mjd1001

I agree. Building through the draft usually works better than trading draft picks for 'ready now' guys. A small part of the problem the sabres have is that Tim Murray was intent on 'speeding up' the rebuild. The bigger problem they have is they haven't drafted well. You say the rangers were luck to have 2 top 2 picks in 2 years? Remember the Sabres had 3 top 2 picks in 4 years....with 1 of them considered a 'generationa' player in Dahlin..and another that was taken 2nd considered a play that in most years would have been #1 overall. The solution to bad drafting in the past is to draft better in the present and in the future...it is not to give up on drafting. Most people know this, but look at just who the Sabres drafted in the first 2 round over the past decade that are average at best or maybe total busts....Pysyk, Armia, Grigorenko, Girgensons, McCabe, Risto, Zadarov, Compher, Hurley, Bailey, Lemieux, Cornell, Karabacek, Guhle, Nylander, Asplund, Middelstadt, Davidson, Samuelson.......and who do they have that is good? Eichel, Reinhart, Dahlin? When you are drafting in the top 10 of the first round quite a bit, you need more 'hits' than just the guys you draft #1 or #2 overall. The drafting in the past IS the Sabres problem...and there is no fixing what has happened in the past. You need to hit on some future picks..not trade future picks to mid-level roster players.

I'm a lot older than you apparently...I have faint memories of Sabres games around 1980....as a kid I became a big fan in the middle 1980s....so I was introduced to Royal Blue for a long time before the red and black. BUT, I really like the red and black. I'd be all for bringing that back for at least a 3rd jersey.

On the surface I see where you are coming from. When I have been bored I'd thought of a formula or 2 of how I think it would be fair...."lottery weighted based on record from last season and 1/2 weighting the previous season, with a slight bump in odds for every year in a row a team misses the playoffs...etc" But, 90% of the problem would just be fixed by getting rid of the lottery totally. If you want to do SOMETHING to penalize teams for tanking...hit them in the pocketbook. The team that finishes last and gets the first overall pick gets a little less revenue sharing..something like that. Just give the worst team in the league the first pick. Things aren't like they were in the past....where a team could get Jagr and Lemiuex together for years and years and years and surround them with pretty good players all the time...the salary cap takes care of part of that now.

I hope Minnesota. I really don't want to see Edm, Tor, or Pitt get it....but I don't think if he goes to any of those teams, it makes them a 'dynasty in the making'...so while I don't want them to win, I'm not overly concerned. Toronto is going to have cap issues for a long time. Pittburgh, their window is 1, maybe 2 years before it closes...and that window isn't really top cup contender now even, they are 2nd tier. Edmonton? Probably the most dangerous of the 3, but not the worst place for him to go. Florida is where I'd be worried the most. When you look at that team, the cap room they have, the team that can make the biggest jump with a player like him in 2-3 year from now...I think it is Florida. Plus, he'd be on that team in the Sabres division. My heart tells me no to Pitt, Tor, or Edm....but my head doesn't want him in Florida.

I'd rather see the Leafs beat the Jackets in a long, back and forth 5 game angst filled series...only to have their head handed to them in the next series. Just as enjoyable for me...but it ensure no chance they get that top pick.

I can't read the whole article..not a subscriber. I was never really big fan of the new Arena. I was a little kid when they played at the Aud and had fond memories of those games. Sure, I know it was smelly and dirty...but the thing I liked the most about it was how small the inside was...how much closer to the ice most of the seats were. So you have a new building..like many other places. It just seems to me that many of the other Arenas built at the same time as ours in Buffalo have undergone a much great renovations leaving ours behind..and the brand new ones of course are so much nicer. I WANT a nice Arena, I want the Bells-and-Whistles. If I was a true die-hard fan, I would only want to watch the game at home..seeing all the replays and having multiple camera angles give me a better view than most seats in the Arena..all the while at my pc or large tablet getting any up to the second info I can analyze. But these days I'm more of a casual fan...so the 'night out' experience in the Arena is almost as important to me as the game...and the 'night out' experience in our Arena has fallen quite a bit behind most other places.

I'd really have to think about this...but Kurri, Neely, and Ovechkin were the first 3 names I thought of. If I had to come up with 2 more.... Peter Bondra Pavel Bure

I want Dahlin to be good enough next year to be getting 24 minutes per game of ice time. Don't waste any of that on the Penalty kill though. #1 PP unit..and about 19-20 mins per game even strength.

I think that has a lot to do with it. I won't bet on it..but if he doesn't have another job by this time next year, it wouldn't surprise me to see him back covering the Sabres whenever they do play.

I know this isn't about this years draft...but can anyone imagine what next years might look like? If Covid goes on much longer..and restrictions stick...you might be looking at a 2021 draft where the kids (players) haven't played at all for 1.5 years, or at least haven't played much...and even they they do play...will there be as much scouting of those few games as in the past? It might make the first round a little trickier...but I can't imagine how totally random the later rounds of the draft might be.

I don't disagree with what you are saying..but a couple of points: -Fighting itself is just about gone. In 2001-2002 we had over 800 fights in the NHL season. Every season through about 2010 had about 700 fights in it. Over the next 5 years that dropped to about 400 fights per season..then to the 300s...and the last full seas we had...just over 200 total for the entire year. That is less than 1 total fight for every 5 games played. If you look at the Sabres current stats...they have taken a total of 3 major penalties the entire season. As far as the blue collar thing....maybe its true in Buffalo but I find it funny how many other cities say that. I lived near Boston for quite a few years..and over and over they would talk about the Bruins as being a 'Blue collar team' to reflect the fact that Boston is a Blue collar city. Listen to WFAN out of NY city through most of the 2000's and you'll hear the same thing about many of the NY teams and NY city. If NY and Boston are "blue collar cities", then what does that make Buffalo?

To me, nobody on this team is 'untouchable'. I'll listen to talk for anyone. Does that mean I'm shopping them? No, but I will listen to any offers...... Untouchable means trade under almost no conditions. To me the only way a player is untouchable is if 1.) your team is a championship contender ever year 2.) the player in question is a top 10 player in the league 3.) the player is under your control long term. 4.) the player wants to be with your team long term and has 100% commitment to the team. Peyton Manning in his prime. Mario Lemieux. Lebron James or Jordan. Sidney Crosby of the last decade. They were untouchables. Now if you want Jack, my asking price would probably be too high for most other teams. Lets start with a Kyle Connor/Seb Aho type player...give me another young player with them that is either a potential 20 goals scorer or a top 2 D-man..and add your top prospect or a first round pick that is a top 10 pick..and lets start the discussion. Does that asking price seem outrageous...thus putting him the category of untouchable? Maybe, but I'm listening to offers like that.

I'd listen to offers....but it has to be the offer that the Sabres "can't say no to". Something like a player that is almost as good as Eichel (Klye Connor, Aho, Barkhov, Laine,), AND something else of major value (top prospect in their system and a high draft pick) and maybe take a bad contract off the Sabres also. Basically, the only trade I would look at for the Sabres...the other team has to be looking to trade a Star player for Eichel, who they think could be a bigger star..and they are going to have to pay up extra to make that leap.

I don't know much about Adam Mairs coaching ability, but I wouldn't be against it.

Probably not, and on the surface no for sure....but.... What was the reason O'Reilly was dealt? He and Jack supposedly had dinner when St. Louis was back in town, but things might have been kinda 'chilly' between them when he was here, was it a choice between the 2 and Jack had some input into the move? Did Jack have any input into any of the other moves? He is an elite (or at least on the border of elite) production player, but are you getting your moneys worth with regard to the cap? None of that may be true...and it may not mean he is the 'problem' if it were true...but there may be things under the surface that happen with ANY player that may have more of a negative impact on the team than the production shows.

I never said to get another GM job...he might know hes not getting one...but maybe there is an assistant GM job or some other job available he has heard about through friends and knows he will be gone from buffalo, so wants to take another 'lesser' job now while the getting is good. Or maybe he found out being a GM in a situation like Buffalo just isn't for him...he knows he will be gone soon and wants the time off (pressure on family, not liking the community, family issue/sickness). Once again, I didn't say at all it was for another GM job, not sure where you are getting that from. I hope not. I mean, its great you have a local guy...but I'd want the decision on my gm to be 99.5% or more because you think he will be a good GM...less than 0.5% because he is local.

A lot of speculation here, but..... Maybe Botts asked for his 'release'? I think a common thought was that if the Sabres don't make the playoffs next year he was going to be gone for sure...and maybe he just thought he'd be too much of a lame duck...and asked out?

Not too joke too much, but give it a month or two with Adams at the helm...if major moves are not made soon, there will be people calling for this.

I agree with this. If you were going to fire him, then it should have been done a while ago. Once you said you are keeping him, then keep him. And I'm personally not someone who will never be happy with the Pegulas. I have thought for the last year or 2 that it is becoming apparent they aren't good at running a team....but I also thought that if you are going to stay with Botts, then just stick with him---the worst thing you can do is keep changing your mind on things.

No, not at all. If the team wins the cup according to the rules laid out in front of them when the playoff starts, then its no question to me the answer should be no. An "*" should only be considered if AFTER the cup is rewarded, it is found out that a team cheated in a major way to win the cup..or if the rules were changed along the way (supposed a team is leading the finals 3 games to 2, and then for some reason the finals need to get canceled so the cup is just rewarded to the team that is up at that time.)

I don't think there is much to do to fix it. Coaches keep working on it...that is it. Sometimes you will have one of the best PK or pp in the league one year..and a bad one the next...with little changed so there is a lot of randomness involved.

I certainly am NOT answering my own question. Read my original post again, I am referencing to what is being reported in most of the mainstream media (whatever side you watch, Fox, CNN, MSNBC, etc.) there is very little if ANY discussion at all about specific proposals going forward. If that discussion is happening....it certainly is not happening in a very public way..and that is my point. The specifics of what has to be done need to be out there in the open...certainly that is not the case now..and that is not what the protesters are getting across to the vast majority of people witnessing all this. Are they unhappy...yep, we get that. What specifically do you want done? Not many people know. If I'm missing that, please let me know. Because as far as I know.... Protesters are protesting because they want conditions changed so this doesn't happen again, right? If so, what specifically do they want changed?

It should be for everybody to discuss, isn't that the point? If putting laws into place to prevent this from happening...or doing other things to make sure anything like this doesn't happen again...if all that is just for mayors and police chiefs to discuss...then I go back to my original point...what are the protests about? Id really want to think the protesters care more about changing the system than simply being seen on tv protesting for no reason. This should be all about making sure this doesn't happen again..and that should not be simply left up to mayors and police chiefs.

My point is we aren't really having a discussion about what changes have to/need to be made going forward. Not much ever really changes after these protests/riot run their course every year or so. Sure, there is a lot of 'discussion', if you read my previous post, i kinda said that..but what my point is where is the discussion about changes....what new laws...what new guidelines can we put in place, can we negotiate into law? I'm getting a lot of everything else, but no focused endgame of what will make these situations happen less in the future and how to put that into effect.

Ok, one thing that is missing...or not that apparent..is the endgame for the protesters. I haven't been watching this on tv hour by hour, but I have checked in on the news..and i want to know...what is it the protesters want exactly....the only 2 things I have heard so far "our voices to be heard" and "justice for Floyd/against the officer". now, that may be all well and good and make the feel better, but what changes things in the long run? I don't see anything so far. Who is the leader of the protesters, and what exactly do they want? Are there specific proposals for things that can be put into law to make changes going forward? Do they want more oversight of the police? 360 degree cameras on all police cars like Tesla Sentry mode? I mean, I'm not trying to be a jerk either way, but what is the endgame here? We can't have that 'national discussion' about these issues when that very discussion is only about 'how bad' the issues are or that they 'just exist'. What are the ideas to change it...what are the ideas the protesters have? If there is a problem (and there probably is at least a one problem, if not many) how is it fixed? What are ideas we can discuss going forward and put into place?