DeleteThisAccount

thanks. i appreciate that. and i did donate locally. jw

not to suggest that there have or haven't been discussions, there is a sense i get that people shouldn't be surprised if Mark Pysyk gets moved at some point before the start of next season. jw

i'm not sure what we're disagreeing over. you suggest i changed my story: i didn't. you suggested i did what "mediocre public figures often do:" as if i'm not supposed to take some offense to that. you then called me out by writing: "Wawrow, if you're reading this: why must you be such a dick?" hey, you brought up the question, i simply responded with some answers you didn't exactly like or agree with. guess i'm just being a dick again. jw

admittedly it's been a while since i've been here, but with a bit of a free day, i popped in to see what was being discussed, when this McKenzie thread was at the top of the list. i obviously perused through it and saw what Hoss had written. and then i did a search for my name, and saw that 2nd thread that came up after this one also had Hoss questioning something i did or didn't do. i'm barely on TBD these days either because these exercises just get tiresome. i've been wrong more than a few times, but i'm completely befuddled as to how this whole Stamkos thing went sideways. it was hardly a scoop, and nothing that was enough for me to write an actual story about. but i thought i was simply adding a tidbit into the conversation regarding the Sabres position toward Stamkos. and now i've got someone else misinterpreting what i tweeted, and once again attempting to inform me what i wrote. ... shrug. jw

Thanks for that. jw

not often enough, i guess. jw ADD: or too often, perhaps.

odd, i've just further explained myself in regards to what happened on Saturday, something i've not done anywhere else. from my perspective, it seems you're upset because the long run of taking pot-shots against me -- much like the Ghost of Dwight Drane -- did don't stand up to scrutiny when the person you're attacking actually responds. once again, i don't know who you are. i do feel that i should have the right to defend myself when called out. as for the "constructive criticism" you suggest, there certainly doesn't seem to be a hint of that in what you wrote. so, ummm, thanks? jw

ah, let's go over this point by point and i'll try not to use capital letters: "This just made everything ten times worse. Me responding to you is making a mistake because, due to your mildly well-known name as a reporter, everybody will back you up... But your report makes absolutely no sense. You say McKenzie has a good lay of the land regarding the Sabres/Stamkos discussion. Bob comes back DIRECTLY TO YOU and tells you he isn't saying anything about a Sabres/Stamkos discussion. It was essentially a game show. Based on your brief breakdown of the discussion a more appropriate tweet would've excluded any connection from the Sabres to Stamkos as nothing related to the Sabres was being reported by McKenzie. Your tweet indicates that what he said on TSN was an example of his grasp on the situation surrounding Stamkos AS IT RELATES TO THE SABRES." yes, Bob tweeted that this came from a quiz show. and then, after i explained to him the genesis of my 2 tweets, Bob responded: "all good, John. I just saw people saying I "reported" something and the Quiz is a long way from a report." note, i never said that Bob "reported" anything. "I'm sure Bob McKenzie has as good a grasp on Stamkos as anybody outside of Stamkos' life and Tampa Bay." yes. "Also nobody here said you said it was a done deal. Don't get your Twitter battles mixed up with what's going on here. The person that persistently claimed you did was a fool for doing so and your badgering/quote tweet bullying of him only made him look more foolish." right, the fact that some people have difficulty comprehending what i tweeted, and persistently backing up their lack of comprehension, is my fault. not sure if i agree that i made the one person look any more foolish than he actually was. "The initial tweet is irrelevant to the discussion because the discussion is specifically about the Bob McKenzie tweet. And you say you only credited Bob because he started the conversation but then the conversation you represented in your post is exclusively about Bob McKenzie." don't change the goal posts here, as it seems that you are the one attempting to revise the discussion. you came at me by citing only my second tweet without including the first one. that this thread is about what McKenzie said is immaterial. you brought up my discussion, took full and complete issue with it, and failed to provide the necessary perspective. i simply pointed out what had been missed. that you should take issue with this is once again not my fault but yours. "I think you missed on this one." if you say so. And your long attack on GoDD probably would've gotten a suspension at least for many. But I don't actually think you'd be banned. My comment was about somebody saying my post about you could be ban worthy. Neither of us should be banned for our comments, but if one of us would be the other certainly crossed whatever imaginary line is drawn. i took no offense, but it's quite clear you're more than quick to jump on the anti-jw bandwagon at the drop of a hat as this is not the first instance that has happened. i don't have an agenda toward you, though it's quite apparent the opposite isn't so. "I value you as a reporter in Buffalo sports. One of the very select few I think has legitimate sources and is willing to go to the dirty places for a small scoop (I know this to be true). But I think you're just as grumpy as the rest and far too condescending/defensive with those who know far less than you. It's a big world with a lot of people. There are few shared experiences between certain people so shaming them on twitter by making their ignorance public instead of just ignoring it is wrong." not sure what you mean about "dirty places." if that's a suggestion that i've been unethical, well, i'd be within my rights to defend myself. but since everyone knows who i am, and i don't know who you are, it puts you in a far easier position to make unsubstantiated claims against me. jw

not sure why i needed a mea culpa. the point is, the Sabres haven't ruled out taking a run at Stamkos when/if he becomes available in free agency according to the person i spoke to. and, the way Bob laid out the landscape, it's one the Sabres hope they can use as a selling point. jw

ahh, i see i have a fan in this Hoss person. jw

How convenient it is of you to fail to include the first tweet in all of this: John Wawrow ‏@john_wawrow Feb 13 Buffalo, NY On the surface, #Sabres and Stamkos do make sense. Far from saying it is or isn't gonna happen. at no point did i say this was a done deal. at no point did i change my version or back down. as noted throughout the exchange, the only reason i credited Bob was because he prompted the discussion i had with the person I spoke to. i never once wrote that Bob reported anything. i have only said is that Bob's comments prompted the discussion that took place. since there's more room here than on Twitter, i can say that the discussion went something like this: Me: "What do you make of what Bob McKenzie said about Stamkos and Buffalo. Seems like he might have been blowing smoke up Stamkos' agent." Person (paraphrasing) said: Not so. Bob has a good lay of the land. ... Funny that you use the phrase "blowing smoke," as it was the same phrase I used in my conversation. coincidental or not, i'll repeat that you, as many, misrepresent yourself by failing to include both of my initial tweets on the matter. jw really. why would i be banned? jw

don't hijack the thread. ... oh, right. ... ;) jw i'll be back at some point

i'm confident Tim Murray has a game-plan, but one I'm not privy to, yet. that said, it was likely too early to come up with an exact list until the coach was hired. unlike Ted, the new coach will get some input on the roster. i'd expect at leat one splash to happen. the one thing i keep coming back to is what someone proposed on GR, regarding the Sabres targeting Oshie. i find that one intriguing, though there is nothing to say they will. simply a guess. jw that's exactly what the conflict was. the rest of Canada got the Women's World Cup, from Moncton to Vancouver, while Toronto/Hamilton got the Pan-Am Games. Ottawa's not that far of a drive and really, neither's Montreal. i anticipate the U.S. to eventually head east for the knockout games, which is why I'll be moving west to Edmonton, because we'll have our soccer writer sticking with the U.S., while others fill in the blanks. looking forward to it, but i've still got a combine, some Stanley Cup final blogging and a Bills mandatory minicamp to get through, let alone what LeSean McCoy might have to say about Chip Kelly on Wednesday. i'm good with me being me on this board. it's worked on the Bills one for good and a little ill, but nothing i can't handle. and much like the Bills board, i won't be sharing any "insider" scoop stuff. and i wouldn't be comfortable doing that anonymously either, because why should i scoop myself? my loyalty is to The AP and it's subscribers, after all, they're the ones who pay the bills. all that said, got some free time right now to post and answer a few questions. but this is going to be a very irregular excercise. ... dangit, i can never spell that word right, ever. jw wait, never deleted any Twitter posts over that. none. i merely apologized to Paul that my posts were not at all directed at him and in no way were meant to disrespect him. my point then -- and i know it wasn't entirely clear -- was it was my contention that 'GR was under-reporting the Bylsma news on its 20-20 updates, while hinting something was coming. whether that was the case, i'm not sure, but that was my contention rightly or wrongly. it was never meant to throw Paul under any bus. he is a very respected colleague. jw

i certainly don't read it that way. i have plenty of respect for Paul Hamilton, and that he can't get this is an indication that there is also a script and plan in place. jw

as just noted on a certain social media site, a certain local radio -- and sabres -- flagship station finds itself in a very tough spot with its relationship with the team. how wgr is citing "reports" of a deal being "close," and has done very little of it's own reporting overnight on this is a bad look and sound. to know and not report because of partnership rules certainly dents reputation. jw

you'll soon come to regret this. jw thanks for the support. truly appreciated.

. jw just did. in that post above. did it not go through? jw :P

sources? jw

it was an unfiltered "subtweet" in my opinion. but there were many inside the Sabres organization that had soured on Ted Nolan. jw

folks: sorry for a late introduction. joined this board out of pure spite, but that gets quite dull pretty quick. so don't think i'm going to toy with that one poster no more. it's far too easy pickins. (oops, sorry, this is the last). won't make any other promises besides that, but hope to post here a little more regularly -- though don't hold me to what "regular" means, given the busy stretch i've got coming up with the combine coming, and then bills-land doings and a lengthy assignment covering the women's world cup of soccer, from ottawa to edmonton, and maybe a piece on mcdavid's arrival in oiler-ville. but since i'm a member of this unruly mob of a board, i figured i'd say "hey" during a relatively sober moment. jw

yes, he did. trust me, that comment jumped out at me immediately when i heard it. jw

such a hot take. i'm whelmed. jw

It'll be a couple of weeks. I expect end of May at the latest. There's enough interest and enough time for Babcock to determine his options, and what's best. The Red Wings also want an answer soonish, so they can also move forward with our without Mike. jw

trust me, the Sabres did not want this out. this isn't leverage either on Babcock's behalf. he is testing the waters placing a priority on: -- a team's readiness to win. -- comfort level with ownership and management. jw

it "needs" to be on WGR? you're utterly delusional to think that's gonna fly. please. since we're employing our imaginations, why not up the ante and ride into the press conference on flying pink elephants, with cheerleaders in our laps. why should i care if you've ever been employed by the sabres, or who your uncle is. all i know, is you've been liberally calling out my reputation on this board for years, with plenty of hot gumption and no substance. i call you out, and this is what you come back with. it took you an hour or so to cobble this out? silly ideas and ellipses. geez, you can barely form a complete sentence. how disappointing as i thought you might have been clever. shameful. jw