Taro T

That's not a resolution. That's a respite.

Nah, that would be signing Kuntar. The Buffalo boy signing the Buffalo boy as his last official act. Poetic. 😉

Not when they are part and parcel of the same thing. He wanted Eichel gone (probably was mean to him in the hallways) and he wanted the long form rebuild. And keeping Eichel didn't fit in with a long form rebuild.

He's 69 and has been out of the game for ~10 years. Guessing that ain't happenin'. 😉

He meant he'd be following the course the owner had asked him to follow but that it would bring much short term pain with it. One thing that Regier always did was work within whatever constraints his boss(es) put on him. The owners asked for the worst team in the league for 2 years to have the best chance at landing McDavid and being guaranteed the consolation prize of Eichel. He did their bidding. At least until they saw the results of what they'd actually signed on for and then canned him. And personally, find telling the paying customers of a business that is SUPPOSED to be entertaining that they will be suffering is absolute garbage. He should never have agreed to that. IMHO his agreeing to that pretty much ended his career in the NHL. He was an AGM for the Coyotes for a year or 2 after Buffalo and hasn't been heard from since. This being a guy who's teams won 1 Wales Conference Trophy a Presidents Trophy and had 4 trips to the Conference Finals.

Adams brought in Hall & Staal because Krueger and Pegula wanted one more go with an Eichel-centric team. Adams did not want that. He wanted to alter the direction from day one. @Thorny explains it pretty well in his reply.

IF the team really is close to removing Adams of GM duties, would like the 3 headed goalie monster to remain for 1-3 more weeks - however long it is until Pegula plans on pulling the trigger on Adams removal. If they AREN'T close to removing him; then yes, get what you can for UPL today and move on.

Would clarify that further by adding it was his wanting Eichel out even before he took over as the GM.

Care to explain the seeming incongruity between Regier was NOT canned for being too good at executing the plan to clearly be awful AND Darcy never having a prayer? Recall, that when Pegula 1st bought the team money was no object and if they couldn't land Nash they'd at least land Leino. The Pitts Peeps weren't always onboard the train to Tankville. That was their 1st pivot. And apparently Regier was very good at driving that train.

You remember all the Pitt people telling Pegula to tank, but beleive they somehow weren't behind getting Regier punted when he was too good at it. Murray walked the fine line of being JUST bad enough that next year to finish dead last, and keep the team watchable. He did exactly what they wanted that next year. And, btw, IF Regier was doing exactly what ownership & advisors wanted, why fire Rolston too when giving Regier his "golden parachute?"

It was beyond awful. If they didn't dump Rolston there would've been a mass revolt. They were 4-15-1 and they weren't as good as the record indicated. It was flat out unwatchable. They couldn't get the puck out of their own end. Nolan got them to at least play hockey. And even though they did they still finished about 20 points out of 2nd last place in the league.

True. He envisioned Ottawa Senators expansion team levels of horrible play, thus his hiring Rolston to help get them there. But he kept some good pieces to be building around after the 2 God awful seasons he expected to have, guys such as Miller. He would've kept most all those draft picks he'd accumulated and they would've been bad for a couple of years after the tank, but they would've been good soon thereafter. The problem with HIS version of tanking is the team was absolutely unwatchable under Rolston when he got to install HIS system right from training camp.

The bolded is why this kid is on the anti-Forton bandwagon. Pegula HAS to talk to people besides just Adams and SOMEBODY is telling him, yeah, you're right, Adams is a nice guy that has a good plan that will work if given enough time. Forton would seem to be that guy that Pegula trusts who's pumping Adams tires.

Bowman was the GM in St. Louis. And Regier didn't say there'd be suffering on his way out. He said it as he began the tank. BIG difference.

Was there about a year ago. Now, just want him out. Him and Forton. Let Kekalainen be the POHO and interim GM. Figure out who the next coach should be before this season ends and hire a real GM in the spring/summer.

Good for him. Does this mean Norris is on IR in addition to Zucker being on IR?

Maybe. But, they were going to play Ellis in TO but he had a stiff back so they went with UPL instead. And they gave him 3 consecutive starts and he spit the bit in that 3rd game. Have no idea what they're thinking on the goalie situation. For a short while there, they were in the give a guy the next game if he won the last one. Not sure if they're fully out of that or not, because they don't win often enough to tell. You would think that with all the experience they've had running a 3 headed monster the past few years that Bales would have an idea on how to run a 3 man rotation; but really don't get the impression that there is any plan there. Yeah, they're running with "the guy that gives them the best chance to win on any given night" but there really doesn't seem to be any obvious rationale as to how they're making that determination. And it also doesn't seem that they give any consideration to the possibility that letting a guy not play for 3 or so weeks will get him out of any rhythm he might've had and now he WON'T give them the best chance to win on the particular night that he MIGHT actually have been the one to give them the best chance to win that night.

Hope so. Diggs hasn't been particulary anything to write home about the last 4-5 games; but he'll have his A game on Sunday.

Tough question to answer because IMHO UPL is adequate, even kinda good, at home but isn't close to good enough on the road. At home, especially if the team can be limiiting chances early like they often do, would go off the board and say it's UPL. On the road, one of the other 2. Expect most will say Ellis, but personally expect it's likely Lyon. They're different, but the results there are fairly similar. Just believe that Ellis playing a more controlled game gives him an edge; though can see wanting Ellis' reflexes to try to steal you a save. And, should he continue to get regular action, expect he could pass Lyon (if he hasn't already) with more experience at the NHL level.

Yes, and the stick was still well on the Eulers side of the line when it stopped making contact with the puck. It was in fact a blown call. Not the 1st that game; not the last. And, personally, believe that IF they are going to review a significant subset of plays that should've resulted in a whistle to end the play after a goal has been scored then they should review ALL non-judgement calls as to whether play should have been stopped when they lead directly to the goal being scored. They can have somebody watching the game determining whether something is questionable and MIGHT require additional review in real time just like they claim they do with all plays that result in the puck traversing near the net. So, on that 1st goal, have somebody upstairs or in TO beep down and say, uh guys, that puck wasn't close to being over the red line when it was shot into the zone. It was an egreious error and it had a significant effect on how the game played out past that point. It literally led directly to the Eulers' 1st goal. Had the guy who shot it down the ice played it with a high stick that didn't get called, they would've been able to call the goal back. What's the material difference in how the puck was transferred to the goalie from one case to the other. Review them both or review neither of them, but just be consistent. And would be ok with going back to none of that being reviewable, if that's the way they want it to go; though personally would prefer to see them fix the replay system (as it CAN be a useful tool) rather than get rid of it (and they aren't getting rid of it, no matter how much you want them to). But it is dumb to have stuff like a potential hand pass or the puck hitting the net above the glass being reviewable and not other major potential misses that can result in a team letting up ever so slightly because their players KNOW the play is about to be whistled dead. Not overly germane to this discussion, but a blown icing call in OT very possibly cost the Sabres a chance to get thumped by the Red Wings back in '98. They changed the video review rules because of other events of that game, but didn't alter that aspect of the review.

Let them BOTH be reviewable; but the review has a limit of 30 seconds (maybe a minute) of observation and if you can't determine conclusively that the call was wrong then the call stands as originally called. What's really dumb is a coach can challenge a "missed play stoppage" such as the puck hitting the netting above the glass or a missed hand pass but a blown icing call ISN'T a "missed play stoppage." This league, quite often, stinks.

Yes, Byram "drove" Draisatl into Lyon's leg. Sure. Byram nudged him towards Lyon and then Draisatl chose to use that as an excuse to move Lyon's leg about 2'. Funny how guys that are pretty good skaters lose all control when it's convenient. Yes, skaters on all 32 teams do that. It is what it is. And the Sabres shouldn't have put themselves in the position where Draisatl could do that. But 100% that exact play is a judgement call that doesn't always go as it ended up getting called. Krebs shouldn't have iced it; whomever was supposed to be paying attention to McDavid shouldn't have lost him. They'd had chances to seal the victory with an extra goal on the 5v3; they didn't get that done. But 100%, that goal might've gotten called back had the reviewers in TO been in a different mood.

McLeod gave the guy a cross check while he was still lying on the ice. Soooo, no, not really.

Yes, Lyon did leave the crease on his own (at least his 1 leg was out of the crease, though the rest of him was in the crease). BUT players are NOT allowed to initiate contact with goalies regardless of where they are are the ice. Soooooo ... that one pretty much stays a "judgement" call for the league and they judged the Eulers losing in regulation was less desireable than a bottom feeder like the Sabres finally winning one in regulation.

The icing was on the 1st Euler's goal.