Thorny

Theodore with an absolute clinic

How did that not go? How? That’s the best save ever

Good play by Lundell Eric Staal scores first. Wow, didn’t think he’d be the guy Bob dialed in early

Eichel buzzing

A former Sabre in the starting line up for the knights in the Stanley cup final. Never thought I’d see it. congrats, will carrier

I wasn’t even hyped for this series and now im doing lines That’s a joke *

Eichel tells Friedman his dad ripped him a new one after Winnipeg game 1 LOL love it

Wayne Gretzky famously said: The NHL season is really 3 seasons: the regular season, the first three rounds, and the Stanley cup final

Tempted to say 6 and play it easy but I’ll go with my gut: Knights in 5

The strike zone in my Jays game today 😭😭😭

There absolutely was a path to success afterwords. The degree of difficulty was just made extreme through the scorched earth process, and viewing the decision to tank at all, as symptom, illustrates the idea that the minds that came up with that horrible strategy were unlikely to be very adept at using those same minds to rebuild it afterwords

Well you’re a better fan than me

Mike Babdick

I feel literally zero guilt where the team is concerned for routing for losses during the tank. They sold the strategy, they sold the product, they are the professionals getting paid to make the decisions. They literally said the plan was suffering, that the plan was losing. Fans who bought in then are acting with no different ultimate intent than those buying in now: we wanted the team to be right. But, truth laid bare....I regret rooting for losses. I regret the affect it had on my mindset. I feel it was harmful and disrespectful to my own psyche as a fan of the team I love. It wasn’t a betrayal of the team, it was a self betrayal and I take personal ownership for buying into a course of action that was a mistake. I feel bad for the fans. In many ways, it led to a path that still presents strains to my fandom, still tests its durability. Never again can that happen

I’m just not sure a Saros is available. If we don’t go out and get Hellebuyck, we probably sign a FA to a 2 year deal or swap a lower pick out the door. In my calculation I’d prefer the 1st for one year of Helle and simply signing a G the following year or paying that outlier pick at that point. Getting Helle doesn’t leave us up sh*tt’s creek (good show) for next season: we can simply go bargain bin hunting for a back up at THAT point rather than now It’s probably not Helle or Saros, it’s probably Helle or another kick at a Comrie-ish can As soon as we start listing real names we’ll see that the risk in those guys even being good is greater than the risk of giving up a pick. Having mediocre goaltending next season is a risk much more alive and well than whatever the risks of losing one more pick in a very deep pool are

If you’ve seen the movie K-Pax, you’d know the universe and everything in it is going to constantly re-run itself for eternity: so the discussion will stop...for a time.

Fair enough. Good discussion.

I’m actually asking why 1 full season term is bad but 2 seasons is goldilocks. Why? Why does 2 years fit just right when 1 is *completely unacceptable*. Because that’s what you are saying, 1 is a non-starter, but 2 (when, btw, you enter into the “rental” scenario when you get to the final year of that deal) is completely acceptable. What is the actual explanation for why the second year makes the time frame acceptable when a one year time frame is insufficient?

That’s all arbitrary. Those aren’t actually official definitions, though. So any one year contract signed is a “rental” contract? as far as I’m concerned “rental” has always referred to players acquired at the deadline

So basically you think Hellebuyck probably buys the Sabres a playoff series victory we won’t otherwise have without him, so rather than pay a first to acquire that you’d sooner pay, I dunno, a 2nd, get some other stop gap, and lose round 1. Would you consider this accurate?

If we trade for a G with 2 seasons left, why isn’t that considered a rental? Actually asking. That’s not the window we intend to win the Cup in, apparently, is it? Why is 2 years ok but 1 isn’t? 1 year rental is a thing, 2 year rentals are not a thing? Like what they heck is even a “rental” lol. Did we just rent out 05-06 as legit cup contenders, it only being 1 year nullifies the experience? It’s better to add a significantly inferior goalie to the equation for 2 years, rather than a Vezina goalie for 1? Who are we acquiring that’s good enough that 2 seasons of runway for that goalie gives us a better shot than 1 year with a Vezina guy? these are all legitimate questions I’m asking

I mean that Hellebuyck standing on his head was the reason they gave up less goals the play of Hellebuyck in winnipeg is WELL documented beyond one solitary Rick Bowness season

Winnipeg’s forwards aren’t good defensively

Where do you see the Sabres finishing WITHOUT Hellebuyck next season? And don’t give me some vague answer. You are pretty hard line in saying Hellebuyck getting us beyond round 2 is a “small” (unlikely) target Do you have the likely ending spot as first-round exits?

Framing my position as looking for merely immediate success is inaccurate, and adds more to the ever increasing pile of comments along the lines of “you aren’t patient enough.” The entire reason I’m good with the deal is because it does NOT harm the LT success. I just think, that long term success has to actually START. I’m not going to plan for a decade long window, that would be absolutely foolish. Those runs are exceptionally uncommon. “No thanks to playoffs, I’ll take a decade and 4 cups” isn’t a convincing stance. Our window will probably be several years. Yes, I do think our window is now open rather than existing in some vague, unreadable Future we are still trying to protect without diving into