Weave

Did you not get all the way down to the tongue in cheek part? And I did do the same to veteran posters in recent days. But this one was an attempt at humor, otherwise I'm reading like a broken record. Again. *skip* Again *skip* Again.

Properly pronounced Oh-oh Oh-poh-so

It only gives me a sad.

I'm on the same page, although I suspect he'd look worse than Sam for much of the time early. He needs to be more dominant against NCAA players before he comes up here.

I need to fish. This #### is killing me slowly.

How does someone prove "a rumor I heard"? Do we invite the source onto the forum and state their case? Is the burden of proof 51/49 like in a civil case, or does the whole forum membership require irrefutable evidence? FWIW, I know Eleven well enough IRL to believe he travels in circles that would include people in the know. I have no proof of that. We've just drank whiskey together a few times, once in a real fancy place. I can't prove that either, unless the security tapes are released. *waits for the next invite* BTW, this all supposed to be tongue in cheek. Except for the invite part. Really.

Am I the only one that doesn't know what Infowars is? The name Alex Jones seems familiar, but I can't put a finger on that one either. *crawls back in cave*

Yeah, that's what sucks about these last 5ish years. With the Sabres being non-factors, my interest in NHL games is nonexistent, which is why I don't participate in the fantasy league anymore. Probably 2 more years just like the last 5.

Baker also made the point that Casey is dominant in his age class (ex. the junior tournament) but not so mich against adults in college play. IIRC he’s 3rd in scoring on his team. My take from that is that although he is a top prospect, he’s not ready for the best adults in the world.

I’m in agreement with almost all of this. Especially the first and last parts.

Those are all pretty much the working definition of an opinion. Are you new at this? :p

Regarding requiring evidence to offer a theory.... ugh, more posters setting rules for conversation. Makes me stabby. It should be pretty obvious that none of us here have the connections to offer evidence. That doesn’t mean we should not talk about the smoke we saw/smelled. Fer cripes sake, if we were limited to commentary that had evidence support this site would get 5 posts per day.

I’m a little surprised that Poulliot seemed to garner no interest. I thought for sure that he has the size, speed, and production to be valuable as a support player for a long run. Maybe he just looks halfway decent hete because we have so few players to feature that his play here decieved us (me, anyway). Other than Kane and Poulliot, I didn’t expect we’d be able to move anyone.

Huh. I had talked to eleven about possibly meeting up for the drunken portion of the festivities, but that date is out for me. I'll be headed to California on a business trip that weekend.

Seemed to be thoroughly debunked. Although, who would want him if he did ask?

And that's it right there. If you wait until a player reaches rental stage, you can't get equal value generally. If they are traded with term, you can make a real hockey trade.

Got anything better to talk about?

/thread

Disagree. Other than Gaustad (and that is debatable), what UFA-to-be dump did we make that brought equal on ice performance back? Each one was a downgrade.

Winnie fleeced us. There. I said it.

Unless Botteril thinks Kane is part of a locker room problem (and there is no way we can have any clue about this), I think the team would have been better served by icing the best team possible to continue to learn how to win than by obtaining a low probability lottery ticket and an AHLer.

Buffalo does not win the lottery.

I'm not complaining about anything JB did. The market for Kane was poor, obviously. My beef is with the "we have to get something" mentality that leads to very good players being moved for baubles. This probably isn't the thread for it, but.... I disagree wholeheartedly with the idea that it is somehow prudent to move a rental player for pennies on the dollar. You almost never get back the quality of player you give up. It is a guaranteed downgrade to your roster in nearly all cases. IMO, if you let a player that you don't expect to re-sign go to rental stage, you are being incredibly irresponsible. Move that player before the rental season in an honest to God hockey trade that gets equal value returned. Anything else is setting your team backwards. And this team has been doing exactly that since, what? 2011? 2012? In this case (Kane), my reaction is sour grapes. JB is in his first year, so it's not like he was around to make that decision last season. But this organization simply does not have enough depth of talent to continue to move players for a fraction of their on ice value as rentals. I'd hope any one year contract players that aren't part of the path forward get moved this offseason in hockey trades before we are forced to suffer through another deadline day of lottery tickets and AHL players that only move this team further backwards.

So, a lottery ticket with a small chance of becoming a 50% chance at an NHL'er, an AHL'er, and a lottery ticket with a 10% chance at hitting. Good thing we got some value for Kane. :blink: This team can't afford to downgrade it's talent, but yet that is exactly what it continues to do.

Please, no.