mjd1001

1st Calgary goal, bad pinch by Power, he'll learn the more he plays but you get that as he still is a rookie. 2nd Calgary goal, good shot, hope for a better save or a little better backcheck/stickwork from Skinner. 3rd Calgary goal, want a save there also, but forwards/wingers late getting back.

This is pretty much the best way I can view it. As I mentioned myself I used to be more of a Bills fan than a Sabres fan but that has changed lately. I have thought about something else on this topic....the popularity of the team and how much that makes it fun or frustrating to follow. Now, I want to make this clear....I do NOT like gatekeeping in anyway. I want ALL the teams Iike to have as many fans as possible, I want as many people to enjoy them, and I want as many people as possible to participate in following them/forums about them/social media about them. BUT.....when I visit the Bills forum now with their success, there tends to be a lot of threads and post that honestly, can be almost embarassing to read. Either complaints about things that make no sense at all other than people letting out pure emotion.....uncomfortable levels of 'player worship' after someone has a good game/season...and people who post things and argue about them based on reading headlines or what the talking heads on ESPN tell them. I tihnk it is great when the forums grow, and everyone has the right to participate and post what they think...but in the last couple years, I have personally taken a step back from the Bills forum because of that. While I personally agrue with people here on this Sabres forum, I disagree with some of the points and at times I go back and forth with some posters and it can get a little heated...I still end up respecting most of what is posted here, and look forward to the next post by the person who I just argued with. As of right now, following the Sabres on this forum is a great blend fun with the direction of the team and thoughtful posts/opinions on that.

I think hockey has me still watching because for some reason, every game, every goal, seems unique to me, at least more than some other sports. In the NFL, there really isn't much I haven't already seen. Most great catches? I've seen something like them before. A great run? Seen hundreds of them already. Incredible come from behind wins? Not too incredible after you have seen them already. Baseball is even more like that...what haven't I seen occur on the field that I haven't witnessed before? Now hockey.....I guess someone could say the same thing..and yes, some of those one-timer goals are carbon copies of every other one. But over the years, It just FEELS to me that I am more likely to see something different in Hockey/the NHL than in most other sports. Waiting to see how a prospect develops in hockey seems more interesting to now than it does regarding a draft pick in the NFL or baseball. I think that is why I have come to watch ALL sports less than I have in the past, but the Sabres/NHL is the one I follow the most now (where 20 years ago it was 3rd behind the NFL and Baseball)

A bit more detail of what I'm wondering beyond the title.... Do you visit this board because you are a Sabres fan first, above all other teams (Bills for example) and hockey is your favorite sport? Or is it more something like....I like other sports as much or more than hockey, I like other teams as much as or more than the Sabres...but it IS hockey season so I come here but I visit other forums for othe teams as much or more than I do here? Historically, I had been a bigger Bills fan than a Sabres Fan. Had Bills Season Tickets. Never missed a game. Sabres were always just 'something to do' for me. That started to change a decade ago. As the playoff drought has continuted, I have actually followed the Sabres more and the Bills a bit less. I have a few ideas why, but nothing I can say for sure is the reason.

I'd rather not have to pay Chychrun what he will want.....get a lesser piece to put on that 3rd pairing (but still better than what they have now) and then STILL play the 3rd pair only 10 minutes per night.

I think it is a good deal for both teams. He's not the sniper he once was, but he isn't totally washed yet. In terms of production he can be a very good 3rd line winger, a decent 2nd line winger, and can fill in on the first line in case of injuries. He's also a rental so while you only get him for the remainder of this year, you aren't going to have to fit him under the cap beyond this year. Plus while this is a deep draft coming up, the Rangers are going to be picking in the late part of the first round, so that pick wouldn't be a piece that would help them for a few years anyway. For St. Louis, as per my previous post, they are on their way down and their young talent pool is awful. They need a rebuild, they need high draft picks (their own might be) and the need multiple draft picks. This Rangers first fills the 'multiple needed picks'. They aren't likely to be good again for a few years, but they need to sell off what they can now. For their sake, you hope you can trade another vet piece for another first (ROR, or maybe you package something with ROR to get a late first if him alone isn't good enough), then you bottom out next year and get another high pick and hopefully that is enough to turn things around. Because otherwise, that franchise isn't looking good going forward.

He's not what he used to be, but still a good player that can help the Rangers. I don't know if it 'puts them over the top', but you never know. St. Louis has to do this....They are an average-to-below average team right now. Kyrou is really the only foward they have that borders on being a 'star' but he isn't good enough to carry the team. Thomas is good, but VERY much overpaid ($1m per year more than Tage and Cousins?) Their back end is aging, average at best, with no young guy on the way up to fill any top 4 role in the immediate future. They have very little youth on their team that has a chance to be great, and their goaltending situation may be worse than the Sabres. They haven't had a single top 15 draft pick in over a decade to develop. A rebuild at this point might not be enough, they should be looking at a teardown/tank job, their roster needs it.

Have somewhat a case of it with a relative I am exposed to a couple times a year. The kid is approaching middle school, but has basically zero autonomy in life. Was he introduced to sports to decide which one/if he wanted to play? Nope. His father wasn't into sports so the kid never got to try any. The father liked playing Guitar growing up, so guess what, a few years ago the kid was given a guitar (when he was under 10), he had little interest in it but he got it and was given lessons. Star Wars...the kid didn't really show any huge interest in it, but his father loved it growing up, along with the Transformers, so guess what, every year the kid is given star wars and transformers toys one after the other. And there is the flip side to it that I experienced myself. The kid likes Pokemon cards. When we visited a year or so ago, he wanted to show me his collection so we sat on the couch and we went through them, he was excited talking about them. But his father never liked Pokemon...so that day when his father walked in the house as we were sitting on the couch going through Pokemon cards...his father looked at us and told his son to put the pokemon away because he bought toy light sabes...and he called his son over and then proceded to try to get him to engage in a fake light sabre battle with him.

I do think Chychrun would make this team better, but I'm just not sure I would go in that direction long term. To me it isn't about having the best group of players you can at every roster spot, it is about having a hanful of GREAT players and then having guys to pair with them what compliment them well at a good price. I try to look at the D-unit going forward. I think Dahline is your #1 guy, Power you hope is #2. One of them should be on the ice for 75% of the game. The D-partner for each of them doesn't have to be a high priced guy, he can be a guy who has limitations BUT pairs well with Dahlin or Power. Dahlin wants to join the rush alot? Let his long term D-partner be a guy you pay a bit less, but one who lacking in scoring or carrying the puck but can make a good first pass and doesn't get caught up ice much. Something like that. Now that may be hard to find that 'right guy' but they have some time to do that. So your THIRD pair is only going to get about 10 minutes even strength ice time per game ideally. I don't want them to be AWFUL, but I can save a bit of money there (and divert it to other parts of the roster) by doing so. Maybe make one of those 3rd pair guys a stellar Penalty killer, and he can get some additional ice time on the PK so you rest Dahlin and/or Power then. Maybe one of those 3rd pair guys is Samuelsson. He has the ability to step up in the lineup in injuries, and he will be your top D-man getting PK ice time. And with him as the anchor on the 3rd pair, you at least aren't awful there. Then find 3 other 'reasonable' priced guys that have a skill set that compliments Dahline and Power, instead of just getting the best overall D-man you can to plug into those spots and overpay for skills that they don't need to use with their partner. And as for Kane, again, I don't want him for free. I do not think he is a good player overall already. You might be worse on the ice with him compared to any of the younger wingers the team has, AND he is going to only be a year older and slower next year. Let someone else take him. In the right situation, where you ask nothing of him in the D-zone, he gets all the PP time he wants, he gets offensive zone starts....maybe, MAYBE he can put up some points for a team that has a huge, massive lack of talent on the Wing. This Sabres team is not that.

IThe last couple years have been ok but it still is a 'somewhat bad' contract.. If he cotinues to produce at close to his current level (maybe a slight drop off) then his deal will fall under the 'not good' category, but not awful. The good thing is for the moment, you can justify it as being "good" if you try hard enough. You can say he is a top producer on this team, he fits into the locker room, and the Sabres have ZERO cap issues even with his contract. Basically, the team is better with him on it than without him...so his contract causes no problems currently and you are getting a player that produces and helps you win.

Kane, a year older next year than he is this year, will be a worse player and less productive than VO. That move would be a step back for this team.

I know others on this board disagree, but I wouldn't trade Peterka for Kane Straight up, forget about throwing in other assets. Kane is sliding. Scoring is up this year and he has a total of 9 goals. As others have pointed out, some of his D-zone and possession alalytics are off-the-charts bad. His shooting perecentage for the past few years is close to half of what it was at his peak...he either no longer wants, or is unable at this point to make it to the prime shooting areas he used to. He is getting over 55% offensive zone starts, he gets all the Power play time he wants, and his production is still falling. He simply isn't a good player anymore. He might, MIGHT have something in him for a playoff run for someone in a limited role, but I'd even doubt that. He is a player with a lot of 'wear on the tires' and is in clear decline.

Up until this year, O'Reilly has had pretty consistent offensive statistics. The statistical peak of his career included his last 2 years in Col, all his time in Buffalo, and every year in St. Louis besides this past year. Over that time, he got 0.81 points per game. In each of those years, starting from the first one, he ranked in terms of points per game: 53rd, 90th, 35th, 49th, 86th, 49th, 55th, 31st, and 121st. Soe he peaks at the 'low 30s' range ranking....he usually averaged close to 60th (his average was 60th over that period...take away the outliers, the best and worse, and he still is at 59th best) Now I know this isn't terribly scientific, but that ranking would put him in the 'mid 40's for points this year. I'm pretty confident that adjusted for the level of scoring, his 'historical 0.81' would be closer to 0.90 this year. That is within a handful of points of where Cozins is right now. Their goal to assist ratio is also very close. So, at least in terms of points per game, Cozins is producing so far 'this year' at about the same rate as O'Rielly did during his peak years on average, adjusted for the increase in scoring this season.

As has been said, this is critical. To compete for the cup, you FIRST have to get players good enough to get to the playoffs The next part, getting over the top, having 'good' contracts that give you flexibility over who you are competing with is the next step after you get there. So if those estimates hold, the NHL looks to have the cap increase by about 4-4.5% per year. Both Cozens and Tage will be in the prime of their careers by the time they get to the mid-point of their deals (year 4) which will be in the 2026-2027 season. So ask yourself this...how good will Cozens and Tage be in 4 years from now? Because if the Cap trends show above are true, their deals will be about 7.5% of the cap at that point. For comparison, Skinner's deal is/was over 10% of the cap at the mid point of his deal. Right now Barkov is 27 and getting paid 12.1% of the cap. Seb Aho is close to 10%. Rantannan is at over 11%. Marner, Tavares and Matthews are over 13 or 14%. So, if Cozens and Tage don't get any better than they are today, the deals are still 'not bad', but if they keep getting better, they are ABSURD good deals.

The Horvat deal is a problem because of his age. There are excpetions, but forwards production usually peaks at age 25-28. He is already there. History, stats, analyitics....all point to a player at age 28 at best maintaining their current production level for 2-4 years, but then usually dropping off. If I'm giving a 7 year contract to a forward, the ideal one would be that carries him from about age 23-30. The Cousins deal is close to that. The Horvat contract taking him to his mid 30's....not ideal.

Can you get Dahlin then....long term under $10m?

I think the Sabres are really going to try to go long term with him but keep it close to 7.25 per year. The Thompson contract comes to about $7.142M per year. Cap is going up a bit more than 1% supposedly next year. Add that 1% to Tage's deal, and you get close to 7.25m per year.

I don't disagree with any of what you said. Some things to add: -Aho and the Canes have the Sabres number. (14-1-0 in the last 15 games with Buffalo) That is REALLY bad. You would think just with some 'puck luck' you would have a few more points. -Too many layups for the Canes. More beef needed near the net. Also Buffalo should take a page out of that book. I didn't think it was a matter of 'beef', but rather positioning and sometimes being a bit late to get into position or help being late in the D-zone. Or maybe more size/strength WOULD help, but the same thing could be overcome with positioning instead of it, but the Sabres didn't show either last night. -The Canes upset the Sabres with the full court press. I saw Dahlin alone in back of the Sabres net with the puck for what seemed like a minute, while two Carolina players were bottling him up. I have noticed that on occasion in other games also. Wingers might need to get back to help in that case along the boards. As good as Dahlin is, he can't do everything all the time. Dahlin has such good skating and passing he is almost like a partial 'cheat code' for moving the puck up the ice, but that 'cheat code' doesn't work every single time and the Sabres should learn to not rely on it. -Samuelson seemed to be playing hurt. Concerns about Tage's back. Tage I worrk about simply because of his size and how he plays. I don't have evidence from other similar players, but I feel that him (and Samuelsson also) just have a body type where they will get minor injuries on a regular basis through their careers. That team in a full 7 game series vs the Leafs or Boston would be really, really fun. Stanley Cup level entertainment.

I've got 2 things food related today: 1.) When you make something to eat, a sandwich, a baked item, a 1-2 hour long prepared meal for the family, and you/everyone loves it. Then you make it again a week or two later, do EVERYTHING the exact same way with the same ingredients, and it just isn't as good, it doesn't turn out the way it did before. 2.) When you find something in the store you love. A sauce, an ingredient for cooking, maybe a frozen dinner, anything. You try it and it goes on your list of something you buy every week. 6 months later, it is discontinued. No problem, go and buy it online, right? Nope discontinued for good and the manufacturer isn't even making it anymore.

Old post, but I just read it now. I lived in Florida (Daytona Beach) in the decade of the 2000's. Hurricane Charly basically came right over my apartment. Lost power for a week, the following days there was no AC, no fans, no long lasting food in the refrigerator to eat, and no way to heat stuff up. After a day or two when the roads were clear, I drove an hour north to a mall that was fully open to walk around the the Air conditioning and eat at the food court every afternoon. But the comment about the Alligators got me thinking of something. The following week I was going back to work and on my way out of town stopped at a supermarket in Port Orange or new Smyrna (20 years ago, I forgot which one). The store wasn't even right on the water, it was a half mile inland, but it got so much flooding that when it did open back up, there were dozens (if not 50-100) frogs all over the store, in the aisle, jumping around. You also could see on the floor itself and a few inches up on the walls where the water had been. I have relatives in South Florida now that can't even imagine why we want to live in the Northeast. I spent a few years living in Florida, and I can't even imagine moving back to a place like that that is so hot in the summer and does't get at least a couple months of winter. To each their own I guess.

There are things that can change the viewership, but too many people want to think they aren't an issue, or that they don't matter. 1.) Advertising. To those who watch the games its not a big deal. Some like commercials (its the time to get up and use the restroom or get a drink/food. I have always thought that way. However recently (about 10 years ago) I started to get back into F1 racing and watch the races. 1.5 hours per race and ZERO commercials during it. I also was a slightly-more-than-casual Nascar fan. After watching F1 races that are over in less than 2 hours with no commercials, I SERIOUSLY find it harder to want to sit down and tune into a Nascar race. To many fans who just love hockey its no big deal, but getting bashed over the head with commercials, ads on the board, ads on the ice, ads on the unis and helmets, AND having every commerical break sponsored by a company, a timeout 'brought to you by' a company, even injury timeouts in sports being sponsored, to SOME casual fans it can get to you (and yes, I know it is in most North American sports, but maybe the 'fringe' sports like the NHL and Nascar are the first ones where it is showing a viewership decline over the last decade or two) 2.) I'd like to see more teams make the playoffs (I know that is an opposite opinion than most, but for me it would help). This year is slightly different in the east, but over the past few years, it has been only half way though the seasons and the teams in the playoffs have pretty much been decided. Tradionalists don't like what the NBA and the MLB have done with their play in games, but do someting like that. It gives you incentive and a reward for finishing in the top of the league but yet gives the bottom teams a 'path' to get into the playoffs. Do the bottom teams deserve that? Probably not, but the fanbases do. 3.) this is a big one for me and it doesn't have to do with the existing fans of the team but aquiring new fans. The antiquated, old fashion broadcast model. Younger people don't have cable. There are exceptions, but I have a step daughter, 2 nieces, 2 nephews, and a 2nd cousin that are all under 26 years old...and to my knowledge ZERO of them have cable TV. They all are fans of the Sabres or at least casually follow them. But, living in the home market, you know what they can't do? Watch the Sabres live unless they have a traditional Cable TV package OR something like youtube TV (which mimicks traditional cable). Just about EVERY NHL game is on Huluplus/ESPN, but NOT your home team. So, you have a larger percentage of people under 35 in this country without cable or a cable-like package, who don't watch the games (lower local ratings) and end up following the sport a bit less. Solution? If you have a national deal where every NHL game (just about) is on Espn /Hulu plus...how about including local games? or at the very least offer a small monthly fee on those services to get the local games? This really drives me nuts because I talked to my nephew over the holidays who was a big Sabres fan, still follow the team, but when I talked to him he said that him and his roomates now 'kinda' follow the sabres but not that much anymore because they can't watch the games. I'm sure the blackout rules don't only apply to Buffalo but the entire league. Black out the local games on your streaming package, not only will many young fans not watch their local team, but it reduces overall interest in the entire league to them.

I agree. If there isn't a "can't turn this down good" deal available (which there usually isn't), then I don't make any moves till the offseason. The team is very streaky, but getting better. The nature of this team is probably that they will have a couple more big win streaks, and then at least one lose 6-out-of-7 where people are screaming for a move. BUT, I really think the best thing to do is make it to the offseason, evaluate, then give out the contracts you want to/need to.

I hate to keep posting basically the same thing on every trade thread, but I'm not terribly intetested in any one idea. If they find something out there that they can get for a GREAT deal, I'll listen. But right now, I'm happy with the team the way it is. They aren't perfect, but I'm more than willing to just let things ride for the rest of the year, evaluate the team in the offseason and go from there. More than aquiring anyone, I'm more interested in seeling UPL and Comrie play more this season, then getting to the offseason and hopefully addressing Cozens contract, and in the offseason see what you can do for an addition d-man.

I guess Orr. I think I saw a game he played once as a little kid but I don't even remember it. I'll take everyones word for how good he was. Lemieux for sure. The most dominant, unstoppable non-goalie I ever saw. I guess Gretzky is there too (can't argue with the numbers) but all the times I saw him play, I saw a really really great player, but not someone as dominant as Mario Lemeuix or Hasek at their peak. McDavid is gaining enough longevity that he might be moving up into that top 10 really quickly. I love watching Ovechkin, and I think he is the best goal scorer of all time (better than Gretzky, Lemieux, Bossy). Just look at the numbers he put up and see that he did that in some of the lowest scoring years in modern NHL history. However, on a list like this I don't think he is top 5, maybe, MAYBE top 10 but that might even be pushing it because he was the BEST at probably the most important skill in all of hockey, but he wasn't multi-dimensional enough. One guy that I doubt will be in there (and he doesn't deserve to because of longevity), but Eric Lindros, at his PEAK before his injury..was dominant also. It was for such a short period of time I think we all forget about it, but for that short time he was great. If many people think Gretzky is the greatest ever because of the 92 goal year and just how many points he put up, then you have to at least give a nod to Paul Coffey for doing what he did as a Defenseman. Sure, he did it in a high scoring era (So did Gretzky) but he was one of, if not THE fastest skaters in the league, put up almost 400 goals as a D-man, and had 2 40 goal seasons (one at 48 goals) and 5 other seasons of 29+ goals...again for a D-man.

Unless someone is WAY out of place, its hard to argue. Hasek at #7 Im fine with. Personally of everyone I have seen since I was a little kid (late 1970s, but I was so young I barely remember that) I would put him at #2 myself.....but I'm fine with #7.