mjd1001

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.

I think if Vancouver wanted, they could have held out for a bit more as we got closer to the trade deadline. I guess they think this is 'close enough' to an ideal deal for them....and on an expiring contract if he got injured they would get zero. Better to take 80-90% of what you think you could get now than gamble risking it all (injury) for a bit more.

The best part about where the Sabres are at this very moment is there should be no rush (at least internally) to get the prospects onto the big club before they are ready. You may nor may not like Mitts or Jost or VO, but they are NHL players filling rolls. The young guys can play their last year in Junior...they can play a full year or two in the AHL. I'm not sure many players were ever 'ruined' by keeping them in the NHL for a year too long.

Ok, if we look hard enough, we can find a reason to dislike any fanbase or team. Cincy however, with helping the Bills into the playoffs to break the streak a few years ago, with it being a similar Rust-Belt small city like Buffalo, with how the community reacted with the Hamlin situation last month...they had EVERY REASON for people to like them and root for them. All they needed to do is not have any players act like arrogant, loud mouth jerks more than you get on any other team. Well....Cincy players are going to be Cincy players.....

A lot of what you said is why I am 100% fine if no moves are made. Is every young guy on the Sabres going to turn out to be good? probably not. Is there anyone out that that might make the team better? probably. BUT, the team is heading in the right direction now it seems...this team SHOULD be better later in the year than they are now, and likely to be better next year than they are now even with no moves. So if you make a deal, with who you bring in, who goes out, what the cost of the deal is (assets and more importantly a contract that may impact who you can keep a year or two from now)...its a roll of the dice, a gamble to not make a move, as it is to actually make a move. With that said, and with how I think the current team is taking shape, I would rather make the gamble to NOT make a change rather than take the gamble to make one. Now next year or the year after, that is a different story.

Jack being a guy who for his career is 25th-30th in the league in points per game, at his pre-injury peak was knocking on the door to top 10 in points per game for a year, and who sometimes has good 'fancy stat' numbers regarding 2 way play and other seasons doesn't....that is a player that another time would probably be interested in. HOWEVER, think as if you are a GM around the league with a contending team, how much would you give up for him? Jack being a guy that post injury is 92nd in the league in points per game, has that major injury on his resume, appears to have had a couple other minor injuries since then in about a season since he was back, whos old team got better with the return they received for him and his new team got worse since he arrived....AND a contender that wants him has to fit in is $10m per year deal (for a few more years) under their cap? I really, really don't see many other teams having any interest in aquiring him at all almost under any circumstances, unless they are giving up a fracition of what Vegas gave up for him. Almost any contender that could use him would have to do cap gymanstics to get him to fit, and maybe/probabaly have to move/get rid of players that are his equal or better to make him fit. Vegas is probably stuck with him and just has to hope he gets really healthy and can somehow turn is game around and have his best 2-3 seasons EVER in the upcoming years.

I don't like any of the teams that were left in the final 4. With KC vs Philly, I guess I want Philly. I don't watch them much, but I visited Philadelphia this summer for the first time in a couple decades and I liked the city more than I remembered in the past, so for no other reason, I guess Philly?

Either the Bills D-line is VASTLY overrated, and they are actually really bad overall, Or they simply cannot play well on any kind of wet/snowy field where their footwork is compromised. Its not just that KC is getting pressure through that Cincy OL....Baltimore was pushing them around pretty badly the entire second half of their game the week before. The Bills are the only team whos defense got manhandled by the Cincy OL. It might be coaching, but the Bills also couldn't win many/any one on one battles.

My wife and I started watching the new 'national treasure' on Disney, and its pretty rough. We are half way through so we are going to probably stick though it, but some if it makes no sense. some of the 'puzzles' they solve really seem like there is no explanation, and the acting is pretty bad. The main character, she shows very little emotion, the character seems lifeless and lacking any kind of charisma. Some reviews we read said that the woman who plays her is a great actress and destined for stardom, but I don't see that at all. Peaky Blinders was bought up. That I watched a few episodes, it seemed like it was well written and for sure the acting was very very good, but it just didn't hook me enough to stick with it. I can see how it can appeal to people who like that kind of show however. For a 'cartoon' and what some consider a 'kids movie' I thought Puss in Boots the last wish was good. Basically, its a cartoon cat that is 90% Antionio Banderas' portrayal of Zorro.

I agree. When the trade happened, I was happy with the return. Now a year or so later, it looks that much better for Buffalo. I'm not sure how much more you could have gotten for him that would make the deal better.

I didn't say good players for 8 years. I said "We have 8 seasons now of seeing him with very good linemates, with different coaches, with different teams" The reason I wrote it that way is he has had All of those things over the coure of 8 years, not that he had All of them for All 8 years. I tried to put that into context, but I probably could have written it a bit better.