mjd1001

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.

Gullible fans? Why are we gullible when some of us ENJOY the team building aspect of the sport, we ENJOY watching a young team grow together even if it takes a few years. On this very forum over the years, I was against the moves Tim Murray was making to 'speed up' the rebuild, I'd much rather watch to see how a team develops this way. But I guess anyone who actually enjoys the process I described above....well it doesn't matter if we enjoy that or not, we are just gullible for not wanting to win now. 🙄

As many of stated on Twitter so far...St. Louis was a favorite because his father played there. Other than that, all the teams listed are teams with no state tax so he can maximize how much he makes. No Colorado. No Toronto, No Carolina. No Rangers. Surprised Tampa isn't on the list. So its not a 'guarantee' that money is all he cares about, but there sure is a lot of circumstantial evidence that money is #1 by far, and everything else is distant. Not the kind of guy I'd want the Sabres in on, so if this list is accurate, good.

Nothing against Calgary as a city, there are some things there that are nice I'm sure and the city has personality, but there is a lot going against it: -Canadian City. You have to deal with the Canadian Dollar, and both Tkachuk and Johnny G are from the USA. -Travel, when you pay for Calgary, you have a LOT of travel. You visit 1 team that has less than 60 minutes in the air in a Flight (Edmonton). For Family/friends from other areas of North America, there are few places you can get a direct flight from to visit you/see you play. Other than Edmonton, you have no NHL cities within less than a 10 hour drive/1 hour flight. By comparison, Buffalo (and a lot of other NHL cities probably) have 1/3 of the entire league in less than that distance. -Weather. Sure, as a player you are traveling a lot and working, but your family? Either they don't live with you for 1/2 the year, or during the season, they live in an area where the temperatures can be Brutal (much worse than Buffalo, Toronto, Chicago, Boston, etc) Sure if you are a young Canadian Boy who is used to it and is from the area fine, but try telling your wife/kids/family who didn't group up in that area they have to stay there for the next 6-8 years when there are other options. This doesn't mean that no-one will play there, they will, but there will be times where you are going to have young guys who want to move on when they have a chance to, more so here than in other cities.

I agree. He is a very good player, and he had a great year, but what are you paying for? A guy who in the last 4 years finished 9th in goals one year, and then well down the list in every other year. I'm interested to see where he gets traded, because if he is going to a top 5 team and he puts them over the top then good for him, but anything other than a top 5 team who can win the cup next year, I have a feeling that whoever trades for him and pays him will have regrets a couple years into his new deal.

I hope that is true and for a few reasons: -First, I think he is a very good/great player. I'm not saying he isn't, I'm just saying that I'm likely not interested in him. -I don't think you'll be getting him for 7-8m per year. I think he is the type of guy who is going to want to maximize his contract. I think you are looking at something in the area of 7x$10m or 8x$11m. 12%+ of a cap figure for him is not something I want to do. Why? -He puts up goals. That is true. He is only 24. But we aren't talking about McDavid or Matthew levels of production here. In the last 4 years, in goals he has finished: 9th in the league, tied for 81st in the league, tied for 48th in the league, and tied for 25th in the league. If, IF his BEST year is what you are going to get every single year going forward (9th in the league), I still don't want to take 12% of my cap for that. I want year in, year out top 5 in the league in goals for 12% of the cap. I'm getting top 10 with him, if and ONLY if he repeats his very best year and you ignore every other year of his production. -If you want to compete for the cup every year, we are seeing the last few years you have to outperform your cap figure as a team. It isn't enough just to get great players, you have to have them fit under the cap well enough to have many of them. This year Colorado had McKinnon playing WELL UNDER what he should have earned based on his production. Last year Tampa did cap-gymnastics to ice a team that was better than the cap would dictate. -So yes, the first thing you need to do is to secure great players, and Tkachuck is a very good/possibly a great player. But unless you can get him for at least PART of his contract to outperform his contract, then it isn't going to get you close enough to winning the cup. For the deal I THINK he wants to sign, I just don't see him ever having a year where he drastically outperforms the deal. To be a great team, you not only need good players, but you need a good number of your top 10 players to outperform their pay.

Sometime it is good business, sometime it isn't. If your fanbase needs a jolt (reason to come to the Arena because you aren't selling out, Jersey sales), AND that player is one who can legit carry your team, it is usually a good move. When you are up against the cap AND you are buying a guy who is possibly damaged physically (at least short term) AND you are already selling out your games, not so much.

The way I look at it is your prospect pool is a bunch of lottery tickets. When they are higher draft picks or 'higher rated' (by whoever knows more than I do), then those are lottery tickets that have a better-than-average chance of paying off. That does not mean they will. Their 'prospect pool' 5-7 years ago may have been highly rated and did not pay off, but that doesn't mean this group won't pay off (or that they will). Bottom line is, you are better off having more prospects, having more 'lottery tickets' and 'good lottery tickets' than not having them. Just because it didn't work in the past for this team doesn't mean it won't in the future.....and I personally would RATHER have the deeper/higher rated system than not have it.

I kinda agree. I have very little interest in him. IF you could get him with a deal that doesn't take away too much, and more importantly, a long term contract that isn't way too high then maybe. But that is the problem he is the kind of guy that has shown he is all about getting the most for himself. He'd make the team better on the ice, but what are you giving up for him? Is what you are giving up in the long term going to be more than what he gives you back? Even if it wasn't, he's just not the type of player I like. If he was a Sabre sure I'd want him to do well, but it would be only because he was a Sabre, not because he would be likeable at all to me.

Why should anyone care? Having a great prospect pool does not guarantee success, but it does help. It is just one of many factors that determine how good a team is. Just because having a 'top rated' prospect pool in the past didn't equate to a great team a few years ago....that is no reason to dismiss it as not mattering. It is one factor, and to be good you want to have as many of those 'factors' as you can.

From the little bit of social media and post draft coverage I have watched, it appears that Ottawa fans are SURE they are the best among the 3, Detroit fans are sure they are, and Buffalo fans mostly think they are. Pretty standard post draft stuff. Ottawa made some major additions, but I have the least confidence in them. I agree Giroux may be out of gas. He is done as an impact player and Ottawa may find they need to give him less ice time by the end of the year because they simply have better options. If you are one that likes to see the Vegas odd for who will be better, as of this weekend, a site I saw had Ottawa listed as 18th in terms of Stanley Cup favorites, with the Sabres at 19 (tied with Detroit, Nashville, Jersey, and Vancouver) FYI, Colorado was the favorite followed by Toronto 2nd.....Arizona was at the bottom, 2nd last tied with Seattle, San Jose, Chicago, and Montreal.

Everyone has their opinion, I get it. I lived on Boston 2 times my life for quite a few years. I was never a fan of the teams there but of course went to some games and was exposed to their behavior and talk shows: 1. Pats fans. As bad as everyone thinks. I have posted in this thread before I have good friends that live near Boston and my office for work is there, and there are some really great people but they turn into world class A-holes if you bring up the Pats or football. 2. Red sox fans. Almost as bad as Pats fans but not quite there. Being at a few Redsox-Yankees games in Fenway over the years and being to one Sox-Yanks game in the Bronx, I can say as bad as Red Sox fans are, Yankee fans can be a lot worse (and I was/am one of them). At both stadiums, the New Yorkers were the ruder, cruder, fight starting agitators vs the Red Sox fans in almost everything I saw. Again, living in Boston for a while many of the people there are decent people who turn into idiots when in a sports setting. However it seems that there are just more New Yorkers (NYCity) who are just plain bad people/idiots and sports brings that out of them even more. 3. Bruins. Fans I don't think are as bad as everyone makes them out to be. Slightly more annoying than average but not that bad. It can be the media/beat reporters that follow the team that are worse than the fans, and the TV/Radio broadcasters are Awful. When Dale Arnold did games he was actually pretty great, but I think most people will agree that Jack Edwards is possibly the worst, most 'homer' play by play guy in the history of sports. 4. Celtics. No problem with Celtics fans. They can be annoying as any other fanbase when they are good, but I don't think they go beyond it. As for the Leafs, Their fanbase to me is the most annoying in Hockey for sure, and it rivals Pats fans in terms of all sports. (With Yankee fans with an '*'. Yankee fans aren't that bad from around the country, it is the ones that just reside in NY city that are really bad).

I'll add to that it is about 'quantity' vs 'quality' in term of how you rank them. If you rank them in terms of 'quantity' with your cuttoff point in terms of quality being guys who are good enough to just make the NHL? Or is that 'quality' giving very little weight to guys who might make the NHL and mostly focusing on guys you think can legit be difference makers at the highest level (top 1-2 line guys or top 2 d-men?)

For me it is the other way around. Personally I always had loyalty to the player. Never wanted to see them traded. Bruce and Thurman and Andre should have been life long Bills and I blamed the franchise for not making that happen. However, that has changed a bit for myself. I think it started with the NBA..I just have gotten so tired of hearing players tell fans (through the media) how the players don't view themselves and just 'players' but they need to treat themselves as businesses. Like Kevin Durant getting a huge deal from the Nets and then one year later trying to force a trade to another contender because it is a 'business'. I know this can go both ways, but I used to always side with the players. That is changing for me. In the end, players come and go no matter what, it is the city/team that I end up rooting for the most. I don't want to see my team hold onto or give into any player 'too much' at the expense of the team.

I'm prepared to be wrong, but I think Giroux is almost done. Too many miles on the tires, the games I saw him play last year he looked to be a shadow of what he was. If he puts in 25 goals, I'll admit I am wrong but if Ottawa is planning on him in that role, I think they will be upset. The fact that both of these teams made a lot of what they think will be 'key' outside additions might be something that takes them a few weeks to 'gel'. I expect the Sabres, being what we are told is a 'tight knit group', having an advantage there.

Not really. I'm willing to go into camp and maybe the beginning of the season with what his here. If, IF something falls in your lap (you are offered a deal you cannot believe how good it is), then maybe you take that...no idea what that would look like though. Other than that, keep your flexibility. As the season develops leading up to the trade deadline, there will be injuries to other teams they want to fill...there will be teams that were hoping to compete who will not and might be willing to sell. Keep your flexibility while seeing how what you have develops.

Basically an even plus minus usually puts you in the playoff conversation. Look at the league standings over the last few years and it amazes me just how that plus/minus line is very close to the line for who makes and who doesn't make the playoffs. Dahlin playing a full season the way he played the 2nd half of last season, and MAYBE maturing to be an even slightly better play should knock 5-10 goals off (1 per month) of the goals allowed for the year (due to him controlling play, getting the puck out of the zone, and doing that for 40% of all ice time). The rest of a young D-core getting better hopefully knocks another 5 goals off (less than 1 per month isn't much to ask). Maybe another 5-10 goals off due to the forward maturing and playing better defensively (again, 1-2 per month). Can you expect better goaltending to get you another 20 goals less for the entire year? (3-4 per month less) That should be a reasonable hope. The above potentially gets you to 40 less goals allowed. Now can you get another 30 goals scored for the year? All that would make you positive in terms of goal differential for a team and that usually gets you in the 90-95 point range and into playoff contention)