mjd1001

Yes May. No one knows for sure. If someone could know for certain what moves would work and which ones wouldn't, that team would likely win the cup every year. I don't know. The Sabres don't know. No other team knows. You don't know. The point that the original poster that I responded to made is that moves ARE getting made. That is it. This forum, in general, has complained for a long time that not enough moves are being made. Well, now they are.

Trading the captain MAY have made the team better (he wasn't playing well at all, and not that many minutes. Trading his leading scorer may make the team better in the long term. Cutting the highest paid player again, may make the team better. So are they moved guaranteed to make the team much better? No, but they are things that MIGHT in the long term, so to the point of the original poster, many on here complain they want him to do SOMETHING, and he certainly has done SOMETHING, and its up to the future to see if those moves are correct.

Except, with their first pick in the draft the Sabes selected: -last year (2023), a Canadian -2022, a Canadian -2021, a Canadian -2020, a Canadian -2019, a Canadian So in reference to a thread that is talkin about who they will pick with their first selection in the first round.....why exactly are saying you suspect Adams will pick ANOTHER one? If you want to pick on Adams there are ways to do it other than to say things that don't have any basis in fact.

Also, I legit wonder if there is something really unexpected going to happen. The Sabres trade a younger asset (one most on this board REALLY like) because they just think the ceiling is a bit lower than we all do, or they know the young guy is good but they see a different direction they want to go. I'm talking a trade involving a Benson, Cozens, Bryam, Power, Quinn..... I don't WANT to trade any of them, but maybe, just maybe (especially with Ruff's input), they just see something and they feel those guys have a ceiling 10% lower than we all think they do, and they move them out for a MAJOR asset in return they think will fit better? Again, I'm not predicting that will happen, but this offseason it wouldn't shock me.

First of all, I think Skinner has more value as a goal scorer and I don't think is negatives are THAT bad so I would want to keep him, at least for another year...But... He was not and never was going to be useful on a 4th line. So, he is/would be one of your top 6 wingers. Tuch, Greenway, Benson, Peterka, and Quinn are going to be in 5 or those 6 spots. That leave Skinner competing with a trade/free agent aquisition, and ALL of the young guys trying to make this roster. When you consider his total 100 foot game, maybe the Sabres don't hate Skinner and want him gone yesterday...maybe its as simple as paying a guy who is now at an age he might be declining that much...when realistically you think you might get MORE from that trade/free agent guy and/or the young guys.

In no way am I saying you do not want McDavid or Draisatil on your team, of course they are great players and you would be lucky to have them. BUT....this might be just one example of a team with overall depth being a bit better in some ways....those 'superstars' are going to be targets, and IF they get injured, there is less behind them to pick up the slack. In the playoffs when you are playing a team with superstar(s), it just goes to show it might be more important than every just to hammer them over and over and over and over.

So, maybe the scheduling geniuses in the NHL will get it through their heads that a lot of people want to see STAR PLAYERS, not just teams from big markets. Get McDavid (and all the other stars from out west) to have their games that start at 7 or 7:30 (east coast road games) on national TV as much as possible next year. More Edmonton and Colorado. Less Philly.

I'm not sold on Markstrom as being the answer, but if they get Pesce, have Markstrom, and have any injury luck at all, I think Jersey next year is at the top of the conference, with a little luck in the running for a president's trophy.

I really can't form an opinion on this deal. Its SLIGHTLY less than I thought I guess. With Mitts though, I never got a good 'read' on him.

If they are going to trade a younger 'asset' or two, I'd rather they keep THIS pick and trade one of the guys in the pipeline already. You have a bunch of guys 19-21 years old now, keep one or two of them and trade one or two of them, but keep the 'pipeline' going by adding that 17-18 year old.

I agree with you. Perreault was that good. I also think people tend to forget about Pierre Turgeon. 19 Seasons (only 4 with Buffalo). Over 500 goals. 1300+ points. A 58 goal, 132 point season where he won the Lady Byng and I think was in the top 3 or 5 for the Hart trophy. 15 seasons making the playoffs, over 100 playoff points. He had 30 goal seasons in the 80's, 90's and 2000's. The fact he was only in Buffalo for 4 seasons and split his career across 6 different teams takes a bit away from what most people think about him, but he was really good. Not Perreault good, but much better than people seem to remember.

-Silayev is at the top of my wishlist.....assuming Celebrini, Demidov, Levshonov, Buium and Lindstrom are already drafted. -Yakemchuk is who I THINK they will pick at 11, based on who I think will be gone already. Do they need a D-mean right now? Nope, but I don't think anyone picked here this year is going to be ready for the team in the next year or two. This pick is for 3-4 years (at least) down the road. I think Yakemchuk will be a blend of 'best player available' and "who actually IS available'. -Parekh will be long gone of the choices of who won't be there. Dickinson also won't be there. Sennecke and Catton I think will be gone too but there is a chance they slide. Everyone else on you list I think is a greater than 50% chance or better of still being there. Chernyshov will be there for sure and taking him at 11 would be a big-time reach.

I'm going to add to that the season should start Oct 1, the regular season needs to be shorted by a few games. As much as I love hockey, its just not right/natural watching the Cup finals when we are officially in Summer and its been 90+ degrees outside most of the last few days.

ON this message board maybe. But I would not say for sure a 'sizeable majority' desire it. I get the impression that when I talk to 'casual' fans, or even some people who go to games but don't follow the every day ins-and-outs, my impression is he is quite popular among them, I'd guess if you include the entire fan base, well under half would actively want him gone.

The more I think of this, I can't come off of the fact that I don't like the idea of buying him out. I'm trying to justify what they are thinking...and I'm kinda thinking out loud/thinking as I type this: -Tuch, Benson, Quinn, Peterka, Greenway are all probably on this team next season on the wing, and not on the 4th line. Are you planning on one of the young guys here also? Savoi, Kulich, or Rosen all CAN play wing (and that might be the place to break them into the NHL, not at Center). Add to that you might bring in a guy for wing via trade or free agency. Skinner, nor any of the above guys are meant for your 4th line (MAYBE Greenway, but I think you are more happy with him on a 3rd line), so that gives you potentially 7 Wingers for your top 3 lines WITHOUT Skinner. -I know Skinner isn't known for his defense, but he also doesn't make huge giveaways in his own zone (I know, because he often even isn't IN his own zone), and as a 'plus' he is still a 25-30 goal scorer and one of the FEW guys that will go to the net/score goals from there (something Ruff has said he Wants/needs the entire forward team do do better). Tuch, Quinn, Peterka I think you have pencled in as legitimate scorers on this roster from the wing (at least you are hoping/counting on that). You need 3 more wingers for those top 3 ilnes. Between Benson, Greenway, a trade/free agent target, Savoi, Kulich, and Rosen....you have 6 guys there. Can you count on 3 of them (maybe 4 counting for injuries) being BETTER all around players than Skinner? I guess that must be what they are thinking (or something similar to it). For me I still don't like the idea of buying him out. But if they do, and Adams trades for a 20-something year old veteran who you think is going to get over 20 goals for you and play a better 2-way game.....IF, IF that happens, well then OK, buy out Skinner.

Not the Sabres area of strength. Outside of the first round since the 2010 Draft: -Olofsson 90 Career goals for the Sabres -Peterka: 40 Career goals for the Sabres -85 other players drafted combined: 49 career goals for the Sabres Yeah, the vast majority of the teams in the league get their prime talent in the 1st round, but the Sabres in recent years, they have been pretty awful anywhere other than the first round.

This applies to many job, but paying anyone the most money to attract the best people doesn't always work. Pay them too little and yes, qualified people will look elsewhere. But you need a middle ground. In any profession, pay them 'a lot' (teachers, police, engineers, etc) and you end up getting people who don't do the job because they care for the professoin or have a love for it, but instead they get into the field just for the money.

I struggle to think of why you would do this now instead of waiting another year. The Sabres have some potentially big contracts/decisions upcoming in the next few years. They have cap room THIS year to pay him. Why buy him out now, which will make the upcoming years a lot worse on the cap than simply waiting another year? You don't want to play him, then "Ralph Krueger" him, but a buyout this year instead of next year makes little sense to me.

I totally agree with the bolded. In fact, if it is fast paced, high scoring game, I often don't like when 'one side' decides to start a fight to 'change the tone' if they can't keep up. With that said, if fighting is still a part of the league, them I'm good with them adding a guy who is pretty good at it. Hopefully this guy won't go out there and start them just because 'that is his job', but maybe having a guy is a bit of a deterrent to the other team.

I agree with almost everything you say. People tend to equate 'culture' with 'big cities' and that isn't always true. What is 'culture'? Do you judge a city on quantity of culture or quality of culture. In many/most cases it simply becomes a contest of people comparing' their' city to 'other places', not by what 'culture' they like, but by what they can look up on a list to defend their argument. Plus we all have things we like. I tried, I really did but for the life of me I do not get art and find art galleries to be a terrible chore to even walk through. But other people Love that stuff. I like history, others find it boring. Like many others we travel a decent amount (a few times a year) and in the last 6-8 years have spent time in NY city, Boston, Philly, Miami, Atlanta, Los Angeles, Chicago, and other places. Toronto and NY city I just don't get either. We went there (a few times) we tried. Its not that I just didn't love them.....I actually disliked much of what we did in those 2 places despite their 'culture'. Boston and Philly on the other hand are my 2 favorite cities, nothing else is even close. My point is we all have what we like and don't like. Buffalo may not have the 'type' of culture someone likes...or it may not have 'highly ranked' or 'highly visited' cultural sites, but that doesn't me it doesn't have them, or that the ones here aren't just as good or even better (for some people) than ones that are on the top of the tripadvisor rankings simply because they are 'bigger' or 'more expensive' in big cities.

No you don't, but apparently it makes you feel better when you shout at them because you are 'owning them'. I shouldn't be surprised as it seems to be a condition of many humans, but I swear when it comes to politics people will convince themselves to follow a policy they initially didn't agree with because "their side" supports that issue and it is more important to cheer and scream for 'your team' than it is to do what is actually good for you (and this applies to both sides.). The worst part is, and I think we are all seeing this more and more..is when people shout at you, people make jokes, people cause confrontations NOT based on an issue they truly believe in, but rather they want to support an issue simply because it makes 'the other side' mad. They would rather hurt or anger people who don't agree with them over doing what actually is good for themselves.

I don't have a major problem with the trades or what they got in return. The issue isn't 'did it make us better' right now. To me its more 'did it make us better for where we want to go WHEN we want to get there.'

Its tough to project those things. Overall I agree with you that I would not pay as much for him as some are saying. The worse you posted, they could apply almost exactly to Dylan Cozens so far in his career also. His shooting percentages by year include numbers of 9%, 8.1%, and 6.5%. Oh, he had ONE year at 14.7% (More than 70% higher than all of his other years combined), and he got paid a pretty good contract off of that ONE good year. Was it the correct decision, I guess we still don't know.

I don't think it makes a difference. Most guys after round 4 hardly make an impact on the teams they are drafted by. And as far as the guys who are late picks who DO make an impact? The draft or lack of it will have little to do with it. If you weren't drafted by round 4, that means that NO-ONE (not even the teams that players 'gravitate' to) thought you were good enough to be a top 120+ pick in the draft. If you are one of those guys and DO turn out to be good, its just as likely it will be with a team that signs you as a free agent that isn't a 'desirable' or 'big market' team as any other team....each team can only have a certain number of contracts anyway. If there is a guy that you might think is going to be very good, then just draft him in the first 4 rounds. Its a lotter after that anyway.

I view it as just the opposite. Do I agree with every political decision made here (or anywhere for that matter)? No. But the 'politics', the laws passed, don't really have a major negative impact on my life day to day here in WNY. Florida (among other areas we visit) on the other had...to me is much worse. I lived there 2 times in my life for quite a few years. Most of my in-laws still live there. We own a house there we still rent. We go there a couple times a year and I'll take the 'political climate' in WNY any day of the week, and it has little to do with what 'side' I am on (I truly am a centrist on most issues, which means right now I hate both of our potential candidates for president as a choice)...and this is what I mean: When we visit florida, Politics are all over the place (much more than WNY). More political signs on people's lawn. More bumper stickers. More cars and trucks decorated with the name of your 'chosen candidate' (for the life of me I have no idea what you want to literally paint someone else's name on your vehicle.) Go to a McDonalds or a Panera in the morning for coffee and you see a group of people sitting in the corner just talking politics..and making SURE they talk loud enough so everyone hears their opinion. Same at the supermarket. My in-laws neighbors, they like to come over when we show up, say hello, and then IMMEDIATLY start talking about politics. Yeah, people I hardly know that see us 2 times a year. And this is my favorite one. People LOVE to tell you their side of politics (without you caring or asking), go in depth about it, and then they ask you if you agree with them. I could be 'kinda' on the same side of the issues as they are, but if they bring up 4 points and I agree with 3 of them, then they get mad, call you names and walk away because obviously i'm an 'idiot' for not agreeing with all 4 of their points. Yes, you get that all over, even here in WNY, but I get a LOT less of it here compared to when I have to go to Florida and other areas to visit 2-3 times per year. I think its just the opposite of politics ruining WNY, Politics have NOT ruined my lifestyle here compared to what I need to put up with in other places. I would much, MUCH rather have to deal with some political laws that I don't agree with but also don't really impact my day to day life in a major way that much....than live in a place where I simply cannot get away from confrontational people that are very public with you and in-your-face about politics.