erickompositör72

If you are implying that the Sabres development "plan" for Benson was to play him in the NHL, I completely disagree. I believe they gave him his handful of games, and he showed that he was one of the guys that belonged here. I believe Benson forced their hand, not the other way around.

Click your user name at the top right. The pull-down menu should have an option "ignored users"

The team just wasn't there at that point. Let's hope this is a new beginning, and they are now for the foreseeable future

Can't believe that didn't go it

I don't understand what any of this has to do with UPL. You think they should play him 5 games straight, incl. a back-to-back? Also, ego can be a good thing in professional sports. Ego and pretentiousness (which I don't get from Levi) are different things. A very confident young goalie coming in (with talent to back it up) could also charge up the locker room, especially as there's a new leadership group. We're all just speculating, but you seem to have gone in the extreme negative direction.

Islanders broadcast is insufferable. Saying that it was interference because of his right skate

lol, was thinking the same

Sabres just needed to pass the leadership to the "next generation" ?

Yes, I'm also currently tracking it as how many more regulation losses we can sustain (3 being that number). If we lose a couple in OT, that reduces the total wins we need by 1 (13), but also reduces the total # of regulation losses we can sustain by 1.

I definitely can see that. My worry is whether we have enough assets for other needs we may have (whatever they may be...) Do you see a potential where other needs may be compromised by paying a high price for a backup? Or do you think other needs are not at the same priority level? Apologies for referencing so much in the abstract.

In theory, I think it makes sense. However, the idea of him getting as much playing time and as many starts as possible seems extremely valuable. I fear having him as the backup would not allow for that.

Sorry, I was referring to a situation that you referenced: UPL's "nights off" being planned starts for Levi. I will edit the original post

I'm excited about the prospect of UPL continuing (and even improving further?!) his great play into next season. I've also come around to see the value in letting Levi start in Rochester. His incredible play at the end of last season was an exciting glimpse into what he can become, but he does, indeed, need to find his groove. Is there a way to have Levi be both the starter in Rochester, and start in Buffalo for all of UPL's "nights off"? I feel like the Sabres hinted at a little of this during the current season. I am concerned about the assets that bringing in a solid, proven #2 'tender might require.

Interesting idea. Does Kessel has a personal relationship with/connection to KA, DG, or another person high on the totem pole of Sabres' staff? Seems a move like this would only be made in that circumstance.

Power is a different player since coming back from his injury. Excited to see him continue to grow

I'm still using 93pts as the benchmark: As things stand (before playing Winnipeg tonight), they need to go: 15 - 5 - 1 14 - 4 - 3 13 - 3 - 5 12 - 2 - 7 11 - 1 - 9 10 - 0 - 11 They could go 10 - 11 (if they lose all 11 games in overtime) and possibly get in! Something tells me UPL could have a say...

I am particularly cursed, because I became obsessed with the Sabres during Hasek's era in the 90s. I remember my father and my brother telling me "don't get your hopes up, they're going to lose in the first round" ... "don't get your hopes up, there's no way they beat the [Flyers, etc.] this series" ...and they kept winning! Now I expect the unrealistic. And here I am.

Next-level forechecking on that goal

UPL's growth this season, in every element of his game, has been astonishing

Another road to the playoffs: If we win 1 more game, and then play .500 hockey the rest of the season, we'll be at 82 points If we can somehow get 11 loser points in all of our losses, we'll be in. Or: Win 2 more games above .500, 9 more loser points Win 3 more games above .500, 7 more loser points Win 4 more games above .500, 5 more loser points etc. etc. What's working against us is we're running out of games, and we'll have to have an unusually high OTL/L ratio

You scared me. Thought my feed was behind because of the @Brawndo association

Hopefully it’s a rental and a lease

Thank you for reminding me about ignore

Please see first sentence of OP

Someone who's better at math than me can determine if going 2W + 1L every 3 games gets them in. Probably would need some OTL's in there?