mjd1001

Toronto is in a tough position. Once 'cooler' heads prevail, it would seem you would want to run the same core back out there next year, and their cap situation, while not DIRE, dictates you may not have many options because they won't have much flexibility. No major contracts come off the books next year....but if you want to keep Campbell in goal he will require a big pay increase. There really isn't any room to improve the team by spending more money, but the point is you are good enough (and the core is young enough) where you don't need to. The old Billy Beane philosophy of team building....make a team good enough to get to the playoffs and when you do just hope for the best. The tough part is....you aren't getting any BETTER, and is basically 'the same' good enough? You might be as good as or slightly better than Tampa next year again, but they will be a tough out in the playoffs. And, with 'the same' team I see Toronto has having a tough time getting by what Carolina will be next year, and it would be an upset for them to get by Florida. Then if you do all that, if you make it to the cup finals are you better than a team like Colorado in a 7 game season? I don't know. Again, logic says it will be very hard to make major changes so go with what you have, but I just look at the Leafs and see too many areas that may not be weaknesses, but at least 'non strengths', that they seem to be built a bit flawed to defeat multiple other top teams in 7 game series. I'd love to have another year by Campbell in net like he had this year (or someone else to do the same) and I think in a playoff series they need one or 2 D-men who are young, great skaters who can control the game...and I would gladly trade one of their forwards to get that guy on the back end. I just don't see a team that has an 'under 30, all star level D-man' trading them to the leafs for someone like Nylander, and the Leafs have no cap room to sign or offer sheet one to get them over the top.

I don't know what they do. Honestly, I think the best chance they have is to come back with the same core. They aren't getting a lot better by trading the main pieces away. Try to find that Veteran forward or D-man who will bring some production and character and experience, but you need to stay with that core. Coaching changes? maybe.

I don't think using a couple advances stats anywhere comes close to proving he is the better player, even now. Even advanced stats are impacted by teammates, the position the team is in (development vs fighting for a playoff spot as the mail goal) and what the coach is asking you to do. The position Dahlin was in for most of the year (and previous years) vs Hughes...even with advanced stats is apples to oranges. NO WHERE close to proving it.

I too think Dahlin is going to be an overall better D-man. Next year will be key to determine this. If he takes another step forward next year (even a small one) and has a better team around him (even only slightly better), then his game should start to look a lot better compared to his like-aged D-men around the league. I never thought of Dahlin as a guy who would be the league leader in goals or points from the back end. More of a guy who was going to be very good to bordering on great in every single aspect of his game (if he reaches his potential). Someone with few weaknesses that can control the game from the back end. Lets hope he keeps on developing and gets to that point. Modern Analytics are a great tool, but remember the interesting thing we heard from Adams recently. Sometimes analytics will show a player has a weakness or he isn't as good as you want him to be, but Granato in meetings will jump in and explain why that may be the case....it could be that the player was asked to do something different, or put in a position that he may not be going forward in the future but it is part of development at this point in their development. At this point, if I had to pick Dahlin vs Hughes on my team I'd pick Dahlin. It'll be interesting to see how he develops going forward.

People who buy full size trucks and just aren't good at driving them in parking lots. I'll say that I have owned a couple of trucks myself, so I don't hate pickups myself and have no problem with people who buy them. However I do work and travel alot and am in parking lots dozens of times per week and... -Most of the time when I have someone park next to me and leaves me so little room I can't open my door it is a full size truck. If the spot is too tight for how big your vehicle is, FIND ANOTHER SPOT, don't block someone else in. -I will often 'pull through' my parking spot so I can pull out...and I leave a couple of feet between the back of my car and the line separating the spaces. Doesn't matter. If a full size truck driver wants to park behind me they are going to use every single inch I leave (even if it means going over that line) because they are so long that when I come out to get into the back, I can't even stand there because the truck is so close I can't even open the hatch and load stuff. -On occasion, I have pulled into the spot and the full size truck pulled in the spot in front of me. Again, if I leave 2 feet between the front of my car and the line, they'll pull over that line into my spot. One time a full size truck actually was touching me, and a couple other times I suspect I was 'tapped' by one (my front plate has more than a couple dings and dents in it.) There are bad drivers everywhere. I, like many others make mistakes when driving. But if you really need to buy your full size truck that never goes offroad and never has a single thing thrown in the bed or trailed with it, how about either learning to drive it or NOT squeezing in that space that is 3 spots closer to the front of the store when it means hitting or blocking other people parked there simply because your truck is too big?

I hope so also, but if you don't get the breakout year form them this year, I'm still OK with it. Mitts was scoring at a 30 goal pace for the last couple months of 2020-2021, then he got injured in the first game. Maybe that was just a hot streak, maybe it was who he can be. But the fact he did that for 1/4 of a season AND a few current players say he is someone they expect a break-out from next year...I'm willing to still be patient with him. As for as Cozens (and Krebs and others) I'm willing to have a lot of patience with them as long as there isn't a major regression. There are many players picked 4th to 20th overall in the draft that sometimes just take years to hit their stride: -Kevin Fiala was drafted 11th overall. Didn't become an NHL regular till the 3rd year past his draft year. It wasn't until his 7th or 8th season past his draft year he became a 30 goal guy (32 goals per 82 games SINCE he turned 23 years old) -Elias Lindholm was drafted 5th overall. Didn't even score 20 goals until he was 24 years old (his 6th season). He put up 42 last year and has been averaging 33-34 goals per 82 over the last 4 years. Before that in his first 5 seasons is career HIGH was 17 in a full season. -Bo Horvat 9th overall. His first 4 full seasons in the league he was basically a 14-20 goal guy. The last 4 seasons he's been closer to 30 (per 82 games) -Lawson Crouse (11th overall) was considered a flat-out Bust. 36 goals in his first 5 years (281 games, a 10 goal pace). Last year, his 6th year at age 24, he breaks 20 goals in less than a full season, plays top-2 line minutes, and becomes a top power play guy also). -I don't have to mention for anyone reading this about Tage Thompson. Yes, there are other guys that are good right away (first year or two), but there are also other examples like above of guys that just take time. Sometimes you think you have a bust on your hands...or maybe a top pick seems to be a bottom 6 guy at best and then all of a sudden he becomes a 30 plus goal scorer. With the team the Sabres have now...guys like Krebs, Mitts, Cozens...and others I'm willing to give them time, maybe a couple more years...to see what you have.

Agreed, it seems the trend may be changing away from developing your top prospects in the AHL. Look at the top 20 scorers in the AHL this season. You have Quinn and Peterka..and then only 2 other guys born in the 2000's (Berggren, a 2nd rounder form Detroit a few years ago and Jacob Pelletier, Calgarys first (26th overall) in 2019). Just about everyone else is in their mid 20's or later. I looked at the top 10 scoring D-men in the AHL this year..only one was born in the 2000s...someone the Kings drafted a few years ago in the 4th round.

I agree. Why can't we have both? I love watching the game action on my tv....give me something else in addition to that....that is being done in many other cities for the arena experience. If all you care about is the product on the ice/winning for the cost of your ticket that's fine. It would be nice to have more for those of us who care about that though.

I'm for the traditional draft, no lottery, you pick where you finish. Want to throw something into it to prevent tanking a little? After you pick first, you can't do it again for the next year or two. You finish last 3 years in a row, you pick 1st, 2nd, and then 3rd...or something like that. Or how about making entry level contracts 2 years instead of 3? It won't impact the vast majority of the players, but if you get a 'generational' player like McDavid, in that case you are going to have to pony up the big contract a year earlier. I Honestly don't see tanking as the big issue many others do, the draft lottery annoys me more. Who are the players that have been worth 'tanking' for in the last 25 years? McDavid? Great player but even with other high draft picks hasn't won a Cup in Edmonton. Crosby? Took quite a few years to win the cup, and he did it with several other top 5 picks (lottery may or may not have fixed that). Ovi? One cup. Lindros? none. These days to tank and guarantee you get that first pick you have to be SO bad that you are going to need more time to dig yourself out of such a big hole. Again, my solution is no lottery, just can't pick 1st more than 1 time every 3 years.

I'm not sure if this is what you mean, and logistically I'm not sure if this is possible, but here goes: You have that Big atrium, figure out a way to use it. Open the doors up 30-60 minutes early and do something in the Atrium. Live Band. Alumni appearances/signings. Trivia contest. Mini skills test for the kids. Raffles. REDUCED (but still profitable) concessions (maybe cater some stuff not sold at the stands). Invite local businesses to get involved. Giveaways for the people who show up. Put up some projectors and on the side play highlights from the latest games...or the last few episodes of 'beyond blue and gold'. I'm sure there are other ideas that you could do with something like this. Early or later in the year (weather depending) do the same thing but move part of it (or all of it) outside. I always thought if the Bills built a new stadium they could do something similar just inside the gates in a large gathering area....those who want to stay in the lots to tailgate can do that, those who want to come in early would have that as an option.....I'm just think the Sabres could occasionally do something similar on a smaller basis (maybe weekend games or 'kids day' games?)

Agree. I'm in my late 40's and as I posted in the other thread, the thing to get me out to the games again would be a better presentation at the game and a nicer arena. I'm good watching the games at home, give me a reason to show up at the game. And that doesn't mean just turn up the volume on the PA system and bang out more and louder music. Quality is more important than Quantity when it comes to off-ice entertainment.

First round loss, possibly a sweep.

I'd rather have the pick this year. Whoever you pick in the middle of the round is likely at least 3 years away from the NHL, and if they do become a major part of your team probably 4-5 years away from making a major contribution. Take the pick now, keep the pipeline filled for a few years down the road.

This was posted a couple years ago, but I still think it is related to what you are saying. They may be the worst drafting team in the past 2 decades. Forget about 500+ goal scorers or even 400 goal scorers. How many 300, or even 200 goal career guys have the Sabres drafted in the past 20 years (since the 2002 draft)? Whether they got those goals with the Sabres or elsewhere? In the NHL regular season, as of the post I read earlier there were 84 players since the 2002 draft that scored 200+ NHL goals (and of course many of them are WELL over 200 goals). The Sabres drafted 1 of them, Vanek. At least they must have drafted some all-star level Goalies or D-men in that time, right? At least a FEW over the last 20 years? Other than what is currently on the team or just recently traded away, the best I can find is Risto and Tyler Myers. So hopefully guys like Dahlin and Quinn and others will turn into stars...Eichel and Reinhart sure better be for being drafted #2 overall....but by and large, the Sabres have been a drafting nightmare for 2 decades. If you REALLY want to be depressed, go back a little farther. The Sabres did draft a 200 goal scorer in 2001 (Pominville). Then you have to go back another 12 years for the next one to Donald Audette. You want to know how long ago it was before the Sabres drafted 2 guys in consecutive years that scored at least 200 goals in their career? Mogilney and Turgeon in the late 1980s.

yes this has been brought up a few times, but I do like this discussion because it is an issue. I haven't been to the Arena for a couple years, but some things I noticed when I was there last: -ripped seats, broken cup holders, pitted concrete under the seats, bathrooms with no hot water, bathrooms with several stalls 'out of order, creaky and dirty seats, uninspired (to say the least) concessions. That is what I saw in 2 hours when I was last there a few years ago. I have been to many other Arenas because I travel a lot for work and like to take in some out of town games. I have personally been to some that were built the same time as ours (Boston, Philly, Toronto) and all of them have been remodeled/upgraded and are in much better condition than Buffalo. Somewhat newer ones like Columbus are A LOT nicer, and really new ones (Detroit) blow the KBC right out of the water. And here is the final point to consider. Should it just be about the product on the ice? In theory that sounds great, and that may have been true 20 years ago. But, if I am only concerned about the actual game, I am likely to be able to have a lot better experience at home. High Def TV, numerous camera angles, replays on tv, advanced states on a laptop or tablet as I watch the game...etc. As a pure fan of hockey, other than being able to 'see the play develop' outside of the camera...I can get more of 'the game' at home than in the Arena. SOOOOOO...if you WANT me at the Arena, you better give me reason to come. Give me an experience. Give me entertainment. Give me fun things to do while I'm there. I really think things have swapped from the way it was in the past. A 'true' fan who wanted to see 'just the game' was best served at a small Arena sitting close to the action like the Aud, rather than watching it low-definition on a 19" TV with few replays and no internet (decades ago). Today it is just the opposite. You want to take in the game and just the game many of us are better at home. To get us to the arena, give us something nice and a reason to go. The best reason to go is winning, but is it so hard to repair/replace seats that are broken, torn, and just plain disgustingly dirty?

I also don't know who that would be, but there should be guys out there like that. Good players, good guys. But guys who signed a deal that was a bit overpriced a couple years ago, and still have 2-3 years left on it at a high cap number with a current team that is closer to the cap than the Sabres. A bonus for ownership would be that the remaining salary the Sabres might owe would be less than the cap figure due to any signing bonuses already paid. Maybe someone playing in the World Championships with team USA that will get a chance to work with Granato when he is over there?

That's good for me. I am enjoying this team and seeing it grow, even if the pace is a little bit slower than a lot of people want, I really don't have any desire to see even mid-priced free agents who are 30 years old or older come in here. Stabilize the goalie situation, bring in a free agent if and only if it's a short to medium term deal and it's someone your 100% sure will fit. I don't need more than that.

Yes it is, and I'm enjoying it. I don't take it too seriously, but that doesn't mean I don't want to continue the conversation based on how things have gone so far with the trade. Besides, if we don't spend time posting about this, what are we supposed to do? Each of us give our opinion for the 7th or 8th time that we're not changing about what the saber should do for goal tending next year? Nothing new is happening and most other topics, every time something comes out of Vegas about jack, at least it's something new until it isn't. Isn't this what message boards are for? To talk about anything we want as long as someone else is willing to talk about it? It seems like a popular topic, thus it works well on this forum

I'm all for bringing in a somewhat young goalie that will be an above average guy. Off the top of my head the thing I would think the Sabres would look for is someone under 28 years old....some NHL games but flew under the radar (probably as a backup), but someone in that time that gave me at least a .910 save percentage. Looking at that...there really isn't much available. Unless you can make a big time trade for one of the top guys, I think UPL might be the best thing for the Sabres as the intended starter with a decent veteran backup. I really don't see many other 'younger' but 'ready for the NHL' options available out there.

So maybe the game plan is to make a few trades. There might be players out there who are very good players, good teamates, but just on teams that are up against the cap. I'm thinking of a very good player that SHOULD be under contract for $4 million per year, but is actually making $5 per year or more. That team he is on might want to keep him, but simply has to make some tough decisions and the Sabres may be in position to pick up those players. No one in particular comes to mind, but I know there are 'very good' players out there that are getting paid like 'great' players, and the Sabres might be in position to trade for some of them.

You are taking a chance that can reward you big time if it works out, but can set you back with cap issues if it doesn't. The concept is to pay a player more, earlier than you normally would have to..in exchange for them taking a longer deal that at the end of it they are ok with being 'underpaid'. They really aren't underpaid because they got more money early...just it has to be the right player to do this. What you do not want is a guy to take more money early, than at the end of the deal grumble and go to the press because he isn't making enough. The Sabres have cap room the next 2 or 3 years where they can do that..'overpay' some key players now but on long term deals so they aren't up against the cap in 5 years or so, but will they take that chance? and do they have the right kind of players to take those deals?

I never got the impression that Risto was part of that clique, or any clique. In the very little we could tell from the outside, I thought he had a much better attitude about being in Buffalo than Sam and Jack. The issue with Risto for me was simply, he wasn't that good at all. Of course We/I could be wrong and he could have been a major problem in the Lockeroom.....but personally I just viewed him as a Girgensons that played the back end with a lot more minutes and making a lot more mistakes.

I agree. This was brought up before but it is also worth considering...IF Sam had stayed here, he would likely be a Center (where he was moved to last year and played well). If he was your #1 Center going into this year...or more simply a guy on the roster that was going to take up a LOT of minutes at center, would Tage ever have been moved to Center at the end of training camp? and even if he was how much of an opportunity would he have been given there? If Sam was here he might be producing, but instead of a Tage Thompson playing at Center approaching 40 goals, you might have still had your Tage Thompson at wing struggling to put in 15 goals and be noticed at all.

I never figured out his usage. It seems like EVERY coach he had here wanted him on the ice all the time, even though he just wasn't that good. Was it a case of him being the best among a group of awful D-men? Maybe. But it more seems like coaches see his physical talent (size, skating, shot) and just think he is the most TALENTED D-man they have so they can't resist putting him out there. Even though in the end his decision making will be a detriment to the team, he always gets a lot of minutes. He did get 2nd pair minutes in Philly, but still averaged between 21-22 minutes per game. Problem for Philly now.....he is resigned for $5.1 million for 5 more years. Not many teams will take that off your hands. It will not cripple them cap-wise, but they are overpaying now for someone who is better suited on a winning team as a low-minute 2nd pair guy or a 3rd pair guy. To me Philly is overall in a kind of no-mans land. They had an awful season this year. They don't seem like they will be racing to the bottom of the standings, but don't have much to look foward to. They are not cap strapped and have some flexibility, but not a lot. They will get a high draft pick this year, but aren't loaded with top prospects. They aren't in an awful situation going foward, but there isn't a lot there to turn them around into a contender quickly.

Older thread from back in October. Interesting the Sabres finished with 75 points...which is by far and away the #1 choice of those who voted in the poll.