mjd1001

There you go, gave you one immediately above in case you were missing it.

Yeah, 'sales' can be your friend. When I shop, I rarely buy stuff that isn't on sale, especially when those items go on sale on a regular basis and there is a big difference in price. When you shop every week, you start to understand the trends. When something we use is on sale, I stock up on a bunch of them and it gets stored in the pantry, basement, or back of the freezer. I can't imagine shopping for groceries any other way. Yet, our daughter and her boyfriend....they just buy whatever they want regardless of the price. If they had a bag or doritos every week, they simply buy one per week. The week they are on sale, do they buy more? Nope, its like they don't even look at prices at all, they look at what they want and in the cart it goes.

I agree. A win for your team is what you want, but a hard fought Defensive game with low scoring....for me that isn't entertaining. I'll have fun analyzing defensive positioning or how a goalie handles angles with relation to his D-men on a rush against when watching replays or after the game. When I'm just watching, I want scoring.

Statistics aren't always giving you 100% of the story, but they can paint a pretty good picture. As far as playoff production goes: Draisaitl: 23% MORE points per game in the playoffs than in the regular season. McDavid: 4% MORE points per game in the playoffs than in the regular season (and that regular season total is very high to start with) McKinnon: 12% MORE points per game in the playoffs than in the regular season Kucherov: 6% LESS points per game in the playoffs than in the regular season. Matthews: 24% LESS points per game in the playoffs than in the regular season. And its not just points. Goals scored is down 35% in the playoffs vs the regular season. Add to that the fact that his team, over 60+ games, has a better record (point percentage) when he doesn't play vs when he does play...and you have yourself a VERY talented, very good player that has something major missing.

Not that Matthews is a bad player at all, but its not just this year....Through his entire career, the team has actaully played better in games that he has missed than in games that he has played. The last numbers I saw is that the team plays at a nearly 110 point pace when he doesn't play, and that is with over 60 games of a sample size. I'm not sure if that included this years numbers or not..but if it didn't then those point totals would be even higher. Some if it is luck. Some of it is 'small sample size'. But over his career that sample size is growing and it keeps going the same way. It could simply be without him in the lineup, maybe other guys who are 'damned good players' step up and take more of a leadership role in the room (which HE steps into when he is in the room) or other guys feel 'more free' on the ice to 'play their game' vs when Matthews is there and a lot of things are deferred to him or have to run through him? Again, I'd much rather have him than not, but maybe his impact on the team in a posisitve way is a tad bit less in reality than his stats would make you belelive.

Which is why many of us think 'culture' is over-rated. Yes, if you have a TOXIC culture its bad and that is possible. But if you don't have that, then a lot of times a 'good' culture is there simply because you are winning. I know if I'm playing on a team that is winning, or working for a company that is doing really, REALLY well, that will cover up for a lot of 'bad' things going on. When you are losing, or your company is failing, the little things that can add up to a 'bad culture' no longer are getting swept under the rug.

Supervisors/bosses at work who lie and HR depts that cover up for them. I have this constant battle with my boss at work. The bottom line is this: Give me my schedule BEFORE the morning I have to travel to a location, Be on time when you say you are going to meet me, and when YOU are running late, do not tell me to 'clock out' while I wait for you (because the company cannot afford to pay me to do no work), go 'grab a coffee or something' and wait for her. So this has been going on the better part of 2 years. I have text messages and call logs (not recordings but proof we have talked). But whenever HR gets involved I tell them what is going on and their response is usally "We already talked to your supervisor and that is not what she said" to which I follow up with "I have proof, text messages that I can forward to you" and they respond "No, thats not necessary" I used to be in a similar supervisor position years ago. I stepped down, because I didn't think the money was worth the aggravation. Now the current supervisor cannot be on time to save her life (our scheduled conference calls have us waiting usually anywhere form 2-10 minutes for her to show up) and when she does something wrong and you call her out on it, she just accuses you of lying.

People who want Adams gone can best make their argument that its the GM's fault for the organizations woes currently. Lots of stuff out there about Pegula being involed in on-ice decisions, quotes and stories about him wanting to fire Botts because "the pegulas" weren't having their input taken into consideration enough by the hockey department. Pegula meddles, its likely every decision has to be run by him and he has major input in the bigger ones, and even suggests stuff. But yeah, if you want to blame Adams, it doesn't really support your case to look at the history of what Pegula has done to this franchise.

This is in another thread, but if you promote from within, are you getting anything different at all? All indications are that Adams is not the dictator of hockey decisions. Every trade, every scouting session, every draft pick is really a 'group think' project. Adams (if he does have any power below Pegula) is not much more than the tie-breaking vote. If Adams is gone but his spot is just taken by one of the people below him, I don't see anything changing.

If I understand you correctly....I like your point. Many people look at a young player and say "he is better than what we have right now as our 10th forward so play him now!". To me I'd rather not do that. Even though you might THINK you need him now, I'd rather look at a young player and say "what development path makes him the best player in 2-3 years from now".

https://www.cnbc.com/2024/11/20/cnbc-official-nhl-team-valuations-2024.html Toronto $4 Billon, Rangers$3.5b, Montreal $3.1b, Kings $2.85b, Bruins $2.75 most valuable teams. Least Valuable? Columbus at $1b. Sabres are 3rd least valuable at $1.15 Top teams (top 4) all at over $300m in revenue per year. Buffalo listed at $169m in revenue. EBIDTA, 3 teams showed a loss (Columbus, Utah, San Jose). Buffalo was a small positive there at $15.8m. Top teams all over $100m EBIDTA, Edmonton actually tops in the league at $156m Sabres have one of the lowest debt ratios at 4%.

I still remember living it for that half season. pretty vividly. How many games did they actually play for the Sabres? couldn't have been more than 40 though.

The flawed assumption is that Pegula will hire a good GM. I think he wants a GM that will allow him to have 'his say'. As was posted last week, there are several articles, and even direct quotes from the Pegulas that the primary reason they fired Botts is because the hockey dept headed by him wasn't 'listening' to the Pegulas as much as they wanted. So...you hire Adams who is basically the mouthpiece for them. Was Botts a good GM? I don't know, but the primary reason he was fired is that the Pegulas thought they were being 'shut out' of hockey decisions by him. They said that directly.

I dont' think thats it. Terry hired a good GM for the Bills sure, but has he hired so many bad GM's in a row for the Sabres? Or is it that he wants to kinda 'play GM himself' to an extent with the Sabres and keeps screwing it up? I think it is more of the latter. What?

If you are referring to the difference between the success of the Bills and the Sabres, I don't really think so: -There are more layers and complexity between the owner and the roster in the NFL than in the NHL. 'meddling' is a bit harder in the NFL (to have as much of an impact) -Josh Allen. Without him I doubt this bills team would be in the playoffs all these years. But a great QB you (or your staff) stumbles upon can do that in the NFL. In the NHL, unless your last name is Hasek and you are in your prime, one 'lucky' or 'random' draft pick turning into a star doesn't grant you that same level of success. -The Bills are his 'shiny new toy' compared to the Sabres. He gets more attention from them, and right now they are doing better, so its a lot easier for him to want to cut costs with the Sabres and try to 'do things on the cheap' than it would be with the Bills.

And a move to Toronto probably makes them a LOT more valuable than the median/average NFL team.

There is a case to be made that a 'non fan' owner who 'kinda wants to win but only to make money' might be the best owner. They are less likely to meddle. They are more likely to hire the best people the run the team and stay out of their way. When things go bad, they are more likely to not be 'too close' to the team or the players (as a fan) and just want to make changes to get things better. None of this "I'm an owner and I LOVE hockey and I know a lot about it, listen to me!" or none of this "So and so as a player or coach is the kind a player coach I like so lets give them a longer chance". I don't know if this has ever happened (probably not) but if a guy bought your favorite team and said the following: -I'm not a huge fan of the sport but I want to own a pro sports team so here I am -I'm love money and want to make money, but I know the way to make the MOST money is to have long playoff runs -I'm going to hire the best people for the job, and if they don't do the job I will evaluate them with ruthless, efficient honesty How many of us would rather have a 'fan' like Pegula over an owner like that? There are some teams that are run by/with 'corporate efficiency', some with good results, some with bad :Atlanta Braves, Maple Leafs and Blue Jays, but would that really be worse than what we have here now in the Sabres?

I guess a good vibe: As mad, frustrated as I was by the loss the other day, time going by helps. I've 'kinda' forgoton about it and I'm just ready for the next game...thinking like usual there is close to a 50-50 chance of me seeing them win, and that is all I expect when I tune in to watch them.

I get it, I can understand your point of view. If going to the game was the only way I could see it (no high def TV at home) then I would think the KBC would be fine. I just found personally...I can watch and follow the game better at home now than I could in the past vs going to the game.

A big mistake by Boston finally? Elias Lindholm -He has 2 goals through 20 games for Boston so far (8 goal, 36 point pace per 82) -Last year he had a total of 15 goals and 29 assists, and was a -14 for the year. -hasn't scored more than 22 goals in a season since 2021-22, when he started the year at 25 years old. -He is going to be 30 in a couple weeks. He is in the first year of a $7.75 million dollar per year deal that goes for 7 more years. -So far this year he has been an anchor (a bad one) for Boston. His deal will run out when he is 37 years old. He is getting paid more than Tage, and already is beyond his 'statistical' peak.

I have not been to Vegas or Nashville in the arena. I have been to Little Ceasars in Detroit, and over the past decade most recently in Columbus, Boston, and Pittsburgh and they all blow away the KBC. In Buffalo, I go to my seats and thats it, when the game is over leave. In those other arenas, its an experience. I have fun in the arena, I want to see what is going on outside them, I could just walk around and look at the different levels and viewpoints. So Yes, KBC does its job for being a place to watch hocky. But as I said above, if I am ONLY interested in the game....I get the best viewing experience at home. I go to the arena for the game, and a night out, and to see the game and enjoy other things...and KBC is seriously lacking compared to other places around the league.

An outside owner from a big city with deep pockets doesn't care about a $2b stadium in Buffalo. Especially when a market that might be 5 to 10 times the size that will builid a $5B stadium to lure them away is waiting.

And Ovechkin with 2 more tonight. 5 goals in the last 2 days. Leading the league. 15 goals in 18 games. Thats nearly a 70 goal pace. I know he's not going to keep up that pace, but its really beyond understanding how he is doing it at 39 years old (and looks like he's closing in on 50)

If I like Hockey, i'm watching it at home. I get access to my computer, better replays, High def gives me a better view of the game than most seats in the arena. As a pure 'fan', I can watch, analyze, and enjoy 'the game' better at home. I can go to NHL.com and watch the replay of every goal minutes after it was scored, from numerous angles, and go frame-by-frame if I want. I would primarily go to the Arena over watching the game at home for the Arena experience and atmosphere.. Just as a hockey fan, only caring about the game, I get the better experience at home. The only way you drag me to the Arena is for the extras, the amenities, etc. Its not like 20+ years ago when the TV broadcast had a total of 4 cameras (maybe), low-def, and many of we were watching it on 27 inch or less TV screens, while the older Arenas in the league had you sit CLOSER to the ice than the current ones.

Yeah, the common theme is "but they have a new stadium, they aren't going anywhere". Maybe for a bit, and we aren't worried about the next 5-10 years... But a $2billion dollar stadium in a metro area with 1 million people isn't going to anchor a team here. We already have had $5+ billion dollar stadiums (Sofi) and Allegiant field in Vegas would probably cost $3-$4B today if it was started. If Toronto had an opportunity for a team, I don't think I would put it by anyone to build a $5-$6Billion dollar stadium that would generate the owners and the NFL so much revenue, plus the region has about 5-7 times the population, and probably 20 times the wealth. I'm not trying to start a doom-and-gloom thread here....the hopful scenario is that the team stays in the Pegula family for the next generation. But that new stadium won't do much to keep the team in WNY beyond 10 years past its opening. The good news about the story above is that it says its investors with ties to the STATE of NY (doesn't necessarily mean NY city money). State of NY could be people with ties to upstate/WNY.