mjd1001

I still stand by the fact that I think to be a great team, you need to have guys, when they hit their prime, playing 'over' their contract. The only way you do that is to sign them when they are younger and still 'unproven' to long term deals, where the cap number 'overpays' them in the early years to they are out playing that number in the later years. So, I want the sabres to pick some guys and sign those long term deals now. So is that Cozens? I don't know. Who else would that be? Again I personally do not know. BUT Adams, Granato, the scouting staff know many, many more times the info about these players than we do, so I have to trust them to take all that information they know about them, pinpoint the guys who they feel are going to be 'great' in 3-4 years from now and lock them up now. Its a risk to sign a guy before he produces that much, and its a Risk to let a management team make those decisions and take that chance. But again, I don't want to wait around out of 'fear' of making a mistake.

Fight game vs Ottawa. Not sure WHERE I'd put it, but it goes in the top 5 for me (my Sabres viewing history/memory starts about 1980) As some on here may know based on arguments with me. I dislike fighting in hockey...going forward I would be OK with zero fights. I do not need any future memories like the fights in that Ottawa game. However, that doesn't mean that I still don't put that at or near the top.

I'm all for long term contracts if done BEFORE you have to pay the guys top dollar. I said in a previous post, the way you get really good is betting on players with long term deals when they are younger, so when they are in the prime of their career you can have the back end of that deal where you have them playing for 'under market'. You 'overpay' them early (when you have cap room) so that when you have a few of them at the top of their game, you can 'underpay' them on that same deal. Is that easy to do? No, but you want to be a dominant team, that is what you do. If you 'wait' for guys to prove themself first, you are going to make less mistakes, but you will never have that team with guys on great deals at the back end. Don't take chances and you might almost assure yourself of having a 'good' team, but never a 'great team.' With that said, I have NO idea just how good Cozens can/will be. Hopefully Adams/Granato have a much better idea and will make the appropriate move.

I like the Black and Reds alot. I grew up with the Blue and Gold, as a very little kid starting watching years and years of games with the tail end of the French connection, and being in elementary and middle school never missing a game that was on Tv for most of the early to mid 1980s. I just liked the Black and Red goathead jerseys when they came out. I don't understand all the disdain for them sometimes.

I agree with a lot of what you said, but to me there is a bigger issue with him. Just how good is he? This year he had a great year, 8th in the league in points and 9th in goals. But that was his CAREER year, the question is, is this year repeatable? Maybe it is..and if it is, then he is worth the contract from a production point of view. But the other side of it is...too many times players have that 'career year', and they are paid on it because management and the fanbase take that career year and project it as the baseline, and that often doesn't happen. What has the rest of his career looked like? Before this past season in goals he was: Tied for 81st, tied for 48th, tied for 25th, and tied for 68th (didn't look up his rookie year but it wasn't any better than those). Since he has been in the league he is tied for 32nd in goals. Take out his first few years (just look at his last 3 seasons including this past one where he was great) and he is still only tied for 19th in goals. So don't get me wrong, those numbers are really good, but I'm not sure if they are $9.5 million dollars good, for a winger, If, IF the issues you brought up in your above post might be true (about him being a 'me' guy before a 'team guy). He better bring the offense too because from what I have read he is average at best in terms of defensive responsibility, and he gives you basically Zero penalty killing (basically hasn't been used at all in the past few years on the PK)

Does this keep Calgary competitive for the next 2 years? I think they are thinking/hoping so. If they think they can be a top-5 team in the West, then this might work out. Will you be able to beat Colorado or even Edmonton? One injury to a McDavid or a McKinnon near playoff time is all you need, and it can get you a cup appearance. Plus, they have a chance to rebuild/retool in 2 seasons anyway. Look at their contracts. After the next 2 seasons are over, they have a total of THREE guys under contract up front (Huberdeau, Mangiapane, and Blake Coleman), and ONE guy on the back end (Andersson). Even if Huberdeau is overpriced, they are going to have a lot of flexibility and a lot of options over the next 2-3 years. It will not be the contract Huberdeau just signed that will make or break this team over the next 5 years...it will be the moves of the front office.

Its bad, but I don't think it is the worst thing ever. Hes a better player than Skinner, and, at least at 29, he had his best year ever so he is still SLIGHTLY getting better or remaining at his peak. 10.5 is a big cap hit, but if the cap goes up in the later years, instead of being 12.5%+ of the teams cap, it might be closer to 10 by the time you get to the middel/end of the deal, which won't be awful. Can he still give you 25 goals and 70 points when he is 35 years old and play well in his own end? With him its pretty likely, and if you get that it won't be awful for someone making 10% of the cap. Of course, the final thing is, what is the no move/no trade clauses? Maybe by those middle to late years, if/when the team isn't good, he might be able to be moved to a desperate contender. Again, I don't like the length and the money for the deal and I DO think it is a bad contract, but we are not talking about a 'top 50' player in the league, we are talking about who is likely a top-5 or at worst a top-10 player who is still in his prime.

The complaint Thursday thread is still closed after noon on Thursday. I often look forward to reading it, or posting on it weekly.

I was at the Earth Wind and Fire concert last night in Artpark in Lewiston. I'm not a huge fan of the bad but some family members wanted to go. The worst run concert I have ever been to in Artpark. Living in that area, I went to a bunch of concerts years ago when they were free on Tuesdays, and recently I'd say we have been to 10-15 in the past 10 years. I have no idea who was running this but it was an awful experience. -They sold way too many tickets. Once you got inside, there was zero space to sit even on the lawn. People started putting down seats on the path making it hard to walk around, and if you were one of the last thousand or so people to come in, the only seating let was on the path/lawn behind the concessions and the porta-bathrooms. Yes, people had to sit facing the back of the bathroom and concessions stand with no view of the stage. -We live 15 minutes away, we figured we'd leave the house an hour before the start time? Bad idea. Parking lot was full. All street parking was full. We ended up finding a spot down by the waterfront and had a 15 minute walk just to get to the entrace to Artpark. -Once you got there, the line started outside the main gait, all the way up the hill (maybe 1/4 mile long) The wait just to get into Artpark was over 30 minutes. I haven't been to a concert there in a few years, but they really have to get things together. Biggest issue was they sold too many tickets. You can't sell so many general admission tickets so that even when people jam onto the lawn area, there were hundreds of people left over with no where to sit other than on the side or the side/behind the stage area right across from restrooms.

Coming off of last year, I'd say the Skinner contract should not be that high on the list. It STILL IS a bad contract, but with the year he had last year and how much cap room the sabres have the next year or two, it doesn't justify 3rd. Get back to me in December of this year though....

I have had zero issues on this site ever with slow loading pages. The odd thing is I am wondering what is happening in general with my phone. Its a newer phone, and just in the last week whether I'm out of the house or in the house on Wifi, my phone has been loading various (not all but many) apps and sites much slower than usual. No problems on this site on the computer though.

Calm down there, I never said it was Terry and Terry alone. It is undeniable, however, that the Pegula ownership has had a negative impact on the franchise. If you don't want to admit that then there is no reason to respond any further. Its obvious. Oh, and I'm pretty sure Terry had major influence in most of those decisions and certainly signed off on all of them.

Correct. Ottawa and Tampa added in 1992. Florida and Anaheim added in 1993. 8 out of 13 teams making the playoffs is/was easier than it is now, but not even close to when it was 16 out of 21 teams. The first 2 years of that new format Florida missed the playoffs both years being just a game or 2 under .500. The 3rd year New Jersey was the last team out with a winning record. When you consider OT losses get points now but back then they were just losses, the first team missing the playoffs is, on average, only 1 or 2 games better over an entire season that it was back then. SO..with that in mind... -From 1992 on, they made the playoffs 9 times over the next 10 seasons. -When you even consider when the team was in bankruptcy and the roster was gutted following that, they STILL made the playoffs up until Pegulas took over...in the 19 years since that early 90s expansion 13 out of 19 seasons. -Since the first Full year the Pegulas took over until now...they are 0 out of 11. They made the playoffs ONE time right after they bought the team before the made any meaningful changes. Now I think the franchise is getting run better. But it seem pretty obvious to me the decisions made by ownership had a huge impact on one of the worst 11 years runs in the history of the NHL, and possibly all of professional major north american sports.

The poll really isn't useful If some of us don't think any of them will be moved in the near future. I don't feel good voting in it unless there is an option that none will be moved anytime soon.

I agree, I am not saying he is not hard to play against, but the context of this was brought up as he was a 'soft' forward in contrast to adding 'toughness', and from the post I read, it seemed to infer that softness or toughness was from a physical aspect.

Watched the Formula 1 race from France today. I am AMAZED at how many people are saying Ferrari messed up by having Sainz pit at the end. Their execuation (how they communicated it to him) was awful, but it was the right move for sure: -If he stayed out, his tires were shot. There were blisters all over and the falloff the rest of the race may have been dramatic AND possibly a crash risk. If anyone has seen a race where drivers push their tires past where they were, for another 10 laps or so, he would have likely held on to finish 5th (considering his 5 second penalty). -He pitted for fresh tires, and he finished 5th. Had there been a full course safety car and everyone in front of him pits, he starting first with the best car and pretty good tires. with it being hard to pass he might win. IF there was a safety car and no one in front of him pits, he pulls right up to the back of the top 5 with a better car and WAY better tires and he passes at least a couple of them if not all of them and finishes better than 5th, maybe 1st or 2nd. Again, they didn't communicate well with him and they seemed disorganized. But pitting him and not keeping him out was the correct call, not even close.

From what I read of the post you are responding to, I think the post was meant to say 'soft' is just the flip side of getting 'tougher'. You have to admit, Reinhart is not a player that brings extra toughness to a team. I mean, I don't think 'toughness' is needed in the modern NHL as much as it was, but how do you define softness? By most metrics of fans, he would be a soft player. When watching him, he certainly does not initiate contact. Statistically, he is 2nd or 3rd last on his team in terms of hits per 60. He doesn't 'mix it up' in any significant way seeing he only gets a penalty called on him every 10-15 games. The playoffs are generally considered a tighter/tougher time of the year....FL played Wash and Tampa (2 teams in the top 5 in hits for the year) and Sam totaled 4 points in 10 games. Again, if we are going to use the word soft...and I personally do NOT like using it and never have called a player soft on this forum...but if you are going to use it, I think many people would consider the above a good metric for it.

Up until last year, I thought Florida was the best run roster in the league. Not anymore. They have marginally at best improved their roster.....or maybe even just 'moved things around' without making them better, yet they have given up so much to do so. They still should be a top team. I think they will take a SMALL step back this year (still compete for the division though), but all the moves they made haven't helped them in a medium term way much for what they gave up.

I'm a little curious to see if Calgary made a play for Reinhart, and how receptive FL would have been for that. Many people stated (from many media sources) that Reinhart really wanted to play in Western Canada/closer to 'home'. He's from Vancouver, and next to Seattle, no other NHL city is closer to Vancouver than Calgary. They also would have gotten a guy under control for a few years at a decent contract.

Theory: 1.) Huberdeau was going to want close to the dollar value that Tkachuk would want if he extended, they did not want to give a 30+ year old guy that money. Florida as a 'presidents trophy' contending team keeps their window open longer with Tkachuk in 3-4+ years from now than they would with an aging Huberdeau. 2.) As good as Huberdeau is, they lost to Tampa the past couple years with him. Going from an ultra-skilled guy like him to a younger, tougher, goal scoring winger like Tkachuk, they might view that 'change' in style as something that will work better for them in the playoffs. 3.) Weeger is a UFA after this year, likely going to want a raise over his current $3.25. It would be hard to fit him in next year at a higher rate, might as well use him now as part of the package to get MT, for the above 2 reassons. I think for Florida, this trade makes them slightly worse or maybe the same overall as they would have been without this trade, but I can see them thinking 'changing things up' might help them in the playoffs. However this makes them better 2-4 years out because of the age of the main pieces.

Yes and No. No state income tax helps, so that is good vs many states and blows away what you pay in Canada. However, Florida isn't the 'cost of living, stretch your dollar farther here better than anywhere else' place it used to be. Real estate values (low end, mid, and high end) have gone up quite a bit, where now there are other places you can get the same house for a lot less. Property taxes have doubled or more in the past decade in many areas. Insurance rates are way up. Even everyday stuff is more expensive (we have relatives down there and visit a few times per year. Wegmans and even Tops have lower prices on many things that places down there like Publix, and even some of the Walmart Supercenters are on a different price plan where some items at a Walmart up here are less money than down there). One of the tech websites just did an article last week comparing 'private label' prices to generic, and they compared a basket of good at Wegmans (up north) to Publix (Florida) and the prices at Wegmans were much less overall. So yes, overall he is in a better spot in terms of money than if he were in NY, New Jersey, Buffalo, and a few other places and certainly anywhere in Canada. Some players look at that for sure but the difference isn't as big as it used to be.

Calgary had to make this deal thinking if they are not in great position come trade deadline, but of these guys can be moved then. I think a 30 year old forward coming off of a 100 point season is going to have a LOT of value to a team fighting for, or in the playoffs next spring (I'm talking young prospects, possibly a teams top prospect and at least a first rounder). Calgary lost too much this year to keep him and seriously think they are making a cup run. They have to be thinking of flipping these guys and then doing a rebuild. As for Florida, This is going to give them some cap issues going forward, at least less flexibility if not issues. But they look to be a very, very good team for a long time. Toronto needs to get their cup soon or else they will be looking at Florida as the team they cannot get past. Florida will have a 'core' of Barkhov (26 years old), Tkachuk (24 years old), Reinhart (26 years old), Bennet (26 years old), Duclair (injured but 26 years old) and Verhaege (26 years old). That is just up front. All those guys got at least mid 20's in goals, most in the 30s last year. Most of your D-unit now is not even in their prime, and you have Spence Knight coming up in net at only 21.

That is a lot of money for a guy who in the last few years finished Tied for 70th in the league in goals, tied for 133rd in goals, and tied for 22nd. Even if you take into account his games missed, he still was 33rd in goals per game last year. He doesn't bring much defensively, and his skates don't touch the ice short-handed. He got paid off of his draft status and his first 2 seasons in the league 5-6 years ago. Maybe its not that bad of a deal because of the length, you are getting him through age 28 (his prime years) and he still has POTENTIAL to score 40 for you.

it doesn't have to be an on/off switch he is either producing or not. It can be to what degree. Sometimes a player can start to produce well, but you pay him a lot more than many think he deserves (a guy is playing like a $3.5 million dollar guy, you give him $5.5 for 7 years, and by the end of the deal he is much better and producing like a $7-8 million dollar guy) A deal like Pastrnak signed previously for 6x40 or Barkov's last deal at 6x35 are examples. Those guys were producing already, but by the end of their deals they looked like huge bargains. The other side of it would be a guy like Tage, who blossoms into something that is well beyond the contract he signed.

On a note related to Philly, them not having the cap space with the team they put on the ice....it says very VERY bad things about how that team is put together.