Taro T

All of that passes the eye test. (Not sure about the Byram being bad at the PK, don't really recall him out there much for that, but the rest of it, yes, it passes the eye test.) And the reason IMHO that the PP is most effective with Benson, Zucker, and Doan all on the ice together is all 3 are willing to go to the net to help create havoc and at least 2 of them can regularly score from down close to the goal. Zucker has proven it, Doan has a couple from there at least 1 of which was bounced in off him, but it still counts and if he wasn't down there in the dirty area it wouldn't have gone in, and pretty sure Benson has scored from there, if not this year then last year at least. Whether Appert is too dumb to get other guys go there when they aren't on the ice or the other players are too stubborn to do so, the rest of the team doesn't go there on the PP. And either way, the PP doesn't work in large part because of it and the predictability it has when they aren't out there. This PP SHOULD be top 10 at worst and really could be top 5 if it stayed healthy and somebody that knew what they're doing was running it. Would not have Tuch on the top unit because he should be able to play that down low role but for whatever reason he isn't effective there. Wouldn't have Quinn on the top unit because he'd be best served to be in Thompson's spot, but Tage is WAY better at it than Quinn is. Let him be the 2nd unit's Tage. Would never take Dahlin nor Thompson off the 1st unit. But would have both of them, and the other 3 guys moving. Dahlin does a bit. Thompson pretty much only does it when they're entering the zone, but he's able to do it as well. Get rid of Appert and let somebody have the guys that are good near the net do their thing with a lot of movement between them. And, personally expect Dahlin's #'s both real and E are reduced due to the fact he's ALWAYS out on the PP and it spends an inordinate amount of time NOT entering the zone and then doing dumb things. His analytics will go up a lot when they stop being coached to do dumb things. MHO, ymmv.

Eh, with Bounceyball, the question isn't points equalling fun, it's WHAT points equal fun. Is it the ones going up when a team puts the bouncey ball through the big metal ring multiple times a game or the ones the players/refs decided to make sure they shave off the line to assist their friendly neighborhood gambling syndicate make large amounts of money? 😉

Seems like a no brainer move. But with this organization, you never know.

Yeah, that one was very frustrating. It was ruled a good goal on the ice, and most of the details lead towards that goal typically being upheld. Thompson was outside the crease when he was impacted by the D-man which seemed to be the impetus for him entering the crease. - that usually leads to a goal being considered good. Thompson appeared to make an effort to not contact the goalie after he entered the crease. - seems to not really impact one way or another the decision in TO. The contact was mimimal and the goalie didn't seem to get moved off where he was - that usually leads to a goal being considered to be good. The goalie had time to get squared to the shot before the shot was taken - that usually leads to a goal being considered to be good. Thompson was outside the crease when the shot came - that usually leads to a goal being considered good. And the Calgary coach was so unsure about whether to ask for the review or not, he burned his timeout trying to decide if it was worth it or not. IMHO, the biggest piece of it was whether the D-man was influential to Thompson entering the crease or not AND whether the goalie still had time to be square to the shot by the time it happened. Those are what the overseers in that room in TO tend to lend the most weight to. And both were on the "good goal" side of the ledger.

Geertsen was 100% on Ruff.

Yeah, so much for he and Timmons being a good pair at home at least. They lost their minds in the 3rd.

Still plan on having 3 for Union.

Yeah, Adams needs to go. But Forton needs to be clearing out his desk the same day. Doesn't Pegula have some sort of tie to Jerry? He'll be a mole in the new guy's operation and end up with too loud a voice. Until Forton is gone, personally don't expect things will ever truly change. Yes, Adams is bad at his job and needs to go, but Forton seems to be the cancer that's going to metastasize throughout the organization. IF he survives the next purge, and personally expect he will someone somehow be one of the survivors, would almost rather have him be the GM and take the pain that comes with him demonstrating the Peter Principle than have him merely having one of the loudest voices in the room and having Pegula's ear. Because, they're always going to do boneheaded things as long as he has input. Yes, he identified McAvoy, but he was unable to convince anyone else. Since then, he hasn't seemed to be as good at picking them, but he has found his voice in the room, unfortunately.

Except, IN Buffalo, the Sabres usually play well and often beat the Eulers; and they play like trash against Calgary there too. So expectations were met EXACTLY as should've been expected. And out west, the pattern is reversed, Both the Eulers and Flames play to their normal levels and the Sabres end up expected to go 1-1 again, but the way you expected this week to go.

Power and Bryson make no sense. BUT you aren't breaking up Samuelsson-Dahlin, Byram-Power doesn't work, and Bryson-Byram would be a disaster waiting to happen. Byram-Timmons looked very good against the Eulers and Bryson-Power wasn't bad against them either. But then again, as somebody had mentioned in the Euler GDT, Bryson is actually an NHL D-man when he's playing against a fast team that doesn't play a heavy game. So, there was a logic (personally disagree with it, but there was a way to justify Bryson on Monday) to having him in there. That Byram-Timmons deficated the bed in the 3rd period made the thought process to come up with Bryson-Power even worse. They needed to have a more defensively responsible guy in the lineup instead of Bryson playing vs a heavy team like Calgary because those are the teams Bryson has issues with and Power needs a defensively responsible guy to partner with and really Byram does too. Metsa and Jones aren't that guy. If Johnson, or even if Novikov got his 1st taste of the NHL, the team probably doesn't give up the 2nd goal nor the one Rosen is getting blamed for. And they could've flipped Timmons and Johnson/Novikov to Power and Byram after the clock struck midnight on the Byram and Timmons pairing.

Why are, of all teams in the NHL, the Calgary Flames reigning supreme in the Sabres barn? They usually win IN Calgary, but they look like trash against them in Buffalo. The exact opposite of their provincial neighbor Eulers. Why, for as good as he played the rest of the game, did Samuelsson take the puck away from Ellis only to give it to the Flame? Why did the NHL overrule the refs on a call that it took the Calgary coaches more than their entire timeout's time to decide to challenge? And why is Seth Appert still devising the Sabres power play? IF there was ANY possibility the Sabres MIGHT score on one, they wouldn't have risked the challenge and possibly having the score tied less than 2 minutes later. But the Sabres PP is hot trash and doesn't scare anyone. Why, after looking good together for 5 periods did Byram and Timmons decide to look like the pair that was playing in Detroit before Kesselring broke? They were horrible in the 3rd. Why, do we have Quinn, Rosen, and Bryson out on the ice at the same time? Why did Tuch look so disinterested out there? Why did Doan try to pass when in the slot and then get the puck back along the boards near the blue line and decide to shoot from there? Sooooo many questions, so few answers. ???????????????????

Bills are playing Saturday after going tomorrow night? Wow, the NFL schedule really is getting nuts. 😉

How's Sabres-Bills-Sabres for it? Any better?

Thanks for the heads up. 🍺

There is a WORLD of difference between "no one lov(ing) it" and "(p)eople hated the waiver pickup of Ellis!" Do you HONESTLY not see that? And THAT contention that "(p)eople hated (it)" is untrue at worst and flat out hyperbolic at best. And actually, there were about 3 people that were really happy about the deal. So, even the "no one loved it" is a bit hyperbolic too. Yes, again people were primarily in the "he has to be better than Georgiev" camp (which turned out to be true unsurprisingly) and "guess this means that UPL might be out for a fairly long time" (which wasn't quite as correct, though it did take a couple of weeks for him to be ready again). And, while SOME used it to dump on Adams, wouldn't even say "MOST (emphasis mine) just used it to dump on Adams." Personally would say that overall the attitude on it was "don't know if it'll work, but it might, and it gets Georgiev out of the picture and lets them follow their plan for Levi of keeping him on the farm this year unless something absolutely catastrophic happens, so cool." And even a few of those "dump on Adams" posts were of the "he should be making way more waiver claims than he does because you never know when you'll find a diamond in the rough and they have a really hard time bringing in guys on the fringes that end up exceeding expectations and actually sticking" nature and not of the "wtf did he claim THIS guy" nature.

Not on the 1st 2 pages of the thread announcing he'd been claimed. Didn't bother to reread all 6 pages again, but don't recall any sort of preponderance of posts to that effect. Your memory of that day seems to be coming through a filter. People did complain about the 3 headed goalie monster again later on, but there was no overwhelming concensus that Ellis should be the odd man out. Actually, if there was what could be considered a concensus, would say that UPL being the odd man out was where that was heading. So, again, disagree with the contention that "(p)eople hated the waiver pickup of Ellis!" That simply wasn't the case.

But, except for 1 year, in the post tank era if we don't talk about them in November we don't get to talk about them at all, at least in terms of making them THIS season. 😉

Personally expected Lyon tonight with Ellis Friday and Lyon on Saturday unless he'd screwed the pooch tonight. BUT by going with Ellis tonight, he can come back with Lyon on Friday for the out of conference game and then back to Ellis on Saturday for the in-conference game. They also have 2 days off before the next set of 3 games, so they can run Ellis-Lyon-Ellis once again. So, there is a logic to it, especially if they believe Ellis is playing the best of the 3 right now.

To the 1st bolded. Almost everybody's reaction to the signing was "well, we know nothing at all about him, but he has to be better than Georgiev" and "guess this means UPL is going to be out a while." Most people said they thought the guy might turn out to be good but really didn't know. There were several "goalies are voodoo" posts. About 2 people said it was a horrible pickup, so yes, "people" hated it, but the naysayers were in the VAST minority on this one. And about 3 people really liked the pick. An opinion that was also in the minority. Which brings us to the 2nd bolded ...

Don't know that it's his energy so much as giving up really bad goals at really inopportune times that drags the team down. Or more accurately, the expectation of his teammates due to past history that he's "due" for a bad goal; so they find themselves trying to keep avoid all shots against (which will never happen) so they end up giving up even better chances against than they'd give up if they were playing the way they were supposed to and end up giving up even more goals and the cycle just feeds on itself. If you don't trust the goalie, you don't play the way you should. And if you don't play the way you should, you'll lose a lot of games you could've won.

Personally, expect he will look a BIT better on another roster. Both he and the Sabres seem to be at the point that everyone needs him to get a fresh start and the change of scenery combined with somebody really WANTING him will give him a bit of a bounce. But also am ok with that. Just personally don't see him ever fully getting out of his own head regardless of where he's at. If he ever does, look out, he could be truly elite; but that's a huge if and really doubt that'd ever happen while he's a Sabre. Heck, it isn't likely he'd do it elsewhere either, but it's not 100% out of the question. And even if he does get out of his own head, doubt it'd be totally trajectory changing like when Roloson switched from a stand up/ reaction goalie to a butterflier. Expect it'd more likely be catching lightning in a bottle for a season or 2 and then he'd go back to being what he is. An extremely frustrating goalie that lives up to expectations in only drabs and drips. Hope for his sake he figures out how to figure it out, but not expecting that.

Interesting. Thanks for that. Will stand corrected on this. The way the 2013 CBA is written, it reads that all salary due in an individual year would get prorated to either 1/3, 2/3, or in rare cases 3/3's should a buy-out occur. But it appears based on what you'd linked and a couple other sites that signing bonuses become guaranteed when the contract is signed even though the money can be deferred within the contract. Deferred bonuses expliciitly muut be paid after the contract runs out. Very interesting. Not the 1st item that is addressed in a manner that seems to contradict what is in the CBA; doubt it'll be the last. Again, thank you for that. 🍺

A few items on signing bonuses. 1. Fairburn stated that a guy can get a lot of the contract in a single year because of the possibility of getting a signing bonus; but he walked that back a bit saying you can get x on July 1 and then get y on the next July 1. The latter is true. But, unlike NFL contracts, ALL money (except for in the case of the the rare performance bonuses which not many players qualify for; if a player earns them and they would put the team over the salary cap in that year, then the part that puts the team over the cap gets moved to the following year) earned in a league year counts against the player's share of earnings in that league year. And all of those earned $'s go into what the player nominally earns in a particular year and there are still limitations on how much salary can vary from year to year. The player's contract can't be overly front nor back loaded. 2. A signing bonus (that isn't accompanied with a NMC/NTC) ends up making a player much more tradable because salary cap salary gets charged against the cap each day of the regular season. So, if a guy got 90% of his contract in a salary bonus; then the next team gets 100% of the cap hit for the rest of that league year after the trade, but only has to pay the guy 10% of that contract's remaining value. 3. Ordinary course buy-outs happen at the end of a league year; so his stuff about a player becoming unbuyoutable by having a signing bonus which starts on the 1st day of the new league year doesn't really come into play. UNLESS the team has arbitration hearings and they then can buy-out salaries during the league year, or if the team and player agree to terminate the contract, or if the team is terminating the contract for cause. But in that very last case, the club could likely win a suit to claw back a portion of that current season's signing bonus. So, he's likely right in rare cases, but in general, don't believe it will actually factor in to a decision to buy-out a player or not. Teams buy-out the remaining years of a contract, not the current year of a contract (for most cases; not counting the few exceptions already described). EDIT: While all that is technically correct, it looks like signing bonuses are treated differently than other salary with regards to buy-outs; the "signing bonus" regardless of which league year it is due in apparently is considered to have already been earned at the time the contract was signed, so it is NOT subject to ordinary course buy-out haircutting. So, having a signing bonus does appear to guarantee a player additional money should his contract get bought out. 4. He is right that a team that doesn't want a cash flow hit, like the Sabres seem be in that category, will be less inclined to give a signing bonus than one that doesn't care. 5. Signing bonuses can be offered in particular years, all years, or no years during the duration of a contract. Players traditionally tried to include large signing bonuses in years that the CBA is expected to expire as a form of lockout/strike protection. The player can get through a lockout a lot easier if he's already been paid. And signing bonuses can also vary in how big they are too yearly. 6. And, yes, once the player has the money in pocket, he can be trying to put it to work for himself having it earn additional money; but at most he's getting 1 year of time with a fraction of that money. So, it isn't quite the boon that he makes it out to be. It's not like the NFL where a player gets the signing bonus today and it gets charged against the cap over a series of years. Again, that signing bonus counts against league player's total salary in the year it is earned and the total earned salary that year needs to be close enough to what the player is earning in other years to keep the contract compliant with cap rules. Tuch isn't goint to get $39MM in signing bonus in year 1 with $1MM in salary that year; get $10MM in salary in years 2, 3, and 4 and then get $2.5MM in salary in each of the final 4 years of the deal. Those Christian Ehrhoff style deals don't exist anymore.

Understand that sentiment. And still REALLY want to see the Sabres hoist Lord Stanley's Chalice, but for now, personally, take solace from having been in the Aud for their last championship in that building and also from having been there when the short-lived Stampede won a title.

Tomorrow's game will be a huge tell as to whether Dahlin coming back and their having faith in 2 goalies has actually elevated this roster or if it was just a 2 game mirage of what might've been. On paper they should destroy Calgary (well, ok, maybe destroy is a bit hyperbolic, but they SHOULD beat them) but this has been true several times in the past few years, and the end result too often is a Flames victory here. They need to not let up and lose a game they should win unlike what they did when St. Louis came to town. Win that game and they can show that MAYBE, just MAYBE they'll be able to play well enough at home to overcome their road shortcomings and get to a point where even just going 0.450 on the road could be enough. And Thompson continuing his aggressive play tomorrow would go a long way towards making that regulation W happen.