Drunkard
-
Posts
5,108 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Events
Posts posted by Drunkard
-
-
17 hours ago, Hank said:
Personally, I don't believe in God. Parting of the red Sea, the Virgin Mary, water into wine, Noah's ark, the whole thing. I don't understand how educated people buy into the whole idea of a supreme being that can't be seen or touched but lives in infamy. So, you missed your mark on that one. This also isn't the forum for it. I prefer not to come across the religious hate nonsense on a hockey forum. Maybe I'm peculiar that way.
I'm a heathen as well, but that's better than a hypocrite like McDermott. When all the stories came out about his chaplains and prayer circles, coupled with him strutting around like a poser in all his camouflage clothing, I did my part to take jabs at it and point out his nonsense. Kind of tough to take a pro gun, pro war stance while claiming to worship the guy who preached turn the other cheek, but maybe that's just me. Yeah it's off topic but so much of what gets posted on these and every other board runs off topic from time to time. I haven't been giving McDermott crap as much lately, but that's because I haven't been watching, not because the Bills have suddenly been winning. Otherwise I'd still be crapping all over his bible in one hand, rifle in the other schtick which is a cross between laughable and puke inducing.
-
2 hours ago, Hank said:
I've been a supporter of McDermott and Beane from day one. This team was a tire fire when the came in. It looks like they started by shedding salery cap and questionable work ethic / malcontent players. Then they focused on improving the D, making it one of the best in the league while also getting the QB of the future. This year they improved the O line and may have added a very good RB. Next year is a very deep WR class, which I think is their biggest need. I think they've done a very good job so far, are trending in the right direction, and the future is bright. I'm excited.
But for me, the best part about this year hasn't been the record, or the playoffs. It's that my eyes haven't been subjected to the Bible thumping wrassler mcjesus hate of years past. And the mcbeane/mcclappy nonsense has been minimal.
Just for you, Hank. McClappy is a chickenhawk and when dies (just like the rest of us) nothing will happen.
-
Does this mean we like the loser point now that we've been racking them?
-
On 12/13/2019 at 1:57 PM, drnkirishone said:
Perfect call. Now let's work on that 2024 third term
Don Junior - 2024. Let's Keep America Great and finish that wall!
I hate that guy and I might vote for him just to watch the world burn. The Democrats will run someone who wants the government to fund gender reassignment surgeries for prison inmates and then that himbo will actually look like the reasonable candidate.
-
1
-
-
13 minutes ago, nfreeman said:
The bolded is the assumption that underlies this entire argument, and it doesn't hold water IMHO. Skinner was the 2nd-best FA last year. The #1 was Panarin, also a high-scoring LW. Panarin, who is 1.5 years older than Skinner, got $11.6MM x 7 years and a full NMC from the Rangers. That's 29% more per year than Skinner.
Panarin's last 4 years pre-contract: 30 goals, 31 goals, 27 goals, 28 goals (total goals: 116; total assists: 204)
Skinner's last 4 years pre-contract: 28 goals, 37 goals, 24 goals, 40 goals (total goals: 129; total assists: 97).
Panarin is better than Skinner, but is he 29% better?
I don't think Skinner got more than market value. And the Sabres certainly didn't have to pay a "terrible franchise" premium.
You're suggesting that JB should've relied on Skinner wanting to be close to home and dared him to go farther away. That's easy to say from behind a computer, but it would've been a stupid risk to take IMHO -- and for what? To save how much, exactly? If JB refused to go above, say, $7.5MM, I think Skinner would've told him to jump in a lake, and then the Sabres would've been screwed.
Yeah, there's no way to know for sure, but that's how I see it. He took less money from Carolina when he got his full NMC in his previous contract and it paid off in the end by giving him complete control to the point where he basically drew a circle on a map that only included Toronto and Buffalo (as NHL cities) on it and said these are the only places I'm willing to go.
I'll admit the fact that my hatred of Botterill probably pushes me towards not giving him the benefit of the doubt in any way, shape, or form though.
-
28 minutes ago, nfreeman said:
Well, I agree that Skinner is overpaid if you look at it in a vacuum, but I think at the time they extended Skinner, their FA desirability was so low that they would've had to overpay any FA.
More importantly, although I agree that Skinner's #s would be better if he were on Jack's line, IMHO Skinner is still a major force with lesser linemates and is largely worth his contract. He is relentless -- always buzzing around the net and creating scoring chances. He plays a tough game, he's a great skater and is surprisingly good on the backcheck. I think he'll be a good playoff player too.
I think Skinner had Botterill over a barrel and Botterill stupidly overpaid him on money, term, and a full NMC. Based on Skinner only wanting to be traded to Buffalo or Toronto we should have been able to get him to come off of at the very least 1 of those demands (8 years, $9 million season, full NMC) and possibly more. We held his rights at the deadline so automatically nobody else would have even been able to give him 8 years so giving a 26 year old an 8 year contract for that kind of money and a full NMC was dumber than dumb.
The idea that he was gonna walk if we only offered him say $8 million in order for him to play someplace further away like Florida, Arizona, Vancouver, or Chicago (just examples) because they offered him $9 million for 7 years is so unlikely that Botterill should have used it to his advantage. Botching the O'Reilly trade and gutting our scoring depth left him completely unable to use any leverage he had though because Skinner, Eichel, and Reinhart were our only scoring depth at that point. If he had left Skinner walk the fans would have started sharpening their pitchforks and Skinner knew it so he got everything he wanted and Botterill got taken to the wood shed by Skinner's agent.
-
14 minutes ago, LGR4GM said:
Wouldn't they just continue to play with Eichel meaning those contracts would just look good anyways?
I would hope so, but Skinner looked great playing with Eichel last season as well and for whatever reason, Kreuger decided they shouldn't play together. Maybe next year Ralph decides to put somebody like Cozens or Mittelstadt on Eichel's wing and they flourish. Suddenly the Reinhart and/or Olofsson extensions don't look so great similar to Skinner now. It's not a guarantee of anything just something that I see as a potential concern.
-
2 minutes ago, dudacek said:
What did Eichel have to do with Olofsson perfectly playing carom of the backboards and roofing it Danny Briere style? Or with the 90-foot cross-ice pass Reinhart made to Montour to get that goal started?
Is your argument that they aren’t good players even though they are producing like good players and we need to keep them away from Jack because we won’t be able to afford real good players when they magically appear? That’s one of the most self-sabotaging arguments I’ve ever heard.
You reward people for success and you will attract other good people in the process.
I'm not arguing Reinhart and Olofsson aren't good players in their own right. I like them both and I think they are both good players. I'm arguing that (just like Skinner) their production is getting inflated by playing with Eichel the majority of the time and because of that, they'll both be more expensive than they would have been otherwise.
They are both pacing near 70 points (Oloffson is actually pacing for just over 70 points at the moment). Do you think they would be scoring at that rate playing on line 2 with Johansson for most of the season? Do you think their production is going to have an impact on their next contracts?
Oloffson and Reinhart would still both be good players without Eichel. My concern is that playing with Eichel might be giving them say something like a 15 or 20% boost in production than they would otherwise have playing on a different line and we may end up paying them more than we would have had to and if they end up playing on a different line after they ink their new deals they'll end up overpaid.
-
5 minutes ago, miles said:
I dont see the sabres getting anything of value for him. Honestly he is a player at a very high salary that misses 40% of his games. He should count his lucky stars that nhl contracts are guaranteed and he is still in the league. instead he looks like a troublemaker by stirring the pot on a team that recently found its legs again.
I agree. We could probably get a 3rd round pick at the deadline from a team hoping he'll be healthy enough to be playoff depth, but we'd probably have to retain 50% of his remaining salary to move him. Without retention, we'll be lucky to find a buyer for anything better than maybe a 5th round pick.
-
Just now, GASabresIUFAN said:
Except Jack is the scorer we need him to be without Jeff on his line. Again this is why we need to put a better playmaker with Skinner to maximize his value. I suggest Reinhart, but I’m ok with us getting a Center for him.
Gonna be hard to find the money to pay a new top 6 center after Reinhart and Olofsson get fat raises from riding Eichel's coat tails all season. There's not going to be nearly as much cap space to play with as most people seem to think.
-
1 minute ago, nfreeman said:
Well, I don't want to give Reino that much, but I want even less (by quite a bit) to hurt the team's chances of escaping the desert by playing a lineup that departs from RK's preferences in an attempt to save $$. That's a Ralph Wilson/OSP move right there.
I get it. I wouldn't try to sabotage the team in order to save cap space, it just puzzles me that they backed up the Brinks truck to pay Skinner like a 40 goal scorer and now they are overpaying him and he's not even on pace to score 30 goals at this point. I realize there was a coaching change but it's pretty obvious that Skinner is not a $9 million player when he's not playing with Eichel. Unfortunately that's how much we're paying him this year and for the next 7 years after that. Thanks to his full NMC he's not going anywhere.
1 minute ago, GASabresIUFAN said:Lol, so we should play Girgensons and Sheary with Jack to avoid overpaying two of our 4 best forwards. That doesn’t seem like a good way to win games or make the playoffs.
No, you put the guy you're already paying $9 million per year with Eichel because that's the only spot where he produces enough to earn his oversized contract.
-
5 minutes ago, nfreeman said:
Constructing lines based on contract status would be the essence of the tail wagging the dog, IMHO. This team needs to emerge from the basement. Eichel's line is highly effective and Olofsson is being cultivated into a really good player. Busting that up in order to try to save money on his next contract (or Reino's) would be nuts.
We'll see if you feel the same way if Reinhart pots 70 points and they end up giving him an 8 year, $64 million contract. I know most people still think he won't get that much, especially since William Nylander signed for a shade under $7 million with better numbers, but contracts go up every year and Nylander was only locked up for 6 years. I imagine if Botterill wants to lock Reinhart up for the full 8, he'll have to go up from Nylander's number. If we had already locked Reinhart up instead of bridging him, this wouldn't be an issue.
-
18 hours ago, pi2000 said:
I'd put Mitts in Roch for a couple seasons before consider trading him.
Since this is the last year of his ELC I believe he'd have to pass through waivers to go to Rochester next year, so if he doesn't get sent down this season, he's probably not going down ever.
-
6 hours ago, MakeSabresGrr8Again said:
But does it really matter 'cuz Skinner has become almost jag.
It's a credit to Jack for performing well w/o Jeff, but Jeff is looking ineffective. If VO gets 30-35g that's less than Skins got last year w/Jack. The way Jack's playing Skins might have 50 this year.
My biggest issue with the lines is it's they have 2 guys who are both up for new contracts getting the lion's share of their ice time playing with Eichel. Last year Skinner played with Eichel most of the year, got his stats padded, and now he's overpaid. This year Reinhart and Olofsson are both pending RFAs up for new contracts and they are getting their stats padded playing with Eichel. Seems stupid if you ask me, especially if they end up like Skinner by getting moved to a new line after signing their big contracts. Seems like a recipe to overpay guys.
-
31 minutes ago, apuszczalowski said:
But then wouldn't we all be cheering for him to fail and not score?
It wouldn't matter either way. Sobotka's contract will be done by the time we found out the final results in April.
-
15 hours ago, pi2000 said:
Buffalo has been more than patient with him through his hip surgeries and rehab, I don't get it.
And he's an UFA after this season anyway.
Seems odd.
We have a log jam on defense and he needs to get some game time in before his next semi-annual trip to injured reserve. Otherwise he might not be able to sucker a new team into giving him his next contract.
-
1
-
-
1 hour ago, sweetlou said:
not interested in UFA center...we need stop gap for a couple of years not someone for the next five. I would rather trade for someone who is already signed for the next couple of years. I'm looking more for guys like...bjugstad, Stepan, trocheck. I'd also be interested in upcoming RFA's like Tierney, Faska, or Cirelli.
It's that line of thinking that got us Berglund and Sobotka. No need to keep a good long term center like O'Reilly. All we need is a stop gap to keep the seat warm for Mittelstadt. Botterill counted that egg before it hatched and 1.5 seasons later it still hasn't.
I'd rather not give a 7 year deal to some 28 year old center either, but I wouldn't effectively take half our options off the table just to pencil Cozens into the 2C spot when he hasn't played a single minute in the NHL yet, let alone proven he can be the #2 center behind Eichel. He may not be good enough, he may prove to be better on the wing, and even if he works out as planned you can always shift someone else to wing and actually build some center depth in the top 6 for when injuries hit.
-
1
-
-
9 hours ago, Thorny said:
All games should be worth the same amount, it's only logical. The above wouldn't work for that. Should be 3-2-1.
All teams should be entering into every game with the exact same amount of points "on the line".
While a 3-2-1 setup would probably be more accurate for reflecting the best teams overall in the standings, it would reduce the "parity" in the standings and cause more teams to get eliminated from playoff contention earlier in the season. That's not good for the leagues finances. They exist to make money, not to necessarily put out the best product, and they definitely don't exist to make the standings the most accurate reflection of league parity.
-
1
-
-
2 hours ago, nfreeman said:
Correct.
@Hank -- when has an average of one point per game ever meant ".500"?
As a factual matter, ".500" means "50%".
IMHO, in the sports context, it has always meant "winning 50% of your games."
When the NHL eliminated ties, I think it also introduced the bastardized ".500" concept as a way to deceive fans of lousy teams into thinking that their teams had better chances of making the playoffs than they actually did. E.g.: "we're 18-18-9 -- we're .500 -- so we must be in the playoff race! [even though that record actually has them 8 points out of the playoffs with less than a 10% chance of making it]"
But SabreSpace knows better, I hope.
I agree with you, but the loser point wasn't some oversight. The league did it that way on purpose in order to keep more teams alive for the playoffs later into the season. If your team gets eliminated in February I imagine the number of butts in the stands and eyes on the televisions drop off significantly from that point until the end of the season, so the best way to delay that is to get as many teams as possible statistically alive for the playoffs for as long as possible. Heck even during the tank years we weren't eliminated until February or so, even though everyone and their uncle knew we had zero chance at the playoffs from the initial puck drop of the season.
-
1
-
-
1 hour ago, Zamboni said:
Ok.
I’m sure your joking but ...
I wouldn’t want JB or anyone to die in a fire for a poor sports trade...
breath …
No, I want him dead. If dying in a fire is too harsh though, I'd take his giant head on a pike instead.
16 minutes ago, Weave said:Snipped it here.
No, they need a 2C indefinitely. Until Cozens, Mitts, or anyone else proves they can play 2C effectively, they need a 2C. IOW, Botts shouldn’t plan for a stopgap. Too many guys drafted in the 7-15 range don’t develop as needed to make a decision about the position short term.
This times 1,000. There is absolutely zero reason to keep a spot warm for a damn teenager or 20 year old on an ELC. People can always be shifted to wing. If you can get a good 2C, do it. If Cozens blossoms early that's great, he can play 3C or shift to wing. If the light turns on for Mittelstadt the same thing applies. Maybe with more than one legit top 6 center in the fold we can actually fill out a top 6 that isn't held together with crazy glue and duct tape and we might actually have some depth if/when injuries hit. We can't bank on perfect health when a season lasts 6+ months. A major injury to Eichel or Johannson and we basically have to write off the entire season. Heck, just a relatively minor injury to Johansson almost put us in a hole they couldn't get out of. Imagine if he missed an extra month.
-
54 minutes ago, Zamboni said:
If anyone wants to do the homework ...
what’s the average salary for 2nd line center currently playing?
then add on another 15-20% because UFA’s almost always cost more to sign.
my uneducated guess is $6-8 mil. for a solid 2nd line UFA center. Sabres are moving out salary in the summer. But will it be enough for a high priced 2nd line center UFA? Hmmmm
Sounds about right. Hayes isn't even a top tier #2 center and he got a 7 year $50 million contract from Philly last summer. It's ridiculous but that's the going rate I'd say. And I'm going to stop here rather than re-hashing the trade that shall not be named, but first I'll state once again that Botterill should die in a fire for making 2C such a need to begin with.
-
A real #2 center. Johansson is solid and is actually doing better than I expected him to but this team has no real center depth is the other options are 4th liners like Larsson or guys who aren't ready like Mittelstadt, Cozens, Asplund, etc. Johansson can then either move down to the 3rd line or shift to the wing so we have a backup if/when injuries occur and have some actual depth at the position.
-
2 hours ago, LGR4GM said:
Ummm, is it me or does this seem... off/odd.
Looks like it's just more red meat for the base. Trump is trying to stick it to the "squad" and their supporters for their pro-Palestinian stance or anyone who may question the unlimited support for Israel. That's just my guess though. I only skimmed the article.
-
Belichick should be banned from the NFL for life or at least for a full season the way Sean Payton did. It will never happen though because the NFL doesn't want to tarnish the last 20 years of tainted game/season results. I'm just glad I no longer spend money on their product. How many times can they get caught before the league stops letting them get away with it?
Buffalo Bills 2019-2020
in The Aud Club
Posted
Spoiler alert:
The Patriots will cheat, they'll win, and they'll get a slap on the wrist from the league. Rinse and repeat for another 20 year until Belichick retires or dies.