Summer 2025: NHL Offseason

[tom webster]

19 minutes ago, JohnC said:

Your last sentence indicating that you don’t expect the Sabres to make such a move captures why the Sabres are not considered to be a serious franchise. The irony is that making such a money $$$ decision will ultimately result in a loss of revenue. 

Everything you said about financial impact of such a move are true but none of it is guaranteed. If you could guarantee that such a move would result in increased attendance, increased success leading to increased revenue, everyone would do it. The reality is that half the league’s franchises operate within some kind of budget which leads to similar cost/benefit analysis which has led to a similar haves/ have nots league we saw before the salary cap.

[Taro T]

11 minutes ago, tom webster said:

Everything you said about financial impact of such a move are true but none of it is guaranteed. If you could guarantee that such a move would result in increased attendance, increased success leading to increased revenue, everyone would do it. The reality is that half the league’s franchises operate within some kind of budget which leads to similar cost/benefit analysis which has led to a similar haves/ have nots league we saw before the salary cap.

And that's what's so friggin' frustrating about current ownership.  They KNOW from past history plus how things go with the Bills and Bandits that if they put a competitive team on the ice that they'll make a lot more money.  But they don't pull out all the stops to try to do so.

And they're financially in a position where they should be able to absorb a downyear or 2 to get to the point they're consistently having good ones.

[JohnC]

1 hour ago, tom webster said:

Everything you said about financial impact of such a move are true but none of it is guaranteed. If you could guarantee that such a move would result in increased attendance, increased success leading to increased revenue, everyone would do it. The reality is that half the league’s franchises operate within some kind of budget which leads to similar cost/benefit analysis which has led to a similar haves/ have nots league we saw before the salary cap.

If the owner wants an ironclad guarantee about his return on his sports investment, he should instead put his money in CDs or bonds. No one is suggesting that he should be a profligate spender. However, when you act like a chicken-shiiit owner it isn’t surprising that you get chicken-shiiit results for a generation and still counting.

[tom webster]

15 minutes ago, JohnC said:

If the owner wants an ironclad guarantee about his return on his sports investment, he should instead put his money in CDs or bonds. No one is suggesting that he should be a profligate spender. However, when you act like a chicken-shiiit owner it isn’t surprising that you get chicken-shiiit results for a generation and still counting.

It’s not about being afraid it’s about analyzing the risks and prioritizing. I’m not disagreeing with you but the fact of the matter is about one third the league will spend at all costs, one third will spend in cycles and one third will have to be convinced. It’s really a fact throughout professional sports. Most owners don’t prioritize winning as much as their fan base does.

Edited August 3 by tom webster

[JohnC]

46 minutes ago, tom webster said:

It’s not about being afraid it’s about analyzing the risks and prioritizing. I’m not disagreeing with you but the fact of the matter is about one third the league will spend at all costs, one third will spend in cycles and one third will have to be convinced. It’s really a fact throughout professional sports. Most owners don’t prioritize winning as much as their fan base does.

I agree with your comments about the level of spending is no guarantee for success. We are in accord. However, this owner, himself, has made some critical hires in staffing that have been less than mediocre. The unimpressive results shouldn’t be surprising. 
 

The Sabres during the owner’s 15 year tenure has been a dismal failure. It’s not a surprise that this franchise is most likely to be on players’ no trade list. This is third-rate franchise that Terry P presides over. If a sense of urgency is not exhibited now, then when? 

[SabreFinn]

Kekäläinen will be assistant GM for Team Finland during the olympics.

[PerreaultForever]

On 8/3/2025 at 11:13 AM, tom webster said:

It’s not about being afraid it’s about analyzing the risks and prioritizing. I’m not disagreeing with you but the fact of the matter is about one third the league will spend at all costs, one third will spend in cycles and one third will have to be convinced. It’s really a fact throughout professional sports. Most owners don’t prioritize winning as much as their fan base does.

I don't know about that. I think most owners do prioritize winning but money does matter. Most believe you spend to win and then you make more with playoff revenue and merchandise (and season tickets the next year). If an owner doesn't spend to the cap he saves a few million. If he makes the playoffs he earns a whole bunch of millions more. 

It's never about spending anyway, it's about roster construction. To get a balanced and properly mixed roster you do need to spend and when you don't, you have a problem.

[Thorny]

19 hours ago, PerreaultForever said:

I don't know about that. I think most owners do prioritize winning but money does matter. Most believe you spend to win and then you make more with playoff revenue and merchandise (and season tickets the next year). If an owner doesn't spend to the cap he saves a few million. If he makes the playoffs he earns a whole bunch of millions more. 

It's never about spending anyway, it's about roster construction. To get a balanced and properly mixed roster you do need to spend and when you don't, you have a problem.

Tom is right that the fans uphold the true nature of the crest far more substantially than any executive. I always say it: we were here long before them, and we will be here long after they’ve gone on to their next money making opportunity.

The frustration with the sabres is that they’re no more striking juxtaposition in sports between how throughly a franchise and its fans need and deserve winning relative to the lack of effort on the part of ownership and management 

[Thorny]

Hey where the heck is @Marvin

[\GoBillsInDallas/]

 

[Huckleberry]

 

[ponokasabre]

 

[PerreaultForever]

2 hours ago, ponokasabre said:

 

I've heard this rumor out of Boston chatter but I don't know if it's generated by actual trade talks or just fans desires to move him because they didn't like what they saw last year.

Moving him back to Buffalo could be good for both teams but I'm not sure what Buffalo would send the other way. If Boston wants draft picks I could see it working for sure. He would fill the forward gap created by Peterka leaving and if/when Helenius or someone else is ready we could decide to keep or ditch him then. 

[pi2000]

3 hours ago, PerreaultForever said:

I've heard this rumor out of Boston chatter but I don't know if it's generated by actual trade talks or just fans desires to move him because they didn't like what they saw last year.

Moving him back to Buffalo could be good for both teams but I'm not sure what Buffalo would send the other way. If Boston wants draft picks I could see it working for sure. He would fill the forward gap created by Peterka leaving and if/when Helenius or someone else is ready we could decide to keep or ditch him then. 

[PerreaultForever]

Sure you can red x it and put your meme up but you have no argument. 

I'm no big Casey fan but he was our leading scorer before he left and he's a 50 pt. a year guy. You want Roslovic by all means sure, but there is a hole to be filled. Just hoping for what was here to be better is dumb.

[SwampD]

12 hours ago, PerreaultForever said:

Sure you can red x it and put your meme up but you have no argument. 

I'm no big Casey fan but he was our leading scorer before he left and he's a 50 pt. a year guy. You want Roslovic by all means sure, but there is a hole to be filled. Just hoping for what was here to be better is dumb.

Isn’t that kinda what you’re doing?😂

[PerreaultForever]

3 hours ago, SwampD said:

Isn’t that kinda what you’re doing?😂

How so? 

I advocated much more change and wanted more veterans brought in but they didn't do it. I'm just looking at options that might be available still. Trying to be a realist given what we are dealing with from them. If Mitts is available and Bruins would deal him for picks, we have picks, we have cap room to pay his salary and we add a body to the roster so we get a little better. If Bruins want roster players I'm likely not interested.

[triumph_communes]

16 hours ago, PerreaultForever said:

Sure you can red x it and put your meme up but you have no argument. 

I'm no big Casey fan but he was our leading scorer before he left and he's a 50 pt. a year guy. You want Roslovic by all means sure, but there is a hole to be filled. Just hoping for what was here to be better is dumb.

You literally have a team known for identifying culture fits and sniffing out bad habits trying to dump him and you want in to that again?

 

casey for Byram is one of the biggest trade wins in a long time. One is clearly serviceable, the other is being cast off from big team to big team after they actually get to test drive him. People like to crap on KA, but this is a huge move. And you want to undo it????

[PerreaultForever]

7 hours ago, triumph_communes said:

You literally have a team known for identifying culture fits and sniffing out bad habits trying to dump him and you want in to that again?

 

casey for Byram is one of the biggest trade wins in a long time. One is clearly serviceable, the other is being cast off from big team to big team after they actually get to test drive him. People like to crap on KA, but this is a huge move. And you want to undo it????

No. First, I don't WANT to do it, but you have to be realistic and look at who is possible. I could list off any number of preferred forwards but if they aren't on the trade block what's the point? Mitts would be a temporary fix until Helenius is ready or other prospects get the time they need. 

Second, it doesn't "undo" it since we aren't trading Byram to Boston for him. We'd have BOTH. Isn't that an even bigger win? I'm saying I'd make the call if Boston wants draft picks or a prospect/fringe player. Not trading roster pieces. Filling a hole. 

[Taro T]

10 hours ago, PerreaultForever said:

No. First, I don't WANT to do it, but you have to be realistic and look at who is possible. I could list off any number of preferred forwards but if they aren't on the trade block what's the point? Mitts would be a temporary fix until Helenius is ready or other prospects get the time they need. 

Second, it doesn't "undo" it since we aren't trading Byram to Boston for him. We'd have BOTH. Isn't that an even bigger win? I'm saying I'd make the call if Boston wants draft picks or a prospect/fringe player. Not trading roster pieces. Filling a hole. 

Bringing him in for draft picks would make the team better than it is now.

Would rather see a different move than that to improve the team now.  But in a vacuum, it is better than nothing.  Pretty sure that's what you're trying to get at.

[SwampD]

18 hours ago, PerreaultForever said:

How so? 

I advocated much more change and wanted more veterans brought in but they didn't do it. I'm just looking at options that might be available still. Trying to be a realist given what we are dealing with from them. If Mitts is available and Bruins would deal him for picks, we have picks, we have cap room to pay his salary and we add a body to the roster so we get a little better. If Bruins want roster players I'm likely not interested.

Just hoping for what was here to be better is dumb. Casey was here. Now your hoping that he would be better.

[irregularly irregular]

2 hours ago, Taro T said:

Bringing him in for draft picks would make the team better than it is now.

Would rather see a different move than that to improve the team now.  But in a vacuum, it is better than nothing.  Pretty sure that's what you're trying to get at.

MAYBE Mitts learned something while he was away playing with the big boys. Remember that quote about his first Avs practice and how it was the most difficult practice he had ever taken part in? If they can get Mitts for cheap I'd say why not, but I'm not inclined to try that route again. He really doesn't fit anywhere in the line-up as currently constructed. That is unless his game has changed to the better while he was away.

[LTS]

28 minutes ago, irregularly irregular said:

MAYBE Mitts learned something while he was away playing with the big boys. Remember that quote about his first Avs practice and how it was the most difficult practice he had ever taken part in? If they can get Mitts for cheap I'd say why not, but I'm not inclined to try that route again. He really doesn't fit anywhere in the line-up as currently constructed. That is unless his game has changed to the better while he was away.

Perhaps Mitts having a problem with the hard practice was the reason he was moved?  He might have improved while in Buffalo and been serviceable by Buffalo standards but he's clearly not been serviceable by Boston or Colorado standards.

Why do we want him?  To further the Buffalo standard?

No thanks.

[triumph_communes]

1 hour ago, irregularly irregular said:

MAYBE Mitts learned something while he was away playing with the big boys. Remember that quote about his first Avs practice and how it was the most difficult practice he had ever taken part in? If they can get Mitts for cheap I'd say why not, but I'm not inclined to try that route again. He really doesn't fit anywhere in the line-up as currently constructed. That is unless his game has changed to the better while he was away.

Then the avs ditched him. Cause he doesn’t have it. And coming here he’s just going to revert back to Jeff skinner status 

 

give me a grinder who can’t pot it in

[LGR4GM]