Thorny

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”

Blackhawk-downed: blown off course in Chicago, deep-dishing of painful defeat Sears Sabres

I’ll take good for a year full stop

Very streaky team. Makes sense being so young. The good bits look so good I forget they aren’t simply good, quite yet.

That was a very nice bit of vision from Skinner to go along with a nice dish on the TT goal

Great thread. I get that a lot. “Have you ever even been to Buffalo?!” Some actually find the concept of being a fan of a team from a city you have no connection with actively odd. I find their surprise odd - it’s always been second nature to me. I have a connection to the city, now, in a real way. Forged by common pursuit. Even in those that get it, I often get the follow up, “but the Jets are your second favourite team, right?” as if they just obviously would be. No. It’s one team. Can only *be* one. If you have two teams you don’t have 1 - that’s the Sith like (ill)logic I chose employ here, to an illogical passion. As for when I became a fan: I don’t remember ever not being one. My dad brainwashed me from the start. I didn’t chose the Sabres - I don’t even know whether I truly have a choice, now. Even when I hate them, the Sabres just Are. My team.

We’ve had some injuries on the back end but we’ve been really very healthy up front - it was rather unpredictable that Hinostroza would play this little. Usually you get to your depth options much quicker