Bruffalo

Just need to change the NHL bylaws to allow color commentators to fight too. I bet Razor could still kick some tail.

"Man who had more career success than Sabres did without him forced to move back and clean up the sloppy mess the organization has become" is much more accurate title.

It's like they hate their fans

Those are certainly choices.

Ruff is a good choice to right the ship. I doubt we're going to win a cup with him at the helm, but I also don't think we're going to stick around as a perennial joke in the NHL with his leadership either.

I think the age factor has to come into play when considering Legette. He's going to be 28 when he's up for a second contract, and I think that's kind of a big deal. It's a better investment of draft capital to go with someone younger (to a point, if he's floating around in the 3rd I think he's a no brainer).

Hoarding is negative. I don't see how that "gives me away", there isn't a situation where hoarding anything is a positive. It's inherently bad for democracy to have single individuals control that amount of wealth, unless you believe in the concept of a benevolent oligarchy, which has never really existed. Morality doesn't have any one agreed upon code, but you can boil my position down to this: Exploitation of others is immoral. Utilizing labor without compensation congruent to output is exploitation. The 1% of the 1% do this on an unfathomable scale, therefore the omega wealthy are immoral. It's immoral to enrich yourself at the expense of greater society once you've passed a certain threshold. When you're at a point where another hundred million is just numbers on a spreadsheet to you, I'd argue that you've got enough. You can argue that it's good business though, and I won't disagree. Bill Gates, for all the good he's doing now, absolutely did not earn his wealth in a moral manner. Microsoft was ruthless in the 90s/2000s, and to pretend otherwise is silly. I'm glad that he's trying to use his wealth to help and champion causes now, but that doesn't mean that he acted morally to get where he is today. We don't need to have mega billionaires in order for the Amazons, Telsas and the Microsofts in the world to exist. We can do better.

Relativism and whataboutism is not a good way to form an argument, but I'll indulge just because I'm bored. The world's poorest of the poor live on around $2.15 a day, or $785 a year. Let's say that the average Buffalo household is pulling in 78k, which is around the national median. So the average Buffaloian is pulling about 100x a year what someone in South Sudan is making. Big difference, sure. Bezos net worth increased 77 billion dollars last year. That's 1,000,000x times the average Buffaloian salary. The average Buffaloian is much closer to the earning potential of someone in South Sudan than they are Jeff Bezos, it's an incomprehensible amount of wealth. Now you might be tempted to say, "That's not just income, that's also his capital assets appreciating", which is true. Well let's take in the median net worth of Americans (I can't quickly find the median net worth of specifically Buffaloians, but it's probably lower than the median), $192,700. What Bezos earned on just appreciating assets and salary is roughly 500,000x the net worth of the median American, the culmination of their assets and debts for their entire life. You don't get to that point without the manipulation of laws, regulations, and the exploitation of labor. I have no problem with rich people, I'm far from some communist, but when there's someone who made in one year that would take an average person 100,000x lifetimes to earn is obscene. You simply cannot be hoarding that kind of wealth and still be a moral person in modern society.

I'd rather not be dragged into a moral discussion about hoarding obscene wealth. I won't bother coming up with a number. It's like Potter Stewart said, "I know it when I see it."

Without getting on a soapbox: Good people would never earn Bezos type wealth.

I will die laughing if they end up selling a chunk of the team to Bon Jovi.

Been saying this since before the Diggs trade, now I'm screaming it.

I would be shocked if he did. His only path is in is becoming a special teams star.

Franklin and Ladd McConkey are probably the smartest bets on who the Bills might take. They've met with both a lot. The top 4 are probably in consideration but unlikely unless one falls significantly. Mitchell has all the right tools but the character concerns and the stuff leaking about diabetes management concerns probably make him a no go for the Bills, although if I were Beane I wouldn't let that stop me.

You been drinkin' on this vacation?

The Bears would likely take that trade in a heartbeat. So as a Bills fan I would immediately say no.

You added a lot of very successful teams with elite WRs and then proceeded to essentially argue that the position is overvalued. I don't see how that makes sense. Regardless, I think the position is worth paying for unless you go the KC-style route and just keep reinvesting high draft picks into the WR room.

Anyone who actually watching Tua play knows that he is not the elite QB the stats were making him out to be. You didn't mention the Eagles or Cincy, but they both got to a superbowl with elite WR talent, just because they didn't win one game doesn't mean it's not a sound strategy. I said Dallas was an exception. You're just adding random teams after the fact.

All of those with the exception of Dallas and maybe SF put the cart before the horse though, they were trying to make up subpar QB play with star WRs. It doesn't matter how good your WR are if you can't consistently get the ball to them. Totally, the QB cap hit is a massive roadblock, but if you're investing in your QB then you need to also invest in the weapons around him. Either with high draft picks every year (in the hopes you land a top 10-15 WR), or with a big contract veteran.

That's a high number, but it shows you the positional value WR has. If you have a chance to bring in a top 10 guy though I think you've gotta bite the bullet and go for it.

I'm cool with it, but I'm going to just keep screaming this into the void: Double up on WR. The hit rate is not high, hedge your bets and take 2 high WR prospects if you're not moving up for one of the "sure things".

He's cross training

Nothing will happen to the sport. We already have overwhelming evidence that CTE effects impulse control, mood, and behavior. Hell, we already have a confirmed killer (Aaron Hernandez) with CTE and it's changed very little. I love football, I have no regrets playing it, I don't want my kid playing it though.

Mitchell is likely the best long term answer on that list. I'd prefer double dipping though, because I feel like hitting on WR this draft is absolutely critical to the long term success of the Bills.

He's going to suck this season and blame the CIA. Calling it now.