JohnC

The difference between having capable goaltending instead of incapable goaltending was starkly evident when Ullmark played last year. When he played the team not only matched up but it won a good share of games. When option B had to be counted on the team stood no chance. There were so many occasions when after Hutton let in a soft goal you can see the deflation in the players. I'm just hoping another goaltender will be brought in to give support to the rest of the lineup. When you see the same deficiencies for years you don't need much insight. What you see is what you see. Nothing new is nothing new.

He and his family are very much aware of what their family has experienced. And having gone through their experiences he and his wife made the mutual decision to play another season in Buffalo. I'm confident that they know better what is right for them and their family than an outside busybody. MYOB!

Kyle doesn't need you to give him advice as whether to play or retire. That's his decision.

Why does it bother you that a player makes a decision that he feels is in his best interest? He's doing what he wants to do. It's his business and should be no concern of yours. In other words (MYOB) i.e. shorthand for MY YOUR OWN BUSINESS. He doesn't tell you what to do and you shouldn't tell him what to do. He will make the roster if he earns it. If he isn't good enough he will be back living in Florida.

What if Adams throws UPL to the wolves and he does well? And if Adams throws UPL to the wolves and he falters, then why would that be so catastrophic? He could use that hardship experience to benefit him even when he gets sent back down to the AHL.

Paul Hamilton was on WGR on the morning show talking about the goaltending situation. He said that the Sabres are going to give UPL a chance to earn a roster spot in training camp with Anderson being the backup and mentor. It's probably more likely that UPL will start off in Rochester and then get a call-up. My leaning is toward bringing in another goalie and not rush UPL. Getting a lot of playing time in the AHL helped Mitts and Thompson be better prepared when they were moved up the ranks.

Someone I used to work with got Covid. He was a former college baseball star and was vigorously healthy. He was a terrific guy with a lot of friends. He was 50 or early 50s. He didn't get the shot. He's dead.

KA is driving the bus. If a future deal is declined by Jack when there are better offers then unless an offer arises to an acceptable return (no matter who is making the offer) then you keep him. No one is going to force the GM to make a deal that he doesn't want to make.

Absolutely. There needs to be an acceptable range of return. If that threshold isn't met then keep him until there are better opportunities. I have never deviated from that stance.

With respect to Jack's NMC I don't give a dam about it. When the time comes for the clause to kick in it doesn't matter whether he refuses to go to a particular team. Because if that is the case then he is kept. The GM's obligation is to act in the team's interest. That takes primacy over the player's interest.

My general supposition is simple. Because of his health situation his trade value for now is diminished. The level of diminishment as I see it is greater than what you perceive it to be. And this is diminishment is reflected in the unwillingness of teams to come near to what the Sabre organization wants. With that realization I'm more willing than some are to lower the asking price.

I agree with the highlighted segment. I have stated that position. Where I fundamentally disagree with you is that I would be willing to deal him if an offer was reasonable. Obviously, my expected return is less than yours.

Apparently based on the reported offers the injured Jack value is less than Jones's value. If completely healthy there is no question that Jack has more market value. But in this situation that is not the case.

He played last year. Because of his inexperience he still has room to improve. But I never got the sense that he was overmatched. Quite the opposite: He was a player that can be a contributor in the NHL.

I'm aware that the fusion surgery requires a longer recovery and the replacement surgery requires a shorter timeframe. I have not said otherwise. But what makes this outcome tougher to predict is that he will eventually return to the ice playing in a crash sport. Just a side note: Tuch is having shoulder surgery. That is a common surgery in hockey. The outcomes are usually good.

These surgeries do have a success rate. I have had two back surgeries (aware not exactly the same). A successful surgery for me is different than a successful surgery for a hockey player who plays professionally in a crash sport. The referencing to McCabe's, Ullmark's and Tuch's surgeries are not relatable to Jack's surgery. These aforementioned surgeries are procedures that are not uncommon in hockey. There is usually a standard rehab timetable. That's not the case with Jack's situation. As it stands there hasn't even been agreement in which is the most suitable surgery. And if the surgery he has works out there is no guarantee that even if he can get back on the ice, which I believe he will, will he be able to play at the level he did prior to his injury.

When Seth Jones was traded for a generous return he was healthy. The team that acquired him knew that next season he would be playing at the high level he had been playing at. That doesn't come close to resembling the Jack situation. As it stands there are no guarantees that Jack will play next year or ever return to his elite form.

I'm aware that Tuch's is going to need six months for recovery and rehab to get back on the ice. He is expected to come back to full health. So I don't see the health risk that you do. That's in contrast to Eichel's injury where there are some legitimate questions whether he will play this season at all. And it should be noted that is not out of the realm that he may never regain the elite form that he previously had. Of course if the Sabres could get more then I'm all for it. But if they can't attain the higher return then adjusting to the situation and the market isn't an unreasonable approach to take. I understand why you wouldn't want to make the deal that I would find reasonable but I would make the deal if given the opportunity.

If it is a bare minimum then you find it acceptable. Of course I would prefer more but if the minimum is met then I would advocate for a deal. My minimum is that a deal has to include a high end prospect who is capable of being a #1 or #2 center in the not too distant future and plus more pieces. Tuch is a genuine first or second line forward. That would qualify as a very valuable piece to this proposed transaction.

I would love to have your adds on. But the Jack we are talking about is currently injured with an uncertain future. He barely played last year and there is a chance that he won't be able to play next year. And if he does return to the ice he may not be the player he once was. The major risk in a transaction isn't on the team shipping out Eichel as it is for the team receiving him. I understand your position but if the Sabres could make a deal with Vegas that includes Krebs,Tuch and a lower first round pick I would do it. Let's not make perfect be the enemy of the good.

Why would you walk away from the @wookie1 deal if the two players you referenced weren't included? The centerpiece of the deal would be Krebs. He's the essential player in the deal. And if Tuch was in the deal that would make the deal even more appealing. The biggest benefit in such a deal is that Vegas would have to deal with the medical issues and the Sabres would be able move on and start putting the roster pieces together without any distractions. Make no mistake about what I am suggesting. I'm not advocating trading Jack just to do away with all this commotion. It would be terrific to include one or both of your favored players. But if a reasonable deal is offered without one of them then the Sabres need to seize it and get a fresh start in the non-Eichel era.

Is your favorite lawyer movie: My Cousin Vinnie? 🤡

No doubt that these two oldsters are the most influential owners in the league. But that doesn't mean that they dominate to the point of mandating what their preferences are. There are 30 other owners who have a vote/say on issues. I don't know what your concern is? That the Bills will be moved if a new stadium isn't built? The current stadium is beyond being antiquated. It is crumbling and putting more money into renovating this dinosaur facility is a waste of money. The discussion here is about building a new stadium. It is in the embryonic stage. After a lot of hardnosed engagement between the parties I'm confident that something will get worked. The public will pay a portion of the costs and the owners will pay a bigger portion. The ratio will be tussled over and will be settled on.

I'm to fatigued with this round-about to check anything.

I agree with that! Either I am not being clear or there is a misinterpretation from my wording.