Thorny

5 1UP! emojis given today, 2 REDEX! emojis given.. you are correct, it’s a little harsher than my normal ratio but that could be circumstantial. - - - You said “kind of”, so maybe there’s some wiggle room for me to work with. I’m not exactly sure how I feel about Hinostroza, tbh. He signed a contract under full knowledge of the fact Rochester was a possibility. Should he not honor it? Actually asking. As far as I know he hasn’t said he doesn’t want to report, this is all hypothetical, anyways. I’m just interested in the idea he should get the choice, now, should he wish to not report. Would that hold true if he was not up front about it, with the team, during the signing process? Was he forward about it? “oh by the way, if I DONT make it, I’m not going to Roch LOL.” At the end of the day I think choice is king so it would be all good, do right by the player, fine, understandable. But I think “earned the right” kind of tripped me up. In so far as anyone has the right to tell any job they don’t want to do to “get bent, keep your cash!”, totally agree. But I don’t think we owe him anything. Not more than other employees. He signed his deal. If they “do right” by him, they are really just “doing right” by the image they want to project to the league. - - - TLDR; The above is my hobby, and I’m formulating an argument for the purposes of discussion. You want the real answer? I gave you a red X because you liked a comment in another thread that said I should be muted 😈

Oh I agree re: 14-3 - - - Your “baggage” comment really got me thinking. I wonder how I would feel about this Sabres season if I could somehow view it purely through the prism of an Independent Event. No lingering baggage from past franchise failures, not considering the franchise beholden to that, purely analyzing and expressing. It’s such an interesting question and thought. My initial impression is that it might be somewhat of a double-edged sword. I think we are in 22nd place? I’d probably be thinking “well, we’re ok.” My brain perhaps occupied much more by dwelling on what could be, going forward, with no frustration due to the expectation it might collapse due to past precedence. So happier about it, in a way? But on the other side of the coin, SO MUCH of the positivity is drawn from the hopeful comparison *to* that past: looking for little signs pointing to how it’s different. It’s probably all part and parcel. Things feel worse because of how long we’ve been in the desert, but the good developments also feel better than they should because of the comparison to relative ineptitude. WORDS!

I have been touting for years now that, if you need a championship to justify all this, not only are you setting yourself up for disappointment, you are allowing for the very real possibility you’ve engaged in an illogical pursuit for the duration of your life that would have been better left untouched. I think it serves to admit there’s a real mathematical possibility it never happens. In my humble opinion, in order for it all to be worth it, any member of the fandom need to be able to find joy by other means: that the journey, like @dudaceksays, and the camaraderie, like I always say, are what makes it worth it. If there’s no satisfaction until a championship is achieved, and you are comfortable with that, you are a better gambling man than me. So having said all this, what the Sabres have been is on the other absolute extremity. I’m MORE than happy to settle into a lifetime of making the playoffs in-line with the mathematical average (half the time) and enjoying a run here and there, even if we never male it all the way. Oh well. The Sabres...it’s just so funny, they haven’t even been close to giving us that, any time in recent memory. I truly believe there are plenty of people, plenty of fans ready to embrace even just the NORMALCY of a REGULAR NHL franchise and the inherent ups and downs that implies. We really aren’t asking for a lot, we *already are* the one with perspective. Struggling to find joy in a team that’s *still* losing more than they win isn’t indicative of lack of perspective. Those that can say, “ah, this is what it’s all about” NOW, with THIS kind of “success”, that’s even better: you truly are going to siphon the joy from any situation. Honestly that’s a great thing. I’m hopeful. I think we are headed to being that “can make the playoffs” team, year in and out. But it’s been so long, anyone free of frustration at this point by any right should be the outlier, imo

Firstly, and most importantly, don’t reconsider. - - - Secondly, if this is more Bills centric, I withdraw this post. Bills should be full on enjoyment imo, win is a win is a win type stuff - you are in the promised land as fans: competing in the playoffs with a shot to win. This *is* it, this is what it’s all about, truly. If it’s more Sabres centric, forgive me but this comes of slightly promo-esque re: why aren’t the fans showing up? Absolutely correct that the fun is fuelled by the tension: but that’s only an established case when the tension, as much as not, ends up breaking the right way. The right word for that tension, imo, is “foreboding”, when your muscle memory naturally knows, for decades now, that it’s much more likely to break one way

I wouldn’t have retired the dude’s number, if you are going to retire any number at all, for me you do that if you can’t reasonably see someone surpassing their accomplishments, so why bother giving them a shot at living up to the number. Hello Hasek. But he was a very good goalie, one of the best we’ve ever add, he’s deserving of a special night for sure. I can only assume your “average” lingo is hyperbolic, there isn’t really a reading of the stats that gets to that conclusion As for the eye test, he was a fundament piece during the 2 seasons that make the rest of this dearth worth living through

If the line is keeping guys like JJ and being open to dealing guys like Rosen for the right upgrade, I fall on the same side. Unless someone blows the doors off I’m keeping my key prospects, but dealing some of the other guys, when we have so many, isn’t just something I’m open to I’d say it’s actively the correct idea. Convert some to currency, use your great talent eval to decide who, the intel other teams don’t have, getting a leg up on those teams in the process. Making some trades, dealing some prospects, isn’t “Tim Murraying” the team, whatever that is. Any sort of absolute stringency isn’t a good plan, and it’s not what KA is doing

If the evaluation isn’t there, it’s not there. I agree. I always envisioned Horvat as a F with a great defensive game for some reason, so he’d be the exact type of F I’d want to add to this team that needs better 2 way play all around. But if he’s not that guy I would look elsewhere even if the price was right

Event game - I expect a dub

Lol

As long as it’s to make the playoffs, I’m good

We have enough good forwards if the goal is to make the playoffs in the next few years. And we cap it at that. I think here and there people occasionally fail to appreciate how much gap there is between our group upfront as a whole and that of the cup contenders. It’s not just about raw goals, forwards play both ways - our goal differential by way of our forward group isn’t the best in the league, it’s mid pack. ie, say we hypothetically added a kucherov, no amount of the output Kucherov represents would be superfluous value, re: assembling the F talent necessary to win a championship. now, of course we might sooner allocate assets to a lock down defender, but we are no where close to being in a position to decline upgrades at F under the prism of them being reasonably had, simply because a guy plays C instead of W. I think we should, and I believe Adams is, still actively interested in adding to team, both F and D, as long as the methods are congruent with the timeline and his asset evaluations. We are still building up front, too. - - - people get that adding a 1 C, or a 2C, to our current group, would be a more valuable addition than a 4D, right? Bo Horvat (just as an example. again, if not a drastic overpay to get/sign him, which it very well could be) is going to add a lot more value to this team on ice than another, say, Jokiharju. The idea of adding a good C (not saying Horvat necessarily) isn’t adding a 4th starting G to a unit of 3. It’s replacing Olofsson with a dominant play driving 2C and lining him up at LW alongside Kulich next year cause we can then trading, say, Rosen to recoup the lost assets. It’s lining up a good F there now instead during Tage’s prime rather than waiting for the prospect to develop. The good thing about having a deep system is some prospects can and should be currency. We shouldn’t be adding a contract handcuff by any means, but an accurately paid forward isn’t something we should be turning down on the basis of “it’s not a need”. Any really good player who wants to be here that we don’t have to overpay for IS a need. That’s it. As long as we are sitting in 22nd place, and not tweaking a playoff roster, I honestly think I’m still in “BPA” mode where any outside additions, that catch Adams’ eye, are concerned.

So I’m reading it more as just you think Horvat is going to cost too much to get by way of trade, not that you wouldn’t be interested in paying him what you’d actually deem him worth in salary / a F like him. If I’m wrong and you think we are near a critical mass for forwards or the amount of Cs we want on the roster you can correct me again - - - looking at the convo in general though and all the “not a centre” posts....it’s kinda reading weird to me. We still need good forwards. Why is it we talk of D playing their off hand, when it’s much less common, but all of a sudden centres, who play wing all the time, are pidgeonholed in the middle? The presence of Thompson and Cozens doesn’t mean we put up the “closed” sign on another great F if they can be had for a reasonable cost and fair pay. We aren’t at critical mass upfront, it’s not even close. Horvat could easily not be that guy, the asset cost and valuation could be complete mismatches. But if we could somehow, hypothetically, objectively calculate his accurate contract value, no way we should be turning down a reasonably had addition because they play the centre ice position. The most valuable position in hockey.

Hmm I don’t know, I’m not so sure. Are we really at, “there’s no room for Bo Horvat on the Buffalo Sabres” territory? Actually asking. In one way I agree, it’s a lot of money to commit to a player of his age. But I think committing such a large contract to someone turning 28 would be my hesitancy long before a positional concern. We still clearly need good players, we talk all the time about how the D can play on their offhand, certainly there’s room for a Horvat SOMEWHERE in the top 6, or even 9, or are we already done at F? Obviously the cost, asset wise, might just be way too high. But even if we are paying a player a lot to be on a “third” line, why does it matter if they are a great player and we have the cap space? Basically, if we still open to F upgrades, I don’t see why just because a guy plays C and is really good we should lay off. Not with Horvat but just in general. Tampa would still have more good F than us, when they won the Cup. Do you think Horvat will be worth what he gets? Are you open to paying what he’d cost, for a different guy, if they were younger? Or do you think we should be out of the market for F additions of that cost, full stop?

Site has been real slow to load on iPhone lately. Wonder if that’s just me

The 32 “likes” must be a board record. More Stanley cup emojis earned there than my entire time here, I think. I don’t see why you’d ever regret any of it. However only the 5 “beer” emojis were presented by way of guaranteed contract, the other 27 are subject to restructuring or they can be cut, outright. Based on the future performance of the team

Best player we’ve waivered in years. In that, he’s actually an NHL player

What, people using common words or phrases wrong? I could care less. Ya, that’s right, ya heard me. I could care less.

I don’t really have any doubts on the character of the players on the team. At least not before I see them fold in a playoff series. That is to say, I don’t think they are “missing” something. Any perceived or actual “lack of competitiveness”, if it does exist, would imo be way of choice, as I outlined. It’s hard to say if, how, that presents itself, or if it’s even accurate. Too many variables in any game or loss. My position here I think comes down to my gun-to-head reaction to the question of whether or not the conscious prioritization of development, as primary focus, with traditional results as secondary, potentially takes away from their willingness to truly empty the tank to achieve those results, which again are a secondary goal. The logical answer here as far as I can judge must be “yes”. Mostly because we are dealing with not robots but human beings. Of course, it’s based on the principle development, not winning, was the *utmost* priority this season: but I think that has been accurately established based on quotes from Adams, Granato, and Co

@dudacek @Taro T @LGR4GM ..only 3?

Agree w/ your general point, but yes in this case negative reactions to his choice do nothing to detract from his true freedom as what free speech entails is speech free from government persecution, and I don’t think he’s getting a call from Bumbling Biden* anytime soon * not a political statement, I just like alliteration and he’s certainly known in the political sphere for his gaffes

Disagree somewhat. They know what big games are: it’s just that they’ve collectively decided the big games aren’t measured by key points accumulation and standings positioning, like normal, but rather the sexy event games that dominate the national media (as far as hockey can) like when Eichel makes his return or we have nice new unis. They ARE capable of balling all out when they have that motivation, it’s just that they clearly aren’t focused, quite yet, (next season?) on the macro, overall result. I think we’ll see more “we absolutely need these points” efforts when points, the results, are actually the goal full stop - only when results are the main goal will simply achieving points be enough to sell-out for. Right now they are measuring process and dialling up the “meaning”, the must wins, when the opportunity for culture bonding presents itself- the players clearly like eachother and rally around those games The 3 or 4 last place championships add to the argument. Those are Montana numbers

Just on a tangent here: there definitely comes a day for every fan when they realize fans care more, that they live and die by the results more than the professionals being paid to achieve those results. This is the unclouding of sports naïveté. This is because those professionals are workers. Their primary transaction is complete after pay-to-play. There will always be those that tout “for the love of the game”, but one day everyone realizes we project our own passions onto what at the end of the day is merely an entertainment product It’s just the truth. It’s not exactly dour: we find our kin on websites like this. The camaraderie among fellow fans and the journey along the way really is what it’s all about and the only thing that makes it all worth it

Pretty much. I don’t “like” it, but where the team is pacing to finish right about now is in line with reasonable expectations pre-season based on the composition of the roster. Mid-80s. It’s not on the higher end of expectations, but it falls within them. I will say, and I said this at the start of the season, that there is a line by way of which if they don’t meet it, I think the result can be classified as a “ objective disappointment”. I think they finish above that line, but we’re far from out of the woods where it’s concerned: the 81 point mark of 7 years ago. If we don’t finish .500, the season was a disappointment and we should have been better. It would be a mis-fire, overall, for the rebuild. Not saying it couldn’t make up the ground next season, but I’d deem it behind schedule certainly and a little concern would not be misplaced I don’t think we’re the Leafs. Much better cap situation. Granted: I’d take it. Winning that much would be fun

I just say “first rounder”