kas23

You can almost replace Murray's name with Whaley's and it would read the same. In fact, to take the analogy a step further, I bet he wants to fire DD and Pegs is vetoing him. And, like Whaley, he'll be protected when Pegs finally decides to fire DD after next season. The Bills are almost like a crystal ball.

So he hasn't been discharged?

I'm a rheumatologist, who has many patients with neurologic manifestations. Knowing that Kyle is in the ICU is very worrisome to me. I really hope this is nothing and the caution being taken is due to him being a professional athlete.

True. Maybe they just want him to gain some perspective. See what all this work is for. They probably expect him to have his ass handed to him.

Same thing was done with Rinehart and many, many young players. Give him a taste of what the NHL is all about and have him identify what he needs to work on. This is not a surprise.

The another question could be, why aren't more players ambidextrous like in lacrosse?

Thanks! The other question I have is how do they actually keep track of these minutes? They do it for every player and for both teams. Does someone have to watch the game over with a stop watch(es) in hand and have to account for everyone coming and leaving from the bench.

I have a question. Why are minutes played followed as a stat? A follow-up question, why would we be looking for a defender that can "eat up minutes". Doesn't this heavily depend on his defensive teammates and the scheme the team runs. And I can think of many crappy defensive players that play many minutes. Why would we then care about minutes?

I think the term "tank" is just thrown around a little bit too much. I just think that to earn this label, the coach has to be in on it in the very least. And Teddy never ever bought in to it. GMTM was 1 person who could possibly be guilty of "tanking", but he was still just one person vs a coach and his entire team. And these players were adults, hardly that impressionable. It could've been worse, GMTM could've assumed coaching duties or he could've sent Risto to the Amerks like other truly tanking teams have done in the past. It's just not that clear and whether it caused a "cloud" to form over these players is even less clear as most of the players from those years are gone.

Interesting. Another question: do you really think we "tanked"? Let's define "tank" as purposely losing. I think we can agree GMTM wanted to purposely lose, but do you think Teddy and the guys actually playing the games actually "tanked"?

Serious question: would you not tank and not have Eichel or tank and have Eichel?

There's no way this man survives that place alive. There's just no way a guy can coach such a horrible team for so long before getting the axe.

Oh gosh. Gorges is the best example of how this team should be playing?

Either way, it was an odd answer to the question. People in his position usually say stuff like "scoring my first goal", "adjusting to the new system", or "playing against tougher competition". He chose "bus cleaning" as the best answer to that question. Either there's some entitlement attitude or perhaps he is being hazed or he's dim.

That was such a beautiful story. Thanks for sharing.

And right there Murray just killed any residual trade value Kane hds. Who's going to want to trade for a player his GM is publicly saying he has serious concerns? This is from the BN article: "Murray also was hesitant to embrace a contract extension for Kane, who has another year on his deal. The GM is not ready to believe the left winger has put his off-ice issues behind him. Kane and the Sabres can talk extension beginning July 1. “I’d be open to that. I’m not sure I’m going to do that." Murray said. “There’s a lot of bridges to cross before that time. But would I be open to it in a scenario where a couple things he has going on off the ice go away and stuff like that, absolutely.” If the player's own GM has open doubts about trying to resign him, what GM in their right mind is going to offer up to get him? If I just see it now "Hey Timmy, why are you trying trade him? Did those off-ice issues you spoke about in March never disappear?"

The message is there's no I in team. The team isn't composed of one individual. And if he doesn't want to re-sign with us, it says if you don't want to be a Sabre, you'll get shipped out. And I agree, Kane likely has no real value. You can say Eaves went for a conditional 2nd. I'll pass on that every day of the week, unless we get a defensive player back.

I don't think it matters what he's done over the last eight seasons. The Ducks are gearing up for a playoff run and all that matters will be his production during the 16-17 playoffs. That said, his production this year has been awfully similar to Kane.

Geez. Are we really overinflating the value of Evander Kane on here?

Wouldn't the upcoming expansion draft be a reason for more trades? Teams may want to get value for players who would otherwise leave for nothing. There's also the angle of picking up an expansion draft decoy.

This is probably the best reason presented. Sure, a team looking to make a SC run may not want to give up productive contributors. But, when a team is stacked with D and has an anemic offense, they're going to want to balance that team out. Balanced teams with great depth are the ones that go deep into the playoffs.

Why are people saying Kane would best be dealt in the offseason? Wouldn't a desperate team be more likely to overpay during the season?

That, and I don't think his current pace is sustainable, from a skill point and injury point. It'll be a risky contract.

I think we need to ask ourselves: why is Kane the leading scorer on our team? We have other offensive firepower on this team, but for some reason they are not bearing fruit. Why is this? I don't know much about hockey as most on here, but I think it has something to do with DD's dump & chase system, which some say is a direct result of our subpar defense. So, if we improved our defense, like GMTM should've done during the offseason, will this lead to a more opened-up offense? Or, assuming we get a 1st-pair D, could the loss of Kane be offset by a more opened-up offense?

True. If they weren't sitting on their butts watching games, I'd wonder what they heck they actually do.