The Skill could be returning this week!!!!!

[carpandean]

Aside from concussions, TC isn't any more "prone" to injury than anyone else in the absence of an unrelated condition. We and the media like to use the term "prone" as a way of explaining coincidence and frequency. Medically speaking, however, it's not good science.

You are right that "injury-prone" is thrown out whenever a player has a string of injuries even if there is no proven connection between them. However, there could be several reasons that make a player more susceptible to injures than his teammates. Excluding the obvious recurring injuries, a player's conditioning (what he does outside of the team stuff), build, age, technique (ability to avoid or absorb hits; skating with your head down; reckless abandon) or even unknown medical conditions (do they test bone density of players?) could, in fact, make a player more prone (susceptible) to injuries. Something has to explain why some players consistently miss no more than a game or two a season, while others can't seem to put together half a season without a significant injury. It can't all be bad luck.

[K-9]

That's so funny, I seem to recall myself and others predicting injuries for Connolly this season. I believe there is a thread where posters guessed how many games Connolly will miss. I really don't see it as going out on a limb to say Connolly won't play all of the remaining games.

 

Do you think Connolly would sign for the league minimum? If the Sabres brought him back for anything more they would be laughed at more than the Bills have been laughed at for bringing Jauron back. The Sabres have already spent a popular player in Peca and millions of dollars on Connolly. If they can't walk away at this point it has to be for more than hockey reasons.

 

I remember the "prediction" thread. But it's one thing for posters on a BB to "predict" a future injury based on past injuries, but you'll never get a doctor to do that in the absence of a related condition. And, as hard as it is for you to accept, there is simply no medical correlation to his injuries other than his concussions. As for your prediction, you were lucky. Congratulations. Go ahead and bet the mortgage that he'll sustain another if it makes you feel better. Does Vegas give odds? Lloyds?

 

As for him signing for the league minimum, why should he if someone is willing to offer him more? If nobody does and he agrees and he still wants to play, then I guess he would sign for the minimum. One could argue that it's FOR HOCKEY REASONS PRECISELY that the Sabres simply don't walk away. When healthy, he's an above-average talent. Unlike you, the Sabres and their medical staff can't "predict" another injury. They have to make the decisions based on something more concrete like, oh, his production when he's on the ice.

 

GO SABRES!!!

[carpandean]

I remember the "prediction" thread. But it's one thing for posters on a BB to "predict" a future injury based on past injuries, but you'll never get a doctor to do that in the absence of a related condition. And, as hard as it is for you to accept, there is simply no medical correlation to his injuries other than his concussions. As for your prediction, you were lucky. Congratulations. Go ahead and bet the mortgage that he'll sustain another if it makes you feel better. Does Vegas give odds? Lloyds?

 

As for him signing for the league minimum, why should he if someone is willing to offer him more? If nobody does and he agrees and he still wants to play, then I guess he would sign for the minimum. One could argue that it's FOR HOCKEY REASONS PRECISELY that the Sabres simply don't walk away. When healthy, he's an above-average talent. Unlike you, the Sabres and their medical staff can't "predict" another injury. They have to make the decisions based on something more concrete like, oh, his production when he's on the ice.

 

GO SABRES!!!

What if he does suffer another seemingly unrelated injury during the rest of the season; do you still re-sign him? Say that you sign him to a one-year deal and he suffers another series of seemingly unrelated injuries; do you re-sign him again? Is there a point where you would say enough? According to your theory, there isn't. However, just because they don't know what the commonality is, doesn't mean that one doesn't exist. Eventually, while it may not "prove" a connection, the evidence becomes overwhelming.

 

Not everyone here is preaching that they should have bought him out assuming that he couldn't stay healthy, but at the very least, the evidence warranted reducing their dependence on him in a critical position for the team. That is where they failed.

[K-9]

I think he was saying that as spin control because there was nothing else he could say. I can't imagine any GM publicly admitting the truth -- no one was going to take TC's salary off of their hands, and they didn't have the money to go out and get another center (b/c a buyout would only have saved them $1MM).

I don't agree with this in a professional sports context. I think you have to be somewhat of a freak of nature to have a body that can take the pounding of being an NHL player. Most of us don't have that kind of body, and TC doesn't either. Rob Johnson was the same way.

 

Then how does one explain Connolly's 200 plus consecutive game streak to start his career? How does one explain the opposite examples of guys who were routinely hurt early in their careers only to go on to achieve greatness later on? I'm saying it again, these injuries are simply coincidence. Nothing more. Does he have some sort of previously undetected congenital condition? Is there ANY medical evidence offered by ANYONE to suggest he needs to retire because he "doesn't have the body to hold up to the rigors of the NHL?

 

GO SABRES!!!

[K-9]

You are right that "injury-prone" is thrown out whenever a player has a string of injuries even if there is no proven connection between them. However, there could be several reasons that make a player more susceptible to injures than his teammates. Excluding the obvious recurring injuries, a player's conditioning (what he does outside of the team stuff), build, age, technique (ability to avoid or absorb hits; skating with your head down; reckless abandon) or even unknown medical conditions (do they test bone density of players?) could, in fact, make a player more prone (susceptible) to injuries. Something has to explain why some players consistently miss no more than a game or two a season, while others can't seem to put together half a season without a significant injury. It can't all be bad luck.

 

I agree re conditioning, taking precautions on the ice (skating heads up is a no brainer), etc. At least two of his worst injuries were the result of not being aware on the ice. That's awareness, not physicality.

 

Was his 200+ game streak without injury a fluke? It can't all be good luck.

 

GO SABRES!!!

[darksabre]

 

hai guys!

[carpandean]

I agree re conditioning, taking precautions on the ice (skating heads up is a no brainer), etc. At least two of his worst injuries were the result of not being aware on the ice. That's awareness, not physicality.

Was his 200+ game streak without injury a fluke? It can't all be good luck.

Does it matter what the source is? If it's not corrected, then whether it's due to a physical condition or his awareness, he would still be more prone to injuries. Is he worth any more or less to the team because his injuries are a result of his lack of awareness instead of a physical condition? Unless they believe that they can't make him more aware, then he is still more likely to be out of the lineup than another player with better awareness. My point was that just because you don't know why he takes more injuries, doesn't mean that he won't take more in the future. The more injuries that he suffers, the less likely that it is just bad luck.

 

As for the 200+ games where he was healthy, that actually goes to my point. If he was on again, off again, going 82 games, then 40, then 79, the 80, then 36, ... you could explain that with good/bad luck. However, a pattern like his suggests a fundamental shift in the underlying system. It's possible it's just a fluke random draw (I could flip 20 heads, then 20 tails on a quarter, too), but it's more likely that something about him changed (it's more likely that a double-tailed quarter was swapped in for a double-headed quarter used on the first 20 flips than that a fair, 50/50, quarter was used the whole time.)

[K-9]

What if he does suffer another seemingly unrelated injury during the rest of the season; do you still re-sign him? Say that you sign him to a one-year deal and he suffers another series of seemingly unrelated injuries; do you re-sign him again? Is there a point where you would say enough? According to your theory, there isn't. However, just because they don't know what the commonality is, doesn't mean that one doesn't exist. Eventually, while it may not "prove" a connection, the evidence becomes overwhelming.

 

Not everyone here is preaching that they should have bought him out assuming that he couldn't stay healthy, but at the very least, the evidence warranted reducing their dependence on him in a critical position for the team. That is where they failed.

 

Enough is enough is like beauty being in the eye of the beholder. If it's me calling the shots, I let him play out the remainder of the year and evaluate after the season. If he stays healthy, great, that means he's contributed in a large way most likely (I say that based on his past performance in the line-up). If he gets hurt again, then his contract is up at the end of the season and, assuming other teams aren't exactly falling over each other trying to sign him (in which case I say "good luck"), then the most I offer is vet minimum on a one-year, incentive laden contract, tied largely to number of games played with an option to extend to two years after next season. Ask me what the incentive numbers are after I acquaint myself with the cap numbers after the season.

 

Now, if he DOES stay healthy the rest of the year and produces like his averages suggest AND he helps us on an extended playoff run he WILL attract the attention of other bidders. In that case all bets are off. I would remind him that we've stuck by him and paid him handsomly for his production. Again, I would STILL on an incentive laden deal tied to number of games played. Again, if he garners a huge deal from another team and doesn't want to re-up with us, I say "good-luck."

 

Now, before anyone goes off and says that I'm contradicting myself regarding the "prediction" of injuries because I insist on a number of games played clause, I'm not. TC getting injured IN THE FUTURE DOES NOT factor in here. TC getting injured IN THE PAST, does however. If he meets his incentive that means he's producing at levels HIGHER than his current salary warrants. And if he does it for an entire season then I've re-couped SOME of the lost production at 3.5m the last three seasons with an option to potentially recoup more the following season.

 

"It ain't personal, Sonny. It's business."

 

GO SABRES!!!

[K-9]

Does it matter what the source is? If it's not corrected, then whether it's due to a physical condition or his awareness, he would still be more prone to injuries. Is he worth any more or less to the team because his injuries are a result of his lack of awareness instead of a physical condition? Unless they believe that they can't make him more aware, then he is still more likely to be out of the lineup than another player with better awareness. My point was that just because you don't know why he takes more injuries, doesn't mean that he won't take more in the future. The more injuries that he suffers, the less likely that it is just bad luck.

 

As for the 200+ games where he was healthy, that actually goes to my point. If he was on again, off again, going 82 games, then 40, then 79, the 80, then 36, ... you could explain that with good/bad luck. However, a pattern like his suggests a fundamental shift in the underlying system. It's possible it's just a fluke random draw (I could flip 20 heads, then 20 tails on a quarter, too), but it's more likely that something about him changed (it's more likely that a double-tailed quarter was swapped in for a double-headed quarter used on the first 20 flips than that a fair, 50/50, quarter was used the whole time.)

 

Y'know, Carp, maybe you're right about that change in his awareness. Maybe that hit by Schafer knocked whatever awareness he had on the ice right out of him.

 

GO SABRES!!!

[gregkash]

It's pretty simple to me.

 

Buffalo w/ Tim Connolly playing > Buffalo w/out Tim Connolly playing

 

Given the fact that TC has a contract already, and isn't going anywhere,

 

I'm really just not sure what the debate is about.

[...]

I think it's pretty safe to say that when Connolly is healthy, he is a target on the ice. It's also reasonable to suggest that he may under-estimate the other players on the ice, or over-estimate his abilities to skate around them, and put himself in positions that could lead to an injury (the "Awareness" argument). I think these two factors combine to give us his string of injuries.

 

From a medical standpoint, if he were in any way unfit to play, they wouldn't play him. That's a fairly simple conclusion especially in this ever-more-litigious and PR-conscious society we live in.

 

The only correlation one could make between concussions and other injuries are that the concussions hindered awareness which led to an "accident". If The Skill were in such condition they wouldn't let him on the ice. So, the "bone mass" and "concussion" arguments are dead.

[K-9]

It's pretty simple to me.

 

Buffalo w/ Tim Connolly playing > Buffalo w/out Tim Connolly playing

 

Given the fact that TC has a contract already, and isn't going anywhere,

 

I'm really just not sure what the debate is about.

 

Thanks for the nutshell. Couldn't agree more.

 

But some need to debate and find fault with the Sabres who SHOULD have seen coming something they COULDN'T have seen to begin with. You know, the old "20/20 hindsight" critique.

 

Some also need to find fault with a player who simply signed a contract that of course he SHOULDN'T have because he hasn't lived up to it because he's a girly man who doesn't have the desire to play, the body to play, the smarts to play, and has sustained numerous RELATED injuries as a result.

 

GO SABRES!!!

[tom webster]

Enough is enough is like beauty being in the eye of the beholder. If it's me calling the shots, I let him play out the remainder of the year and evaluate after the season. If he stays healthy, great, that means he's contributed in a large way most likely (I say that based on his past performance in the line-up). If he gets hurt again, then his contract is up at the end of the season and, assuming other teams aren't exactly falling over each other trying to sign him (in which case I say "good luck"), then the most I offer is vet minimum on a one-year, incentive laden contract, tied largely to number of games played with an option to extend to two years after next season. Ask me what the incentive numbers are after I acquaint myself with the cap numbers after the season.

 

Now, if he DOES stay healthy the rest of the year and produces like his averages suggest AND he helps us on an extended playoff run he WILL attract the attention of other bidders. In that case all bets are off. I would remind him that we've stuck by him and paid him handsomly for his production. Again, I would STILL on an incentive laden deal tied to number of games played. Again, if he garners a huge deal from another team and doesn't want to re-up with us, I say "good-luck."

 

Now, before anyone goes off and says that I'm contradicting myself regarding the "prediction" of injuries because I insist on a number of games played clause, I'm not. TC getting injured IN THE FUTURE DOES NOT factor in here. TC getting injured IN THE PAST, does however. If he meets his incentive that means he's producing at levels HIGHER than his current salary warrants. And if he does it for an entire season then I've re-couped SOME of the lost production at 3.5m the last three seasons with an option to potentially recoup more the following season.

 

"It ain't personal, Sonny. It's business."

 

GO SABRES!!!

 

 

CBA Rules prevent incentive laden contracts for someone his age.

[inkman]

But some need to debate and find fault with the Sabres who SHOULD have seen coming something they COULDN'T have seen to begin with. You know, the old "20/20 hindsight" critique.

They couldn't have signed or traded for a #1 or #2 center this off-season? They should have seen Connolly's injuries coming because he's always injured. Not too complicated.

[darksabre]

They couldn't have signed or traded for a #1 or #2 center this off-season? They should have seen Connolly's injuries coming because he's always injured. Not too complicated.

 

Amen. Anyone could have seen this coming. It's Tim Connolly. The odds are against him.

[Bmwolf21]

They couldn't have signed or traded for a #1 or #2 center this off-season? They should have seen Connolly's injuries coming because he's always injured. Not too complicated.

At the very least, if we sign someone and Timmy stays healthy? Huge bonus. Or maybe they use Timmy in a limited role (PP/PK specialist, maybe?) and in OT and SO's. Reduces the amount of time Timmy is on the ice, which means his chances of staying healthy for the stretch run and into the playoffs increases. Everybody wins.

[nfreeman]

They couldn't have signed or traded for a #1 or #2 center this off-season? They should have seen Connolly's injuries coming because he's always injured. Not too complicated.

That's a $5MM player (or more). They didn't have that much room in the budget. I suppose in theory they could have dumped both Max and Tallinder for draft picks and used that cash, but that would have been very out of character (although in retrospect certainly the right move).

[PASabreFan]

Man, I hope Connolly can shove it down a lot of people's throats. On your knees ink.

 

Actually, everyone, even his critics, should hope for the same thing.

[carpandean]

That's a $5MM player (or more). They didn't have that much room in the budget. I suppose in theory they could have dumped both Max and Tallinder for draft picks and used that cash, but that would have been very out of character (although in retrospect certainly the right move).

That's the problem. It may have been out of character, but it was the right thing to do. Weber was close enough to have started as the #6 defenseman (I know that he wasn't as good during his callup this year, but who know how he would have looked given a starting spot) and Max's slot would be filled by the new guy (or, really, Timmy would take Max's slot on wing and the new guy would have taken Tim's slot as a scoring-line center.) It was an obvious move. After what they saw last year, it was a move that they needed to make. I've had much less problem with them letting certain guys go than I had with them not bringing enough players in (Rivet was a good first step, but not enough.)

[carpandean]

Man, I hope Connolly can shove it down a lot of people's throats. On your knees ink.

Actually, everyone, even his critics, should hope for the same thing.

I definitely hope that he comes in, plays out the season and post-season and scores two points-a-game. I also hope that Max figures out how to score goals and not turn over the puck, that Tallinder remembers how play physically and that Rob Ray suits up again for the Blue and Gold. :nana:

[FearTheReaper]

I'll just toss this out there. The NHL gives teams a lot of 5-3 situations these days and boy it would win us a few more games, or a few more points in the standings, having him running that for us. He was REALLY missing on our 5-3 situations, IMO.

 

I would be phenominal to see TC dictate a 5 on 3. I'd also like to see him in a couple of shootouts.

[Kristian]

I would be phenominal to see TC dictate a 5 on 3. I'd also like to see him in a couple of shootouts.

 

Not sure I agree about that, although I see where you're coming from.

 

I guess I think, that while he has a ton of moves in his arsenal, he's just not a natural finisher which is what counts in a shootout.

 

Look at Kotalik - He has maybe two or three moves that's it, but he can finish them.

 

Timmy just isn't a natural scorer, but a playmaker IMHO.

[deluca67]

I remember the "prediction" thread. But it's one thing for posters on a BB to "predict" a future injury based on past injuries, but you'll never get a doctor to do that in the absence of a related condition. And, as hard as it is for you to accept, there is simply no medical correlation to his injuries other than his concussions. As for your prediction, you were lucky. Congratulations. Go ahead and bet the mortgage that he'll sustain another if it makes you feel better. Does Vegas give odds? Lloyds?

 

As for him signing for the league minimum, why should he if someone is willing to offer him more? If nobody does and he agrees and he still wants to play, then I guess he would sign for the minimum. One could argue that it's FOR HOCKEY REASONS PRECISELY that the Sabres simply don't walk away. When healthy, he's an above-average talent. Unlike you, the Sabres and their medical staff can't "predict" another injury. They have to make the decisions based on something more concrete like, oh, his production when he's on the ice.

 

GO SABRES!!!

It's not luck. It's common sense. When you have an established historical pattern it's really easy to predict. If I were to predict that Connolly will get hurt again before the end of the season would you or anyone else be surprised when I'm right? No. Because we all know it's going to happen. You don't need a sound medical reason to predict it. Doctors may not be able to predict injuries but hockey fans sure can. It's like when Bills fan could predict that Rob Johnson would get injured. There was no medical reason for it but it sure did happen. Maybe it's because the laws of logic and reason don't exist when it comes to sports. Sports are ruled by gut feelings and instincts.

[SwampD]

It's not luck. It's common sense. When you have an established historical pattern it's really easy to predict. If I were to predict that Connolly will get hurt again before the end of the season would you or anyone else be surprised when I'm right? No. Because we all know it's going to happen. You don't need a sound medical reason to predict it. Doctors may not be able to predict injuries but hockey fans sure can. It's like when Bills fan could predict that Rob Johnson would get injured. There was no medical reason for it but it sure did happen. Maybe it's because the laws of logic and reason don't exist when it comes to sports. Sports are ruled by gut feelings and instincts.

I actually think it is quite logical to think that he will get hurt again before the end of the season. Some basic data analysis will tell us that. That said, I would rather see Connolly playing than injured and I actually feel really bad for him. It really seems like he can't catch a break(from injuries not bones).

 

Now...the real question. With 42 left to play, who's out

[nucci]

I actually think it is quite logical to think that he will get hurt again before the end of the season. Some basic data analysis will tell us that. That said, I would rather see Connolly playing than injured and I actually feel really bad for him. It really seems like he can't catch a break(from injuries not bones).

 

Now...the real question. With 42 left to play, who's out

I said less than 50. Of course that was kind of easy to call.