7+6=13

Such a tough call. If the stage is set that we aren't giving him an extension during the season - or he doesn't want to sign an extension - then I think you have to trade him, there's little choice. Keeping him and not signing him although it would cause a massive void on our team would be a huge missed opportunity for the future. I wouldn't keep him to just show good will towards him for signing him in the off season - that's just a simple conversation with his agent - otherwise you sign him now. If the Sabres want to sign him but his agent is saying we are open to signing back with Buffalo but my client does want to take advantage of seeing the open market - then obviously that decision is already made for the Sabres and you trade.

Jim Kelly - Deniro - Michael Jackson - Mike Tyson

They've been doing that with everyone though. I haven't seen the same lines for 3 games in a row. This is what leads me to believe this is a "see what we have" season and build the team from there. I do think they've made an effort to put Sam in position to see where he can succeed and IMO hasn't shown where or who he should be playing with.

Not being smart but what do you mean by jerking Sam around?

Right, but I just cannot imagine a scenario where they keep him and just let him go to ufa.

By "he's not going anywhere" the source must mean he's getting an extension?

I have a slightly different take. I think this team is built for an outdated style of NHL hockey. It would look better in Bylsma's system or at least the one he chose (may have been because of our teams make up of players). Housley is of the new style - speed and puck possession. It's what wins today but we're no where near set up for that. While the league is addressing some of the things holding offenses back i.e. the slashing rule being enforced - there is still a lot of interference allowed. This is why you need a handful of players that are hard to catch, difficult to interfere and get your body on. They beat you in and out of the corners. Twitchy players that can posses the puck so well the defense plays in an area instead of trying to come towards the player. There's always the need for big strong guys - don't get me wrong but offensively and defensively we need a handful of players that can just go. I think this team would "look better" if we could immediately defer back to last years system - but that doesn't mean that's what we should do. I surmise that the theory of this being a "take a look" at what we have deploying the system we will play to likely be correct .

That was not the question.

Opportunity to play with Jack - who's elevated him from a good player to a guy on the leader boards.

It's been a rough stretch for sure but I'm not calling Jack Eichel rotten.

We have 3 offensive players worth a crap and I find it comical that somehow they're the rotten ones. You cannot be competitive when that's all you have.

Last nights game is an indication that what you suggest isn't the right thing to do. Kane was rendered ineffective with O'Reilly and Sam. As soon as he got back with Jack everything clicked. Kane and Eichel should be on the same line from here on and I also think Kane needs to be signed to keep them together. It's working.

Sadly I agree with everything you've said.

Do you really think we're desperate for puck moving dman? Watching the games it doesn't seem like that's our issue(s).

He's made a few mistakes turning the puck over or trying to do a little too much - but overall he is playing fantastic, IMO. He gives us a handful of very real opportunities to score each game. He's no where near needing to sit. We aren't winning, he's pissed, so what.

Our hands aren't tied - we just don't have trade type players outside of Kane. That's basically the position of most teams.

Any word Biron says starting with Th.

Whoa - that's a bit of a stretch

Crick - not Sabres but a Buffalo thing

I think Kane gets an extension right before the winter classic or during the all star break.

I fully understand what you're saying but Eichel is IMO on another level of understanding hockey. Passing is what you do when Kane is on your line to get goals. If Eichel had Adam Oates on his line he would immediately switch roles. Great players do what's needed to get the puck in the net.

How are you defining core player and why Kane isn't? What's up in the air about Moulson and Bogo's contracts?

I'm frustrated that Kane had off rink issues since being a Sabre - if he didn't he would have been signed to a long term contract before getting to this point. Now the possibility exists that he'll leave and be more deserving of the money than the one's we'll be left with.

Unless you think we're 3 years away from being a playoff team with a good shot at advancing. Then it becomes would I rather have Kane for the second half production of his contract - or the front half that gets wasted on the current construction - or just don't pay him at all since we're paying him huge money while we're not ready.

Of course not - just as you couldn't comprise a team built from the base of the 2012-2013 team, draft picks and available free agents since then. We're not in a good place - so I get where your coming from. I just like our chances better than you do with Eichel, O'Reilly, hopefully Kane and our pipeline to have a chance at contending as a percentage vs what we had and building with that. I don't think we're further along now but I'd put a higher percentage of being able to go further than building from that team. It's hypothetical for sure and the tank to date has not been worth it from a results perspective (obviously). If we're strictly talking contending and not better/playoff hockey to watch - then I'm still choosing the tank.