LTS

I agree.. and so the need for business trumps the need for protection. It's akin to locking all windows and your front door, but you leave the side door open. COVID-19 transmission doesn't stop just because you need to commute for work and those who commute don't have to quarantine. So the rules that bind one state do not bind another and that's the problem. It effectively makes all of the bans worthless. State A allows State B and State B allows state C.. ergo, State A allows State C. Nothing is protected.

Who is going to own the rink? A town that builds a hockey rink and maintains it does so at the expense of not spending money elsewhere. If money gets tight in the government the pressure will be to cut the unnecessary programs first. If the rink has no income and is only breaking even, how long do you think it will last? Schools cut arts and music before anything else. Sports would be next but they continue to drive booster support more than any other program but they still get cut. Even sports have a pecking order right? Football/Basketball/Soccer are the last to go. No one makes teams go to tournaments now. MyHockey operates a business and their business is to offer tournaments and people CHOOSE to go to them and they do so knowing they will have to stay in a sanctioned hotel.

Yes, but to NOT put the quarantine in place, even though it's not enforceable is basically giving the green light on crossing the border to everyone. I look at it like a travel ban during a winter storm. Is it enforceable? No. Do they still do it? Yes. Why? Because it discourages SOME to not engage in the behavior and should something happen there is at least some level of mandate to fall back on that says "You should not have been there." Of course that's only arguing for the quarantines and bans. I'm on the opposite side that their unwillingness to do it on the states where the most travel occurs is a good enough reason to not bother with the rest of the states. It's not like COVID-19 only comes from Arizona. So Sally in Delaware wanders into Philly and meets Joe from NYC. Boom.. Delaware has met NY. Those hockey teams are playing teams from border states too. So, the Baltimore Checkers wander on up to Pittsburgh for a tournament and play against the Rochester Ice Dogs... boom. Contact. Travel restriction be damned. Thus.. why bother having them at all?

Again who is to blame? The people running these "elite" programs that are trying to make a living? It's a business. We often joke about how professional sports is a business. Well, so is youth sports. You CAN play certain sports without spending a lot of money. You might never get anywhere... but you can play it. It's hard to fault people whose kids are talented for going to these specialty programs. The reason? Because so many people are chasing the professional sports dream or even the college scholarship dream that people are willing to spend insane amounts of money to give their kids the best chance. Yes, that will leave out those who cannot afford it. People send their kids to elite schools for all kinds of things. Yes, it favors those with money. What can you do about it? Are we to stand in the way of business and tell people "That's wrong"? I would agree. Things like that are great. Perhaps it starts with placing requirements on team owners when they want public money concessions for their stadiums that they are required to operate free to play programs in the city limits where they want their stadium. Of course that would not aid those in rural America.

Who is supposed to fix that problem? Frankly if I had $100k to give to a program to help those in poor areas it wouldn't go to a hockey rink. It would go towards building out affordable internet access and supplying technology to aid children in their learning. Hockey falls way down on the list. Hockey is expensive, that's just the way it goes. Someone has to foot the bill. I know a few of the hockey programs in Rochester have subsidized the expense of the league fees, etc. for some kids but they do so when they can and its only for the ice time, not equipment. If 100 children suddenly showed up there would be no way they could afford to subsidize that many kids.

That aside, you can still declare the quarantine restriction even if its not enforceable and you'd get some people who would abide by it. You will also get others who will ignore the non-essential travel suggestion. I know this, because I know a travel hockey team going to Pittsburgh this weekend to play a tournament. Which, by the way, is laughable, because within NYS they cannot play games. Teams from Buffalo and Rochester have been going to Erie, PA to play games. Think about that logic.

First note: This is not commentary on Cuomo other than he happens to be the governor of NY State and leads the state in applying the following logic. https://www.governor.ny.gov/news/governor-cuomo-announces-travel-advisory-requiring-14-day-quarantine This is why I have a problem with any concept of travel bans, shutdowns, etc. The state acknowledged that New Jersey, Connecticut, and Pennsylvania meet the criteria to be on the ban list but are not placed on it due to the interconnected nature of commerce between those states. In other words, a lot of people need to travel between those states to maintain business. So, ideally, the travel bans come with the quarantine requirement. The travel ban excludes those who are in the banned state for more than 24 hours. Commuting into Pennsylvania would actually be a daily trip but you would be in the state for less than 24 hours and not required to quarantine anyway. At least that's how I read it. However, these states are not banned. So, instead, the states with high interstate travel remain off the list while states like Arizona which presumably see far less interstate travel are on the list. Fundamentally this is flawed logic in the effort to achieve protection of NY residents which is the purpose of these bans. Again, you can find these kinds of logic flaws and gaps in every state, county, nation. How can any shutdown/ban be touted as a safety measure without acknowledging that its a pipe dream that it has any impact. The selective nature of such bans/shutdowns are what lead people to question all governments on the real intent. NY state, for as good a job as its done, is also undermining its message with the announcement yesterday. I feel this way with the mask argument as well. We had a local case at school at one parent went on a witch hunt to find out who was infected. The argument was that their child comes into contact with two high risk family members. This, of course, ignores the logic that masks do not prevent the spread of the virus and as such, if her concerns were that great, her children should not be in school at all. Her children could have been exposed and have never known it due to asymptomatic spreaders. Masks are important, they REDUCE the chance of spreading the virus. Unfortunately many people believe it PREVENTS it. Their own ignorance, or perhaps what they pull out of the messaging from health officials. "You are safe if you wear a mask." That's not true. You are also not safe if a business is shutdown or a travel ban exists because of the very selective nature by which those shutdowns and bans are put in place. Bottom line, you end up at use your damn head and practice the very simple practices of wearing a mask, distance yourself, and if you believe or know you are an elevated risk person you are best to not be out in public, as much as that sucks. Of course, that decision, is up to each person since there are no preventions, only reduction in chances and as such, there remains a chance.

All I was told was that he didn't gel well with some people and that led to some issues. I asked and didn't get more. I can only surmise that by him being moved someone felt it was significant enough to remove him from the locker room.

I can see why people would not like him. He has a style and it might not set well with people. I didn't dislike him. My experiences were via the NBC filter, so some of the items he discussed and how he discussed were certainly tainted by that. He did a great job and excelled in his profession. Can't go wrong there.

Yeah.. and I love seeing that they are still paying Phil "The Thrill" Kessel $1.2M 🙂

Perhaps its because it's 3:46PM on a Friday... but your post amused me in the following way: In a thread about random stuff: You advocate for randomness in the removal of pinned threads thus insuring the post at the top of the page is no longer a fixed item and thus "random". You then advocate for a standardized capitalization scheme which would reduce the "random" nature of the board. Are you pro-random or anti-random. I cannot tell. 🙂

caught this posted elsewhere.. I think it sums things up a bit. When the FBI stops a plot to kidnap a governor, and the President can't thank the FBI because he's fighting with them AND he can't be thankful for the governor's safety, because he's fighting with her AND he can't condemn the terrorists because they're his supporters ...it's time for a new President.

I think it is a bad practice to equate his play on the ice with his off-ice interactions with his teammates and the remainder of the Sabres organization. He was a professional on the ice, doing what he needed to do. As I have said in the past, the information provided to me by someone with intimate knowledge of his off-ice interactions definitely suggested there were issues large enough to not be overlooked.

Absolutely. If nothing else Taylor Hall is an $8M marketing message... one that fans have already bought into and I think others will as well. No matter what happens next year things can be spun in any number of ways. But I think he's genuine enough (as any player can be in this business) and he came here and nothing we are hearing would suggest that there was reluctance. I don't see a negative to this unless someone really screws things up between now and next year.

Dahlin redefines "Tank" in Buffalo Puppy chow for a full year.. til they're full grown.

People seem to forget the division they play in... it's not easy, even with these upgrades. They have a chance now, that's how I see it.

Thought I saw it reported he had a full NMC. So he's here unless he doesn't want to be here. Gotta feel better. It's a 1 year shot to see what they can do. It's not going to be easy with the way the division stacks.. their division seems to be the toughest in hockey right now.

So now one player has come to Buffalo because of Kevyn Adams and one has come because of Ralph Krueger. That's not so bad.

The concept of "concept of" around here is strong.

Please.. please, let that be true. Because I am sure that Cup success lies heavily on a hot goaltender more than anything. He wasn't so hot this year and Bozak and ROR were golfing with the rest of the league.

You underscore my thinking. You want the team to be a positive distraction but at what point do you realize that perhaps this team isn't going to be that and hasn't been that for you? They are on a 9 year drought from the playoffs and have been pretty much a miserable wreck. So, the thing you hope to be that positive distraction is anything but, so now it just adds to the rest of the supposed misery and is not a release. Instead it's amplifying the other issues.

It would seem so. I'm not sure how people who are so fanatical about a hockey team to let it affect them to this point could ever speak ill of fanatics in other disciplines. This is just a game.

You keep crackin' me up more and more. You might want to buy one of these: https://www.amazon.com/Cat-Nine-Tail-Scourge-Whip/dp/B01M7SS161

All depends on what happens with him. Montour is 26 now. He turns 27 next April. He's a UFA next year. He could go to arbitration and potentially get less money or just sign a 1 year deal and get $3.85M and be a UFA next year.. because he would be anyway. The Sabres can still move him and with him locked in at $3.85M it might be easier than if he had been awarded more. Both sides get something in this deal and Montour was going to be a UFA regardless after next season unless he signed on longer.

No. What you state could be the case, but do you then think it's case where he stated his number, the Sabres said see ya, and then moved on? Could be. Ultimately ends up making a paltry sum but by the time he found his value in FA the Sabres had moved on. Overall I gotta hand it to those posters on here who are checking in multiple times a day just to make derisive comments on anything that happens or gets reported. It must take a certain level of self-loathing to put yourself through that.