PASabreFan

Connecting a lot of dots, but is it fair to say Jack doesn't think the structure moving forward (KA+the Pegulas+Granato+the youngens) will give him a chance to win?

Right, but not hiring an experienced NHL head coach is objectively the wrong decision — and everyone will say it if Granato is bad.

This is the conventional wisdom. If the Sabres want to roll the dice that the "success" wasn't fools gold, they can do so. But they should remember that Ron Rolston earned the opportunity as well. I'm in "what the hell can it hurt" mode, so I'm OK with seeing what Granato has for realz. It's still the objectively wrong decision for this franchise at this moment in its history.

Oh you weren't wrong. It's established terminology. I think Carlin did a bit on it.

And yet that team, in the middle of the dead puck era and in the freakin' playoffs, averaged three goals a game on its way to the finals. The final? Not so much. Such a weird expression. Left the ice maybe?

My recent Bills memory might be a little fuzzy, but did McBeane come in and push to make the playoffs in Year One to get the monkey off their back? IMMSMC, Job One was changing the dreaded culture. Good players went away in the process. If I had to wager, this is the conversation KA had with Terry and maybe Kim when she came in with sammies (damn Terry loves him some Amish Country Ham Loaf; he has it flown in to Boca twice a week), and could argue his Sabres Version successfully because of what happened in OP. I think all new GMs come in thinking they are not responsible for or beholden to the failures that came before them. (As an aside, culture will be looked down upon by smart analytics people. So will character, team chemistry, "difference-making," leadership, momentum in games, clutch play and the like. They can't be put into one of those fancy new pocket calculators.) That's the thing. There's all this debate about trading Eichel. Both sides have made their decision; neither side is wrong about the other. Do we really think we know better? Kim got in trouble for saying there are things they as owners know that we don't. She wasn't wrong. If there's a desire to move Eichel, and there is, isn't it more logical to think they've done their homework instead of some theory about KA wanting to have a long rebuild to ensure his employment? 10 million a year? I bet 50K to hire some private detectives was an easy decision.

The losing trumps everything else for me. Because this franchise has always been the little market engine that could. Before the Pegulas, there was plenty of winning and almost always plenty of hope. Owners from Seymour Knox to OSP had top-notch management from old Punch, to Scotty, to Muckler, to Darce. They all produced in varying degrees of success. This is uncharter territory for fans of a certain age. I'm just not up for enjoying the odd nice goal with nothing to show for it in the standings. My take has been that keeping Jack ensures continued torture for him and us. In the end, I just never really liked the guy or his game.

My recollection of the injury is that Jack got a turdburger of a nudge and his head contacted the glass at a strange angle and he couldn't for a brief moment pull himself away, he was almost stuck to the glass, and something happened in that moment. It's fair to wonder if some pre-existing injury contributed to that sequence of events.

Matt Ellis? You don't say. And who was going to benefit if Jack got hurt?

I like to think I've always pointed out the good and the bad. I can say I witnessed first hand the very first smack talk of Eichel. At the summer scrimmage in 2015, some dude behind me in the 300s screamed for Jack to "move yer feet." I can't say he was wrong that night, or since. Jack "*****" Eichel is right. Whatever. I think with decades of fandom you start to have perspective on who the good ones are. I don't blame any young fans who've known nothing but losing to attach themselves to an Eichel and mourn his passing. Only we the cockroach fans survive. There will be fresh meat to come. Players better than Jack, by a lot. You'll see. When all you've done is play on losing teams and haul in 10 million a year, this is what happens.

Are you forgetting the owner of the team, Kim Pegula?

Within the week: by Sunday. Discuss.

Damn, I'd love to fill that up. So ample and full-bodied. Gotta run about 5k gallons. I could be off. @Taro T?

This seems like a solid retrospective, by a respected NHL writer. It supports the idea of a mini-tank. https://web.archive.org/web/20100201133510/http://www.post-gazette.com/pg/09351/1021485-125.stm

IMMSMC at a critical moment the Pens made a curious goaltending decision. That might be microtanking at most. Let's look at the Pens' record for a few years before Mario. I could be convinced otherwise (just not by T-Square), but the Pens taking for Mario is apocryphal.

Hey, at least we're still not talking about whether Lewis had the authority to make the call he did, and how the call was actually fair and just. Yeah, that'll solve it.

Some say the tank worked, but the rebuild failed. What if the tank's success ensured the rebuild's failure? What was left for Jack to enter into? Not that the Pens tanked for Crosby or the Hawks tanked for Kane using a common definition of tanking, but compare to the talent Sid and Patrick had around them when they arrived. The Penguins of the 80s stunk, but they stunk just a little more, maybe on purpose for a short time, to get 66. They didn't tank, either. What the Sabres did was Tanking to the Max and it was urged on by Pittsburgh people who knew Terry was a Pittsburgh guy and at the least a Crosby fan if not a Penguins fan; they all should have known better.

Or cooked mentally in Buffalo, like Hall, ROR, Lehner and those other depressed Swedish dudes, before him. When they get pruned a little, fed, put in the sun and placed in the right spot, they bloom again. Eichel going on and having success seems immaterial (and practically guaranteed) — if it wasn't going to happen in Buffalo, who cares?

Building a contending team is mysticism for sure. It's not based on a mathematical formula, I know that. I don't think Jack has the "it" factor at all. If he did, he would have led his team into the playoffs, just once. But I don't really care to keep debating it. Like Ted Black's uni, Jack's a turdburger in Sabres history. Like another turdburger, Pierre Turgeon, Jack can go and be prime rib in other places. I'm looking for a sea change. I'm looking for our next LaFontaine.

And if the Sabres had won that razor-thin series?

Of course that reflects poorly on McDavid. Your language is interesting. "...greatest talent to ever play." If McDavid never wins anything, that'll probably be his tag. Not the greatest player or greatest of all time. The greats lift up those around them. You want an all star team around Jack to try and lift HIM to try and justify your opinion of him. It's not practical. There's a salary cap. I suppose if the Sabres trade Jack, get worse on paper and somehow start winning next season, you'll want Jack back, because then, with a good team in place, he could be a difference maker. There's a chicken and egg deal going on here.

To absolve the players on these crummy teams is ludicrous.

Not too many diehard Jackers. Can you imagine this thread five years ago? Two? Of course the people ahead of the curve always get lashed. It looks like a lot of you also knew deep down he wasn't the guy. Tank fruit and all though, first born son.

Kenny almost did The Dunleavy but caught himself.

They have had legions of supporters up until recently. And I heard from every last one of them.