Taro T

Not the one I was looking for, but a reasonable example of one of their commercials.

Nah, it still looks like Christmas, just at the Bender family. Relevant portion starts at 2:00. VERY NSFW due to language.

Nice work, Jason. Now go wake up your boss.

Same as it ever was, same as it ever was.

And if Alex Tuch isn't saying "I want at least 1/2 of every $ you penny pinched to stay on this God forsaken team one day longer than I have to" well then we all should have lost some respect for him.

Wow, that's 9 more than the Sabres have working on AHL deals and 10 more than they have working on NHL deals.

He doesn't. But Karmonos is running up quite the phone bill doing HIS job. Wonder if his boss knows July 1 isn't a holiday on THIS side of the Niagara?

But only until they check the fine print.

He may be a Dickman, but he's R. Dickman.

Well, it's good to see Karmanos is on the job today at least. Think he might decide to wake up his boss anytime soon?

Bernard-Docker, the D-man the Sabres got from the Otters in the Cozens deal.

You sure? Not positive that ANY of us are winning with that result.

Which is why I was saying he's not a UFA for 2 more seasons; but IF the CBA has that change, well ... (And personally agree, that that is the sort of change that SHOULD be considered a big deal if it actually was/is made.)

Have not seen that ANYWHERE. Not doubting you, but do you have a link? They ARE shortening maximum contracts from 7/8year to 6/7 year. But haven't seen any reports of the age/service level to reach FA getting reduced.

Yes. But the big guys they've brought in (at least Kesselring) are supposed to be "fast and skilled for a big guy" and Timmons is more skilled than Clifton. They aren't going for JUST size in theory but are trying to find that sweet spot of all 3 (even though unless you're getting an Eichel, and those are hard to get, it's really hard to get true size, speed, and skill).

Can't find a summary of the changes to the CBA that mentions length of service - neither it staying the same nor getting shortened a year. They're reducing the maximum length of contracts by 1 year, but no data regarding when players become eligible for FA.

Provided the new CBA doesn't reduce the age/experience level to earn UFA status, correct.

Does the new CBA lower the age/experience for UFA status? If it does, then yes, Byram will be eligible to be a UFA next year. But if it doesn't, he has 2 years to wait to be a UFA.

Tops Moe-ray-all converting a 4 to a 2. Wonder who'll be the GM to convert a 6 to a 2 courtesy of the good ol' blue and gold.

True. And if he hasn't been heard in the 1st 4 or so years; why would we expect Adams to listen to him now? That 2016 draft totally hosed us. Pegula was smarter than Murray about Chychrun and Forton was smarter than Murray about McAvoy. Not sure either has been right about any players since, but that ONE TIME ...

Yeah, they aren't getting away from speed and skill; but they are moving towards the Murray model - size with speed and skill. The team is becoming heavy but still see it not playing that hard game that LA was doing when Murray decided to emulate it nor that FLA is playing that KA seems to be now trying to emulate.

Personally like Östlund (not as much as Helenius, but like him), but if a team is looking for an F prospect either he or Wahlberg is the guy I'd expect the Sabres to be willing to reluctantly part with that would actually be asked for by another team. Want the Sabres to treat Helenius like the Blues treated Thomas. You aren't offering us a good enough player for us to let you pry him from our clutches. (Now if you'd offer us X instead, for that exact same package but with Helenius included instead of other prospect THEN we might be able to find a deal; but X better be who's coming back to us.) Can't see anybody targeting Rosen. And he could surprise and become a legit middle 6er. But based when he's done so far, don't see anybody clamboring for him.

Well, they already were bad. Now they're also got the big covered. Big bad Bruins. it's on brand.

Quote: we have a lot of things to work on at the Sabres - a “critical broadcast” is not one of them. Can take that as "we're ok with the broadcast being critical; it tends to be when appropriate and we're fine with that" OR "we don't need to work to make the broadcast critical; we need to work to make it non-critical - and we will put in the necessary work."

Great thing about that tweet is it could be read either way - that they do care about the broadcast being too critical or they don't really care about it at all.