mjd1001

First of all, the ads on the boards they can change digitally and I'm seeing ads targeted towards Western New York.... But that key bank logo on the inside of the blue lines... Had me doing a double take as to whether this game was in Minnesota or Buffalo.

Those uniforms Minnesota is wearing with the yellow.... Definitely brings me back to my childhood watching the North Stars. Now if only the Quebec Nordiques could be back in the league... I hated them so much that I miss it

Is the Powerplay bad because of Tage? or is Tage bad because of the Power play? Is the Power play bad because Tage only has 4 PP goals this year, while last year he had 20? Is the reason the PP is awful not because its run bad...but simply he simply isn't producing on it? OR.... Is Tage a lot worse this year because he isn't getting those PP goals, and its not his fault so much as it is the fault of the way the Power Play is run?

Buffalo is 14.38 on the PP this season. Median this year has been around 22-23% for most of the season. Last year they were at 23.42. Lets target 23%. Slightly worse than last year, maybe close to 10th-15th in the league this year. Where does that get them? That gives them 13 more goals. With no other changes, that gives them a positive goal differential this year (I think a +4). How does that equate to the standings? In the East last year, EVERY team that was good enough to have a positive goal differential made the playoffs. Every team that had a negative missed the playoffs. The correlation was 100%. In the West EVERY team that had a negative missed also, 8 or the 9 teams with a positive made it. In the East, 2 years ago EVERY team that had a positive goal differential made the playoffs, EVERY team with a negative goal differential missed. Its not a guarantee (the West has a couple teams every so often on the bubble that don't fit the 'rule') but for the most part, the SINGLE best metric (other than points) that determine whether you are good enough to make the playoffs or miss the playoffs is overall goal differential. Change NOTHING other than the powerplay (make them league average or close to last year) and this team has a positive goal differential. Or think of it this way...sprinkle around those 13 extra goals...and quite a few of them probably turn losses into wins and you can get your point total up that way. 3 years ago Buffalo was 12th in the league at 21%. 2 years ago they were 16th at 21.2%. Last year they were 9th in the league at 23.4%. This year they are 28th in the league at 14.3%. Did the players change? Not really. Did the head coach change? No. Did the assistants change? YES. So, where you have a huge drop off in performance in one key aspect of your game, I just don't think you 'blow things up' or make huge changes until you change what is the problem. Its like Surgery....you have an infection on your arm, you don't just cut the whole arm off, you first TRY to get rid of the infection locally.

I see a drastic improvement but only in the past few weeks.

Ok. Blow the team up. Change coaches. Change GM's. They all may be valid points. But maybe its simpler than that. What is wrong/different with this team compared to last year's team, which was 1 point away from the playoffs? -This team is allowing less goals than last year. They are now middle-of-the-pack and actually improving the last few weeks. They have a goalie who not only has pretty good numbers, he passes the 'eye test' also. Scoring is the problem but: -Peterka is doing better than last year. Skinner is basically giving you close to the scoring of last year. Dahlin has less assists but is scoring more goals. Mitts is better offensively. Greenway and Okposo are better offensively. Basically, this team is equal to, or BETTER than last years team in MOST ways other than: Thompson scoring, Cozens scoring, and Tuch Scoring (Tuch isn't as big of an issue as the other 2, and it may be related to injury with him.) VO is off also, but his play is made up for basically by Peterka, and few think/thought VO was long for this team anyway. So yea, the results aren't what anyone wants....but its not the whole team. Much of the team is equal to last year or BETTER. The question may not be how or why to make wholesale changes, or blow everything up....but rather how/why are Thompson, Cozens, maybe Tuch and Power issues. I don't want to blow the whole team up yet....I don't want to make major changes yet. I want to fix Tage, Cozens, and Power (mostly) as those guys are 3 of your 'core 4 or 5'. If a coaching change or GM change 'fixes' those guys, then great. But I know when people say we have waited and endured 'too long' and just want 'something to be done', I'm not quite sure what coach...or GM...comes in here and just makes those guys better. Because, while the rest of the team is 'flawed', overall they are giving you want they did last year or in some cases are better than last year.

All of the following things can be true....that he has every right as the owner to be in those meetings...that other owners do similar things....and that it can be very disruptive to the management. Years ago when Rex Ryan was the Bills coach, I remember an interview with Pegula. He was talking about how Rex and his staff were defensive geniuses, and that Pegula himself sat in on meetings with the coaching staff and he was amazed at how much they knew. He want on to say he had to ask so many questions just to understand what they were talking about. After that interview I came away thinking....If i was THAT coaching staff, I couldn't wait to have a meeting without him. Even if he wasn't throwing in his 'opinion', someone interrupting on a frequent basis (which he made it sound himself like he was doing), just isn't a good situation. Now, add to that the fact/strong rumors that it was PEGULA who wanted Ville Leino, and he admitted he pushed for Erhoff.....and it would seem to be reasonable to think that in hockey, he makes his feelings known and does more than 'just listen'.

It sounds like someone is should 'switch to decaf' just by how upset you got by my original post. You ended up with a longer response to my post saying my opinion that the length of my original post. And by the way, I said giving someone a nickname who already has one is 'dumb', that is straight forward. but don't trip over yourself saying 'someone should switch to decaf' trying to be so clever. I find that more offensive to me and more worthy of a response back than me saying a nickname someone made up out of the blue (and is trying to PUSH) is 'dumb'.

So just as quite a few of us start singing his praises, saying how good he is playin in this very thread....and UPL comes down with an injury that will cost him a game (or games). Maybe its not much..he COULD play but they want an excuse to give him a couple days off and NOT look bad to the fanbase like they aren't trying to win. (I'm reaching here, I know).

That looks bad, maybe we can try to look at it a positive way, however unlikely? -Ottawa, OTTAWA has 16 points in their last 10 games. So does Vancouver and Edmonton. 3 other teams have 15 points in their last 10. So its possible. -If Buffalo did the same, 16 points in their next 10 games, that would put them at 66 points in 62 games. -Currently 8th in the conference is Detroit at 57.7% of available points. If the Sabres had 66 points in 62 games, that would put them at 53.2% of points. -That would leave them with 20 games left...and 5 points out of 8th in the conference. So Yeah, they would have to do the 16 points in 10 games, but again, a few teams, including OTTAWA are currently on that streak. And it would still likely leave them 5 points out of 8th...but it would make it interesting at least.

Ok, make a list of who you think the top 10 players on the team are. How many of those have NOT missed games due to injury? Its probably not as bad as I think, but this year it seems really bad.

We can pick the number of games we want to make things look as good or as bad as we want, but before reading this post I wanted to see how he was doing since the beginning of the year, Since Jan 1, 2004: 6w - 5L (11 starts) .944 save percentage. 1.56 GAA, 3 shutouts. Has not allowed more than 3 goals in any of those games. In his 5 losses, he only allowed 11 total goals (2.2 per game). If only the Sabres had a little more offense....

MacKenzie Weeger. Good D-man. But 8th year in the league, 30 years old. Never scored more than 8 goals in a year. Averaged 6.5 goals per 82 games before this year. 7th round pick so didn't have a high pedigree coming into the league. This year? leading the league in goals from the blue line (Dahlin is 2nd). On pace for 23-24 this season over 82 games. Had 31 TOTAL over the rest of his career. Did not see that coming.

2 years for 2.75m would be great, but there is no way he is taking that (at least I strongly don't think so). If he plays like he is, even finishes in the top 10-15 in most major stats, you are going to need to pay him more than that.

I think I might be Cozens biggest critic on this forum, but he has been playing a better lately. He is still bad in his own zone, but he hasn't made as many critical errors in the D-zone as earlier in the year (either that or UPL is covering up for them). 4 goals and 6 assists (10 points) in his last 10 games is what you need out of him ALL THE TIME. I'm hoping he keeps it up. I Still think Cozens game is better suited to wing than Center. But if you are going to play him at center, he needs to produce in the offensive zone. The last 10 games he has finally started to do that. Tage. Its got to be a nagging injury, right? He had a career year last year, but that was AFTER a full season before that was a breakout year..and he started to turn the corner the last month of the season before that. So Cozens had a career year..but Tage has been a legit goal scorer for 2 full seasons before. I think there has to be something else going on like an injury. I like Girgensons game, I'd LOVE to have him back as a 4th liner next year but if he has a chance to play for a contender, so be it. Okposo is scoring pretty well, has had some timely goals for the team this year, but I think his overall game has slipped noticably (he is always a step slow to get back in his own zone) so again, if he has a chance to play for another contender, I'm all for seeing him get that chance.

I wouldn't have much of a problem is he avoided contact BUT he was positionally sound, he used his size/reach to close off lanes in his zone, he was able to come away with loose pucks, AND he made quick decisons getting the puck out of the zone. The issue is right now he's not the greatest at any of those things.

Unless he falls off of a cliff, I'm all for locking him up. Of course, EVERYTHING is based on what you have to pay him. He wants 7 years for $8m per year, then no way. But $3.5-$4m per year...even $5m per year (depending on the length) I'm OK with. If you signed him for that value and he regresses....not good, but its not going to kill your team. But NOT doing that, and not having him as a potential good starter........well...I think the risk/reward is leaning more toward signing him to a semi-long term deal, even if its for $1m or more per year more than you want. If you have to give him 4 years, $20 million ($5m per year), and that is what he wants.....do you say no? Is this team better with giving him that money for what we all know now? or walking away from that.....who else do you get for $3-4million per year instead who you know will be better than UPL for sure?

I go back and forth on him, I would think/like a deal to be a bit less than that, but then I see the market rate for similar players...I don't know. The most comparable I see is Barzal. Now, I think Barzal is a little better of a player than Mitts, and I think Barzal is overpaid, BUT: -Mitts was an 8th overall pick Barzal was a 16th overall pick -Mitts is 6'1" 195. Barzal is 6'1" 190. -Barzal is one year older, one year further into his development, and already signed his deal, but he is at 15g, 41a this year. Mitts is at 12g, 31a (which is a BETTER pace than Barzal had last year in his 25 year old season last year) -Barzal is, has turned into, a 15-24 goal, 40-50 assist guy. Mitts looks to be pretty much the same, maybe slightly behind but if he keeps improving maybe not behind that. -The BIG thing Barzal has over Mitts is he had 85 points his 2nd season in the league, but that was (so far) a career year. Since then, he has played 6 seasons and has been an 'in the teens' goal and 30-45 assist per year guy, that is who he is (and might be who Mitts is). -Barzal signed an 8 year, $73 million dollar deal ($9.15 million per year) the year AFTER he had a 15 goal, 28 assist season (in 55 games, a 67 point pace over 82 games). The season before that, he had 19 goals and 41 assists in 68 games (a 72 point pace over 82 games) At the time of signing, that was 15% of the cap, currently it is still over 11% of the cap. With a likely upcoming cap of $88m next year...even if you go with the 11% lower number, that would still be well over $9m per year. Again, Barzal had one great year his 2nd season....and his overall game is somewhat better than Mitts (but really IS it?) But if I'm Mitts agent, I'm using that Barzal Deal as my target. I can't see Mitts getting even close to that. And if Mitts keeps progressing (hes on pace for almost 20 goals, close to 70 points this season) what is his value/ceiling? Again, I'm not saying Mitts is as good as Barzal, but their pedigree is similar (Mitts actually a higher pick) and their levels of production are similar (Mitts currently on a tad behind Barzal), If can see Mitts looking for that Barzal deal as a benchmark. I'd like Mitts on a semi-long term deal for about 6-6.5 million. Any more than that....and I wonder if it might be better to trade him and see what kind of D-man you could get back in a deal for him, knowing you have your 'top 2' centers locked up already, and a few potential #3 centers in the pipeline. And while he is looking 'decent' in his own end, I don't quite fall into the camp that he is a great (or even good) 2-way center. He is better than Tage and better than Cozens for sure right now, but that doesn't make him 'good'. He plays in the defensive zone the way he 'should', that just looks 'good' compared to what else is on the ice. I guess I see Tage, at his best, as a difference maker. I see Cozens, at his best, as a potential differnce maker. Mitts? I see as a really good player, but not one who is a true difference maker, not someone who can ever take a game over (or a series over in the playoffs) like the other 2 might be able to do. I know this post is kinda all over the place and wandering a bit, but when I think of Mitts and what he is worth, what his value is/should be, who might be able to replace his role on the team in the pipeline, I have no idea what to think anymore.

One small part may be Doughty leading the league in time on ice (he was at least, he still has to be close) with some games with 28, 29 or even 30 minutes.....well, when you rely on someone for that who is now 34 years old...it might be a BIT too much. In the last 10 years, he has the most ice time in the league, that has to wear you down after a while.

In the past 20 games, the Kings have a 4 game losing streak, an 8 game losing streak..and now tonight? I watched a couple Kings games earlier in the year....they were GOOD. Not winning by getting lucky goals, they were dominating other teams. What has happened to them?

Power gets a ton of ice time every game he plays. I know he/they watch film, but maybe missing a few games and getting to watch from up high/the pressbox is something that might be really really good for him.

Clifton with already over 18 minute of ice time. He is going to end up with 22 or 23 minutes this tame at this rate.

If, IF this was the start of a 10 game winning streak...after those 10 wins in a row the Sabres would have 68 points in 61 games. or 55.7% of available points. Currently 55.7 is 8th in the conference. A 10 game win streak probably STILL has them outside of the playoffs.

I really have zero problem with it. You don't want it to happen? control the puck, or better yet when you play poorly enough to lose a game, its going to happen to you. Remember it next time you play them....beat them next time. Even with all that, you STILL don't hit the guy in the head with the stick. You want to make a statement drop the glove in front of him, wrestle him to the ground...etc. Demand to your coach you want to go out for the next faceoff and address it on the ice there. NOT doing that and instead going up high with the stick just FURTHER illustates the lack of toughness the leafs have.

I agree with the above. Even when people on this board and general fans were saying how good he was, I didn't just see it. He was good for a teenager, but he wasn't good for an NHL defenseman. However, I still think he'll be worth the contract in the long run. Do I know for sure? No, but I am of the firm belief that, with a couple exceptions, NHL defenseman don't round into the player They're going to be until they have a couple hundred games under their belt. I think Power will be very good, maybe great, but we won't see it for another 2 years at least. My hope is he turns things around and starts playing better, and it's a gradual increase in play until he reaches that very good to great level.