatives who were doing victory laps here in February have vanished. Listen to what this woman was saying.

You're missing a key element. Does Casey Mittelstadt on the Sabres make them better? I'd argue no. So yes we can be mad that Mitts wasn't traded for something we need, but if Byram gets us that, that's good.

They showed a stat last night that this was one of only 7 times in history (back to the beginning), where a team overcame a 3 goal deficit to win a game in the finals. Last time it happened was 2006. I agree with the general sentiment that leads are not safe like they were 20 years ago and that game tying goals with an empty-net are now a thing that seems to happen regularly. These are good things. It makes for much better hockey. Last night’s Oiler win, was still a historical outlier though. Further to this, sort of, in his post-game press conference Maurice made a point of saying that he thinks the goaltending has been incredible. He added that the statistics are telling him something different, but the quality of shooters in today’s game is so good that the saves being made are amazing. 10 of the 16 playoff teams will finish the playoffs with a save % below .900. This is also good for hockey in my view.

Connor Murphy + 25th Overall sounds good to me Sounds even better if Adams then trades one of 9th or 25th for another player

It's not like it's a SCF game - and that 3-0 score was at the end of the first period - against Edmonton. Did we expect the Oilers to sit back and take it? Long gone are the days of expecting any team being able to hold a lead through two periods - if those days ever actually existed.

You are focusing your attention on the right issue/question. The meaningful issue isn't whether a player going out or coming in is better or not. You can be dispatching a more talented player for a lesser talented player and still come out improving your team because it upgrades a more needed position. One of my primary criticisms of the GM is that he has a scout's mentality in evaluating players without the broader perspective required for a GM position that should have a bigger picture perspective. He simply is not adept at getting the right pieces to stitch together to form a coherent and stronger roster. His accumulated record demonstrates that point. He's had five years on the job. He deconstructed the roster and positioned us on the bottom of the rankings. Where are we after five years of applying his shortsighted methodology?

US Open golf coverage of 12+ hours on a brutal Oakmont course. Pros shooting high 70s is relatable scoring wise but I would not break 100 there.