JohnC

He played last year. Because of his inexperience he still has room to improve. But I never got the sense that he was overmatched. Quite the opposite: He was a player that can be a contributor in the NHL.

I'm aware that the fusion surgery requires a longer recovery and the replacement surgery requires a shorter timeframe. I have not said otherwise. But what makes this outcome tougher to predict is that he will eventually return to the ice playing in a crash sport. Just a side note: Tuch is having shoulder surgery. That is a common surgery in hockey. The outcomes are usually good.

These surgeries do have a success rate. I have had two back surgeries (aware not exactly the same). A successful surgery for me is different than a successful surgery for a hockey player who plays professionally in a crash sport. The referencing to McCabe's, Ullmark's and Tuch's surgeries are not relatable to Jack's surgery. These aforementioned surgeries are procedures that are not uncommon in hockey. There is usually a standard rehab timetable. That's not the case with Jack's situation. As it stands there hasn't even been agreement in which is the most suitable surgery. And if the surgery he has works out there is no guarantee that even if he can get back on the ice, which I believe he will, will he be able to play at the level he did prior to his injury.

When Seth Jones was traded for a generous return he was healthy. The team that acquired him knew that next season he would be playing at the high level he had been playing at. That doesn't come close to resembling the Jack situation. As it stands there are no guarantees that Jack will play next year or ever return to his elite form.

I'm aware that Tuch's is going to need six months for recovery and rehab to get back on the ice. He is expected to come back to full health. So I don't see the health risk that you do. That's in contrast to Eichel's injury where there are some legitimate questions whether he will play this season at all. And it should be noted that is not out of the realm that he may never regain the elite form that he previously had. Of course if the Sabres could get more then I'm all for it. But if they can't attain the higher return then adjusting to the situation and the market isn't an unreasonable approach to take. I understand why you wouldn't want to make the deal that I would find reasonable but I would make the deal if given the opportunity.

If it is a bare minimum then you find it acceptable. Of course I would prefer more but if the minimum is met then I would advocate for a deal. My minimum is that a deal has to include a high end prospect who is capable of being a #1 or #2 center in the not too distant future and plus more pieces. Tuch is a genuine first or second line forward. That would qualify as a very valuable piece to this proposed transaction.

I would love to have your adds on. But the Jack we are talking about is currently injured with an uncertain future. He barely played last year and there is a chance that he won't be able to play next year. And if he does return to the ice he may not be the player he once was. The major risk in a transaction isn't on the team shipping out Eichel as it is for the team receiving him. I understand your position but if the Sabres could make a deal with Vegas that includes Krebs,Tuch and a lower first round pick I would do it. Let's not make perfect be the enemy of the good.

Why would you walk away from the @wookie1 deal if the two players you referenced weren't included? The centerpiece of the deal would be Krebs. He's the essential player in the deal. And if Tuch was in the deal that would make the deal even more appealing. The biggest benefit in such a deal is that Vegas would have to deal with the medical issues and the Sabres would be able move on and start putting the roster pieces together without any distractions. Make no mistake about what I am suggesting. I'm not advocating trading Jack just to do away with all this commotion. It would be terrific to include one or both of your favored players. But if a reasonable deal is offered without one of them then the Sabres need to seize it and get a fresh start in the non-Eichel era.

Is your favorite lawyer movie: My Cousin Vinnie? 🤡

No doubt that these two oldsters are the most influential owners in the league. But that doesn't mean that they dominate to the point of mandating what their preferences are. There are 30 other owners who have a vote/say on issues. I don't know what your concern is? That the Bills will be moved if a new stadium isn't built? The current stadium is beyond being antiquated. It is crumbling and putting more money into renovating this dinosaur facility is a waste of money. The discussion here is about building a new stadium. It is in the embryonic stage. After a lot of hardnosed engagement between the parties I'm confident that something will get worked. The public will pay a portion of the costs and the owners will pay a bigger portion. The ratio will be tussled over and will be settled on.

I'm to fatigued with this round-about to check anything.

I agree with that! Either I am not being clear or there is a misinterpretation from my wording.

We are not reading each other correctly. I agree that the Cowboys want other teams, including smaller market teams, to make more money. They believe that some markets are not contributing enough to growing the revenue pie. But where I disagree with you is that the Cowboys don't want to share the money that they internally generate from their stadium and ancillary sources. They have a lot more ability to generate money from their stadium with the suites, merchandizing, sponsorships etc. than Buffalo has the potential to generate.

Of course the lesser revenue teams want more in the sharing of revenue. And of course the higher revenue teams want less sharing. That tension shouldn't be surprising between the richer and poorer markets. But my basic point is that even with the tension in the current sharing setup a small market team such as Buffalo within the current system has the ability to be very profitable. That's my basic point.

The issue isn't whether you are at the bottom of the totem pole as it is whether in your own financial stratosphere are you making a sizeable sum of money? With respect to the Pegulas and the Bills the answer is yes. With respect to Kraft and Jones who cares what they think. The system is designed for revenue sharing. It isn't equally distributed but it is distributed to the extent where every owner makes money or should be able to make money.

Let me be more precise. Most of the money coming from attendance goes to the home owner. Money from boxes or special seating, concessions stays with the home owner. When you look at the overall revenue pie the biggest portion of revenue for each owner doesn't come from attendance.

I realize that the request to have the stadium completely publicly funded was the first high bid stand. And from there it will be worked down. I just think that if the Pegula position would have been a lot lower, even as an opening stand, it would have been received more positively.

The majority of revenue comes from TV and other sources. That is shared revenue and should be going up. The revenue coming from attendance goes directly to the individual team. It is important but is not as prominent as other sources of revenue. I expect some public funding to a stadium project. I support it and have no problem with it. But a large proportion of the funding should be the responsibility of the main beneficiary. That is the Pegula Enterprise. Now the extended negotiations will begin over the ratio of costs.

The more I read about Jack's health status and the discussions about which surgeries are more suitable the greater the chance is that he will miss most of next season, if not all of it. With so much medical uncertainty I don't see teams willing to offer high end young players or prospects. I'm starting to believe that it might be best for the Sabres to wait for Jack to have the surgery and do his extensive rehab. I'm not sure he will play next year. The ideal situation for KA is to trade Jack and let the acquiring team deal with the medical issues. But the problem with that line of reasoning is what will be the return on a player with such a medical question mark? It's a big gamble for the trading team and the acquiring team.

Thanks for the effort. Your summary was very informative.

I don't know when Jack will get traded. No one does. What I do know is that the GM is not going to trade him until he gets what he considers a fair offer. That is what the GM has repeatedly stated. That's his stance. That can happen very soon or way down the line. I can't tell you what the timing is because I like everyone don't know.

Your preference is your preference. I am more than pleased that the Sabres took a forward instead of a goalie with their second pick. We have goalies in the pipeline. In addition, we got Levi in the Reinhart trade. So he should be added to the pipeline As far as ratings go you know very well know that different teams and different rating services use different metrics and make different judgments. Again, I am more than pleased with the players we took in this draft. We simply disagree that the Sabres should have used a high draft choice on a goalie in this draft.

This organization has a dearth of top line forwards in their system. You are entitled to your reasonable opinion. However, I respectfully but strenuously disagree with you and LGR on this issue.

I simply disagree with him. And as both of us noted acquiring a goalie prospect in a trade would have made the selection of a goalie an even more dubious decision.

Your suspicions are not well grounded. Everyone in the business knows what is going on.