LTS

I just watched the video again: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MTSsQ7UwnZ0 It looks like Dubinsky's shoulder goes straight into Koivu's head. (:41 mark of the video, Dubinsky's elbow in fact is in contact with Koivu and Koivu's head is jarred sideways). Just saying, I don't think it's body first.

Good point, but my thought was only that they needed to do it for Miller so they were good. Now we know they did it with Vanek, but Moulson moves easier than Vanek's salary if they decide to move him. Most likely use of that clause is with Miller and they have more room to maneuver. All of those contracts come off the books at the end of the season so they could start again but I think they are going to use their buyouts. The question is which two of the three end up gone? (Myers, Leino, Stafford). My guess is Leino and Stafford. If I am recalling correctly the Sabres still have two compliance buyouts as Gerbe was a straight buyout right?

Boo. He should have. That was the craziest crap suspension I've seen. And now that Dubinsky isn't even getting a whiff of a review for whacking Koivu in the head he had an even stronger case. Oh well.. give it up, pack it in.

A few things to think about when we talk about how easy it is to move a player.. especially one who will be a UFA at year's end. The Sabres have $8mm in cap space, the Isles have $11mm in cap space. If they are going nowhere they could offer Vanek to another team and absorb 50% of the cap hit (isn't that the max?) for the other team. So a team with $3.5mm of cap space wants Vanek? No problem. The Isles retain $3.5mm in salary and the other team trades them $1mm in salary and boom.. Vanek is gone. The Sabres can do the same with Moulson, but more importantly, they cleared $3+mm in cap space by moving Vanek. Why does this matter? Because now they can eat a full 50% of Miller's contract to move him to another team who wouldn't want to take on his $6.1mm hit. As for Moulson not wanting to sign here.. I love how we all just assume to know what a player wants. Where did Horton end up? He chose Columbus, a team that has middled around for quite some time. Bottom line, if Moulson performs the Sabres will make an offer. If he wants it, he will sign. If not, he will get moved. The Sabres own this situation. As for Vanek? We'll see what happens. I think there were times that he definitely was a downer for the team. He has the ability to do great things, he just didn't always follow through with that.

They were already challenging for that with Vanek. :) So, my son, the ever witty 9 year old hockey nut's response when I told him this morning: "So, they traded #26 for #26?" Hah.. hadn't even thought about that. Assuming Moulson wears 26 because he likes that number then I'm guessing if he's in the lineup tonight (which I assume he would be) there will still be a #26 but just a different name on the back. Strange. The other thing to keep in mind is that Moulson hadn't signed a deal with the Isles either. So even though he supposedly LOVED playing with Tavares he wasn't willing to sign a deal to keep playing there. Also, Moulson could end up signing with the Isles next year as well. That's the thing with UFAs. I think this is a good trade, they had to move Vanek now so a team could get benefit.

Yep.. point is Moulson is a 30 goal scorer when he has a center with him. Other teams know that his numbers will go down with the Sabres but they'll expect them to pick up when they acquire him. Vanek had little value except to a team that could go for it this year. The Isles have the youth and are succeeding enough. Truthfully, if all the Isles did was swap a 30 goal scorer with a 35 goal scorer do you think they won this trade? Speculating what other teams might have given for Vanek is pointless.. they didn't do it. What comes from here is what makes or breaks this trade.

Bottom line is I fully support Kaleta in his efforts here. I think the punishment needs to fit the crime regardless of past history. If someone with no history puts a guy in the hospital there should be a minimum 10 game suspension. Can anyone honestly say that it is NOT worse than leaving the bench for a fight? Past offender status should only add games. So, let's say if Vanek is the player who did what Kaleta did. If there is no suspension then there's no suspension. If it's a 1 game then make it 1 game plus 3 for past offender or something like that. Oh well.. we know it's not possible. Still Kaleta is forcing the issue. I wouldn't doubt that he's hoping the suspension is upheld so he can take it to an independent arbitrator. Not that it would matter much but perhaps an arbitrator comes out strongly against the NHL?

And yet the one player hit went to the hospital and the other player hit barely noticed the contact and continued to play in the game. Big difference. (not being snarky towards you bunomatic, but the process is a joke).

Perhaps because he's not playing center anymore? He's playing wing. He still has his moments but he seemed to move pretty well out there last night. Frankly I thought it was perfect last night. The guy who scored started skating up to Hackett running his mouth. I'm sure it's a good job by the Hamill (9) for doing it but Hackett whacked him pretty good for it. Overall I thought the Amerks had a few too many moments where they let the Comets take a few too many liberties. Hackett stared down one of his defenders (can't remember who) last night after he basically provided the world's best screen on a shot. It didn't go in or he might have attacked that defender last night. McNabb definitely passed up a lot of shots.

Legitimately going to the boards with your back to the play you should not expect to get hit. This is why checking from behind and boarding existed in the first place. But what has happened is that players now abuse that right by holding the puck and turning their back at the last minute to avoid being hit. In doing this they are creating the chance that the checker will turn away and they can break out of the zone. They are also creating the chance that they wait too long and get crushed giving their team a power play. This is the real problem. A player who legitimately has his back to the play should be off limits. The biggest problem I see is that a lot of players now turn constantly around the boards to shake the defender. There's a chance that they open up for a brief moment, the defender sees it and goes for the shot and catches the player in a turn and boom.. face into boards. I have to go find the hit. I do agree that players have to anticipate getting hit just and stop turning their backs at the last minute. It's like a punt returner in football waiting until the last possible moment to raise his arm for a fair catch and then expecting to not get slammed by the guy who just ran 45 yards at full speed to hit him. It happens.

Scary. In other news.. Bell's is in Rochester (I assume Buffalo too). Wegmans has Two-hearted for $9.99 a six pack. Enjoy.

That said.. Kaleta needs to talk to Cooke about his game. If Kaleta focused less on hitting and more on just being disruptive on the ice with his speed he might serve a greater role. I think he feels like he needs to fire up everyone by going out and running someone. It's not needed.. just go out and disrupt the play and he'll be fine. The next time I think he's done.. period.

Well.. all you have to do it look at Vanek last night. Scores the nice between the leg goal and then tried it again and got hammered. Point is.. if you have the chance.. you do it. Screw the other team. If it gets under their skin then good. Which would you rather have? An entire team mad at you for scoring a goal like that or an entire team mad at you for running on of their players? I'll take +1 goal over +2/+5 PIM.

Thing is.. a glass can have a line. But if the bottom of the glass is .25 inches thicker than normal you still get less beer. :)

uhhh... WOW.

Shaker glasses blow anyway. Use a nice 20oz imperial pint glass, fill it with 16oz and plenty of head. Who doesn't need that? Of course I don't mind a 16oz glass with some head if the pricing of the beer is adjusted accordingly.

GO TEAM USA! Quick for ever. Man I feel for that guy right now. That's just the worst confluence of crap you can deal with.

Hard to hold a coach solely responsible for the W/L record. You could be Scotty Bowman but if the Gm gives you the Mighty Ducks to play against Team Canada you are going to lose. Not saying that happened here, but Rolston only gets to use the parts he's given.

I have no problem with alternative "C". If the guys are respected by the team that's all that matters. They should both be Sabres going forward. I truly think they both want to be here. I don't see Vanek having been anything but truthful about the situation. Ott, he's straight up as well.

The top comment on TSN when I read the article there: "That's a lot of money to pay a lumberjack." And I think it's an absurd contract.

I prefer to exercise more rather than drink less.

I guess this is a good spot to put this... This is a classic marketing video response: http://video.blackhawks.nhl.com/videocenter/console?catid=894&id=446251&lang=en

You're catching on. The use of the randall definitely started with the idea of adding that kick of hops right at serving time. It's evolved mightily since then with all kinds of cool things being in the randall to add some flavor during serving. Just one more thing that I love about beer.

Not exactly.. they could involve that but not always. The basic assumption is that fresh hops are added during the brewing process, whether that is mash hopped, first wort hopped, boil hopped, flameout hopped, grant hopped, or fermenter hopped. Whew.. that's a lot of possibilities. What will happen is that rather than having the lupulin being the most notable aromas there will also be a grassiness added to the beer from the freshness of the leaves. The reason most hops are dried is to remove that leafy flavor but keep the lupulin glands intact. you still get the hoppiness of course, but it's mixed in with the vegetal aspects of the hop at the same time.

Agreed. If I followed all of this properly then I believe the issue was the publicity they bring with the visit. It's not that they shouldn't do it or it doesn't have value it's that there's no need to make such a big deal about it. Here's the thing. I think both are great. I think it's great if an athlete decides, on their own, to visit people or to do something else that picks people up. I also think it's great if they do it as part of an overall publicity event. There are no losers here. In the end, people benefit. When it's done in the public eye some people may see the story and feel good for that child. When it's done privately that wouldn't happen. When it's done publicly someone may say, look at that guy, what an ego. When it's done privately that wouldn't happen. Whatever... would you rather see a story about an athlete visiting children in a hospital or a story about an athlete shooting someone. I know which way I'm voting.