TrueBlueGED

It did shore up the bottom six, insofar as it upgraded it.. It just did so while also blowing a giant hole in the top-6. Not great. I definitely forgot about the Russia thing. I suspect he was acting on his agent's advice, but who knows. On the second point, we definitely agree. That would've been freaking hilarious.

Aaaaahhhh gotcha. Definitely missed your point there.

I think that's a given. Where I conflict with other people is with respect to how that dynamic manifests itself on the ice. I don't even disagree that the locker room last year was a tire fire. I suspect it was. I also suspect it's that way for any team that finishes with fewer than 60 points. Many people think the locker room contributed to that record. I think the causality is reversed: the terrible team led to a dysfunctional locker room. It's a debate that I doubt goes away any time soon.

Personally, I think the very notion of flagging somebody for signing an offer sheet is a problem. I totally get that it's unique and its uniqueness may raise an eyebrow, but I think that's more of a systemic thing than an individual player thing. Did anyone ever call Shea Weber a me-first guy for signing the Philly offer sheet? Or question his locker room presence as a result? I'm always fascinated by how some players get stuck with a label, while others do the same thing, and escape it.

I definitely don't expect 70 points out of Mittelstadt this season. But I absolutely think he's going to be an all-star level player (if we're ever good enough to have more than the mandatory 1 player sent to the game) in a few years.

I'm absolutely picking Eichel over O'Reilly as well. I just quibble with the notion it was an either-or proposition while suggesting that if it had to be an either-or proposition, that probably doesn't speak well of leadership of the guy who remains.

You're coming dangerously close to a Pi-level line of thought here :p Anyway, I think every athlete is a me-first guy when it comes to contracts. And I don't begrudge them that at all. I admire those who take discounts to help the team, but by no means should it be the expectation, nor should we infer that those who want to maximize their value are inherently bad teammates.

Minny did buy him out. Frankly, I view that trade as Scandella for Foligno, as Ennis and Pominville are a wash for terribleness. If we needed the cap space, I suspect Pominville might also have been bought out.

I'm as annoyed as anyone today, and I definitely don't think we make a playoff push in light of this trade. BUT. Our goaltending was below replacement level. If we just get league average tending, and literally nothing else improves, we'll see a decent jump in points. I also wouldn't be surprised (note, I wouldn't bet on it) if Mittelstadt has a Keller-like rookie season. Kid is a stud. Dahlin, even as a rookie, upgrades our blue line. Housley might improve in year 2. I think some of the other kids could surprise. I don't expect Reinhart to look like an AHL player for half the season. And I'm also not banking on Eichel suffering another sprained ankle. We can be better, and still bad. In fact, that's what I think happens. I eagerly await people attributing the betterness to the locker room, while I point to everything I just said as the reasons. Fun times ahead on Sabrespace! :lol:

My snark about the NCAA and American stuff aside, that's my guess as to what happened.

Engineered his exit? He used the means available to him (offer sheet) to squeeze Colorado to pay him his value. It's not his fault Colorado was cheap and didn't want to pay him more than Duchene.

Jack Eichel signed an 8-year, $80 million contract. He's ostensibly going to get the C. If he had to be told to be a leader, we're probably in bad shape on that front.

The others who had the A are still here, though. If one guy was that big of an influence, does it really speak well to the others who wore the letters? Put differently, is somebody who has to be told "it's your turn" to lead much of a leader? Don't true leaders grab the bull by the horns?

But again, this is half of my point. His market value to other teams is (or was, as the case may be) lower than his on-ice value to the Sabres. It's fair market value, but not equal on-ice value, in my estimation. Obviously Botterill disagrees with that assessment. We'll see how it plays out. But just because the market "spoke" doesn't mean it was a smart move to pull the trigger on. The market speaks all the time and is wrong as often as it's right in sports.

"If Subban was so good why did Montreal want to trade him..." "If Seguin was so good....." (yea yea Chiarelli) "If Richards and Carter were so good..." "Richards and Carter had to go for 'the room'...." Good players getting traded for less than they're worth on the ice, in the moment, due to various circumstances happens all the time. O'Reilly's contract isn't unfair for what he brings on the ice, but at the same time, not a ton of teams can just afford to add $7.5 million to the cap. Additionally, it being bonus-laden would deter some ownership groups. We had to work with a team A) looking to win now, B) with the cap space, C) with ownership willing to pay the bonuses, and D) in need of a 2nd line center. There's not a ton of overlap with those four things.

But at the same time, you can't reasonably begrudge people reacting emotionally in the moment. It might make things a pain to read through, but it's sort of like complaining that people are emotional in a GDT. As to how the picks are used, I predict he...uses them. Which as Taro said, would have been totally fine...3 years ago. It isn't fine now.

It took Colorado 4 season to be "better" without him, and they still haven't reached the point total they had in his final season there.

"If Taylor Hall was so good and Adam Larsson so bad, why did Taylor Hall only yield Adam Larsson? Maybe Hall just isn't as good as you think." Still interesting?

Right. We got a lot of pieces, which is why a bunch of pundits are thinking it was "a haul." But none of those pieces is actually good.

Of course, there have been perfectly reasoned posts as to why this is a bad thing, and level-headed explanations as to why it's disappointing (see: the competitiveness timetable), but you choose to ignore those things. Shocking, that.

You're our resident wet blanket. I really don't think you should be the one to tell people to stop voicing their negativity.

And I'll give one of mine to replace yours if it buys us that second year :lol: Really though, this notion that Toronto is in some kind of cap trouble is pretty much just wishful thinking. They still have $13.7 million in cap space this year ($19 million once the season starts and Horton is put on LTIR). Even after Nylander signs an Ehlers-like Contract, they'll have around $7 million (Almost $13 million with Horton on LTIR). Grundstrom, Liljegren, Johnsson, and Dermott are on ELCs or cheap bridge contracts for ~3 more years each, on average. Hainsey's $3 million is off the books after this season. Yes, they'll have to pay Marner and Matthews next year, but it's not hard to do with their situation.

And? I'm genuinely not sure the point you're making here. Pominville scored 34 points on a 106-point Minnesota team. They still couldn't wait to get rid of him. He came here and continued to suck. Sometimes bad players play roles on good teams while actually being bad.

Because it's your sworn duty as a Sabres fan. You might lose the war, but it's one that must be fought!

Give me Compher and Zadorov, please. It's this kind of weak logic that made people think Hall for Larsson was a good move. Trade value simply isn't always (or even usually) equivalent to on-ice value. That O'Reilly's on-ice value was considerably higher than his trade value is a big part of the reason people like me didn't want to trade him.