LTS

That was Kiraly for volleyball and you are proving to be quite the curmudgeon for not recognizing that people pronounce their names differently even if they are spelled the same way. ? I think you are just angry because of the situation though.

Do you talk about how much you lost your love of hockey if you are looking to stay? Your point is valid. But, the counter is that you don't go walking around your place of employment telling the world how much the place makes you regret your career choice either. That usually ends up with management moving you and lo and behold he was moved. But let's blame management for moving him right? I'll accept your argument about not dumping on the boss and company if you accept that my point. I don't see how you can't. You ever work with someone who gets the job done but ***** and complains about everything? Do you only care about their actions? After awhile, don't they get under your skin? For most people, the answer is yes. For most though, you can ignore them. Imagine having to travel with that person for much of the year and being forced to be around them all the time. You only see the games. We barely see the practices and pretty much never hear about the locker room. A team doesn't just show up on game day and win. About being glad O'Reilly is gone. That's not true. I would much rather he be a Buffalo Sabre. However, given the "inside" information I have been given about him in the locker room, seeing his Eeyore act at locker room cleanout, and then seeing the Sabres move on from him in a deal that says they were more interested in getting rid of him than what they got in return, I am content that he is not part of the team. All of it speaks to a person who did not buy in to the team and his teammates. He is an exceptional hockey player on the ice, but off-ice matters too.

Hallelujah inky. I get that people are sick of losing, but y'all gotta be more rational about why it happened. It's unfortunate that so many people act this way in life now (not just on a Sabres fan forum). They get all bent over why things aren't the way they want them to be and then start throwing crap at the walls to see what sticks. Run around like the sky is falling and simply refuse to accept that sometimes, things continue in a certain way that cause a negative outcome. Worse yet, they'll fail to understand that the lack of stability within their lives is what exacerbates the problem but because they are so desperate to try and fix everything immediately (based on things being bad for too long) they will continue to make/demand rapid fire changes. Those changes only lead to the same problem, and the cycle repeats itself. No one here is happy with the Sabres losing for the past however many years. Not a single one.

I have no idea what you are getting at here. Sorry. There are ways to handle situations. You can choose to dwell on the negative or you can choose to acknowledge that something was bad and then reinforce your desire to improve upon it. There is a decent amount of research that demonstrates optimists achieve greater results than pessimists. So, I'm not sure your second statement is true. Logically, if you start out with a lower bar, you're less likely to fight as hard to overcome it because you've already expected that you can't do it. I think it's more realistic that a pessimist can be put in a situation to achieve great results but they are less likely to create that situation on their own. Maybe.. here's Jeff Skinner's quote from locker room clean out day. No guarantee he was getting paid then.

Players on every team play that much harder in the playoffs. It's just how it goes. The assumption that the Sabres players would not is misguided. We've seen Eichel play the body before in the regular season. We've seen others do it. My guess is the players would look as equally desperate in the playoffs relative to their regular season look.

I took one thing from a WGR quote... So, you can have a disappointing season and choose to look at the bright side as opposed to wallow about your love of the game? Interesting.

1. Typical response in these scenarios. You make an assumption, don't want to do anything to further a conversation. So, you assume a situation was possible but don't want to actually look into it to see if it's true. That's fine. It doesn't prove your assumption, it doesn't disprove those who question you. It's a stalemate. End of conversation. 2. Now you are saying it's possibly because they did not feel as dejected. Okay. Also, you are just going to go out and grab some trash from somewhere else. Some overpaid trash no less. Ever wonder why they were trash on their old team? Perhaps because they lacked the leadership and never felt dejected enough (or are they just losers too)? It's all good. Your fictional solution is out there for Jason Botterill to find. 3. Your assumption is he can't motivate and not that those players he's had around him have really not done anything even when he was not around. But, it must be his fault, right? Did he fail to motivate Derek Roy? That beast? Or was it Paul Gaustad? or, whomever else was on the Sabres that didn't go anywhere and do anything once they left the team? But yes, Jason Pominville is the problem. I get it, he hasn't done anything. So go out and find someone else. Fine. Perhaps that person is there. Perhaps. No harm. But i wouldn't go shutting the door on the possibility of having Pominville around if you fail to land someone else who fits the bill and you need a veteran to rely upon. It's called keeping an option open. 4. Let me refer to #1 on this. I'm not even going to bother listing out the various times Jason Botterill has iterated out how he believes you build a team. As for your last point? It's kind of interesting. Because while I am contorting over here you managed to point out Skinner, both acquired and re-signed by that GM. You've managed to point out the improvement in the Amerks (who stocked that team, and I wonder if that might be part of his stated plan ?). So, your points fall in line with what I am attempting to point out to you about the GM you are blasting away on. Contort away... I'm done here. Yep... it's all me.

Or you begin packaging up a deal that allows you to protect all the players you need to protect. That's the most likely in my mind. Keeping in mind that trading Ristolainen means that you will likely need to find a GM who sees the value in protecting him because they'd be taking on that requirement.

So, you assume, there's a "someone" for each of the situations above you use that word as the solution. Who are the better alternatives to Girgensons and Larsson that they could acquire or sign for a similar cap hit and contract? No one said they need to evaluate them. They need a body in the position to allow others to develop in other positions. So, you ask the question, but have you looked to see if there was, in fact, any other player they could have acquired to replace Girgensons, Larsson, and Nelson that would have definitively improved the team? Neither Okposo nor Bogosian have come across as dejected like O'Reilly. O'Reilly does not have any of the injury history of Okposo or Bogosian. The situations are so far different from each other than it's not possible to use one to argue the other. If you look at what Okposo and Bogosian have said in interviews, their words are accurate with regards to what a leader should be saying. The fact that someone doesn't listen is not always the fault of those who are speaking. And again, who are you pairing up with Okposo and Bogosian to overcome their injury history/lack of production/poor contract, so that another team will take them? O'Reilly had none of those concerns. Pominville - wow. So, yes, let's hypothetically go out and acquire that great leader on a $1M/1 year contract. You ignored my comment that you could bury him in Rochester as a leader down there so that doesn't take up a roster spot either. Pominville has been on teams that have not won, that doesn't make him a bad player. Clearly your argument is excellent though because we'd say the same thing about: Daniel Alfredsson, Pavel Bure, Dino Cicarelli, Marcel Dionne, Mike Gartner, Dale Hawerchuk, Pat LaFontaine, Henrik Lundqvist, Cam Neely, Adam Oates, Mats Sundin... the list of players goes on who've barely sniffed a shot at a Stanley Cup. Do they suck? Botterill has clearly stated his plan to build this team. He's stated it over and over again. If you aren't listening, it's not his fault. You may not agree with it, but our lack of understanding doesn't mean he doesn't know what he's doing.

Understood. But what I said holds true, either you go after those pieces or you wait for them to develop. Whether you can actually sign the players is secondary to trying to do so in the first place. There could be some stupid deals made this off-season (some already think there was one). Hopefully they can find what they need. If not there's little to be done about it other than manufacturing it through a trade. Which, may be possible.

So, you don't buy into his explanation that he wanted to stock the lower tiers of talent first and begin to create a level of competition there before letting players make it up to the big club? That's what you get with players like Girgensons, Larsson, and Nelson. Okposo and Bogosian are not his contracts but the only way those contracts move is if you can package them up with a super prospect or a top pick in the draft. The Sabres are lacking those pieces so how did you expect him to move them? Hell, Bogosian has the injury problems, so it's unlikely anyone is taking him. So, that really leaves Okposo. What do the Sabres have to throw into the deal to get him off the roster? When they do that, are they better or worse because they've now lost that piece in addition to Okposo? As for Pominville, a $1M contract to add depth to the organization wouldn't be the end of the world right now. It's unlikely he's going to go anywhere else next season. So, the Sabres can talk to him and he can accept that he's the outgoing piece on the only team that will take him. At $1M, even if he ends up in Rochester, it's money well spent.

It starts with actually signing them. Check the box on Skinner. Next. ?

So, what's the right play? Should he have let Skinner walk? If he does that, how does he improve the team for next year so he can appease the fans, like you, who demand results now?

Courtyard Marriott Kungsholmen. That said.. I'm traveling across an ocean. I can get my arse on a train to meet wherever.

Yes.. I can vouch for that.

If ROR was on the market this off-season what do you think he'd sign for? It's not really appropriate to look at a guy who signed a contract a few years ago and compare it to someone signing now. You have to take into account more of the variables at play when the contracts were signed. Well, you don't have to, but when you choose to ignore them that's called bias.

I get the sentiment.. but it's not like Berube and Cassidy had tons of experience before getting to where they are right now. The more experienced coaches all got bounced, some of them real early.

Yes it will be. But either you go and spend the money or wait for one to develop. Which train are you on? That's what it boils down to around here.

Yes.. Lucic never really supplied much else did he? He managed to put up a few seasons in and around 60. But he often got portrayed as that top line talent mold. Yes, it's not as though there aren't big, strong, talented players in the world, not that I would ever put Neely and Lucic together. I made a point about Lucic, not Neely. My go to prototype power forward, top line talent remains Keith Tkachuk. I am sure there are others (hell, probably should put Mario in there) but to score 50 goals and get 200PIM in a season is pretty special. I think Brendan Shanahan, Gary Roberts, and Kevin Stevens are the only other players to do it and they probably could/should also be considered. But I would never consider Lucic to be anywhere near that talent. It's all good. Don't think that I am sitting here saying that a 6'3 talented forward who can bang bodies isn't a top line player. I'm more saying that a 6'3 forward who can bang bodies is not a top line player and that a 6' player can be and often is just as effective and for a longer time because they don't seem to break down as fast.

Well, to be fair, he'll show up at 3am and hint at an upcoming rant and then when the time comes he'll forget his password or something. Because some people believe that the Sabres could go out and get a Jeff Skinner for less money on the free agent market. Or they believe that every situation that has ever happened in hockey that worked out favorably for another team should have happened to Buffalo. Mostly, it's because people just want to be miserable. Let them be that way.

Well, the bigger guys tend to slow down that much more when they get old. Especially those who relied more on size than skill to really be at the top of their game. Lucic really didn't have a lot of skill. I'd rather have top line skill that lasts, I think that's Reinhart. Reinhart already has more points in a season than Lucic has ever had (65 vs 62). My point was more than the bigger guys aren't the top line players anymore. It's trending away from that.

It wasn't really about who is better, but what's the better situation for the team. Toronto has to face a player who is demanding $11M per year on a team where the two players they are paying that much already (or more) scored less than him. I'm glad the Sabres only have to worry about Jeff Skinner at $9M.

Remember when Lucic was a model top line player? Yeah.. good times.. good times. ?

We were drinking Basil Hayden last week while I was in Little Rock. The bar ran out so we switched to Basil Hayden Dark Rye. Wow.. I enjoyed that.

I'm at the Friday game.