JohnC

Seek and you will find. https://www.google.com/search?q=picture+of+jeffrey+dahmer+in+high+school&rlz=1C1SQJL_enUS802US802&oq=picture+of+Jeffrey+Dahmer&aqs=chrome.0.0i512j69i57j0i512l2.8217j0j7&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8

Even with the signing of Levi I would hope to add a goalie, such as Saros, to the unit. The Sabres are at the point where if the organization proactively acts to upgrade the position this offseason, the team will be elevated. I'm excited by the prospect of Levi signing with us. It just seems to me that too much, too soon, is being counted on him. That's a precarious position to place this team in, especially with the recent developments.

An old country Italian remedy for a rectum that is in flames is to apply olive oil to the area that is burning. You will find the affected area to be quickly soothed. Don't use butter. Too messy.

As you highlight our penalty kill is atrocious. Not being able to win a draw in your zone puts the defenders on its heels right from the start. The goalies we have are the goalies we have. That's what you have to work with. The goalie position is already a vulnerability for us. With the caliber of kill we have it makes the goalie even more vulnerable. It seems to me that the PK structure needs to be altered. Are the problems related to our PK more due to personnel or structure? Probably a combination of both. What was so aggravating about this game is that we were in a position to win. Tuch's lack of discipline at a critical time turned a favorable situation into an opportunity get back into a game for a team on the ropes. As frustrating as this loss was we were fortunate to earn a point.

Attached is a link from NHL.com showing the standings. The loss was disappointing because of the penalty call against Tuch. This was a victory that we allowed to be snatched out of our grasp. It wasn't a smart play on Tuch's part. Getting the point for the SO loss is somewhat of a consolation. This was a game that is difficult to say who stood out. On the blue line I liked the play of Power and I thought that Lyubushkin had a good game. There were too many occasions where the Sabres were stuck in their own zone with the Capitals controlling the puck. UPL in the shootout is a disaster. He's worse than Lehner in SOs. The goal off his chest was a bad goal but the other goals in regulation can't be blamed on him. I still get nervous when he is in between the pipes. The Sabre play of the game for me was Krebs pass to Gergs who converted. Krebs fought to get the puck, dig it out behind the net and then get it to Gergs. https://www.nhl.com/standings/2022/wildcard

I prefer the mild banana peppers. The hot peppers painfully burn the rim of my rectum. You were much tougher in your youth than I was.

You are correct. KA stated on the morning show on WGR that the contract demands that Ullmark wanted went beyond the contract parameters that the organization established for this player. There were many reports that Ullmark was requiring a longer term and more per annum with the Sabres than with Boston. It was essentially a loser's tax. Our GM said no to the player's contract terms. It's my opinion that the GM made a mistake that ended up probably costing us a playoff spot. Overall, our GM has done a marvelous job. I believe that in this case his inflexibility was costly.

I respectfully but strenuously disagree. There were more games where the effort was anemic than what you remember. That type of low energy and less than resistant play has happened more often than what you are describing. You disagree. That's okay.

I think that you are over-interpreting the consequences from a game in which the players were simply overwhelmed. Did the players quit? Maybe so. But I wouldn't go so far to say that it wouldn't have happened if Tuch played that particular game. Okposo and Girgs are every bit a leader as Tuch is. It happend when they played. There is nothing unusual about teams getting trampled in a game or so. It happens to the best teams, to the middle pack teams and to the lower teams. If you watch NBA games it also happens, at a greater frequency, in that sport. I just think you are taking too much meaning from that dismal game.

The real issue has little to do with partying or focusing on hockey. The issue is character and a degree of humanity. His lack of maturity was exhibited in Arizona and also on cruel display in the eastern part of the country. A punk is a punk regardless of where you are at. @nfreeman was potently succinct with the word that best describes this incident: Disgraceful.

This is a case where you don't need the full story to know what the story is. The son is a punk.

None of us can say for sure. But when it is widely reported (which means a variety of different sources), it is very probable that the numerous unsubstantiated claims are true. Certainly, the numerous claims would not be allowed to be presented in a court room trial, but for our level of standard I am more than comfortable to give credence to the claim.

As @GASabresIUFAN stated, it was widely reported that the owner insisted that ROR be traded before the bonus clause kicked in. And that's exactly what happened.

No, I stand by my words that it's not likely that the GM will make a deal for a high-end goalie this offseason. A few of the goalies in the upper tier would require not only giving up a first rounder or two but also require one of our top tier prospects (such as Savoie/I don't consider Rosen to be in the Savoie class) to be included in such a deal. In my opinion, the hesitation comes more from not wanting to give up a premium prospect than draft picks. I agree with others here (I think including you?) that the acquisition of a top-shelf goalie would have a major impact on this team. Listening to what KA have said, I believe that he is more inclined to rely on the pipeline that also probably includes Levi. I've said it before that I believe that the GM made a glaring mistake in not signing Ullmark to the contract that the player wanted. The GM's insistence on staying within his established contract boundaries for this particular player was a damaging decision, especially after seeing how this season has unfolded.

You basically made a convincing argument why KA is very likely going to stay the course and not bring in another goalie.

That's a fair assessment where he should be slotted. Also, his size and toughness/grit add an element that this roster can use.

The Caps are dealing with a number of injuries and banged up players (as we also are) that is affecting their play. The organization took an honest assessment in what the status of this team was. It then dealt some players around the trade deadline. It wasn't a major sell-off but it did indicate that a reworking of the roster was at hand. If Ovechkin wasn't chasing the Gretsky record, there would have been a bigger tear down. The key to this game is for the Sabres to play a fast-paced game and outrun them. They can't keep up. If this team allows itself to get distracted by physical play and foolishly falls into that trap of tit-for-tat, we will being playing into their hands and neutralizing our asset of speed. The Caps played last night in NY and lost. Ovechkin did not play. If the Sabres play their game they should come away with a win. We are at the stage where each game is important, there are no more meaningless games. It's simply a case of taking care of one's own business and not worrying about what you can't control. These next two road games will determine if we stay in the hunt or if we fall by the wayside. (I'm so glad that Tuch is back.)

As you are pointing out, there are a number of players who won't have a letter on their jersey who are still leaders on ice and in the locker room. As far as I'm concerned, the issue of who is going to wear the letter is not a big issue at all. Okposo was once asked about being assigned with the letter C or A after the Jack era. He said whether he is wearing the letter or not he is going to conduct himself exactly in the same way on the ice or in the room. A leader is a leader. What's a good sign is that the discussion revolves around a number of people who would be quality candidates to wear the designation.

I'm excited with the probability that Levin will soon be joining the organization. His acquisition could turn out to be the GM's most significant transaction. But the next issue becomes should the GM make a move to get an upper tier goalie such as Saros to buy time for his development and also hedge one's bet on the position? I've felt after hearing the GM talk on a number of occasions about the "process" that he is going to go with what he has inside the system and let it unfold. Would that be a mistake? I'm not sure? After seeing how this youth laden team has progressed, and in my estimation is on the precipice of making a leap up the ranks, would it be wise to utilize some assets to get a goalie next year, such as Saros, to accelerate the process to being a consequential team next year? I would say yes. If I had to make a bet, I would say the GM would firmly say: Stay the course. It's a tough call.

The conundrum is do you become proactive this offseason and try to bring in one of the top tier goalies that you listed? Or do you wait another year to see what level of goalie UPL falls into? If I had an opportunity to get a goalie such as Saros for a first round pick plus a prospect such as Rosen (not Savoie), I would make the deal. I just think that such a deal would have a significant impact on the team. There are no guarantees but of a goalie such as Saros or Ullmark was on our current roster the Sabres would be playing post season games.

The issue of striving for success is not so much about the market value as it is what does the transaction do for your team. There are transactions for player/s that one could say is too much for one team and for another team the value of the transaction is worth more. Would I give up a first-round pick and Rosen for a goalie such as Soros? Without any hesitation. For another team the departing assets wouldn't make sense. Ask yourself, if we had a Soras or Ullmark as our primary goalie this year, would the Sabres be a playoff team? I say yes. Would KA consider such a deal for a goalie? I don't think so. I believe he is resolute in staying the course and for the most part working from within.

We are both sitting in the same ballpark.

The way you portrayed the ROR episode is the way I remember it. The indignant billionaire was not going to give more money away to this publicly disgruntled athlete. I don't blame the owner for his negative response to this particular player.

I don't think you will get many dissenters from the proposition that Pegula screwed up in directing this franchise when he took it over. This franchise was ping ponging back and forth with foolish deals and the constant churning of staff. That ignominious period has been well documented. What I can say is that when KA took over he had a plan and for the past couple to three years has systematically and successfully executed his plan. I also believe that Pegula was on board with KA's rebuild plan when he hired him, and that since his installation Pegula has not interfered with the operation other than being kept informed and signed off of contracts.

If you sniff the weeds you will probably sneeze and not get mellow.