LTS

Hey @TrueBlueGED... I read your entire post. I appreciate you sharing the thoughts. I agree with a lot of what you said and especially the concern over the trending partisanship and political nature of the court. It's an ugly time for the US.

Enjoy the game! I'm so ready for the regular season.

Always interested...

That's awesome... the return of the Whale. I love it. Too bad for the people from Hartford....

Because you are in Oklahoma and they have regional covers printed.

Just letting you know that I did consider the second 10 games as well. I don't think it makes that big of a difference. The Amerks are designed to enforce the same system as the Sabres and are there to develop those players. Given that line juggling occurs quite often, the time it takes to mesh with another player isn't as long as people think it is. There are certainly advantages to playing together longer, but most coaches tinker all the time (and injuries happen). As I indicated, the REAL reason to not start them is that you can potentially move a veteran or two to another team, even if for a late round pick. If you just waive them, you get nothing. @Randall Flagg- I totally understand what you are saying. I understand the logic. Sobotka will be a bottom 6 forward on the Sabres and all that does is push someone else down to Rochester or onto the waiver wire, but it's not going to give a spot to anyone. I don't agree on the morale as they are professionals and know the game. We'll see what happens. We'll find out soon.

Here's the point that I think you keep glossing over. I am not saying that Thompson is NOT ready for the NHL. I am saying that Thompson isn't so much better than the vets that it will translate into wins within the first 10 games of the season. As such, Thompson can be sent down to the AHL (and it won't kill him) while the Sabres front office tries to move a few veterans to try and maximize their value to better the team for the future. The Sabres can retain salary in 3 trades right now... I would expect them to use that to their advantage in moving pieces off this roster to make room for the younger players. I remember last year, I remember pointing out how bad the Sabres secondary scoring was relative to other teams in the NHL. This years veterans are more to the middle. While the Sabres don't have O'Reilly and Kane they also don't have Nolan and Pouliot (8 and 19pts). They have Skinner, Berglund and Sobotka (26 and 31pts). No one is replacing O'Reilly's totals out of the gate. Let me try one other way of stating this... Last season the Sabres gave up roughly 1.4 goals for every 1 goal scored. Over the early part of this season playing the veteran roster I would expect they would give up roughly the same. Over the same stretch playing the younger players I would expect they would give up roughly 1.7 goals for every 1 goal scored. Please note that those numbers are only being used to demonstrate the relative changes and I am not trying to predict actual scoring rates. Essentially, I think with the younger players will score more and give up more goals and the ratio to goals against to goals for will be higher than with the vets. Later in the season I would expect that the younger players will improve such that they might even begin scoring more goals than giving up on average.

I'm lucky I suppose. I don't have many problems at all with Spectrum. See what package they'll give you. If nothing else it might solve the problem for this year while we all hope the powers that be get smarter before next year.

Many defenders make that pass, I've made that pass and I suck at hockey. It happened once and you are acting like he's going to always make the play. He's made a LOT of mistakes. He has a TON of talent. Finally, for the record, I didn't put him in Rochester, I just didn't put him in the starting lineup. I've already said that he will start due to injuries to Bogosian. I would honestly consider playing Pilut or Nelson before Dahlin right now. I would expect them to rotate the 5/6/7 defensemen for now. The bottom line question, and the thing I pointed out, was that in the first 10 games of the season, do you think there's an appreciable difference in the number of wins that the Sabres will have if they ice the veteran lineup over the younger players? I don't think there is. As such, given that the first 8th of the season will end up roughly the same and given that the younger players will still develop in the AHL, I can see why they would ice the veteran lineup to start the season. The STRATEGIC (i used the word twice) play is to see if you can move the veterans before the youth forces their way into the starting lineup. They will make the strategic play. Why? Because there is no difference in the first 10 games in my opinion. They may look faster, they may play faster, the mistakes will cost them games. Whether they lose by giving up 6 goals or 3 goals it won't matter because at the end of the season it's still a loss. These younger players will belong in the lineup before the end of the season. At the moment, I don't think it matters if they are in the lineup, not from a Wins and Losses perspective. At the moment they are serviceable... but they are also not playing against a full NHL roster. They look good against their peers and that's all they've proven. They DO need to push those players out of the roster spots, but I don't think they've been so amazingly good in the pre-season to make it happen. At this point it would be change, just to change, and while I understand the desire to get that line-up on the ice, it does not offer the opportunity to maximize the value of all assets for the future. The only time a team makes moves for the NOW is when they are pushing for the Cup or pushing for last place. It would be damn near unprecedented for a GM to insert that much youth into the opening night lineup when there were veterans who could still fulfill the role at nearly the same level. Botterill has no history of being a guy who rushes youth into a lineup. As such, I think it's likely that the veterans are there to start, I hope they are not there for long.

Players suffer concussions and some return and are the same player and some return and people believe are not the same player. Who is to decide what the cause was and how much of the "same player" they need to be? Would you be able to terminate Kyle Okposo's contract right now? I could just as easily make up anything else and it wouldn't matter. The point is that without a hard metric there is no measuring stick and without it there will always be room for debate over what constitutes sufficient evidence to terminate the contract.

No worries. I expect it to happen, because that's the business aspect of hockey taking over. My post just prior to yours had said I expect most vets to be in the lineup on Day 1. We don't know, but how many trade rumors do you hear right now? There are very few, presumably because everyone is too busy figuring out their existing assets before they go looking for what can be replaced. The Sabres don't really need them off the books at this point. Ahh absolutes. There is always a chance. However, given Bogosian and Hunwick injuries, the chance is slim.. mighty slim. Dahlin has not looked that great out there and there are others who would appear to give the Sabres a better chance at success. If that argument is going to be used for the forwards why would it also not apply to the defense? I understand the "#1 pick" emotional aspect of it. However, if others are performing better and Dahlin needs time, then he needs time.

The worst team in the league may waive players that are still better than the worst player on another team. I think Baptiste and Larsson get waived. I think Bailey makes it. Mittlestadt might make it as a healthy scratch. I doubt he's on the ice to start the season. Same with Dahlin, barring the injuries which probably do put him in the 5/6 pairing.

Let me guess.. you are not in Buffalo or Rochester. This works for you. For those in the market, those games are blacked out for 48 hours. Truthfully, the most legal and slightly dishonest thing you could do would be to sign up for NHL.tv and then use a VPN to obfuscate your IP address so it appears you are out of market. The risk is that the streaming service blocks that VPN. At least you are watching a legal stream, you just happen to be avoiding the Terms of Service with the company. It's grounds for termination but not really anything criminal. You could even use a well known VPN service so as to lessen the risk that thing are not above the law. There are reputable ones out there. You might even be able to use the Tor Browser. In the end you still have to jump through hoops...

I get the sense that would have only increased the value opportunity. I was the driver... I was not getting kicked out. ?

It's not a question of who has to go through waivers. I think some players will be waived, there are simply too many for that not to happen. The culture of competition is there but I'm not sure the young players have necessarily proven without a doubt they are NHL ready. Thompson may be that sole forward (along with Bailey in a 4th line role). Frankly, I don't think the W/L record is going to be appreciably different in the first 10-games whether the team ices the veterans or the young players. Strategically, the younger players will develop better in the AHL while allowing the GM to make moves to get them up to Buffalo. Strategically you don't just waive a guy if you think you can get any kind of return for him. So, if you need to expend a few games with younger players in the AHL while you try and work out some trades, you do it. You do it because it's better for the long term success of the team. If, after a few games, the trades aren't there, you waive them, but you have to try and trade them first.

I don't go on WGRZ but I assume its much like most news sites which is to say... very little news as is indicated by you reading it in 10 minutes or less. I prefer to read... I hate watching videos. I can listen to the radio, but I prefer to consume information on my schedule. If I have 10 minutes to spend, I would rather read than listen to a 10 minute report or watch a 10 minute video of the same thing. But we're a dying breed... I just want better journalism... unfortunately the platform isn't there yet.

There are some notable differences between newspapers and TV and radio, and I don't just mean the formats. Television stations are generally not long form journalism. They are supported by broadcast agreements with local cable companies and satellite companies who pay them for their signal to be broadcast on their platforms. While they are required to send a signal for free over the air, the vast majority of their viewership comes from cable/satellite. They have "news" websites but the quality of them and their content are terribly thin. At BEST they are a step down from newspaper reporting and they still have a steady source of revenue. They are still crying poor by the way. Radio stations are in a great spot because they are a medium with 3 hour talk shows. They earn their money by carrying those shows and getting the ad revenue from people just leaving those stations on while they do a million other things. Radio is the only medium that doesn't require your eyeballs to function. This allows you to multi-task. They also have pretty shoddy news reporting and partner a lot with television stations for their content when it comes to real news. How many locally syndicated business and government news shows are there in the Buffalo (or Rochester) area? Not many. Most of their content is nationally based. Finally, the biggest nail in the coffin for any PRINT medium is that people simply don't like to read anymore. This is why even sources like The Athletic, at some point, will probably adapt some level of video reporting. Reading is the most consuming of the three mediums. You have to have your eyes glued to the content and pay attention the entire time. While television has a video component, it also has an audio component. People can listen. I might think that if newspapers adapted to using a service that "read" the news to people, they might actually gain subscribers. There's a reason audible.com exists.

This article is a bit dated at this point but might help: https://www.macworld.com/article/3052325/home-tech/is-the-35-chromecast-a-viable-apple-tv-alternative-for-iphone-users.html Yes, the streams on reddit are technically illegal. Any rebroadcast without the express written consent and all that jazz... Perhaps switch to Spectrum? As I said, I get the base Internet package of 10/100 and the standard tier of cable which includes NBCSN and MSG for $78 per month. I understand that if you have a $30/month Frontier package and only want to add a $10/month service to watch the Sabres you'd save money. The NHL sucks with their blackout policy on their app. It actually encourages people to move further away from their "home" team which reduces the chance of them actually going to a game. I've never understood the business logic behind it. NHL.tv is going to use the MSG broadcast and so they can count those viewers as viewers for the purposes of advertising rates. There's no reason that I've been able to find that dictates this policy other than old school hard headed thinking. Unfortunately, that's what we have.

I would agree. However, any news outlet that relies on advertising as a primary source of revenue will always be put in a tough spot. I'd probably pay $150 a year if there were a good source of government/business news that wasn't influenced by advertising or some other quid pro quo that taints the quality of the material.

1994, we're going to Lolapalooza. There's 5 of us in the car and a female customs agent asks where we are going. When we tell her, the response from her basically comes out to: "I'm so jealous. Do you have an extra ticket because I'll get in the car with you right now." Kinda wish we had an extra ticket..

It's a slippery slope... where's the line? I think that unless the contract signed has certain physical performance metrics outlined the contract needs to be honored. When you choose to invest in someone you do it with the belief they are the kind of person who can fulfill the contract and this includes more than just ability but also the mental fortitude to see it through. In this case they made a bad investment. I understand that one could argue that he can't play at an NHL level anymore based on weight gain. What if the same argument were made because of a concussion? That's the slippery slope.

I think the pain everyone is going to feel is that certain players will be sent down just because of numbers and certain players will be kept until they can do something with regards to trades, etc. After watching Bailey play I think he's going to be kept on as a 4th line/PK guy. He is a high energy guy who can put pressure on the other team and he's all over the ice on the PK (in a good way). Forwards Kept on Sabres: Bailey, Berglund, Eichel, Girgensons, Okposo, Pominville, Reinhart, Rodrigues, Sheary, Skinner, Sobotka, Wilson Forwards Sent to Rochester: Asplund, Criscuolo, Malone, MIttlestadt, Nylander, O'Regan, Oglevie, Olofsson, Smith, Thompson Forwards Waived: Larsson, Baptiste Defense Kept on Sabres: Beaulieu, Bogosian, Dahlin, Hunwick, McCabe, Ristolainen, Scandella Defense Sent to Rochester: Borgen, Guhle, Nelson, Pilut If some of them have been moved and I missed it.. whoops. The Sabres know they aren't deep playoff contenders this year and they aren't going to come out of the gate waiving veterans. They will ice the conservative team in my opinion but one that is still significantly different than last year. The youth movement will learn that they have to be better to be in Buffalo. I don't think they've proven themselves to be keepers yet. I'm not sure who they keep up for Sheary. I have to pay more attention to where players have been playing because looking at the Sabres site they have only 4 LW on the roster and SKinner is listed as a C. On the bright side, the Amerks should be a loaded team.

Zing. Great response. Of course they don't... But the response will be, "The fans aren't responsible for them. They aren't their employees." Of course the fans are the ones who show up and demand a level of execution that invites the additional risk. Imagine what the costs of a ticket might be if the owners had to pay 3x for the ongoing healthcare of all players. The fans would have to pay it. Would they? I doubt it. So, the league folds, no one wins. Conversely, they operate as they do today and the fans love the next guy, because the guy they just threw to the curb is washed up. What have you done for me lately....

This is such a garbage argument. The essence of it boils down to, I don't like what they charge, so I will steal it. It's the same as walking into the store and taking whatever you'd like because you don't want to pay for it. It's stealing, it's illegal. Do you know why rates go up? People like to blame the "actors" or the "executives" who wanted more money, and to a certain degree that's true. However, there are thousands of employees who also need to make more money each year to keep pace with the rising costs of food, gas, etc. Where does that money come from? Thin air? Let's take the an estimate of Comcast's employee base from 2017 - 164,000. Let's assume that 20% of the employment base are upper level executives (I am going WAY over on this to prove a point). So, each year there are roughly 131,000 employees who are working and expecting a "cost of living" increase. Let's say the average salary of the employee is $48k (balancing out customer support to sales, etc.). If Comcast wants to hand out that 2.5% COL increase it needs $1200 per employee or $157M. Let's also add in that the cost of healthcare goes up by .5% per employee and the company doesn't want to pass that along to its employees... it averages $10,000 contribution per year per employee, that's an increase of $50 per employee that totals $8.2M increase. Of course, that doesn't include the cost of programming increases from CBS, NBC, etc. who also are offering their employees COL increases, etc. I guess the option is that all the employees for these companies should not see increases, raises, etc. Would you accept that in your position? I've had to accept it for 3 years now. The cost of everything keeps rising but I'm not making more money. The same would be true of the people who work for Comcast. Of course, Wegmans is going to increase their employee wages as are the suppliers who sell food to Wegmans, so that's going to go up. So, food costs rise, I make the same amount and now the price of a steak is $12.99/lb but it's ratio to my revenue has increased because I still make the same amount. For the record, my cable bill, which includes Internet and allows me to see Sabres games is $80/month. When your cable bill costs you as much as a car payment, you probably have every channel. Perhaps you don't need every channel, but, if you are going to have every channel then you should keep in mind that your expense supports the employees of all the companies involved in delivering that product to your TV. Beyond the simple economics of this, let me also address the risks of using these "side load" apps. I've explained this in numerous other "streaming" threads by the way. It's not just that the streaming is illegal (it's basically pirate bay for live streams) but it's that you end up having to load an application onto a device that sits on your network. In bypassing the "controls" and side loading apps you are removing the normal constraints applications have in how they are allowed to run inside the device. As such, you are inviting any unscrupulous application creator into your private network to sniff around and do whatever they would like. Here's what you need to ask yourself. Are you willing to bet that an application developer from China or Russia isn't going to embed some kind of command and control node capabilities into the application that is designed to serve up streams that are being broadcast illegally? Are you willing to then load that application onto a network connected device inside your home and trust that it's NOT going to be used for illegal purposes? As for the VPN, as I have also indicated, the popular VPNs have exit points that are well known. They could be shut down by any streaming service in a moments notice. The less popular ones run the same risk as side loading apps. You are now putting your network traffic into the hands of some "entity" that is promising to hide your Internet presence. However, the traffic you send is now going through their network. They can copy every packet of data you send. They know every location you visit on the Internet. If your connection to the end service is encrypted, you may be protected from them seeing the actual data, but they know where you visited. Do you know who runs these VPNs? Do you know what their VPN clients do on your machine? I picked one at random.. "CyberGhost" - Founded in 2011 in Bucharest, Romania, CyberGhost is the creator of one of the world's most reliable privacy and security solutions in the world. Awesome... you just need to trust that some company in Bucharest, Romania has your best interests in mind. I'm not saying they do or don't and they are just one example. The point being, it's not always that easy to say "just get a VPN". If some guy hands you a USB drive on the street and says plug it into your computer to get free TV would you do it? If he had a storefront and sold you the same USB drive, would you trust him more? Why? Because he paid to make things pretty?

I am sure the NHL is all about putting the stars on the ice for this game. I'm glad for that. Looking forward to watching more hockey...