...

Keeping this thread up high, because the CHL lesson of keeping your chin up apparently doesn't apply to coaches. FWIW, I would be happy with a coach we referred to as "Disco Dan". But since GoDD is opening this up to other coaches...while I'm still not convinced Disco Dan is a Murray "I'll meet you at the bar after the game, Tim" kind of guy, I am definitely certain Torts and Murray would get along as well as Nolan and Murray got along.

Wish I could see this, but haven't found a linky yet. Are they showing it on the NHL network, or something, how is everyone else getting to see this. Am I stupid and just not looking in the right place. Hello? Testing...1...2...3...

So, maybe we wind up with Disco Dan by attrition.

Chabot or Carlo with 21. Bank on it, unless, of course, it's traded away.

I'm not overly fond of Tampa, but, God, I did not like watching NY play. So, I think I'm with Hoss and will look forward to a Tampa/Chicago SCF.

Well, I think it's safe to say that so far, all of the "zero f#$ks given" moves by Murray have felt really good. I can dig the argument to continue down that path since, again ...so far... it feels right.

I'm willing to be sold on Blysma, but I haven't seen anything that has won me over. He's charming on video, but, mmmm....still not sold.

Goes for Torts, too, although I think his rep is strongest amongst armchair GMs, and only ranks in the media as a source for season-long drama.

So, wait, we're supposed to be swayed by his YouTube savvy? Really?

Wait, if they could fly McLellan in, they would, or will, when he's available to do so. I think some of you folks might have too much time on your hands reading into things that are not reading-into-worthy. What I want to know is where the "Murray won't want to share power" meme has come from. It's ridiculous and I can't believe people are calling WGR and bringing it up as if it's a serious, real point.

Your argument is well made, but the supposition is that Babcock can't handle the "dirt horses". He's a smart fellow, I would have to think he knows what he would be getting into. This isn't Ruff we're talking about, here, or Nolan, for that matter. Indeed, you could actually say that what Babcock may want is a team like this, after having to coach a certain style all of these years. Maybe he's tired of the culture and style of play he has had in Detroit; kind of like having to eat steak and salad all of time. Maybe he wants BBQ brisket, nachos, and bacon burgers now.

Great.

I'm compiling factors for and factors against. I would say Philly's distance from Saskatoon and Canada falls in the "against" column when compared to Buffalo's. Here, at least, Toronto, and Canada, is a Friday evening drive away. Factor in, as I mentioned initially, a favorable working environment vis-à-vis his compatibility with Murray, the Pegula's overt desire to win a championship (despite the cost), brand new practice facilities, a stocked talent pool, the proximity to Canada. Now put Philly's "it's a nice city" next to that and that factor wilts.

I don't see how that's a "shot" at anything. You can call any area "nice" with "nice...surroundings", but what is the draw for someone like Babcock? It's as far away from his home as any potential suitor. He's an middle-aged, contemplative family man, so I have my doubts a high-density urban center is going to be a positive factor in his selection, regardless of how "nice" it is.

Absolutely. I think Babcock and Murray are nearly peas-in-a-pod when it comes to running a hockey team. Where we barely saw Nolan and Murray together, and when we did, it was uncomfortable, I can imagine seeing a Babcock/Murray combo just as much as, or more than, we saw Ruff/Regier. I don't see the draw to Philly, I really don't. WTH would Babcock want from that area, as a region? Conversely, I would NOT rule out Edmonton, at all. Saskatoon is just down the road, relatively, and they have just as much talent in their pool as we do, if not more. This comes down to Buffalo or Edmonton as far as I can see it.

That just gives you two more weeks to figure out what you're going to call yourself next. Seems when you choose a player...they go away!

My brackets this year have inspired me to pay closer attention to the rest of the NHL next season.

It's pretty clear SFIR is elaborating on why he thinks the way he does about Grigorenko. It's not off topic, far from it.

Murray would be a fool to trade Grigorenko unless the return is significant. Look what we got in return for Myers after being patient enough to let him "return to form". Any one of you who see Grigorenko as trade bait are simply going to have to wait until he develops more. But unless it's obvious this season he's hit his limit, I doubt he gets traded any time in the next three to five seasons.

That's what I was thinking. Or at least re-play the IIHF game. Something. I was looking forward to watching a hockey game after a marvelous day in the sun.

This is going to be a long summer. Bank on it.

The Sabres have been in the media all season. Murray and Black have been discussing the future since last summer. It's been an exhausting season for everyone on both sides, so let it rest. Are you going to argue that when half the fan base (or more) ends up openly rooting for the tank, at games, and the remainder either sit on their hands or quietly agree (or disagree), Sabres fans don't know what the plans are? When Nolan is fired, and there's pretty much zero protest over it, are you going to say the fans aren't in on what's happening? I would argue that the Sabres fan base is probably more informed and knowledgable about their team than most teams' fan bases. And the Sabres know that. Why put themselves in a position to be pissed on by a handful of curmudgeons who, the Sabres realize, clearly don't reflect the majority of fans. That would be stupid, and, likewise, you'd be calling them stupid for doing it.

Maybe they'll get it together by the time we move down there.

That's the question. Both are called "Generational Talents". How much of a gap can there be between "Generational Talents"? Is it larger than the gap between those two and an average number one pick? I mean, we're talking ridiculous levels of skill, here, and I think it might be better to look at the attributes of either and determine which one fits better with your team. In a sane world, DeLuca's point would be far more complex. But, as it stands, it seems most people have synchronized with the "McDavid is the bestest pick and you would be stoooopid not to take him first" narrative. For which, I am somewhat glad. McDavid might be one or two generational notches above plain ol' generational Eichel, but Eichel's game COULD mesh with the Sabres better faster. That would be true for a lot of teams going the bigger, tougher route, which, as Deluca has said, is what Chiarelli is all about.

Nashville played a good series. If they were matched up with any other team, they'd move on to the second round. But, between the talent and experience in Chicago, they're still a real contender.