mjd1001

Even if they did 'lose out', it would help their position (likely) but probably not that much. I'm pretty sure the Rangers are going to finish ahead of the Sabres anyway (they are tied in points and games now) Vancouver and Anaheim would likely pass the Sabres if they 'lost out', but I don't think they drop any more than those 2 spots. NJ, LA, and/or Detroit would have to get 10-12 points in their last 10-12 games to catch a Sabres team at 69 points..and while possible, none of those teams are playing even close to that level now.

This season (and team) have truly become a joke. For the first time ever, I don't come to these forums after games for any in-depth hockey talk. It's more like I have become an old person who can't stop reading the obituary page in the paper each day. I have never had that feeling with any team I follow...ever with the Bills or Sabres until now.

By quite a bit. Sure, it was easier to make the playoffs in the 70's and 80's...but I found this and posted it in another thread: -The Sabres are now going on 8 full seasons without the playoffs. -Before this streak, they only 1 time in their history had more than a 2 year playoff drought..and that one time was a 3 year drought. -Before this streak, they only missed the playoffs a total of 11 times in 40 seasons. This will be 8 times in 8 seasons. -And for those who say it was easier to make the playoffs in the past..how about this....During this streak, 3 times in 8 years they finished the season with less than 40% of available points. They only did that 1 time in the entire history of the team before that (their 2nd season they existed.)

I follow the teams by watching the Bills on TV (most games), don't attend anymore. Sabres, I used to watch most games on TV, but we just got rid of cable so not anymore. I follow the team by watching the condensed games online and following these forums and news on Twitter and talk radio. That is it. I used to be a Bills Season ticket holder and went to 10-15 Sabres games per year (over a decade ago). No more. Its not just the team losing. Its the lack of scoring (I don't appreciate a 'good defensive battle' like others, I just want scoring.) Its also sports in general...there really is very little I see that I haven't seen before. If the Bills and Sabres were better and more exciting I wouldn't' be fading as fast, but I'm just not as into sports now as I used to be.

Or ownership? The Sabres only made the playoffs the year he bought them (in the middle of the season.) As owners of the team for complete seasons, this will be 8 seasons. 0 playoffs. In the 8 previous seasons that were started with him not the owner, they made the playoffs 4 times. In the 8 previous seasons before THAT, they made the playoffs 6 out of 8 years. Before Pegula bought the team, their longest streak of no playoffs was 3 seasons. We are going to be 8 now and counting.

I'm not sure why you are 'sighing' and making a point of 'this line of thinking'. All I said is I didn't want them to 'overpower' her character just because she is a female character. Disney has been criticized for doing this before (Rey in the new Star Wars), the actress who stars in this movie made a point of saying something like less men should be reviewing the movie and more women should (I'm paraphrasing, something like that), and they did decide to make the 'official' release of this movie on 'International Womens Day'. I didn't dig up those facts, in casual browsing around the internet I read those things over and over. Don't project something saying "this line of thinking" in response to my post when all I said is I hope they don't "overpower" her character because of the above topics. There are a lot of males out there on forums and social media saying they won't see this movie and putting up negative reviews (giving it one star ratings to push down the overall raking) on read sites...and they are doing that simply because it is a superhero movie staring a female lead. That is not what I am doing or saying at all.

We are going to see it today. I'm going to keep an open mind, and there is hardly EVER a movie that I dislike (Nothing but trouble, an early 1990's movie, is really the only movie I actually hated). So I'm pretty sure I'll enjoy it. I am a bit worried about how they are going to portray her character though. I do not think they have to stick to the comic book version of the character all the time, but I am a little concerned about the 'most powerful character in the Marvel cinematic universe' aspect of it. Am I just against a female character being powerful? No. But, from what I have read/heard, Captain marvel is typically not as powerful as the hulk...a lot less powerful overall than most versions of Thor...and not even close to someone like Odin or Thanos with the gauntlet. If the story is good I'll be happy with the character and looking forward to seeing her character in future movies...I just don't want it to look like they intentionally 'overpowered' her character because it is the politically correct thing to do with female characters right now.

So here is the question(s)...if Skinner Demands 8 years at 70 million (8.75 per year) or 7 years at 63 million (9 million per year), do you walk away and let him sign with another team with nothing in return?

I agree. Plus-Minus isn't a great stat, but it also shouldn't be totally discounted. And as for the argument he isn't personally responsible for the goals he is on the ice for? I have an issue with that. I only have started watching Risto closely for the last month or so, but for alot (most) of the goals he is on the ice for (and there are a LOT of them) he is out of position or looking the other way when the shot is being taken. One might say his 'minus' number is due to luck or due to being in the wrong place at the wrong time...but when I watch with my own eyes...its more than that. He has the skill of a much better player, but it doesn't translate to a total package as much as we want.

1. Eichel is a star and the Sabres best player now, but I want to see him finish in the top 10 in the league in scoring consistently (and probably be threat for top-5) before I label him a bona-fid Superstar. He does seem to still be improving though. 2. Reinhart. As much as he is productive on that first line, I want to see him for a LONG STRETCH on a 2nd line...see if he can generate offense without Eichel. That is likely what this team needs long term. 3 and 4. Dahlin and Moutonr. No problems there. Lets see if they can get a longer term deal down with Montour. 5. I like McCabe, but don't love him. I'd rather have him re-signed, but I don't think he's a make-or-break type player at all for this team. 6. E-Rod. See above. Like McCabe, I like him, but don't love him. Want to see him around long term but can he put up 15 goals per season consistently? 7. Prospects. I don't know much about them, but I don't see any of those guys as being better than what many other teams have in their system. I'm not overly impressed by what id down on the farm. 8. If its a top 5 pick, great. Top 10? Better than in the 20's but I don't expect much from a guy picked in the 6-12 range...at least not right away. 9. No cap trouble, but the situation could be better. STOP signing guys to long term contracts that take them to their early to mid 30's. Skinner? I love his season and want him here for sure..but this team has shown they can lose almost as well with him as they can without him. He can be a 'game changer', but he isn't a 'team changer'. I don't think you'd even have Skinner on this team if ROR was still around...and I enjoy watching Skinner better. 10. Trades are fun, but who do you want to move that other teams want? I was always a Risto supporter, but I'm falling off his bandwagon quickly. Will he be moved though, and who can you get for him?

Ok, every so often there is a thread on some forum asking people to confess what they were wrong about. The #1 biggest thing for me is the Bruins. For the last 3-4 years, I have thought they would be worse each year after year..and likely one of those teams what would have a hard time even staying in the playoff race. In 2015-2016 they missed the playoffs...their top 4 or 5 scorers were all in their late 20's or approaching 30 (not 'over the hill', but certainly no longer getting better offensively)...and Chara was the best player on that team in recent years and he just turned 38.

I agree. I also think Housley should get more time, even if this collapse continues the rest of the year, although I would not be terribly upset if they did make a coaching change. I am really becoming less and less interested in this team though. For the last few months, they have been brutal to watch. The only reason we have Cable TV is to get the Sabres games on MSG...just about everything else we watch would be over the air or streaming. I really think at the end of this season we are going to drop cable again. If this team can catch my interest enough in the future then maybe I'll get it back, but they are going to have to be a very good team in a very good spot in the standings pretty late in the year for that to happen.

I wouldn't be upset if Pominville was traded for a late round pick, but I wouldn't go out of my way to do that unless he really wanted to move someplace for another shot in the playoffs. Late round picks are bordering on useless...and Pominville is still somewhat productive (4th on the team in goals..only 1 behind Reinhart with less games played), plus hes a good guy and popular. That doesn't mean much, but to me it may mean more than a late round pick.

I'm not too worried about the character or the toughness of this team. Tampa doesn't play with a ton of toughness and they are doing pretty well this season (as goes for a lot of the top teams). Give me scoring. I'm not saying you want a Sabres team as soft as the one they had when Miller was run by Lucic...you DO want to have some guys to finish checks and clear out the front of the net....but I think other teams find the Sabres "harder to play against" if they had a couple more blazing fast forward who can fill the net with the puck rather than a couple more guys who are going to finish every check.

I don't like most of the 'rental players' added. To bring a brand new guy onto the team who is a slight to moderate improvement may not help much. On the other hand, if you have a GAPING hole or flaw on your team, then I'm all for it. A contending team with one of the leagues worst powerplays? Get a guy who is a power-play specialist. Have one of the worst penalty kills? Get a guy who excels at that. For those situations, it is easy to get a veteran up to speed. Other than that, I agree most 'rentals' don't work out. On the other hand, maybe the rentals make the team better...but that team wasn't going to get that far in the playoffs with or without them? If I'm the Sabres, no way I get a 'rental', especially if you are going to give up anyting more than a late round pick. On the Sabres, a rental probably doesn't get them into the playoff to begin with..and even if they did....they aren't likely to get too far with the #8 seed playing Tampa in a 7 game series.

He doesn't excite me. Hes been in the league for basically 5 full years...hes 24 years old (basically, he is who he is, not much development left) and he has proven to be a guy you can pretty much expect 6-10 goals out of per year. By the same point in Berglund's career he was pretty much a 20 goal scorer year in and year out...and in an NHL where less goals were being scored overall at that.

More scoring is needed, but when you break down the roster, it is going to be hard to find what they need in a trade. What do they need? First line looks set. Sign Skinner, keep him with Eichel. Second line...Reinhart looks like he is producing more and more without Eichel. Can he do even better with Eichel? Sure, but this team needs SOMEBODY to produce on a different line, and I think he is it. But find him a Center or another winger than can give you 20 goals and 50+ points with him. Can that be Mittlestadt and Olofson next year or in 2 years? 3rd line. Sheary and Thompson, maybe Erod...next year...whatever combo you use..can you get 40-50 total goals out of a third line? Do any of those guys contribute enough to do it with another year experience? 4th line. No idea. I like Larsons play, but you need to get 15-20 goals, MINIMUM out of this line. So what do you REALLY need up front for scoring? A 2nd line player to put in 20 or so goals playing with Reinhart. Who is that? Is a trade a long term answer for more goals on the 4th line? Do you need a 3rd liner or is what you have on the team (and in the system) enough?

While I would always want the Sabres to have more cap room (better to have it than not to have it), it is getting to the point of it not mattering as much as it should. Sure, there are different decision makers, but what percentage of long(ish) term contracts have the Sabres given out...or traded for guys with multiple years left....how many of those have been good decisions where the guy lived up to the contract for the majority of its length?

The way he was playing, No, they don't miss him. Its really a simple answer to this question. If a guy is going to be your 2nd or 3rd line center, you needed the Berglund of any year other than this....a guy who will put in 15-25 goals for you over 82 games. 2 goals in 23 games? Nope, they don't miss that guy.

I agree with that. When we drafted Eichel, I viewed his as the '1b' to McDavid who was '1a'. Like a Malkin was at #2 to Ovechkin. Or the Doughty at #2 to Stamkos. I thought McDavid would be the Generational player, while Eichel would be the borderline generational, Top 10 in the league player. He's not. Eichel is probably a 'top 25' player..and by that he is about as good as the whole bunch of players in that 12-30 range. Is that bad? Of course not. If he stays that good for his career, you have a bona-fide star, who has the ability to take over games AT TIMES. He is just not the type of player that is going to carry a team to win after win after win and dominate entire playoff rounds. What you do have is a true #1 center, an all-star player. Just realize he is a piece to build around, not someone to carry the load all the time.

disheartening I was going to use exasperating, but that would imply I'm very emotional....disheartening more shows my feelings plus me losing interest.

After Pegula bought the Sabres I was happy with what I heard. Quickly, even before the Sabres decided to tank, I came to conclusion he/they were not good owners. About the time they bought the Bills, I thought they were pretty bad owners (good people, good at business, but almost clueless about owning a good sports team) Right about now, I think they are climbing that learning curve. But that still doesn't mean they are good, maybe approaching 'average'. And BTW, I'm not only basing this based on my opinion of the individual moves they make..but more the 'whole picture feeling' I get. Things are 'getting better' with ownership, but they still have a long way to go.

Top forwards: Edm has McDavid, Draisaitl, Nugent Hopkins vs Buffalo's Eichel, Reinhart, Skinner. IF the Sabres resign Skinner, then this slightly goes to Edm (McDavid and Draisaitl beat Eichel and Reinhart...while Skinner Beats Hopkins...but can't make up for how much ahead Edm is with McDavid and DRaisaitl over Jack and Sam) Rest of the forwards: Not great for either team, but I'll give this one to the Sabres (I'll admit that might simply be because I know more bout them and because I think they have a little bit of home in Roch where Edmonton has less hope in their minors.) D-units: I think Buffalo has it here now (slightly) and has it by a wider margin the future (projecting what Dhalin will/might be) Goalies: Its just about even here...present day and future. Overall, if NOTHING else changed, I slightly like Buffalo. Of course, things change every year. How much cap room/dead weight contracts are on each team? What will they do with that room? Who develops off of the minor league team?

I wish MIttlestadt was doing better, but in the big picture I don't think he is 'off track' for a 20 year old 1st year center. He is 'on pace' for 12 goals and 12 assists this year. That is with getting 30% less ice time than the top forwards (30% theoretical scoring chances). And while he has been used on the PP, he has less than 1/2 the ice time of the top guys. Give him a few more minutes ice time (esp on the PP) and I think his numbers will be a bit better. As this is his first year in the league, it is probably better he is getting less ice time and not being forced into bad situations/pressure situations with a heavier work load.

Unless there is a major shift in the playing style of the NHL...just stop signing middle age free agents (or trading for them and then signing them) to long term contracts UNLESS they are great skaters. Overall, how much more proof do we need that in the long run, signing just about high priced free agents usually hurts more than it helps by the mid-point of the contract? Resign your own, only use Free agency if you find a screaming bargain.