mjd1001

The reason I'd want Ulmark is that I think he's an above average goalie. It would be hard to find another goalie better than him. You want to sign or find a higher quality backup for this year I'm fine with that.

I really was getting comfortable with Ulmark. I'd like to see the Sabres sign him to a 4 year deal. Ideally, Year 1 Ulmark starts, UPL in roch. Year 2 Ulmark Starts, UPL backups. Year 3 maybe a split of time, and year 4, If UPL is the stud we think, he is your starter and Ulmark takes a bit of a backseat. If UPL is not ready/not good, you have Ulmark start for all 4 years. I'd overplay Ulmark SLIGHTLY on a 4 year deal if you could make that happen.

You are just wrong. You may not like Granato as a head coach, and maybe he will not turn out to be a good one, but you are 100% wrong in saying they have a similar background. Granatos coaching experience at the pro level, AHL, NHL assistant, ECHL.....there is a ton of experience that were Rolston had very little. Granato coached many years in the USHL, the East Coast league, and then was coach of the year in the AHL with 5 years of coaching in the AHL, and then additional experience in the AHL with Chicago later in his career. Granato also had stints as an assistant coach in the NHL with the Blues, Blackhawks, and of course the Sabres. Granato pro coaching experience up to potentially named coach of Sabres this summer: 210 games head coach in the ECHL, 480 games as head coach in the AHL, parts of 5 seasons assistant in the NHL with 3 different teams, and head coach of the sabres taking over for Krueger and doing better. Rolston pro coaching experience up to being named coach of the Sabres: 152 games head coach in the AHL. That is a HUGE difference.

Except that's not even close to being true. Granado has a ton more games under his belt coaching then Rolston did. A lot more experience at the NHL level, and a lot more depth of experience at the AHL level. Rolston had very little of that.

I'm half way to where you are. On one hand, Eichel could (should) be just very frustrated. You can be frustrated with the team, your injury...and add to that just having a bad day about something else and what he said is TOTALLY understandable as a 'one-off' type of comment. On the other hand, I can also see where he might not be the leader that they want....it is POSSIBLE he is a guy that has a little more entitlement to him than what the Sabres want. Not saying it is true, but if that came out as true at a later date it wouldn't surprise me. At this point, most of us just want some resolution to this. Will he stay, won't he? Where will he go, what is the return? the longer it lasts, the more posters on this board are going to take runs at each other.

Shouldn't. When they left, there was no return. If Jack and Sam leave, there likely will be a very good return. Also, Drury and Briere we captains of a team that went deep in the playoffs for a couple years. Sam and Jack? Not so much....

A powerplay guy is valuable. A goal is a goal is a goal, whether it is pp or even strength or shorthanded. I don't care how a goal is scored, as long as it is scored. As a matter of fact, whenever the Sabres have a season where they are slumping on the PP, many people on here in years past longed for a powerplay specialist. BTW, he is not great 5 on 5, but I think since he has been on the team, VO is 4th (or close to it) on the team in even strength goals. Again, that isn't a lot, but it isn't like he is totally non-productive even strength.

I hope my math is correct here: 1999 Sabres with Hasek in net....98 point pace (projected over an 82 game season) Other games with Biron and/or Roloson in net... 69-70 point pace.

Again, SUPER hard pass on that. A 30 year old...with a huge salary? And just how many people do you think want to come to the worst team in a league just because one player was traded for? Not enough to make you a contender. I don't think this would happen, but if they made a deal like this, it would be about as upset with management as I ever have been and would wonder just what their plan for this franchise is.

Yeah, no thanks on Tavares. I mean with his age and contract, and the fact the Sabres aren't going to be contenders anytime soon, I really don't want him for even a LOT less than Eichel.

Agree. I am not usually a "Buffalo homer", I tend to think Jim Kelly was very good but not great, I think Eichel is over-rated by a lot of people, I want to see Josh Allen have a 2nd great year before I proclaim his greatness....and to the dismay of many on this board I am one of those posters who usually says "put the brakes on a bit" when a conversation gets to how good someone on a Buffalo team is. With that said, I think he is the greatest goalie of the modern era, by far better than Roy or Brodeur. I will entertain a case he is the greatest player of the modern era (over Gretzky and Lemieux) because of just how dominant he was....how putting that one single player on an average-at-best looking team would turn them into a cup contender.

Its kinda strange to me.....I think it depends on your point of view. I see that 'tradition' as just the opposite. When I visit these forums (and Bills also) I see a group of fans that seem to defend the players no matter what, and blame the coaches and GMs for the teams sucking when that happens. New coach, old coach, experienced coach, former player as a coach. Experienced GM, GM that served as an assistant GM...GM with no former experience....To me there are some that say the players are great and can do little wrong..but it is always the fault of management and coaching.

I'd be ok with that trade. Do I think anything the Sabres would be getting in return would be as good as Eichel at his best? Of course not....but I also think (and HOPE that I am wrong) that the offers for Eichel are going to be a lot less than what people on here want. He isn't expensive for his talent level, but he's not cheap. He may be damaged goods. It looks like he wants out of buffalo, I'm just not holding my breath for a trade much better than this.

I'm all for keeping the pic, or just trading down one or two spots but not for a roster player. The team with the current core is shot, there's no winning the cup in the next year or two, so I'd rather re-enter a rebuild with young top draft picks, not existing NHL roster players.

Can you imagine the Sabres being on the hook with a 'damaged' but playable Eichel for $10m and A 'shot' Skinner? With almost $20m per year tied up for that much time, this would be a dead team walking for the next 3-4 years at least.

Beach house in Chatham MA. Honorable metion to me to a small mexican/taco restaurant in Stuart, FL...the name escpaes me now.

A lot of it has to do with where we are in the offseason...and with a LOT of BIG questions for the Sabres this offseason. The #1, Eichel, A new coach, Reinhart....etc. We all have opinions on these things...and with not much happening now our opinions are getting hardened/deeper. So what is left? To go to the forum and argue with other people who happen to have a different opinion. What this forum needs is for things to start happening. Hire a coach. Trade Eichel or announce he is going no-where. Give a week or two between each move and we'll have more to talk about instead of just arguing the same things over and over and over.

If you have conviction that one player is going to be the best in this draft...even if it is only by a little bit, then no. You take the player you are pretty sure is going to be the best. However, if you are having a hard time deciding between 2 players, then I would move down but for nothing less than a high 2nd rounder. Again, that is only if you really are having a hard time making a decision. You won the lottery. Use the pick. There might not be a 'superstar' in waiting but there sure will be some very good to great NHL players here. You have the top choice of those prospects, use it and don't get too cute. The only other thing I would consider if is you could find a way to rid yourself of Skinners contract, that may change things...but nothing else. Okposo, I'm even good with his contract because it only has a couple years left.

I know where you are coming from, but 2 things result from those thoughts (I have had them myself): -If this draft is truly a bad draft....then everyone else knows that also and you aren't likely to get much at all to trade down. If you are 100% willing to trade from #1 to #5 or #8 or even 10... because there isn't much of a difference in player quality, then everyone else should know that also and they are not going to give much to move up to get something that isn't much better. -If this draft is not as a bad at the top as we think, they I don't want them trading down. I also don't really care that much if they end up picking 2 or 3 instead of 1 this year....but force me to choose and of course I'll take #1. At some point you have to trust your management team to make a good choice, and giving them the most options is best. For those who don't want them to pick #1 because they think the Sabres will screw it up? They could just as easily trade lower in the top 10 and pick up another pick or two....and if the management team is really that bad they can screw up those picks.

The problem is there is just SO much that we don't know. I can't get by the first part of it...does he (and/or how much) want to be traded? Is Eichel in the "I'd like to be traded and I'll work with you on it, but if I'm not traded I'll be OK".....or is he more like "I'll keep this quiet but I never want to play for this franchise again, EVER!"...or maybe he doesn't even wanted to be traded as much as we all think? I have a hard time getting beyond not knowing even that. The problem is there is just SO much that we don't know. I can't get by the first part of it...does he (and/or how much) want to be traded? Is Eichel in the "I'd like to be traded and I'll work with you on it, but if I'm not traded I'll be OK".....or is he more like "I'll keep this quiet but I never want to play for this franchise again, EVER!"...or maybe he doesn't even wanted to be traded as much as we all think? I have a hard time getting beyond not knowing even that.

Wow, way to over-react to make your own point. No where in my post did I come close to suggesting to build a team around him. I just said he would be better in certain situations or with a different type of player around him.

I think you could also argue that with a better team around him produces even MORE. A D-unit that gets the puck out of the zone quicker and transitions it up the ice gives more shots for ALL fowards...and with him having one of the best shots on the team more goals from him. Also, as good as Eichel is, he isn't the best center for a winger like VO. Eichel likes to carry the puck into the zone..he likes to hold it....VO is the type of winger that you get him the puck the second he is open and let him shoot. A 'different' type of center (one that doesn't dominate the puck so much) and a D-unit better than this one and you might get a lot more scoring production out of VO.

I think a team being likeable is down to 2 simple things. Winning, and beating expectations. If your team wins the cup, obviously fans are going to like that. The second part is beating expectations. Out of the Lockout, the Drury/Briere team was so likeable because they didn't have expectations on them right away coming out of the lockout and they were very good. Almost anytime a team does better than what is expected...even if it still isn't great, they are more likeable (a lot of people on this board 'liked' the team at the end of the year, simply because they exceeded the expectations that were set in the first half of the year). If you think of some of the 'least' liked teams in any sport..often they don't have much to do with pure wins and losses, but rather the lack of wins compared to expectations. If the Jets and the Packers were both to win 8 games this year, I'll be the jets fans will like their team a LOT more than packers fans, because it is about how you perform compared to expectations.

I don't know, that might be true. I wasn't sure myself. What I was thinking though about where they would play...it simply would be they would be based in the closest facility to the team they are playing to reduce travel cost/time.

I think it matters who they play, and that they will try to reduce travel so much for the series. They could be playing either Colorado, Vegas, or Minnesota. If they play Vegas, I could see them making a home base in Phoenix or Los Angeles If they play Minnesota, Maybe Chicago is the spot. They are going to have to relocate for 2 weeks. I don't think they would want to give the other team they are playing 7 home games (it might be an option) but to me it makes the most sense to have them practice, live, and play their 'home' games in a city with facilities that is the closest to who they are playing.