mjd1001

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.

Of the younger guys on this team, who would you like to see the Sabres pay earler than they have to, or overpay 'right now', so it puts them in a better position in the future? The reason I ask is this. It seems like you can assure yourself of having a 'good' team by not taking any chances with contracts, but to be a great/cup winning team it helps drastically if you have guys in their prime making less than their market value, basically on good contracts. So no players are going to be wanting to make less than they are worth, but the way you CAN do that is, when you have a bunch of young guys and you have a lot of cap room, you give money to players earlier than the earned/proved it on a long term deal, so they get paid more NOW when you have cap room but you have a better deal later when cap room is tight. So, if when the Sabres get good, you want them to have guys playing the back half of their deals that are good deals for the team, who do you want that to be? Who do you think you could give a long term deal to now (or in the next 12 months) that will be a higher dollar value than what they are worth now but it will pay off on the back end of a long term deal? (and if you want, give an example of what that deal would look like to you)

I've got 2 minor ones for today: 1.) Amazon (for those who don't have overnight prime shipping or buy things that don't qualify for shipping overnight). This has happened to me a couple times in the past month. Order something, get an estimate for the day it is delivered. 2 days later get an email that says something like "Now arriving early", telling you the package will be delivered on Thursday instead of Friday. Thursday comes and no package, comes on Friday anyway. 2.) Walmart. I'm fine with the shelf checkouts, but they really REALLY need to keep a couple of them for small orders. Go to many of the stores during the late morning or early afternoon and they may have 10 of the small self-checkouts open, 3 or 4 of the self checkouts with the belt open, and 4-5 regular registers open. NONE of them are express registers. There is usually along line in the regular checkouts if the store is busy, so I'm there with my 2 or 3 items looking at the self checkouts, and sometimes the line there is full with people with full shopping carts. Really, how hard would it be to set aside 1-2 of the 10+ self checkouts for people with only a handful of items?

To me it was OK, that is it. Every other past Jurassic park movie was pretty much the same to me. Introduce things, stuff starts going wrong, then they all end basically the same way. Same thing movie after movie, after movie. Half way though the new one, I actually LIKED it (more than usual at least) because it seemed like the movie was more about the characters, the humans. It wasn't oscar worthy, but I enjoyed the focus on the human characters. But it didn't last, the ending was just a new version of the same old stuff.

I liked it, but didn't love it. Saw it when it came out. It was good but not great. There was nothing I didn't like about it, but I can't quite put my finger on what it was that didn't make me love it. I am still trying to figure out how I feel about it.

I really am not a fan of Kane, but this makes sense. See what shakes out this year. See if Cozens, Mitts, and the other young guys take steps forward or regress. See if Tage can repeat his current season. Does Okposo put up 20+ goals again and seem like you want to give him a new deal or not? A lot of questions about the current roster should be answered in the first part of the year. You sign Kane next year if you must, or make a trade for him at the deadline if it makes sense for both sides.

Lyubushkin or Bryson I'd be good with not playing if an improvement is possible. Asplund I want to keep around because of his role. He appears to be the BEST on this team at doing what he does. As far as everyone else, No one is really safe of the young guys if they underperform. Let them all fight for playing time. Of course, ANYONE the Sabres aquire, I wouldn't be interested in much unless they are a long term piece. I don't want any of the young guys to be held up by a 30+ year old Vet who is marginally better than one of the younger guys.

Very low cost for low-to-mid potential reward. No real downside to this. No expectations but see how he plays in camp. More importantly, see how he plays under THIS coaching staff and THIS system. We might see what looks to be a different player when in this system.

Unless they were a team with the talent to go all the way, or at least closer than they actually did get.

That is an idiotic analogy. It is more like always having something to look forward to. If you aren't winning the cup, seeing a team grow, getting better month by month, anticipating what the players are turning into. I get it, you don't agree with it, so you are just going to take shots at anyone who doesn't agree with you. right.