Taro T

Worse (and likely more accurate): "It's really important that you understand that I WILL still be here (for no necessarily explicable reason) when you end up here."

Most likely the case. But it depends on whether they gave themselves any early termination provisions to the MOU version of the CBA that extended the 2012 CBA from September 2022 through September 2026. The MOU didn't have any early termination provisions but have never seen a copy of the CBA itself as modified by the MOU. The 2012 CBA did have early termination provisions (which have long been expired for the pre-MOU CBA); presumably there are none in the current CBA as it now stands, but as have never seen that version of the current CBA (and haven't seen the new one yet either) that is simply a presumption. So, again, believe you are correct that the existing BF-LTIR loopholes that Vegas, TB, and others take advantage of will still be available through this coming season, but not 100% certain of it. (Would put it about 98% likely. 😉 ) And teams will still be able to take advantage of BF-LTIR loopholes; there just will be more constraints which theoretically will limit just how much teams can try to abuse the system.

It also needs to clear labor laws in 2 countries. Personally would prefer to see the draft go back to 20 years old being the norm. But there are more moving parts than you are considering. Hockey, unlike football or basketball, has legitimate well established pro leagues in several other countries. How does raising the drafting age affect the interactions between the NHL and these other leagues? Do Swedes or Russians decide to sign longer contracts than they already do to stay in country at 17 or 18 keeping significantly more players from those countries out of the NHL until they are much older? Does a lack of access to as many young Euros materially affect league plans for expansion? (Personally would see that unforeseen consequence as a win as the league shouldn't expand IMHO; but am quite certain the league and the NHLPA would see that as a loss.) Does the CHL want to see a change like this, especially if "exceptional 18 & 19 yo's" can still be drafted? Don't their teams get a marketing benefit (in gate driven leagues) by having x # of "future NHLers" on their rosters? Does it affect ELCs and 2nd contracts, if not in principle but in practice? If it does result in ELCs shortening and 2nd contracts getting larger, with a hard salary cap, could see the union opposing it. If it would result in no effects on ELCs (other than essentially no more contract "slides" as there are no more signed teenagers) but 2nd contracts shrinking, the union might publicly oppose it but privately approve it (as the currently dues paying members end up taking home more pay). Not sure what you mean by this only matters for "like 1 18 year old per year?" Several kids that are 18 in the fall are ready for and get opportunities to play in the NHL at the end of their Junior/NCAA/Euro seasons and do end up playing at that point. They won't have that opportunity any longer.

Then better hope the NHL trade deadline falls on a Friday or a LOT of teams will be running short benches the 1st day or 2 after the deadline looking to allow their younger players the opportunity to get into playoff games for their farm team once the NHL team's SC dreams have gone awry. And personally loved the idea that players will have to physically report to the farm club until getting to that part about also having to play in at least one game. Thought for, literally less than a moment, that there was finally a change in policy in the NHL that would actually benefit the Sabres. They could have a player in Rochester and back within 3 hours if he doesn't check his speedometer too closely and doesn't hit bad traffic/roadwork along the way.

It makes sense that Demko would be the odd man out for the right price. It would seem that between Byram, prospects, available cap space, and even the possibility of sending them UPL to be insurance should Silovs turn out to be not quite ready provided the Sabres got Demko to ink a new deal the Sabres should be able to offer "the right price." So, the questions left are can Adams get it done and can Petterson not be part of what comes back to Buffalo. (Really hate the idea of this team swapping out Norris in a package that includes Petterson. On this team with this staff, can't see Petterson's contract anything but an albatross. Would happily be wrong should he become a Sabre, but just too much risk involved.)

Agree with most of this, but believe you are leaving out one huge issue from last season that contributed heavily towards your issues 2 & 3. The coaches don't know how to get through to the players on this team. Is that because they don't know how to teach/implement the system Ruff wants them to run, is it beause the system (as opposed to Granato's lack of a system) isn't good enough, is it because the players can't/won't implement it, something other, or a combination of all? Yes. But regardless of why the coaches are ineffective and have been for years hear; making a change there would seem to be the low hanging fruit to get improvement from the players. So frustrated that there is no movement on remedying this particular issue.

Thought he meant Samuelsson and Power.

Love the idea of landing Demko. Realize that there's little chance he'd be the only player leaving Vancouver. Hate the idea of Buffalo being the team that believes it can turn Petterson around. So, very much like this trade idea.

He only has about a year left on his deal. 1 year and 2 days to be precise here on Sunday June 29. A player can't sign a new contract with more than a year remaining on a current multiyear deal. (They have to wait until January 1 to sign a new deal when their current deal is only for 1 season.) So, Adams could make a trade with Dallas today and have a gentleman's agreement with Robertson that he'll sign an extension on Tuesday, but if Robertson decided to walk away from that deal and play out his current contract the Sabres would have no recourse to force him to sign nor to force Dallas to nullify the trade. Robertson could very well get moved but would be surprised if it happens before Tuesday unless it is to a team he REALLY wants to play for. And guys do get traded before "extensions" can be signed, O'Reilly being the most recognizable example here. But there is a legit risk involved from the team's perspective and can't see a GM for Buffalo or Columbus or any other "destination" team being dumb enough to take that risk.

Why is 18 the draft age? Ken Linesman. Why doesn't it get modified to something such as players can be drafted at age 18 but only in rounds 1 & 2? Because it would have to be negotiated in the CBA (one can't keep adults from freely practicing a legal trade unless a union for workers of that particular skill agrees to it) and neither the players nor the owners want a change like that enough to push it through. Will be at least 5 more years before you see something like that. And wouldn't have any money on it happening then either.

True. It has a nearly perfect track record since Golisano sold the team.

Kesselring either ends up with Power or he might even end up Dahlin's partner.

And both of the extra games were played at neutral sites. They also did it in '93-'94. The reason given for the neutral sites was to determine fan interest for potential expansion sites. (And they eventually chose Atlanta, Columbus, Nashville, and St. Paul witht the next phase of leaguewide expansion.)

And IF they USE that cap space, the Peterka trade looks a LOT better. Again, am HOPING they do that. But until they actually do it, won't expect it. THIS trade could work. Clifton wasn't bad as the 6. But he was brought in to be much more than that. They'd likely like to see Timmons be more than the 6, and if he is great. But if he isn't, at least he's cheaper than Clifton and MAYBE they'll actually use that cap space..

It's a flashback, to a time outside the primary focus of the 1 Tank 3 GMs One Man Show Starring Kevyn Adams as all 3 GMs. Back before the world got so ugly. When life was simpler and a GM could hedge his bets about only roughly 1/2 of 1st rounders panning out, so draft 2 guys at one position or one name when you're REALLY taking it to the next level and you'll end up with at least 1 guy that can play on your roster for way longer than a significant portion of the fans are comfortable with. He's still focused on Life in a Northern Tank, but it still helps heighten the drama by taking us outside the present and allowing the GM to breach that so called 4th wall separating him from the audience with one of those honest conversationsTM that are so integral to the entire production.

And he had no issues whatsoever with overzealously collecting RHD's when it was his boy Botterill doing the collecting.

Which MIGHT have us still in the Darcy Regier portion of the 3 GM in 1 One Man Show as we're in flashback mode to the Grigorenko-Girgensons, Ristolainen-Zadorov, and arguably even the Long and Short of Two Tylers mode. It is SOOOOOOO confusing.

Trading into the Sabres slot is still considered moving up, no? 😉

Wait. He was playing with Karlsson in Pittsburgh? We didn't just now find our 3rd pairing D-man; we might've found our top pairing D-man. Yikes!!!

But it's only a net of 3 as Clifton went out the door. So, they'll need at least one coming back for Byram to truly get to the quota.

Hmm, any teams that have their eye on a large RHD in this draft now have a simple logic tree to follow on deciding whether to move up or not? Are the Sabres drafting ahead of us?

Doesn't THAT go without saying. Just sayin'. 😉

A fearing it's Demko and Petterson for Bryam, a 1st, UPL, and a prospect (Helenius?). Really like the idea of getting Demko. Hate the idea of Adams being the guy thinking he's smart enough to get Petterson back to what he was prior to signing that big contract.

Yeah, we blew right through the Murray portion of the Kevyn Adams 1 Man 3 GM show into the Jason Botterill all your RHDs belong to us phase of the show. Did not expect to see that heading into the weekend. Thought we'd stay on the Tim Murray overpay for what we want portion of the program a bit longer than we did.

Issue with that is. From going back to Berglund at a minimum, when cash gets freed up unexpectedly due to circumstances changing, it's always wound up in ownership's pocket rather than being used to buy something fun. HOPING that isn't the case this time. EXPECTING it is, until it finally isn't. (And it is very possible that in the new plan they do have a plan to spend that money. But after getting fooled on that one so many times, won't believe it until it has actually happened.