Curt
-
Posts
8,728 -
Joined
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Events
Posts posted by Curt
-
-
1 hour ago, TheAud said:
What is "Relative Expected Goals %"? Is it telling me that Dahlin is the Sabres 5th best defenseman? Because if it is, it's BS.
There is no one statistic that will tell you definitively who is better than who. This stat, just like any other, is one piece of a big puzzle.
-
2
-
-
3 hours ago, Night Train said:
Clifton has tipped in 3 goals for the bad guys. I also view games where he's doing OK.
Power and Samuelson have achieved deity status with some but not with me. They have a LONG way to go before I start handing out gratuities to either. Coughing up the puck and watching opponents stuff home goals in our crease seems to be their hobby.
Handing out gratuities to players? Thats a new one!
-
Krebs again put it on his linemate’s stick 6 ft in front of the goalie.
-
1
-
-
Power needs to get rid of that Austin Matthews mustache.
-
4 minutes ago, Gatorman0519 said:
Okposo had it gift wrapped and he missed. Ugh.
Who says Krebs doesn’t generate any offense?
-
1
-
-
12 minutes ago, Marvin said:
.900 is the current standard for mediocre goaltending. That is not even average.
.900 is right around league average. .902 as of yesterday.
-
1
-
-
3 hours ago, GASabresIUFAN said:
Do you honestly think that is going to happen? He isn't being returned to Jrs. He is here for the duration of this season and therefore next season as well.
Tuch, Skinner, Cozens, Mitts, TNT, JJP, and Quinn are the top forwards on this team when healthy. That leaves two slots for other forwards in the top 9 and KA is clearly committing to Benson for one of those slots. It's really that simple.
I think that some combination of Benson struggling, Thompson and Quinn coming back, and maybe Kane signing, could definitely result in Benson being returned to the WHL.
-
1
-
-
4 hours ago, GASabresIUFAN said:
You are missing the bigger point. This decision today is a two-year commitment to keeping Benson on the Sabres because of his age. He will become a UFA significantly earlier because of this decision. It's incredibly stupid asset management with only marginal benefit to the Sabres this season.
I don’t see how it’s a two year commitment. He could still be sent back to juniors if he starts struggling later.
-
1
-
1
-
-
5 hours ago, Believer said:
Powers has shown no evidence he can play with snarl… At 6’6” and age 22… kid plays like a wuss for a big D-man…
Imagine a 22 year old Benson at 6’6”… Kid is fearless.
Both Power and Samuelson should be embarrassed at their lack of physical play…
Embarrassed.
Power is 21 years and 2 days old. He is not a physically aggressive player. Maybe he can grow into it a bit like Dahlin did.
-
1
-
-
1 hour ago, Porous Five Hole said:
Sign Phil Kessel. Probably has as much in the tank that P Kane would have on one hip.
Possibly zero hips
-
1
-
-
2 minutes ago, Zamboni said:
Multiple federal agencies are now backtracking what they originally said and released to the press. And multiple press sources were repeating and confirming the reports just two hours ago.
Now the latest is a car tried turning around after going through the inspection booth and lost control as they did a U-turn and crashed into a booth or building there and caught on fire.
The back tracking is delicious… This is getting interesting lolIt was an incident/accident where a couple people died and a couple others got hurt. Basking in the warm glow of the fear, confusion and changing reports is kind of perverse.
-
29 minutes ago, JoeSchmoe said:
I agree with this... Mitts and Thompson struggled but were never as useless as Krebs is right now. Both benefitted greatly though by going down to Rochester.
I was thinking about it some more... Has there every been a non-tough guy who started the season with as many minutes with as little to show for it as Krebs?
For significant stretches of their early career, Mitts and Thompson were as useless as anyone you could name. You can cite the points if you like, but whatever production they had, they more than gave back on the defensive end. They were both horrendous for stretches.
-
17 minutes ago, Thorny said:
Agree. I come into these discussions a lot with my initial instinct being “look his production is literally replacement level maybe we should replace him” but then when the discussion turns to who and we hear the endless parade of usual suspect rookies, because that’s the sole mode KA fitted the team with of supplementing the roster, it’s just like…why bother lol
If we are just going to get even younger by replacing him, I’d rather have Krebs
Need to make another Greenway type deal.
Who else played for Granato at the US Development Program? Only half joking.
-
3
-
-
4 minutes ago, Thorny said:
12 years into a playoff drought lol. For the love of god can we aim higher than slightly below average
Lol, I didn’t say he has been good, fine, or even acceptable. Just that he hasn’t been THAT bad, treading water.
By all means, replace him with someone better. I’ll be happy.
-
Krebs has not been that bad. He is producing almost no offense but also allows almost no shots or goals against. He is treading water out there.
-
1
-
-
58 minutes ago, DarthEbriate said:
On the one hand: all of these players are mid-to-late 30s when they had the operation and were already in the "lost a step" category and trying to hang on for a few more veteran savvy seasons. And in some cases (Kesler, Jovo) they already had a ton of heavy wear on those tires.
On the other hand: Kane is already mid-30s and has more games played than any of them.
Yeah, this is a surgery for when your hips are too worn out to do what you need them to do. So anyone one who gets this surgery is going to be an old worn out guy.
The question is: Can this surgery successfully allow those hips to do what is needed to be a good NHL player for a couple more years?
-
42 minutes ago, Crusader1969 said:
The Backstrom case definitely gives me pause. Who was the other? I think it was an older Dman who finished out the year but then called it a career.
Jovanovski, he played thirty something games then retired.
Kesler, Bakstrom, Hagelin.
Basically no one has had the surgery then come back to be a real player. Small sample size, but concerning.
-
2
-
1
-
-
7 hours ago, LTS said:
Did I say banned for life? I don't think I did. If I did I certainly did not mean to. I thought my arguments have been solely about not wanting someone like that where I work or to work around someone like that.
I feel like I even called out if a person in that situation goes through meaningful change they might eventually get to the point where I would want to give them a second chance. Note that I am saying *I* might want to... I fully accept others might do it sooner.
Not trying to put words in your mouth. The original comment w was replying to said that he should be “out of the league for good”, and you seemed to say that you were in favor of “banning” him from the NHL. Banning sound rather permanent to me. Did you mean a temporary ban? As in a suspension?
-
51 minutes ago, SwampD said:
Virtually every company everywhere.
“Because everyone is doing it” is not a justification.
I do concede that in some circumstances, things like this make sense, but not for the majority of jobs.
-
7 minutes ago, Porous Five Hole said:
Correct, and the NHL/NHLPA has the same thing.
Article 18-A of the League’s Collective Bargaining Agreement, which grants the commissioner authority to impose discipline on a player who “has been or is guilty of [off-ice] conduct (whether during or outside the playing season) that is detrimental to or against the welfare of the League[.]”
Criminal activity of all kinds are covered. It is bad for the business of the league.
18-A is a mutual understanding between the league and the players. No one is being canceled so much as Lucic is suffering consequences of his own actions.
That’s totally fine. I never said that Lucic should face zero league repercussions. I assumed that there was a clause like that as part of the players’ contracts.
What I objected to was people saying that he should be banned for life.
-
5 minutes ago, Porous Five Hole said:
I don’t agree and while it isn’t domestic violence... If I am convicted of a DWI, I lose my job. That is a consequence of my own actions. My employer is not canceling me.
If being convicted of a DWI violates already established conditions of your employment, then that is not objectionable.
1 hour ago, LTS said:His actions were not an assault on public security. They were allegedly an assault on his spouse. Banning him from the NHL demonstrates consequences to his actions away from the game. The criminal justice system can demonstrate consequences to his actions in the courts.
I am in favor of revoking their ability to work for me or with me, yes. Everyone has their own standards. If someone else wants to give him a shot then that's great for them. If the person seeks help and turns their life around, then great. At some point if I were close enough to the situation, I might actually give them another chance. But this isn't about a second chance, this is about messing up your first chance. It takes a conscious decision to assault another human being especially how it was described.
Some people get angry when they drink. Those people should be told that and they should stop drinking before their anger boils over. I've been WAY too close to that situation in my life. If a person who tends to rage when they drink won't stop drinking I'm 100% getting away from that.
How does someone get a second chance in the NHL if they are banned for life?
-
1 hour ago, Weave said:
Banning Lucic would absolutely be helpful to the NHL, who does not want any part of being associated with an accused domestic violence offender.
And there is absolutely risk to the NHLs business, and in the NHLs best interest to distance themselves pronto.
Hmm, pronto? Before any legal conclusions have been come to? All it takes is to be accused in order to be banned for life?
-
1 minute ago, Weave said:
Noone is revoking their ability to work.
However, the accused has surely limited the number of employers that would be willing to employ them.Im all for second chances. I am not at all willing to risk my livelihood, or my business to offer it to them.
And frankly, Lucic in particular won’t suffer financially from this unless he’s made a bunch of other poor choices along the way. Sucks to be him, then.
I was responding to a hypothetical scenario where Lucic is banned by the NHL, which he won’t be. I was just arguing that a banning would not be helpful to anyone.
There is no reason that allowing Lucic to continue as an NHL player should be a risk to the NHL’s livelihood or business.
-
35 minutes ago, steveoath said:
In my job (teaching) you would be sacked. There is a contract clause about conduct outside of work.
That makes sense. People are leaving their children in your care. I understand why that clause is in place.
-
1
-
Around the NHL 2023-24 Season
in The Aud Club
Posted
That should be a suspension somewhere between 10 and 40 games.