mjd1001

Last night's game is a pretty good microcosm of one of the big reasons I'm not a fan of the bills as much as I used to be. Almost anything other than a blowout victory is a disappointment. A loss to a team you were favored by as much as you were last night... Especially at home.. is a major, major downer for most fans and the community. I have always thought for a long time there are two ways to enjoy any season as a fan of any sport... To win the championship... Or to exceed expectations. Expectations are so high with this football team, for the season and week by week... That most games are going to lead to some kind of disappointment. It's just not as fun as seeing a lesser team work its way up the ladder. For me, the best years as a fan are those years where the bad team starts to show signs of Life.... Rather than when you have a top five team in the league, just bumping its head against the ceiling. I realize everyone doesn't view it the same way, but for me.. That's a large part of it.

Personally, I think the truth is someplace in between. When I watch Montreal, yes, they play fast, but they seem to not have much of a 'half court' game in the offensive zone. Whether on the PP, or just setting up in the offensive zone, their skill doesn't seem to be that high in terms of cycling the puck and generating good scoring chances. Off the rush they are OK, but their entire forward group just doesn't mesh in terms of playmaking once they establish the offensive zone.

Sincere apologies to any Quinn fans out there (I'm being serious, I am rooting for him and hope he plays better) but I'm not sure having Quinn on the wing with a young guy who played very well at times last year is best for Kulich: -In a very limited, and preseason, of them playing together: Most of their metrics were close, meaning Kulich with Quinn vs Kulich without Quinn. The only one big difference is even strength, Kulich and Quinn together didn't score any goals. When Kulich was out there WITHOUT Quinn, there were 2 goals for, 0 allowed. But going back to last year: -They played a pretty good number of minutes together. 161 minutes. When Kulich played with Quinn vs without him, Quinn brought down Kulich's Corsi (slightly), brought down his Fenwick % (52 to 47), brought down his shots for by a LOT (54% to 43%), brought down his expected goals % by a lot (52 to 44), and ES Kulich was a positive player without Quinn (+6) and a negative player with him (-4). As far as scoring, combine the very few minutes of the preseason with last year and you get this: -The team scored 40 goals in 618 minutes with Kulich on the ice WITHOUT Quinn (1 goal every 15.45 minutes) even strength. -The team scored 3 goals in 182 minutes with Kulich on the ice WITH Quinn (1 goal every 60+ minutes) And yes, those goals without Quinn were in large part to being WITH Tage, which helps the numbers. But even without Tage or Quinn (with Kulich having a variety collection of 2nd, 3rd, and 4th line wingers with him), the scoring is 1 goal every 25 minutes. I guess all of the above is my long way of saying I don't like the looks of putting Quinn with Kulich right now...but I understand Quinn has to play with someone, I just am hoping he steps up his play quite a bit from what he did the last 2 seasons.

I'm not sure the point you are making relative to what you responded to. I said he's looking better than cozens so that is an improvement. Full stop. I never said he was or wasn't going to be 'slightly better' We'll see if he is slightly better, or a lot better. I'm sure we are both hoping he is a lot better. My comment was nothing more than he looks 'better' and for now, until we consider the extent of it...that is a good thing to start with.

It makes perfect sense to me. If Dylan Cozens on the ice made "X" number of mistakes in a given game, and the guy 'replacing' him makes less, then yes, your team is better for it.

Him being here prevents Cozens from being here and actually hurting the team. Any production above and beyond that is just great. As others have said, the key is to stay healthy. Its going to be hard for me to have any concrete opinion at all with hjm, or the team for that matter, until minimum 10 games are played.

I think if Greenway is in the lineup, its not on the 4th line. If Geersten is, it is on the 4th line. Big difference in minutes played. Any 'greenway' replacement for usage will be someone else.

The question is, would he be better served getting something like 20 minutes in Seattle? Or 16 in Rochester?

No, not retired.

I guess Greenway also. I just don't think he is too hard to replace. The drop-off from greenway to whoever replaces him, IMO, isn't all that significant.

There are some people as they get older, they sense their mortality and get desperate to leave a mark that they can be remembered by. They try to do big things. If they own a sports team, they'll throw everything at it to try to get that championship. Then there are others who as they get older do almost the opposite. They get cheaper, more frugal, they look at their bank account or their net worth every single day and don't want to take chances with their wealth. I've always gotten the sense that Terry Pegula is more of the second as he gets older and not even close to the first. He has the money, so how do you explain when he bought the team... No expense will be spared... Money is not an issue... Going to the relative penny pinching of the past 5 years? If he truly believed now what he said when he bought the team, even during covid, there would not have been any gutting of the hockey department or layoffs like they went through, and even if that did happen, things would have certainly been fixed immediately when the league came back.

So, providing no new injuries tonight, it looks like the opening night roster would have everyone in it except Kesserling and UPL. The new guy acquired to stabilize the blue-line and the guy who plays probably the single most important position in the sport missing isn't good, but at least it seems to look good for everyone else.

It seems to me those who are almost 'perma-negative' about the team and just want to complain about everything....they are ANTICIPATING an 'injury excuse' before it even happens. So if it does, they can say 'told you so'. I'm not worried about it. As others have said, most of the injuries seem to be the day-to-day type that may very well not even be any kind of issue a week from now when the season starts. Plus, there is a difference between an 'excuse' and a 'reason' to me. If you are going to say the team misses the playoffs because of injuries, and that is a direct result of negligent training or preperation by the team...then I'll listen to it as an excuse. But if they miss the playoffs because key players are injured that mostly come under the 'random' type injury...then we may not like it..but that would be more of a 'reason' than an 'excuse' to me.

So Levi is in Rochester, UPL is injured again, They picked up a journeyman (actually 2 of them). Not that I was expecting to know more..but one week until the regular season starts, and I feel we know NOTHING more about the goaltending prospects for the season than we did over the last few months. You could not write a script of a situation that gives you less insight into their goaltending at the end of camp. Barring major injuries, I am thinking goaltending (not defensive play or scoring) will determine the fate of this team. I feel I KNOW the defensmen are still flawed but should be slightly better than last year. I feel they will be at least a top-half of the league scoring forward group. Goaltending I can't even guess. Its a total mystery to me.

Interesting graphic and I get it might be done with some statistical formula: -I agree Detroit isn't a team that has a bit time window opening. They seem to be more in 'no mans land', maybe SLIGHTLY toward the 'window opening'. -Put aside all the negativity, I think the Sabres should be slightly more toward the 'window opening' area. -I know Kopitar is retiring, but I don't think the Kings should be basically in the worst area of the chart. -Toronto might be entering the 'window closing' phase soon, but I think their position on this chart should be slightly farther back. -Edmonton should be slightly farther forward to the 'win now' area. I think Edm and Toronto should be in the exact same spot. -I'm not sure how Ottawa and Boston are almost in the same area.

I am not arguing to not extend him. I'm on the fence and would be okay with either..... If they extend him or if they don't right now. But you say how do you not extend him? Simple. You have him this year. So if you miss the playoffs this year it will be with him on the roster. If you missed the playoffs this year with him on the roster, maybe this organization will be looking at sweeping changes, and having an aging guy getting likely paid $10 million per year who is in his thirties with eight more years on his deal would not be the way to go? If you make the playoffs and things are looking up, then you offer him market rate what he's worth. If he wants to be here, he's from the area, and you're giving him what anyone else would give him on a rising team that just made the playoffs, I don't think he would turn his back on that. Eichel, Reinhart, and Ulmark are frequently brought up as examples for players. This team let get away in the past because they were cheap and didn't want to extend them. All of those players were on the upside of their career, none of them would be starting a new contract in their early thirties... Not anywhere close to it. Again, if they extend him I won't be upset terribly. It's just that.. they have him this year. I don't see an urgency to do it at any cost.

I keep on going back and forth whether or not I want him extended at a high dollar. It seems like each day I wake up. I'm thinking the other side of things. But to answer your question directly... You have him this year. Is he going to be a consistent 65 point winger if you sign him to a big deal the year after that, and the year after that, and the year after that? As he approaches his mid-thirties? The more direct answer is, with the money that you would not pay him, you hope that one of your up-and-coming youngsters fills that role and you pay them, or you go out on the free agent or trademark it and pay money that you have available. If they announce they signed him to an 8-Year extension at $75 million tomorrow, I won't be too upset. On the other hand, if they decide to let him play the year out and see how things go, I'm not going to be upset about that either. I think losing him next year would be a tiny step back compared to what you could do with that $8 to $10 million... And that is not the biggest problem this team has starting next year.

We have cap estimates for the next 3 years. I'm pretty sure the teams have some idea where the cap will be a year or two beyond that. I'm not against giving Tuch a significan raise based on the increased Cap. I personally just would look at the 'midway' mark of his deal (if he gets an 8 year extension, what does year 4 look like?) At his age in years 3-4 of an extension, what kind of player do you think he will be then, and what percentage of the cap do you value that? Even with that, you are likely to overpay at the end of the deal. Just do your best to make sure you aren't overpaying 2 years after the contract takes effect.

For the past 3 years, when tage has been healthy, he has scored at a 50 goal pace. He is one of the premier goal scorers in the league. He has an elite hard shot, a pretty accurate shot, and even in tight areas....he is probably in the top 20 players in the league in creating his own opportunities. Take the fastest shot in the league, which is pretty accurate, add elite skills at generating your own shot... And you have one of the top 10, if not, top five goal scorers in the league. The only thing missing is the team around him to give him more opportunities.

I think in some football or baseball stadiums, they have areas where they take out seats... Or seats were never put in and they have the concierge experience locations like you're mentioning. The thing is they don't have to be right down center ice, and a lot of those cases. They're tucked away in the corner or they take out the bad seats and put them in. The thinking is a lot of people who want to sit there... They want exposure to the game, but the experience is more important than being in the exact prime location. At least that's what I think I've seen on some videos of some of these new and renovated stadiums and arenas.

That is my issue. I don't know why, I don't have any statistical evidence directly related to HIM that points in that direction....its just that I feel you are going to see a slight drop off in his performance this year or next, and it will accelerate in years 2 and 3 and beyond of any extension.

I'm not sure why but in the past 2 to 3 days... With no new information... I've totally changed my thinking on how I would want theSabres to handle this. My thinking is lock him up to a long-term deal only if it's a very team-friendly deal. I don't mean lowball him in an embarrassing way, but don't overpay and make sure you're not at the top of the market. You have him this year. My thinking is if he's reluctant to sign the deal you put in front of them then play out the year. If you are having a bad year and it looks like you're going to miss the playoffs, and he's having a good year, then, if he's willing to move, move him to another team. The assets you might be able to get back could be just as good as a 30 plus-year-old aging Alex Tuch. If his play starts visibly declining this year because he is starting to show signs of being a 30-year-old winger, then you dodged a bullet by not giving him $80 million. Finally, if the team plays well and makes the playoffs, and he's a big part of it, then in the off-season you negotiate with him just like everyone else would. By making the playoffs and being his hometown team, at least you're not at a disadvantage against other teams, and I don't think another team will offer him a long-term deal for much more than what you would have to do, again,to get a 30-year-old aging winger. Maybe he'd be resentful against the team for not giving him what he wanted. I doubt that, but if he was and he signed someplace else anyway, then use that $10 million a year to allocated someplace else, again... Not on a 30 to 38-year-old winger. I don't know why but for the past year....up until 2 or 3 days ago....my thinking was sign him at any cost. Now I'm just as willing to let the season play out and see how things go.

I agree with your point... It's hard not to. The reason why Tuch is different... Is you are potentially signing him to a long-term deal that starts after he's 30 years old. All those other guys were in there early or mid-twenties.

I could see Florida taking a big step back without Barkov. Many of us truly think he's a top five player in the league. All the way back to 89? Not sure about that. Toronto is the same way. I do not think they are going to miss marner as much as many people think. As much as I don't really like Matthews, I also think he is by far and away a top five player in the league. He carries anybody on his line. With that said, any injury at all to Matthews, which happens frequently to him, and even a slight step back in their goaltending can be a big drop for them. The only thing is, it's possible those teams can drop that far, but you're relying on injuries to do that. That's pretty much the story for any team in the league.

I go back and forth on the value of signing him long term. Over most of last season, despite how well he was playing, I was not hoping for a long term deal. But then, most of the Summer, I was all for giving him one, with the thought you are going to overpay in later years to get the next 1-3 years. I'm not back on the not really wanting to give him a long term deal. You have him THIS year. By the time NEXT year starts and you might not have him, I just have the feeling his age is going to be catching up to him. So here is how I am looking at it now: If Tuch is looking for close to $10m per year, even with an increasing cap, what kind of player are you going to have 2-3 years from now, and how much better will that likley 'declining' player be compred to one of the young guys who will be getting older? Do you want to be paying Tuch high end top 6 money on a team that is tight to the cap, when he is 32, 33, 34 years old? Or would you rather be paying Rosen, Helenius, Benson, Kulich, Quinn, and/or Doan less money....and in 2-3 years from not might 2 or 3 of those guys be better than an aging Tuch? Or, if you let Tuch walk after this year becaue he is looking for $10m per year, what kind of other player can you sign or trade for using that same $$ and can they be just as good for the next 2-4 years after this year?