LTS

I'm not sure how anyone could support him and not find themselves labeled as being a supporter of racist ideals. He's beyond the rocker at this point.

He's nothing more than an Internet commentary guy with some data analytics experience. Went to RIT. I presume looking to make his way into sports management of some kind in some way.. if he's not already performing some level of data gathering, etc. I haven't talked to him directly in a few years.

Ryan Stimson. He's into analytics. He wrote a book on hockey tactics, etc. https://www.amazon.com/Tape-Space-Redefining-Modern-Tactics/dp/1790480493 The last section of the book is about his season with Perinton Youth hockey. His writings are about my son's hockey team as he was an assistant coach. He's a good guy.

See, if you wait then you can't have an event now and then hold every one in suspense while the determination for #1 plays out. That's the beauty of it all. The NHL has people talking now and they will continue to talk until the #1 pick is determined... then people will continue to talk about how stupid the whole process is. The entire time the NHL will be relevant, even if for no other reason than being a joke. I do wonder however if the top 16 had been in the playoffs and the team in the #12 spot had moved up to #1 if people would be as upset with the whole process. Effectively that's what happened... it's just that the NHL decided it would be cool to block off those outside the bottom 7 and give them equal chances at the first pick. Which, in and of itself, is certainly worth scrutiny. Either way, the lottery system is a joke. The good news is that I felt absolutely no emotion last night when I watched.. in fact I kept asking myself if I even care anymore. Between the Sabres lack of success and having hockey (and all sports really) taken away for the past few months I find myself apathetic to sports in general.

For what it's worth.. I don't find any of them to be all that terrible. But if the intention is to bring discourse up a notch, I think they are on equal footing with regards to not achieving the goal. Overall I find dismissive language to be off-putting. It doesn't invite conversation. If someone says something I'd like to think they had reasons for saying it, even if they didn't provide them. I mean, except when its a clear case of trolling. No big deal overall. Also.. the core. To me it's Eichel, Skinner, Reinhart, Dahlin, Ullmark, Okposo, and I hope Larsson. Okposo is undoubtedly making more money than his role on the team but I don't see an argument for him not being well respected and a leader on the team.

Yes. People swoon over Makar, and he's good, but it helps when the opposition has to worry about the forwards that Colorado has. They can't pressure the D as much as they'd like without worrying about a simple flip pass setting loose a serious rush. The Sabres don't carry that same threat.... Dahlin is good.. exceptionally good. But even the best D isn't going to dominate a game without the team having some other threats on the ice to occupy the opposition.

Nah, winning the lottery when not in last place is okay. I mean, not making the playoffs is bad... certainly.. but being last is the pathetic and being last and not winning the lottery is worse...

Yes. NFW puts your estimation of possibility of someone's idea at a solid 0%. I would think that's the equivalent of saying, "What a stupid idea" or "you are a fool to suggest that". Examples: There's NFW the Sabres <...>. Why would you think the Sabres would <...>? That's just stupid. You're being quite stupid if you think the Sabres <...>. You are a fool for thinking the Sabres <...>. I read all of those similarly and would argue that saying NFW implies stupidity and foolishness in even making the suggestion. I wish I had been able to respond sooner to your question as much conversation has passed and I'd prefer to not head back that part of it, but I felt it would be good to respond. Has there been a core?. It's more like a concept at this point... and mostly because I don't think anyone considers anyone to have a core until the team actually wins.

Guess he's staying in Buffalo... ? That's good for him.

Sure, he could do the same. He could also cover Checkers and Canes. Keep in mind I am suggesting a radio station pick him up, not the Canes themselves. Just saying he has ties to some people who are Canes media people...

With all due respect, you respond to many posts with "NFW" such and such happens. How is that any less obnoxious? If we are going to ask the poster to do better then I think that applies to many of us on this forum, including me.

He has connections to existing Canes media people there, I know that.

I'm curious if uproots and moves to North Carolina.... Wouldn't be surprised if some radio station down there could use a guy like him to cover the Canes...

I've been in situations where people outside the company know who is being let go and when before anyone inside does. I've also been in situations where no one knew what was coming before it happened. Inside my company I have been moved 3 times without ever having a clue it was coming. I could, just as easily, have been let go. Thankfully the people above me took the steps to talk internally to find a new location for me before it happened. I have known others who were simply let go and then rehired (in a different role and department) the next day when they let everyone know they were let go. These things come in all shapes and sizes and I don't think it's right to subscribe any single situation that can occur to this one. Whatever happened, happened. That said, if you work for a team that has stories coming out about management in disarray and a team that continues to not succeed I am not sure why you would feel any level of job security. Management has to say what they have to say. I've had to toe that line, it sucks. There's no joy in having to blatantly lie to your employees' faces about a situation, but the rules of the game are such that you are required to do so.

Here's where I am at. You've been doing this long enough by now that you should learn how to ignore the few over the many. Most people seek to condemn before they seek to understand. It's easier to just dismiss and attack than it is to stop, contemplate, and inquire for more information. This problem is only magnified when it comes to the line of work you are in. Now, your big problem is taking the posts of a few and lumping them together and constituting that as "the board". Imagine some of us looking at the disingenuous and ignorant articles and rants that your peers make and then just lumping you in with them. Clearly it's not right. Do you want to be held to the standards you project or would you prefer I choose a random Buffalo media personality and just subscribe their standards to you? I think the answer is clear. Conversely, I think by lumping "the board" into the conversation you are asking for people to react, as they should. What exacerbates the problem is how you choose to respond to those who doubt you. You do inflect a tone of superiority against the "lowly board members". By insulting the masses because of the few you force others into a position to either defend themselves from you or to somehow encourage you to stick around. Those who defend themselves add fuel to your fire of "being attacked en mass" and those who encourage you to stick around must do so, so vociferously, that it comes across with some level of idolization, or at the very least, a supplication to you in defense of some projected victimization that, at least to me, is not real. Have people questioned you? Yes. Are they reflective of the masses? I don't think so. Don't disrespect the board by assuming we cannot all read the situation as it is unfolding. Your continuing insistence of a situation is no more, or less, than what you claim others are doing to you. The problem is that you keep referring to the board as being party to these actions when, in fact, it's only a few. I think it's clear why people get upset over that.

Yeah.. a bunch related to Black Lives Matter, Antifa, shootings.. none of which should really be in this thread, but in their own.

There's no reason to not put some level of belief in what is being reported. These types of stories come out regarding college athletics, fraternities, sororities, and other clubs of exclusivity where people want so much to belong or to make it that they are willing to put up with this stuff. It's terrible that people are put in a position of "give up what you love, or be dehumanized"... It's disgusting. There's really no right word for it so I am just going to use disgusting. As for this situation, I've no reason to doubt any of it. Not one bit. It's.... disgusting.

So, if you are feeling burned by the "experienced" hockey people, it's unlikely they were going to hire one who might come in and tell them to hire even more people who won't do anything or whose workloads will be a bit too light. The outside company has a vested interest because they probably want a good review and recommendation from the Pegulas. Perhaps there is more business at stake in other areas with the Pegulas, perhaps other opportunities within hockey. Let's say it works out, people will want to know who that outside consulting group was and how they can bring them in. There's a lot of interest in getting it right. It's not like consultants make their money on a single job.

It's an interesting change, but as more information comes out it begins to make sense. The Pegulas have tried the "old hockey" way since they bought the team. They've had "NHL" people in their ear and in their pockets and nothing has come of it. Certainly this can be because of them and not the "old hockey" people. But they are the owners, they can choose to sell the team, or to cap the Pegula well and cut off the "old hockey guard". With regards to scouting one has to wonder why you need so many these days. If you are going to put stock in analytics then you can easily pull the analytics on players from all over the world. You'll identify the key pieces you are looking for and then you send the scouts to check them out and use the eye test to confirm the data. Better than waiting for one of 30 scouts to "see" something and then find the data to prove what you saw. I'm ambivalent. The Pegulas have not done anything right yet with the Sabres. This is just a change in my book. Could it be worse? I suppose, but not much. If it's better, then great. I certainly expect the "old guard" to be quite critical of the move however.

Hey all, sorry, extremely busy at work. I've barely been around and will likely not be around much over the next few months. I'm not gonna get involved in the conversation, but why are these posts in the Donald Trump thread as opposed to being in their own thread to discuss the topic? Are these moved by the mods? If they were please let me know so I can ask that if they are gonna drop kick posts into this club that they at least not just dump it into a thread to which it doesn't directly apply.

When you pat a duck on the head it sits there. When you pat a goose on the head it chases you around a circle.

Yes, that line is quite clear. It's better than nothing. The real question is how much better? Are people really safe because others are wearing masks or are they saf"er". Which is to say, perhaps they have a 1% less chance because of a mask. So yes, better than nothing, but not necessarily effective. Do you feel safe because someone is wearing a mask when you don't know how effective it is?

The last resort better than nothing wording is from a study in 2017. The social manipulation isn't played out in weeks or months, it's played out in years and decades. The fact that it cannot be explained now does not mean that in 10 years the dots won't be connected. To what end? I honestly don't know. Wearing a mask would certainly screw up face recognition algorithms, but what if the alternative given was, wear a mask or submit to loading a tracking application on your device so your location can be tracked? How many people opt for the mask or the app? That's not really a conversation for this thread, but it's just one potential thought right off the top of my head. See, you have to know this auto mechanic. While they try not to be TOO clear in demonstrating their political leanings, etc. Let's just say they have said enough to demonstrate they firmly fall in the "very conservative, screw Democrats and any social policy that infringes upon my rights group". The quotes were very clearly there because they don't believe in the mask wearing.. hence none of them wearing masks. Imagine that, the guy who drove my car around to test the brakes and then parked it in the lot was not wearing a mask and did not clean my car before leaving it for me to go get in and drive around. Seems like that would go against guidance given in other areas of society and business, but that's exactly what happened.

I wish I had a hot tub to fall into accidentally. ? So, as one would expect, there are articles and conversations every day about the efficacy of cloth masks. They range on both sides. You have statements from respected organizations that say "last resort", "better than nothing". You have others saying "75% effective" "67% effective" ">50% effective". Of course they all come with the "when worn properly and accompanied by good hygiene". There are studies out there trying to figure out what the impact of NOT washing your hands would be while still wearing a mask and vice versa. The studies I accept. They are what I want to see. I want to see those details. But given all the back and forth it begins to wreak of behind the scenes manipulation of society to affect a certain outcome. I have no idea what it would be, but usually these things are tied to longer end game items. I'm not being conspiracy theory like here. I think we all know that messages and initiatives are played out on the public in order to condition responses. This is especially true after large disasters. I wore a mask to my auto shop... I could have figured that none of them would be wearing masks. They have chairs in front of the counter but the sign reads: Putting for your safety in quotes really underscored their belief in things.

I am not questioning these masks. I am questioning the cloth masks that people are wearing around in public. The ones that, depending on the material, the layers, the fit, seal, etc. are all basically unproven to provide any meaningful protection. Your last link is no longer valid so I can't review. 10/2017 - https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/24229526/ - Conclusion: Our findings suggest that a homemade mask should only be considered as a last resort to prevent droplet transmission from infected individuals, but it would be better than no protection. These days there are new studies coming out all the time that point to masks being effective, or not. It's really not about me wearing a mask so much as asking, does it even matter? If they are proven ineffective or for the most part ineffective then a lot of people will be walking out into the world with a false sense of security about how well protected they actually are from this virus. If you have concerns over being infected, do masks really make it okay for you? I don't have concerns, but the question isn't about me. Let's say I wear a mask and ultimately infect someone because I believed it was effective. Do I get a pass on "involuntary manslaughter"? Is it okay that I was wearing a mask or then does someone come back and I get sued because it didn't seal properly or enough or whatever reason. This is why I avoid the whole interaction with people right now. It's not for me, I don't care about getting infected. I don't want to be, but I accept that I will likely be exposed, just as I am every year to influenza, and the outcome will be what it is. I'm living in fear of it and I don't have a reason to live in fear of it. Again, that's me, that's not anyone else.