LTS

Why am I under the impression that you cannot bury a contract in the AHL or via loan to another team to save against the cap? I remember that you USED to be able to bury people in the AHL for that purpose, but I thought they killed that. It seems that if you could loan a player somewhere then every team would be able to solve their cap problems by doing that wouldn't they?

When you say cut, what do you mean? Buyout?

You can pretty much get the birth year just from this.. Birthdate - first part Birth year - 18 years prior to graduation year Unless you were held back or accelerated..

I wonder.. do you score the contract worse because if a player who was signed to it was never really injured once they signed it? For example, Quick. If he had never suffered those injuries, would his performance have slipped to a point where he'd be considered for this list? It's hard to say, but if I compare to the Lucic contract I have to give a little. Lucic was not injured, he just sucks. The same with Okposo. Not that the contracts aren't still a burden.

Been waiting to post this... they should have the full single out later this week but I did this promo video for a band... I've heard the some of the other stuff and I really like it.

Honestly, what choice does anyone have? We either wait or leave right?

YES! The man is coming back to town! And some of us will get to see him in his native habitat as well? Too good to be true.

The world has survived this long with stupid people. PT Barnum didn't have Twitter.

People are bound to be highly opinionated on it. One person will say it sucks and another will say they love it. I think it has promise, although i would have preferred royal blue I think. Need to see the entirety.

See below It would appear she's specifically hired to be a 2c according to MW. She's an employee of the teams, then she's a marketer designed to create stories and appeal to a certain segment of the crowd. It's most certainly not the same as journalism even though both would share similarities. One is done to promote, the other is done to report. Now, I think we all know that some journalism is done as a promotion these days and so it might blur the lines. Either way, I hope she does a great job. I love her name. It has the right "sound" for an online personality.

I suppose its better to just let people go when they don't achieve immediate success. I wonder, if your kid didn't make the varsity team if you'd put him up for adoption.

The truth. ------------------- These days I often wonder how those who are slamming Botterill today will react if the Sabres are winning and he proves to be a successful GM. It should prove to be an interesting experience.

I think being a PPG player is impressive. It doesn't translate to being on a winning team however. Palffy is a perfect example of that. He was constantly playing on teams that were never going to go anywhere. His teams made the playoffs 3 times (The Kings, 99-00, 00-01, 01-02). Those teams lost to the Avs or Red Wings in each of those years. That said, he also played during the clutch and grab era right? So it seems like it might be even more impressive in that era.

Guess I'm full of ****. Good to know. So done with people just shitting on others around here.

He actually doesn't. He could easily split his tweet into multiple tweets.

I'm always in should my son's hockey schedule allow it. So I won't commit to buying one of the seats up front, but I will buy a ticket somehow when the time comes.

It doesn't? That's sketchy. It's completely unreasonable to expect that a GM can undo the mistakes of a prior GM in a single season and potentially even two given the time to develop talent and the limitations on what moves are possible in any given year. If Botterill were replaced at this point and the next GM had success in the following year it would be most likely that Botterill was the one who created the potential for success and the next GM lucked into the spot. The question then would be if the new GM could sustain success. Even then, Botterill's skill set might be best suited for teams that need to build and develop a talent pool whereas another GM might be more adept at managing older rosters. So, putting either of those GMs in the wrong spot would most likely lead to failure. Neither is successful in all facets of the game and neither are abject failures either. The Sabres tried a tactic, it didn't work or they were not determined to see it through. How much the clock starts over depends greatly on how much overlap there is between philosophies of the GMs and the fit of the existing resources to the new GM's vision. No fan has to accept it or like it, but that doesn't change the reality.

You'll notice that they relegated the use of Navy to the slug and the use of royal to the Buffalo and crossed swords. Those who choose to ignore history... it's part of it, it happened. You can't deny it.

This is the slow season. Once arbitration results begin coming out teams have to make the next round of moves as they shore it up for pre-season. So, I don't expect much until around the first week of August.

Of course they did. However, with Twitter it travels the globe in seconds and because it is forced into a package with limited characters everyone reads it quicker and responds quicker. Plus...software engines can analyze the responses and provide real time metrics on the opinions of the market.

The best thing about Twitter is that this tweet could have been floated as a favor to Botterill to see if it would generate a discussion. It could also be floated by Detroit to see if Buffalo takes the bait. It could also be floated by.... Game theory baby!

The rabbits would have been good I bet.

I'd dump the client in less than a heartbeat if I were on a position to do so. I wouldn't need nor want business from anyone like that. I know you can't, but if I were in charge of the company, I wouldn't let my employees be subjected to kind of BS.

Well, I don't agree with the comparison straight away. The NFL and NHL are very different beasts. The Sabres are bad and have been bad however. But for the most part it just sounds so pedantic compared to the rest of the content you usually post. Almost like you are trying to find a way to "that guy" when you're usually not "that guy" and don't ever portray that you have "that guy" in you.

You know, I like to read what you have to say, right until you persist with the damn Cleveland Browns moniker and I just tune you out. Oh well, that's on me I suppose. I understand what you are saying and your desire to evaluate a certain way. The logic is confusing in what way? The discussion at hand was evaluating against winning NOW versus development for winning LATER. They are fundamentally different. A player may be used in a situation or a team may be built in a certain way that does not support winning NOW but, in the eyes of those creating the product, supports winning LATER. As such, saying a player sucks is relevant to their ability to win NOW (which is what I believe RF is saying above) but saying he sucks can be abrasive when you factor in that he's being put in a position to suck because that's better for the team's chances to win LATER. Sometimes a player is kept in a position because they are not important and are merely serving as a placeholder for a younger player who COULD help the team win NOW, but by keeping them in another role, it helps the team win more LATER. The problem with any view, then, is that we don't know what they are trying to do. But Botterill has stated he's about building a team for sustained success, which would support making moves with longer term goals (albeit hoping for shorter term success).