carpandean

He was already two in 1989. ;)

Really think this kid is going to be a great player, so I feel we should have a thread about him. :P

He also wore 14 in Kitchener and 21 in Rochester.

No disassemble! Number five ... is alive!

The 6-4 is irrelevant when it comes to playoffs, so you're left with 9-12. So ... we'll talk again once Darcy is gone? Top picks don't guarantee anything if you have a GM who can't draft or manage a roster well. But, neither does anything else when that's the case. Darcy's latest, and as far as I can see last, excuse was that they haven't picked high enough to get top-level talent. If we keep picking in the 10-20 spots, then he will continue to have that excuse. Take a real chance, fail if the talent is not there, and let him draft high-tier talent. If the picks and/or roster don't work out, then he has no more excuses. If they do, then we're Pittsburgh or Chicago. For the record, I don't think Ron did a terrible job and I do think some players improved. I simply think that much of what was perceived as an improved record was simply the result of exploiting rules that don't help us achieve the long-term goal.

Yeah, but if you rely on the stupid part ("loser points") to get a big portion of your points, then when it comes to the post season, where that all goes away, you won't do well. The point is that just making the playoffs is no longer a major goal; winning the Cup is. So, playing a style that covers for deficiencies and, at best, allows them to squeak into and subsequently make an early departure from the playoffs, does not help, but rather hinders achieving the real goal. It perpetuates a cycle that they've been stuck in for six seasons: barely make/miss the playoffs, exiting early if they make it, and then drafting middling talent. I'd rather that they play a style that will allow them to win if they have a contending team, but reveals holes if they don't.

No, I do think that his record (at least, how it really matters) wasn't significantly better, and only looked that way because of the stupid point system in the NHL that has nothing to do with the post season. Good for him that he exploited that system, but as I said, it's a recipe for the worst possible finish. In other words, it was bad for the Sabres in the long run. If they had kept up Lindy's pace, they would have drafted in the top 5, if not top 3. Some players did perform better, but as others have pointed out, the best predictive statistics (puck possession) for success show that as a team, they weren't much better.

Unfortunately, all that it did last year was cost us a top-5 pick. His record was not significantly better than Ruff's. The big difference was that he pushed more games to SO's, where they performed pretty well. I don't feel like going back and finding my post with the breakdown, but they had a ridiculously low number of regulation (or even OT, if remember correctly) wins. Basically, it was a recipe for getting points in the regular season and not much else. Good for that same 8-10 (in conference) finish that they've been getting recently, which I consider to be the absolute worst season that a team can have.

I think you are missing his point. He's admitting that the Sabres' D was and likely will be overpriced doo-doo, so using them to measure the Rangers' D is a poor choice of measuring stick. Compare them to a real defense - which, again, the Sabres don't have - and he feels that you find them less impressive. Oh, and side note: using the Rangers' hit statistics is always misleading. Whoever counts hits at MSG clearly wants to prove to someone that they are working hard.

I agree with that, but I'm still not sure why posters here thinks it's a big deal that the Stars just signed him. I don't believe that will affect his chances of not ending up back in Russia, since (I believe) his contract would be on hold if he doesn't make the NHL roster and goes back. So, I figured either people were implying that Darcy was taking too long to sign our top prospects or that we should have drafted him instead.

What am I missing about Dallas signing a draft pick to an entry-level contract? There's no big rush to do that. Grigorenko signed his last year on 7/18 ... was anyone worried? Nichushkin will either be in the NHL or the KHL next year, so might as well sign him. I believe that if he goes back to Russia, his contract won't kick in (anyone confirm?) Or, is it because we passed on Nichushkin? The Sabres already have one Russian that they can't develop outside of their NHL roster (Grigs would go back to junior; Nich would go back KHL), and I'd be far more worried about "the Russian factor" from a player who actually stated that it's the NHL or back to Russia. If they didn't already have Grigs, I might have said take the chance, but if we had come out with both after the draft, I would have been even more uneasy about our position.

I don't think it makes any sense for the Sabres or for Danny, especially since it is rumored that something like 15 teams are interested in him. Just move on.

I do ... but Ted Black is still filling my position.

As others have alluded to, Ott is a winger who discovered along the way that he's really good on draws. He gives you a great option when the center of his line is weak or gets thrown out. The latter is very useful for critical draws, where having two players capable of taking draws on the ice is a good idea.

And Bernier was traded that Summer for a 2010 second (later packaged with a throw-in, Paetsch, for Raffi Torres) and, more importantly, a third-round pick in 2009. That pick? Brayden McNabb. While Torres did nothing here, trading Campbell did yield Ennis and McNabb. Oh, and the "package" that Campbell was part of? Brian and a 7th-round pick. So, that's worth mentioning as a package, but Bernier and a 1st is not?

Just to be clear, there's a long way between a "#1 center with size, speed, grit, and leadership" and Jochen Hecht. Going into numerous seasons with Roy/Connolly/Hecht as your scoring-line center depth chart is pure failure. If you can't find something better, even though it's not exactly what you hope for, then either you need to be fired or the team needs to pack it in. (As noted in other places, every move he made in the past year or two for a center has been one that was not helped by having money to spend.) They can say it all that they want, but that doesn't mean that any fan has to accept that it's a good idea. Basically, the conversation with fans has been this: Black: "We're going to do something dumb. OK?" Fans: "No, it's dumb, so don't do it." Black: "I know that it's looked dumb, but we're going to continue to it, because we told you that we would. OK?" Fans: "Yeah, um, it's still dumb, so ... no, it's still not OK."

Darcy: "It seems to be moving toward a bigger man's league ... I do think that there's a shift in that general direction over what we saw coming out of ... you know, maybe ... not this lockout, but the previous lockout." Moving toward? A shift? Since the last lockout ... eight years ago?! Hey Darcy ...

While I doubt it would happen (and ,really, it shouldn't), it would be fun if Rolston walked in the first day and said, "instead of telling you what direction we are going this year, I'll let my captain choices show you. Otter, you're captain; Webbs, Patty (Kaleta), you guys are the alternates. Anyone not get the pattern?"

Which is worse: Toronto losing a game 7 in which they held a three-goal lead in the middle of the third, but in a series that they trailed 3-1, or ... Bruins losing a game 7 that they led 3-0 (early) in a series that they led 3-0? Gotta give it to the B's ... but last night was still fun to watch.

It was only a matter of time. The big question is: who really ran the draft, Nix or Whaley?

Exactly. Ted Black is touting how Darcy turned around the center depth problem that came up at last year's trade deadline. (1) That problem was already almost five years old, and (2) none of the moves that he made to fix it involved spending. So, why did we endure Roy/Connolly/Hecht as our top three scoring line "centers" for so long? Why did we have wingers with minimal experience as our third-best and lower options. He didn't have to find a dominant #1 in that time - they're hard to get - but he couldn't get anyone decent until he could? The move toward bigger/tougher started a little sooner, but it was still too little too late.

The first sign of any good joke ... Gerbe at center.

If I were owner ...

Well, that certainly renders my "stick handling from his knees" point rather moot.

How did he get the supposed glut (in reality only one has proven much at the NHL level) of centers that we have now? Let's see ... draft (Grigorenko), draft (Girgenson), draft (Ennis) and traded a drafted prospect (Hodgson). So, what exactly did he do that he could not have done prior to Pegula? The only "center" that remotely fits that bill is Ville Leino ... who has never actually been an NHL center and was converted to wing in his home country before he actually produced well enough to be in the NHL. In fact, the only move that he has pulled off under Pegula that he could not have before and actually worked reasonably well was Ehrhoff. There, he basically threw the kind of money that only a small handful of GMs would be allow to wield at him. From 2007-now, this team has been extremely thin at center. There's a long way between having Hecht, a converted defensive winger, as your third-best option at scoring line center and actually having a dominant #1 and #2. The latter might have been too much to ask for with his hands tied, but somewhere in between should have been possible.