Taro T

And, IMHO, he's a Canadian. (Though he did play in Germany.)

Must be referring to Ehrhoff. Rieder doesn't seem to fit the billing even though it's a stretch for the D-man as well. Could it be Hecht? if not any of them, maybe David Hasselhof was in the running for coach? 😉 Save us Knightrider, you're our only hope. 😉

It is below average, but IF the Sabres are to keep Eichel & Reinhart, they already have: Eichel, Reinhart, Cozens, Mittelstadt, Thompson, Asplund, & Bjork that are 25 or younger with the big club plus Olofsson is just outside that window. That's 8 of your 12 F slots that can literally be held down for the next 6 seasons. Add Quinn & Peterka and they are only relying on Skinner, Girgensons, & guys not in the system for 5 slots (2 in the top 12 & 3 to cover for injuries). 6 if they end up losing Bjork or Asplund in 2 months. When youthful guys that have already graduated to the big club are included, the Sabres youth looks at least fringe playoff caliber for the foreseeable future provided Adams fixes the goaltending & gets the coach right AND doesn't decimate the top end. (Some mighty big ifs, but the youthful talent pool isn't awful. (And, ALWAYS drafting top 8, that isn't where we'd like it to be, but it isn't awful, at a minimum. And, before you see this post as something it isn't, am not saying you are saying it is awful.))

And if Muckler had been smart enough to play a healthy Hasek rather than an injured Fuhr it could've been the Sabres year.

Price with support from Weber & Petry gives them a chance. If Armia can get a couple more shorties, it could be interesting.

There's a reason they play them, but yeah, the next round could be ugly.

Had the league shut down 1 day later last year, it could've been Buffalo in & the Habs looking in. Now 14-1/2 months later the Habs are in the Semis (via the easiest ride in years, but still) & the Sabres are imploding.

Last team to get to the 2nd round is the 1st through to the Semis. Wonder if Petry will be good to go by the time Vegas/Avs has decided an opponent.

Tyler Toffoli and the Habs are moving on!

Hoss already covered that. 🍺

Though they don't seem credible, there is a thread here dedicated to them, so ...

Probably the guy filling the Ray/Kruse role. He has the hands of Ray & the skills (at this point) of Kruse.

There is a lot of the '99 Sabres in this current Habs squad.

Well, they aren't getting 3 more.

Yeah. Not sure who Adam is, but the color commentator is former (briefly) Sabre Dominic Moore. They are truly bad, but at least now they aren't trying to pleasure the Loafs with every passing breath. Though, did get a kick out of their "Willie Nylander is their best player." "Why, oh, why, won't they play Spezzz more." And, "This is shocking. Truly shocking."

2 more ottomh: Kaleta & Kennedy.

And, what would hopefully be my final post on this subject, but probably won't; thanks PA. The play: And, what actually happened on the ice. (Go find a video of it on YouTube to satisfy yourself that the following description is accurate.) ####in' Smehlik turns the puck over to Modano. Modano chips the puck to Lehtonnen as Hull heads towards the crease with Holzinger in pursuit. Lehtonnen takes a 1 timer that appears to be deflected by Hull outside the crease. Hasek stops the shot & the rebound remains in the crease. As Hasek is pushing the puck out of the crease, Hull enters the crease & takes a swipe at the puck & this sneaks under Hasek's stick but is stopped by Hasek's glove as he sprawls. Hull's stick is now in Hasek's glove as he misses the puck on the rebound & the puck leaves the crease. Holzinger engages w/ Hull & Hull leaves the crease as the puck leaves the crease but before the puck has left the crease. Holzinger now glances off Hull & begins to fall as he passes through the crease, snagging Hasek's glove with his skate in the process. Both Hull & the rebounded puck are out of the crease. Hull kicks the puck towards his stick (now cocking to reload effectively keeping the puck from Modano who tried to shoot the puck but did so too late to beat Hull's skate to the puck. The ref adjusts his position & partially turns from the play to avoid Holzinger, the puck grazes the crease, & Hull's skate enters the crease. The puck then fully clears the crease while Hull remains in the crease. Hull now standing with 1 skate fully in the crease gains control of the puck which is now about 2' outside the crease & he shoots the puck into the net while he himself remains in the crease. The rule in place at the time: 78.b. Protection of Goalkeeper: Unless the puck is in the goal crease area, a player of the attacking side may not stand in the goal crease. If the puck should enter the net while such provisions prevail the goal shall not be allowed. If the attacking player has physically interfered with the goalkeeper, prior to or during the scoring of the goal, the goal will be disallowed and a penalty for goalkeeper interference will be assessed. The ensuing face-off shall be taken in the neutral zone at the face-off spot nearest the attacking zone of the offending Team. The clarification governing the situation per the league: Clarification #9: "An attacking player maintains control of the puck but skates into the crease before the puck enters the crease and shoots the puck into the net. Result: Goal is allowed. The offside rule rationale applies (in the sense that a player with the puck can precede it into the opposing zone." The clarification describing the situation most closely resembling the actual play: Clarification 10: "An attacking player takes a shot on net and after doing so, skates into the crease. The initial shot deflects outside the crease. The original attacking player, still in the crease, recovers the puck, which is now outside the crease, and scores. Result: Goal is disallowed." Important background necessary to interpret the play & ruling: Definition of "possession:" 67. Interference - Note 2 Pessession of the Puck: The last player to touch the puck, other than the goalkeeper, shall be considered the player in possession. The player deemed in possession of the puck may be checked legally, provided the check is rendered immediately following his loss of possession. Definition of "control:" 91.b. Tripping: Note 4 2nd Paragraph: "Control of the puck" means the the act of propelling the puck with the stick. If while it is being propelled, the puck is touched by another player or his equipment, or hits the goal, or goes free, the player shall no longer be considered to be in control of the puck." Aside: "Possession & Control" are both used together in at minimum 2 separate places Rule 67. Interference and also Rule 33.b. Calling of Penalties. They are not interchangeable terms. The term "recovers" does not appear in the rulebook but clearly is intended to mean "regains control" as per the definition, a shooter does not cede "possession" merely because the puck was touched by the goalkeeper. And the last rule for additional informational purposes: 93.h. Video Goal Judge: Only at the request of the Referee, to establish if an attacking player was in the crease at the time the puck entered the goal. The Video Goal Judge is to advise the Referee of the position of the attacking player when the puck entered the crease and/or goal. The VGJ only ADVISED the Referee of the location of the puck & the attacking player. It wasn't his job to make a call of a good goal in that situation & it certainly wasn't his boss' call to make either. Posted quotes from Lewis and the refs and other players in this drama years ago. Maybe the search function will find them. They all support 1 conclusion: NO GOAL. Why'd the league refuse to follow it's procedures after the flood of reporters came onto the ice prior to reviewing the play and seeing a legal goal had not been scored and then subsequently not allowing the refs to know Hull was in the crease prior to gaining control of the puck & bringing it into the crease and thus not allowing them to do their job in the moment? We'll leave that for the reader to decide. Whatever the reason, the result remains: the Dallas Stars were awarded the Stanley Cup in the wee hours of June 20, 1999 by Gary Bettman in Buffalo, NY.

In fairness to Borgen, he couldn't beat out washed up vets in the eyes of the coach you've described as the Sabres worst of all time nor could he beat them out when younger while being evaluated by a guy that definitely is in the 3 worst Sabres coaches of all time. Agree that Ristolainen will be the 3rd protected D-man barring a trade. But there are extenuating circumstances with Borgen's career trajectory and his being 24 and a rookie isn't an indictment of what he'll be. (And will once again lament the expansion draft getting delayed as the Sabres wouldn't even have lost a Borgen nor Bjork quality player to that draft had it been held when it was supposed to be held.)

The possibility that he could truly be "injury prone" & this time with an injury that will substantially affect his play is the only reason am remotely open to trading him.

A 3rd interesting point is how much the premiums for that insurance rise should he actually have surgery on the neck. (Presuming the insurance company would deem him coverage. After a certain point, the premiums & delays on how long he has to be out to start payouts make the coverage unaffordable.) Sabres paid an outrageous amount of LaFontaine's "insured salary" when he was out that last season he played w/ the Sabres. And the rates were going to go up even more for that time he was a Rag. IIRC, the insurance didn't kick in until Patty missed a specified # of games. Have not looked closely at how insurance is addressed in the MOU nor the CBA it tweaks, but would expect the insurance company won't be keen on paying out for any games missed due to issues arising from an "experimental" surgery.

Yep. 3 years down. 5×$10 remaining to go.

Sabres still hold the rights to Pilut, too. And expect he's planning on coming back to the NHL in '22-'23. Left side log jam, indeed.

The bolded is not accurate. It isn't why you stated you came around to (at least temporarily) renounce the dark side back of the play back when you did so sometime around ~2010. It wasn't the memo clarifications that turned you. Those both had been produced publicly back in the fall of '99. It was your finding online a copy of the '98 rulebook (the one in effect for the '98-'99 season) that included the original version of control exactly where you'd been told it would be & with it saying exactly what you were told it did. After you could see the definition yourself (my having printed it out at least twice & what seemed like 6 or so times never swayed you, & in fact you always acted like that was something that yours truly made up) you finally accepted (however reluctantly) the truth. Remember, "control of the puck" had been changed from "means the act of propelling the puck with the stick" to "means the act of propelling the puck with the stick, hands, or feet." Both the original definition & the new one continue on: "If while it is being propelled, the puck is touched by another player or his equipment, or hits the goal, or goes free, the player shall no longer be considered to be in control of the puck." It was a change that PRECISELY put Hull's action into the act of controlling the puck while he was still out of the crease, and thus allowing what happened to be legal WERE THAT to have actually been the rule at the time. Unfortunately for him, it wasn't. You continue to attempt to minimize how integral the definition of control is to all of this. READ what the definition was and what it became. Had the new version been in place, the play would have resulted in a good goal. It wasn't and the play didn't. That change was highly effective in getting people to believe their narrative about that fateful night. You won't convince me it wasn't intentional. (Appears you won't be convinced it was, so let's drop that. PLEASE.) That change is what kept YOU from believing the play did not result in a legit goal. There is absolutely no way you were the only person duped by that change. And it is SIGNIFICANT revisionist history to claim we were in agreement on the rule. That only came about after ~4 years of you claiming the goal was good and being provided a ton of evidence as to why it wasn't. (I provided far more detail about this in the past than in this thread, but I have wasted FAR MORE of my precious time both then and now to produce it all again. Maybe somebody can get lucky with the d*mn search function and pull it all up again. But really don't intend to do it again.) You can try to cloud this into being about the aftermath, but from my perspective it has ALWAYS been about whether the play should've resulted in a legit goal - it shouldn't have, btw. Even in this thread, somewhere upstream you claim to have changed your mind back to it having been called the right way. You've said it explicitly above, it is important to you that this not be a CYA (and a poor 1 at that) by the league. Quote: "I can't believe it about the league, because if it's true I really can't be fan." Won't go bursting your bubble, but ...

(Not so) fun fact. NBC had the double header that day & that was the early national game. Most of the country got to see the full game, but those living in markets that had a team playing in the late NBC game got psuedo-Heidi'd. They got to see those wild 77 seconds, but missed the last 2 or so minutes of the game due to "contractual obligations." Grrr.

@MODO Hockey @North Buffalo beat me to the comment, but when I read this: "Another thing that i've mentioned more than once is that he is so utterly good to get beneath the skin of the other teams coaching staff. He has done this with perfection many times, he is a ***** beast and he loves it." Thought immediately of how thoroughly Ruff got under the skin of opponents & their coaches in the playoffs. He got so far into their heads that Brind'Amour was STILL whining about Ruff right after he'd won the Stanley Cup. Might be fun to get thatshow back.