mjd1001

And as far as telling me to "go off" if I need to....I think the above by you illustrates you should really take a good, long look in the mirror at yourself before you cast that remark on anyone else. Don't take offense to what I say then and tell me to "by all means, go off" when you are doing the same yourself.

Its basically what you did. You don't say things like "Radio Silence" or use words to describe what others are talking about as 'ham handed' (or whatever it was exactly that you said) without expecint to get a response. Then you tell the person you are talking to about it that their facts are 'all wrong' just because they aren't good for your argument? I guess you need to get the last word in even when you are wrong....because I am just responding the the juvenile way that you talk to/respond to other people's posts.

Wow, there is something wrong with how you are reading or thinking. You judge a trade based on the players impact on the team, is that team better or worse since the trade was made. Vegas was a better team before the trade overall, so Eichel's impact wasn't going to change that. I have no idea if you just dont' get that or are trying to use an argument that doesn't make sense because it is the only way to make your point. Let me try to make this REAL SIMPLE: -In the season before the trade, and the partial season before Eichel got there, Vegas was 68w-36l. SINCE they got Eichel, They have been 66w-50l. The team has been WORSE overall since they got Eichel. -Buffalo, on the other hand, has been BETTER since Eichel left and they got Tuch. If you want to argue something non-sensical then go ahead. My point all along was that Buffalo so far has one the trade because what they got for Eichel has had a GREAT positive impact on the team than trading him away, and Vegas (so far) is LESS successful with Eichel than they were Before the trade. That is all I have been saying all along and those are the facts. And please, please tell me what facts I have that are 'all wrong'. If I made a mistake in calculations, It is likely a very small one. But I really want to know what facts I present that are "All wrong"?

It does matter that they were significantly better than the Sabres this year if their team STARTED from a better place than the Sabres were at before the trade. Wow, your argument is bad. Since the trade, the Sabres have gotten BETTER without Eichel and with Tuch, and the Golden nights have performed WORSE with Eichel in their lineup in the time he has been there comared to the time befor he was there. They were a better team before Eichel was there, his presense has not added Anything to their sucess, while the Sabres have gotten better.

The post you make is laughable. You think I am proving your point? Everything I said in my post is true. He is not what he was billed to be by many when he was here with the Sabres and he is not that in Vegas either. Along for the ride? he is closer to that than he is to being the reason for the team making the playoffs. Once again, The season and a half before he was there they were a LOT better overall than the season and a half since he has been there. Since he got there, OVERALL (not cherry picking) the team has less success. And since he left here,OVERALL in the same time period the Sabres have had more success. Again, let me repeat that, since Jack got there, they have been not as good. Since he left here, the Sabres have been better. Cherry pick all you want to make your argument, that is how I ultimately judge a trade. The fact that what the Sabres got for him is outscoring/outpacing him just adds to the above point. And, just because you stayed out of the discussion, why did you feel the need to put in your post the words "radio silence". Just becaue your eyes are closed, its not like everyone else is. The fact that you decided to say that to make your post sound a bit more 'cute' just goes that you are the one who has the 'ham handed, one sided skewed argument'.

Radio Silence? I'm not sure where you were, but there hasn't been radio silence all year long as you said here. There has been a LOT of discussion about Eichel on here. About how he is 68th in the league in points per game since the trade. About how since he has been there, Vegas has a MUCH worse point percentage/winning percentage in the year and a half he has been there than they did in the year and a half before he got there. About how the Sabres have been much better since he left than they were when he was playing here, and that the piece the sabres got in return has been much more productive here than Eichel has been in Vegas. Hes a good player. I'm not saying that he isn't. But your above comment is just not true. He did not "Guide" a team to the playoffs when in the year or two before he was there they were a better team than they have been since he got there. And no one crawled out of the woodwark just now after one playoff game. And the Rent free comment? lol, That is one of the most over-used things to say when you don't have much else to go at someone with. Discussing how players that USED to be on your team is part of being a fan. Teams make moves and evaluating how well a player/team is doing after the move vs what the other team/player(s) are doing is part of the evaluation process fans go though. The fact that it can be fun is just an added bonus for some.

Maybe. Or maybe he is just someone struggling with a decision. I put myself in his spot and try to look at it....he may very well like Buffalo and the guys he has met along the way, but on the other hand, at this point what is the downside of him not signing here right away and having the ability to look at ANY situation and see what ANY team has to offer him (including the Sabres at a later date)?

"Wanting to be here" vs "getting the best players at any cost" are 2 schools of thought. Which one is correct may very well depend on where a team is in its development cycle. I have always been of the 'get guys who want to be here', even when the team was bad a few years ago, I wanted someone who wasn't here just to collect a paycheck. I'd rather have a slightly 'worse' player but someone I can root for instead of a mercenary type who would be slightly better. I guess that is why I really would like to see them move on from Okposo, but wont' be upset if he comes back.

I'm of the opposite view. I like the team as it is for the most part, and think they will continue to get better. That doesn't mean SOME moves don't need to be made. I want 2 D-men added to this roster. One who is a legit, very good 2nd pair guy, and one that is good enough to be a 2nd pair guy but can be slotted in for a 3rd pair role on this team. If that is what you mean by big moves then yes, Big moves are needed. But I don't need much more than that and to me those are more 'moderate' moves.

I do agree with that. Right now the Thompson, Tuch, Skinner line looks good and was very productive this season. But things change. You could keep them together next year but it shouldn't be written in stone. Maybe in camp and preseason you just try other combinations (that is when you try those things) and how knows if something else clicks even better. Its ok to pencil in the lines for next year, but that is the idea, you use pencil, so if something works better (or doesn't work as good as it did last year) you can make those changes.

Bring Zemgus back. KO, in a perfect world I'd like to see him retire and move on to someone else, but I also kinda agree with what you are saying. Its not an awful thing to have him back. Keep the forwards status quo (dependin on how the young guys developed this year and over the offseason) and just focus on improving this team on the backend. If they come to camp with Zemgus, KO and Jost all here, no major changes up front at all, but 1-2 new D-men who are legit 2nd pair talent guys added to the back end....I'm happy with that offseason.

I tend to agree. When I miss a game (which I do on some occasions) I don't always rewatch the game but I do rewatch all the goals scored and the goals allowed, and if I am bored and have time I watch the replays of the goals allowed and try to look at what was the cause (goalie needed to make that save, someone losing a battle, a bad giveaway, out of position, etc.) Even when Stillman was on the ice, he really didn't seem like he was the first or second degree of responsibility for goals being scored against us. I have no idea really what the coaches are asking him to do, and on a shift-to-shift basis whether he is playing great or not. But, again, he didn't seem to be as much of a liability in his own end as some of the other D-men are (or at least half of the forwards are).

It would be nice to hear something to give us some confidence Dahlin is close to a long term extension. Also something like "We will continue to let our own players develop, but we are at the point where we are going to look more outside the organization for upgrades".

Its hard to not pick Boston as the Favorite. Carolina might/should get by the first round, but I don't think they are currently as good as most people think. Dallas I think is not going to fare well. Despite what some say is a good matchup, I think its going to be harder for them to get out of the first round, and if they do, they won't last much longer than that. Depite the record, I think this matchup features 2 of the worst playoff teams (both in the bottom 4). On the topic of getting into and out of the playoffs, once again, if you are good enough to finish on the positive side of goal differential, you are likely in the playoffs...if you are negative you are likely out. The top 16 teams in goal differential all made the playoffs, the bottom 16 all did not. In all, 17 teams had a positive goal differntial, 16 of those 17 made the playoffs, the only one that didn't had the worst goal differential of the 17 that were positive.

Krebs Is still a mystery for me. What I do know is that he improved as the season went on. My opinion however is that he improved from one of the worst forwards in the league to someone who was just serviceable. I really have no idea when the NHL draft comes around who is going to be good and who isn't. So when I see someone draft in the 1st round I'm always excited to get them as a prospect, so I was happy he came back in the Eichel trade. But after watching Krebs for a year and a 1/2, I just don't see it. Yes he is young, but I really don't see many signs of a top end player. I hope I'm wrong.

After thinking it over for a few days I am still where I was before: -2 new Legit NHL D-men for this rochester, 1 guy who can be a decent NHL fill-in for Rochester. A better D-group and hopefully better backchecking by the forwards solves a good portion of your goalie problems. -UPL, Comrie, Levi, AND a low-priced Vet come to camp to fight it out for the sequencing in net. Management/coaching evaluation of all 4 of them in camp in association with what they know of them already now will determine the situation in net next year.

I almost always say you take a chance on a long term deal if you have any idea at all what type of player you have. With that said, it is all about the money. If hes wanting $10m per year, then you go bridge.

What is overall grade for the season? B Sure they didn't make the playoffs, but I have 3 criteria for a good season: Did you win the cup? Did you exceed expectations? Were you entertaining? 2 of 3 for me. What grade would you give Adams and Granato (including his staff)? A. No problems at all. I'm in the camp of not 'rushing the plan' and I think they did what they wanted to do. What grade would you give the Forwards, the Defense and the Goaltenders? Forwards B+. Defense B, Goaltending C. Forwards were great at scoring, but they got a lower grade because they were often awful in their own end. D-men get a higher grade from me because they often took the blame for the awful backchecking/positional play of the forwards. What grade would you give the Power Play and the Penalty Kill? B- PP, C+ PK. Who is your MVP? Dahlin Who is your ROY? Power. He was trusted with the most ice time, and for that reason alone had the greatest impact on the team. Who is your MIP (most improved player)? From the beginning of the year to the end, Krebs. Might have been the worst forward in the league the first month of the season, he turned that around to be decent. Year over year, it might have to be Tuch. Tuch went from an "OK" top 2 line guy last year to a legit top 100 (maybe top 50) player in the league. Who is your unsung hero? Mittelstadt. Not only did he get better as the year went on, he played every game and had stints where he played in all situations.

Most teams and fanbases tend to, at one time or another, overvalue their prospects. However, Leaf fans take that to another level. They think every prospect the draft is great just because they are leafs. Every trade they make they win lopsided just because their management is the greatest ever (until they get fired, then everyone knew they were bad all along). The only reasons the leafs ever lose a single game, to their fanbase, is because of bad officiating or a player who they will only acknowledge is bad after he is gone. Knies may turn out to be good eventually, or maybe not, but some leaf fans were making him out to ba an all-star in waiting just about to enter their lineup.

Going into this season, the non-playoff 'bottom dwellers' who were viewed by many to make a move up in the east where Detroit, Ottawa, and Buffalo. Montreal a year or two away. If Montreal were to win the lottery, I would be worried about how good they are in a year or two, but that is an 'if' there. Detroit: I don't think they are as well positioned as Buffalo long term. Lucas Raymond is their #1 guy going forward, but he had a disappointing year this year. Sure he is very young, but Detroit was expecting him to take a big step foward this year (like Stutzle did) but Raymond just didn't. Good player, could be a great player, but he alone won't do it. Larkin is at his statistical peak, if he stays there long term, he is good but not getting better. They really don't have anyone else up front who is young and getting better that can fill that star-player role. On the back end, their high priced/carry the load guy is Seider. He played a lot this year and showed a lot of promise, but from I saw he the only young guy they have that looks to be good/great but even he looks a step (at least) below Power and Dahlin. I just don't see Detroit as a legit top-of-the-confernece threat going forward year after year. Ottawa: They have Stutzle. He looks good, really good. Just I'm not sure his is MVP-contender good, even in a few years from now. Jake Sanderson could be good, maybe even great, but I'm not sure, looking over the next 5 years I'd trade him for either Dahline or Power, and the Sabres have both of those guys, Ottawa only has one Sanderson. Tkachuk is really good up front also. But like Detroit, beyond that, I don't see a lot of up and coming Stars. Certainly Ottawa has enough to compete as the above 3 players get better and turn into a legit top-of-the-league core, but they will have to be really, REALLY good with filling in the rest of the roster each and every year. The Sabres currently have more high-end young talent options than both Detroit and Ottawa. So looking forward a few years, I'd put Ottawa slightly ahead of Detroit, but I think Buffalo is positioned better than both. Montreal is the wild card here.

No. Ideally I bring in Levi to camp next year with UPL, Comrie, and a low priced Vet. All 4 compete, and based on offseason, training camp, and preseason you determine how you want your situation to be going forward. I think Comrie might be better than he showed most of this year. I have little to go on, but I do think he was playing hurt after his early season injury and that impacted his play. I think you will get a 'better' Comrie next year.

I really want nothing to do with Kane. Injured or not, he is a shell of what he was. I'm not sure if he fits in this locker room. I'm not sure next year, or for sure beyond that, some of your young guys might not be BETTER than Kake will be next year (certainly beyond). Hes not solving your goaltening issue. He's not helping you allow less goals by his stellar backchecking and defensive play. Hes not going to elevate your penalty kill. And just WHO do you want him to take minutes away from on your Power Play? I really, REALLY hope the Sabres pass on him. Give up zero assets for him and even sign him for a vet minimum deal (which he likely won't do) and even then I just have zero desire to see him on this team over ANY of the young guys (even if they aren't 100% ready)

Maybe this a large part of wanting to have guys who 'want to be here'. Adams as a former player would at least know locker room dynamics. Maybe it doesn't matter. And maybe winning or the money you play a player ultimately is more important for where he plays. But on the other hand, maybe, MAYBE when a guy is here for development camp, when he gets to meet not only your other prospects, but other guys on the team through the offseason, that means something. There is a lot of specuation on the topic of the locker room before Adams took over, but we have heard enough stories from former players and media close to the team about how bad it was. If you have a young guy like Levi, it is quite possible that if he is unsure about signing in Buffalo or going to free agency....coming into a locker room where he knows people, where guys look to be having fun, where most players/everyone welcomes him and talks to him, where vets show up at development camp to watch or participate with the young guys in optional skates......he may be MORE likely to sign here in that situation compared to a situation where little or none of that happens and the locker room is dominated by egos and cliques. No guarantee and this is specuation of course, but I think Levi was more likely to sign here with this locker room and guys like Tuch, Dahlin, Okposo being leaders than he would have been with the leadership group and the 'core' 4-5 years ago. THAT is where having guys that 'want to be here' might matter.

Even though who is your 6th D-man is not usually a point of discussion, it will be interesting to hear why they chose him. As you said, maybe he wanted a faster guy out there? But on the other hand as I mentioned above, he only played about 6 minutes AND by having a player that you won't/cant play on PK, ALL of those minutes fell on Power. Had Stillman played and was on the PK, you wouldn't have Power forced to play 27 minutes, he could play his PP and even strength at a slightly fresher 25 minutes.

I mentioned this previously, but I'll say it again because it is in direct response to what you said. This team did not try to lose this year, they made a playoff push that that push was within a rigid framework of what they would and wouldn't do with other assets. They DID bring in players like Greenway and Jost and Stillman. Not top guys but they were at least decent additions and they didn't sell. Then Granto pushed hard for this team to win, you can tell by the ice time (bottom pair D-men getting 10 minutes or less with Power and Dahlin getting 25-28 minutes?) You don't do that unless you are really REALLY trying to win pretty hard. Adams had a framework to work within (either by his own standards or part of a larger plan by ownership) and he stayed within it. Granato pushed really hard to work with what he had, in my own mind sometimes pushing is best players a little TOO hard, but he did all he could to try to win. They just didn't have the assets this year, they did the best with what the play was. Agree 100%. I questioned why Power is getting pushed so hard (over 27 minutes of ice time). Bryson only played 6 minutes, and added nothing to special teams. I would imagine if Stillman was healthy, he could at least be out there on the PK instead of Power so Power could get a little more rest and get his ice time 'down to' 25 minutes focusing on even strength and PP.