mjd1001

What do you consider 'clutch'? Is it moments in a game (scoring the game winning goal, even if you had a bad series), memorable goals (Crosby in the Olympics vs Miller in OT gold medal game?) I like to look at how well do you do over a LARGE sample size in big games. For Example, lets look at 3 players who are debated over if they are 'clutch' or not, normalizing their stats 'per 82 games': Danny Briere: Regular season, 26.8 goals, -1.5 +/- Playoffs: 37.3 goals, -5.1 +/- His goal scoring improves in the playoffs by almost 40%, but his plus/minus is about 3.5 worse. Sidney Crosby: Regular season, 40.8 goals, +18.4 Playoffs: 38.1 goals, +12.39 His goal scoring goes down in the playoffs by 7%, and his plus/minus is 6 worse. Alex Ovechkin Regular Season, 51 goals, +5.67 Playoffs: 43.8, +12.7 His goal scoring goes down in the playofs by almost 15%, but his plus/minus is 7 better. So what does all this mean? Crosby is basically the same player in the playoffs that he is in the regular season over a large sample size. His numbers are SLIGHTLY worse in the playoffs, but that can be due to better competition and fatigue. He is very good in the playoffs, but not any more 'clutch' than he is any other time game in and game out in the playoffs. Ovechkin is even more productive scoring goals int he playoffs than Crosby, and has a better +/-, but once again, his numbers are close enough to the regular season to say he is pretty much the same player. Not "un clutch", but not better. Over a long period of time, Danny Briere has about the same numbers scoring as the other 2 do in the playoffs, but for him it is a vast improvement over his regular season numbers. He is a MUCH better performer in the playoffs than the other 2 compared to the regular season, so in my mind, he is an example of someone that, over a long time, is more 'clutch'. 2 other players of note: Henrik Zetterberg goes from 30 goals in the regular season to almost 37 in the playoffs, an improvement of about 23%. Patrick Kane goes from an 82 game average of 28.3 in the regular season to 33.6 in the playoffs, an improvement of almost 19%.

I don't think this year would have been totally pointless, but if the Sabres do something 'silly' like finishing 4th or 5th worse...and assuring themself of the 6th pick, I'll be very unhappy. The problem is this...they have to finish last to get one of the top 2. There were times this year where finishing last was at least a little in doubt. It might be harder to finish last next year.....the 3-4 teams that are really REALLY struggling by the mid way point of the season may do what the Sabres did this year..and trade off a bunch of assets...and the race will be on to the bottom. The Sabres needed their total collapse after the trade deadline to assure the bottom spot....it may be harder to do that this year, as the 'youngsters' they have may be a bit better than they were last year.

The picture that is looking at downtown (toward the Northwest) from what it says will be the hotel lobby...if there was ever one SINGLE picture to justify getting rid of the Skyway, this is it.

I truly don't like saying this (because I don't like the guy) but at his best, I think Chara is the best D-man I have seen (overall, but Paul Coffey was remarkable in the 1980's)

I don't know, I guess I'm in the minority here, but I think Stamkos is really overlooked alot. He is just as good, if not slightly better, of a goal scorer than Ovechkin, while playing a better 2 way game and putting in more effort. As far as Crosby, Stamkos is a much more productive goal scorer.

I really wish I had a better feel for Ruhwedel. I'm not sure where he stands with the Sabres, Remember, he was a "Darcy" guy, not a Murray signing. I don't think I see him as a top 2 guy, but I think he is/can be a guy who is an "OK" 3-4 guy and a Very good 5-6 guy. If that is true, I hope they keep him around. You can't really (in the long run) pay 6 D-Men all as top 2 or top 4 guys. He seems pretty good with the puck, so I can see him teamed with someone like Weber (a HEALTHY Weber) as a pretty good 5-6 combo next year and maybe beyond that.

Honestly, I don't like the new third jersey a lot, but I don't hate it either, it is just my least favorite. I like the tradional logo the best. I know there is no 'history' to the red and black ones, but I kinda liked those a lot. I wouldn't mind seeing the Sabres come out with those on for one game sometime in the future. It would be all good, as long as they keep the current ones as the primary.

I don't know too much about how the AHL is run, or if every NHL team has an AHL team? do they? In concept, I agree with you. I think every NHL team should have its own minor league team (no sharing) and each NHL team can have its choice of where their minor league team is located.

I agree. My goal is not to have the Sabres simply get a generational player though. What I want is the Sabres to be a top 10 team EVERY year for the next 10 years, and most of those years to be a top 5 team that has a legit shot at the cup. I don't think you need McDavid to do that. I do think you need most of the Sabres young guys to reach their potentional, and one or two more years of top 5 picks.

I agree with you. That is a pass that happens dozens and dozens of times in an NHL game, 95% of them not leading to anything. Its better than him blindly throwing the puck through the center of the ice,but it was a good pass that most NHL players make a few times a game, nothing else.

The Amerks games (a few of them) were on Time Warner earlier in the year. Am I missing it or is the current game on now? If not, any idea why the Sabres don't televise more in Buffalo? I watch the Amerks whenver I can find them on.

I think something needs to be said for the Sabres current plan of keeping guys in Rochester longer than most fans want. I think it works. Instead of rusing guys up, play them in the minors for a year or even two longer than most fans want. There may be exceptions, but having a guy play as a regular on the big club before 21 may not be the best idea. Even with those exeptions, it still may not be a great idea. A guy who is "good enough" to make the big club at 19 may be a better play at 23 or 24 if he wasn't on the big club at 19 but stayed in the minors. So if the Sabres Draft Reinhart or Bennet this year...does that mean they should stay in Juniors for another year or two..spend another season in Rochester, and then finally make it to Buffalo in 3 years? It MAY not be the worst idea. I am starting to more and more like Euros and U.S. guys in college over Junior players. As we all know with Grigorenko now...when you commit to Canadian Juniors....it might be a couple years before you can go to the minors. I'd rather have my guys under my own control with my own coaches in the AHL (or maybe even the ECHL) than dominating and floating through in Juniors.

I don't know, the games are a bit boring to watch with the lack of goals and the losing and all, but I'm not hating watching the team. I kinda like watching the team, if not the results. There is something to be said for watching a team with low expectations...vs watching a team fail to reach high expectations.

I'd look for the Sabres to sign a few guys who might command 3-4 million per year to 3.5 to 4.5 million per year deals. They will look for mid-level guys like that who have some talent, but character over talent, and who they can get on 3-4 year deals at the most. I'm not sure it is going to happen, but throwing 3-4 years at 4 million per yer at Ott might be something to think of. Maybe try to get 2-3 of those type guys. Then fill out the roster with lower ranking vets, not quite scrap heap guys but maybe just above (no more than 2 million per year, no more than 2 years) who are good character guys with a little less talent. That will get you to the floor with still a lot of room to make future moves and re-sign younger guys over the next couple of years if/when needed.

1. You have the once in a generation guys (like Lemeiux, Crosby, Lindros, and it appears McDavid.) 2. Below them you have the almost-as-good-but-not-quite generational guys (like McKinnon, Tavares, P.Turgeon, Ovechkin, etc) 3. Below them you have most other first overall picks. 4. And finally, you have a draft every now and then where the first overall pick would normally slot-in around 3rd-5th in most other drafts. I guess I'm wondering what category of a player/prospect the Sabres are getting this year?

Now the question I have is this....with this year's draft supposedly being one that isn't all that good, where to the top guys rank compared to other drafts. For example, if Renihardt and Bennet were in the 2013 draft, were would they slot in? 3rd? 5th? 10th? Of all the articles I read, and all the interviews I have heard on the topic, that is the one opinion I have not heard from an 'expert' yet.

I wouldn't go that far. it seems to me that most fans want the Sabres to go with this rebuild, and are going to be happy with the high pick this year and probably next. That DOESN'T happen unless you get a team like the Sabres have now. If the team wasn't bad enough, you would not get those picks.

I'm not here to bash Crosby (he is a great player) but either he isn't as great as everyone thinks, or the NHL has changed in the cap Era where you need a more balanced team. The Penguins are good every year, but you don't need Crosby for that. When he has been hurt, they have played almost as well (winning percentage). Even with him, and Malkin (a league MVP type player), and a few other top 5 picks, they still only have one Cup....needed 7 games for that...and needed a few calls to go their way in the conference finals game 7 that year to even get there. If the Sabres get McDavid, that is good, but getting him in todays NHL doesn't guarantee Cups....and not getting him doesn't mean you won't get cups. This team may be as good in the future, with just as much success....if they don't get him...but get 2 top 5 picks this year and one top 5 next year that isn't him. With that said, I REALLY want the team to get a top 2 pick next year.

Obviously, the best place to draft is as high as you can be, but I did a little 10 minute exercise looking at all drafts in since the year 2000 and how many players have become "all stars". I didn't include the 2013 draft simply because those players haven't had a chance of becoming an all star yet. My numbers are pretty close, I used 30 draft picks per round (I'm sure there was a year or two in there where they may have been an additional pick or one less pick, but I didn't go that far into it. Anyway, this is what I came up with. (Also, draft picks and who became an all star courtesy of the wikipedia page of the NHL drafts for each year) Top 5 pick: 38.5% of them have been an all-star at least one time. (slightly better than 1 out of 3 chance) Pick 5-10: 13.8% (about a 1 in 7 chance) Rest of first round: 6.2% (about a 1 in 16 chance) Second round: 2.8% (about a 1 in 36 chance) Third round: 1.0% (1 in 100 chance) Rest of draft: 0.6% (about 1 in 170 chance) Take from it what you will. Some 'all stars' are not players you might think highly of (Cam Ward was a one time all star I think) and there are other players never good enough to be an all star, but can be very valuable for a long time. I just thought the numbers above were interesting.

I agree, as others have said. Now, is this Fasching kid turning into a 1st round draft pick talent? I don't know. But on the surface (without knowing much), I would think 2 2nds by themself would be worth a late first....and then to give Mcnabb who is a borderline NHL d-man? I really need to know more about this Fashcking kid and how he projects in 2-3 years from now.

It will take a lot more to get me to that level with the organization. I hope Nolan stays, not because I think he is great but because I like him. He might be great, he might not be...I don't know, but I like him. The rest of the stuff? As long as this doesn't go on and on for the next 2 years...every 3 months....I'm OK. with it. The team is losing, but I LIKE watching young players. I think it is kinda fun watching a team of young guys and veteran "misfits" who aren't expected to win...seeing their reaction when do do win. Yes, I'll actually ENJOY rooting for this vast underdog on players even if they only win 20-30 games the next couple of years. As long as they show signs of progress year after year. The front office part is fun to talk about, but I can't thin it is that much part of the bigger picture.

I still love the trade. I don't think Miller was going to re-sign no matter what, so its a pretty good haul for something you weren't likely to have much longer anyway (IMO, at least)

I'm not sure this is breaking news, or just picking up on what Paul Hamilton reported. Meaning, it may be an older story that just was brought up now, not breaking news.

The further fallout will be interesting and may tell us a lot. If Patrick stays or goes...an announcement about Nolan soon, even any further trades, at least will lead us to speculate on things. I gotto go watch some hockey for a while and get my mind of the Sabres. Dammit Time Warner, can we get Hockey Night in Canada in High Def already????

I heard Murray's entire interview on 590 from Toronto yesterday. When they asked him about Nolan, he said something to the effect of an extension was in the works, negotiations are ongoing. He said it just isn't up to him if Nolan stays, that Nolan has his say in the ammount of contract $ negotiated. When they asked him about Nolan being a good coach for young players, Murray right away defended Nolan and said it isn't just his job, it is the entire organizations job and that Nolan would do a good job as a coach with young players. Not the exact quotes, but I came away form the Interview that there was going to be something pending with an Extension for Nolan, just not until the details were finalized.