Marvin

Too specific. You did not hedge with enough claptrap doubletalk.

From 1974-78, the Sabres' biggest weakness was in goal. The other 4 top teams (Montreal, Philadelphia, Boston, New York Islanders) had better goaltending; from 1975-9, they also had better depth because the Sabres' top depth jumped to the WHA. 1978-9 showed that the Sabres needed some changes. So Bowman's evaluation was correct. His cure, though, was worse than the disease. His handling of Rico was unforgivable. His trades of the veterans were a net negative. And, quoting _The Klein and Reif Hockey Compendium_, "he wheedled deft trades for high draft choices -- only to expand them on [Eastern Bloc] players who remain vague rumours and juniors unable to move up from the AHL." And, "he turned an exciting Sabres club at most one player away from being a serious Cup threat and, in seven years, ran them down into a drab, last place submediocrity. So if you wonder why we oldsters are upset with him, now you know.

Even if you mentioned it in the past, it is still worth noting. Every home game was a chance to be dazzled by one of the best players in the game. I encourage everyone to find highlight reels and old games of the 1972-80 Sabres, the 1973-76 Braves, and the 1972-77 Bills. We got to watch that every single game.

I always think about these kinds of decisions from the other point of view. So those who think Eichel will get an super prospect, convince me. IMHO, no GM should offer a top prospect unless he has a cast-iron guarantee that Eichel will 100% recover and return to form AND his owner/franchise is not medically liable for Eichel's life if he is permanently disabled. I think the "6 pieces" thing will include a couple of conditional picks based on how many games Eichel plays over the next few years. Now, for those of you arguing that you can just keep him indefinitely if you are only getting offers I would make, exactly how does that makes the Sabres better? He can't play with that level of pain for long. He's a $10M cap hit which prevents at least 2 maybe 3 players from helping the depth and quality of play. His press conference turned outside players against the Sabres, probably split the locker room, and may be pitting management and ownership against the NHLPA. I do not see the Sabres caving in on the surgery -- especially since that makes them liable if he gets permanently disabled afterward. IMHO, @pi2000 and @Brawndo are correct. If I am the other GM, the most you are getting out of me is my first, a good but not great prospect, my old #2 centre who would now be an overpriced #3 centre, a project (raw, but talented), maybe a cap dump, and maybe a couple of conditional picks. Hey, look -- 7 pieces. I see no reason to believe we will get a better offer. And you need to move him soon.

They would have to wait until Montreal is out before they could interview Richardson. This is rumoured to be the hold up on at least 1 other candidate.

My cardiologist told me that people do not take the warning signs of impending strokes or heart attacks seriously enough. It is easier psychologically to view one or more of indigestion, soreness, heartburn, etc. as an irritant rather than a warning. He recommends learning to tell when your body is telling you about various issues. During illness, exercise, eating, etc., I have learnt when my body is telling me something is really wrong versus just stressed, say, from a Zumba class.

Is anyone else concerned that in the Eichel trade packages, we do not see veteran players in the rumoured wish lists? Or are they presumed to be the "cap dumps" everyone talks about? I personally would like some useful veteran players coming back for our Trade Fodder Trio.

That is what people on other boards have been saying.

On the other hand, he was the one who recruited B. Thomas Golisano when the previous ownership group fell through. The same negative characteristics always have their upside.

Where is he slotted in various publications? Do you have an evaluation of where he should land.

After floating around some Calgary boards, I will join this consensus. A swap of top forwards with them makes more sense from both teams' POV.

My wife told me that when she was 12, she rode her bike from Alden to Danny Gare's house. 35 years later, she was working on a fundraiser for Roswell Park with the Buffalo Sabres alumni and goes up to Gare asking if he remembered the incident. Gare did and called over Robert to ask if Rene remembered Danny telling him about the crazy kid riding her bike to say "hi" to him. Robert nodded, looked at my wife, and said, "he was right -- you were crazy! And what the hell did your parents have to say about it?" Gare had told everyone in the dressing room about it over the years. Rene brought others over as Gare was talking with my wife.

You remind me of this story from my youth. When I was five, after showing no interest in electronics whatsoever, I asked for a do-it-yourself radio for Christmas. A month or so later, my parents heard a noise from my bedroom well after my 8pm bedtime. They opened the door to find that I had a game against Vancouver on the radio. Probably where my insomnia began.

I feel so old. I remember Eddie "The Entertainer" Shack being traded for him.

Any updates?

I must quibble with you here a bit. The AHL is a far better place to learn as a coach than the NCAA. I got to know college coaches at Michigan State and pro coaching from the Murray brothers when I was at Maryland. The level of sophistication is vastly different.

When Girgensons was drafted, I has pegged him as a target at around 15. I liked his grit, leadership, and willingness to learn. But I also thought he needed seasoning in the AHL. He, like Ristolainen, was rushed because of The Tank. That in turn harmed his development. Then we hired Bylsma, who did his usual thing of undermining youth like Zemgus and Larry (even worse) to coddle mediocre veterans. IMHO, the Girgensons we saw in The Tank Season was no mirage, but circumstances prevented him from becoming more than he is.

I will take any positive thought over the current negativity on this board. I actually figured this was part of it. Maybe not much, but it probably informed their thinking.

China Eichel? You lost me.

Oh, boy. RIP.

I am not as paranoid as you are about TP, but you have a point that needs reinforcing: When a superior gets involved in what a subordinate is doing, s/he becomes akin to an observer of a quantum state: the mere fact that the superior is observing the process intrinsically changes the process; it does not matter if s/he tries to change the process or not. (I call it the "Heisenberg uncertainty principle of management.") When it is the owner of a hockey franchise within a flat management infrastructure, the effect is more pronounced because there is less insulation between the owner and the person affected. And he is known to radically affect things, such as the contracts with Jack Eichel and Jeff Skinner.

I thought that XHCRK really inhibited their offencive games. As you point out, even on their best days, their defencive games remind me more of Phil Housley than Bill Hajt. I personally want GMKA to find each of them a different sage defencive partner who can teach them how to improve their games. I can live with Borgen and Bryson as my 3rd pair. If we are going with two pairs of youngsters (not my preference), the pairs we should try are Dahlin-Borgen and Bryson-Jokiharu.

"I am Donald J. Trump, Billionaire. I own a mansion and a yacht."

This is where analytics really would help: who is unheralded but does a lot of good stuff on the ice. Not Frolik. Not Eakin. Other teams manage to not be embarrassingly bad at the bottom of the roster. Why can't we?

Point of fact: McCabe is not due back before December. Having said that, McCabe-Ristolainen looked like the pair we wanted them to be a few years ago early on this season -- but that was in a system which neutered Dahlin and Jokiharu.