7+6=13

Your buddy: I'm going to ask that girl out. You: Don't, I heard she told all her friends she doesn't want a boyfriend right now. Your buddy: So, we don't have to get married, I just want to take her out and talk. You: So what if she does go out with you. You'll waste your money on dinner with a girl that doesn't want a boyfriend. Your buddy: Dinner will be worth it to see if I can convince her that sometimes when you're not looking for a boyfriend - that's when you find a nice one. You: If she says no - you blew it. Your buddy: At least I had the balls to ask you big pu$$.

Makes sense. Especially at age 23 you can see where he'd be in a different frame of mind than an 18-19 year old - that just thinks, I don't care I just want to play. This sounds a bit more genuine than just a negotiating ploy. I do however think that all things being equal - we're a team he should be looking at anyway.

C'mon man I get it. We've gone through absolute torment as a fan base. I'll apologize for taking you too seriously on your post. My take on free agency is that we're now a possible landing spot for the top one's going forward. This year is particularly interesting because the anomaly of a player like Stamkos and even Okposo hitting free agency. You know as well as I do that teams are built by the draft and then trades - so I'd agree that free agency is most likely not how our team will continue building, but we're going to take a run at some to accelerate the process. I believe the reason is we're no longer the same organization that didn't/couldn't contend for them.

It wasn't as if you gave a stat that can't be disputed. You gave your opinion and I gave mine. Isn't that kind of what the site is about? I'm not sure why more posts makes you more qualified to talk about the team we both love - but I understand how defensive those with a lot of posts get on what they perceive as their territory. I have more posts than you on TBD - does that mean I know more about the Bills?

Nah. My questions were for effect rather than requiring answers.

So given the clear change since Pegula - you think it's still appropriate to bathe in the past? What purpose does that serve when things are heading in an obvious different direction? Is the purpose just to say it for a wait and see attitude to be perpetuated?

Of course I understand that's how it's been, but do you not think those days are coming to an end? He's saying we haven't and won't. It's the won't part I don't buy into. Our owners willingness to spend, aggressiveness of our GM, our facilities, the team we're building should change the way FA's feel about coming here. I tried to make my point but don't think I was being offensive or unpleasant.

Players of the ilk of Stamkos rarely become free agents - so you'll have to color yourself disappointed then. You do realize he and Okposo are upcoming free agents and free agency hasn't begun yet? So we never get anything good because we haven't signed players who can't be signed yet? Did you expect our FO to sign the Yandle type player during the tank? Did you expect one to want to come here during the tank? I'm not sure you understand what's going on.

Untrue

I remember a lot of folks on here were saying they'd never want a player like that on their team. I sure wish we could have traded for him when that suspension was going down.

You still think we don't get things?

or the Genie wiggling her nose?

Exactly. If we're going to another level he's not the type of player you worry about losing. Roles are earned and with the available playing time on a team still rebuilding he gaffed.

That's hurtful

Does this change anyone's opinion of Bylsma?

Stamkos is worth what we signed him for.

E. Kane could lead the league in assists.

Yes. If Stamkos was already a Sabre and he was heading to free agency we should resign him to a long term contract even though we had 2 rookies play well and ROR.

I think you're one of the most reasonable posters and I enjoy reading your comments. I can see that you clearly like Stamkos and would like to see him here but you have concerns about the cost. My guess is that you're really worried about his prime years and does the cost coincide with our young talent being ready at the same time. My answer to that concern is that they do - maybe not next year or the year after but in year 3 they'd be ready to roll together. My second point would be what's the alternative because I don't personally think Jack, Sam and ROR is enough to win a cup. We'd need at least 2 other of our youngsters to develop into top 6 offensive players and we'd have to pay Kane to stay. Stamkos IMO opinion removes the need to be totally dependent on a player like Fasching, Bailey or even Zemgus. IMO when these players are 23-24 they won't be near the player Stamkos will be at 28-29.

I get what you're saying but this team isn't close to having the type of dynamic to making a run at the cup. Are we good enough and has enough chemistry started to be a playoff team - probably or at least close to. In that case togetherness doesn't trump getting a player that could / could elevate you to something much different than a fringe playoff team. Stamkos being a FA shouldn't be undervalued. IMO, It would be like saying we don't want Aaron Rodgers because our receivers are really starting to gel with Tyrod Taylor.

We put the guy through a lot with him being here during our tear down. I wonder if that would have him soured on a return to Buffalo.

I don't recommend using the Lords name in vein. Poor use of words.

I respect your position and your effort. I also think we have a moral obligation to take care of the earth - but my obligation to take care of it doesn't come from my fear if we don't the earth won't exist as we know it. My obligation is to God and to respect what he made for us. However our efforts to prolong things is where I differ from most - because I believe God ultimately dictates that.

Did she have hot sauce in her bag?

Seems to me like Yzerman understands Stamkos is going to enter free agency and just announced it in another way by saying he won't be traded. What that also tells me is that an impact full enough draft pick isn't being offered. I'm thinking that the funds they can appropriate in their own free agency for the 7.5 million they pay Stamkos is more attractive then what they're being offered in a trade. It could be that these players are a combination of not what they want in terms of the contract vs value they inherit or that the players will be soon to be free agents as well. Some might say but you won't get anything if you don't trade him - but to me they get a playoff run - and free up funds to build in free agency on their own.