JohnC

That will certainly be factored in for the owners to apply to their share of the building cost.

Locating the new stadium in OP makes a lot of sense. My understanding is that they own land where the stadium will be located thus avoiding the multi-year battle of where to locate it. And by locating it near the old stadium there wouldn't be a need to pay added costs that include land acquisition and new infrastructure. Ideally, many people would prefer a downtown location that has some provisions for public transportation. But those advantages wouldn't compensate for the added costs and exhausting political battles of where to exactly locate the new stadium downtown or anywhere else.

That was the right decision assuming he even considered it. I'm not sure if he ever considered the issue because it would be a state and local decision and not fall under a federal authority.

I agree with you. Making character assassination comments based on rumors are not right. Its irresponsible and reckless.

That would have been a foolish approach to take because these decisions are state and local decisions and not federal decisions.

The $1.5 B request is the starting off figure in a negotiation. The reality is that most stadiums get built with a large portion of the facility paid by the public. Even in cases where the respective owners pay for the facility there are substantial ancillary costs associated with infrastructure etc. where taxpayer money is used. Usually the public funds come from some new dedicated sources such as hotel, restaurant stadium event taxes taxes etc. that help to pay for the bonds. There is going to be some hard bargaining between the parties. Hopefully, something reasonable will be worked out.

Probably so. You are looking at this entangled and multi-faceted situation as a dispassionate third party. What you see as a fair outcome is not necessarily how the parties involved see it. Where I agree with you is that until the conflicting health strategy issue is resolved the situation is stuck in the mud. After that is dealt with then the outcome after the rehabilitation has to be assessed. Will the player be back to where he was or will he be a shadow of what he once was? I don't know? Until those hurdles have been address there might not be much movement from the parties who might be interested in acquiring Jack. The Sabres have control of an asset that is damaged. The GM has repeatedly stated that he wants a substantial return for that asset. Until that asset is physically restored this issue is going to linger. That's how I see it.

No one should be ordained to be future captain. It has to be earned. However, if I had to guess who will earn that moniker in the near future my money is on Cozens. My sense is that Cozens isn't the type of person to have the loudest voice in the room. It's simply the way he carries himself. As you stated: we shall see.

The captaincy should be given to Okposo who has earned it. And the player waiting in the wings will be Cozens.

The disconnect between myself and others who are countering my position on Cozens and how some of the other younger players will be handled revolves around their preference of how young players should normally/preferably be handled (slowly). That discussion does not completely relate to the situation in Buffalo because the course has been established by the front office for some of the young players on this roster for the upcoming year. It's not a requirement that all the young players are going to be rushed into the NHL or play roles beyond what they are capable of. The majority of our young players will be developing in Rochester or elsewhere. Players who demonstrate they can handle the roles assigned to them will remain in their roles. Players who don't demonstrate they can handle the roles assigned to them will be assigned a lesser role or sent down for further grooming. This isn't an ideal situation but it is the situation we are in. I will stick to my response that triggered an energetic counter response i.e. Cozens is not a player one needs to worry about if given an advanced role. I consider him to be an impressive youngster who is mature and resilient enough to handle whatever role that is assigned to him.

I'm not arguing about what should have been the best course of action regarding the assemblage of the roster. That is what you are doing. Where we are at is where we are at. What we have to work with is what we have to work with. Because of the way the roster is currently constructed with a lot of young players and marginal players Cozens's role will be more advanced than it would be with most teams. I'm aware of that. There really isn't much difference in our views other than I'm less concerned than you are in giving Cozens an advanced role. You believe that it will be to his detriment while I'm less worried about it because of his more resilient makeup.

Staying in the best condition that he can be in is the right thing for him to do prior to any scheduled operation. Of course he has to be prudent about it. But the worst thing he can do from a medical standpoint is to be sedentary and physically atrophy before undergoing surgery.

Cozens is not Mitts. They are totally two different situations. Don't be surprised if Cozens comes into camp 15 lbs heavier and more muscular. I not arguing to rush any young player. You are misreading what I stated. However, I am less reluctant than you are to play him at a 2C role if he earns it and shows that he can handle it. Mitts was not prepared to even play in the league when he first did. That is not the case with Cozens. Granato specializes in working with young players. He knows how to bring them along. If he sees a player can handle a role he will allow him to do so. If he sees a player struggling in his role he pulls back. Cozens is going to demonstrate in camp what role he can handle. Every prospect has their own pace of development. With Cozens I'm less concerned with his fragility than you are.

He's skating and playing pickup hockey where there is no hitting. Of course he is injured and not fully healthy. He needs surgery before he can play again. The issue right now is which surgery is the best course of treatment to get him back to being able to play again. The idea that because he is skating that he can play NHL hockey is ludicrous.

I agree with you that Cozens isn't ready to play as a 1C. But what if Cozens is our best option at 2C? Why wouldn't you want to play him there? The Cozens situation is much different from the Mitts situation as to the perils of playing a young player too soon. The biggest difference is that Cozens will be more physically and emotionally mature than Mitts was at that stage. At the time that Mitts first played the real problem wasn't which line was he ready to play as much as was he ready to play at all in the NHL. And the obvious answer was no. He was simply not physically and mature enough to play in the NHL. That's a big difference between Cozens and Mitts when considering where Cozens should play. Cozens is a young player with a lot of potential. But even as a young player what stand outs about him is his maturity. Because of that attribute he will be able to constitutionally/psychologically contend with the inevitable struggles of a young player given responsibility. Because of that I'm not as worried as many people are about elevating his role if he shows in camp that he has earned it.

We here differing reports that make it difficult to know what the actual contract demands were made by Ullmark. But if it is true that Ullmark wanted a six year contract term from Buffalo after he had a four year offer from Boston then Adams made the right call. Did Adams only offer a two year term? It's becomes a moot point if Boston offered a four year term requiring an even lengthier contract from Buffalo in order to stay. Considering what has been claimed by both sides I'm more inclined to side with our GM on his decision.

If you go through your list you can find a half a dozen legitimate prospects who should be ready or close to being ready to move up the ranks to the NHL after another year. Those on the list would include Power, Bryson, Johnson, UPL, Samuelsson, Quinn and JJP and maybe Laaksonen. If you add that group to the young core currently on Buffalo's roster you can see it significantly turning over in another or so. The current core is Dahlin, Joki, Mitts, Thompson, Asplund and Bjork. If you add both groups up the total is more than a dozen players. For the sake of argument let's assume that Jack is traded and we get a high end center prospect such as Rossi, Zegress or Krebs then you can add that player and maybe another player to the mix who should be ready in a year or so. The point I'm making here is that this roster is going to be dramatically turned over after the departure of our old top three core. The Sabre front office has a reasonable plan if not the best plan to reconstruct the roster. The rebuilding process is certainly going to be painful in the short term but if done right it won't be as long as many people think. The key is having the fortitude to stick to it.

As more information comes in the more inclined I am to agree with the GM in not willing to sign Ullmark for the 6 yr. term. (This is a change in my position.) I previously argued that the Sabres should have been willing to pay more within the same 4 year term that he signed with Boston. But as more information comes out (according to the Buff. News) it appears he wanted a 6 year contract. That's too long for a goalie of his caliber and with his injury history. I like Ullmark a lot. But let's not get carried away. The value that this new regime placed on his talents and his contract demands simply didn't match. In my view the GM's decision/judgment was more more than reasonable. Wanting to retain a player is not the same as having to retain a player at a future debilitating cost. The Skinner contract is the embodiment of that mind-set that you have to have a player beyond one's actual value. Acting on a short term temptation can have longer term negative consequences. When talking about a player's worth we are not talking about an endeavor that requires precision. We are talking about value falling within an acceptable range. With the added information that has just come out about the Ullmark saga it seems to me that our young GM used good judgment to not go outside the value parameters he established for Ullmark. This is a case where the player acted in his own best interest and so did the organization. In the long run strategic thinking is better than short term tactical advantage. I wish Ullmark well.

I don't know what point you are getting at with me. I didn't disagree that good players who reach UFA will want to leave such a disheveled disorganization. It's understandable that it would be a normal/rational desire not to want to waste one's career anchored to a team that has been stuck in the mud for half a generation. And contrary to what you just stated I acknowledged the fact that the GM wasn't going to spend at a high level to enhance the roster. How is it known to the audience at large? Because he clearly stated that is what he was going to do. So there is no mystery about the strategy he was going to take in this offseason. What you did is basically miscast what I actually said. For what reason? I don't know and I don't particularly care because that is what you do.

Jack does need surgery. There's no doubt about it. The issue is not whether he needs surgery as it is what type of surgery does he need. Don't misinterpret the fact that just because he is skating and maybe even playing in pickup games that it is an indication that a surgical procedure isn't needed. What he is not doing in his offseason training sessions is hitting anyone or being hit. He still needs surgery. And that is why it is so challenging to work out an acceptable trade that would get back a reasonable return for him.

Winning is without question critical in the development of the young players this organization is going to rely on. The best way to support them and put them in a position to succeed is to back them up with solid goaltending. It's going to take time for the youngsters to play to their potential because they are still growing as players. The reality is that because of this transition to younger players this team is not going to be a contending team. That is not to say that it can't be a very competitive and entertaining team next year. The best way to undergird these rising players (hopefully) is to put them in a better situation to win. If anyone doesn't believe that systemic losing is corrosive then they need to explain why so many of our players want out? I can understand why the front office felt that the contract terms for Ullmark were too long and rich. But paying a premium is the cost of running a ramshackle organization. And on top of that the Sabres have more leeway than most teams because they have such a large cap space to work with. The organization was in a good position to absorb his contract and still be in a good position and help to put the young players in a position to succeed. When you take a step forward and then take two back you end up going backwards. It's getting tiresome.

Did you read what I wrote? They are not retaining the players they drafted and developed. The issue isn't about enticing players to come in. The organization has made it clear that isn't how they are going to operate. (I'm aware you pointed that out.) The problem is that the players they drafted and developed are moving on. The escalator going down is faster than the one going up. That was my point.

There is a another self-sabotaging side to running a dysfunctional operation. It goes beyond enticing players to your team. It's about retaining players that you already have. As you well know contracts have expiration dates. What we are seeing this offseason is that players on the roster who were drafted and developed by us are determined to find better situations when they no longer are contractually obligated to the team that drafted them. The problem this offseason isn't enticing people to come as it is enticing them to remain. Ullmark exemplifies that trend.

If you are going to do it you need to do it right. 🍺 https://www.thekitchn.com/how-to-make-a-classic-martini-240334

How were the Sabres blindsided? If they are offering a player to play on a team that is being deconstructed the same contract as a genuine cup contending team. Why should it be surprising that the player prefers the better situation? When you are running an unstable operation and competing with a stable operation there is a premium to pay for it. If you had a choice to either buy a house in a ghetto or pay the same price in an upscale suburban area what decision do you think the potential buyer is going to make? The Sabres have a history of overpaying for players with long terms who didn't merit it. This is a case where if they reasonably overpaid for Ullmark it would have made sense for a variety of reasons. The first is that the team has plenty of cap space to handle the slightly excessive contract. And the second and more important reason is that by stabilizing the goaltending situation you are providing more support for a very young roster that will need it. The mantra of drafting and developing as the new way of running the hockey operation is spouted out a lot. The shame of the Ullmark saga is that the Sabres drafted and took years to develop him only to see him bolt. This is another example of a self-induced setback for a franchise that it is already so far back that it is out of sight with the rest of the teams. It's maddening!