mjd1001

There are things that can change the viewership, but too many people want to think they aren't an issue, or that they don't matter. 1.) Advertising. To those who watch the games its not a big deal. Some like commercials (its the time to get up and use the restroom or get a drink/food. I have always thought that way. However recently (about 10 years ago) I started to get back into F1 racing and watch the races. 1.5 hours per race and ZERO commercials during it. I also was a slightly-more-than-casual Nascar fan. After watching F1 races that are over in less than 2 hours with no commercials, I SERIOUSLY find it harder to want to sit down and tune into a Nascar race. To many fans who just love hockey its no big deal, but getting bashed over the head with commercials, ads on the board, ads on the ice, ads on the unis and helmets, AND having every commerical break sponsored by a company, a timeout 'brought to you by' a company, even injury timeouts in sports being sponsored, to SOME casual fans it can get to you (and yes, I know it is in most North American sports, but maybe the 'fringe' sports like the NHL and Nascar are the first ones where it is showing a viewership decline over the last decade or two) 2.) I'd like to see more teams make the playoffs (I know that is an opposite opinion than most, but for me it would help). This year is slightly different in the east, but over the past few years, it has been only half way though the seasons and the teams in the playoffs have pretty much been decided. Tradionalists don't like what the NBA and the MLB have done with their play in games, but do someting like that. It gives you incentive and a reward for finishing in the top of the league but yet gives the bottom teams a 'path' to get into the playoffs. Do the bottom teams deserve that? Probably not, but the fanbases do. 3.) this is a big one for me and it doesn't have to do with the existing fans of the team but aquiring new fans. The antiquated, old fashion broadcast model. Younger people don't have cable. There are exceptions, but I have a step daughter, 2 nieces, 2 nephews, and a 2nd cousin that are all under 26 years old...and to my knowledge ZERO of them have cable TV. They all are fans of the Sabres or at least casually follow them. But, living in the home market, you know what they can't do? Watch the Sabres live unless they have a traditional Cable TV package OR something like youtube TV (which mimicks traditional cable). Just about EVERY NHL game is on Huluplus/ESPN, but NOT your home team. So, you have a larger percentage of people under 35 in this country without cable or a cable-like package, who don't watch the games (lower local ratings) and end up following the sport a bit less. Solution? If you have a national deal where every NHL game (just about) is on Espn /Hulu plus...how about including local games? or at the very least offer a small monthly fee on those services to get the local games? This really drives me nuts because I talked to my nephew over the holidays who was a big Sabres fan, still follow the team, but when I talked to him he said that him and his roomates now 'kinda' follow the sabres but not that much anymore because they can't watch the games. I'm sure the blackout rules don't only apply to Buffalo but the entire league. Black out the local games on your streaming package, not only will many young fans not watch their local team, but it reduces overall interest in the entire league to them.

I agree. If there isn't a "can't turn this down good" deal available (which there usually isn't), then I don't make any moves till the offseason. The team is very streaky, but getting better. The nature of this team is probably that they will have a couple more big win streaks, and then at least one lose 6-out-of-7 where people are screaming for a move. BUT, I really think the best thing to do is make it to the offseason, evaluate, then give out the contracts you want to/need to.

I hate to keep posting basically the same thing on every trade thread, but I'm not terribly intetested in any one idea. If they find something out there that they can get for a GREAT deal, I'll listen. But right now, I'm happy with the team the way it is. They aren't perfect, but I'm more than willing to just let things ride for the rest of the year, evaluate the team in the offseason and go from there. More than aquiring anyone, I'm more interested in seeling UPL and Comrie play more this season, then getting to the offseason and hopefully addressing Cozens contract, and in the offseason see what you can do for an addition d-man.

I guess Orr. I think I saw a game he played once as a little kid but I don't even remember it. I'll take everyones word for how good he was. Lemieux for sure. The most dominant, unstoppable non-goalie I ever saw. I guess Gretzky is there too (can't argue with the numbers) but all the times I saw him play, I saw a really really great player, but not someone as dominant as Mario Lemeuix or Hasek at their peak. McDavid is gaining enough longevity that he might be moving up into that top 10 really quickly. I love watching Ovechkin, and I think he is the best goal scorer of all time (better than Gretzky, Lemieux, Bossy). Just look at the numbers he put up and see that he did that in some of the lowest scoring years in modern NHL history. However, on a list like this I don't think he is top 5, maybe, MAYBE top 10 but that might even be pushing it because he was the BEST at probably the most important skill in all of hockey, but he wasn't multi-dimensional enough. One guy that I doubt will be in there (and he doesn't deserve to because of longevity), but Eric Lindros, at his PEAK before his injury..was dominant also. It was for such a short period of time I think we all forget about it, but for that short time he was great. If many people think Gretzky is the greatest ever because of the 92 goal year and just how many points he put up, then you have to at least give a nod to Paul Coffey for doing what he did as a Defenseman. Sure, he did it in a high scoring era (So did Gretzky) but he was one of, if not THE fastest skaters in the league, put up almost 400 goals as a D-man, and had 2 40 goal seasons (one at 48 goals) and 5 other seasons of 29+ goals...again for a D-man.

Unless someone is WAY out of place, its hard to argue. Hasek at #7 Im fine with. Personally of everyone I have seen since I was a little kid (late 1970s, but I was so young I barely remember that) I would put him at #2 myself.....but I'm fine with #7.

I think if Vancouver wanted, they could have held out for a bit more as we got closer to the trade deadline. I guess they think this is 'close enough' to an ideal deal for them....and on an expiring contract if he got injured they would get zero. Better to take 80-90% of what you think you could get now than gamble risking it all (injury) for a bit more.

The best part about where the Sabres are at this very moment is there should be no rush (at least internally) to get the prospects onto the big club before they are ready. You may nor may not like Mitts or Jost or VO, but they are NHL players filling rolls. The young guys can play their last year in Junior...they can play a full year or two in the AHL. I'm not sure many players were ever 'ruined' by keeping them in the NHL for a year too long.

Ok, if we look hard enough, we can find a reason to dislike any fanbase or team. Cincy however, with helping the Bills into the playoffs to break the streak a few years ago, with it being a similar Rust-Belt small city like Buffalo, with how the community reacted with the Hamlin situation last month...they had EVERY REASON for people to like them and root for them. All they needed to do is not have any players act like arrogant, loud mouth jerks more than you get on any other team. Well....Cincy players are going to be Cincy players.....

A lot of what you said is why I am 100% fine if no moves are made. Is every young guy on the Sabres going to turn out to be good? probably not. Is there anyone out that that might make the team better? probably. BUT, the team is heading in the right direction now it seems...this team SHOULD be better later in the year than they are now, and likely to be better next year than they are now even with no moves. So if you make a deal, with who you bring in, who goes out, what the cost of the deal is (assets and more importantly a contract that may impact who you can keep a year or two from now)...its a roll of the dice, a gamble to not make a move, as it is to actually make a move. With that said, and with how I think the current team is taking shape, I would rather make the gamble to NOT make a change rather than take the gamble to make one. Now next year or the year after, that is a different story.

Jack being a guy who for his career is 25th-30th in the league in points per game, at his pre-injury peak was knocking on the door to top 10 in points per game for a year, and who sometimes has good 'fancy stat' numbers regarding 2 way play and other seasons doesn't....that is a player that another time would probably be interested in. HOWEVER, think as if you are a GM around the league with a contending team, how much would you give up for him? Jack being a guy that post injury is 92nd in the league in points per game, has that major injury on his resume, appears to have had a couple other minor injuries since then in about a season since he was back, whos old team got better with the return they received for him and his new team got worse since he arrived....AND a contender that wants him has to fit in is $10m per year deal (for a few more years) under their cap? I really, really don't see many other teams having any interest in aquiring him at all almost under any circumstances, unless they are giving up a fracition of what Vegas gave up for him. Almost any contender that could use him would have to do cap gymanstics to get him to fit, and maybe/probabaly have to move/get rid of players that are his equal or better to make him fit. Vegas is probably stuck with him and just has to hope he gets really healthy and can somehow turn is game around and have his best 2-3 seasons EVER in the upcoming years.

I don't like any of the teams that were left in the final 4. With KC vs Philly, I guess I want Philly. I don't watch them much, but I visited Philadelphia this summer for the first time in a couple decades and I liked the city more than I remembered in the past, so for no other reason, I guess Philly?

Either the Bills D-line is VASTLY overrated, and they are actually really bad overall, Or they simply cannot play well on any kind of wet/snowy field where their footwork is compromised. Its not just that KC is getting pressure through that Cincy OL....Baltimore was pushing them around pretty badly the entire second half of their game the week before. The Bills are the only team whos defense got manhandled by the Cincy OL. It might be coaching, but the Bills also couldn't win many/any one on one battles.

My wife and I started watching the new 'national treasure' on Disney, and its pretty rough. We are half way through so we are going to probably stick though it, but some if it makes no sense. some of the 'puzzles' they solve really seem like there is no explanation, and the acting is pretty bad. The main character, she shows very little emotion, the character seems lifeless and lacking any kind of charisma. Some reviews we read said that the woman who plays her is a great actress and destined for stardom, but I don't see that at all. Peaky Blinders was bought up. That I watched a few episodes, it seemed like it was well written and for sure the acting was very very good, but it just didn't hook me enough to stick with it. I can see how it can appeal to people who like that kind of show however. For a 'cartoon' and what some consider a 'kids movie' I thought Puss in Boots the last wish was good. Basically, its a cartoon cat that is 90% Antionio Banderas' portrayal of Zorro.

I agree. When the trade happened, I was happy with the return. Now a year or so later, it looks that much better for Buffalo. I'm not sure how much more you could have gotten for him that would make the deal better.

I didn't say good players for 8 years. I said "We have 8 seasons now of seeing him with very good linemates, with different coaches, with different teams" The reason I wrote it that way is he has had All of those things over the coure of 8 years, not that he had All of them for All 8 years. I tried to put that into context, but I probably could have written it a bit better.

Even when Eichel had his hot start, was 'on a tear', he still wasn't elite. His hot start ended at game 21 this year, after which is points per game production started to slip. EVEN THEN, at his PPG peak during his hot start, he was getting 1.23 PPG. At that rate, he would still be 12th -14th in the league. When you cherry pick the part of the season where he was playing the best and absolute healthiest, and compare that to the rest of the league when it is likely other players have had hot and cold streaks and have been playing injured, the best you can do with Eichel is get him to peak, at one given moment, at 12th-14th in the league. When he was with Buffalo before his surgery, he was 22nd in points per game in the league over that time. Since he was traded to Vegas, he is 89th in the league in Points per game, including his hot start this year of course. For his entire career, (Vegas and Buffalo combined) he is 27th in points per game. Even before his neck injury (throw out that last season with Buffalo and only look at his stats up through the 2019-2020 year (statistically his best) and even THEN he is still only 21st in the league in points per game production. Before he got hurt, he still wasn't generational, still not even close to elite. And Points per game is the most generous way to look at him. Look at pure production, and he is farther down the list due to his games missed. He is who he is. A guy that on occasion can look like he has extreme talent, but in the end, is a good-to-very good player in terms of putting up points, but thats it. Not generational, not elite, not even a half step below elite. We have 8 seasons now of seeing him with very good linemates, with different coaches, with different teams, and he is what he is. The 2nd best thing that can happen for any team Eichel plays for is for them to realize he isn't going to carry the team, and instead view him as a 2nd or 3rd best forward. The BEST thing that can happen for any team Eichel plays for is for Jack himself to realize he isn't good enough to carry a team and to play that 'supporting role'.

This is what I have thought also. In the past decade, I have been at events (not just hockey) in the Arenas in Boston Toronto, Philly, Columbus, Detroit and Tampa. It isn't just that the Arena in Buffalo isn't as nice, it is way, WAY behind. I'm not sure what can be done, the money just might not be available to do what needs to get done to 'catch up', but when you do go to one of those other places, the difference is massive.

Different Discussion...but I would put Mario and Hasek in that list with Orr and Gretzky. When Mario was at his best he was unstoppable, Literally, if he was going to score, no one was going to prevent it. I do agee with Sid and Ovie ( and everyone else) being that step behind 'generational' though.

There seems to be some things in common between Jack Eichel and Sammy Watkins: Both Drafted by a below average/bad Buffalo team....both considered to have 'elite' talent for their position coming into the league. Both had VERY good first couple years on their Buffalo team while not being good enough to get the team to the playoffs...both then had injury issues...Both traded shortly after that major injury in Buffalo... Watkins after his injury was never the same. NFL receiver, but bumped around the league. Eichel? since his injury he has fallen down the scoring charts of league leaders. Not sure Eichel will turn into the journyman that Watkins has become, but his career seems to at the very least not be rising.

Last year Jack had just returned from his surgery, so it might have been acceptable that he would have a slow return to form. He got 0.74 points per game, which ranked him in a tie for 110th in the league. Again, just back from surgery. This year, well, he had the full offseason off, could train with his new team, had almost 1/2 season last year to 'recover' from his surgery...is on a 'better' team, getting top ice time minutes, and all the Power play time he can handle (tops on the team). 0.92 points per game, or 56th in the league. Hes a good/very player in terms of point production. Thats who he is. He is not a great overall player by any stretch, and is only 'very good' in the offensive zone. We are now 8 seaons into the "Jack Eichel NHL experience". He has been on a couple teams, played with good teamates, had multiple different styles/coaches. He is who he is...a guy that you HOPE will finish in the top 25 places in terms of points. But for whatever reason, injuries, wear and tear, just not being as good as everyone thought he is....that top 25 isn't even a guarantee anymore.

Maybe there is a disagreement going forward. He is the safety coach, and his opinion may differ greatlly from Beane or McDermott. One side may want the veteran pair back there and is pounding the table for both Poyer and Hyde to be the starters next year. The other side is OK with youth/change/more athleticism coming in and thinks that in the long run the secondary can be just as good that way (if not better) for less money. It might just be a difference of opinion that means that it is 'time' for a change to bring in someone who is more aligned with the teams thinking.

I agree 100% I think when you talk about 'top 10'...include D-men and goalies in there also, I I thinkthere might be 30 guys that a case can be made for as being that 'last guy' on the top 10 list.

He is a good player obviously, but I am at the same spot I am with a lot of these trade proposals....unless you are getting someone for an incredible deal (not too many assets AND a market-level-at-highest contract) I am not super interested now. That doesn't mean that there won't come a time when a deal like this might make more sense. But at the moment, the team is getting better. They seem to be a good group together in the locker room. You have young guys that are still developing. I'm not in a rush to pay a lot to accelerate things when I, personally, think things are progressing forward at a good rate now.

I guess my point is I don't want a 3rd line player whos production is 'just a typical 3rd liner' if possible. Coyle is getting .53 ppg. Jost. is .41. Its a noticable difference. Maybe its nitpicking, but for me to say I have a 'good' 3rd line center, I want just a bit more production. Again, I am saying that if I am going to consider Jost a very good 3rd liner that I want to bring back 'for sure' (which to me that is the general tone of this thread), I want a LITTLE more production. I'm not talking 20+ goals. But 40 points (or very, VERY close to it) would be nice for a 3rd line center on a team that likes to say they play as up-tempo as the Sabres do.

I LIKE him, but to me he has been a 'slightly above average' replacement level guy. He is getting 14 minutes of ice time. His 82 game pace is 11 goals and 23 assists. He does kill penalties. I guess I don't know enough about how he fits in the room, and just how GOOD he is at penalty killing. I'd like him to be a 3rd line center, and if he is, I want more than an 11 goal, 23 assist pace. Does that mean I think he is hurting the team? No, not at all. Just before I am on board with signing him again to an 'above vet minimum' 1 year deal....or even a 2 year deal, I want to see a little more production, and I'd want to see that he is actually improving the Sabres PK. I guess if he is 'just as good' as someone like Cozens on the PK, that means you can rest Cozens when penalty killing so he is fresher 5 on 5. I don't know. I guess I like Jost, I just don't (yet) see him as a huge asset.