LTS

Tanking... it's a nuanced term right? I mean they weren't intentionally losing. They made hockey moves that rebuilt for the future. If tanking is stripping your team down to rebuild it properly by making moves that other teams make every season then yes.. they tanked. But they didn't intentionally lose. They didn't bench players (as far as we know) because they were over performing. I mean.. the team was going to suck because there was no point in going out and trying get high-end talent to fill in the gaps until you had some talent drafted and developed for the roster and the next few years. This team will have finished last two straight seasons. Now we get to see if the team becomes Edmonton or if they become Colorado/NYI/Florida. You seriously love to paint everything so negative. It's amazing. I'm ignoring the football because it's irrelevant. But Murray? The guy was in line for a GM job and he got one. He's cold and calculated and now that's a bad thing. If he made decisions on emotion you'd slam him for that? What do you want from someone? Kane hasn't done ANYTHING wrong yet and you've posterized him as a problem. It's kind of unbelievable. Why bother hating so much all the time? It can't be good for your health. Sylvester is an idiot. There's no point in tearing down Nolan. Hell, Murray would have the most insight on that and he's not doing it. The situation is plainly obvious. Murray needed a coach for a team that would suck. He offered Nolan a 3 for 1 contract, get paid for 3, work only 1. Nolan took the job because it can't hurt him in any way. His alternative was the luxurious Latvian National Program. Nolan is not a bad guy as far as I know. He's just not a great hockey coach for this situation. End of story. Move on. There's no need to place blame all the time. Sometimes... things just are. (not saying you are placing blame, I'm talking about Sylvester...)

I missed that to be certain.

I think when you have respect for a coach and trust his ability you probably treat him differently. Just because Murray talk to Nolan doesn't mean he doesn't talk to anyone. If he doesn't value what Nolan has to say about player moves why bother talking to him then? If he's going out to hire the coach he's not going to pick someone he can't work with. Don't try and shoe horn everything into the existing scenario. I expect the list is two with and outside shot at 3. Babcock, Richardson, and Bylsma (outside shot). I also think it's in that order and it should be. Babcock is a proven winning coach in the NHL and Internationally. Every team will be vying for him (of those who are looking for a coach, and I suspect that those who have a coach might kick the tires).

I could have sworn last week most of the people on this board didn't expect the Sabres to finish 30th and now when Murray says it people want to slam him for lying? He didn't say they wouldn't suck. Last Thursday night people were calling for riots in Buffalo because the team was going to ruin the run to 30th. Also, Ted Nolan coached this team last season. He chose to sign a 3 year deal knowing what this season would bring. He signed up for this entire situation. There's no arguing that. Everyone in the NHL and this entire board knew full well who was going to be moved from the roster before the end of the season. It's not a surprise at all that it happened. What am I missing that warrants a defense of Ted Nolan and saying he was screwed by the GM? The GM offered him a contract, he signed it and the GM had an entire year to evaluate Nolan. Murray said he was partially to blame for the lack of communication. Murray didn't want Nolan but he wasn't going to get any coach to come in and fill that position so he took his best option. Nolan knew it too. How can anyone think otherwise? These guys know the business better than any of us. They know what is going on. Next up.. draft lottery.

I must have missed the other reasons then.

It can be a cold biz. Then you read stories where the CBJ GM trades Leopold to the Wild for a bag of pucks just so he can be close to home with his family. It ain't always so bad. Frankly I think Murray will be deemed one of the best GMs in the league. He is the cold biz. He's about as calculating as I have seen. The Church of ZFG. The real work of Murray is about to begin and I look at the Ducks as an example of what he can accomplish.

Haha. Nice. :beer:

I just bought 120 proof bourbon for tonight.

I hope they win and in the ensuing chaos and mass carnage all of the people who have suspended normal logical function eradicate themselves from the gene pool. That sound elitist at all? It's not meant to.

C'mon man.. entertain the thought. You'd be unhappy if someone just dismissed you. Granted I'm happy you did so with a clip like that, but still. What else is there to talk about?

Wait.. so guys can skate freely around the ice and now it becomes unbearable to watch? Cherry picking is a strategy. It could also mean that the defenders now play a guy on the cherry picker. This then means you have 4 v 4 in the offensive area. So..... why not?

Drunk it is! No need to call me out specifically though. Curious what the off-season / trade deadline deal Murray might have promised the Blue Jackets next year for them to start Bobrovsky. I'll trade you Marcus Foligno for a 4th round pick in 2016 if you start Bobbo tonight.

So this year.. Vancouver, Calgary, Winnipeg, Montreal, and possibly Ottawa are all in the playoffs? Canada is happy. Here's a thought for flow.. why even have offsides? Just go wherever the hell you feel like it, when you feel like it. No reason to artificially make the ice area smaller by restricting where players can go.

It's strange isn't it? As all the equipment improved, the training improved, the skill of players improved the overall game itself did not. Better sticks create harder shots. Better skates create faster players. Better training creates faster and stronger players. These necessitate protective equipment changes. Players no longer fear puck or body. Goalies still forced to stand there and take the shots so they want protection (really, 108mph?!) Game over. As much as I hate to say it, I think the only way to improve the game is to increase the rink size (that;s some money right there) AND the net size. Another thought that popped into my head.. what if the crease size increased? If players were all forced to stand a little further from the net then perhaps there would be more space for shots to get through? I have to think about that one. While it sounded nice I am going to guess there are serious problems with that idea. :)

But a 100% chance of having two picks in the top 14. :) The avg goals scored in the CBJ vs. Laffs was 2.5. That's not too bad! :)

In youth hockey they learn it because coaches allow it and because its easier to glide to a point than to stop and restart. So, by gliding by they can circle back into a position without having to use all that energy to stop and start. It's the wrong way to play hockey, but they do it. We worked very hard to get the kids to crash the net on any shot. The problem then became once they were there they didn't want to begin skating again.. (a coach's work is never done!) At higher levels going to the net usually means you are going to get popped. Some players don't like that. Those players suck.

I don't want the Pens to miss because I don't want Edmonton having another shot at #1. I want the Pens to make it and the Isles to miss.. because that means the Sabres have an extra shot at #1. While I dislike the Penguins immensely.. I have to root for them because it's better for the Sabres.

I'll be wearing my Coyotes sweater tonight. Old school original, but I'm wearing it.

I'm getting wrecked no matter what anyone does.

So.. what happens if the Sabres finish 29th and win the lottery? Does SS explode?

No one is to blame. It's not a tank. If it were a tank then they would suck for failing. Tanking is intentionally losing and that's clearly not what happened here. The lack of talent is not enough to guarantee a poor season. Dare I say it, they wanted a cohesive locker room that stressed a team first attitude and winning is a byproduct of it. Even if the talent level is low. It's life.

Good point. You'd think I would have caught that when looking at the roster. I think that underscores what I had said in another thread about preferring Malkin over Crosby. I always thought Malkin came after Crosby and then looking at the draft it didn't make sense.

Hmm I missed that part. I know up top it wasn't that the game ends in a tie, I misspoke, it was that the basketball and baseball play indefinitely and until there is a winner. Thanks for the catch. I still prefer his approach. I hate ties and while I don't mind the shootout I hate the loser point.

Heard an interesting point on WGR this morning. Pittsburgh finished with 58 points the first year Crosby was in their lineup. 2003 - Drafted Fleury (Finished 03-04 with 58 points) 2004 - Drafted Malkin (no following season) 2005 - Drafted Crosby (Finished 05-06 with 58 points) 2006 - Jordan Stall (Finished 06-07 with with 105 points) The Sabres are at 52 points. So, a team with Fleury, Malkin, and Crosby only managed to finish 6 points ahead of the current Buffalo Sabres lineup). Of course that's cherry picking. Chicago shows a much better result from their drafting. But if nothing else it demonstrates just how bad things can be even with star players. I would have never imagined Pittsburgh finishing with 58 points having Crosby, Malkin, and Fleury on the team. Other fun facts from the 05-06 Penguins Roster... Mario Lemieux played 21 games and was still a point per game. (retired mid-season) Ziggy Palffy played 42 games and was a point per game. (retired mid-season) John LeClair was on the roster. Mark Recchi was on the roster just under a point per game. Brooks Orpik on the roster. Sergei Gonchar on the roster. Fired Craig Patrick as GM and hired Ray Shero. Hired Mike Yeo as Asst. Coach Hired Michel Therrien as Head Coach Hah.. this is kind of fun looking at that team. Oh well.. I feel better about the Sabres now.

It was a good essay.. two small problems. 1. He neglects to call out football as a game that can end in a tie. It is far more physical than basketball and baseball and they get a week off between games. 2. He chooses to reject the basis of the loser point, which is, the standings remain closer together generating more interest in the final outcome of the season. Other than that I loved his statistics and ideas.