Randall Flagg

I don't want a first round pick back for Risto, that's too much value tied up in a piece of the trade that doesn't help the team right now.

It's worth noting that Tage hasn't really had a better preseason than he did last preseason, and he's certainly scored less. We were thrilled about his preseason last year. I don't mind starting him with the NHL squad to see his growth, but I'm not convinced he'll be an NHL player yet by what we've seen, and I hope that if he shows he's still not ready, Botterill is (months and months) quicker to rectify the situation than he was last season.

So sounds like everyone stayed healthy?

Yup

I am completely indifferent to the results of the game, or even how they look. The single thing that matters to me is that they stay healthy

I mean, you can't guarantee a cup for anyone, but there aren't more than 4 teams with better chances, and that's a place I'd kill to be

Well that's understandable. I guess I'm the same way about the Sabres

That's an incredibly vague statement. It doesn't actually teach me anything about the Bills. The Bills have a reasonably strong defense and an offense whose yards per play, yards per game, first downs per game, number of extended TD drives etc. (metrics that have traditionally been terrible for us) anywhere from the top half to the top eighth of the NFL. This is only through three games, so it doesn't confirm we're good. But the fact that it came against teams that haven't won a lot (again, in just THREE games, which were by DEFINITION going to be worse if our stats were good in them) doesn't tell us we're bad. Maybe you're just irritated from spending a lot of time around the blatant optimism of TBD, but over here I don't think anyone is anointing the Bills as champions of anything. We're enjoying 3-0. We're enjoying the fact that a lot of the AFC looks worse than we do. We're enjoying how BAD a lot of NFL QBs look this year. And we're taking this one week at a time. And simply saying "The Bills aren't good" with nothing more to it is not very convincing or interesting Yeah it is. Pretty remarkable considering the year and the size/wealth of the NFL

Are you saying no NHL GM has ever made a mistake in player evaluations, or had flawed ideologies for what makes an effective NHL player? The dude has brought into this organization ten different bad forwards in 2 years. This isn't simply because "woe is us, nothing else better was available." Botterill likes the moves he made this year, he liked the moves he made last year, he liked the Griffith/Nolan/Josefson/Pouliot moves the year before, and he didn't feel strongly enough about some players to want to get rid of them THIS offseason. It's possible that he is wrong about some of this stuff. I'm not calling him brain dead, but moving to your end of the logical extreme that he simply couldn't replace ANY of the 3-5 players we have at the bottom of all metrics available of 700+ NHL skaters, is basically admitting that NHL hockey is deterministic and there's nothing anyone can do but let their team be as good or bad as it already is. In this light, we can simply never criticize anyone ever - after all, what do WE know? And what use is that philosophy in any situation, much less on a discussion board? Botterill controls the roster, and there is no way Vlad should be a part of it this year.

Literally yes, waiving the worst players to grace NHL ice the previous season is generally the way to go and generally gives you a chance to make your team better

By what? I don't think most people think we're actually going to win this game. And going into it at 3-0 makes it as un-stressful as possible. All that article tells me is that underlying metrics actually favor this bills team more than hot start teams of the past

And the last time we beat Brady in a meaningful game before that? 2003, ie 8 Septembers before THAT game. We're due! Also, it is stunning how dreadful the video player is on the Bills' site. It is simply impossible to watch anything there.

Sometimes I don't think very highly of NHL front offices/coaching staffs. "they've committed to a lot of skill but I don't think they defend enough?" That is not a serious diagnosis of the Sabres. The Sabres don't defend particularly WELL, but they're far better at that than at doing the things that "skill" does, because they don't HAVE "skill" relative to teams that do the "skill" stuff well. We were more or less the easiest team in the league to keep from doing anything dangerous with any consistency. We were not the most porous team defensively by a long shot. Anyway, as far as the thread topic goes, I think they're going to be very bad, in that bottom tier, but I don't think there was any real avenue to get a no-BS GOOD starting goalie this offseason via trade, so I'm not mad that didn't happen (they could have signed a guy like Mrazek, but he'd have been a shot in the dark as much as hoping for Ullmark's development IMO - he was horrid outside of Carolina, and Bob was obviously not going anywhere but the sunshine state). I don't think I'd fire him because of the goalie situation by itself, but there are other ways for me to get there pretty quickly this season that would INCLUDE the goalie situation as a reason.

No, his last year in St. Louis was bad, and had all St. Louis fans writing him out of the lineup for the following season before the trade ever happened. I know this because I went over there towards the end of that season to inquire about how much it'd cost to get depth like Sobotka, since we needed depth so bad. The message was clear: he's shot, don't bother, look elsewhere, because he's not a good hockey player anymore. I was surprised, because I had remembered him as a PITA to play against. Of course, nobody here liked when I told that story, and they talked about how Phil's system would help and how he'd be good in the proper role here, and then this season happened. And now we're again talking about how he might be fine!

Guess I'll take Gallagher off their hands ? (Come to think of it, I don't think there's a more perfect RW for Jack in the entire league.) What would he cost? Cozens, Risto, a first? More? And yes I know they're 100% not trading Gallagher, I'm just daydreaming

Yeah that's just why Malkin's specifically is so low.

Year 2 in a row for me

Woah, did not see that coming. The Blues, I mean. That is a weird return. Not a huge fan of Edmundson.

Well that's why it's so low. Malkin still had 46 ES points, they just allowed so many goals while on the ice together it wiped that out and then some And the stat isn't for anything, it's just a time-on-ice adjusted plus minus compared to your team's plus minus

He and Kessel were a defensive nightmare together last year.

indeed

2011.

I'll buy it when I see it for the first time on the fifth try

Perhaps, but what on earth kind of thought experiment is that