mjd1001

Here is something that I think some people may know but no one's really talking about... And it's not a definite it's a what if but I think the following is likely: Eichel wants his surgery. The sabres want a different surgery. Is one surgery better than the other? Maybe. But what we do know is the surgery that the sabres want has been performed a lot more, the one Eichel wants has been used less often on hockey players. Now if the surgery the sabres want fails, he still is compensated in his contract because the team agreed to it. If Jack gets his own surgery and the sabres don't approve of it, it seems like a sticking point is Jack wants the sabres to approve of that because if they do and the surgery fails he still guaranteed his contract. From the sabres point of view that doesn't make sense nor does it for most other teams... Why? To guarantee the greater portion of the 80 million dollar contract... There's insurance involved. What we don't know but is likely that... Is whoever ensures the contracts, they may be the ones who are ultimately making these decisions. The insurance company may say to the sabers or to any NHL team... If he gets a surgery that we know has been done in the past we will insure that contract, but if he does something that the insurance company thinks is not as common or experimental, they may not be providing insurance, putting all of the onus on the team. That may not be only the reason the sabers don't want to do this, but why no other NHL team wants to trade for him now. They either want him to get the same surgery the sabres do because it will be more likely to be insured if it fails, or they want the sabres or Eichel to take the risk and see the results. The lack of a trade may not be on Adams or him asking too much. It might be about which surgery he gets, how it's going to pay for his contract if it fails regarding insurance, and who was going to take on that risk... Jack, Buffalo, or any other team that makes a deal for him.

Who is John? By context, I assume you mean Eichel?

So I tried to convince myself last week that I was just going to view the Sabres as a team they way they are without Eichel. I was going to pretend he didn't even exist. They are who they are, with Dahlin and some high draft picks. IF/When Eichel gets traded I'll think about it then, but for now I'm looking at the team as if he is/was never Sabres property. However, I just can't stock checking out this thread.

Veteran guy. I'd rather see the young players in the lineup....but if things start to go really bad or there are a lot of injuries, he is ready to move right into the lineup.

I am hoping he can be a long term 2nd pair guy down the road. With that said, nothing wrong with him starting in Rochester and getting a lot of minutes down there.

I'll say the middle choice, but I think we might be someplace between choice 2 and 3. Not that he will be a long term bust at all, but I think on this forum the expectations for him are a bit too high/too soon with some people.

I forgot to go with the fact there are '2 teams' per game. my bad.

The most fun seasons are when the team beats expectations. As said, when there are no expectations, it can be easy to beat them. The first year out of the lockout was the best season a lot of fans had. Why? Most people expected nothing from that team, but they went all the way to the conference finals. The next year there were a ton of expectations on the team because of that...and for many the season wasn't as 'fun' as the year before because of the high expectations. Ultimate goal as a sports fans is to win the championship. Beyond that, if you can't win the championship the next best thing to happen is simply to beat expectations.

I'm not sure about this. It might only be half the games. From the ESPN plus page... Beginning with the 2021-22 season, access more than 1,000 out-of-market NHL games and 75 exclusive games per season—making ESPN+ a must-have for hockey fans. So "more than" 1000 games. Lets say it is 'about' 1000 games. If we figure every market has 31 'out of market' teams...divide 1000 by 31 and you get 'about' 32 games per team. A far cry from every game. Here is the big problem. No one knows. I have looked up every bit of info on this and there is no place that actually states EXACTLY how many games there will be, what the schedule will be or anyplace close to that. And the final thing. Even if you were 'in market', you could watch your 'in market' games a day or two late with the old NHL network. If I wanted to watch a Sabres game from a few days ago, even in Buffalo I could. BUT, there is no mention at all whether or not that will be available. So, No info on anything. No schedules. Not sure if 'in market' games can be watched on delay. Maybe only 30-40 games per team. The lack of information a month before the season starts is pretty bad.

You are SO EAGER to make your point, that you started this whole thing by responding to my post without even reading what I said. Did I ever say I wanted the team to be bad intentionally? Nope Show me were I did....you can't because I didn't. All I said was that higher draft picks are a good way to build a team. Never said to lose intentionally. Never advocated another tank. Yet you responded to my original post and took things that way. As for you, how about YOU enjoy arguing with people by assuming they said something they didn't....and make sure you always get the last word in to make your point.

Funny, I wasn't going to continue this conversation because it is YOU who just doesn't get it. Let me try one more time: -You make the point that you don't need high draft picks to be good, and you cite 'the best line in hockey' -I make the point that almost every one of the Cup winners in the past decade (or more) had very high drat picks on their roster. Your point with examples...you don't need high draft picks to have a very good line. My point with examples...the BEST teams in hockey, the cup winners mostly HAVE high draft picks. That is what you are saying, right? Your example IS Boston had a line you said was the best line in hockey a few years ago and they weren't top draft picks? And by the way, that line didn't win a cup for them in the year you cited they were good. I guess I 'dont' get it' if you are trying to build a team with one very good line. But if we are talking about having a team that can win the cup...then you don't get it. I can't make it any simpler than that.

Um What? you got that right. A few years back? I don't care if they were 'considered' the best line a few years back. They aren't anymore. Anyway, it STILL doesn't change the fact that the vast majority of cup winners (and president trophy winners) have multiple high draft picks on the team. You keep saying you don't need it, but the facts are most of the time you actually do. Is the goal of the Sabres to have 'the best line in hockey' (and arguably at that) or is it to be a cup contender/winner? I'll take the cup contender/winner.

But NOT collecting early draft talent usually means you AREN'T going to win big. And as far as Bostons top line being the best? I don't agree and many others don't agree. Let me bottom line it for you. Collecting early draft talent may not ENSURE winning, but it sure as hell gives you a better chance than teams that don't have it.

I don't even know who those players are you are referring to, and I'm not going to cherry pick a 'line' or certain players on a team. Lets keep it very simple. Take a look at the top 10 scorers in the NHL last season and see what was the position overall in the draft they were taken: 1, 3, 71, 4,10,1,1,1,7,1. So, of the top 10 scorers, 5 of them were first overall picks. 7 of them top 5 overall picks. Every single one except for 1 was a top 10 overall pick. Looks to me like high draft picks are a good place to start. Oh, and 6 of the last 8 years....8 of the last 12 years....the cup winning team had a first overall pick on it that was a major part of the team (and in most cases, several top 10 picks). EVERY single one of those teams that won the cup had at least a top 5 overall pick and in most cases more than 1 top 5 pick.

It is a given for me to say this, but it isn't just the organization, but the key thing is the fanbase needs resolution on this to move forward.

By the logic of your first line, we also can't say that Adams hasn't done anything poorly yet either. Without knowing what offers were out there, we can't say he has done poorly or well. He could be the worst GM in the league or he might be the best. We just don't have anything to go on.

I tend to think it is the best season. It gets a bad reputation with a lot of people not because of what it is...but they are thinking of how much they don't like what comes right after it. Best thing about it? doing anything outdoors in a light jacket and being comfortable doing it.

Their show had the feel of what it actually was close to being...listening in on 2 former players shooting the BS about the current team while having a bag of chips or a coffee in one of their living rooms.....with a little 'back in the good old days' when we played thrown in there. There was certainly SOME serious discussion, but more of it felt like they were trying to invite the listener into their living room. Now that isn't always a bad thing, but with a 1 hour show maybe they are looking for something a bit more professional/straight shooting.

You don't get the spirit behind my post. Dude, you come at people in a rude way. You come across as someone who always has to be right. The fact that you said 'try again' shows you have to get the last word in. Settle down, I'm done with you in this thread (for now).

Read your posts. YOU are the one that needs to stop. The tone of your posts is very confrontational...as I said in my post and other have responded to you also, you are going at people asking them for proof, and exaggerating your own claims. Its there in black and white. By, nice of you to get so offended that you have to ask someone to 'stop' when they call you out on it. lol You are missing my whole point (and the point of others). We have an OPINION. We are stating that OPINION on a message board. The fact that you are replying to basically everyone who recently posted their OPINION that jack is a bad leader and wanting them to seeming prove it shows that you are the one that needs to 'stop' This is a forum. Ideas to be discussed. Opinions to be shared. Every single one that disagrees with you is not an open challenge to you to reply to in order to dispute. Sit down and calm down. You know what is a sure sign than someone needs a 'time out', when in response to a pretty calm post they use words and phrases like "Dude just stop" , "this is getting ridiculous", dropping F-bombs....and of course NOTHING says a person has an open mind better than when they end their post with the classic "Whatever" lol

Wow, you are really REALLY going out of your way to defend Jack and try to dispute everything anyone says to the negative of him. Let me try to put it this way....a lot of us can't quantify exactly why we have the feeling we have, we couldn't defend our feelings like a lawyer in a court of law...apparently that is what you expect of us. HOWEVER, there is basis for that feeling we have. When this team has had other captains, MORE has come out positive about them than there has been about Jack. You may not think JS Dea matters because he was a minor league player mostly, but the truth is of the other captains the Sabres have had, we do not remember any of that talk coming about them EVEN from a Minor leaguer. So can we quantify and defend our exact feelings with specific examples for you to try to take apart? Maybe some of us can, but others of us simply do not have the time to look it up. What we do know is there is more negative about Jacks leadership (even if it is from a minor leaguer, that is still more than most other captains have had), and there is LESS positive we hear of (Gionta may have said good things about him once, but 'other captains' have had positive things said about them much more, from our own personal observation). And as Pimlach above just said, where is that list of glowing comments about Jack's leadership from former respected players and coaches? If there is anything I heard along those lines...it is just the basic stuff they have to say, nothing where they go on and on about just how good of a leader he is. You know where I don't hear anything positive about his leadership? Anywhere outside of Buffalo. Listen to some national talk (canadian stations) and you will hear them talk about other teams captains who are good leaders...even guys on not-so-good teams...but you don't hear that about Jack from outside sources who have contacts in the league.

If Eichel is healthy, and for SOME REASON (whatever that may be) he legit WANTS to stay with team long term, then of course consider keeping him. I think the issue what a lot of us wanting him gone is...we just don't think he wants to be here, and if you COULD convince him to stay, his heart might not be 100% with the Sabres anymore. I want him traded simply because I think he is 'done' with the Sabres, and he will never be '100% back'.

They looked good, but I do not want to see any of them called up unless they are banging down the door so hard to get a spot with the Sabres that there is no choice. If they have pretty good or good seasons in Rochester...keep them down there. I don't want guys that young with the Sabres unless it is to the point they are dominating in Roch so much that they aren't improving much anymore. Let them play a full season down there, let them become team leaders. Let them have a look at a playoff series or two down there and be a big part of it. A game or two (or maybe a week) to give them a 'taste' of true NHL play might be a good idea (so they can see a reminder of just what they need to work on to make the NHL), but nothing more than that.

I remember back in the couple years after the tank, it seemed like MOST of the comments on this board were happy about the Evander Kane trade, people were saying back they they didn't want to wait to win and wanted to trade more of the picks for guys who could help right away, and of course like every year there were those who wanted to make big moves in the free agent market. Then there were others who wanted to not trade away any of the picks, not sign any vets to big contracts unless they were brought up through the system and earned it, and even a couple comments about saving the money you would spend on players you traded for and/or free agents and using that to bolster the scouting dept and to bring in better coaches. There weren't many of those posters though, and their voices were drowned out by seemingly a 5 to 1 ratio of those who wanted to team to get good and do it quickly. Well, we are back close to that same 'starting' point again. Are we still tired of losing and want to take shortcuts to be good again in just a year or two? Or do we want to do it the 'right way' this time, even it it takes 2 times as long (or more)?

I'm for keeping things new and fresh, I don't want to see the same things over and over as far is the 'in arena' presentation. Just give the the Sabre Dance song played whenever the Sabres enter the ice, and a better goal song (I'd rather have No song at all, just the horn, instead of the current song) and that is all the tradition I need. And if you want to start the games right on time, keeping any pre-game fluff to a minimum I am for that too.