Taro T

Never said he was. There have been TWO concensus #1 overall picks that were D-men in the past 7 years. Will spell it out for you. Thorny had said it's uncommon for a top pairing D-man to swap sides & play his off-hand side in the NHL. Pointed out that Dahlin isn't exactly "common" so, based on his usage in Junior, he very well could be that "uncommon" D-man at this level.

Anaheim primarily played Pronger & Niedermayer on separate pairings and only h a d to worry about not having a top D-man on the ice for a little over 10 minutes / game. The Sabres have NEVER had a TRUE #1 D-man for much more than the last month & playoffs in '06 when Tallinder just turned into a monster. Would it really be that terrible to have 2 pairings anchored by a true #1? (PS - as stated above, would prefer Beniers, but if the Sabres are keeping for the long haul all of Eivhel, Reinhart, Mittelstadt, & Cozens C isn't a weakness for the foreseeable future as the top 3 C's will all be set via some combo from that pool. And, can see benefits to having LHD & C be the strengths of the club. Add G to that & you have somethingbthat can do damage come playoff time.)

Odds are very high that the Sabres draft a frosh Wolverine in a couple of months. The kid is going to claim he will play out his entire college eligibility to reenter the draft throwing away 2 peak earning years? Really? Doesn't sound like a credible threat.

Well, Power wouldn't be ready for too pairing usage for, what, 3 more seasons minimum? It's not like Dahlin would have to be moved to the right side this coming season. He can still grow into his NHL game & if he keeps developing like we hope AND Power belongs on the top pairing, it can work w/ him on the other side. And, isn't playing in the NHL at 18 "uncommon" as is having some of the highest scoring of any teenage D-man also uncommon. Heck, being the concensus #1 overall in the draft as a D-man seems fairly uncommon as well, though not quite as uncommon as it happened twice in the past 7 years.

Why? Because if they don't intentionally blow up their C depth, they can afford to draft best player and IF Eichel & Reinhart will be back then IF that best player IS a D-man then that is who they should take. Dahlin can play the right side, he's done it for pretty much his entire career minus the last 3 years. And being able to have 2 high performing D-men that can take up 50 of the 120 minutes / game the D are on the ice adds a ton of flexibility to what they can do on the back end. Think Anaheim in '07 with the true flexibility or even Chicago with less flexibility in their recent glory years. You aren't sold on Power and if he isn't the best player, he shouldn't be the pick. But if the concensus is correct & he is the best player, he should be the pick. Personally hoping for Beniers myself AND that they don't blow up the front end.

Said it before, will say it again. It's going to be a VERY long off-season.

IF they decide before the draft they CAN figure out how to keep Eichel & Reinhart, then they might draft Power. Otherwise, yeah, expecting they need to draft the 3C to ride behind Cozens & Mittelstadt in Dahlin's prime.

Can't fault the smiling. Nothing he could do today about the finish last season. Most people crack a small smile even when just getting a free coffee or fries. But being "proud" of winning the lottery for which they had the best odds of winning PLUS the rabbit's foot that Taylor Hall brings wherever he goes seems to be a very poor wording choice.

Yeah. Mentioned that on another board. Know what he meant, but it was a bad look. Looks like all it takes to win the lottery is have Hall and losing 35% of your TV audience doesn't hurt. Figured the Sabres would "win" it when they announced ratings were down over 1/3.

Wtf?!?!? Not doubting you, but haven't seen this at any of the NFL type message boards yet.

Always said the Pelicans should've been called the "Fighting Mormons." And then the owner should've called the owner of the Jazz and asked "wanna make a deal." 😉

To the 1st bolded, it is very impressive that you claim people can't possibly understand the intent of the league based upon what they have actually written down in the rule book and in written clarifications to the rule book, but yet you have the capability to devine what they want based on events that occurred AFTER someone within the league told the crew to prematurely open the Zamboni doors releasing the media hounds into their feeding frenzy. It further strains credulity to have you claim that the league wanted this particular type of goal to count when the Clarification most consistent with the play (shooter enters crease as rebound leaves crease, shooter still in crease gains control & puts puck into the net) says the league DIDN'T want that play to result in a goal. Remember, the whole reason for putting this poorly thoughout rule into the books a season earlier was to protect goalies. Letting shooters crash the net even after the puck is out of the crease & then score while still being in the crease early is in the spirit of the EXACT sort of play the league was looking to eliminate with the original rule. And below is a transcript of the aftermath of the coverage on ESPN starting about 20 minutes after the game was halted. Clement: "Our overhead is pretty conclusive. There is Brett Hull's left foot clearly in the crease. The puck is out of the crease and he whacked it home. Thorne: "That goal should not have counted under the rule." "That overhead shot makes this clear. This is terrible. I mean this is really terrible. That a game would end like this." ... "We believe no one has called down to say that anyone was in the crease. But that shot, he was in the crease." Clement: "He absolutely was in the crease." Thorne: "And the puck was not there." Clement: "Correct." Thorne: "And the rule says, if that's the case, the goals do not count." A bit later ... Thorne: "This of course is the rule that has been the subject of enormous controversy. Enormous controversy. ... All year long in this game everyone has said this rule doesn't work. It's gotta be changed and there has been a discussion that it would be changed somehow for next year. BUT, the rule for this game was if you are in the crease ahead of the puck the goal doesn't count." Clement: "Well, the general managers met as recently as 4 days ago right here in Buffalo and, and, heartedly debated the issue of video replay and being in the crease, etc. " Thorne: "This is the worst nightmare the National Hockey League could have thought of to end this game. It's a nightmare. It's a nightmare because it is clear from the video you saw it that goal should not have counted." Clement: "The nightmare may just be unfolding now." Thorne: "Yep. We're gonna show it to you again." ... Thorne: "We want to show you the point, I mean the point in the replay right here. See the puck is clearly outside of the crease and a skate is in." Clement: "Yeah, and uh, well yeah, I mean it's clearly outside 9f the crease & Brett Hull's skate is clearly in the crease. Had the puck stayed in the crease somebody might have been able to make a point that Brett Hull followed the puck into the crease which is allowable." ... Thorne: "So the rule that everyone complained of all year has come to haunt the National Hockey League at the worst possible moment. And unless, now unless there is some other explanation, but there's nothing we can, I mean we only have what we saw." Clement: "Right." Thorne: "And we know that nobody could have called down or the referees would have held it up. But that didn't happen. They're celebrating the Stanley Cup" ... Thorne: "We are trying to get a word from someone, obviously Bryan Lewis Supervisor of Officials is here." ... "We believe that league officials went into the locker room to talk to Lindy Tuff at least, and the ownership I'm sure to talk to the Buffalo Sabres about why the goal was allowed in light of what you saw." ... Thorne: "But you saw what happened and the league now has got to answer. What are you going to say in light of the video and in light of the rule. And that's what we want to give you before we leave so that you know what, uh, the league officials are saying after what we showed you." Clement: "Boy, unless it is a tight, clean, iron clad explanation it is going to be one huge difficult pill for the Buffalo Sabres to swallow." ... Pang: "... Bryan Lewis did say under the rules that Brett Hull, yes indeed he was in the crease but because it was him that had possession of the puck with his skate inside the crease and then still had possession of the puck outside the crease he was the player that was able to score the goal on Dominic Hasek. That is what he explained to the Buffa.o Sabres and what he is explaining to everybody else right now." (Editor's note: as explained above, Hull did have possession, but he didn't have control so the clarification spouted by Lewis was the wrong 1 and he was ,Ying then as be still lies about it to this day.) ... Clement: "Welp, there may be some validity to that explanation. As long as you can make the point that Brett Hull has control of the puck, he's allowed to have control of the puck with his skate in the crease." (Editor's note, in his best Ron Howard voice: you can't.) "I'm, I'm hoping that that can be reprinted for the entire world to see, so that this is not an issue. Nobody needs this to be an issue." ... (Editor's note, again in his best Ron Howard voice: this explanation was published, which is why this IS an issue.) Thorne: "And I think I, I, saw in the officials' book Bryan Lewis Bill earlier in the playoff year gave me a copy of some of the instructions that go to the refs as the season goes along; there was that thing about a player controlling the puck taking it in, taking it out and then scoring and there is a rule, uhhhhh, really an explanation of the rule that says those count." (Editor's note: once again, Lewis is conflating the clarifications to pretend they made the right call when they made the expedient one.). To the 2nd bolded, do you HONESTLY think he did his job well that night? If you believe his job was to be the pointman to cover up their original screw-up of letting reporters onto the ice prior to having determined the goal was good, you might be onto something. He's even been retired for 21 years and still sticks to that fallacious story. But, if you think he did a good job of allowing his subordinates to do their jobs as written, no, he didn't do that well as he usurped the authority they'd been delegated. As you've also admitted elsewhere here in this very thread, he didn't get the call right, so no that can't be what he did well. Did he save the league from more embarrassment than it would've faced had they pulled the reporters off the ice? Ymmv, but wouldn't say he hit on that count either. So, other than agreeing to be the fall guy, what exactly did he do well?

Pretty sure you're thinking of Game 2 of the Caps series the prior year. That was the 1st of 3 times in 3 years the league changed at least 1 rule because of the Sabres getting shafted in a playoff game in a series they didn't win. Referees HAD to at least hear the advice of the VGJ on questionable goals, he couldn't just allow them by fiat after that. The 3rd rule change was ALL potential goals had to be reviewed prior to dropping the puck again. That happened in Filly when IIFC LeClair put the puck into the cage through a hole in the netting near the post. (Hasek was standing there dumbfounded after it was in as he KNEW the shot was wide. The ref didn't have the linesman recheck the mesh, unfortunately. And the lazy schmuck in the review booth didn't bother to do his job.) We all know the 2nd play that resulted in rule changes. 😉

And, what actually happened on the ice. ####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 is 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. Both Hull & the rebounded puck are out of the crease. Hull kicks the puck towards his stick (now cocking to reload & keeps 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. Where have we seen a similar description to this turn of events? Might it have been in Clarification #10 of the "Mystery Memo?" Clarification number 10 states, "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." What happened prior to Hull's swiping shot at the net is immaterial. Everything from that point on meets that memo's description of the situation (nearly) precisely to a "tee" & the memo is quite clear on the result of the play. RESULT: GOAL IS DISALLOWED. And, while some claim that the ensuing non following of the process & procedures are immaterial; nothing could be further from the case. Had reporters & Stars staff not been allowed on the ice IMMEDIATELY following the goal, then when the refs asked the VGJ if any Dallas players were in the crease prior to the puck entering the crease/net, they would have been told that was the case & the apparent goal would have been disallowed & the play would've resumed at the Sabres blue line to the left of Hasek. Rather, when that question was asked, the response was that it was a good goal. That was NOT an answer to the question that had actually been asked of the VGJ. The ONLY reason why Lewis was said to have made the decision is that the league flat out didn't follow it's own written procedures & needed to come up with an excuse for how they'd decided the goal was good before the doors were opened. They trotted out Clarification 9 to support their position even though you can read it for yourself upthread and realize it didn't describe the play that actually happened. They also intentionally interchanged possession & control to obfuscate from those willing to be. Teams retain possession until the other team gains possession. DALLAS had possession the entire play since Modano intercepted ####in' Smehlik's attempted pass. (His attempt at a pass off the faceoff is how Dallas co trolled the puck to enter the zone in the 1st place btw.) But from the deflected shot they only gained control when Hull swiped at the 1st rebound & then once again as Hull shot the puck into the net. (And under the rulebook then in force, control was only gained by a skater playing the puck with his stick. No other body part playing the puck could confer control to that player.) Why do the distinction between control & possession matter? Because if a player could be in the crease simply by "having possession" of the puck, he could stand in the crease regardless of where the puck was until some other player took possession by gaining control. And Clarification 10 clearly states he couldn't do so until he had "regained" the puck. (Regained being a term not defined in the rulebook btw. But it's meaning per that clarification was so obvious even a (take your choice of term) could understand it.) So, long story short: the above is why there was NO GOAL scored with 5:09 remaining in the 3rd OT on that late May night back in '99. And also why Dallas didn't win the Stanley Cup, but rather were awarded it. They'd earned the right to have an egregious error grant them the Cup, but didn't actually earn the Cup itself. A non-trivial distinction IMHO, and 1 that should be maintained until the NHL admits they did the expedient thing rather than the right one, again, IMHO.

Gary Thorne "that goal should not have counted. This is terrible."

It took less than 10 seconds for the Zamboni doors to open after the puck entered the net. THAT action, prompted by the NHL, is what set the chain of events in motion. (And it WAS the league that sent the call down to open those doors.) ANYONE claiming the goal had been reviewed by then has an agenda. And anyone claiming it was better to have the DoO making the call, rather than the referees who were specifically given that role per the rulebook, is either disingenuous, has an agenda, or maybe both. And the rulebook was clear, that call belonged to the refs. And, though some might claim protocols were followed, the referees involved explicitly agreed that they weren't. And the one who's call it was to make said he'd have ruled NO GOAL should the procedure have been followed and he allowed to make the call as was his duty. And that result doesn't stand if the doors hadn't opened nor the chaos on the rink surface not ensued. Regardless of whatever Brett Hull & others might tell you.

Whatevs. It wasn't a legal goal & you have admitted as much. Enjoy your obfuscating.

Whatevs.

As Chz likes to say: whatevs.

Saying "(w)rong" the SECOND time you've posted something that isn't correct is being a raging jerk? 🤨 Good grief, this is going to be a long off-season.

Wrong. The NMC/NTC specifically & explicitly travels with the player under the MOU. Prior to that, it was the team's choice to honor it. There is already an example of a player waiving his NMC for the upcoming expansion draft with it being fully in effect after that. That is as specific a time period as it gets. You are essentially taking the position that an employee who has contracted to earn X $'s for working 40 hours for an employer can't voluntarily work an extra hour with no additional compensation. It's the employee's time; how he spends it is his choice. Due to Cap Circumvention rules a player can't voluntarily reduce his salary, but there is nothing prohibiting him from adjusting HIS NMC. The player can voluntarily give up his NMC/NTC for whatever duration he wishes. His team cannot do so as it isn't theirs, it is his. His team could also voluntarily add restrictions on their ability to trade a player. (Don't know why they would, but there is nothing prohibiting it should they have a reason to do so. They just can't officially give him one prior to him being able to qualify for Group 3 FA were he not under contract.) And, the CBA SPECIFICALLY exempts NMCs/NTCs from the prohibition on renegotiating the terms of a contract.

Can't see a scenario when Eichel would waive it for a full year, but there is nothing preventing him from doing so. The NMC is a benefit to HIM, not the club. If he has a reason to waive it for whatever reason, he has that right. And, players waive NTCs/NMCs all the time. There is nothing in the CBA nor the MOU preventing it. And actually, the MOU specifically states that the clause must be honored by a team acquiring a p,ayer w/ such a clause.

Obviously, the Pegulas haven't made the deal with the devil like Jacobs did. Or, God forbid, maybe they did for the Bills & the Sabres were the price. Hope not.

The players don't want compliance buyouts as they count towards the players share of revenues. (At least they did in the last CBA.) And that full amount essentially comes out of everybody's salary. Would expect some combination of increased cap with additional escrow to be how this moves forward until the players have paid back their extra pay from last season & this season. Which would effectively keep payrolls constant but would reduce take home $'s of players on existing contracts. (I.e., the guys that got overpaid these past 2 seasons per the CBA as the players actually ended up with more than 50% of HRR end up taking the brunt of the hit (technically, everybody takes the hit, but guys signing deals after such a deal has been worked out between the PA & the league know ahead of time that they'll get say 90% of their nominal contract unless revenues really shoot up but the guys on existing deals expected those to pay roughly 100% of the nominal value) and guys that weren't on those deals get more. Just like it always works as the cap goes up. Briere's hoped for $5x5 deal would've been a monster in '06 but who wouldn't be ecstatic should Reinhart accept that tomorrow.)

It wasn't a voiding of a contract, but when the Sabres thought it was in LaFontaine's LT interest to retire and he refused, they gave him to the Rags for a 2nd rounder.