Robviously
-
Posts
7,112 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Events
Posts posted by Robviously
-
-
This is exactly what happened. These moves weren't made in a vacuum. They were looking to move Roy out, needed a center and found one that has thus far proven to be a perfect match for Vanek. Aside from a few defensive lapses, I cannot complain about Hodgson. His instincts are razor sharp and his hockey intelligence is out of this world. With his work ethic, I don't doubt he'll continue to improve.
But I get Drane's point, in general. Kassian and Foligno on this team together were the answer to my wettest dreams. Unfortunately, in order to plug one hole, another one inevitably opens up. The Sabres would likely be worse without that trade, though, and that's very difficult to wrap one's head around considering how bad they've been.
They probably could have had Hodgson (or someone similar) for Stafford in Summer 2011 (right after Stafford's 31 goals in 62 games season). But, as usual, Darcy chose not to "sell high" on a player. He's pretty terrible at figuring out who to give up on and when. Another reason to keep an eye on Kassian in Vancouver.
-
Aside from possibly Foligno, the rest have...what to do with this trade?
Something about a sorority girl with a heart defect.
-
You were not going to get Hodgson for unless you traded a quality player for him. We needed a center, the Canucks needed a winger with size, it was going to be Kassian or Foglino. I would love to have Kassian, Foligno and Ott as well, but having a quality center for Vanek and Pommer has really paid off this year so far.
The point isn't that we needed a center (we did), it's that we somehow didn't need Kassian because we had Foligno. This team could very clearly use both players (especially this year's version of Kassian).
Whether we won the trade or not is TBD, but the notion that Foligno made Kassian expendable is just nuts. We absolutely gave up something to get something there.
-
The real shame of it is that had Buffalo mgt effectively handled the shortage of centers on this team after '07 there would be no convo to have. We'd have the centers we needed AND we'd have the huge, skilled power forward.
Kassian in Vancouver is yet another symptom of this organizations bungling of the aftermath of Drury/Briere.
I think this is dead-on accurate, BTW. Black Sunday set this organization back in every single way and many (most?) of the moves to fix it since then have either failed or made things worse.
-
You are going to argue based off of 52 games that Zack Kassian is the best power forward prospect ever drafted in 41 years? Yea thats a major stretch and considering what he did here, I completely disagree. Also You assume that if we drafted Centers in say 07-09 we would have Kassian but thats a stretch too because we probably would have reached and good have easily missed on those picks.
Kassian is decent for a young guy but Hogson was needed and is needed by this franchise and Hodgson has shown great improvement in a short amount of time so I have no issue with Kassian being gone.
He's certainly the best power forward prospect of the last 20 years. I can't think of anyone with his level of hype/potential.
Plus Foglino made Kassian expendable.
That's really silly. There's no reason we couldn't keep both. I'd sign up for a Foligno clone right now. It's not like having one Foligno makes having another Foligno would be useless.
-
I realize Stafford isn't showing up on the score sheet and he's paid to put the puck in the net, but his play away from the puck in all zones is so much better than in the past. He's not getting worse.
The Stafford comparison was in my head watching last night's game. From what I saw last night (which was only two periods), Kassian looks like a bigger and much more effective version of Stafford.
-
I'm watching the Blackhawks-Canucks game right now to see the "new and improved" Kassian. 1-0 Canucks after the first. I have to admit, Kassian does look great and, no, it's not because of the Sedins. He did a great job screening Crawford on the Vancouver power play and later made an awesome pass to set up the Canucks' goal. He's been involved in a few other scoring chances as well. He isn't using his size to punish the Hawks but he's using it to protect the puck and by going to the net.
-
Don't think Luke Adam would have threaded that pass for TV's one-timer.
Don't think Matt Ellis would have buried Vanek's pass on that 2-on-1.
Cody sucks on faceoffs and he has been a step out of place in the d-zone more than a few times.
But he's in his second season for christ sake.
The guy thinks, he works, he's got hands, he wants to win and he wants to get better. He is getting better.
I'd take him over Derek Roy in a heartbeat.
Another way to look at it: Hodgson, Myers, and Ennis were all drafted in the first round in 2008. Of those three, who is the best right now? Pretty clearly Cody Hodgson (though Myers has had the better career).
Of those three, who will be the best in 2014? 2015? Another fun thing to keep track of. (Although, only "fun" if none of them completely flame out.)
-
Worst Trade Ever.
Oh wait what happened last night?
It's a trade. Both teams are supposed to win in the end. I remember people jumping all over Darcy after Burke's "fleecing" comments. Now Vancouver doesn't get "fleeced" and people are yapping about that.
How often is there a trade where both teams benefit exactly equally? Honestly, that's probably never happened.
Arguing about if "Player A was better than Player B" or who won a trade are pretty much the two staples of sports talk. I don't get why anyone is offended that people are comparing Hodgson and Kassian less than a year after they were traded for one another. It's easily one of the most interesting things we've had to talk about in the past few years, and should continue to be (if we're lucky).
Also, this whole thread is the "Kassian traded for Cody Hodgson" thread. If you don't want to talk about (or read about) the pros and cons of that trade, just don't come to this thread.
-
I never said Hodgson isn't good, or that Luke was better, but for those that want to argue that Vanek and Pomminstein aren't possibly making Hodgson look much better, Up until around this many games last season, Luke was looking really impressive and when taken away from Vanek and Pomminstein, he can't get out of the AHL.........
I think its stupid how fans constantly have to argue every trade to try and prove their team "won" it. This is one of those trades were both teams "won". The Sabres had to give up something good in order to get something good back. I hated the idea that they had to give up Kassian, but theres no way they get anything good for their garbage. The Canucks had a surplus of Centres, and Cody was stuck being a 3rd liner because of the great players ahead of him at that position. The Canucks needed toughness as they were being considered even softer then the Sabres. The Sabres get a young kid with the potential to be a solid #1 Centre who would have never achieved this in Vancouver due to the logjam they had ahead of him. The Canucks get a young "gritty" forward who had the potential to be tough with offensive upside. Both look to be beginning to live up to their potential and its looking like a great move for both teams.
I think it's awesome. It'll be really interesting to talk about this year, and next year, and for the next few years. It doesn't get much better than two teams swapping their top prospects. The Lindros trade defined an era of Flyers hockey but resulted in the Avalanche winning championships. This trade won't be that monumental, but it could certainly change the course of both franchises if only one of these guys pans out, or even if they both do.
It looked like the Sabres had the edge at the end of last season and right now I'd give Vancouver a slight edge. Ideally, both players could pan out, and the "winner" of the trade will flip-flop several times and ultimately never be clear. As boring as the Sabres have been since Black Sunday, this is something that's fun to talk about.
And if you want some quick entertainment, just read the first 10 pages of this thread to see the initial reactions.
-
To be fair CoHo has been making bad plays defensivily against some really good offensive players. I think that will work its self out with some time with Pommer
Right. Young players with offensive upside generally need to learn defense. Hope that happens with Hodgson. (It's not like Pominville was a well rounded player when he came into the league either.)
-
After that game, I'll keep Hodgson thank you very much. Vanek is playing really well and I believe it is a direct result of putting Hodgson as his center (rather that Roy)
Still not super thrilled with Hodgson. He's on the ice for a ton of the goals scored against us. Hopefully he learns a thing or two from Poms and Vanek because it's scary to see him on the ice when the puck is in our end.
-
I hear that while on the Canucks, Hodgson was considered "oversized" but when he got to Buffalo, Ruff made him "undersized"
That wasn't from Ruff. Hodgson was in the pool.
-
We'd likely still have Roy and therefore no Ott if Kassian were still here
Which would be dumb, but I guess it's possible given our depth chart. Roy needed to go one way or another though and Ott is exactly the type of guy we needed after last year. Trading Roy for Ott and then making a separate move to get a center would have been just fine.
-
I think both teams can be winners with this trade. We desperately needed a young center with #1 potential. They needed a power forward with skills and toughness. If things continue on the trajectory of the first couple of games, I'd be happy with the trade.
If Kassian turns out to be significantly better than Hodgson, I'm worried that Regier will never make a gutsy trade again. Trading our top prospect for their top prospect is arguably the riskiest move he's ever made. I want more moves like that in the future.
It's also tough not to wonder what Kassian might be like for us this year with Ott here to lead the way and Foligno around to compete with.
-
I'm not a developer, nor am I an urban planner. But, from where I sit, a desire to save or rehab long-foundering properties isn't a reason to nix a plan that challenges or threatens to hasten the demise of such properties.
The Adams Mark property has struggled because it's historically been a below average hotel with a poor location. The Main Place Mall has struggled for decades despite having a decent market as a captive audience; if that property failed to make it under those conditions, then perhaps it's time to move on.
It also bears mentioning here that the Donovan Building rehab (a few hundred feet from the site on which Pegula is bidding) will include a hotel.
Agreed. If our big plan for moving the city into the 21st century requires waiting for failing attractions and buildings to somehow turn around, we might as well throw in the towel now.
The city's best hope for renewal is the Inner Harbor. We should build it up as much as we can and hope the rest of the city can follow. I just wish we could get these new hotels and attractions built faster so that we'd have them the next time we host March Madness or (hopefully) another World Juniors.
-
You took that bolded point too literally, too strictly. I don't deny that the structure is far from an ideal part of the 'scape at Canalside, but, like I said: Lighter, faster, cheaper -- the success there to date proves that the skyway isn't the impassable obstacle to development and beautification that it was long-assumed to be.
Maybe someday we'll get the hundreds of millions of (billion?) dollars needed to remove the skyway and implement alternate points of access to downtown. Until that time? Full speed ahead, and the next round is on you.
A billion???? I know this is Buffalo, NY, and we could find a way to screw anything up, but this is basically a demolition project for a one mile stretch of highway. The only cost estimate I found was $100M, here: http://www.bizjourna...1.html?page=all
The best part of the article is here:
John Norquist, executive director for the Center of New Urbanism in Chicago and former mayor of Milwaukee, said Buffalo leaders should not resign themselves to the fact that the Skyway will remain.
"Buffalo has gotten itself into this bad habit of believing it's not good enough, so let's not do anything good," said Norquist, who in recent years has spoken in Buffalo advocating for the Skyway's removal, often with Higgins at his side.
Norquist said he faced similar issues and arguments with the Park East Freeway in Milwaukee, which was eventually demolished to make way for a more development-friendly boulevard.
"The Skyway is an unnecessary piece of infrastructure," he said. "It doesn't add anything to Buffalo. I would suggest that people in Buffalo get out their pitchforks and torches and demand (to New York Gov. David Paterson) that it come down. As long as the Skyway stands, it will only dampen any future development plans in Buffalo."
He's completely right; this is the Buffalo mentality of "we're poor, we can't do anything right, it's not worth trying, let's just try to live with it." Why are we so quick to give up? The cost isn't crazy when you think about how much more we could do with that land and the money we'd be saving from not having to maintain and rehab that structure for decades to come.
-
Remember this is taxpayer land. Public use is what we're looking for.
It'd be really nice if we lived in a world where government officials thought primarily of taxpayer interests when they made decisions. Sort of a crazy notion at this point though.
-
Opinion: Sabres win hands down. They're investing twice as much. Their ice rinks will create jobs and bring in tourism dollars. Their space is soo much more public-use oriented (more retail space, ice rink space, fitness center) than the other plan, which is really important in that location. It enhances the notion of hockey heaven by building a new regional destination and the services to support it. It looks like Pegula is building for the people (ice rinks, retail space) and Paladino is building for wealthy private use (office and luxury apartment space). I think it's more useful to the city to create something new and publicly accessible in that space, be it ice rinks or a different attraction, instead of constructing new office space or apartment space when there's plenty of other nearby buildings that can be renovated into great office space and apartment space (for cheaper!).I completely agree with your assessment....which is why I remain as pessimistic as ever, and expect Paladino to get the bid. I have zero faith in this city's leadership to actually do something which requires vision for the future.
Agree with both of you guys on everything here.
-
i've sort of given up on my anti-skyway credentials. i am more a fan of the mantra "lighter, quicker, cheaper" (or whatever it is) that is now guiding canalside development. removing and replacing the skyway would be a massive undertaking -- better to use that money elsewhere. the turning point for me was going to the concerts at canalside; when the sun is setting, the harbor is behind you, the band you like is on stage, and you're feeling a pleasant blue light buzz, the skyway just ... blends innocuously into the background. it's not the obstacle to development and beautification that i once imagined/assumed it to be.
So basically if you're watching a concert, surrounded by thousands of people, and possibly a little buzzed, you don't notice the Skyway as much. What about the other 99% of the time when its a horrible eyesore? This is sorta like saying the Sabres shouldn't make improvements around the Arena because if the game is really good, you don't think about the arena so much.
It's obtrusive and doesn't fit any of the new development in the area. The artist renderings that are honest enough to actually show the Skyway cutting through all the new buildings look awful. If we ever want the waterfront to look beautiful -- not just OK, but beautiful -- that thing has to go. And we don't need to replace it. Traffic isn't a big issue in Buffalo.
BTW, in other good news for the region, 60 and 61 story towers proposed for Niagara Falls, ON:
http://www.buffalonews.com/city/communities/southern-ontario/article975904.ece
-
Those apartments should have a great view of the skyway.
If Buffalo ever wants to have a really great waterfront, the Skyway is going to have to come down.
Both concepts look great. I like the Sabres' better because it's a little more distinct and because I have more faith in Pegula than I do in Carl Paladino. Hopefully we get this done quickly; it'll be great for Buffalo and even better when we're hosting March Madness or (hopefully) another World Juniors.
Side note: This was also going to be the location of the doomed Adelphia Tower, right?
-
Four minute trailer for Season 3 from Comic-Con:
-
This season is going to suck. The producer doesn't know what kind of show he wants to put on, the director is overrated, the leading characters have grown stale, the new characters look to be disappointing, there wasn't nearly enough blood and guts on display last year — and that probably won't change this fall.
The Walking Dead also could be tough to watch.
Outstanding. :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:
-
By your own link, unemployment dropped from 24.75 to 14.18 from 1933-1937. Is a 10 point drop in unemployment nothing? Even the double dip recession still had a lower maximum unemployment rate than when FDR came into office. I've never made the argument that FDR ended the Depression, as such an argument would be foolish and completely untrue. My point is we cannot know what would have happened with different policies, we only know what did happen. The conservative talking point is that FDR's policies made things worse, or prevented the recovery in the long-run. But really, we have no idea at all what would have happened without his policies. That's all I'm saying.
Again, by this measure, you can't criticize anyone for any action because you can never know how things would have turned out had that action not taken place. Do you also take a "we can never know" approach to Smoot-Hawley?
Yes, we CAN know how well those policies worked. We have a decade of Hoover/Roosevelt policies and we have every other decade of the 20th century. We also have hundreds of years' worth of economic data for countries all around the world.
And I maintain that presidential politics has a minimal impact on the macro economy. Track the actual economy across nations...economies have thrived and suffered under very similar conditions and government policies. In a market economy, political policies have minimal effects on the macro economy--not zero effects, but minimal. Most effects are on the margins and don't change the overall arc of economic output. As a broad stroke, research has shown that Democratic versus Republican presidents has zero statistically significant effect on GDP. At the end of the day economics is a social science, not a hard science. There are competing theories about what to do or not to do...but they are theories, there is nothing even remotely equivalent to an equation for acceleration due to gravity or centripetal force. Economics is a completely different animal, and to pretend otherwise is foolhardy.
You're really selling decades of economic research short. And if you really think government doesn't have a major effect on economy, I'm not sure what to tell you. We split two countries in half in the 20th century -- Germany and Korea. In each case, both halves were identical in terms of culture and demographics. The difference was government. And in each case, one half of Germany/Korea ended up way better off than the other half. The part where government made a difference in the economic well-being of each country is as obvious as, well, gravity.
Kassian to Vancouver for Hodgson
in The Aud Club
Posted
We're still suffering from Black Sunday because we never addressed it with a full rebuild. It's been nothing but band-aids ever since. We create new problems by addressing the current ones.
All of Regier's half-measures have resulted in a team that is never contending and never rebuilding. Are we trying to get younger? Are we trying to win now? Are we trying to just win enough that you can't justify firing anyone?
I've said it before, you can't rebuild with the same GM you've had since 1997 because that would require him to admit that he failed and that it's time to start over. So we never have a plan. We're just hoping to catch lightning in a bottle with a little bit of roster turnover every year.