LTS

Too ambiguous. The guy may not like dealing with Murray for many reasons that don't have anything to do with Murray being a competent GM. Was Murray handling that role for Binghamton or did the owner have to deal with Murray's decisions on who he sent down?

So MODO mentioned the Amerks game Friday night. Is there interest? Do I need to get myself a ticket there too?

I'll likely miss the game tonight. Not necessarily a bad thing... Go Sabres.. always Go Sabres.. never stop. Go Sabres.

So... the thread is littered with all kinds of flaws aimed at the officiating and also the Sabres suck. I only watched part of the game as we had people over but I saw a team that seemed to be getting screwed by the officials. I did also see a team that plays too defensively (and manages to NOT be defensive while doing it) but I don't know that I can sit there and lose my mind over the game. Oh well... it's probably good I didn't see it. I did see the high stick goal. That was garbage but of course it was allowed. The only thing I needed to know was that the shot was trending above the cross bar, was deflected and managed to squeak in just under the cross bar. So, how do you contact a puck 6-7 feet out from the net and deflect it down so it goes just under the cross bar without putting your stick ABOVE the cross bar. Yep. Love to find some good photos of this one.

This made my day.... thanks for sharing man.

I should be sobering up from brunch right around then. That should be a mess... :) Glad the Amerks won last night but dear lord they outshot Bridgeport by nearly 3-1 and had to win in overtime. Good news? The D had 3 goals (2 by Bodie and 1 GWG by Fedun). The bad news? There was some very Bogosian like D play allowing passes across the crease for goals. Okay.. so.. go Sabres?

Regardless of what happens in the game... that GDT starter was epic enough for me to feel good. I'll miss tonight's game as I will be at the Amerks game instead. Enjoy!

I can get you a meet and greet with Rachel if you'd like. Otherwise.. is there interest in the Amerks game too?

What drastic moves? There have been very few trades in the league this year because of salary cap and expansion draft. It's not complacency, it's a lack of environment that invites the change you seek. I don't have a problem with Murray yet. I can understand each move to this point. So, in order to get Benn, a lower tier defenseman the Sabres would have had to given up a 4th round pick (Vatanen was a 4th round pick) and another D player. So, give up a pick that could be Vatanen and then get another D and give one away. Now presumably they could have traded Franson away and received a 4th round pick. By my math that gives the Sabres Benn for Franson, retain their 4th pick overall, and be down 1 D in the organization overall because they would have had to move... Nelson? So they deplete their D depth more and they upgrade from Franson to Benn? This is a good move in your eyes? As for Davidson, who is he replacing? Who is Murray giving up? Is he trading away Ennis for ... what? a lesser Foligno? Does that improve the team? They sound like moves to make moves. Damn right. Montreal is a team that stinks of a GM who is trying to save his job. He fired the coach and the team could only get 4 forwards to score goals for them in February. They are hanging on by a thread and Therrien is going to try and goon his way through the playoffs. Gorges? Yes. I am sure he had a very solid influence on Ristolainen's development. Franson fills a hole. The book is out on Lehner, he can look lights out, or he can look knocked out. But in the same breath you talk about the D being all kinds of crap and I see a lot of goals that can be blamed on crap D. If you removed 50% of those and you keep his soft goals the Sabres would still be winning more games. This team has competed with and beaten the best teams in the NHL. They are capable of doing this and we all know it. The lack of effort and execution in Colorado and Arizona is not on the coaches, it's on the players. They looked like crap. I don't like Bylsma but I'm not going to pretend the players were out there putting in the proper effort either. Coaches don't blow 2 goal leads like the Sabres just did. They flat out stunk it up on the ice and it wasn't the "system".

Well, here's the deal. Whiteboard 1 - used for ROR/Okposo pairing strategies Whiteboard 2 - used for Eichel/Reinhart pairing strategies Whiteboard 3 - used for Gionta line strategy Whiteboard 4 - used for Moulson/Ennis pairing strategies Whiteboard 5 - defensive pairing details Whiteboard 6 - shooter tendencies for goaltenders Whiteboard 7 - Motivational quotes Whiteboard 8 - a board filled with puppy drawings for Deslauriers Whiteboard 9 - a board with a TV bezel drawn on it with a hand drawn picture of PHam sitting at a desk so he can feel like he's on TV I don't see the problems here.

It'll happen tonight for you. You won't remember it because it's your birthday and you have tomorrow off. You'll post the same thing here the next game you go to and we'll all laugh but you won't know why. Enjoy the game :)

Just because a timeline does not agree with you does not mean it's wrong. It doesn't mean it's settling. Your narrative is full of logistical holes. The ability to move players is being handcuffed by the planning that every GM has to do to prepare for a) a playoff run and B) the expansion draft. Yet, for some reason, despite this being stated over and over again by GMs, the media, and people on this board, people want to ignore the fact that there is a new team in Vegas next year. You want change but refuse to accept that the environment is not right for change. Keep pushing that rock. So, let's say you throw away your pending UFA's for nothing. You have to pull up a few D from the Amerks. Granted the Amerks aren't very good but you pull their top talent away and they are even worse. That's okay right because it's just the Amerks right? Except you still have Nylander down there, you have Ullmark down there. Do you want them playing minutes on the Amerks with a team that is even worse because you wanted to move out two D for a draft pick that won't turn into anything? So, then we talk about how Ullmark is shell-shocked and Nylander is frustrated because they spend all their time in their end. These things are all interconnected, it's more complex than you want to admit. As for your school reference, the star pupil, Mr. Eichel has decided to also take some shifts off here and there and failed his class in the Odyssey of the Mind competition. It's being explained quite well. It might be unexplainable to you, but it's certainly not inexplicable. Murray is widely regarded to be a judge of talent by people who live in the hockey world. You can choose to think they are all wrong. It's not unheard of these days for people who are completely outside of a particular discipline to disregard experts and judge them to be incorrect. Murray could have signed Kulikov at any point this season. If he wanted to sign him, why wouldn't he have done it? Is it because he hoped someone would offer a big trade for a UFA defenseman?

Absolutely respect Murray for that. As for Kulikov... that's the way it goes sometimes. Of course Kulikov's UFA value is taking a hit as well and he might be able to be re-signed by the Sabres for a lower amount. He might not, who knows. You can always hold out hope that some team wants to trade a 5th round pick prior to the draft for the rights to negotiate with Kulikov before signing begins. :)

Gionta wasn't going to move unless he agreed to it and a lot of people in the hockey world will respect that. You don't have to respect it as a fan. I look at the trade deadline deals and can't find one deal where Franson or Kulikov are the piece that was missed out on. Why not trade them for a 5th round pick? What freakin' good does that do? What does a 5th round pick do? It moved a D off the roster in a year when the D depth is already too shallow. I guess it's a difference in patience level with people. Being able to fix everything immediately is almost never achievable. I'm fine with Murray... and as far as the Bylsma situation we already know that Murray does not act alone in that regard.

As unspectacular as expected.

I'd be up for that.. I don't think I have anything going on and since I live in Rochester... :)

But but but... narrative. :) I think the way Murray operates is that he has a value for his players in mind. He holds to that value for as long as possible. It's possible that another team has a similar asset and let's it go for lower than he's willing to accept. He plays the waiting game and when the timeline is drawing near he either chooses to accept less or the other team chooses to pay more. It's a game of chicken for him.

Looks like a lineup to show how Gio can play alongside good players. Maybe someone wants Rodrigues and they hope Sam can up his scoring potential tonight? Hey.. you never know who is on the move.

There isn't a player or coach or equipment manager or anyone who sets out at the start of a game with the idea that they want to lose. Anyone who has the mentality is never going to make it to the NHL and be part of a professional team. Even when the talent level was reduced to poise for the rebuild no one was out there actively trying to lose. This concept that losing somehow imbues an acceptance of losing and creates a loser atmosphere just doesn't fly. This is the time when the players who mean the most need to step up the most. If you watch a game and you see one of your "core" players dogging it then you should be questioning that players work ethic and whether you should have faith in them. Those players who only try when the team is winning are not the players who will lead you to victory. They are followers. The players usually have a good idea of the probability of them winning any particular game but I am certain they all believe in the possibility of them winning the game. I still want this team to win, every night. I don't care if it means Bylsma is still here because if they are winning who would care? If they lose, then I trust that someone in the organization will begin taking a look at why and make the appropriate changes. If not, then I can question whether I invest my time in a team. Go Sabres. Play the game that is outlined and let the chips fall where they may. If the team decides to battle the coach or each other then it creates dysfunction and that makes it harder to identify where a real problem lies.

My one time experiencing Andrew Peters in person was enough for me. Plenty of arrogance for a guy whose primary job was a fist stop in the NHL.

No interest from me. The problem is not with the offense.

Wearing my Coyotes sweater tonight. Can't hurt right? I didn't really see last nights game but given that most teams lose coming off their bye week it was no surprise.

Of course its stupid.. but it didn't cause long term career pain for Mike Milbury when he assaulted a 12 year old.

Primarily I would look at the number of players that come out of NCAA and those of juniors. If fewer players come out of NCAA and they are prolific in the NHL it would skew statistics to favor them over more junior players showing up. Moreover, if you take a highly offensive juniors league (Q) and then bring those players to the NHL the likelihood of there being a drop off is greater. So, it really depends on how you control those factors when you make the league to NHL point comparison. I can't get to the bolded with you.. An all state team going against a top flight college program. I would think the best you get is an All-American HS team going against a top flight college program. I still think the college program wins. However, again, we are now only talking about the TOP of the group. I don't think the age difference is as big a deal from 18-20 or 19-21, or 20-22. If you hold skill equal then absolutely, but there is a point where skill difference overcomes age difference and I think that in general the two years at most difference isn't enough across the board. An interesting point I hadn't thought about so thank you for clarifying the age issue. At the same time, wouldn't it be safe to say that if you are a hockey player and Jr. A is your best option that you might not be on course for an NHL career? If, in any given birth year, only 90 of the world's hockey players have a shot at the NHL (top 3 rounds of the draft) I would think that if you are only playing Jr. A then you are on the extreme outside looking in. Even if you expand that to include competing for spots against 3 birth years you are only talking 270 players in the world. In this case however, Eichel had 1 year of competing against the NCAA talent. Where has that NCAA talent stacked up on the draft board? In his draft year here is the break down.. League(2015) Rd1 Rd2 Rd3 % of picks Juniors 17 19 14 55% NCAA 3 1 0 4% NTDP/USHL 4 4 6 15% European 6 7 8 23% Other 0 0 2 2% Seems to me that Jack was not competing against great talent that year. Now, of course the NCAA players he was playing against could have been drafted a few years prior. So I looked at 2014 and 2013 just to see. League (2014) Rd1 Rd2 Rd3 % of picks Juniors 20 15 13 53% NCAA 0 1 0 1% NTDP/USHL 4 6 4 15% European 6 7 6 21% Other 0 1 7 9% League (2013) Rd1 Rd2 Rd3 % of picks Juniors 22 19 16 63% NCAA 0 2 1 3% NTDP/USHL 1 2 5 9% European 7 5 7 21% Other 0 3 1 4% I just can't get there that the talent in NCAA is anywhere near that of Juniors. In the last draft the NCAA picks were 3 in round 1, 1 each in round 2 and 3. It's 5 overall, but still not swinging like you'd expect. Even if some of the USHL/NTDP kids go to NCAA (not sure how many do) it doesn't raise the bar enough to Juniors for me.