LTS

Welcome to nearly every business on Earth.

Ok. The USA game has me pumped enough to not worry about this outcome. Let's go Buffalo.

Clearly missed the story on the kids talking about skating on the ponds at home? I'm sure they spend a lot of time on regular rinks but to assume they spend no time on backyard rinks is crazy. On my son's team there are at least 5 families who build their own rinks each year. We have had one in town regularly. We hit that often. Great game by Team USA. Perhaps the refs not calling a 5 minute major on that hit really got them motivated. Fun game to watch.

Is Pegula the loan marketing group on this? I would think the IIHF has a good level of involvement since it's their product.

Devils have done a great job of turning the team around in a short period of time. The management deserves a lot of credit. They could be like some teams who continually find ways to suck for long stretches... oh, they are playing one tonight! Well, it may be a double let down day in terms of hockey but I will still be watching...

Right now the coaching staff for Team USA should be finding more time for Middlestadt to be on the ice. I was amazed at how little I saw him last night. He made a bad drop pass on one play and had one bad turnover but overall he controls the puck when he's one the ice. They needed more of that against Slovakia. His goal was a thing of beauty and that's quite the definition of "My team needs a goal and *I* am going to make it happen." And then... they completely BLOW their coverage on the GWG from Slovakia. They were lost... sad.

No thanks on Duclair. He can't make it on the Coyotes after not making it on the Rangers. The Coyotes are horrible. They have to know the best they will get is some 5th round pick or another "change of scenery" guy who's also washed out. Why would you even bother to move him unless he's also no good for the team/locker room? That's red flags everywhere.

I will be watching this game one way or another today. (Family in town, but that's too bad they chose today to visit). I won't be there... too expensive for that game.

Yes. The goal would have counted and the clock set to 1:09 and they would have finished. The only time that doesn't happen is when you score the winning goal with your foot in the crease. I mean.. Because Buffalo right? It's humorous. If i look at the replay, I cannot SEE the puck can I? Technically if I cannot see the puck over the goal line then it's not enough evidence to over turn the call. I KNOW the puck was over the line because of everything that happens but I cannot SEE it. Whatever.. play better defense and that doesn't happen. The OT goal was horrible as well and I'll just go ahead and assume that no one asked Lehner "Hey, Robin. Were you still thinking about how the NHL screwed you over when Barzal took that shot?"

I watched a lot of Irv growing up in Buffalo. It was his ability that makes me hate all newscasters today. He was great.

He spent what.. 12 seasons in the AHL? Man.. imagine the way posters on this forum might have talked about him. :) Dude was insane.. then again any goalie playing without mask was insane, but his poke checks? C'mon.

They can drill another well. #amidoingthisright? :) Need to watch the game. It's a great hockey time right now.

Finally able to see the video. His in-person hearing should be to be handed his retirement papers. That was bush league. Girard came over to bump him and say something and Rinaldo just decided he wanted to hit someone. Wow.

When an owner fires a coach and GM at the same time it's usually because the owner wants the coach fired but the GM doesn't agree. He backed Bylsma as a coach. He might have had some criticism of how he was handling players but he didn't fire Bylsma after the season. He hedged and suggested how things could improve and then the supposed Eichel statement is put out there and boom Pegula pulled the trigger. IF? Let's put it this way. Simple decision tree planning... step 1, determine the draft outcome. There are 2 variables in the first decision, one option is 20% likely, second is 80% likely (no value given to a team winning but not picking McDavid or Murray not picking Eichel or McDavid). The plan then expands from there. I don't think there is any evidence that he had no plan. Does anyone think that? If so, based on what rationale? And yes, if it was stated that he only ever thought about getting McDavid and had no clue what to do if he didn't have a chance at him then I would agree with him being incompetent.

Thanks for the final ruling Judge Judy.

Good lord that's really taking a stat too far. It should be paired with the following. Of all the 1:1 attempts entering the zone against Ristolainen, how many times has be failed to break up the entry. This stat just says what other players do against him. If, in my head, I feel like I am going to get wrecked into the boards by Ristolainen, then I might just be dumping the puck in instead. How often do teams carry the puck in against the Sabres anyway? Finally, if the coach has the defensive wanting to let the players into the zone wide and protect the center of the ice then the fact that he doesn't break up a zone entry really isn't going to be on him, is it? So many other things to consider before you just apply that stat as gospel.

I think they pretty much know what they have at this point. I think some of the line juggling now is an attempt to showcase a player for a trade. Put them in a situation another team wants them for just to see how they play with a certain type of player. How does Girgensons play with Eichel and Reinhart? Does that translate how he plays with offensive minded players on another team? Possibly.

They fired him because the star player and coach did not get along and the GM backed the wrong horse. It's not as though he frowned on national TV and they let him go. There was a wee bit of gap in there. There are plenty of emotional leaders in important positions. Just because your preference is not to have one does not make it wrong. What you call professional is not an absolute definition, plain and simple. Good grief? Okay. A 20% chance is a 20% chance is a 20% chance. Ups and downs can be had anywhere. There's a list of teams whose cards are shown on TV by Bill Daly that is supposed to lead to the tension. There are ups and downs. Just because those ups and downs are not important to you does not mean they weren't important to him. People have hope, and when that hope is defeated they will be upset. Even if it's only a 1% chance to win. This is who most of us are. I don't define Murray by my standards. I accept that he is his own person and acted accordingly. The only question was whether he was able to fulfill the role of GM and to what level. At the very surface, he failed as a GM. Clearly. Whether he was incompetent is another story that can be debated and how his face contorted and how he reacted to a flip of a card is not really in my criteria for what makes a good GM. I am sure we won't agree and that's fine.

Meh. Randall thought the Bills would be 5-11. Right there tells me he doesn't know what he's talking about so I'm not reading it. :w00t: I won't debate it... I don't agree with everything in there, but it was a good read and has value.

Missed last night's game... perhaps I should miss tonight's game? Not sure if I can do it. Glad they won... great if they can do it again.

It's not a question of what is the benefit of having an emotional GM. It's who he is and you live with it. The question of being attached to players is not unique to Murray. I don't know any GM that isn't attached to certain players. This is no different than business where you watch executives make the rounds. When one guy moves to a new company he starts bringing in his own people because he wants those that HE has vetted and worked with and trusts. A GM is the same way. It's natural. In a 53 man roster, you look at Taylor and say he's good enough and we have bigger needs. We draft a QB when we can. Perhaps they had a shot at a top QB once and it was at the time they had just acquired Taylor (I don't follow the Bills that closely) but it would make sense. You obtained a guy who you thought would be good so to use a high draft pick on another QB would be questionable. Also, the former GM for the Bills was not good. Whether it was entirely of his own doing or because of ownership interference is up for debate. Right, I have a 20% shot at obtaining a player I know will turn the franchise around and an 80% chance of obtaining the player that may turn it around. One of those is going to make my job easier and one will not. I will not be happy even if the odds are against me. Let's put this another way. The Sabres currently are winning 23% of their games. They are losing 77% of the time. Why does everyone get so upset in the GDTs? Murray is a human too.

I would think a better way to put it was that the focus was not so much on winning as it was learning to adapt to the new system and playing a different game than they were coached. If they win great, if not, so be it. The one's who can execute the system will stick around and the one's who cannot will be shipped out as much as possible. Take for example when Fasching came up and he said he was told, "Get to the net, always." For us it sounds like, when the opportunity arises, but it's not necessarily that. It looked to me that it was very much, you go the net almost to the point of disregarding what the other 4 are doing and they will take care of the rest of the ice. Housley has them doing certain things and sometimes it may feel counter-intuitive to them and they may slip up. When that happens you end up with the rest of the guys having to cover for the mistake. I don't think it's as rigid as Ron Rolston's system but there are definitely roles he has in mind for the team. I can almost assure you Eichel is not being asked to get on the boards with players. You can watch him peel away in many cases where the normal play might be for him to get in the corner. It reads to me that they want him loose to get a puck that's turned over and not stuck along the boards where his speed is nullified. As for having fun... you can't go in day to day with the mindset that everything sucks. It doesn't work. You have to recognize (as Bogosian said) that things are not where they need to be and work hard to correct them. It's easier to do that if the team is getting along rather than them creating a finger pointing atmosphere. I understand this concept of holding people accountable but that doesn't have to mean that it's done by tearing people down. A group of people who get along should feel compelled to work harder for each other because they don't want to let each other down. They should be willing to accept when they are not working hard enough and if a player points it out they understand it. In a finger pointing culture a player will call you out and your first thought will be to respond with all the things the other person is doing wrong. It's like watching a political debate. No one talks about what they can do, they only try and tear each other down. In the end you are left with nothing standing and no one believes that they are to blame. Yes, it would be nice if the Sabres had a player that could come in and control the room. They don't have it, yet. Perhaps the first hope was to see what they could accomplish on their own. There are only a handful of players out there that can command the room like that and prior to the season starting I would have said only Jagr was available without having to trade away assets you didn't want to trade. I thought they should have signed Jagr, and perhaps they tried, but it didn't happen.

I'm going to go out and drink and not watch the game... unless it's on where I am going. Best of luck... the Flyers are locked in right now. They are still suspect on defense but their offense is working.

Bolded 1: That's your perspective but it doesn't make it true for everyone. Bolded 2: Not even close to the same thing. Bolded 3: To insinuate that the man was not intelligent enough to understand the difference between 20% and 80% is ridiculous. He clearly knew what odds he had of each. It doesn't mean he can't be disappointed in the outcome. Bolded 1: 100% in agreement. Then again, Sergachev might drop off the face of the Earth when the Lightning stop being the behemoth they are. That's why it's a wait and see situation. Bolded 2: So, you draft in a low talent draft year and the next year features two top talents both of which will help your team immensely. You maintain the "tank" to get one of McDavid or Eichel. They had the best chance to get McDavid and unfortunately did not. (See my address to Bolded 4 about having more chances). Bolded 3: Yes, correct. A misspeak on my part. I did not mean to express that a GM would have only 1 plan. I meant to say that every GM would have wanted to have McDavid. Bolded 4: Yes, you can't hit on a pick if you don't have the pick. However, the assumption that a pick was given up for nothing is incorrect. A pick has a % chance of achieving a certain level in the NHL. The prospect/NHL player that is obtained also has a % chance of achieving a certain level in the NHL. Having more picks is only useful if your picks can be used to obtain an asset that has a greater chance of succeeding in the NHL. While 2015 was a nice draft, the picks that Murray, assuming no ability to package them and move, could have only netted so many players for the team. Brock Boeser is the highlight of those potential picks. Boeser is lighting it up right now, there is no debating that. He has a lot of potential. At the time, I am sure Murray hoped Nylander would be doing the same thing. So, if it turns out that drafting McAvoy instead of Nylander and then keeping the pick and obtaining Boeser would have been better for the Sabres then he clearly missed. There's certainly a good chance of it. Interesting to note that Boeser was drafted by Jim Benning who, if I am recalling correctly, has been lambasted on here as well.