mjd1001

Agree. I'm in my late 40's and as I posted in the other thread, the thing to get me out to the games again would be a better presentation at the game and a nicer arena. I'm good watching the games at home, give me a reason to show up at the game. And that doesn't mean just turn up the volume on the PA system and bang out more and louder music. Quality is more important than Quantity when it comes to off-ice entertainment.

First round loss, possibly a sweep.

I'd rather have the pick this year. Whoever you pick in the middle of the round is likely at least 3 years away from the NHL, and if they do become a major part of your team probably 4-5 years away from making a major contribution. Take the pick now, keep the pipeline filled for a few years down the road.

This was posted a couple years ago, but I still think it is related to what you are saying. They may be the worst drafting team in the past 2 decades. Forget about 500+ goal scorers or even 400 goal scorers. How many 300, or even 200 goal career guys have the Sabres drafted in the past 20 years (since the 2002 draft)? Whether they got those goals with the Sabres or elsewhere? In the NHL regular season, as of the post I read earlier there were 84 players since the 2002 draft that scored 200+ NHL goals (and of course many of them are WELL over 200 goals). The Sabres drafted 1 of them, Vanek. At least they must have drafted some all-star level Goalies or D-men in that time, right? At least a FEW over the last 20 years? Other than what is currently on the team or just recently traded away, the best I can find is Risto and Tyler Myers. So hopefully guys like Dahlin and Quinn and others will turn into stars...Eichel and Reinhart sure better be for being drafted #2 overall....but by and large, the Sabres have been a drafting nightmare for 2 decades. If you REALLY want to be depressed, go back a little farther. The Sabres did draft a 200 goal scorer in 2001 (Pominville). Then you have to go back another 12 years for the next one to Donald Audette. You want to know how long ago it was before the Sabres drafted 2 guys in consecutive years that scored at least 200 goals in their career? Mogilney and Turgeon in the late 1980s.

yes this has been brought up a few times, but I do like this discussion because it is an issue. I haven't been to the Arena for a couple years, but some things I noticed when I was there last: -ripped seats, broken cup holders, pitted concrete under the seats, bathrooms with no hot water, bathrooms with several stalls 'out of order, creaky and dirty seats, uninspired (to say the least) concessions. That is what I saw in 2 hours when I was last there a few years ago. I have been to many other Arenas because I travel a lot for work and like to take in some out of town games. I have personally been to some that were built the same time as ours (Boston, Philly, Toronto) and all of them have been remodeled/upgraded and are in much better condition than Buffalo. Somewhat newer ones like Columbus are A LOT nicer, and really new ones (Detroit) blow the KBC right out of the water. And here is the final point to consider. Should it just be about the product on the ice? In theory that sounds great, and that may have been true 20 years ago. But, if I am only concerned about the actual game, I am likely to be able to have a lot better experience at home. High Def TV, numerous camera angles, replays on tv, advanced states on a laptop or tablet as I watch the game...etc. As a pure fan of hockey, other than being able to 'see the play develop' outside of the camera...I can get more of 'the game' at home than in the Arena. SOOOOOO...if you WANT me at the Arena, you better give me reason to come. Give me an experience. Give me entertainment. Give me fun things to do while I'm there. I really think things have swapped from the way it was in the past. A 'true' fan who wanted to see 'just the game' was best served at a small Arena sitting close to the action like the Aud, rather than watching it low-definition on a 19" TV with few replays and no internet (decades ago). Today it is just the opposite. You want to take in the game and just the game many of us are better at home. To get us to the arena, give us something nice and a reason to go. The best reason to go is winning, but is it so hard to repair/replace seats that are broken, torn, and just plain disgustingly dirty?

I also don't know who that would be, but there should be guys out there like that. Good players, good guys. But guys who signed a deal that was a bit overpriced a couple years ago, and still have 2-3 years left on it at a high cap number with a current team that is closer to the cap than the Sabres. A bonus for ownership would be that the remaining salary the Sabres might owe would be less than the cap figure due to any signing bonuses already paid. Maybe someone playing in the World Championships with team USA that will get a chance to work with Granato when he is over there?

That's good for me. I am enjoying this team and seeing it grow, even if the pace is a little bit slower than a lot of people want, I really don't have any desire to see even mid-priced free agents who are 30 years old or older come in here. Stabilize the goalie situation, bring in a free agent if and only if it's a short to medium term deal and it's someone your 100% sure will fit. I don't need more than that.

Yes it is, and I'm enjoying it. I don't take it too seriously, but that doesn't mean I don't want to continue the conversation based on how things have gone so far with the trade. Besides, if we don't spend time posting about this, what are we supposed to do? Each of us give our opinion for the 7th or 8th time that we're not changing about what the saber should do for goal tending next year? Nothing new is happening and most other topics, every time something comes out of Vegas about jack, at least it's something new until it isn't. Isn't this what message boards are for? To talk about anything we want as long as someone else is willing to talk about it? It seems like a popular topic, thus it works well on this forum

I'm all for bringing in a somewhat young goalie that will be an above average guy. Off the top of my head the thing I would think the Sabres would look for is someone under 28 years old....some NHL games but flew under the radar (probably as a backup), but someone in that time that gave me at least a .910 save percentage. Looking at that...there really isn't much available. Unless you can make a big time trade for one of the top guys, I think UPL might be the best thing for the Sabres as the intended starter with a decent veteran backup. I really don't see many other 'younger' but 'ready for the NHL' options available out there.

So maybe the game plan is to make a few trades. There might be players out there who are very good players, good teamates, but just on teams that are up against the cap. I'm thinking of a very good player that SHOULD be under contract for $4 million per year, but is actually making $5 per year or more. That team he is on might want to keep him, but simply has to make some tough decisions and the Sabres may be in position to pick up those players. No one in particular comes to mind, but I know there are 'very good' players out there that are getting paid like 'great' players, and the Sabres might be in position to trade for some of them.

You are taking a chance that can reward you big time if it works out, but can set you back with cap issues if it doesn't. The concept is to pay a player more, earlier than you normally would have to..in exchange for them taking a longer deal that at the end of it they are ok with being 'underpaid'. They really aren't underpaid because they got more money early...just it has to be the right player to do this. What you do not want is a guy to take more money early, than at the end of the deal grumble and go to the press because he isn't making enough. The Sabres have cap room the next 2 or 3 years where they can do that..'overpay' some key players now but on long term deals so they aren't up against the cap in 5 years or so, but will they take that chance? and do they have the right kind of players to take those deals?

I never got the impression that Risto was part of that clique, or any clique. In the very little we could tell from the outside, I thought he had a much better attitude about being in Buffalo than Sam and Jack. The issue with Risto for me was simply, he wasn't that good at all. Of course We/I could be wrong and he could have been a major problem in the Lockeroom.....but personally I just viewed him as a Girgensons that played the back end with a lot more minutes and making a lot more mistakes.

I agree. This was brought up before but it is also worth considering...IF Sam had stayed here, he would likely be a Center (where he was moved to last year and played well). If he was your #1 Center going into this year...or more simply a guy on the roster that was going to take up a LOT of minutes at center, would Tage ever have been moved to Center at the end of training camp? and even if he was how much of an opportunity would he have been given there? If Sam was here he might be producing, but instead of a Tage Thompson playing at Center approaching 40 goals, you might have still had your Tage Thompson at wing struggling to put in 15 goals and be noticed at all.

I never figured out his usage. It seems like EVERY coach he had here wanted him on the ice all the time, even though he just wasn't that good. Was it a case of him being the best among a group of awful D-men? Maybe. But it more seems like coaches see his physical talent (size, skating, shot) and just think he is the most TALENTED D-man they have so they can't resist putting him out there. Even though in the end his decision making will be a detriment to the team, he always gets a lot of minutes. He did get 2nd pair minutes in Philly, but still averaged between 21-22 minutes per game. Problem for Philly now.....he is resigned for $5.1 million for 5 more years. Not many teams will take that off your hands. It will not cripple them cap-wise, but they are overpaying now for someone who is better suited on a winning team as a low-minute 2nd pair guy or a 3rd pair guy. To me Philly is overall in a kind of no-mans land. They had an awful season this year. They don't seem like they will be racing to the bottom of the standings, but don't have much to look foward to. They are not cap strapped and have some flexibility, but not a lot. They will get a high draft pick this year, but aren't loaded with top prospects. They aren't in an awful situation going foward, but there isn't a lot there to turn them around into a contender quickly.

Older thread from back in October. Interesting the Sabres finished with 75 points...which is by far and away the #1 choice of those who voted in the poll.

Interesting Anderson and Pysyk will be speaking to the media, seeing how they aren't going to be under contract for next year.

I haven't come across anything yet, so did anyone know what the attendance figure was last night. Either an official number released or anyone at the game and has a good guess? Years ago it was easy to find attendance figures game by game posted, I can't find them anymore. Just curious what the attendance was last night, and honestly most of the other home games this month.

Ok, I am not disagreeing with your basic premise, but if we look at the last 2 months of the season, among those wins you know who they also beat? Toronto (3 times), Minnesota, Calgary, Pittsburgh, Nashville, and Carolina. So yes, all of their losses were to playoff teams, but they also beat 8 playoff teams in that stretch. it isn't uncommon for very good teams to have losing records during the regular season against playoff teams (I think at one point this year, Calgary, Tampa, the Rangers, Boston, Washington, and Nashville ALL had losing records vs teams that were in contention for the playoffs) So yes, I agree with you they not only lost to some of the top teams, but some of the losses were brutal...and except against Toronto their wins against playoff teams were a lot tighter. They have to get better there. But if I do look at the last 2 months, I am overall encouraged at their performance vs top teams. Early in the year, or a couple years ago, I would expect most of those games to be almost automatic losses. The fact they went almost .500 vs playoff teams the last month for me is good progress.

I'm happy for him. After all those years, it has to be hard to leave doing the game, but at the same time, it might be nice for him to step back and have someoen else do all the prep work and just be able to sit back and do what he wants with his time, and probably watch any of the games he wants, how he wants form where he wants, and just enjoy it without the hours and hours of preperation.

Ok, a lot of things could change....the team could play differently in front of a different goalie...etc. But, strictly by the basic number: -Ulmark has a save percentage this year of .914. His career is .913. Last year with Buffalo was .917. 2 years ago .915. So, it seems like he is consistent...with Buffalo, With Boston. His whole career, etc....you are getting about .915 out of him. -The Sabres as a team have a .894 save percentage this year. Lets say Ulmark here would get the majority of the games played. 60 games (yes that is high but for argument sake) -Over 75% of the games played, the strict numbers say with an .915 save percentage, the Sabres would allow about 40 goals less. Right now the Sabres are a -54 in goals scored/allowed. With 40 less goals allowed, they would be a -14. minus 14 puts them slightly worse than Winnipeg and the Islanders (both at -8) and close to Dallas. No other teams are in that area. So where does that all shake out? 'By the numbers', about a point per game, or about 80-82 points, maybe a tad more (dallas is a bit of an anomoly here) is where they would be now. By the numbers if you calculate it that way.

A little off topic here, but another thing about the NFL (honestly a lot of sports) is the fantasy and gambling aspect. It is OK for me if that is allowed...and I understand people really like their fantasy teams and gambling. But being blasted with it over and over is turning me away for sure. Sometimes I'll listen to WGR, and you have commercials during the breaks for gambling sites....then you have commercials read by the hosts DURING the show...and then on top of it you have conversation between the hosts talking not about the game, but gambling and fantasy in addition to all that. Again, if anyone likes gambling and fantasy fine, but just not being able to escape it at all gets me to turn off the sports talk/game sometime and look for something else.

The first option...it says "Mostly watching the Sabres game, only checking in on the draft occasionally or not at all." The 'not at all' part is I think what you are looking for/missing.

I'm getting close to where you are. I used to watch every game I could. Wouldn't miss a single minute of the Bills, watched 3-4 other games per week parked on the couch staring at the TV. But with me it happened gradually. Missed a few of the other games at first..then stopped watching all the Bills games. Now, I 'follow' the bills, follow the story-lines. Read and participate (somewhat) in discussions about them. But I don't think I have watched a game from start to end, seeing every play, in a few years. Part of it is not much is new to me anymore (I have seen all the comebacks I need to see, no one handed catch I can see now I haven't seen before, etc). But a bigger part of it is the commercials, the pace of the game, and just EVERYTHING being overhyped. I said it in another thread on here, but basically when I get to the point where I feel I am overloaded with a topic or sport...where I can't get away from it...where there is just so much hype and attention...it turns me away. I know their goal is to make something so big that people feel like they 'just can't miss it' but to me it does the exact opposite. I get too much 'overload' from the attention and usually look for something else to do.

I agree that I thought Boston would be not as good as they are for a while now....but personally I think Marchand and Bergeron are a bit better than the top players on Vegas as their age, AND Pastrnak is better than pretty much anyone on Vegas (my opinion). Their D-core (Boston) also has their best players being the younger ones, as opposed to Vegas. McAvoy, Lindholm, and Carlo get 20-24 minutes of ice time per game, and their average age is only about 25. The Vegas back end is where they really are having an aging problem.

I'd normally watch both, but I'm going to spend most of the time with the Sabres tonight. I have lost interest in the NFL draft over the years. I think I am the opposite of most people, but the more something is hyped up, the more attention it is given and advertised and talked about...the less I seem to care about it. In this case that applies to the NFL draft for me.