mjd1001

I'm fine with charging for the Draft, as long as it isn't 'too much'. If they don't sell it out, they charged too much. Other than that, I'm ok. This year, it appears 'selling out' should be no problem. Sabre fans will come close to filling the place, but the huge number of Maple leaf fans coming down from Toronto probably justifies charging for it. Just make sure you put on a good, or a GREAT show. Have stuff to do outdoors, make it a MAJOR event. With Sabre and Leaf fans all over, this will be another opportunity to 'raise the bar' and put Buffalo on the map for more NHL events.

I'm going to really miss the name First Niagara Center. To me, it was the best name for any arena/stadium for the area. Even though it was named after the bank, the fact it had the name "Niagara" in it was great...it had something to do with the region.

1. No major long term-injuries for Sabres 2. Tampa and Florida have at least one major (top 5 player) long term injury 3 One major upside surprise (Reinhart hits 30 goals...sign Stamkos or a top 3 D-man...Moulson returns to 25 goal status...Ennis back at 100% and fits in with 25+ goals) 4. A tad bit of luck in close games.

I really REALLY wanted the Sabres to draft in the top 5 this year. I beleive, long term, it would be best if they had 3 super-young superstar potential forwards. However.... There was really going to be no way this team was going to finish last....and I'm holding onto what Tim Murray said in an interview on the radio a few weeks ago....he said that There is a clear #1, then a drop to #2 and #3...then after that he thinks the next big drop is after 11 or 12. If that is true, then as long as they are before that next drop, they should get a good player.

I like hearing Craig Rivet occasionally, but I think he is WAY too dry to be on everyday. The show also gets a bit 'crowded' when you have more than 2 hosts. I'd rather see them stay with 1 or 2 hosts, and sprinkle in that third guy occasionally.

Every year in recent memory...EVERY year, we hear that Edmonton is going to make major changes in the offseason. Big trades...sometimes right from the GM's mouth. It doesn't happen. So, the leadership in Edmonton vows major changes...but they then don't do anything because they expect 'equal' value in return for their current players who they still think too highly of. Edmonton needs to move out some of their 'stars', and take the best offer available. Don't trade them to the first team that comes knocking...but shop some of them..and take the best offer. Even it isn't what you want....Big changes now WILL give you a better chance of being a good team in 3-4 years instead of always waiting for the 'perfect offer'.

I don't see an Edmonton Dynasty, I just don't. Might they win a Cup? Sure, but I don't think you'll have long term success. They just won't be able to fill out their roster as well as other teams. They are going to have to 'overpay' to get their mid-level players...just like they have been in the past few years. If they are good, won't that help? Yes. But Edmonton is not a favorite place for players to sign for the city. It doesn't have Toronto nearby (like Buffalo does so many players can play home). Travel is pretty bad in the Western Conference and Edmonton has it worse than many. The Economy of Edmonton isn't doing all that well right now (or at least as well as it was when oil prices were higher) so its going to be harder to sell all those new Suites at the new arena for the prices they want.

I like what you are saying. When people bring up ways to increase scoring, often times they are shot down because they won't lead to more 'end to end' action, and it may result in more 'cheap goals'. However, I am all for any and all goals...cheap or not. What makes the game more exciting for me is knowing that a 2 goal lead means something..but not nearly as much as it does now. If your team id down 3-1 now...there seems to be a 90% chance the game is over. I think only 1 out of 8 or 10 times a team comes back from that level. ANY increase in scoring makes those leads less safe. I'd still rather have that 3-1 lead than not..but I want to know if I turn on a game and one team has a 2 goal lead...that it is still worth watching.

I think if McDavid averages a point per game for the rest of the season, he might get it. The push from Canadian TV/Journalists/Media will be pretty hard.

I have been looking seriously into this also. I am still on contract for a few more months with Verizon though. I think i'll probably take the plunge with Fi when I'm done with the contract.

There isn't much of an advantage of buying him out financially, and you can't trade him. 25-30 goals would be great...but for him to not be buried in the minors, I think you need to get him approaching 20g (15-20) over a full season...with him playing a very good, responsible defensive game. I don't think, at this point, you can expect more than that, and I'm not sure we are going to even see that.

I really think they need bigger moves than they even think they do. Sure, mgmt in Edmonton is saying they need a shakeup, but they say that every year. THIS might be the time where they have to trade assets and not worry about getting fair value. I'm not saying to get robbed blind...but move 3-4 of your major guys just to 'start over, so to speak. You keep McDavid...you keep ONE of the rest of the core, maybe 2. You get the best you can for the rest. What is the worst that is going to happen? Next year your team on paper isn't going to look as good as it does on paper this year? Really, identifiy ONE of the core you have not to keep with McDavid...trade the rest of the 'core' for whatever you can get...then basically give away the trash you don't want.

Well, it looks like the NHL is going to give a small amount of lip service to this, but nothing more.

Possible some players on the team are 'sitting back' and not trying as hard since he has returned to the lineup..figuring he will carry the load? No matter how good he is, I can't see teammates taking that approach...but this is Edmonton.

I'm OK with a few more 'lame goals'. I just want more goals..period. As long as we get some 'skill goals' mixed in with those extra 'lame goals' bring it on. I'd rather watch a 'clumsly' 6-5 game than a well-played 2-1 game. Does that make me a casual fan...not a hard-core...appreciates the game fan? Probably. But that is what I like to watch.

Thought about this a while because it keeps getting brought up. Both at work and on talk radio....the topic comes up a lot "how good would Edmonton be had McDavid not gotten hurt" or "would they be in playoff position" or "would they be in a position to have a much smaller chance at the lottery?" So, I don't know. But what we can do is take the Oilers record in games he HAS played and compare it to when he hasn't. That doesn't account for Schedule, injuries of teammates and other things, but it is the best we have. Currently, Edmonton is the worst team in the league...50 points for the season..averaging 0.82 points per game for the entire year. In games McDavid has played: 8W - 15L - 1otl. 17 points in 24 games, 0.71 points per game. (projecting to 58 points over an 82 game season) -As a team they are -15 in goals, or -0.63 per game In games without McDavid: 14W - 18L - 5otl. 33 points in 38 games, 0.87 points per game. (projecting to 71 points over an 82 game season) -As a team they are -22 in goals, or -0.58 per game That is a pretty big difference. Does that mean McDavid isn't a good player? Of course not..he really looks to be the best rookie in the NHL in a long, long time. But what it does mean is that team is so bad that it is likely that...if he never got hurt...they would probably be in the same position.....and are also likely to get another top 2-4 pick in this years draft (if not outright winning the lottery again.) My personal conclusions: -McDavid is probably the most talented offensive rookie since Crosby/Ovechkin arrived, and might be better than them -McDavid isn't really helping is teammates much, making them better overall 2-way players YET. -McDavid isn't a good two way player YET. -The Oilers are a pretty rotten team top to bottom, It doesn't appear much can save them. They don't need to trade one or two pieces, they need to purge that roster.

I think that is where I come down on this (at least partially). You get very few top 6 forwards, top 2 D-men from that point in the draft. So, strictly from that point of view it was worth taking a shot on a starting goalie. HOWEVER, if you would packaged that pick with next years #2, how much higher in this draft could you have moved up? Or could you have flipped it to someone else for a future #1 and played the lottery with that pick in future years?

Anything stand out to anyone? And is it still too early to say ANYTHING about him longer term at all...or can we get some initial reaction to his play...good or bad? He has faced a lot of shots per game. He's facing about 33.5 per 60 minutes...the TEAM that allows the most shots per game in the entire league is Ottawa, and they allow 33.1 Saver percentage as of today is .924...which is above average. If he qualified for League leaders, he would be tied for 8th with Jake Allen, Luongo, and Lundqvist. The league leader right now is Brian Elliott at .933. In 11 starts, he is 3-4 with 1 shootout loss. Anyone have any concrete opinion yet?

I'd have to agree with you. Whenever the Sabres go on a couple game losing streak, we hear callers on local radio say something to the effect that "they are barely better than last years team", which isn't true. Not only are they going to beat last years team by almost 20 points...the +/- goal differential is so much better. That isn't saying we should be happy with the team, but I think this is what should be expected. Next year should be slightly better, and I think you are looking at 2016-2017 before we see a serious push into the playoffs. A reasonable expectation for next year should be close to even +/- goal differential and to be near 85 points. (we can hope for better though)

We are now closing on on being 3/4 of the way through the season, so I thought I'd look at some simple projections based on where certain players (and the team) is based on a full 82 game season projection: -The team is on pace for 73 points (They had 54 last year). They are on pace to be a -40 in goal differential (they were a -113 last year) As for individual players 'pace' based on what they have done so far projected over a full 82 game season: O'Rielly 25 goals, 44 assists, 69 points Eichel 23 goals, 31 assists, 54 points Ristolainen 12 goals, 37 assists, 49 points McGinn 18 goals, 19 assists, 37 points Reinhart 25 goals, 12 assists, 37 points Foligno 10 goals, 13 assists, 23 points Moulson 6 goals, 13 assists, 19 points Girgensons 9 goals, 11 assists, 20 points So, Foligno is what he is now...but is he good enough that you want him to stick around as a 3rd line winger? Most want McGinn back, and I agree. However, is he worth paying $3.5 - $4 Million a year..especially when he is likely to move down a line in the next year or two...maybe giving him less production? Moulson is going to get bought out, Right?? Is Girgensons just having an 'off year'? Is he a 8-10 goal scorer? 15? or should we eventually expect 20 out of him?

I know a bit off topic, but speaking or rink size...and about what is wrong with the game "players getting too big and too fast" check out this article that is almost 30 YEARS OLD where people were saying the same things as they are today: Full article here: http://articles.chicagotribune.com/1987-10-18/sports/8703190117_1_hard-checks-and-fights-bigger-rink-nhl-fans Some interesting parts of it: (remember, this was from 1987, there are some quotes from Sabres coach Ted Sator: NEW YORK — Mark Messier says the evolution of National Hockey League players has rendered the league`s rinks obsolete. ``The NHL doesn`t have any choice but to go to a bigger ice surface, and I feel the sooner the better,`` the Edmonton Oilers center said. ``The game is just too fast now, and the players are too big.``It`s like a pinball game out there. You`d see a lot better hockey on a bigger rink, and the fans would enjoy it more. There would be more of the skill-control game. Players are getting hurt too often on the small ice surface.` The only elements of the game that draw as much fan reaction as goals are hard checks and fights. The league has been slow to institute measures to curb fighting, so why should it want to reduce collisions? ``I think you see better hockey on smaller rinks,`` Boston Bruins General Manager Harry Sinden said. ``You see more contact. A lot more. You see a lot more goal-mouth action and not nearly as much open-ice play, which creates a different game.`` ``In my opinion, NHL fans would be bored to death by Christmas,`` Sinden said of watching games on larger rinks. ``Having gone over there (Europe) and watched a number of games, that`s exactly what happened to me. Occasionally, if the Soviets are playing, you`ll see a hell of a game, but to try to watch that kind of hockey for two weeks, you`d be bored to death.`` Bobby Clarke, who played for and now is general manager of the Philadelphia Flyers, agrees with Sinden. As a player, Clarke made a living mucking in the corners. ``If you`ve ever watched European hockey, it`s boring hockey,`` Clarke said. ``Nothing happens. There`s very few shots on net, and there`s a lot of fooling around in midzones. ``My feeling is that we could make the midzones smaller and bring the goal line out farther and not have offsides for a two-line pass. That might open it up some.``

What I wish we could see in the NHL that we had back in the 1990's and earlier.....different sized rinks. Remember Montreal had a really big surface compared to Buffalo, Boston and Chicago? In baseball we have different size and shaped parks..and we USED to in Hockey. Maybe it would help scoring...when teams played in different rinks...everything wouldn't be 'standard', maybe coaching 'systems' would have to be tweaked or wouldn't be as 'perfect' as they are now. Players would rely on skill more and less on 'positioning'...and maybe it would just lead to a better game with more scoring?

I don't really want him that much. The most I would do is Ennis and a 2nd...but I don't think that would be enough for Tampa.

I'm O.K. with Dunleavy. If he took over for RJ full time next year, I'd be fine with it.

I know it is unpopular to say, but I agree with you. I care 95% less about a fight in hockey now than I did in the past. If I could see 1-2 more goals per game, I would EASILY give up all fighting in hockey. On those rare occasions we do see a game with more 6 or 7 (or more) goals that is a back-and-forth game...I never walk away from a game like that and wish for more fights. I just want to see more goals. Any lack of interest in the NHL that I have...any game I turn off early is not due to the lack of fighting, it is due to the lack of scoring.