JohnC

The issue over the conditional pick is a miniscule issue. It is between getting a first round pick if conditions are met as opposed to getting a second round pick if the Jack playing time isn't met. The substantive return are the two top tiers prospects plus the first round pick in 2022. As for as retaining salaries I'm sure that the 2.5 m can be negotiated down to between 1.5-2.0 M. Very often when a high salaried player is dealt the sending team is required to take back another player/contract. So retaining salary is not much different from adding a contract in order to get a deal consummated. As the saying goes: Let's not let perfect be the enemy of the good.

You would nix a deal on the conditional pick? I would take that offer in a heartbeat. With Rossi, Boldy, Quinn, Peterka and Rosen in the pipeline you can see the accumulation of talent for the top two lines in a couple of years. What that would represent is legitimate hope.

No one is sucking you into a topic that you consider to be bogus. You are partaking because you chose to do so. There is a simple solution to your aggravation: Don't respond to the topic you find questionable. By responding you are increasing the responses. It's like a person who repeatedly goes to a restaurant he doesn't like in order to complain about another meal he just consumed. Avoidance is the solution. There are plenty of other topics on the proverbial menu that you can comment on.

Pegula, as with most businessmen in every field of endeavor, have as their first priority the financial soundness of their business. If he can have a one game attraction/event outside of his usual market which might expand his market (within his territory) then what is wrong with that? If he was moving more games to Hamilton then I can understand the hostile reaction. In this case it is for only one game. I'm not bothered by this proposed game at all. Quite the contrary. I'm interested in seeing what the attendance will be and what the portion coming from the Toronto market and the Hamilton and Buffalo market.

If Pegula can put a game within the Sabres' geographic territory and make money off it then what's wrong with that? It's one game that will bring in more revenue per game than normal for a franchise that many people report is losing money. (There are many ways of interpreting the finances. I don't want to get into that complicated and murky area.) And what's wrong in trying to cultivate a market that is untapped and within its territory?

If you regularly attend the games you should be well aware that a number of the tickets sold for the game were not used due to the lack of interest. And if you are a regular season ticket holder you should be well aware that the unused tickets sold on the secondary market are sold for ten cents on the dollar, assuming there is an interest to buy the unused tickets. How many season tickets do you think the Sabres are going to sell this year? It's about the product and not one bull shiiit game played in another venue. This one game is a meaningless sideshow issue for a mostly apathetic (understandably so) fanbase.

The previous home outdoor venue was in Orchard Park. If the outdoor game was relocated there how many tourists and cash $$$ would work its way to the local community? Not as much as you think. The Sabres have lost a lot of their fan base for obvious reasons. The organization is hemorrhaging money. (It is due to its own incompetence.) So they play one game in Hamilton to get a bigger $$$ draw than they could for a game in their own home arena. Is this a money grab? Of course it is. Are you shocked that a business enterprise tries a gimmicky thing to increase their revenue? And it should be noted that Hamilton is part of the Sabre market. Assuming that the covid border issue is resolved if you are a Buffalo fan on the American side of the border you will have the opportunity to attend the game if that is one's desire. I'm simply not as bothered by this one game issue as you are. As far as I'm concerned this is a trivial issue compared to the imperative of putting out a more competitive and entertaining product.

You got me. 🤡

Were talking about one game for a franchise whose home attendance is well below-average, understandably so. Secondary tickets were being sold 10 cents on the dollar and in some cases they couldn't even be given away. It has gotten so bad that season ticket holders who had tickets didn't even bother to go to the games. When the Sabres last played an outside home-game it was played in Orchard Park. If it was played there this season how many disillusioned fans would attend? The challenge for this bedraggled franchise is to create interest in their team for this apathetic fanbase. The product on the ice has been unentertaining for nearly a decade. The only way to regenerate interest and place fans in the now empty seats is to assemble a more competitive and entertaining team. The outside Hamilton game is a sideshow issue and is inconsequential. Making the Sabres a team worthy of being followed is the real issue. Everything else is BS!

The point I was making is that the Sabres can't control how the other side conducts itself in this saga. KA has been steadfast and non-public about the issue. The other side has created more commotion to little positive effect. In my mind as challenging as this situation is the GM has handled himself well.

Hamilton, Ontario is part of the Sabre market. It might overlap with the Toronto market but people from Hamilton do follow and attend games in Buffalo. Anyone who is foolish enough to buy a Sabre season ticket for the garbage product on the ice will again learn that they will be challenged to give away tickets to games that they can't attend. Playing one outside game in Hamilton is not going to change that embarrassing fact. The Toronto games played in Buffalo are to a large extent populated with Toronto fans who are willing to play premium prices (that are still less than their home game tickets). So there will be a larger outdoor venue that will increase the paltry revenue that the Buffalo fans generate for home games. Again, this is an inconsequential one game issue that has little to do with the fanbase's lack of interest in a team that has been for a long time uninteresting. The meaningful issue is assembling a team that can compete and be entertaining. To that issue there is no quick or easy solution. Everything else is BS!

Whether this game is outdoors in Canada or inside the arena in Buffalo it has little to do with getting the withered fan base back. Putting a credible and entertaining team back on the ice is the solution to regenerating interest in this team. That's the challenge. Everything else is inconsequential.

How did the Sabres overplay their hand? The GM played this complicated situation that was foisted on him as well as one can expect. As it stands no team is willing to give up top tier young players or prospects for an injured player whose future health status is not known. When healthy Jack is a top 10-15 talent. So unless there is a reasonable offer made for him the best approach is to wait until Jack is restored as a player and then get back to the market to see if a deal can be made that benefits the organization. The Sabres can't control what Jack and his representatives do. What they can control is what they do. Considering what his options are our GM is handling this situation adroitly. The template not to follow is the ROR trade. To their credit that is not the script that the organization is not following.

Most cap projections are that the cap will go up in a couple to few years down the road. If the cost of bringing in players such as Rossi, Krebs or Zegras and other assets (as examples) that would be a worthwhile exchange. This roster needs to be rebuilt, the quicker the better. If the cost is a salary retention of $2.5 per yr for a few years that would be a reasonable transaction. Maybe a better approach might be taking a player and his contract back to somewhat offset the Jack contract that the receiving team will have added to their books.

Very often when a high cost player is dealt a player who is not at the core of the deal is included by the other team to offset some of the added contract cost. In a sense that has a similar effect of retaining some portion of the departing player's contract. The benefit for the Sabres is that they would be able to get some utility out of the returning player.

Not necessarily. If the Sabres aren't willing to let their asset to go for less than what they have him valued at then Jack is smart enough to recognize that his doorway to getting out of here is to demonstrate to the his potential suitors that he is back to his old form. And that means for the organization and him to get what they want he will have to play. If he gets the fusion surgery he might not play at all this season. If he gets the surgery that he wants he might not play until the second half or later this season. It wouldn't be surprising that a full season will pass before Jack will be able to show on the ice what he is capable of.

If Arttu, Mitts, Cozens, Dahlin, Joki, Thompson, Bjork, Asplund, Samuelsson and maybe Bryson all play better that would be a good sign. Next year Power, Quinn and Peterka and maybe UPL should be added to the mix. Ryan Johnson might be another year away? Will a Jack deal add another prime player or two to the prospect pool not far from NHL ready? I'm not sure a deal will be made until his health situation is clarified. Those who are arguing that this year is going to be a tough year are probably correct. Our subtractions of Reinhart, Ullmark and probably Jack will leave gaping holes on a roster that was already thin to begin with. From a won/loss standpoint it is going to be a tough year. Can this team at least be entertaining and provide future hope? I think so. My big worry is that unless there is an upgrade in our goaltending situation it will undercut whatever progress that can be had. Watching a franchise go through a rebuilding process is tough to digest. Either the organization is fully committed to it or you end up taking short cuts that extend the rebuild time. There is no other way.

I'm inclined to agree with you. There were reports in Washington that they didn't want to lose Dillon, a defenseman, who was exposed in the draft. So it appears that a side-deal was made for them to take Vanecek and then give up a second round pick to get him back. I'm just hoping that this front office is not satisfied with the current goalie staffing and is willing to seize opportunities to upgrade that position. As it stands it is very troubling. As I have previously stated the organization made the right decision not to pay the contract that would have been needed to retain Ullmark. But in the short run it put the Sabres in a bind.

The article I cited said that his agent asked for a six year deal. Did we counter it? I can't say for sure.

I agree with you about the military situation. But to a lesser degree this compelling of vaccinations is happening in colleges, jobs and even entertainment settings. No one should be forced to get it yet there are settings where if you aren't vaccinated you can be excluded from the job or setting. I have no problem with that exclusion.

He wanted a longer term and more to play in Buffalo than Boston. From his perspective I understand why. As I said before he did what was right for him and the organization made a decision that was right for them.

In the military the soldiers will soon be required to get vaccinated whether they want to or not.

My mistake. They traded him back to Washington.

There was a golden opportunity for the Sabres to acquire a good young goaltender who may even turn out to be better than Ullmark because he is more durable. Seattle took Vitek Vanecek from Washington in the expansion draft. And then traded him back to Seattle for a second round pick. He would have been a marvelous pickup in a trade for a second round pick, a higher pick than what Washington had to offer. That would have been a terrific fall back position.

Ullmark is a good goaltender. He is not worth a 6 yr contract at $6 M per year. The organization put itself in a bind with the extended and overvalued Skinner contract. And because of that they lost some roster flexibility that can't get out of it. The organization placed a value on Ullmark and wouldn't go outside their value of him. That's the right way to run the operation. There are things that one can validly criticize the GM for. This is not one of them.