nfreeman

I am growing weary of repeating this, but again -- it's the time value of assets. A dollar today is worth more than a dollar 4 years from now -- especially (but not solely) if you need it today. I forgot about the 2 2nds -- but really that means it was an even worse trade by XGMTM. If we're allocating the price, I'd say it was more McNabb plus 1 2nd for Fasching, and the other 2nd for DLo. What is the basis for Pysyk being better than McNabb? And I'm not making any grand claims about McNabb. I just think the news that Fasching appears to be behind Baptiste and Bailey on the depth chart (and perhaps Nylander as well) means that he probably won't play much in Buffalo this year, and that made me think about how that trade turned out.

Well, I haven't declared the trade a fail -- I said it looks that way. I completely agree that it's not at all fair to judge Fasching yet. However, my point about the time value of assets remains -- if we get zero out of Fasching for 4 full NHL seasons while McNabb is, say, a 16-min-per-game NHL defenseman, then Fasching needs to become a no-BS top-6, NHL winger in order for the trade to have been a good one for the Sabres. If Fasching becomes a 12 min per game bottom-six forward, then it was a fail for the Sabres.

As someone who thought the Bills would get destroyed yesterday, I'm happy that there is still life in this season and that both McD and TT have shown real promise this year. Next week is probably too big a hill to climb, but there are plenty of beatable teams in the NFL.

OK, but Pysyk was the #5 defenseman on a really bad team last year, and has never played a bigger NHL role than that. McNabb has played a substantially bigger role on a very good team, which shrunk to a smaller role last year after he missed significant time with injury (I think a broken collarbone) and while the team itself was falling apart.

I'm not grumpily stomping my feet, and I believe in being patient with him for at least 2 more years, but his lousy performance in the AHL last year can't be completely dismissed -- and neither can the fact that he was an XGMTM selection, since many of us (or perhaps it's just me) have started to view that as a reason for skepticism. Here's a question for those who are confident about Nylander: what if he stinks in the AHL again this year?

No one is saying that McNabb is a star, but he undeniably is an NHL defenseman who's thus far had a better career than, say, Pysyk. He absolutely would've played plenty of minutes on the Sabres last season and the season before. The point, again, is that so far, the Fasching-McNabb trade looks like another lousy move by XGMTM.

Correct.

My point is that by the end of this season, 4 NHL seasons will have come and gone since the trade -- and during those 4 seasons, the Sabres got zero out of Fasching instead of having a contributing defenseman -- during a period in which they were sorely lacking on D. It's the time value of money/assets view -- i.e. having something today is better than having something of approximately equal value tomorrow. If Fasching turns out to be much better than McNabb, that is great, but if he's roughly equivalent or worse -- then the trade was a failure. Well, McNabb has averaged just under 16 min, just under 19 min and just over 15 min. That is top 4 to top 6 ice time. I'm not "mad" at Fasching. I'm simply pointing out that there's an increasing likelihood that this was another move by GMTM that didn't pan out.

Well, including 2015 in the list of subpar draft classes is certainly #Hammymath, but GA's point is valid: the Sabres haven't drafted well. XGMTM's alleged eye for talent could easily prove to be mythical and befitting of the mediocre organization from which he originated.

Regarding Fasching: leaving aside the possibility of him washing out, if he doesn't play much in Buffalo this year, that will be 4 NHL seasons in which he has done zero in the NHL while McNabb, whom GMTM traded for Fasching, has been a top-4 to top-6 NHL defenseman. That's a clear black mark on GMTM's resume.

I too am keeping the NHL package and I think I’m more optimistic than you are, but I can’t dispute the “no glimmers of anything on the ice” observation and am starting to get concerned. It’s hard to ignore the nagging fears that Nylander will wash out, that Reino will be solid but not a difference-maker, that Kane will depart without bringing much back in trade, that Lehner and ROR will be individually pretty decent but won’t deliver enough wins, and that Howie won’t turn chicken poop into chicken salad.

I agree that the Sabres wouldn’t make that trade at this point in time. I’m just trying to put the brakes on the Roy-for-Malkin proposals that are flying around in here.

There is NFW Colorado would give up Duchene and Landeskog for Risto and Nylander. It would take Risto and Reino.

Then you're not getting him. It will cost Reino to get Duchene.

Very nice. Seriously though: no meat, no fish, no cheese, no ice cream, no butter? WTF kind of life is that?

Does anyone not think the Bills are going to get crushed by Denver?

Correct.

Well, I think that if Moulson were on a 2-way deal, they'd send him down without thinking twice -- i.e. he's not good enough to be in the lineup.

Whether the NFL and/or TP could pay for a new stadium themselves is neither here nor there. They could, but they don't need to, so they won't. We can cry ourselves a river over the amorality of the situation, but it won't affect the need to make the decision: do you want to pay a large amount of public money, or do you want to lose the team? (FWIW, I agree with pretty much everything you've said on this, and I would much rather keep the Ralph, which is a great place to watch a football game, than replace it with a new stadium. But that doesn't change the reality.)

Correct -- everyone, regardless of income level, will get hit with whatever sales taxes, booze taxes, electric/water/other utility taxes, etc. that are utilized to pay the public portion of the cost. Korab -- a downtown domed stadium would be used more than the Ralph, but I doubt the increased usage would be substantial.

#Hammymath.

Regarding the first bolded item: this is 100% true, especially in a city like Buffalo, which will have very few non-NFL events at the stadium. However, and unfortunately, the economics aren't really the question IMHO -- the question is whether the city/state values having the NFL team enough to write a huge check for a new stadium, since if it refuses to do so, the team will leave. Now, I think that TP will demand much less public money than most NFL owners have demanded, but no one should kid himself or herself that it won't cost anything. It will cost a lot -- I would expect at least $500MM in public money -- so everyone will need to decide whether he/she personally would prefer that the public absorb that cost, as opposed to lose the team. As for Brandon, although I would like to see him gone as much as the next guy, I will give him credit for his role in several rounds of successful negotiations and agreements with WNY. He's not the reason the Bills are still in WNY -- that is to Ralph's eternal credit -- but he did execute Ralph's wishes successfully, which isn't nothing.

I will be pretty surprised if it's not at least $10MM per year.

I think that if Pommer still has the hands and the timing to convert one-timers in tight, he should be on the PP with Jack. Those shifts don't require as much energy as 5-on-5 shifts. I like Qwk's idea about subbing in another RW for a couple of 5-on-5 shifts per game if Pommer needs some rest. Also, Pommer shouldn't be on the PK.

That's it. Plan the freaking parade. Here we come.