JohnC

Some people might think that I have a big mouth on the Eichel issue. On the issue of having a big mouth I am a minor leaguer. 🤡 https://www.cnn.com/2021/07/31/us/record-mouth-gape-tiktok-trnd/index.html

I assume that Pegula made his new stadium financing request for an OP site came after they received a report that they commissioned more than a year ago. The study examined a variety of sites and costs associated with the various sites. As I and others stated the downtown and waterfront sites would be a much more complicated and costly endeavor. In addition, the politics and environmental impact requirements would be tougher and take a lot longer to work out. I'm not sure if the Pegulas or the county own the land in OP where the stadium is proposed. But either way having the land available in advance would make it so much easier to work out a deal that will by nature be a complicated deal.

I don't understand your response. How is St. Louis's facility adequate enough? I'm not worried about losing the Bills. The Pegulas had their stadium study done and are now in a very early stage of negotiating the finances with the public sector. They started off with a high demand and will then work done.

My sense is that KA knows that he is not at this time going to get a maximum return on the injured Jack. That is not to say that he is willing to go below a reasonable range if dealt sooner rather than later.

Toronto would not be a likely option because there isn't an adequate stadium for the team to be moved to. And my understanding is that if a new facility was to be built it would have to be privately financed.

For a downtown or waterfront site acquiring the parcels of land and investing in the needed infrastructure would put the price tag out of reach. And on top of that the political wrangling would go on for years before there would be an agreement in this more complicated project. As you clearly stated those issues are at least if not more than 10 yrs in the past. The landscape changes and the environment changes. There are good arguments to be made about what the public contribution should be. But as far as the location goes the Orchard Park site is not only the best site but the solution to many other problems that would be insurmountable.

I'm not trying to be disrespectful but I don't know what you are talking about. The Sabre doctors in consultation with other doctors were recommending a conservative approach of rehabbing before addressing the surgery option. It was the right approach to take. You basically said otherwise. That was clearly off the mark.

As with many other stadium financing there will be additional taxes associated with the entertainment and the hospitality industries that will be dedicated to the public costs. Some of them could be hotel, restaurant and ticket taxes on events. It will defray much of the public costs but probably not all of them.

It's difficult to be 100% wrong. You hit what I thought was an unattainable achievement. Your claim about the Sabre doctor/s invented the surgery need is stupendously wrong.

The issue isn't going to be so much how good the Pegulas are at negotiating as it is how good are the public authorities in negotiating and protecting the public interests.

Everyone knew inside the Sabre franchise and teams who had an interest in him that if the conservative approach of rehabbing didn't work that he would need surgery. Jack's agent stating that he would need surgery is not new information. It can be considered an update that interested teams already knew.

That will certainly be factored in for the owners to apply to their share of the building cost.

Locating the new stadium in OP makes a lot of sense. My understanding is that they own land where the stadium will be located thus avoiding the multi-year battle of where to locate it. And by locating it near the old stadium there wouldn't be a need to pay added costs that include land acquisition and new infrastructure. Ideally, many people would prefer a downtown location that has some provisions for public transportation. But those advantages wouldn't compensate for the added costs and exhausting political battles of where to exactly locate the new stadium downtown or anywhere else.

That was the right decision assuming he even considered it. I'm not sure if he ever considered the issue because it would be a state and local decision and not fall under a federal authority.

I agree with you. Making character assassination comments based on rumors are not right. Its irresponsible and reckless.

That would have been a foolish approach to take because these decisions are state and local decisions and not federal decisions.

The $1.5 B request is the starting off figure in a negotiation. The reality is that most stadiums get built with a large portion of the facility paid by the public. Even in cases where the respective owners pay for the facility there are substantial ancillary costs associated with infrastructure etc. where taxpayer money is used. Usually the public funds come from some new dedicated sources such as hotel, restaurant stadium event taxes taxes etc. that help to pay for the bonds. There is going to be some hard bargaining between the parties. Hopefully, something reasonable will be worked out.

Probably so. You are looking at this entangled and multi-faceted situation as a dispassionate third party. What you see as a fair outcome is not necessarily how the parties involved see it. Where I agree with you is that until the conflicting health strategy issue is resolved the situation is stuck in the mud. After that is dealt with then the outcome after the rehabilitation has to be assessed. Will the player be back to where he was or will he be a shadow of what he once was? I don't know? Until those hurdles have been address there might not be much movement from the parties who might be interested in acquiring Jack. The Sabres have control of an asset that is damaged. The GM has repeatedly stated that he wants a substantial return for that asset. Until that asset is physically restored this issue is going to linger. That's how I see it.

No one should be ordained to be future captain. It has to be earned. However, if I had to guess who will earn that moniker in the near future my money is on Cozens. My sense is that Cozens isn't the type of person to have the loudest voice in the room. It's simply the way he carries himself. As you stated: we shall see.

The captaincy should be given to Okposo who has earned it. And the player waiting in the wings will be Cozens.

The disconnect between myself and others who are countering my position on Cozens and how some of the other younger players will be handled revolves around their preference of how young players should normally/preferably be handled (slowly). That discussion does not completely relate to the situation in Buffalo because the course has been established by the front office for some of the young players on this roster for the upcoming year. It's not a requirement that all the young players are going to be rushed into the NHL or play roles beyond what they are capable of. The majority of our young players will be developing in Rochester or elsewhere. Players who demonstrate they can handle the roles assigned to them will remain in their roles. Players who don't demonstrate they can handle the roles assigned to them will be assigned a lesser role or sent down for further grooming. This isn't an ideal situation but it is the situation we are in. I will stick to my response that triggered an energetic counter response i.e. Cozens is not a player one needs to worry about if given an advanced role. I consider him to be an impressive youngster who is mature and resilient enough to handle whatever role that is assigned to him.

I'm not arguing about what should have been the best course of action regarding the assemblage of the roster. That is what you are doing. Where we are at is where we are at. What we have to work with is what we have to work with. Because of the way the roster is currently constructed with a lot of young players and marginal players Cozens's role will be more advanced than it would be with most teams. I'm aware of that. There really isn't much difference in our views other than I'm less concerned than you are in giving Cozens an advanced role. You believe that it will be to his detriment while I'm less worried about it because of his more resilient makeup.

Staying in the best condition that he can be in is the right thing for him to do prior to any scheduled operation. Of course he has to be prudent about it. But the worst thing he can do from a medical standpoint is to be sedentary and physically atrophy before undergoing surgery.

Cozens is not Mitts. They are totally two different situations. Don't be surprised if Cozens comes into camp 15 lbs heavier and more muscular. I not arguing to rush any young player. You are misreading what I stated. However, I am less reluctant than you are to play him at a 2C role if he earns it and shows that he can handle it. Mitts was not prepared to even play in the league when he first did. That is not the case with Cozens. Granato specializes in working with young players. He knows how to bring them along. If he sees a player can handle a role he will allow him to do so. If he sees a player struggling in his role he pulls back. Cozens is going to demonstrate in camp what role he can handle. Every prospect has their own pace of development. With Cozens I'm less concerned with his fragility than you are.

He's skating and playing pickup hockey where there is no hitting. Of course he is injured and not fully healthy. He needs surgery before he can play again. The issue right now is which surgery is the best course of treatment to get him back to being able to play again. The idea that because he is skating that he can play NHL hockey is ludicrous.