LTS

I don't agree with this. Development is driven throughout the organization. They have players in Rochester who they want developing with a team that is winning to help drive longevity of success within the organization. If you send Thompson down you are going to put him in the top 6 and it's going to mess with a team that's been winning. They may still win, they might not. So why bother sending him down right now? It's not even directed at Thompson being a problem, just that you don't mess with the chemistry that's working right now. Whose spot does he take in Rochester? I see a lot of people questioning a lot of decisions the Sabres are making with players. If I thought for a moment that the purpose of the team this year was to make a deep playoff run I would probably be more upset. I don't see it that way and I don't think the management of the Sabres do either. This year was about turning the culture and I think they've done that (to date). There may be a few players on the team that are being given their last chance to prove they belong (Larsson, Girgensons, Reinhart, Ristolainen, etc.) If we continually wonder why some of these players are around you have to begin to question what the purpose is, this year, for this team. If you think Botterill is incompetent then all bets are off. I think he's exceedingly methodical and as such when I look at the "head scratching" decisions they seem to be less "head scratchers" when I think that this year is the prep year for what they expect will be full throttle next year.

He really needs to work on his skating. It's bad. He's 6'5? His stride length is terribly short and he's not getting his legs close enough to center to generate power on each stride. I don't know if he's regressed in skating but it's something I've noticed about him over the past few years. When he tries to skate fast he looks like he's 5'10 but also not getting any power.

Send him to Rochester. Upset the winning chemistry there and potential interfere with the growth of the players there. No thanks. I still think that if Rochester begins losing a few too many that he'll end up down there to try and spark things. The Sabres are a team with a lot of young players and it means that some are going to get caught in no man's land. It's kind of a nice problem to have for once.

I think Eichel has the skill set to be whatever the team needs him to be and I think that's his greatest asset. Right now they need someone to drive the puck and set up teammates and he's doing that. Other than when he's trying to enter the zone 1 on 3 /4 many teams are backing off when he has the puck. He wins a lot of board battles and has demonstrated his core strength numerous times this season. The goals will come because at some point the opponent is going to begin looking more for Skinner than Eichel and things should open up a bit for him. I think that's what I love about those two together. They can both drive the play with the puck and have found a way to work together that creates problems for other teams. My perspective on the "Eichel can do more" category is that we still see him make some "youthful" plays where he tries to thread defenders or makes a really bad pass. I almost feel like he's the equivalent of the gunslinger QB. The turnovers will happen but you can take it because of the scoring. I don't think we've seen everything we're going to see from him. Last night I noticed that he was one of the first people to Ristolainen when he scored. As far as I knew, Eichel was not on the ice (he might have just changed) when Risto took the shot. He's been really great in that manner and he's been proving the "C" belong on his chest.

All my used car purchases have been shite. That said... I am going back to them the next time I buy. I feel like I've wised up a bit and I can pull it off. But it'll be a few years.

Glad they won... Montreal had them all messed up tonight. They were rushing pucks, out of position, and making mistakes all over the place. Ullmark seized up. It looked like it would be bad and they still found a way. Wins like this are what help move teams forward.

Like I said.. if the Sabres are playing in Stockholm next year..... it might be time to visit them.. there.

The thing with kids is that they use the words because their friends use the words (or they are taught from their parents). Having coached kids (and my son is 14) I have heard all kinds of things said. Some of those things would get them completely destroyed were they 22 and saying it. The difference? They are 14 and while they are aware of the terms and the situations in many cases they are ignorant of understanding it at the depth it requires. I hear "triggered" all the time, over everything. It's a joke. Had a minority player on my team yell out that because he wasn't getting a pass (for about 3 seconds in a drill) that everyone was being racist (including the 2 other minorities in that drill). I've heard *****, gay, many other things. The key isn't that they said them. Kids are going to say things. The key is what you do about it. In most cases I simply indicate that that language is not acceptable and whether they think it's a joke or not there are people who will find it offensive and they'll understand more about it as they grow up. For now, it's not allowed. The racist claim we had a chat with his mother and it never happened again. She totally dismissed it as well as "kids being kids". Now most of the kids I coach are just straight out swearing. All you can do is shrug your shoulders because while they use the derogatory terms with no intended insult behind them it's still better that they don't use them, so you begin to accept the expletives.... I try to encourage alternate words though.

Was reminded of that yesterday.... Sincerely hope for all the best for you...

It's not a huge difference for me. I can get that char on Hoffman's as well. My problem lately with SAhlen's is that they seem to shrivel up a bit too much, a bit too fast. I grew up on SAhlen's though.

That was Bob Marley's gospel group.

I'll find a way there I am sure. It appears the hockey scheduling has been kind although the Varsity schedule is all tentative at that time.

It would take me 100 takes just to get the first puck flipped properly. ? That was impressive.

Honestly I don't want everyone to vote a third party, I would just live to see a third party thrown into the mix such that there were was more nuance to our governance. Imagine a place where it's 40/40/20 split. I would love to see that... but we won't. I would actually prefer to see proportional representation, but that's never going to happen. The party uber alles. Sadly that's how many voters see it. Even worse when they're out there supporting Collins. That situation is a total turd blossom.

I'm so glad they are back... I hated waiting to watch the Sabres play. Here we go now.

If the Sabres go to Stockholm next year..... Just saying..

I'm right there with you. I prefer Hofmann's over Sahlens though. Zweigle's are shite.

Let me start with I appreciate the level of information and the thoughts you have put here. I want to also state it (if I did not before) that I do vote, have voted, and will vote in the future as it suits my beliefs. I realize that no candidate is suited for the way I think. In fact, the only one that would be, would be me. I understand, in exceptional depth, the political process. It's probably also important to dispel a perception that I am not involved. Your comment "Do something." is off base if it is applied to me. So, if you've perceived me as detached from the process it's misplaced. I don't like our current political process as it relates to campaigns and electoral processes. Our government is broken. I am involved, but it's not necessarily in furthering the machine that exists. Voting for the "best of the worst" is not something I subscribe to unless the "worst of the worst" is so bad that I really need to lend my support to that "best of the worst". Voting for candidates that I believe in as being a "not bad" choice is something I will willingly do. Voting for the greater good is a subjective concept. I understand your ties and how that influences your voting. What people consider as the greater good is quite subjective and even more so are their relative values placed on one issue versus another to define what is really most important or weighs out as the best of the options. I am being careful in how I phrase these things because it should not be perceived that I am trying to argue against what you've stated as values that are important to you. It's not my intention to project that I am in opposition of those things. I made the comment about "What if I were inclined to vote Republican?" know that in general it would stand in opposition to the things that you were getting at. I don't have a love of Republicans, by any stretch. It's quite possible I would vote Democrat, but again, it depends on the Democrat. There are candidates that I had hoped would make the ballot from either Republican or Democratic aspects but never did. I am a registered independent so I don't get to influence who gets put on those ballots (with regards to the Republican and Democratic ballots). I do speak, at length, with my Republican and Democrat friends about the prospective candidates and hope their party will put forth a candidate I can support, it just so happened that it did NOT happen this time. I'm not all that interested in breaking down my personal political viewpoints. More or less I get tired of hearing that you need to vote because you can. I understand why people say it. It just resonates poorly with me. Most people are not involved enough with how our country is run and for them to be voting is disturbing to me. They don't bother to understand who they are voting for, they just vote to say they did it. I do think that over the past couple of years people have found a reason to become more informed with their government. I hope that we begin to see genuine change in how our government works, especially as some of the old curmudgeons leave and the world continues to change. I think there is evidence that in some parts of the country a very different face was elected. I hope they are good at enacting change as well.

Who am I protecting when I vote? Who is at risk? You talk about voting and not see more gerrymandering/negative outcomes that affect more at-risk communities. There are certain presumptions buried within those statements. The presumptions lean heavily towards voters that would vote Democrat. What if I would be more likely to vote Republican if I were "forced" to vote? That would work in the exact opposite of what was intended by those statements wouldn't it? Gerrymandering is a practice that has been employed by both sides of the aisle. Negative outcomes are in the eye of the beholder. What you consider negative may not be considered negative by someone else. The entire system of how districts are drawn and how representation is determined is horribly broken. If one looks at the options and believes they all lead to negative outcomes wouldn't it make more sense to NOT participate in making that happen?

Where did you expect to see it? It was advertised during Sabres games. If they used the Google Ad Network I am sure they could. I don't know that they do or any NHL or AHL team does really. Not sure I've ever seen team specific ads popping up. Of course I don't pay attention to them all that much either.

There are better ways to fix the defense than taking on someone else's problem.

People consistently find a way to disappoint me. The only thing I understand about this happening is that it is clear that as a whole our population is losing its moral compass. I want to make a bit more of a statement on not voting yesterday. I have the RIGHT to vote. I have the RIGHT to speak freely. I have the RIGHT to own a gun. I also have the RIGHT to NOT do those things if I feel they are not beneficial. Having the RIGHT to vote is a critically important RIGHT to have. It's despicable that ANY citizen was never allowed to vote in the past. I accept that those who fought for those RIGHTS are incredibly important pieces of American history. However, when you are chided and goaded to vote it begins to move us away from the RIGHT to vote and more toward a REQUIREMENT to vote. We are a society founded on freedom and that freedom means it is important for us to have rights, but also to have the right to not act as well. There's a difference between someone who doesn't vote because they don't care and someone who doesn't vote because they don't support any candidate for the positions listed. As an independent voter I do not get to choose which candidate the Republican and Democrats put on the ballot. Frequently I am unimpressed with those candidates. Yes, there was a 3rd party candidate on the ballot, but I also did not like that 3rd party candidate either. Imagine for a moment that I went out and voted for the 3rd party candidate just to demonstrate that 3rd parties are important. Imagine if the guy won. I would have to live with knowing that I helped elect someone who I don't support. By NOT voting for what I feel are unqualified candidates I am actively engaged in the political process. The problem is that people don't see that differently than people who are just too lazy to vote or do not care. I encouraged all to vote who had a candidate (or policy) that's on the ballot that they want to support. I made no statements yesterday about my not voting (on here, on FB, on twitter, etc.) until after the polls had closed pretty much everywhere. I am thankful that it's mostly over. It seems that in some areas of the country there were some significant events. I am always curious what comes of it.

Well, it is true. If people did actually vote for the 3rd party candidates thing would change. The problem is that rarely do enough people vote for them and by the time any decent 3rd party gains ground in the eye of the constituents one of the major parties "adopts" the idea and kicks the third party away from the table.

It's a metaphor. No, you have to get up, go to the store, wait in line to get a turkey. You can choose Turkey A or Turkey B. You don't like either of them. You'd be willing to accept Turkey C (Smoked Turkey) but that's not an option. You can ask them for it, but they won't give you one. Do you leave the house to go to the store just so you can ask for Turkey C?

Furthermore, on this great day that celebrates our freedom of choice and in so doing celebrates those who helped create this wonderful country... Why the hell are you all crapping on the bird that Benjamin Franklin wanted as the national bird? ?