Taro T

Yep. Chanting Bob's name right through the US Anthem was awesome. 😒 (Realize you weren't including that in your review, but really don't believe it can/should be taken out of it.)

Not insane, but it would be a huge gamble. Personally expect the deal to be 3 or 4 years. If he can get beyond his one major remaining hangup - he doesn't play lights out (often, if at all) when he hasn't been annointed the clear #1 with no viable competition for that role on the roster - he could be a Vasilevskiy. And he very well could get beyond it, but until he's actually demonstrated that he has gotten beyond it, he hasn't. He's played at that level briefly (when Levi hasn't been around and when they were all but buried). But when they''ve needed him to sustain it when they've actually been within striking distance of the playoffs, he couldn't get it done. Maybe he was battling injury that was never disclosed, but there was nothing in his movement that would suggest that. His slump seemed more mental than physical. Whether the Sabres pay for it, or it comes out of his own pocket, he might be a great candidate for seeing Miller's sports shrink. How many MILLIONS of $'s are on the line for him and are available to him over the next decade + should he get past that 1 final hurdle. That seems like a no brainer. (And if he doesn't see her, wouldn't hurt to see someone with that kind of resume.)

And per Dave Jackson the league ADMITTED they blew the replay on the 1st Barkov goal. The official explanation is that the refs determined that the puck was still JUST on the line when the skate of the player without the puck (Reinhart) lost contact with the blue line. His skate didn't need to maintain contact, it merely needed ANY part of it to be above/on the blue line.

Harvey was the Bobby Orr until Orr came along. Won 6 of the 1st 8 Norris' and was runner up one of those 2 times. Richard scored 50 goals in 50 games. A record that wasn't to be broken in more games for over 20 years and in the same number of game for nearly 40 years. He was Lemieux to Howe's Gretzky in his era. There were guys that were dominant over others from their era; Gretzky, Lemieux, and Orr didn't have a monopoly on it. Can see an argument for him being in the top 6 if the Eulers pull this out (heck, even if they don't) but personally don't see it being a slam dunk that that's his slot.

Again, Black Hawks to Blackhawks. 😉

And that doesn't include guys like Harvey, Richard, Shore, Morentz, etc. So, maybe not even top 10 just yet. But it's really hard to rank guys that weren't even within 50 years of each other.

In ranking all-time greats, IMHO longevity factors in (to a certain degree). Personally can't put him in front of Gretzky, Lemieux, nor Orr in any case and really have a hard time putting him ahead of Howe at this point. (Again, longevity counts for something.) Wouldn't put him ahead of Crosby at this point either (realize that's a big point of the debate); so even w/out including any goalies, wouldn't have him top 5 YET. Could see him being there when his career is in the rear view mirror, just not yet. My 2 cents. YMMV.

Close. He gets 2/3's his remaining outstanding money. That other 1/3 is gone and he gets it over 6 years rather than 3 (provided he's bought out this season as it seems very possible he will be). And, yes, it's up to him and his agent to strike a deal somewhere, but there is no guarantee that he'll be able to get a deal in one of the handful of cities he wants to play in. Sooooo, he MIGHT be better off accepting a trade to some other team rather than just getting bought out. Because if he gets traded somewhere he gets all his money and he gets it in the next 3 years. Unless the Sabres have to throw in some SERIOUS sweetener beyond retaining 50% of his salary (which costs them 1/6 more in actual $'s than a buyout and $4.5MM in cap space for each of the 3 remaining years), that seems to be THEIR best case resolution of the "Skinner situation." No data whatsoever on whether somebody would be willing to trade with the Sabres or not nor just what else (if anything) they'd need from the Sabres to take Skinner off their hands. Will be an interesting next 10 or so days.

Quite often when teams move, the name changes. Nordiques became the Avalanache with their move. Same as Jets becoming Coyotes. Both of which were in your timeframe. (And Whalers becoming Hurricanes.) Back in the 20's the Red Wings started as the Cougars and then in the 30's became the Falcons then Red Wings. And Toronto were the Arenas prior to being the St. Pats prior to being the MLs. Also in the timeframe in question: Chicago changed their name from Black Hawks to Blackhawks sometime in the 80's. The Seals while still in the Bay Area changed from Seals to Golden Seals (and also from Oakland to California). Then became the Barons in Cleveland, then merged with the North Stars in Minnesota and then the Gunds went full circle splitting the Sharks off from the team that soon thereafter moved to Dallas and became the Stars. (The Scouts had a similar saga but not quite as bad. Scouts -> Rockies -> Devils.) The Flames are one of the few that changed location but kept the name. In baseball, the Angels have kept that name from day one (AFAIK) but have gone from LA, to California, to Anaheim, and back to California (might've missed one or 2 changes to where they claim they're from though they started in LA and have been in Anaheim since). The Braves kept the name from Boston to Milwaukee to Atlanta, but the Senators became the Rangers. And pretty sure the Pilots became the Brewers. Expos were still the Expos when they were homeless and ended up the Nationals when they got a new permanent home. Giants and Dodgers kept the names when they went from the right coast to the left coast. (Though those 2 moves predate your question.)

Appreciate the sentiment, but the league has been trying to start slightly later (discounting the Covid effects) in the year to avoid an additional week or 2 of the NFL season (playoff baseball too most likely, but the elephant in the room is the NFL).

And for the 1st time since Murray got punted, July 1 might actually be fun. Not expecting Adams to be making the biggest splashes that day (though still feel there's a legit chance he's going to pursue Kane hard) but do expect him to at least be in the pool that day. That used to be one of my favorite days to be glued to NHL news (that and trade deadline day were always holidays on this side of the border for this kid) but it had become a ho-hum day at best or a day of dread at worst. Now that it will be problematic to pay close attention that day for personal reasons, it'll probably be a lot of fun again. (Here's to hoping at least.)

Yep. Hearing Adams response to the Q today, just don't see how Skinner is a Sabre come training camp.

When he said after last season's trade deadline that they REALLY like the GTing, it put it at 90%+ that would be this coming season's tandem. But he literally moved that to 99%+ this morning. Ruff's comments about figuring out pairings is the only reason to expect that the top 8 D might not be set yet (though w/ the order still to be determined). See 3 - 4 outsiders being brought in this summer but would be shocked if more than 1 isn't an F and wouldn't be surprised at all if they all are F's.

So what on Filly's roster would be the equivalent of 11 & Krebs? Expect Danault or Eriksson Ek would be better value for that, but doubt that returns either.

Thus the reason why players lobby for NMCs.

Would be really interested in seeing Benson's #'s broken out with October - early December & March and April in 1 cohort and the rest of the season in the other. Benson seemed to slide a bit mid-season but also seemed to get a "second wind" the last 15 or so games.

Personally took it as an indication that he seldom gets interviewed because we all knew what he MEANT (and it was IMHO an attempt at being self depreciating saying 'yeah, we drafted really well, but where we were drafting we were expected to do so, so it's no feather in our collective caps') but it was very easily construed in a different manner. IF they have a media relations advisor, that'll be one that gets highlighted on the review tape as how to NOT speak to the media.

There are literally HUNDREDS of fireflies out tonight. Which leaves the mosquito population only 1-2 orders of magnitude higher tonight. Grrrr.

As have said before, would prefer they not buy Skinner out this year. (Expect it makes more sense next year, though it isn't a given he gets bought out next year. See almost no way he plays year 8 on the contract here.) BUT if Ruff doesn't want him for WHATEVER reason - he wants a more 2 way player in his slot, he expects having a veteran that has no idea what his own side of the blue line looks like being a model for the youngest team in the league is a bad idea, he doesn't see Skinner HATING losing, or whatever, then he will be bought out should Adams not be able to convince another GM and Skinner that he'd be a great fit on that other GM's team. IF Ruff doesn't want Skinner here then the comparison between Satan and Jeff could be extremely apt. They'd be willing to get rid of him without an obvious replacement for his goals on the roster. And again, this is SPECULATION. Said in the B&G I thread, that personally expect he's pencilled in on the 3rd line. But that was this kid's expectation prior to hearing Adams talk that night. This morning, Adams literally said a buyout is something they are considering and it's an option that's on the table. You don't get to that statement without having given it careful consideration and expect that's likely the way you're leaning because if he's here in 3 weeks, they'll have a (can't recall the adjective Adams always uses describing his conversations with his players, but insert that here) conversation about today's press conference. And the relationship could be significantly damaged by what was said today &/or in that future conversation.

But have you ever strapped a 60# vest on and pulled a 200# sled around for 45 minutes ala Lloyd Bridges on Seinfeld? Bet 'cha haven't, have ya? Well, there you go. Slackers. 😛

In a vacuum, absolutely. And, again, would prefer they keep him on the roster even if they add say Kane and Danault along with a 4th liner. But, IF Ruff sees Skinner in the light that Drury saw Satan OR in the light that Smerlas and Devlin were on the '89 Bills (the leaders of the team that were long in tooth and kept that team from being Kelly & Smith's when it should've been Kelly & Smith's team), then am fine with him going away even if his replacement isn't obviously coming in through the door. Mittelstadt and Skinner were 2 guys the young guys gravitated towards; maybe management wants them gravitating towards others instead? (Not saying management does, just literally speculating "out loud.") There were MANY people that were upset when all those 3 guys left town respectively, but it turned out to be the best move in the long run (realize there will be push back on the Smerlas move as Jeff Wright was tremendously undersized (but the D never becomes Smith's and Talley's and Biscuit's if Fred is still there IMHO), but the Bills walked away from Parella too a couple of years later and don't see either move as the reason the Bills never won a Super Bowl). Will trust in whichever decision they make on what to do with Skinner.

Pretty much it comes down to, does the coach want him here on a lower line or does he want him out the door (ala Satan in '05). If after talking to the other players and staff, Ruff thinks that Skinner would be a distraction from/ detriment to what they are trying to accomplish or would become a room cancer if he isn't going to be on the top line (and all the tea leaves indicate he will not be on the top line) then he is not going to be here even if they don't officially fill his slot. Punting Miro with no widely recognized backfill for his production (though Briere was in house and should've been expected to replace his PP scoring if not the ES/EN) was one of the moves that lead to the best 2 year stretch in Sabres hockey in well over 30 years. Personally, have preferred that they keep Skinner this year rather than punt him to get him fully off the books 5 years from now rather than 6 unless they have something in the works that needs his money for this season now, but wouldn't be upset if they did simply walk away from him. Should Quinn be able to stay healthy all year, a lot of Skinner's production gets replaced right there.

Nobody will pay TB anywhere close to what they spent to get him. Those assets are all sunk costs at this point.

Not true. Flagg here used their play in the year or 2 before they got good but had no goaltending as examples of how the Sabres SHOULD be playing. He had dozens of examples of that team playing the right way overall but getting undone by below average AHL goaltending.

Dubois doesn't come as part of the package, does he? 😉 (Actual answer. Depends on the cost.) Technically trades can happen at any time at all. It's just post-trade deadline traded players aren't playoff eligible for their new team, so there's seldom incentive to make such trades.