Bullwinkle III

Well it looks as if Danny isn't coming back here. Supposedly Nashville, NJ, and Montreal are on his shortened list. I'm thinking Mtl. We don't need Clarkson at this point and shouldn't match the price he would want.

He's a seasoned vet that knows the game well and has a very approachable personality. Everyone likes this guy and I think he would be eager to help the kids grow up. However I think he'd rather win a Cup first. Stop yanking our chains. No way that happens.

You and I think alike! We also agree on Horton. What we need are old vets who can help the younger kids. I remember how Schoenfeld used to talk about Tim Horton with great affection because he taught him how to play D in the NHL. That's the kind of tutor/student relationship Darcy is trying to bring in here. Horton doesn't fit, but Briere might (although at this point in his career, I see Briere going to a Cup contender like Mtl).

Miller needs to be traded this summer. Waiting until the season starts is stupid. Miller will be worth less as he plays behind a poor team and GMs will know that the Sabres have to trade him or else face another Briere/Drury situation. I know Darcy doesn't want to trade Miller to an Eastern Conference team, but he may have no choice. LI & Philly are still the top contenders in my book. Vanek can be had for Darcy's price come trade deadline because there will be teams out there gearing up for the payoffs and will overpay. Sorry - should have put this on the Vanek/Miller thread.

Does the coach have anything to do with that do you think?

I think anyone who criticizes Regier should thank the stars Holmgren isn't running this team. It's always a circus in Philly.

There is really only one guy I think the Sabres should be interested in...if indeed he becomes a free agent...and that is Brunner. Guys like Iginla, Riberio, etc. want to play for a contending team. Brunner is a kid who can help this club score - something they aren't very good at.

Why do we want to be in the playoff race? We would have no chance. I thought the idea was to build through the draft. Therefore you need top picks. Therefore, you need to stink. That's why trading Miller & Vanek would help. How else can you get an elite player if you don't have the first, second or third picks?

What are you looking forward to? I'm just curious. Seeing what Armia can do? Enroth playing more? After that, I can't think of anything to look forward to. And I expect our team to perform worse than this past season, especially if we trade Vanek & Miller (which I think we should do). The additions of McBain and Ristolainen won't change anything IMO. Regarding Darcy, I thought his performance in last year's draft was excellent! Grigs & Girgs - I couldn't be happier! The year before I thought his choice of Kassian was awful, which is what I think of his choices this year when considering who he could have had. So when he does well IMO, I'm singing his praises. If not, I'll call it the way I see it.

I can empathize with you. There is really nothing to look forward to. It would have been nice to see Nichushkin fly down the wing and barge to the net, but I've talked enough about that. Let's hope Armia can adapt to NHL sized rinks and handle the speed. This concern over Grigorenko is valid. Take a look at Montreal's Galchenyuk, a fellow Russian. Now HE shows definite promise as a nr. 1 center and was drafted the same year. If that were Grigs, I wouldn't be worried at all.

A ridiculous opinion - in YOUR opinion.

You couldn't help but take some very good hockey players, it was like shooting fish in a barrel. Unfortunately I think we took the wrong ones.

You're going to have to help me out here. What is a VOX test? I had changed my mind about Horvat. In the past couple of days I saw him in a new light and realized that he would be an excellent addition to any team and stated so here. He could rise to the Monahan/Lindholm tier. By ignoring two game-changing players, either one of whom we had a need for, they indeed dropped the ball. Those kind of guys aren't going to be found in picks 5-10 of next year's draft. Next year's draft won't be as deep and good forwards will be much harder to obtain. You won't get them in free agency either.

Agreed...the idea is to win a Cup. So how exactly do you plan on doing that without scoring? Everyone is down on Regier because this organization hasn't produced. As one of Regier's proponents, I have often touted his trading ability and his acquisition of Grigs and Girgs in last year's draft. But this year's draft was a downer. Sorry, but we have more potential NHL defensemen in the queue than we do forwards. And there were good forwards to be had with their two picks. I do not see why we didn't take them instead of what scouting said were the BPA.

I'm with you 100%. After his "suffering" speech, Darcy needed to bring some excitement to the fans. He needed to get Nichushkin, which would have really energized the entire franchise. Instead he flopped...badly. Sure Ristolainen could turn out to be a good defenseman but Dmen do not sell tickets, and rarely do they cause excitement. Who do we have in the system for forwards? Armia is untested on a smaller rink and his future is uncertain. Next? No one. Girgensons is not a scorer and is more along the lines of Horvat. The Sabres franchise badly needed a jolt of energy. They had their chance, and dropped the ball.

I'm not impressed, but what do you expect from the 2nd round? Fucale?

I've often thought that of Bucky and Sullivan. Put their heads together and you might come up with one brain. I stress might.

This is my summary of what happened and why: Here's the bottom line. As long as the radical right believes that God is on their side on social issues, they won't budge. They will be adamantly pro-life, anti-birth control, against equal pay, and a belief that the proper place for a woman is at home cooking dinner. They formulate this paradigm through their churches and their interpretations of the Bible. Since they believe it's God's will, nothing will sway them into compromise. As long as this radical wing holds control, the Republican party will gradually atrophy into a vestigial political force. Sure, they'll still be represented by congressmen and senators from the red states (only the reddest of red) but as the demographics of this country change, they will be progressively marginalized. Their only hope is for the moderates to regain power and steer the party to the center. I have no idea when or if this is possible, but for now there are enough of the radical right who think that they lost because their candidate wasn't conservative enough. Thinking like that will keep the Dems in power.

Hi Guys, just thought I'd stop by and see how things are going on this thread. Well, I don't want to say "I told you so..." but... Actually I cheated. My wife is a professional psychic (no kidding) and in 2011 she told me Obama would win this election. BTW she said this past summer that the NHL would have a lockout and it would last all year. I can't recall the last time she was wrong, so while the election is fantastic news, the lockout isn't. Anyway...yesterday was a victory for democracy and for the country! I am truly happy!!!

If you want to compare the economic situation at the time compared to now, yes it is!

This bill would cost NOTHING! It was already paid for. Even if the jobs were temporary, they were jobs, weren't they? And yes, pre-9/11 vets were excluded - something that legislators agree should be changed. There is no reason this bill shouldn't have been passed. But tell me why, after helping to craft the bill to their liking, the Republicans voted against it? The answer is obvious - stop all job programs under Obama. That's why his American Jobs Act is still sitting in the House after one full year. The House prefers to earn its pay voting against ObamaCare 30+ times. As far as Obama traveling to Denver, one thing you didn't consider. Unlike Romney, Obama has another job.

ROTFL !!!!!

As a fellow vet, I'm surprised you would think that way. Are you aware of how the Republicans stopped the Veteran's Jobs Bill which they themselves helped to create? It would have given 2million jobs to vets. Obama has done a lot to help vets. Republicans, not so much. Regarding the debate, Al Gore made an interesting comment. He mentioned how Obama arrived in Denver at 2pm, while Mitt had already spent several days there. Obama was tired, suffering from jet lag, and of course the rarefied air didn't help. As a neuro-lingusitic specialist, I focused on their non-verbals. Romney was hyped up, prepared, and ready for a fight. Obama looked and acted tired (perhaps because of Gore's reason) and failed to make eye contact. His head-down posture appeared to me as if he couldn't wait to get this over with and go to bed. While I think that the Obama plan was to simply act presidential and contrast this with Romney's behavior, the plan failed. Meanwhile Romney acted like a bully to Jim Lehrer several times to the point of rudeness. I guess you can't take the bully out of the boy. In addition, and even more frustrating, were the lies he came up with. On issues where he would have a difficult time in terms of an explanation (e.g. 5 trillion in tax cuts without affecting the deficit) he simply washed his hands of any such proposal! I'm sure the Obama people were flustered by this unexpected tactic. However to Obama's discredit, he didn't press Romney on any of his lies. I expect Obama to rebound...and he will still win in November.

I believe you are correct. The GOP has allowed the radical right wingers (aka tea party) to take over and this has caused chaos in the party. Moderates like Snowe simply resign. Romney, who is (at least I THINK he is) a moderate, is forced to feed red meat to the baggers and run from the center, which then alienates the independents. If he didn't feed the base, they'd abandon him and he'd have no realistic chance of winning. So he's damned if he does and damned if he doesn't. And this is what we now have in America - two parties, a moderate liberal and an intractable radical right, squaring off against each other where everyone is forced to take sides. Compromise = Defeat is the new theme amongst the baggers. Their candidates openly state that their form of compromise is to convince the other side to join them. Tip O'Neill is probably rolling over in his grave! With a situation like that, the door is open for a third party, if it appealed to the independents and was well funded. But failing that, we're going to be looking at stagnation in Washington, the likes of which I've never seen (and I've seen a lot).

Of course the shenanigans in Ohio had a lot to do with the results. The head of Diebold promised Ohio to Bush before the election even started. But Kerry (the only candidate in history to whom I actually donated money) partially caused his own demise by not responding to the Swift Boat propaganda. He considered it too absurd to acknowledge and it killed him. He beat Bush hands down in the debates. It truly is a shame because he is a fine man. The two politicians I respect the most are Kerry and George McGovern. As this campaign slides inexorably towards Obama, there is quite a bit of interest down the ticket. Dems who should have no chance of winning are now in dead heats. States like N. Dakota and Arizona are surprisingly close. It seems Obama has coattails. It appears the Dems will still control the Senate. Question is, do they have the impetus to retake the House? That's where the drama lies.