DarthEbriate

R2 Amerk, you know better than to trust a strange computer take the Sabres game on a blind date.

I guess long-term I'm a bit disappointed in what Pysyk has become. But McNabb was potential 2nd pairing and easily the best player in the trade. Fasching was a 3/4W (maybe a 2W in a perfect light-bulb world) and DLo plays his role well, but is a 4W). And we gave LA back their 2 seconds. And throwaway AHL Parker. Instead we needed to cycle in low-tier D-men like Meszaros to hit the cap floor, then... yeah. That one was a doozy.

+ 2 seconds. Nothing against Deslauriers or Fasching, both likable players. But what a trade.

Well, that's a really good team playing some dynamic hockey we just ran into. What, eight in a row?

The hell? I mean, Montour's stick is there... but what the hell, Marchessault? Keep your skates on the ice!

For a salad! The question was asked before the wings question. He has no frame of reference.

More Rainbows, Sabres!

I promise you you won't die in childbirth. No, I promise you! (that the game will be worth watching)

It's not a favorite so much as a signature. RJ delivers it with a nuance that's really beautiful. Nowdays I almost always watch the game if I can, but during the peak of the tank I'd listen online (not yet subscribed to NHL Center Ice or whatever it's called). And the pause, then "Not out!" was commonplace. RJ also didn't have to really describe the exact action. He gets more and more anxious and agitated the longer a shift gets or the more attempted clears or the better the opposition players on the ice. So --- while making dinner with the radio in the background, for example --- I'd get a very clear mental picture of "Oh crap, this is getting dangerous" vs. "yeah, the Habs kept the puck in, but they're going for a change and it's all good" based on RJ's voice and inflection of the "Not out". (Sadly, Internet radio and local broadcasts weren't a thing back in the '90s-early aughts to hear it with Smehlik. I never knew him as the Grandfather of Not Out.)

"_____ clears it.... Not out!"

Darn good, playoff-level game. Too bad we didn't get it to OT, but alas, even the good ones can be losses. Keep playing that way and we finish strong. Play that way next season and we're in the playoffs. Onward!

Josefson

Charming, to the last.

Ehrhoff was a solid top-4 PMD. He'd be a great player (in his prime) for JBot's roster. His contract wassa bomba bad! (not the 4M/year hit, but the structure.) We were rightfully punished for it. But this reminds me... The Moulson won't be with us, always. Nor the Skinner. Truly, the Ehrhoff is strong in this one.

Meaningful games, playing spoiler, treating March like our playoffs --- this an important step for this young core. There's no moral victory it's still good (playoffs) vs. evil (no playoffs), but a heroic run to 10th (overtaking FLA in particular) would be an important stepping stone for the franchise. It's like any good team that is labeled a dynasty. It rarely happens overnight -- those are usually one-hit wonders/anomalies. The teams with staying power over 5-6 years you can see getting progressively better. Then, a single player may elevate them for the remainder of the time, or get them to the championship, but the foundation is a growth. That's what we need to build this back end of the season, playoffs or not. (Then... if missing the playoffs, win the lottery EDM-style anyway.)

It's all a lot of simple tricks and nonsense. The trouble is with all the new content and no longer the sponge of a 6 year-old's brain and VHS cassettes, I'll never get a great grasp on the Disney era.

So... we're talking Death Sticks and not LSD?

The Geaux side of Louisiana academia is a pathway to many abilities some consider to be... unnatural.

I watched him score two goals in a game once (for Buffalo no less).

So... If Bogo is literally an anti-playoff curse, then the Lightning don't win another game all season and miss the playoffs. Boston takes the division and the Sabres leapfrog FLA to face the Leafs in the first round.

Caveat: This entire post is about forwards only. Part of it is also the roster construction. We're getting better because Jack and Sam are better, but there's also added depth (Olofsson and Skinner have pushed down Girgs to 4LW where he's an ideal player), etc. A top-end roster can handle 2 rookie forwards in the lineup. Ours couldn't last year (Mitts and Thompson). Nor could ours when Jack and Sam were both in the first full year. This year we've only really had Olofsson all year. Mitts got half a season, then Asplund and we had a lot of struggles after the initial burst wore off. Lazar solidified the team. My guess is next year we still can only handle 1 rookie in the lineup: it's probably Cozens. Now the grand question that Mitts and Thompson are over 100 games played --- do they still look like rookies next season? If yes, they've got to be in ROC. If not, then splendid. Let them fight for a spot.

Win-win. Only an AHL-level defenseman can be added this time.

That's one fewer ex-Pen JBot can acquire in a deal with Pitt to regain Sheary....

Just having the offensive awareness and years of practice of deflections on net, plus the drive to the net mindset --- it'll be good. As we saw last game and many times this season, if the goalie can't see for even a moment, Jack (or Olofsson) is going to pull the trigger and likely bury it.

Positive spins on the rookie and other bonuses: 1) Yay! Our rookies are contributing and doing well on their rookie contracts. 2) $2M fewer to spend this offseason means JBot has to spend judiciously on his UFA acquisitions. So instead of picking up a Frolik at $4M, we'd have to find an up-and-comer at $775k. (Granted $2M less makes it harder to overpay that 2C or lock up the people we want, but again, positive spin.)