fiftyone

Yeah, I get that's the way it works. That can be true and it can still be a "down" year for the top end of the draft. My question was really who the best comp for Beniers was/is. Interesting either way.

Me too. The Couturier comp also seems like it may fit, though I think he's a good bit bigger. Is a poor-mans Patrice Bergeron too high praise? ROR? Hischier seems like the one though. Offensive side doesn't light the world on fire (especially as a number 1 OA) but was named captain already and is the leader of his team. If we drafted Hischier this year, would that be disappointing? I'm not sure.

I get the question about the potential "low" ceiling for Beniers, strictly talking about his offensive firepower. Who would be the comparable player drafted in the top 5 of the last 10 years that had the same kind of talk? I looked back and can't really place it. Ryan Strome? Sam Reinhart? Matthew Tkachuk? Nico Hischier? Is Hischier the best comp?

More or less agreed. I really don't want to move Eichel as I don't think giving up the best player in a trade is generally a path to success. I do think, though, it's probably a pretty fair deal if you're not really sure who says no.

To Buffalo: Marco Rossi, Matthew Boldy, Kevin Fiala, Matt Dumba To Minnesota: Jack Eichel Who says no?

I honestly don't know, it very well could have been. I'm not sure that changes my perspective though. Sure, you have to rush things to get the vaccine for those who are at serious risk. For those who aren't, though, it may be something to think about especially after those at risk have been taken care of.

And like I said upthread, I got the vaccine. But I can certainly see the argument to be made on the other side. I don't see it as black and white as some people portray it. Anyway, good discussion. The numbers are declining rapidly. Hopefully we'll be out of the woods soon. Again though -- if you've received the vaccine, isn't this not the case?

That's certainly true for some portion of the population. For a good portion of it though, you're a little thirsty but have no chance of dying of thirst. If you're in that population, you may care a little more how the water tastes. Especially when those dying of thirst have the safety of the bad tasting water. Interesting. Something I haven't seen written anywhere. I'll have to see if I can find more on that.

Again - agreed. But safe as a result of these trials = safe in the short term, yes? No data available for long-term? I don't know the answer to this, but I'd assume that given the fact that the normal testing and development process can last 10+ years, a good number of potential vaccines or medicines do fail because of these longer-term issues. Why else would the standard process be that extensive? And to the first part - I have read some of the same. To my understanding (limited and hard to find information), the technology was seen as potentially groundbreaking and beneficial for future use, though still relatively untested in comparison to commercially available medicine.

Understood. Though to this point, i'm not sure how you can be so sure. Isn't that the point of the (bypassed) rigorous development process of a normal vaccine? I agree that it's likely to be a very small chance, but i'm not sure how we can state it so strongly while not testing.

Again, devil's advocate. I've been vaccinated but can certainly see the other side of the coin. Do you not think the rigorous and extensive process for developing and testing a vaccine under normal circumstances is necessary and important? I don't think many people who are concerned are specifically worried about short-term issues with the vaccine - there's been enough shots given to know that there are very few issues within a few months. But from my understanding, the development process including clinical trials for a non-emergency use vaccine can last 10+ years. Combined with the fact that this was not done here and the fact that the technology used in the Pfizer/Moderna is new and relatively untested, and you can certainly see why some would be hesitant of the unknown well down the line. I think for some people it's the emegency use of a relatively untested vaccine technology that is concerning - not always the thickheadedness.

Who in this country who wants to be vaccinated can't be at this point? I'm assuming you don't mean children because the data has shown that the virus is not really a concern for them I believe.

Both of these more or less are what I have read/heard as well. And with that said, it does kind of go back to my question earlier. If you've protected yourself from death and a good chance of even getting it at all, it seems like the level of concern for vaccinated people coming into contact with unvaccinated people should be pretty low? Still a small chance you get it, and will not die, after coming into contact with anyone - vaccinated or not? Like you said, there is a whole lot more that we don't know about this than we do know. Especially with the new variants part -- that seems like a complete guessing game at this point.

So you can't get it if you have had the vaccine?

To play devils advocate here -- is it not true (honestly am asking, don't know) that the vaccine doesn't stop anyone from getting the virus or even passing it on? It just prevents you from dying, essentially? I believe that's what i've read. Assuming that's true, doesn't that change the thought process of vaccinated vs not? Once you've been vaccinated, you will (probably) no longer die from the virus. But you can still get it and pass it along, whether that be from another vaccinated person or an unvaccinated person?

I agree it's speculation. It just seems a lot more likely than the idea that he has done nothing more than use google.

Good post until the bolded. It's fairly naive in my opinion to think that he hasn't spent the last few months getting a variety of medical of opinions, some of which probably recommended surgery.

Or squeeze everything out of their assets while they have (him) and have no regard for what's left of him when the contract is up. Who knows what the truth is, but if your scenario is a possibility then this one certainly is too..

You may be right, but i'm not sure the distinction really matters in my mind for this scenario. I'm just talking about the Sabres or Jack being at fault for this situation

Seems like this is setting up to be a healthy split between "team Jack" and "team Sabres" amongst the fanbase. One thing i'll say is that I don't blame him one bit for the "look out for number 1" mentality he seems to have. Everyone is doing themselves a disservice if they're not looking out for themselves first and foremest, especially in a line of work like this where injury could impact the majority of your life -- the part after you're done playing. I'm shocked that people are taking a stance against that.

A bit disingenuous, I'd say. He said it with a smile on his face while chuckling. I think he's certainly frustrated with the situation, but this quote doesn't sum it up that way for me.

So what are we thinking about this point? That we're probably done, more surprised than not if we were to make another deal before the deadline?

Is this something you've deduced from what has happened? Or something you've been told?

I feel like we need significantly more detail added to this post..

All seems fair. I haven't been all aboard the "Jack has given up" train that's been rolling around here, but I don't think he's played well. Last night I thought he played particularly poorly, maybe his worst game of the year. I still don't think it's the result of a lack of effort, but at the end of the day bad performances aren't helping get the fans back on your side or wins for the team. With that said, if that snipe on the PP was a quarter inch to the right, things would have a different feeling today. Hockey, I suppose.