All Activity

I think you should be limited in the number of NMCs and NTCs you can have on your team. I also think if a player waives it to be traded, they no longer should have it on their new team.

I agree here.. I tried not to be jaded when I thought of this... I mean when you are the one sitting out at the kids table while the rest of the league is eating dinner of course you are like hey this is unfair... but look, you are at the kids table for a reason... and using excuses like palm trees and taxes is just loser talk... like why should we change the rules for you because you are grossly incompetent and have been for decades... So, I land on the NHL has like 10xs the NMCs as the NFL and half the players... give or take... NMCs really do tilt the playing field of fair competition in my opinion especially when you see a bunch of teams that no one wants to go to... this is why we have a draft with reverse order and teams just cant go out and sign whom ever they want in a free for all... we have free agency as an outlet that gives players a 100% choice ... So to me the NMCs can stay splitting the difference... Once you become a certain age with a certain amount of vested years you earn that right to have one... So say 32 and 5 years just for arguments sake... this would at least give those veteran players some say... but would not preclude all those teams on the no trade list from access to younger top players via trade...

Is it Ruff who wants to keep this coach on or is it the organization mandating it? There were reports that there were overtures to some coaches who simply didn't want to come here. That's a commentary onto itself about how this franchise is perceived.

If a team wants to hand out a number of maximum deals, then what is the problem. If teams are too eager to hand them out to less than elite players, then they will eventually be encumbered by those foolish contracts. By giving out too many of those rich contracts it won't take long before those contracts limit their options in pursuing other players. The Sabres are limited in the players who want to come here not because of the large number of players with NMCs but because it is a widely acknowledged dysfunctional franchise. What player wants to be stuck in a ghetto franchise where post-season play in a fantasy? The NMC contracts have teams listed on them. Well run teams and serious franchises are usually not on that list. There is a simple solution: Run a competent and serious franchise where winning is a priority. Buffalo is in an ideal location for Canadian players who live in the Toronto and southern Canadian area. It should be an appealing destination for many players. It's not because few people desire to be stuck in such a chaotic system. I'm confident that if this franchise turns it around that this clause issue will not be much of a factor in our pursuit of players. The Sabres should be more worried about their top players wanting out than top players not wanting to come here. The solution is to start acting more competently and win more. ***** teams and organizations have never been an enticing place to play for players with the special clauses and without them. This oddly run franchise is its own worst enemy. Note: I'm not an irredeemable pessimist. I see this leaky ship floating better. In general, our offseason has been solid. But it's still not good enough. More urgency demonstrated by action should have been shown. That's why I'm still disappointed how this offseason has transpired. If our placid GM should come up with a second-line caliber of forward before the season starts, I will be more upbeat.

Related to my post yesterday in the Random thread….. The pooch my son and daughter-in-law just took in as a foster is a bit of a genetic mess it would seem. Spinal issues, front leg issues, rear leg and hip issues, jaw and teeth issues. This poor dog has badly inbred written all over it. The rescue group will be setting up and paying for a vet evaluation. The kids are expecting the worst. I suspect the kids are giving this guy a comfortable send off. Sad. And anger inducing at the same time.

We tend to look at our own ineptitude concerning players coming here and it's completely warranted, but if we zoom out to the NHL as a whole I think we see less movement (go figure) which dilutes a lot of excitement. And naturally, the teams at the bottom do not get that dose of hope that comes with a blockbuster deal.

Chopped the flow off, I like it now, but I miss the sus Jesus look 😂

Bump

A lot of stats are contextual so they don't translate directly. That said, if a guy on Buffalo is bad and you swap him for a guy from a different team that's got better stats, hoping the new guy is better makes sense. For example Doan was basically Utahs Benson (high in xgf% and hdcf%) so there's a better chance he's going to be decent defensively in Buffalo than if we got Utah middle of the road guy in the stats. Will he be? Idk. Idk if Benson will breakout. Idk if Thompson will score 40g or Dahlin 60pts. Stats predict but don't guarantee a future outcome. Oh and I'm not comparing Doan to Peterka here. I'm comparing Doan more so to Lafferty.

How do they measure high danger shots against when there are 5 guys on the ice? Aren't all 5 responsible? Also, I thought the stats said Zucker was one of our good defenders?

Well ya, they simply aren't committed to winning. There are some teams that set a high bar and will do whatever they can to try to win and win now. They don't always get it right and only 1 wins it all but they are usually in the hunt and have some sort of playoffs. Then there are teams like the Sabres, and I don't really know what their real aim is as doing whatever you can to win now doesn't seem to be it.

The only addition by subtraction I want right now is Adams and the entire coaching staff to get fired.

I think that a lot of people in Buffalo feel that way

The good defenders: Least shot attempts against per 60: Benson 50.58 Dahlin 52.61 Malenstyn 55.5 Krebs 55.68 Greenway 56.32 Least high danger shots against per 60: Benson 1.84 Greenway 2.23 Dahlin 2.44 Power 2.48 McLeod 2.48 Fewest expected goals against per 60: Benson 2.2 Dahlin 2.36 Malenstyn 2.45 Lafferty 2.55 Tuch 2.58

Money puck has an interesting section I hadn’t really checked out before: basically defence per hour: The bad defenders: Most shot attempts against per 60: Clifton 63.4 Zucker 62.1 Peterka 61.5 Kulich 60.6 Quinn 60.4 Most high danger shots against per 60: Peterka 3.41 Lafferty 3.16 Byram 3.06 Clifton 3.04 Samuelsson 2.94 Expected goals against per 60: Peterka 3.0 Bryson 2.9 Quinn 2.8 Zucker 2.8 Clifton 2.8

Trades are fun and the nhl can always use more fun. Get rid of the nmc & increase parity

Thompson ranks 4th among Sabres forwards in Corsi, 3rd in GF% and 2nd in xG%. He’s above 50% in all three measures. He’s also almost certainly playing against good players.

I thought there was a story of the wife or girlfriend that wanted him there and everyone knew he would wind up there.

For $70MM at the age of 29. It was viewed as a HUGE overpay by most everyone but him and Zito. Turns out it was a very good contract but without being willing to go to the "overpay," Bobrovsky almost definitely ends up elsewhere.

Good shooters get to the good spots? Good shooters also are more ACCURATE from the good spots. Every point you make, there is an equal counterpoint to. And doesn't GF% take into consideration where the shots are taken from, regardless of whether the shooter is good or not? I think so. Xgf takes into account the defensive side of things...as does GF%. I'm not arguing that xgf is a terrible stat. I'm just saying it is just one peice of the puzzle, just like gf%. I tend to SLIGHTLY like gf% over xgf% when looked at over the course of a few seasons. But again, I'm not going to evaluate a player on gf% alone, xgf% alone....I think you need to look at them with context to each other...AND the other stats, and over a course of time WITH looking at their teammates comparison. The only major problem I have with xGF% is when people just throw it out there and use it as the best stat to judge a player. When someone says "They are good because they have a better xGF% than the next guy", I tend to think that only tells 10% of the story, or less. In the past we have had some posts were people supported their opinion of whether someone was good, or not good, based on xgf% and little else.

All you guys gonna die

Im not convinced they’ve ever succeeded at the second part.

Jays.

A lot of it stems from the fact ownership and management have different aims in priority than the fan base. It’s a little less, “I’m a hockey wizard!” - Terry Pegula, than people think and a little more “Come in on budget, and don’t build a roster so bad that playoffs look like an impossibility.” their whole thing is plausible deniability.

I love +/- specifically for this thread title because it combines both mathematical symbols in sequence. It's the perfect stat.