Just looked at the NHL standings.


All these teams from the top down: Won 1, lost 1 , won 1 , won 2, lost 2 , and so on and so forth...until you get to 30th. Sticks out like a midget on a basketball court.

Just looked at the NHL standings.


All these teams from the top down: Won 1, lost 1 , won 1 , won 2, lost 2 , and so on and so forth...until you get to 30th. Sticks out like a midget on a basketball court.
- grand-magus

I think we are gonna have a rough year next year too
I could see us picking bottom5

I think we are gonna have a rough year next year too
I could see us picking bottom5
- jdfitz77

Oh definitely.

Sh!t don't get turned around on a dime.

Don't think Teddy's here coaching said team, though.

Oh definitely.

Sh!t don't get turned around on a dime.

Don't think Teddy's here coaching said team, though.
- grand-magus

I actually think he'll be here
Wasn't the plan to finish last this year?
And if Murray's design was to get rid of him after 1 year, u don't extend him for 3 more. If we are this bad again next year, then all bets are off...
But I think Nolan will get another shot
Unless Babcock or something like that becomes available

I actually think he'll be here
Wasn't the plan to finish last this year?
And if Murray's design was to get rid of him after 1 year, u don't extend him for 3 more. If we are this bad again next year, then all bets are off...
But I think Nolan will get another shot
Unless Babcock or something like that becomes available
- jdfitz77

I see where you're coming from, but no GM offers a coach a one year deal (unless you're Darcy).

You may be right, though Murray did say he wants much improvement next year.

I see where you're coming from, but no GM offers a coach a one year deal (unless you're Darcy).

You may be right, though Murray did say he wants much improvement next year.
- grand-magus

I guess we will see
It just doesn't seem like a "Pegula" thing to do either
Hiring a guy for 3yrs when u plan to fire him after one season goes against everything I've ever heard Pegula say.
That's not how u inspire loyalty among your employees, and it's certainly not how u go about attracting others to come to "hockey heaven"
I'd Nolan really Murray's "guy" ?
Maybe not...
But I really doubt he's one and done

I guess we will see
It just doesn't seem like a "Pegula" thing to do either
Hiring a guy for 3yrs when u plan to fire him after one season goes against everything I've ever heard Pegula say.
That's not how u inspire loyalty among your employees, and it's certainly not how u go about attracting others to come to "hockey heaven"
I'd Nolan really Murray's "guy" ?
Maybe not...
But I really doubt he's one and done
- jdfitz77

You may be right.

Like you said, they'll probably be pretty bad next year, too. Probably not time for a coaching change, as weird as that sounds.

Ray Lewis kills a dude and ESPN picks him up....Warren Sapp wants a tug and a rub and is fired from NFL network
- homiedclown

What is the going rate in Tampa?

And the tie breaker Now, let's play a mad and determined Montreal team who just lost to the Coyotes
- GilPerreault11

They will outshoot us by 12 and win by at least 2.

Stewart will fight someone.

I guess we will see
It just doesn't seem like a "Pegula" thing to do either
Hiring a guy for 3yrs when u plan to fire him after one season goes against everything I've ever heard Pegula say.
That's not how u inspire loyalty among your employees, and it's certainly not how u go about attracting others to come to "hockey heaven"
I'd Nolan really Murray's "guy" ?
Maybe not...
But I really doubt he's one and done
- jdfitz77

If you have a coach who coaches the worst team in NHL history, then I don't think it's being disloyal to fire him after year 1. That would be a justified firing to just about anyone I believe.

They will outshoot us by 12 and win by at least 2.

Stewart will fight someone.
- Der Kaiser

Someone said earlier that if Stewart wasn't on the last year of his deal they'd like to keep him. I'd go one step further. We should re-sign the guy. And not because he is finally scoring. We have complained for years that the Sabres don't have a player willing to step up and protect their players a la Lucic running over Miller. This guy came in and went toe-to-toe with Lucic and held his own. I think he could be a great 3rd line, rugged wing who can play the powerplay on a playoff Sabres team. He also can step up a line or two if injuries come up. I understand he is the best piece we have to acquire anything at the deadline, but unless he gets a 1st and a really good prospect why trade him?

Someone said earlier that if Stewart wasn't on the last year of his deal they'd like to keep him. I'd go one step further. We should re-sign the guy. And not because he is finally scoring. We have complained for years that the Sabres don't have a player willing to step up and protect their players a la Lucic running over Miller. This guy came in and went toe-to-toe with Lucic and held his own. I think he could be a great 3rd line, rugged wing who can play the powerplay on a playoff Sabres team. He also can step up a line or two if injuries come up. I understand he is the best piece we have to acquire anything at the deadline, but unless he gets a 1st and a really good prospect why trade him?
- Pierceme69

Last night we kicked around the idea of keeping him. Questions:

1) Do you try to sign him? If so, how much?

2) Sign now and give up the chance at (most likely) a 2nd rounder

4 years for 12 is the highest I would go. He is a 3rd line winger in a good eam.

What is the going rate in Tampa?
- Der Kaiser

A beaner for anything semi clean

Last night we kicked around the idea of keeping him. Questions:

1) Do you try to sign him? If so, how much?

2) Sign now and give up the chance at (most likely) a 2nd rounder

4 years for 12 is the highest I would go. He is a 3rd line winger in a good eam.
- Slump Buster

He has played like a legit second line winger the last 6 weeks

14 points in 19 games

No, I was not
- jdfitz77

No???

By "this team" I meant they have to be good on the Sabres
I don't care if Myers or anyone else would be good on the Ducks, Hawks, Wings, etc
That argument is dumb to me
The only thing that matters is whether or not they will be a good player for us
- jdfitz77

You may be right.

Like you said, they'll probably be pretty bad next year, too. Probably not time for a coaching change, as weird as that sounds.
- grand-magus

depends on who is behind the bench and how aggressive they are the next 7 months and what they do with the kids


way too soon for that talk

Last night we kicked around the idea of keeping him. Questions:

1) Do you try to sign him? If so, how much?

2) Sign now and give up the chance at (most likely) a 2nd rounder

4 years for 12 is the highest I would go. He is a 3rd line winger in a good eam.
- Slump Buster

If all you can get for him is a 2nd rounder I'd definitely prefer to try to keep him.

I'll say this on Myers since he has been a hot topic the past week.

He is 25 years old now and he is what he is. Before you know it, 25 becomes 28 and 28 becomes 31.

The only legit upper end 2 way D men I have seen in my life as a sabre is Ramsey and Schoenfeld. Is that a knock on Myers, no. Does that mean I hate Myers, no.

If they trade him, the return better be massive because there is a void on the team when he is gone. That being said they are the 30th team and can't get any worse.

Did we all expect better things after his rookie season, Hell yeah. He has improved in his own end. He has become a minute eater. When he kicks it up a notch he can be a dominant player on the ice. Sekera also had those flashes though.

The downside on Myers. Point production. Eye test on the pp. Dumb penalties.


Stats for goalies and d men are subjective to what the team overall is doing and that has to play into consideration.

Would I be shocked if they moved him, No. Would I be shocked if he is still here in 5 years, No.

Regardless of what they do with Myers, they still need to obtain a legit top 3 d man from outside the organization, if they move him 2 are needed.


Maybe Myers is best suited as a number 2 d man, like Suter was to Weber, which is not a bad thing.

If all you can get for him is a 2nd rounder I'd definitely prefer to try to keep him.
- Pierceme69

There has to be roster turnover though. If Gionta retired, Staff, Coho, Kaleta and Mitchell are gone creating top 9 slots for kids and a few proven players then I am ok keeping Stewart as long as it's only a 3 year deal.

There has to be roster turnover though. If Gionta retired, Staff, Coho, Kaleta and Mitchell are gone creating top 9 slots for kids and a few proven players then I am ok keeping Stewart as long as it's only a 3 year deal.
- homiedclown

How many spots do we need to turn over at once though? You can't ice an entire team of kids. Someone has to protect McEichel, Reinhart, etc.

Random thought. Two things that seem to be said a lot that absolutely baffle me:

1) We should pick up player x because we need to get to the cap floor next year. No, we should get good players, period. Preferring someone because he is expensive is mind-boggling.

2) We don't need any more picks. Sure, at this point getting quality players is preferable. However, everyone wants good young talent. Picks are currency that can either be turned into better picks or players. I'd love to see a scenario where we turn the "other" two first rounders and the second rounders in a package for a pick in the 6 - 10 range in the first round.

How many spots do we need to turn over at once though? You can't ice an entire team of kids. Someone has to protect McEichel, Reinhart, etc.
- Pierceme69

We picked up 5 or 6 vets this offseason. We very well might get some back at the deadline like we did this year. The last thing we need to worry about is not having enough vets.

Random thought. Two things that seem to be said a lot that absolutely baffle me:

1) We should pick up player x because we need to get to the cap floor next year. No, we should get good players, period. Preferring someone because he is expensive is mind-boggling.

2) We don't need any more picks. Sure, at this point getting quality players is preferable. However, everyone wants good young talent. Picks are currency that can either be turned into better picks or players. I'd love to see a scenario where we turn the "other" two first rounders and the second rounders in a package for a pick in the 6 - 10 range in the first round.
- Slump Buster

On your 2nd point, I think it's valid. However, organizationally we have too many bodies already. You can only have so many players signed to contracts in your system. It would be great to package up some picks and move up for a higher selection or even get an NHL ready player, but you can't operate under the assumption that you can make that happen.

How many spots do we need to turn over at once though? You can't ice an entire team of kids. Someone has to protect McEichel, Reinhart, etc.
- Pierceme69

If you keep Stewart and Foligno, that should be enough protection for the top 9 along with Girgens IMO

On your 2nd point, I think it's valid. However, organizationally we have too many bodies already. You can only have so many players signed to contracts in your system. It would be great to package up some picks and move up for a higher selection or even get an NHL ready player, but you can't operate under the assumption that you can make that happen.
- Pierceme69

This

I think they are around 48 now, max number is 50
I do see 15 or so contracts being off the books after this season though but a few 2 for 1 deals should be made in the weeks and months ahead to improve the quality.