nfreeman

I've been pondering this myself. I certainly want the Sabres to keep winning/playing well, and I want to believe that doing so will be a meaningful indicator of rejoining the respectable part of the NHL, but I feel like we've seen this movie before and it didn't end well. And I think the reason for that is that when a team is really crappy in the 1st half of the season, their 2nd-half opponents don't bring their A games, so when the crappy team wins some games, it's somewhat of a mirage. The opponents either look past the previously-crappy team, or they are tanking, or they are fatigued or injured or otherwise not inclined to dig deep for a game against a lousy team in the dead of winter. So while I agree that the 2nd half will be useful for determining which guys can handle Howie's system and which guys the team should move on from, I am pretty reluctant to draw confident positive conclusions.

One of my all-time favorites. Season 2 is fantastic. Seconded.

Vanek in the HOF? Is this a joke?

Why?

Right on. Especially given JBott's stated preference to let prospects learn the ropes in the AHL, it's highly unlikely that Pu, Olofsson, next year's #1 or Casey for that matter will be on the Sabres.

Yes -- I really liked it. Solid A-minus.

I can't speak as to the first one, but Fargo seasons 1 and 2 were freaking fantastic. (Season 3 was pretty good but IMHO a step down.)

More #Hammymath. I am willing to pay him 4 for ONE year in the theoretical and highly unlikely offer sheet scenario as opposed to losing him for nothing. That is a far cry from an unforced $3MM x 3 years. And, your "if he proves it" is an assumption that swallows the whole issue -- of course if he kills it in a contract year he's going to be more expensive to keep. But he's in a contract year now and his play has been atrocious (and in decline for 2 years in a row now). The Sabres control his rights for another 4 years. There is no reason in the world to give him a fat contract after this abomination of a season.

No team that tanks "benefits" from a situation in which it is 80% likely that it will NOT get the prize. This is the point, and one of several important reasons why it was an idiotic plan. Having said that, I did not intend to reopen the tanking discussion, which I think has been well and thoroughly aired multiple times. I just couldn't let Robvy's assertion pass unremarked on, especially with the irrefutable contrary evidence staring us in the face year after dreary year.

As Matt points out, offer sheets are quite rare, so this is pretty unlikely. And if someone offered 1 year x $4MM, I would expect (and want) the Sabres to match. (BTW, I would like offer sheets to become commonplace, as they are in the NBA.)

Abso-freakin'-lutely. For the record: it's a terrible strategy.

I think both of these are true -- Foligno is faster than Reino, and Reino has significantly more skill. It's important to remember, though, that Foligno brings other qualities that Reino lacks: toughness, winning board battles, fighting when needed, etc. He also has only 5 fewer pts, and one fewer even-strength goal, than Reino has this year, in 3 fewer games. And mindlessly following the "$100K per point" rule is the kind of move that fills a roster with mediocrities, gets a GM fired and puts a team in the basement with the Sabres. E.g. a young RFA who produced 13 pts might get $1.3MM, but he also might get sent down to the AHL. Are the people here calling for $3MM x 3 years for Reino the same ones who were calling for $4MM x 4 years for Lehner last year? Unless he sets the team on fire in the remainder of the season, Reino should get a 1- or 2-year "prove it" deal for $2MM per year at the most.

What could go wrong?

Reino has 19 pts in 48 games. He has NINE even-strength points in 48 games. He has ONE even-strength goal in his last 26 games. There is NFW he is getting $3MM per year.

I'd be hesitant to read much into last night's defeat of Edmonton, which is a terrible team -- just as, if I were a Dallas fan, I'd be hesitant to read much into their butt-whuppin' of the Sabres the other day.

The idea of giving Reino 3 years x $3MM makes me sick. A real team does not give that kind of reward to a player after a season like this.

Very nice. I thought the same thing. Is it confirmed that he drove back? Either way: it's been a highly disappointing season for both him and Antipin. Add McCabe and Bogo to that list, and 4 of the hoped-for improvements to the top 6 have been major letdowns. (To be fair, Scandella has been good.)

Well, I suppose you are right that the refs are human and accordingly susceptible to this type of influence -- but I think the effects are minimal. These guys are evaluated thoroughly after each game. Any bias in favor of any team is going to be identified and corrected. FWIW, I think the situation is different for Jordan/LeBron/other NBA stars -- I think that league has in fact made a conscious decision to allow the major stars to get more calls. As for defending the Pats -- I would have freaking loved it for the Bills to have beaten Jax and then to have gone into Foxboro and put that dynasty into the ground. But at the same time, I hate to see my fellow Bills fans sounding like a bunch of whiny losers -- which is the unavoidable conclusion I come to when I see these ridiculous claims about unfair refereeing. A call here or there? Yes, the refs make mistakes all the time. But they even out over time. The Bills got plenty of them this year, as did the Pats' opponents.

Again: a loser's lament. The Pats don't beat themselves with stupid decisions (on or off the field), turnovers, botched assignments, etc., and they have the greatest QB and greatest coach of all time. Coaching, intelligence and execution were the reasons for the penalty disparity vs Jax. It wasn't, and isn't, "the refs." But hey -- whatever gets you through the night. So, like the Falcons in the SB last year, Jax had a lead, shriveled up under pressure, played not to lose and let TFB their prize away? No, no -- it's a league conspiracy! "The refs" were on their side!

...or maybe Lehner isn’t very good and the Pats are extremely good.

When I have my kidnap-and-reprogram session with Swamp, "snacks that intrigue" will definitely be on the issues list.

I agree that KO's play has been much better for the last 4-6 weeks, and am no longer concerned that he's already reached Moulson-level ineptitude -- which seemed to be the case for the first couple of months of the season. He brings a lot to the table, with a good all-around offensive game, and is a capable, if overpaid, top-6 winger. However, he does have limitations. He's probably the 2nd-slowest forward on the team after Reino, he wins puck battles but doesn't hit much or intimidate, he's nothing special in the defensive zone, and I'm not inclined to give any Sabre credit for leadership given the train wreck we've seen this year. I'd probably rather have the cap space than have him and his contract on the Sabres, but no one is going to take that contract, so we need to get used to him being here long-term. Again, though, it could be a lot worse. I'd expect him to continue to produce at his current level for most of the remainder of his contract.

So the Pats lost? And didn't get calls? How does that jibe with the "the NFL wants the Pats to win and gives them all the calls" theory?

JFC. 2 solid pages of whining about another team winning and about how "the refs favor the Patriots" and "the NFL wants the Patriots to win." It's as if the NFL never conducted a highly dubious investigation of deflategate, suspended TFB 4 games and took away their 1st-round pick. These posts are the very definition of "loser's lament." GTF over it already. The Bills will win when they deserve it, and not otherwise -- just like every other team. In the meantime, if you can't appreciate the late-career stage of a Michael-Jordan-level talent, maybe you shouldn't watch the NFL.

What?