Do the Sabres have the worst goaltending in the Eastern Conference?

[Eleven]

Just now, thewookie1 said:

I can't imagine the Sabres doing it; the PR would create more hand wringing than they'd deem acceptable.

I don't think it would. 

[thewookie1]

1 minute ago, Eleven said:

I don't think it would. 

I'd be happy to see it but I'd imagine the media would crucify us

[Eleven]

58 minutes ago, thewookie1 said:

I'd be happy to see it but I'd imagine the media would crucify us

They didn't sanctify Pegula for kicking Araiza off the Bills and they won't crucify him for signing Hart.

[thewookie1]

1 minute ago, Eleven said:

They didn't sanctify Pegula for kicking Araiza off the Bills and they won't crucify him for signing Hart.

There was plenty of people demanding Araiza be released even before we had all the information

[Eleven]

56 minutes ago, thewookie1 said:

There was plenty of people demanding Araiza be released even before we had all the information

That doesn't address what I wrote.

[thewookie1]

1 hour ago, Eleven said:

They didn't sanctify Pegula for kicking Araiza off the Bills and they won't crucify him for signing Hart.

43 minutes ago, Eleven said:

That doesn't address what I wrote.

Well rarely do you see anyone garner kudos for standing firm on the idea of “innocent until proven guilty” when accusations are dished out. You only either get hammered for not doing anything, hammered for not doing something fast enough, or ignored/ridiculed for acting at all. 

[Sabres73]

4 hours ago, Eleven said:

Well, a free agent goalie who is better than Lyon just became available.

Putting aside how morally bankrupt it would be to sign any of these douchebags, Bettman said they're not eligible to play in the NHL. Whether that's just this year or longer wasn't said.

[Eleven]

16 hours ago, Sabres73 said:

Putting aside how morally bankrupt it would be to sign any of these douchebags, Bettman said they're not eligible to play in the NHL. Whether that's just this year or longer wasn't said.

I did learn this morning that Bettman won't let him back in the league just yet.  But I wouldn't have any moral qualms about it, especially given the judge's somewhat scathing critique of the complainant's credibility.  I tend to trust the courts in places like Canada.

[LGR4GM]

27 minutes ago, Eleven said:

I did learn this morning that Bettman won't let him back in the league just yet.  But I wouldn't have any moral qualms about it, especially given the judge's somewhat scathing critique of the complainant's credibility.  I tend to trust the courts in places like Canada.

There's the law side of things and the "this wasn't right" side of things. I heard enough of the testimony and the evidence to think even if legally these players cannot or even should not be punished, what happened was in that "this isn't right" realm. It's fairly clear from the factual sequence of events that things, at least in terms of my morality, were taken to far and have that "ick" factor. At the very least McLeod would be someone I would not want on my team due to his grievous lack of judgement. 

[LGR4GM]

I think this quote from the Athletic article on this is exactly why I have an issue with just "moving on" and bringing in the players involved. It perfectly encapsulates how this was covered and the presiding feeling now that it is "over". 

Quote

In the final accounting, the most tangible change resulting from the scandal is that Hockey Canada no longer has a slush fund to quietly pay off victims. Yes, some sponsors left, but several — like Tim Hortons, Telus, and Bauer — have already returned. Others, undoubtedly, will follow. There will be Hockey Canada galas in the years ahead to fete young heroes, just with no open bar, per new alcohol policies.

As for the message sent…

The players and the sport were the victims. And now the game is free to move on.

https://www.nytimes.com/athletic/6429400/2025/07/24/hockey-canada-trial-players-not-guilty/

Edited 6 hours ago by LGR4GM

[Eleven]

22 minutes ago, LGR4GM said:

There's the law side of things and the "this wasn't right" side of things. I heard enough of the testimony and the evidence to think even if legally these players cannot or even should not be punished, what happened was in that "this isn't right" realm. It's fairly clear from the factual sequence of events that things, at least in terms of my morality, were taken to far and have that "ick" factor. At the very least McLeod would be someone I would not want on my team due to his grievous lack of judgement. 

 

20 minutes ago, LGR4GM said:

I think this quote from the Athletic article on this is exactly why I have an issue with just "moving on" and bringing in the players involved. It perfectly encapsulates how this was covered and the presiding feeling now that it is "over". 

https://www.nytimes.com/athletic/6429400/2025/07/24/hockey-canada-trial-players-not-guilty/

 

Is the "as for the message sent" part yours or the articles?  (My Athletic subscription lapsed and I'm not renewing.)  

There *is* an "ick factor" here.  I couldn't agree more.  But young people (and older people) do icky things, as all six of the individuals involved here did.  In other words, whatever ick there was, was consensual.    (And it does seem that Hart's participation was very limited and only involved doing splits.)  

Hart would be an improvement not only over Lyon, but also over UPL.  

And I wouldn't want any part of McLeod, either, but he's not the guy I'm considering in these posts.

[LGR4GM]

29 minutes ago, Eleven said:

 

 

Is the "as for the message sent" part yours or the articles?  (My Athletic subscription lapsed and I'm not renewing.)  

There *is* an "ick factor" here.  I couldn't agree more.  But young people (and older people) do icky things, as all six of the individuals involved here did.  In other words, whatever ick there was, was consensual.    (And it does seem that Hart's participation was very limited and only involved doing splits.)  

Hart would be an improvement not only over Lyon, but also over UPL.  

And I wouldn't want any part of McLeod, either, but he's not the guy I'm considering in these posts.

Everything in the quote box is from the article. I don't agree with the "consensual part" as clearly the girl involved felt some line was crossed. 

I am fine with approaching Hart but Adams will not. He and Ruff believe in UPL and are stupid and stubborn. There's almost no evidence that UPL is consistent enough to be a reliable starter without a team selling all out for defense. Maybe this year he proves us wrong but if I had a team in 14yr playoff drought and was responsible for 5 of those years, I would be a bit more cut throat than Adams is or will ever be. 

[Eleven]

9 minutes ago, LGR4GM said:

Everything in the quote box is from the article. I don't agree with the "consensual part" as clearly the girl involved felt some line was crossed. 

I am fine with approaching Hart but Adams will not. He and Ruff believe in UPL and are stupid and stubborn. There's almost no evidence that UPL is consistent enough to be a reliable starter without a team selling all out for defense. Maybe this year he proves us wrong but if I had a team in 14yr playoff drought and was responsible for 5 of those years, I would be a bit more cut throat than Adams is or will ever be. 

I don't know whether Ruff is confident in UPL.  He certainly can't say otherwise; we've seen recently what happens there.  Adams obviously does, and it is stupid, as you say.  "Maybe this year he proves us wrong" is forever now.  Unless he has some weird Tim Thomas arrival moment, he is what he's going to be, and that's not a playoff-caliber starter in the NHL.