nfreeman

There is NFW Colorado would give up Duchene and Landeskog for Risto and Nylander. It would take Risto and Reino.

Then you're not getting him. It will cost Reino to get Duchene.

Very nice. Seriously though: no meat, no fish, no cheese, no ice cream, no butter? WTF kind of life is that?

Does anyone not think the Bills are going to get crushed by Denver?

Correct.

Well, I think that if Moulson were on a 2-way deal, they'd send him down without thinking twice -- i.e. he's not good enough to be in the lineup.

Whether the NFL and/or TP could pay for a new stadium themselves is neither here nor there. They could, but they don't need to, so they won't. We can cry ourselves a river over the amorality of the situation, but it won't affect the need to make the decision: do you want to pay a large amount of public money, or do you want to lose the team? (FWIW, I agree with pretty much everything you've said on this, and I would much rather keep the Ralph, which is a great place to watch a football game, than replace it with a new stadium. But that doesn't change the reality.)

Correct -- everyone, regardless of income level, will get hit with whatever sales taxes, booze taxes, electric/water/other utility taxes, etc. that are utilized to pay the public portion of the cost. Korab -- a downtown domed stadium would be used more than the Ralph, but I doubt the increased usage would be substantial.

#Hammymath.

Regarding the first bolded item: this is 100% true, especially in a city like Buffalo, which will have very few non-NFL events at the stadium. However, and unfortunately, the economics aren't really the question IMHO -- the question is whether the city/state values having the NFL team enough to write a huge check for a new stadium, since if it refuses to do so, the team will leave. Now, I think that TP will demand much less public money than most NFL owners have demanded, but no one should kid himself or herself that it won't cost anything. It will cost a lot -- I would expect at least $500MM in public money -- so everyone will need to decide whether he/she personally would prefer that the public absorb that cost, as opposed to lose the team. As for Brandon, although I would like to see him gone as much as the next guy, I will give him credit for his role in several rounds of successful negotiations and agreements with WNY. He's not the reason the Bills are still in WNY -- that is to Ralph's eternal credit -- but he did execute Ralph's wishes successfully, which isn't nothing.

I will be pretty surprised if it's not at least $10MM per year.

I think that if Pommer still has the hands and the timing to convert one-timers in tight, he should be on the PP with Jack. Those shifts don't require as much energy as 5-on-5 shifts. I like Qwk's idea about subbing in another RW for a couple of 5-on-5 shifts per game if Pommer needs some rest. Also, Pommer shouldn't be on the PK.

That's it. Plan the freaking parade. Here we come.

I will be somewhat surprised if Kane doesn't get a 5-year offer from someone and very surprised if he doesn't get a 4-year offer -- in each case, at $5.75MM per year or higher.

As is generally the case in these situations, if you're saying "I'd give him a 1-year deal" or "I'd give him a 3-year deal" -- you're really saying "I wouldn't give him an offer that he would accept, so I need to figure out what my best options are given that undeniable fact." It's not unreasonable to not want to give Kane, say, $6MM x 6 years. I think many GMs will feel that way. But some will be willing to do so. And Kane isn't going to accept, say, $18MM from the Sabres when he can get $36MM elsewhere.

I don't think you can predict what he would do with a $6MM per year offer unless we also know the term. I think unless the Sabres offer at least 6 years, his answer is going to be no.

One interesting question IMHO is whether any NHL GM would give Kane a 7-year deal. We can go back and forth on whether the "antics" meme is fair or not, but it's indisputable that Kane is perceived by many to come with baggage. Will an NHL GM be willing to risk giving him, say, $6MM x 7 years, knowing that if he does, and then Kane skips practice/gets arrested/clashes with teammates, and then the team misses the playoffs -- that is a big honking black mark against that GM? If another team won't give Kane a long-term deal, does it make it more likely that he re-signs here? Or, if Kane gets to the point where he learns that other teams won't give him that kind of contract, will it be too late for him to return to the Sabres anyway?

Regarding Guhle: I've been skeptical that he would play in Buffalo this year, but I listened to an interview today with JBott from last week and he spoke very highly of Guhle. Among other things, he said something like "Guhle plays fast, and that meshes with how Phil wants to play." I was left with the impression that JBott and Howie are both pretty high on Guhle.

Well, Kane has flaws, but to call him "mediocre" is nuts. He scored at well above a 30-goal pace last year and I am confident will do at least as well in his contract year. Bodies fly when he crashes the net. He's a very good skater. No one takes liberties with his teammates when he's on the ice. It's certainly possible that he's a self-absorbed jerk, that he loafs in practice, and/or that he assaulted those women. It's also certainly possible that none of those things is true. I can understand not wanting to give him a fat long-term contract. But it is crazy to think the Sabres would be better off without him.

No one is going to claim him. Everyone knows this, and sending him down without even giving him a chance in camp would be a major slap in the face and a public humiliation.

I'm not optimistic, but if they can pull it off tomorrow, a lot of people are going to start believing.

Restored, although the magic man is gone.

That would've been a completely unnecessary and dickish move that would've hurt the Sabres' future ability to attract veteran FAs.

Has there ever been a Sabre who was hyped as much, and delivered as little, as Grigorenko? I can't think of one.

My 2 cents: 1. I think you can wear the jersey of any player whose game you like. 2. For us older dudes, I think the jerseys of past franchise greats are a bit cooler than those of current youngsters, but that is just a personal preference. 3. The meathead variations of 69 and similar jerseys that 11 referred to are completely unacceptable. 4. Not quite as bad, but still borderline NFW, are jerseys with your own name on them. 5. Less bad than that, but still not great, are generic (no name or number) jerseys -- I think at that point you should just wear a Sabres shirt. 6. The slug and goathead are just barely OK. 7. My personal favorite non-classic jersey is the red alternate jersey from the goathead era. 8. My issue with wearing a suit all day and then to a game is not so much the suit as it is the shoes and the accumulated clamminess after 16 hours.