Drunkard
-
Posts
5,108 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Events
Posts posted by Drunkard
-
-
I can't remember what I put in the other prediction thread but I think the Sabres will finish with around the same 76 points they ended up with last year or possibly a few less (say 72 points). Even if the overall team improves some, we're also not likely to get a 20 point spike from having a 10 game winning streak either so in the end the point totals may end up even lower. I'll probably pass on NHL.tv this year as well, unless they actually show some promise during the 2 week free preview they usually offer at the beginning of the season.
-
22 minutes ago, Eleven said:
He's definitely not anti-business regulation, and he's the rest of the things because that's what keeps his base, which in turn feeds his demented ego.
Remember, he was a registered Democrat until 2012 and invited the Clintons to one of his weddings.
All he cares about is feeding the monkey. For some people, that means drugs; for him, it's an ego thing.
I'm not worried about his mindset or his past. His current actions check the Republican boxes (other than the tariffs). Being a former Democrat, having the Clintons at his 3rd wedding, and formerly being pro-choice doesn't amount to a hill of beans when he appoints nothing but evangelicals to the courts, cuts taxes for the wealthiest, and gives the Pentagon a blank check. He seems very anti-regulation as well. He's done everything he can to undo every regulation that Obama put in place whether it was about climate change, pollution, car emissions, or the way the banking industry screws over consumers.
What has more relevance in today's world? Claiming to be "very pro-choice" on some magazine article interview from 10 years ago or putting Cavanaugh on the Supreme Court? Inviting Hillary to his wedding 10 years ago or leading the lock her up chants 3 years ago?
-
I'll give you the tariff thing, but that's the only substantive issue where he diverges from Conservatives that I can see.
-
1 hour ago, Eleven said:
He's not a conservative; he's not a liberal. He's a Trump. The Trump is for the Trump and nothing else.
He's a Republican where it matters most. He appoints bible thumping conservatives to the courts as he promised. He's also pro tax cut, anti business regulations, anti-environment and anti-immigrant. He's always ready to give the military a blank check, and he's not exactly anti-gun in any way that matters.
So how is he not a conservative, especially in the modern sense? Because of deficit spending or something? Republicans/Conservatives don't give the debt any more than lip service unless a Democrat is in the White House, so I don't see how that even applies.
-
1 minute ago, ... said:
The problem is that the thinking on Sobotka is clearly one-dimensional.
He's there to feed to the puck to Johansson, who is then supposed to find Skinner. What else could you rely upon Sobotka for?
He should be cleaning the shitters in the 300's section and that's about it.
-
5 minutes ago, dudacek said:
We like lines 4 and 1, right, and expect them to hold their own in their matchups, right?
The defence pairings seem to make sense: one physical pairing, one skating pairing, third pairing properly slotted.
The third line has players properly slotted, and is relatively skilled for a 3rd line. They are very risky defensively, so can they be utilized in a way that they won’t get caved?
So the big question is that second line, and how that matches up. Can MoJo and Skinner create offence without a right winger? Will Vlad prop up their defence and win draws the way Krueger seems to think he will?
And how long will it take for ERod to force Kyle or Sobotka to the sideline?
You should work PR for the Sabres. Assistant Director of finding silver linings for each dark cloud or something along those lines.
-
13 minutes ago, PASabreFan said:
No. Doreen has strep throat. It wouldn't kill you to spend a little more time in the break room. There's a giant card, but I'm sure you'll be too busy vaping behind the dumpster to sign it.
This reminds me of a Jim Gaffigan bit.
It's Bill's birthday, today.
"I hate that guy".
There's cake in the conference room.
"Well, I should say hello".
-
1
-
-
44 minutes ago, IKnowPhysics said:
FWIW and in my experience, HD offerings for NHL Center Ice on DirecTV are vastly superior to those for NHL Center Ice on cable. Not sure about ATT or FiOS. You can also choose to watch either the home or away broadcasts (unless, of course, it's on NBCSN or NBC or if the game is in a local blackout area). And NHL Center Ice on DirecTV includes a subscription to NHL.tv, which is nice. NHL.tv is all HD, though, and it's easy to pick which broadcasts you want.
This. I had Center Ice with Directv for many years and never had an issue with the picture quality. HD picture and choice of home or away feeds for each game. I think any report of poor video quality is more reflective of whomever is the tv provider (Time Warner, Comcast, etc.).
-
1
-
-
What happens when playing with Sobotka causes Skinner to lose his love for the game?
-
1
-
-
On 9/28/2019 at 11:45 AM, Hank said:
If there's any active duty / retired military out there nhl.tv gives a $50 discount.
If you opt for the single team option, the discount is $40.60:
Single team price: $115.99
Military/Student Discount: $40.60
plus taxes depending on your billing zip code
So you are looking at $75.39 plus taxes for single team or $94.99 plus taxes for all games if you qualify for the discount.
-
12 hours ago, North Buffalo said:
Talked to a guy down here in Westchester today at a grocery store who saw my Sabres t shirt and we got talking hockey. Turns out he is from western ny and has had some contact with the Pegulas. He said two things interesting. One, they view Mitts as a 3C and were surprised and happy that Cozens dropped to them and they view him as the future 2c. Also, otherwise the pic would have been Zegras, though they felt Zegras wasn't tough enough for NHL... nothing earth shattering, but weird that he thought front office has Mitts pegged as a 3c ceiling. Hope any of these kind of pigeon holes lights a fire under Mitts. PS His kid played against Zegras throughout high school as a goalie.
If the guy you talked to isn't completely full of crap then they should just move Mittelstadt to the wing right now. His skills don't leave him well suited to a role in the bottom 6.
Mittelstadt Eichel Reinhart
Skinner Johansson Olofsson
That would actually make for a pretty talented top 6, although I'd be a little worried about both lines defensively.
-
21 minutes ago, Lanny said:
Am considering getting rid of Directv this year and so am shopping for options for Sabres. I am a streaming television novice, how easy is nhl.tv to use? How well does it work? Any issues or considerations I should be aware of before I subscribe?
We have an Apple TV which I checked and it is compatible with NHL.TV.
I'm out of market for Sabres.
I've used it in the past while streaming through Roku players and the NHL.TV app is very easy to navigate. I only paid for Sabres games when I did it (I think you can get all teams for $140 and a single team for $110 or something along those line) so when you only pay for a single team it's easy to find the game because there's only one game that pops up on the menu. You do get the option of either the home or opposing team's feed though. You mentioned being out of market so the only games that will be blacked out are the ones on NBC, NBC Sports, or NHL Network, plus the games against whatever team your local market is in. You can also get a student or military discount if you qualify.
-
1
-
-
11 hours ago, nfreeman said:
This was actually a delightful surprise in the midst of another grim, apocalyptic sea of pessimism you've graced us with.
Glad you enjoyed it. The plant manager at one of my previous jobs used to use that term all the time. I probably should have used butts so it didn't get starred out.
-
16 hours ago, MakeSabresGrr8Again said:
It all depends on how you look at things (the underlined).
1) The bolded.....Botts got to last place and had the best odds without the great hole he created. He got there WITH ROR, Kane, Eichel, Reinhart, Risto, Lehner, etc.....best chance of winning the lottery given to him by the same players you're mad he got rid of. That core of players already had a slight dip (81pts - 78pts) prior to Botts arrival (and Housley). Besides having the best odds in that lottery, the odds were even more in our favor after losing the other lotteries. I would consider Chicago "lucky" moving all the way down to 3rd pick. Has it worked out that Edmonton was "lucky" winning the lottery?
2) If the Skinner contract becomes an anchor like you say it will.....was Botts "lucky"?
3) Botts got "some" value for a player he wasn't gonna sign. San Jose was the "lucky" one. They got the production out of Kane that they hoped for and re-signed him to boot. If they didn't re-sign him they would've lost Kane, a 2nd rd pick, and O'Regan. All for what....17games?
None of this means that I agree nor disagree with your take on the matter, just a different way of looking at things. It's all a crapshoot no matter how you look at it just as life itself. You might enjoy a beer when you come home from work and if it helps you pass a kidney stone you might consider yourself "lucky" you drank the beer. If you end up with liver problems 2yrs from now because of the alcohol will you still be "lucky" or have you created a giant hole you can't seem to get out of?
Or are you using the word "lucky" like some use the word "tiny". I'm sure you know "tiny"....the 6'11"/ 350lb guy who's a "teddy bear".
1. Yes he got lucky in winning the lottery and getting a generational defenseman. Sure they had the best odds to win by finishing in last place, but it was still lucky because as we saw in 2014 and 2015, having the best odds doesn't mean you get to pick first.
2. He was lucky that Skinner only wanted to go to Toronto or Buffalo and that Toronto wouldn't be able to fit him under the cap, so when he traded for Skinner he didn't have to pay much to Carolina in return. Skinner was 1 year away from UFA status and had complete control over where and if he got traded due to his full NMC. Botterill was lucky to be able to add a player of that caliber because (after trading away O'Reilly and Kane) we only had 2 top 6 forwards at that point (Eichel and Reinhart) so if Skinner wasn't willing to go to Buffalo we wouldn't even been able to ice a true top line last season. Can you imagine how bad last year's team would have been with the horrible scoring depth we had and having someone like Rodriguez playing on the top line instead of Skinner potting 40 goals? We probably would have finished at the bottom again. The crazy contract he re-signed him to is a separate point that happened later. In theory he could have let Skinner walk and still have been lucky to have him for 1 season, because he didn't pay much and he needed to round out his top line last season.
I think the contract was bad because Botterill caved on all 3 parts of it (8 years max term, $9 million AAV, and a full NMC) when he might have been able to negotiate a more favorable deal on at least one of the 3 parts if the team was more competitive or had other options. Skinner had Botterill over a barrel though and took him to the woodshed on term, money, and a full NMC.
3. Botterill got some value for Kane but he may have been able to get more if he had traded him earlier (82 games of Kane should have netted more than 17 games) and/or if he had come down off his ridiculous demand of 4 pieces including a 1st round pick earlier than he had. Instead he stuck to his price until there was only one team fielding a serious offer and even that offer was for less than his asking price. For one, at the deadline only teams in the playoff hunt are interested in adding rentals. If he had traded him earlier in the season or before the season started more teams think they have a chance for the playoffs. This goes back to his dart thrower mentality where he seems more interested in quantity rather than quality when he's selling off assets. Danny O'Regan was nothing and is no longer even with the Sabres organization. Maybe if he had just asked for a 1st round pick or a quality prospect he could have gotten a better return either by trading Kane off to a team more likely to pick higher than San Jose or in the form of a prospect that might actually turn into a solid player. One quarter is better than 4 nickels, but Botterill seems to prefer to go for volume in the hopes that one or two of those nickels turn into dimes or quarters. In reality they turn into worthless slugs more often than not, just like Danny O'Regan did.
-
36 minutes ago, darksabre said:
It's like people wake up every year completely forgetting that sports doesn't care about their impatience.
I'm not saying they have to do it for me at all. I stopped giving this team my money years ago and I fully understand that even if I was still funneling my money to them, it doesn't entitle me to a vote on how they do things. They need a dose of impatience because the athletes they pay millions of dollars to have a shelf like. They just gave Skinner a ton of money and he's likely approaching the end of his prime soon. If they intend sit around scratching their ***** and sniffing their fingers for another few years Skinner will be in decline (but still hold a full NMC for huge money) and all the supposed cap space they free up from losing the dead weight from Bogosian, Sobotka, etc. is going to get eaten up by giving Dahlin a boat load of cash and giving Reinhart a raise over his bridge deal.
Pegula seems to want to emulate the Penguins but I'm pretty sure they managed to turn things around in a shorter time frame than you would use to track glaciers. I'm pretty sure they went from trash to actually making the playoffs once or twice while Crosby was still on his ELC. We piss away the cheap years of our tank fruit like a rebuild can last a decade when in reality a decade is longer than 95% of the league will even play in the league. Patience is fine, but this isn't like season mode in video games where you can just waste year after year. If they have that type of mindset they may run the risk of turning the fan base into one like Carolina's where the arena is 75% empty most of the time unless they are in the playoffs.
-
41 minutes ago, darksabre said:
Like I said, let's talk about this again in a few years. I think it'll make more sense then.
A few more years, huh? Good to know that we're already planning on wasting the ELC of Cozens to go along with Eichel, Reinhart, and Dahlin.
We're like the Bad News Bears except "just wait till next year" in more like "just wait till 2-3 years from now, then we'll show you"! The only reason I honestly think things will get better in 2 or 3 years is because Botterill won't be here.
-
So far, Botterill's "best" moves seem to be completely predicated on luck.
1) Winning the lottery after a last place finish
2) Getting lucky that Skinner was only willing to be traded to Toronto or Buffalo with Toronto not having the cap space after signing Tavares.
3) San Jose re-signing Kane turning that conditional second into a first.
-
5 minutes ago, LGR4GM said:
cool. what a revelation.
Same with your re-hashing of the whole 17 games of Kane trope but I didn't feel the need to re-boot that conversation. So be it, though.
Your description artificially makes the Kane trade seems better than it was because:
He could/should have traded Kane much earlier if he had already decided (or been told by Pegula for behavioral reasons) that Buffalo was going to move on from him. 82 games of Kane could/should have netted more than 17 games.
He was lucky to get the first for Kane that he used for Montour, because it was completely conditional on San Jose re-signing him and by his own admission the Sharks were the only team who had a serious offer on the table for him. I'd bet Botterill clinging to his volume fetish of 4 pieces including a first round pick all year for a one season (or just 17 games) rental had a direct correlation to the fact that there were no other serious offers. Nobody wants to give up that many pieces for a rental in general, even when those pieces are garbage filler like Danny O'Regan.
So you can use the trade as another reason to defend Botterill if you want to, but to me, it's not the feather in his cap, you make it out to be. And that's fine. People see things differently.
-
6 minutes ago, LGR4GM said:
Kane is 2 years older than Skinner. I will take Skinner. Also we traded 17 games of Kane for a draft pick that helped us acquire Montour. I will gladly trade 17 games of Kane for a few years of Montour.
And I'd take O'Reilly with his contract over Skinner with his contract any day. This team will go absolutely no where until Botterill fixes the giant hole he created.
-
11 minutes ago, LGR4GM said:
Oh so Kane's contract wouldn't have been an anchor?
It probably would have but 7 per year is still less than 9. Plus if we had held onto O'Reilly and Kane we probably wouldn't be in the midst of another rebuild/retool/roster surgery or whatever buzz term everyone prefers where we waste the good years Kane (now Skinner) has left without adequate depth in the top 6. I hope Mittelstadt is the answer, but if he's not and Johansson proves to be better on the wing, then we're stuck waiting for Cozens to fill the role and by the time he's ready for prime time, Skinner's contract will be more of a hindrance than an asset, especially since he has a full NMC that neither O'Reilly or Kane had written into their contracts.
-
2 minutes ago, dudacek said:
Off the top of my head, on paper, Tampa is the only thing standing between them and Lord Stanley.
Based on the last two post seasons, I think Boston is more likely to end their season.
-
12 minutes ago, TrueBlueGED said:
We don't know what we don't know, ya know? I can't say he should have done X or Y, but he didn't take over the worst team in the league. The team had coaching, blue line, and forward depth issues, to be sure. But it wasn't like he took over the tank team--they just had seasons of 81 and 78 points. He proceeded to turn over the majority of the roster, and iced two teams worse than the team he took over (62 and 76 points, with worse goal differentials both years), while needing to fire his coach.
I don't know there's a general "this is how long it takes to build a playoff team" number that exists as it's all so context-dependent. But I'm very confident the team wasn't in such bad shape that they had to take two steps backward before a single step forward.
He traded 2 top 6 forwards (Kane and O'Reilly) while only getting one back in Skinner who's contract will be an anchor by the time the Sabres are ready to make the playoffs with his 10 year job security plan. He did manage to pick up a boat load of bottom 6 forwards though (Berglund, Sobotka, Vesey, Sheary, Lazar, and likely Johansson) so I guess he has that going for him. About the only thing he seems to be any good at is bargain bin shopping for defenseman and lucking into a lottery win for Dahlin.
-
1 hour ago, TrueBlueGED said:
I genuinely appreciate your ability to be honest with what you thought at the time. I remember some knock-down arguments on this forum at the time of the trade revolving around whether Sobotka and Berglund were cap dumps or had hockey value.
Yeah, the revisionist history is getting thick in these parts. Lots of people defended the trade and tried to view it and fatter Pugsley in the best possible light.
First it was all about the valuable depth! we got for a single player. Then when it was obvious that Berglund and Sobotka sucked and Thompson wasn't ready for the NHL the narrative switched to how the trade was still smart because look how great we are doing without him and how O'Reilly was a cancer, just look how badly St. Louis is doing because of him. Once those trends started reversing and Berglund quit suddenly it became about how shrewd Botterill was in acquiring valuable cap space like he tricked Berglund into quitting when it was just dumb luck on his end. Eventually everyone came around to realize/admit it was a horrible trade and now suddenly everyone knew they were cap dumps.
I look forward to fatter Pugsley getting fired so 6 months later everyone can agree on how much he sucks.
-
16 hours ago, ubkev said:
I work with 2 ***** who like The Voice. Ya know, that stupid karaoke TV? Anyway, they insist on showing me clips of it. I've told them numerous times that I don't care, so now I'm just rude about it. I'm pretty sure I'm the ***** in this situation. But I'm also positive that they are bigger *****.
them: "Oh my God, you have to see how amazing this is!"
me: "I'd change the song 10 times out of 10 if it was being played by the original artist. It sucked then, this sucks worse. Little kids singing sucks, your taste in entertainment sucks. I hate everything that comes out of your mouth. I told you all of this last week, why are you still talking to me?"
me: "oh, ***** perfect! I hate The Voice in English, I'm sure it'll be much better in all French! You suck!"
me: "Australian The Voice? ***** really? Where do you find this horse *****? Wait a minute, who's that skid row Boy George judging? That's the real Boy George? Wow, he doesn't look as bad as I thought he would."
them: "well...I hope you enjoyed this little thing that brings me joy."
me: "I didn't. Good day."
You should repeatedly show them videos of midget wrestling or something off the wall like that and act like it's your life passion. Then every time they go on about it start doing wrestling moves in the office (resist the urge to suplex or body slam either of them so you don't get fired or sued) or pretend to call someone, talk really loud into the phone, and blather on about how lame the Voice is and how awesome midget wrestling is.
NHL Season Predictions
in The Aud Club
Posted
I guess we'll see. I think we can agree that you've got more confidence in our GM than I do. I don't see his roster surgery as being adequate but we'll find out over the next 6 months. If I had to put money on it, I'd still bet on finishing with a point total in the 70's.