mjd1001

If they are going to trade a younger 'asset' or two, I'd rather they keep THIS pick and trade one of the guys in the pipeline already. You have a bunch of guys 19-21 years old now, keep one or two of them and trade one or two of them, but keep the 'pipeline' going by adding that 17-18 year old.

I agree with you. Perreault was that good. I also think people tend to forget about Pierre Turgeon. 19 Seasons (only 4 with Buffalo). Over 500 goals. 1300+ points. A 58 goal, 132 point season where he won the Lady Byng and I think was in the top 3 or 5 for the Hart trophy. 15 seasons making the playoffs, over 100 playoff points. He had 30 goal seasons in the 80's, 90's and 2000's. The fact he was only in Buffalo for 4 seasons and split his career across 6 different teams takes a bit away from what most people think about him, but he was really good. Not Perreault good, but much better than people seem to remember.

-Silayev is at the top of my wishlist.....assuming Celebrini, Demidov, Levshonov, Buium and Lindstrom are already drafted. -Yakemchuk is who I THINK they will pick at 11, based on who I think will be gone already. Do they need a D-mean right now? Nope, but I don't think anyone picked here this year is going to be ready for the team in the next year or two. This pick is for 3-4 years (at least) down the road. I think Yakemchuk will be a blend of 'best player available' and "who actually IS available'. -Parekh will be long gone of the choices of who won't be there. Dickinson also won't be there. Sennecke and Catton I think will be gone too but there is a chance they slide. Everyone else on you list I think is a greater than 50% chance or better of still being there. Chernyshov will be there for sure and taking him at 11 would be a big-time reach.

I'm going to add to that the season should start Oct 1, the regular season needs to be shorted by a few games. As much as I love hockey, its just not right/natural watching the Cup finals when we are officially in Summer and its been 90+ degrees outside most of the last few days.

ON this message board maybe. But I would not say for sure a 'sizeable majority' desire it. I get the impression that when I talk to 'casual' fans, or even some people who go to games but don't follow the every day ins-and-outs, my impression is he is quite popular among them, I'd guess if you include the entire fan base, well under half would actively want him gone.

The more I think of this, I can't come off of the fact that I don't like the idea of buying him out. I'm trying to justify what they are thinking...and I'm kinda thinking out loud/thinking as I type this: -Tuch, Benson, Quinn, Peterka, Greenway are all probably on this team next season on the wing, and not on the 4th line. Are you planning on one of the young guys here also? Savoi, Kulich, or Rosen all CAN play wing (and that might be the place to break them into the NHL, not at Center). Add to that you might bring in a guy for wing via trade or free agency. Skinner, nor any of the above guys are meant for your 4th line (MAYBE Greenway, but I think you are more happy with him on a 3rd line), so that gives you potentially 7 Wingers for your top 3 lines WITHOUT Skinner. -I know Skinner isn't known for his defense, but he also doesn't make huge giveaways in his own zone (I know, because he often even isn't IN his own zone), and as a 'plus' he is still a 25-30 goal scorer and one of the FEW guys that will go to the net/score goals from there (something Ruff has said he Wants/needs the entire forward team do do better). Tuch, Quinn, Peterka I think you have pencled in as legitimate scorers on this roster from the wing (at least you are hoping/counting on that). You need 3 more wingers for those top 3 ilnes. Between Benson, Greenway, a trade/free agent target, Savoi, Kulich, and Rosen....you have 6 guys there. Can you count on 3 of them (maybe 4 counting for injuries) being BETTER all around players than Skinner? I guess that must be what they are thinking (or something similar to it). For me I still don't like the idea of buying him out. But if they do, and Adams trades for a 20-something year old veteran who you think is going to get over 20 goals for you and play a better 2-way game.....IF, IF that happens, well then OK, buy out Skinner.

Not the Sabres area of strength. Outside of the first round since the 2010 Draft: -Olofsson 90 Career goals for the Sabres -Peterka: 40 Career goals for the Sabres -85 other players drafted combined: 49 career goals for the Sabres Yeah, the vast majority of the teams in the league get their prime talent in the 1st round, but the Sabres in recent years, they have been pretty awful anywhere other than the first round.

This applies to many job, but paying anyone the most money to attract the best people doesn't always work. Pay them too little and yes, qualified people will look elsewhere. But you need a middle ground. In any profession, pay them 'a lot' (teachers, police, engineers, etc) and you end up getting people who don't do the job because they care for the professoin or have a love for it, but instead they get into the field just for the money.

I struggle to think of why you would do this now instead of waiting another year. The Sabres have some potentially big contracts/decisions upcoming in the next few years. They have cap room THIS year to pay him. Why buy him out now, which will make the upcoming years a lot worse on the cap than simply waiting another year? You don't want to play him, then "Ralph Krueger" him, but a buyout this year instead of next year makes little sense to me.

I totally agree with the bolded. In fact, if it is fast paced, high scoring game, I often don't like when 'one side' decides to start a fight to 'change the tone' if they can't keep up. With that said, if fighting is still a part of the league, them I'm good with them adding a guy who is pretty good at it. Hopefully this guy won't go out there and start them just because 'that is his job', but maybe having a guy is a bit of a deterrent to the other team.

I agree with almost everything you say. People tend to equate 'culture' with 'big cities' and that isn't always true. What is 'culture'? Do you judge a city on quantity of culture or quality of culture. In many/most cases it simply becomes a contest of people comparing' their' city to 'other places', not by what 'culture' they like, but by what they can look up on a list to defend their argument. Plus we all have things we like. I tried, I really did but for the life of me I do not get art and find art galleries to be a terrible chore to even walk through. But other people Love that stuff. I like history, others find it boring. Like many others we travel a decent amount (a few times a year) and in the last 6-8 years have spent time in NY city, Boston, Philly, Miami, Atlanta, Los Angeles, Chicago, and other places. Toronto and NY city I just don't get either. We went there (a few times) we tried. Its not that I just didn't love them.....I actually disliked much of what we did in those 2 places despite their 'culture'. Boston and Philly on the other hand are my 2 favorite cities, nothing else is even close. My point is we all have what we like and don't like. Buffalo may not have the 'type' of culture someone likes...or it may not have 'highly ranked' or 'highly visited' cultural sites, but that doesn't me it doesn't have them, or that the ones here aren't just as good or even better (for some people) than ones that are on the top of the tripadvisor rankings simply because they are 'bigger' or 'more expensive' in big cities.

No you don't, but apparently it makes you feel better when you shout at them because you are 'owning them'. I shouldn't be surprised as it seems to be a condition of many humans, but I swear when it comes to politics people will convince themselves to follow a policy they initially didn't agree with because "their side" supports that issue and it is more important to cheer and scream for 'your team' than it is to do what is actually good for you (and this applies to both sides.). The worst part is, and I think we are all seeing this more and more..is when people shout at you, people make jokes, people cause confrontations NOT based on an issue they truly believe in, but rather they want to support an issue simply because it makes 'the other side' mad. They would rather hurt or anger people who don't agree with them over doing what actually is good for themselves.

I don't have a major problem with the trades or what they got in return. The issue isn't 'did it make us better' right now. To me its more 'did it make us better for where we want to go WHEN we want to get there.'

Its tough to project those things. Overall I agree with you that I would not pay as much for him as some are saying. The worse you posted, they could apply almost exactly to Dylan Cozens so far in his career also. His shooting percentages by year include numbers of 9%, 8.1%, and 6.5%. Oh, he had ONE year at 14.7% (More than 70% higher than all of his other years combined), and he got paid a pretty good contract off of that ONE good year. Was it the correct decision, I guess we still don't know.

I don't think it makes a difference. Most guys after round 4 hardly make an impact on the teams they are drafted by. And as far as the guys who are late picks who DO make an impact? The draft or lack of it will have little to do with it. If you weren't drafted by round 4, that means that NO-ONE (not even the teams that players 'gravitate' to) thought you were good enough to be a top 120+ pick in the draft. If you are one of those guys and DO turn out to be good, its just as likely it will be with a team that signs you as a free agent that isn't a 'desirable' or 'big market' team as any other team....each team can only have a certain number of contracts anyway. If there is a guy that you might think is going to be very good, then just draft him in the first 4 rounds. Its a lotter after that anyway.

I view it as just the opposite. Do I agree with every political decision made here (or anywhere for that matter)? No. But the 'politics', the laws passed, don't really have a major negative impact on my life day to day here in WNY. Florida (among other areas we visit) on the other had...to me is much worse. I lived there 2 times in my life for quite a few years. Most of my in-laws still live there. We own a house there we still rent. We go there a couple times a year and I'll take the 'political climate' in WNY any day of the week, and it has little to do with what 'side' I am on (I truly am a centrist on most issues, which means right now I hate both of our potential candidates for president as a choice)...and this is what I mean: When we visit florida, Politics are all over the place (much more than WNY). More political signs on people's lawn. More bumper stickers. More cars and trucks decorated with the name of your 'chosen candidate' (for the life of me I have no idea what you want to literally paint someone else's name on your vehicle.) Go to a McDonalds or a Panera in the morning for coffee and you see a group of people sitting in the corner just talking politics..and making SURE they talk loud enough so everyone hears their opinion. Same at the supermarket. My in-laws neighbors, they like to come over when we show up, say hello, and then IMMEDIATLY start talking about politics. Yeah, people I hardly know that see us 2 times a year. And this is my favorite one. People LOVE to tell you their side of politics (without you caring or asking), go in depth about it, and then they ask you if you agree with them. I could be 'kinda' on the same side of the issues as they are, but if they bring up 4 points and I agree with 3 of them, then they get mad, call you names and walk away because obviously i'm an 'idiot' for not agreeing with all 4 of their points. Yes, you get that all over, even here in WNY, but I get a LOT less of it here compared to when I have to go to Florida and other areas to visit 2-3 times per year. I think its just the opposite of politics ruining WNY, Politics have NOT ruined my lifestyle here compared to what I need to put up with in other places. I would much, MUCH rather have to deal with some political laws that I don't agree with but also don't really impact my day to day life in a major way that much....than live in a place where I simply cannot get away from confrontational people that are very public with you and in-your-face about politics.

I think its more likely than not that Tage approaches (or exceeds) 50 goals this coming year, without an injury. I posted about this back in March or April, here is a shortened version: Tage had an arm or a wrist injury. Sometimes that injury can heal enough that you can play, but it can impact production big time from scorers. Who else had a wrist injury that he played through? Look 1.5 hours north to Austin Matthews. 2 seasons before Matthews wrist injury: 41 goals in 52 games (65 goal pace per 82) 1 season before his wrist injury: 60 goals in 73 games (67 goal per 82 pace). Year he played through the wrist injury: 40 goals in 74 games (44 goal per 82 pace) Year after his wrist injury: 53 goals in 58 games (75 goal pace) So, a guy (Matthews) who is a big time scorer averaged 66 goals per 82 games without a wrist injury....the season he plays through a wrist injury his goal production drops 33% the season he has the injury....then when he gets a full year off his production goes back up to (and beyond) what it was before the injury. Now Tage... 2 seasons before his wrist injury: 38 goals in 78 games (40 goal pace) 1 season before his wrist injury: 47 goals in 78 games (almost a 50 goal pace) year of his wrist injury (this year) 18 goals in 50 games (30 goal pace) With Tage, a guy who is a big time scorer averaged 45 goals per 82 games without a wrist injury...the season he plays through it his goal production drops 33% the season he has the injury...With a full season off to heal his wrist, AND in his prime at 27 years of age, is there a chance he exceeds is prior production? Maybe. The naysayers will say no...but I like to bring this up as a possible positive. Tage isn't Matthews, but the similarities in their injury, in how it impacts production at the same time and the same point...very similar. Something to think about. I looked into one other things....Matthews shooting percentage those 2 seasons before his wrist injury was 17.7. It went down to 12.2 the year of his injury (5.5 points lower). He took about the same number of shots per game (4.4 vs 4.6), just his percentage was down. Tage's shooting percentage the 2 years before his wrist injury this year was 15.5. It is down to 10.0 this year....(5.5 points lower). He has taken about the same number of shots per game (3.5 vs 3.6) but his percentage is just down.

Short answer, No. Something to think about...Twice in their 3 previous series this entire playoffs, they won 3 in a row at one point. They were done 2 games to 1 to Dallas and won 3 in a row to close it out. They were tied 1-1 with L.A. and won 3 in a row to close it out. They did have an 8 game win streak in late November/early December. They also had that 16 game win streak (16 in a row!) in January. Now, there were some lesser teams in those streaks of course. In my opinion they outplayed Florida for much of the last game. So again, do I think they will do it? Nope I don't. But mathematically the odds of any NHL team beating another 4 in a row are 1-in-16. I'd give Edmonton better odds than that (maybe 1 in 10 or 1 in 8?)

I'm not talking about cutting him, I was talking about the decision to bring him back last year in the first place. You could tell he was 'fading' 2 years ago. He finished the season with 2 goals in his last 18 games then, and several games he had his ice time cut to the 12 minute range (or less). I don't think the issue was you cut him, I think the issue was bringing him back. Zemgus still is one of the fastest skaters on this team and the skills he does have (whatever your view of them is), well, they aren't really fading yet. Okposo, it was an issue that many thought they could already see. The team might have been better if they parted ways with him before last season began.

Been to many of them, not all of them. For me I favor Ontario and Chautaqua, but for sentimental reasons. Growing up, my grandparents had a cottage on Lake Ontario...and a great uncle had a house/cottage on Chautaqua. Spent a lot of time at both places and have fond (albeit very old) memories of both.

With that being the case, he was drafted when Ruff was here, so Ruff certainly had input into the decision to draft him,

I'm halfway there with you. Cozens when you take into account his whole game hasn't shown to me to be a worthy center for a top 2 line (yet). Maybe he will get there? but I don't see it yet. I still think his style of play is better suited for wing. Thompson on the other hand I hope/think will get back to 50 goals or more this coming season (barring injury). I believe he was playing through a nagging injury and his shooting percentage will go back up to 15% which will get him near the 50 goal mark.

As far as the captain goes, I think Dahlin. The A's? Tuch, Cozens, and I think you need to add Thompson to that list. I could see it being any 2 of those 3. Reading a few quotes over the last year or so by the players and Adams, I think Thompson might have more respect in the room than many think, and I could see it being him over Cozens (or based on his long term signing, a slight chance Thompson could be the ACTUAL captain, but based on other things posted above, I still think Dahlin)

I just want to know what is going to replace it. Someone is going to make a new sight with the same info and a similar layout, right? RIGHT??

I don't think the issue was Girgs being retained last year. I think the issue was him AND Jost AND Okposo being retained. Girgs is a very good 4th liner. You don't need him gone to upgrade the 4th line, you need him here with the other 2 spots being upgraded.