erickompositör72

At least they actually go back to the game when something important happens (i.e. A GOAL)- as opposed to Dunleavy, who continues telling his non-hockey story, but STARTS TELLING IT LOUDER, AND NEVER ACTUALLY SAYS THERE WAS A GOAL

I have to think Beaulieu has some value. He has talent that may make some coach/GM think "I can fix the other stuff..." ...but the truth is, that might be what JBot and Wowie think, themselves... I'd like to see how he plays when the rest of our team is better, and he has a better goalie behind him.

The idea that "signing him to some sort of 'prove it' deal is beneficial" is flawed- it is really just self-defeating. If he lacks effort and only plays for a contract, he will put up great numbers for his "prove it" years, and then demand a big pay-day. If we leverage his fall '17 against his 2018, we are more likely to get him long term at a good value for his skills. If he doesn't reach his absolute ceiling, we're paying him what he's worth. If he does, it will be one of the best contracts out there. If he plays amazing in his "prove-it" contract, we will have to pay him much more, and almost guaranteed he'll demand 8 years. Nothing is to stop him thereafter from not trying, if he is what some fear (lacking effort). I see locking him up long-term right now to have the least risk/highest reward potential.

First, let me say, there is a lot of mediocre pizza in NYC. But for me, the good ones are my favorite. But when I'm back in Buffalo, the pizza is a real treat. It's nice to mix it up, and there's really no pizza anywhere like Buffalo. And I feel it's much easier to get a good pizza anywhere in Buffalo than in my neighborhood in NYC (I live uptown). The place we're stuck ordering from (because my wife likes it) isn't as good as the average pie you can get in Buffalo.

I remember the last Bruins feed I watched, the play-by-play guy kept being outraged when a delayed penalty was whistled, because he didn't think the Sabres had true possession. It was a bit waaay to much. I do remember them being very complimentary of Vanek the night he had a hat trick against them, so it's not beyond them to praise another team. They were very bitter when the 30th/31st ranked Sabres were beating them, though ? And I thought Biron's English is fine- he just has a heavy Quebecois accent- no?

It's hard to believe we could downgrade from Vanek on a defensive-awareness standpoint, but we certainly did with Moulson I remember watching a Sabres preview out-of-market. They showed a clip of Moulson playing defense. He was falling down trying to change direction covering a pass from the point to the boards. The commentary was something like "having defensive responsibilities like that- this is anti-Matt Moulson..."

I just rewatched the highlights so I cheated, I won't answer you are closest. he's all you need to know- Vanek wasn't on the team anymore, so...

People always knock Rolston's system, but it was unique. They should have given it a chance. I heard they were working on the "flying V" in practice, too

I'm glad you addressed it, and I'm sure you didn't mean it in a hateful way. But of course, latino friends of yours who know you may not be offended, but other who don't may not feel the same way; knowing latinos doesn't give you carte blanche to talk publicly like that. *steps off soapbox*

I could see him fitting that role and being useful and he was the only player who took off his skate and tried to stab somebody ?

Yeah, that was new ?

What else is new?

This is true, but I'm going to keep saying this: 2018 was a Reinhart we've never seen before. We've never seen 2018 Reinhart at center. It is intriguing to think about.

#23

I don't think his skill-set is the issue, per se. I think it's his strength. Which, IMO, gives him more upside/higher ceiling, if he addresses the strength issue

I don't think you have to worry about being accused of being the word police- latinos take enough sh*&^ in this country, and calling someone out who contributes to it is always the right thing to do. We can all do our part, IMO...

I've always thought a healthy Bogosian would work really well in our defense corps... But that aside, I've also got the feeling that he's the type of guy we need as far as leadership/locker room presence. We've all been really frustrated with his injury history, but if he can stay healthy- I think he has a great attitude and could be the kind of leader we need to guide the younger players.

1. Rodrigues has shown some flashes. I could see him being a Pominville-esque player, only if he becomes stronger on the puck and stronger physically 2. I don't know you, but unless you are a latino, I would urge you to avoid such language. If you are, my apologies; go for it

This makes a lot of sense. I just think the decision to tank should not have been a condition in picking a GM (TM). I really do think the fanbase does have some influence on how a team operates. If the FO feels that a fanbase would tolerate tanking, they may feel they have carte blanche to do so. We should have just picked a better GM. Whether that GM wanted to tank or not, doesn't matter. One who knew how to draft and enter into smarter contracts. We may not have had Eichel, but there were plenty of great players available in the drafts who didn't go top-10. I think that would have caused less "suffering," led to more exciting hockey (without need to "change the culture"), and frankly, could have been just as effective at producing a championship team.

He was always my favorite ?

Right. Which of the current-generation of tankers (us, oilers, leafs) is poised to win the first cup?

And honestly, I think the blatancy was the most damaging, vis-a-vis "the culture" the fact that we were cheering for losses. You keep comparing to Toronto- they were throwing jerseys on the ice when we were cheering!

I just don't understand the propensity for so many fans to think this way. '99 was uniquely Buffalo. 2005-2007 was uniquely Buffalo. Why is tanking now a Buffalo thing? (maybe I misunderstood what you meant by "the tank was a uniquely Buffalo thing")

This is the old "if only [x] happened or [y] didn't happen..." All of those were always possibilities, and amplified the risk of a tank. We put all our eggs in one basket. And we whiffed. And here we are. exactly. pro-tankers did not account for all of the variables/things out of our control that could have catastrophic results.

I'm not speaking to a general concept of being risk-averse or not, but rather to the degree