PerreaultForever

Cooper claiming it was too many men on the ice. Maybe there was some uncertainty there and refs wanted to check with each other idk. https://www.sportsnet.ca/nhl/article/lightnings-cooper-says-avalanches-ot-winner-shouldnt-have-counted/

So I'm guessing Toronto fans are really regretting the Kadri deal at this point.

To reiterate about the 4th liner thing. That's where he was slotted prior to this season (even if people wanted to argue that the Girgs/Okposo/Larsson line wasn't 4th, it was) and pretty much everyone in their line projections or roster predictions for opening day has him with Girgs on a 4th line. But no real point arguing that. I agree with you on the extension and then that's the situation I don't want (but may get). It'll have an interim or temporary feel to it and it'll likely mean we're not making any bold moves to become a contender any time soon. It'll be pin steps forward and playoffs won't be in our future for several years yet. That may very well be the plan, but I personally don't think it's necessary. I think we can start winning NOW with a few additions and so I want a long term captain in there now.

A lie? I really don't think so. Adams is also all about building for the future and Tuch is the local guy that Adams brought in. Everything I saw from Tuch also spoke leader, even being one of the guys bringing RJ onto the ice on appreciation night. Giving Tuch the C enhances that idea about "guys who want to be here". Not saying Kyle doesn't, just saying Kyle is not the future. As for the 4th line objection, I'd say look over just about everyone's projections for next year's line up. Pretty much everybody has Kyle and Girgs on the 4th line. Neither one is the future of this hockey team. As for re-signing, that's a question of how much you think he has left. I'd rather move on than watch the struggling fade out like a Nick Foligno. A 2 year deal in a diminished role sure, no problem. A longer deal at mid to higher level money no thank you, that'll end up going bad.

ikr. If it helps, Bruins were my first team when I was a kid. Bobby Orr and all that. Matter of fact first game I ever watched was the St.Louis cup game with the flying through the air goal. How can you not love that? But the Sabres won me over after that with the French Connection when I could get the games on local tv from Buffalo. So the Bruins took the back seat. Only been a few years where it was a tough to watch playoff. For the most part there's been no decision to make, but when we make the playoffs again (sooner than later hopefully) and if we ever play Boston, it'll be Sabres for me. But otherwise ya, I know. Seemingly incompatible.

I've told you before, Bruins are my B team that I follow when the Sabres suck (so a lot in the last decade). The Ullmark Swayman thing is well documented. I do know what has gone on with the Sabres, and I know what Kyle wrote and said, I know all of it. I'm thinking ahead though. Projecting the team forward. Long term stability and a captain who is here long term. What happens if you give Kyle an extension. You name him captain and his play drops way off as he's too old and too slow and wants to but just can't. He's knocked right out of the starting line up by Quinn and Peterka and whoever else. So your captain, for all his heart and desire, is sitting in the press box in 2 years and you what? strip him of the C? Brian Gionta all over again. Not a scenario I want to see. Give it to the homeboy. Give it to Tuch. Let the team evolve and grow around that stable locked in piece who has already shown his leadership.

I still think this would be a big mistake. The guy might be a respected veteran but naming a 4th line player on the downside of his career as team captain would be a huge mistake for team progress. He's not a core player and he's likely deadline trade material. I still say it should be Tuch.

I don't find either odd myself. These are teams that have set the bar very high and demand more than just a good season. It's a high standard, but I'd love it if one day the Sabres could become a team with a bar set that high too. Paul Maurice is a good coach. It's a good hire. Boston's choice might be hinging on Bergeron. They can't decide if they want to go for it again (if Bergeron returns) or move into rebuild, and the coaching choice might be related to that decision.

I really don't know why some people think Ullmark would come back or that Boston wants to even move him. It's nonsense. First, I think he has a NMC. Second, Boston was not unhappy with their goaltending. The consensus view is that he will be Swayman's back up, but they have become best friends, not rivals, and it's a complimentary relationship, hugs and all. Ullmark IS NOT coming back. Sabres have to over pay Campbell and/or Husso but if neither is interested you go with best available option and hope they are adequate while also hoping they become the over paid back up to UPL in time, same as Boston's situation. The idea that Levi or Portello wouldn't sign if Buffalo has a good goalie on the roster seems weird to me and is something you don't really want. Almost every team has an established starting goalie so where does any rookie get off demanding an open spot? I don't buy that argument for a second. They will both sign. The one thing you do not do though is offer a NMC to the guy you over pay to come here. Maybe a short list of crap teams he doesn't want to go to, but not a full NMC. That could be a big mistake.

I actually think Bylsma could do a good job there and come back to the NHL in a few years the same way Cassidy did. He was good with team D and team structure. Also constructed a decent PP, if he's learned to adapt to the offensive side of the game a little he could do well. Definitely a good fit for the AHL. I know he's hated here, but I never thought it was his fault myself.

idk, maybe, but do you really think it's that difficult? Now first off, he should know better than us as he gets to talk to them one to one and can know them better than we can but some of it is kind of obvious from what we see and hear. From the top line Thompson and Tuch are no brainers. Skinner because of the contract is also here to stay (debate his core value as you see fit). Add Cozens to that for sure. On D it's Power and Dahlin and you can extend it to add Samuelsson and Jokiharju if you want. I'd also add in Krebs because of his proven leadership in junior although he isn't quite there yet at an NHL level. It would take a very good offer to pry away Quinn or Peterka so that'd be my list of no moves. That's 11 guys. I don't hate Mitts, VO or Asplund, but I don't consider them core and for the right deal they, and all others on the roster are replaceable. Give or take a name that's pretty much it. I don't particularly want to move out any other prospects or picks but none of them are proven and if we can get better now it's a consideration. Not advocating any kind of Murray style shift in philosophy, more of strategic moves balancing a roster around that core.

I wouldn't give up any real assets for him unless they were allowed to negotiate a home town friendly contract extension. I would presume IF they were actually looking to move Kane they'd have their eyes on free agency and signing others for a more immediate rebuild. They have a lot of RFAs coming up too. Which brings me to a more intriguing concept, which would be a multi player deal perhaps for Kane AND DeBrincat . If that was on the table then I'd consider some picks or prospects, maybe Mitts and/or VO or any number of possibilities. Dach might also be an interesting player to add in to a multi player deal. Chicago might not part with him but if they are impatient they might not want to re-sign him for what he wants. How to make that sort of trade work is almost impossible to speculate on as there are too many possibilities BUT the key for me would be for KA to properly identify what he sees as the true core of the team, definitely not move any of them, and then work around that with the rest. And by true core of the team you can't throw every decent player in, it's just the leaders and the ones you are relatively sure will keep developing into greatness. About 10-12 players at most.

I guess size is working against Savoie, but he is extremely talented. I could see the Flyers picking him up (they have Briere in their front office after all :)) or Detroit. Hard to say. Can't disagree with the last line, assuming Gautheir isn't there at 9.

Ya, Maroon's been a lucky bastard. After that St. Louis win he was basically just signed as cheap muscle and he gets two more cups out of it. Talk about right place right time. Not to discount his role, but guys like him are kind of interchangeable. Bogo was probably the luckiest though. Bottom to top in a hurry. Tampa's won enough. I hope it's the Avs who prevail.

It will still be 3 in a row though if Tampa loses. 3 cup final losses in a row for Corey Perry. 😉

Totally agree. No, he's not the best skater out there, but he brings other things we could use. We've already drafted for speed, and we will draft for more speed, but we need to build a complete team and I could see him being a big part of that. He won't be there at 28, I'd take him at 16 if he was still there. I figured you might say Savoie. If he did drop I think I'd take him at 9. Rather have Gauthier, but I'm taking Savoie ahead of Ohgren and the others ranked in the low teens.

It definitely was. Still, wouldn't be surprised if Tampa comes back and wins the next one 1-0 or 2-1 but we shall see. Colorado certainly looked unbeatable tonight.

If we could get Warren at 41 that'd be a steal. As I've said earlier I'd seriously consider him at 28. Admittedly high for him but I see solid potential in him in terms of filling a need (in time).

Why don't you think Gautheir will be there at 9? That's generally around where he is ranked. Who are you dropping off (maybe I'd take that guy)? Ohgren at 9 and McGroarty at 16 is likely too high for both of them BUT it's not a terrible idea. I'd be content with that plan. Ohgren MIGHT be there at 16, stress might. McGroarty almost definitely not there at 28. Trade down (just a little) at 16? Might work. Risky, but drafts always are. I really think McGroarty could be the sleeper pick in this draft (in that he will end up as a better player than several picks ahead of him in time) so I'd really like to see him in blue and gold so the more I think about it I'd say yes, take him at 16.

I really hope we land McGroarty. Looking at final rankings around I doubt it though. Probably fall between our 2 later picks. Gauthier would be fine at 9. If we landed Gauthier, Ohgren and McGroarty with the 3 picks I'd be ecstatic.

Not a chance.

Bruins interviewing Quinn. They hire him and maybe start the clock on the Eichel trade to Boston (especially after he gets pissed off when Cassidy benches him for quitting on a back check). They keep talking about getting Hall a center. and they're good buddies now 🙂

Disgruntled Bruins fans did refer to him as Butch (and Sweeney as Sundance)

Well I think we were his only offer, simple as that. It's a pretty good pay cheque so yes, some will keep going until they really can't. I hear Jagr wants to try the NHL again. Doubt there's any takers but you never know. See if anyone wants Chara next year too. bet you he'd come if we offered. It's simply good money to play a game. That's true too. The 300 wins mattered to him for sure. You're absolutely right I think on the higher AAV and term. We still should though. We need a goalie.

It's not surprising really that UFAs and UFA goalies "rebuffed" them last year. We were trading away our big names, we had the Jack problem, and we looked like a tank team. Who wants to be part of that? Hence they should have made a trade with one of those 3 goalie teams. There were options. BUT, the interesting thing will be whether or not the perception has changed yet. The team is different now. It feels like it's ready to rise. Will UFAs out there feel the same way as we do, or will they still see us as what we've been and go anywhere else? That's the big question I guess.