nfreeman

I will be somewhat surprised if Kane doesn't get a 5-year offer from someone and very surprised if he doesn't get a 4-year offer -- in each case, at $5.75MM per year or higher.

As is generally the case in these situations, if you're saying "I'd give him a 1-year deal" or "I'd give him a 3-year deal" -- you're really saying "I wouldn't give him an offer that he would accept, so I need to figure out what my best options are given that undeniable fact." It's not unreasonable to not want to give Kane, say, $6MM x 6 years. I think many GMs will feel that way. But some will be willing to do so. And Kane isn't going to accept, say, $18MM from the Sabres when he can get $36MM elsewhere.

I don't think you can predict what he would do with a $6MM per year offer unless we also know the term. I think unless the Sabres offer at least 6 years, his answer is going to be no.

One interesting question IMHO is whether any NHL GM would give Kane a 7-year deal. We can go back and forth on whether the "antics" meme is fair or not, but it's indisputable that Kane is perceived by many to come with baggage. Will an NHL GM be willing to risk giving him, say, $6MM x 7 years, knowing that if he does, and then Kane skips practice/gets arrested/clashes with teammates, and then the team misses the playoffs -- that is a big honking black mark against that GM? If another team won't give Kane a long-term deal, does it make it more likely that he re-signs here? Or, if Kane gets to the point where he learns that other teams won't give him that kind of contract, will it be too late for him to return to the Sabres anyway?

Regarding Guhle: I've been skeptical that he would play in Buffalo this year, but I listened to an interview today with JBott from last week and he spoke very highly of Guhle. Among other things, he said something like "Guhle plays fast, and that meshes with how Phil wants to play." I was left with the impression that JBott and Howie are both pretty high on Guhle.

Well, Kane has flaws, but to call him "mediocre" is nuts. He scored at well above a 30-goal pace last year and I am confident will do at least as well in his contract year. Bodies fly when he crashes the net. He's a very good skater. No one takes liberties with his teammates when he's on the ice. It's certainly possible that he's a self-absorbed jerk, that he loafs in practice, and/or that he assaulted those women. It's also certainly possible that none of those things is true. I can understand not wanting to give him a fat long-term contract. But it is crazy to think the Sabres would be better off without him.

No one is going to claim him. Everyone knows this, and sending him down without even giving him a chance in camp would be a major slap in the face and a public humiliation.

I'm not optimistic, but if they can pull it off tomorrow, a lot of people are going to start believing.

Restored, although the magic man is gone.

That would've been a completely unnecessary and dickish move that would've hurt the Sabres' future ability to attract veteran FAs.

Has there ever been a Sabre who was hyped as much, and delivered as little, as Grigorenko? I can't think of one.

My 2 cents: 1. I think you can wear the jersey of any player whose game you like. 2. For us older dudes, I think the jerseys of past franchise greats are a bit cooler than those of current youngsters, but that is just a personal preference. 3. The meathead variations of 69 and similar jerseys that 11 referred to are completely unacceptable. 4. Not quite as bad, but still borderline NFW, are jerseys with your own name on them. 5. Less bad than that, but still not great, are generic (no name or number) jerseys -- I think at that point you should just wear a Sabres shirt. 6. The slug and goathead are just barely OK. 7. My personal favorite non-classic jersey is the red alternate jersey from the goathead era. 8. My issue with wearing a suit all day and then to a game is not so much the suit as it is the shoes and the accumulated clamminess after 16 hours.

Very nice.

Also, Ovi's teams have had a ton of success, even though they haven't reached the summit. I don't think it's a "putting up numbers on a bad team" situation.

Girgensons-ROR-Okposo Kane-Eichel-Pominville While I've been skeptical that Pommer can keep up with Eichel, I'd be very interested to see these as the top 2 lines, especially if it leaves Reino as the #3 center with a reinvigorated Pouliot and one of the kids as his wingers.

Good post, but what's with the lack of periods? I kinda think it is a liability, especially in OT and 4-on-4 situations. He had 30 goals the season before last. As for Guhle, I'd like to see how he develops, but I think he's getting a bit overhyped. I cringe every time I hear Hammy rave about him -- comparing his skating to Paul Coffey, saying he "dominated" the prospects tournament -- both are ridiculous assessments, IMHO. Good call.

Well, I agree on Moulson (kinda wasn't including him in current Sabres forwards, but I'm happy to concede on that), but not on Larsson, ROR or KO. I agree that Larsson, ROR and KO aren't particularly fast -- which is one of the reasons that a Reino-for-Duchene swap, which would clearly upgrade team speed, is interesting.

Well, there's no way to get a definitive ruling on this, but I don't agree. I think he's the slowest forward on the Sabres. I also don't know what you mean by "footwork."

There are certainly reasons to be concerned about Duchene. But as GB points out, the Avs were toxic last year, and Duchene has been a borderline NHL star for 8 years (7 if you don't want to include last year, which is reasonable). He has 5 20-goal seasons (1 with 30) and 5 55-point seasons (2 with 67+). He is a terrific skater and a Canadian Olympian, and is only 26. I think getting him now would probably be buying him when his value is at its low point. I have no desire either to give up on Reino before we see what he can do in a non-toxic environment. But there have been lengthy stretches in which he's been completely ineffective. He's also a below-average skater for an NHL forward and the Sabres need more speed. They also need more 5-on-5 scoring. I think Reino-for-Duchene would be a significant upgrade.

How about Nylander, Guhle, Moulson and the 2018 #2? Or Reino, Moulson and the 2018 #2? Or Reino, Guhle, Moulson and the 2018 #2 for Duchene and Zadorov? I would do any of those.

You are right that Pokey is way off on his factual assertions -- which of course calls into question his assertions about what he heard on TSN about Kane -- but I don't agree that his mistakes on the facts tear apart his theory about the cap preventing teams from having 3 top lines. Obviously a team can't give huge contracts to 9 forwards. OTOH, I think a reasonable response to his theory is that a team's top 3 lines don't need to be comprised of 9 expensive players. You can have, say, 4 or 5 expensive guys, with the rest being cheap younger guys that you cycle through and let go when they get too expensive -- as Pittsburgh and Chicago have done successfully.

OK -- we're going to discuss and resolve. It might take a little while for each of us to weigh in, though, so please give us a little time. In the meanwhile, I can confirm that the magic man has been purged.

What kind of "bias," exactly? Having an opinion on something that differs from someone else's opinion doesn't mean you have a "bias." It just means you have a different opinion. Kane has certainly created enough issues during his career to earn some skepticism.

Dude -- this is really becoming tiresome. I don't want to have to keep repeating this: the problem with your posts is NOT that people disagree with your views on Brandon, Whaley, McD, BB, etc. Many of us (including me) largely agree with these views. The problem is that you repeat the same stuff ad nauseum, and frequently in an off-putting tone. This has been made clear multiple times -- enough times so that you are being dishonest when you keep saying, essentially, "you guys don't like my posts because you don't agree with my opinions." It's not the opinions. It's how you say them (and how often). It needs to get better, or you need to move on.

Boy, it really changes the meaning when I forget to type "not."