mjd1001

Theory: 1.) Huberdeau was going to want close to the dollar value that Tkachuk would want if he extended, they did not want to give a 30+ year old guy that money. Florida as a 'presidents trophy' contending team keeps their window open longer with Tkachuk in 3-4+ years from now than they would with an aging Huberdeau. 2.) As good as Huberdeau is, they lost to Tampa the past couple years with him. Going from an ultra-skilled guy like him to a younger, tougher, goal scoring winger like Tkachuk, they might view that 'change' in style as something that will work better for them in the playoffs. 3.) Weeger is a UFA after this year, likely going to want a raise over his current $3.25. It would be hard to fit him in next year at a higher rate, might as well use him now as part of the package to get MT, for the above 2 reassons. I think for Florida, this trade makes them slightly worse or maybe the same overall as they would have been without this trade, but I can see them thinking 'changing things up' might help them in the playoffs. However this makes them better 2-4 years out because of the age of the main pieces.

Yes and No. No state income tax helps, so that is good vs many states and blows away what you pay in Canada. However, Florida isn't the 'cost of living, stretch your dollar farther here better than anywhere else' place it used to be. Real estate values (low end, mid, and high end) have gone up quite a bit, where now there are other places you can get the same house for a lot less. Property taxes have doubled or more in the past decade in many areas. Insurance rates are way up. Even everyday stuff is more expensive (we have relatives down there and visit a few times per year. Wegmans and even Tops have lower prices on many things that places down there like Publix, and even some of the Walmart Supercenters are on a different price plan where some items at a Walmart up here are less money than down there). One of the tech websites just did an article last week comparing 'private label' prices to generic, and they compared a basket of good at Wegmans (up north) to Publix (Florida) and the prices at Wegmans were much less overall. So yes, overall he is in a better spot in terms of money than if he were in NY, New Jersey, Buffalo, and a few other places and certainly anywhere in Canada. Some players look at that for sure but the difference isn't as big as it used to be.

Calgary had to make this deal thinking if they are not in great position come trade deadline, but of these guys can be moved then. I think a 30 year old forward coming off of a 100 point season is going to have a LOT of value to a team fighting for, or in the playoffs next spring (I'm talking young prospects, possibly a teams top prospect and at least a first rounder). Calgary lost too much this year to keep him and seriously think they are making a cup run. They have to be thinking of flipping these guys and then doing a rebuild. As for Florida, This is going to give them some cap issues going forward, at least less flexibility if not issues. But they look to be a very, very good team for a long time. Toronto needs to get their cup soon or else they will be looking at Florida as the team they cannot get past. Florida will have a 'core' of Barkhov (26 years old), Tkachuk (24 years old), Reinhart (26 years old), Bennet (26 years old), Duclair (injured but 26 years old) and Verhaege (26 years old). That is just up front. All those guys got at least mid 20's in goals, most in the 30s last year. Most of your D-unit now is not even in their prime, and you have Spence Knight coming up in net at only 21.

That is a lot of money for a guy who in the last few years finished Tied for 70th in the league in goals, tied for 133rd in goals, and tied for 22nd. Even if you take into account his games missed, he still was 33rd in goals per game last year. He doesn't bring much defensively, and his skates don't touch the ice short-handed. He got paid off of his draft status and his first 2 seasons in the league 5-6 years ago. Maybe its not that bad of a deal because of the length, you are getting him through age 28 (his prime years) and he still has POTENTIAL to score 40 for you.

it doesn't have to be an on/off switch he is either producing or not. It can be to what degree. Sometimes a player can start to produce well, but you pay him a lot more than many think he deserves (a guy is playing like a $3.5 million dollar guy, you give him $5.5 for 7 years, and by the end of the deal he is much better and producing like a $7-8 million dollar guy) A deal like Pastrnak signed previously for 6x40 or Barkov's last deal at 6x35 are examples. Those guys were producing already, but by the end of their deals they looked like huge bargains. The other side of it would be a guy like Tage, who blossoms into something that is well beyond the contract he signed.

On a note related to Philly, them not having the cap space with the team they put on the ice....it says very VERY bad things about how that team is put together.

Of the younger guys on this team, who would you like to see the Sabres pay earler than they have to, or overpay 'right now', so it puts them in a better position in the future? The reason I ask is this. It seems like you can assure yourself of having a 'good' team by not taking any chances with contracts, but to be a great/cup winning team it helps drastically if you have guys in their prime making less than their market value, basically on good contracts. So no players are going to be wanting to make less than they are worth, but the way you CAN do that is, when you have a bunch of young guys and you have a lot of cap room, you give money to players earlier than the earned/proved it on a long term deal, so they get paid more NOW when you have cap room but you have a better deal later when cap room is tight. So, if when the Sabres get good, you want them to have guys playing the back half of their deals that are good deals for the team, who do you want that to be? Who do you think you could give a long term deal to now (or in the next 12 months) that will be a higher dollar value than what they are worth now but it will pay off on the back end of a long term deal? (and if you want, give an example of what that deal would look like to you)

I've got 2 minor ones for today: 1.) Amazon (for those who don't have overnight prime shipping or buy things that don't qualify for shipping overnight). This has happened to me a couple times in the past month. Order something, get an estimate for the day it is delivered. 2 days later get an email that says something like "Now arriving early", telling you the package will be delivered on Thursday instead of Friday. Thursday comes and no package, comes on Friday anyway. 2.) Walmart. I'm fine with the shelf checkouts, but they really REALLY need to keep a couple of them for small orders. Go to many of the stores during the late morning or early afternoon and they may have 10 of the small self-checkouts open, 3 or 4 of the self checkouts with the belt open, and 4-5 regular registers open. NONE of them are express registers. There is usually along line in the regular checkouts if the store is busy, so I'm there with my 2 or 3 items looking at the self checkouts, and sometimes the line there is full with people with full shopping carts. Really, how hard would it be to set aside 1-2 of the 10+ self checkouts for people with only a handful of items?

To me it was OK, that is it. Every other past Jurassic park movie was pretty much the same to me. Introduce things, stuff starts going wrong, then they all end basically the same way. Same thing movie after movie, after movie. Half way though the new one, I actually LIKED it (more than usual at least) because it seemed like the movie was more about the characters, the humans. It wasn't oscar worthy, but I enjoyed the focus on the human characters. But it didn't last, the ending was just a new version of the same old stuff.

I liked it, but didn't love it. Saw it when it came out. It was good but not great. There was nothing I didn't like about it, but I can't quite put my finger on what it was that didn't make me love it. I am still trying to figure out how I feel about it.

I really am not a fan of Kane, but this makes sense. See what shakes out this year. See if Cozens, Mitts, and the other young guys take steps forward or regress. See if Tage can repeat his current season. Does Okposo put up 20+ goals again and seem like you want to give him a new deal or not? A lot of questions about the current roster should be answered in the first part of the year. You sign Kane next year if you must, or make a trade for him at the deadline if it makes sense for both sides.

Lyubushkin or Bryson I'd be good with not playing if an improvement is possible. Asplund I want to keep around because of his role. He appears to be the BEST on this team at doing what he does. As far as everyone else, No one is really safe of the young guys if they underperform. Let them all fight for playing time. Of course, ANYONE the Sabres aquire, I wouldn't be interested in much unless they are a long term piece. I don't want any of the young guys to be held up by a 30+ year old Vet who is marginally better than one of the younger guys.

Very low cost for low-to-mid potential reward. No real downside to this. No expectations but see how he plays in camp. More importantly, see how he plays under THIS coaching staff and THIS system. We might see what looks to be a different player when in this system.

Unless they were a team with the talent to go all the way, or at least closer than they actually did get.

That is an idiotic analogy. It is more like always having something to look forward to. If you aren't winning the cup, seeing a team grow, getting better month by month, anticipating what the players are turning into. I get it, you don't agree with it, so you are just going to take shots at anyone who doesn't agree with you. right.

Gullible fans? Why are we gullible when some of us ENJOY the team building aspect of the sport, we ENJOY watching a young team grow together even if it takes a few years. On this very forum over the years, I was against the moves Tim Murray was making to 'speed up' the rebuild, I'd much rather watch to see how a team develops this way. But I guess anyone who actually enjoys the process I described above....well it doesn't matter if we enjoy that or not, we are just gullible for not wanting to win now. 🙄

As many of stated on Twitter so far...St. Louis was a favorite because his father played there. Other than that, all the teams listed are teams with no state tax so he can maximize how much he makes. No Colorado. No Toronto, No Carolina. No Rangers. Surprised Tampa isn't on the list. So its not a 'guarantee' that money is all he cares about, but there sure is a lot of circumstantial evidence that money is #1 by far, and everything else is distant. Not the kind of guy I'd want the Sabres in on, so if this list is accurate, good.

Nothing against Calgary as a city, there are some things there that are nice I'm sure and the city has personality, but there is a lot going against it: -Canadian City. You have to deal with the Canadian Dollar, and both Tkachuk and Johnny G are from the USA. -Travel, when you pay for Calgary, you have a LOT of travel. You visit 1 team that has less than 60 minutes in the air in a Flight (Edmonton). For Family/friends from other areas of North America, there are few places you can get a direct flight from to visit you/see you play. Other than Edmonton, you have no NHL cities within less than a 10 hour drive/1 hour flight. By comparison, Buffalo (and a lot of other NHL cities probably) have 1/3 of the entire league in less than that distance. -Weather. Sure, as a player you are traveling a lot and working, but your family? Either they don't live with you for 1/2 the year, or during the season, they live in an area where the temperatures can be Brutal (much worse than Buffalo, Toronto, Chicago, Boston, etc) Sure if you are a young Canadian Boy who is used to it and is from the area fine, but try telling your wife/kids/family who didn't group up in that area they have to stay there for the next 6-8 years when there are other options. This doesn't mean that no-one will play there, they will, but there will be times where you are going to have young guys who want to move on when they have a chance to, more so here than in other cities.

I agree. He is a very good player, and he had a great year, but what are you paying for? A guy who in the last 4 years finished 9th in goals one year, and then well down the list in every other year. I'm interested to see where he gets traded, because if he is going to a top 5 team and he puts them over the top then good for him, but anything other than a top 5 team who can win the cup next year, I have a feeling that whoever trades for him and pays him will have regrets a couple years into his new deal.

I hope that is true and for a few reasons: -First, I think he is a very good/great player. I'm not saying he isn't, I'm just saying that I'm likely not interested in him. -I don't think you'll be getting him for 7-8m per year. I think he is the type of guy who is going to want to maximize his contract. I think you are looking at something in the area of 7x$10m or 8x$11m. 12%+ of a cap figure for him is not something I want to do. Why? -He puts up goals. That is true. He is only 24. But we aren't talking about McDavid or Matthew levels of production here. In the last 4 years, in goals he has finished: 9th in the league, tied for 81st in the league, tied for 48th in the league, and tied for 25th in the league. If, IF his BEST year is what you are going to get every single year going forward (9th in the league), I still don't want to take 12% of my cap for that. I want year in, year out top 5 in the league in goals for 12% of the cap. I'm getting top 10 with him, if and ONLY if he repeats his very best year and you ignore every other year of his production. -If you want to compete for the cup every year, we are seeing the last few years you have to outperform your cap figure as a team. It isn't enough just to get great players, you have to have them fit under the cap well enough to have many of them. This year Colorado had McKinnon playing WELL UNDER what he should have earned based on his production. Last year Tampa did cap-gymnastics to ice a team that was better than the cap would dictate. -So yes, the first thing you need to do is to secure great players, and Tkachuck is a very good/possibly a great player. But unless you can get him for at least PART of his contract to outperform his contract, then it isn't going to get you close enough to winning the cup. For the deal I THINK he wants to sign, I just don't see him ever having a year where he drastically outperforms the deal. To be a great team, you not only need good players, but you need a good number of your top 10 players to outperform their pay.

Sometime it is good business, sometime it isn't. If your fanbase needs a jolt (reason to come to the Arena because you aren't selling out, Jersey sales), AND that player is one who can legit carry your team, it is usually a good move. When you are up against the cap AND you are buying a guy who is possibly damaged physically (at least short term) AND you are already selling out your games, not so much.

The way I look at it is your prospect pool is a bunch of lottery tickets. When they are higher draft picks or 'higher rated' (by whoever knows more than I do), then those are lottery tickets that have a better-than-average chance of paying off. That does not mean they will. Their 'prospect pool' 5-7 years ago may have been highly rated and did not pay off, but that doesn't mean this group won't pay off (or that they will). Bottom line is, you are better off having more prospects, having more 'lottery tickets' and 'good lottery tickets' than not having them. Just because it didn't work in the past for this team doesn't mean it won't in the future.....and I personally would RATHER have the deeper/higher rated system than not have it.

I kinda agree. I have very little interest in him. IF you could get him with a deal that doesn't take away too much, and more importantly, a long term contract that isn't way too high then maybe. But that is the problem he is the kind of guy that has shown he is all about getting the most for himself. He'd make the team better on the ice, but what are you giving up for him? Is what you are giving up in the long term going to be more than what he gives you back? Even if it wasn't, he's just not the type of player I like. If he was a Sabre sure I'd want him to do well, but it would be only because he was a Sabre, not because he would be likeable at all to me.

Why should anyone care? Having a great prospect pool does not guarantee success, but it does help. It is just one of many factors that determine how good a team is. Just because having a 'top rated' prospect pool in the past didn't equate to a great team a few years ago....that is no reason to dismiss it as not mattering. It is one factor, and to be good you want to have as many of those 'factors' as you can.

From the little bit of social media and post draft coverage I have watched, it appears that Ottawa fans are SURE they are the best among the 3, Detroit fans are sure they are, and Buffalo fans mostly think they are. Pretty standard post draft stuff. Ottawa made some major additions, but I have the least confidence in them. I agree Giroux may be out of gas. He is done as an impact player and Ottawa may find they need to give him less ice time by the end of the year because they simply have better options. If you are one that likes to see the Vegas odd for who will be better, as of this weekend, a site I saw had Ottawa listed as 18th in terms of Stanley Cup favorites, with the Sabres at 19 (tied with Detroit, Nashville, Jersey, and Vancouver) FYI, Colorado was the favorite followed by Toronto 2nd.....Arizona was at the bottom, 2nd last tied with Seattle, San Jose, Chicago, and Montreal.