GDT: Sabres @ Hurricanes, 7:00pm Nov. 8, 2025, 🎙 📺 ESPN+/MSG

[Sidc3000]

3 hours ago, sabresouth said:

Married to an accountant. We were talking about lack of effort from ownership to make this team better. She had two words. Tax right off. Ok three words. Pagula is making a killing with the bills. It may be the tipping point factor as to why he isn't as motivated as we want him to be to have a successful NHL franchise. Maybe he'd like a successful hockey team but it doesn't overcome the tax benefits. IDK

Like I’ve over and over again, the Sabres was a means to an end for the Pegula’s. Terry doesn’t give two shits about the Sabres. When fans finally come to that realization, and shows they don’t give two shits, is when something will change. Then, and only then will something change with ownership. Either Terry will sell or or an invest a significant amount of money to make the team relevant. I say he sells to the highest bidder with no stipulations. 

Edited yesterday at 05:49 PM by Sidc3000

[Jorcus]

1 hour ago, Pimlach said:

They need to play at least .550, preferably .600 points percentage in the month of November to stay alive. 

So far November looks like this:

1W  2L  1 OTL = 3 of 8  points,  0.375 pts pct.  That no show, shut out, home ice loss to St Louis looks pretty big.  

Next 3  road games are:  

11/12 - Utah  

11/3 -  Avs 

11/15 - Wings  

They really need 4 of the next 6 points or November starts to slip away.  They have to start a win 2 or 3 pattern or else.  

So with that, how about some Sunday Soul?  A little Americana R&B.   Clarence Carter backed by the Muscle Shoals "Swampers".  

 

 

Well at least you did not link us to Strokin.

[SwampD]

16 hours ago, Brawndo said:

A co worker showed me the benefit of adding caramel flavored vodka to apple cider. 
 

Good stuff 

I add regular vodka to it all the time. That also has benefits.

[Cityo'Rasmii]

57 minutes ago, SwampD said:

I add regular vodka to it all the time. That also has benefits.

Be sure to hold some back for Wednesday's game, it will likely be needed.

go Sabres

[JohnC]

5 hours ago, sabresouth said:

Married to an accountant. We were talking about lack of effort from ownership to make this team better. She had two words. Tax right off. Ok three words. Pagula is making a killing with the bills. It may be the tipping point factor as to why he isn't as motivated as we want him to be to have a successful NHL franchise. Maybe he'd like a successful hockey team but it doesn't overcome the tax benefits. IDK

Terry P. Would make significantly more money with or without a write off if he had a serious team. The fan support and revenue generation would be much higher. The obvious fact based on his record is that his own ineptitude has cost him money.

[PerreaultForever]

4 hours ago, Taro T said:

Sounds good in theory, but you're on the road.  The other team has the last change; you aren't getting better matchups with 3 minutes left than you're going to get in the last minute.  And this team does a LOT of turning the puck over near the blue line, either entering the zone or having a D flub it under pressure.  You give the other team way too many chances to end it when you pull the goalie with that much time left.

Again, am sure that analytics say 'yes, pull the goalie with 3 minutes left because you're going to get x matchup and the XG/60 say you need about 3 mintues to have a high probability of scoring another goal' but those analytics don't take into consideration how likely Quinn, Thompson, Power, or Byram are at turning the puck over in that time nor how likely it is that turnover will result in a goal against because the turnover doesn't happen near the goal line but above the circles.

Well the flaw in your theory is you see the goalie being out for all 3 minutes. The idea is you score and put him back in for the last 2 minutes. If he's out for all 3 you likely aren't getting it done anyway. Coach has to go for the match up and O zone face off. But you need to win that face off and you need to send that extra man to the front of the net to create havoc. 

Honestly I don't think it really matters. Appert seems to be designing all these things and like the Pp it's useless. 

[Taro T]

1 hour ago, PerreaultForever said:

Well the flaw in your theory is you see the goalie being out for all 3 minutes. The idea is you score and put him back in for the last 2 minutes. If he's out for all 3 you likely aren't getting it done anyway. Coach has to go for the match up and O zone face off. But you need to win that face off and you need to send that extra man to the front of the net to create havoc. 

Honestly I don't think it really matters. Appert seems to be designing all these things and like the Pp it's useless. 

When is the last friggin' time they scored in the 1st minute of having pulled the goalie when down by 1 with 3 or so minutes left.

The Sabres regularly DON'T score in that situation.  The opponent regularly does.  Why make the game unwinnable before you get the extra pressure of the final minute or so working against the opponent.  Get THEM to grip their stilcks tight too.

And, again, realize the analytics say to pull the goalie early.  BUT you have to factor in the players YOU actually have and not just look at some generalized thought process.  (Heck, even you yourself point out the flaw in the Sabres pulling the goalie early - "you need to win that face off and you need to send that extra man to the front of the net."  The Sabres DON'T do either.  (Whether it's a matter of philosophy or merely execution doesn't really matter; at the end of the day, they do neither.))

Now, if Norris, Benson, and Zucker were all available, then it MIGHT make sense to pull the goalie so early; but it doesn't make sense to do so with who they actually can send out there.

[PerreaultForever]

5 minutes ago, Taro T said:

When is the last friggin' time they scored in the 1st minute of having pulled the goalie when down by 1 with 3 or so minutes left.

The Sabres regularly DON'T score in that situation.  The opponent regularly does.  Why make the game unwinnable before you get the extra pressure of the final minute or so working against the opponent.  Get THEM to grip their stilcks tight too.

And, again, realize the analytics say to pull the goalie early.  BUT you have to factor in the players YOU actually have and not just look at some generalized thought process.  (Heck, even you yourself point out the flaw in the Sabres pulling the goalie early - "you need to win that face off and you need to send that extra man to the front of the net."  The Sabres DON'T do either.  (Whether it's a matter of philosophy or merely execution doesn't really matter; at the end of the day, they do neither.))

Now, if Norris, Benson, and Zucker were all available, then it MIGHT make sense to pull the goalie so early; but it doesn't make sense to do so with who they actually can send out there.

You have to realize your argument is based on a premise that since they are pathetic at 6 on 5 it's not worth trying early. I mean, that's the Sabres in a nutshell. 

[Taro T]

12 minutes ago, PerreaultForever said:

You have to realize your argument is based on a premise that since they are pathetic at 6 on 5 it's not worth trying early. I mean, that's the Sabres in a nutshell. 

Well, yes.  It ROUTINELY blows up in their faces.

Do you really need to see more evidence before coming to that same conclusion?

[Taro T]

And just to add, a big point of pulling the goalie and getting an extra skater is to put extra pressure on the opposing team and to create a sense of urgency when the puck is on an opponent's stick.

Pulling the goalie early if you're the Eulers with McDavid and Draisatl out there has a logic to it; they do create an urgency on the opponent.  Does anyone see the Sabres create an urgency / pressure on their opponents when THEY pull the goalie with 3 minutes to go?  They don't get that urgency until the clock is actually running out.  At some point, it would be nice for someone callling the shots to recognize that.  Either get to a point where they can manufacture that artificial urgency or stop trying to do so.  But just going through the motions is as stupid as dropping the puck back on the PP simply to drop the puck back on the PP.

[Jorcus]

2 hours ago, PerreaultForever said:

You have to realize your argument is based on a premise that since they are pathetic at 6 on 5 it's not worth trying early. I mean, that's the Sabres in a nutshell. 

If crappy teams keep failing to score with the goalie pulled eventually the Analytics are going to say not to do it. Generalized statistics should not eliminate other inputs. In my mind they pulled the goalie too early in that circumstance because they had been getting some chances 5 on 5. Maybe I am wrong but the analytics are not stagnant. Very few teams used to pull a goalie in a 1 goal game until under 2 minutes. Now that they do it and the other team expects them to do it. The advantage becomes less and may even come to the point where they say don't do it at all. There is no right answer in a 1 game isolated circumstance. We could have won or lost either way. I would not blame a coach for going against an analytical indicator if they felt other circumstances told them not to.

[SwampD]

3 hours ago, Taro T said:

When is the last friggin' time they scored in the 1st minute of having pulled the goalie when down by 1 with 3 or so minutes left.

The Sabres regularly DON'T score in that situation.  The opponent regularly does.  Why make the game unwinnable before you get the extra pressure of the final minute or so working against the opponent.  Get THEM to grip their stilcks tight too.

And, again, realize the analytics say to pull the goalie early.  BUT you have to factor in the players YOU actually have and not just look at some generalized thought process.  (Heck, even you yourself point out the flaw in the Sabres pulling the goalie early - "you need to win that face off and you need to send that extra man to the front of the net."  The Sabres DON'T do either.  (Whether it's a matter of philosophy or merely execution doesn't really matter; at the end of the day, they do neither.))

Now, if Norris, Benson, and Zucker were all available, then it MIGHT make sense to pull the goalie so early; but it doesn't make sense to do so with who they actually can send out there.

The Sabres don’t regularly score in any situation.

[...]

2 hours ago, Taro T said:

And just to add, a big point of pulling the goalie and getting an extra skater is to put extra pressure on the opposing team and to create a sense of urgency when the puck is on an opponent's stick.

Pulling the goalie early if you're the Eulers with McDavid and Draisatl out there has a logic to it; they do create an urgency on the opponent.  Does anyone see the Sabres create an urgency / pressure on their opponents when THEY pull the goalie with 3 minutes to go?  They don't get that urgency until the clock is actually running out.  At some point, it would be nice for someone callling the shots to recognize that.  Either get to a point where they can manufacture that artificial urgency or stop trying to do so.  But just going through the motions is as stupid as dropping the puck back on the PP simply to drop the puck back on the PP.

Agree on all points. In this particular game they had already given up the puck so much it was sheer idiocy to pull the goalie at all. Given that, the message from the coaching staff was that with over 3 minutes left they felt the game was already lost.

[PerreaultForever]

5 hours ago, Taro T said:

Well, yes.  It ROUTINELY blows up in their faces.

Do you really need to see more evidence before coming to that same conclusion?

No, I'm just saying it's a desperation play no matter when you pull the goalie and their odds of getting it done in 1 minute are slim to none so why not 2 or 3 minutes? It's a hail Mary and likely won't matter anyway, but not pulling the goalie isn't going to work either so whatever. 

They always lack urgency and they lose puck battles. That's all 60 minutes as a whole. For years. 6 on 5 requires that urgency, physicality, and being desperate on every single puck battle. You don't get to be pretty with 6 on 5. 

[Taro T]

9 hours ago, PerreaultForever said:

No, I'm just saying it's a desperation play no matter when you pull the goalie and their odds of getting it done in 1 minute are slim to none so why not 2 or 3 minutes? It's a hail Mary and likely won't matter anyway, but not pulling the goalie isn't going to work either so whatever. 

They always lack urgency and they lose puck battles. That's all 60 minutes as a whole. For years. 6 on 5 requires that urgency, physicality, and being desperate on every single puck battle. You don't get to be pretty with 6 on 5. 

Didn't say 1 minute.  Said 1st opportunity with less than 100 seconds left.  You have your best scorers out there for an extended shift, but you have your best out there when the pressure is the greatest.  When they know they MUST score on THAT shift or they're leaving the building with another L.

You have a true urgency.  And when there's an urgency, you stop trying to be pretty.

But when you pull the goalie with 3 or so to go, you lose that urgency.  And without urgency, you turn the puck over and end up pulling the puck out of your own net. 

[JohnC]

5 hours ago, Taro T said:

Didn't say 1 minute.  Said 1st opportunity with less than 100 seconds left.  You have your best scorers out there for an extended shift, but you have your best out there when the pressure is the greatest.  When they know they MUST score on THAT shift or they're leaving the building with another L.

You have a true urgency.  And when there's an urgency, you stop trying to be pretty.

But when you pull the goalie with 3 or so to go, you lose that urgency.  And without urgency, you turn the puck over and end up pulling the puck out of your own net. 

The problem isn't lacking the urgency as much as it is having the ability to translate that urgency into production. I assume you watched the Carolina game and many others. This team, especially after being subjected to a number of injuries, simply isn't good enough to maintain the puck in their zone, even with a man advantage. Compare how other teams handle the puck without sloppily losing it as the Sabres often do? Even if one doesn't have much knowledge in the sport (count me in that unschooled group), it was evident to the untrained eye that Carolin was the better team. The problem with the Sabres is that it is an assembly of parts that don't properly fit together.  The parts value is greater than the team value. This is where we are at and have been for quite a while. When you have the same people at the helm steering the ship it shouldn't be a surprise that they become stuck on the course they have unwisely set. There is a bland sameness to this Peugla franchise that is dispiriting. 

[MISabresFan]

When you think about it, all the Sabres need to do is fire and then hire one person to fix this ship.

[mjd1001]

10 minutes ago, MISabresFan said:

When you think about it, all the Sabres need to do is fire and then hire one person to fix this ship.

Yet, we have had many other people during Pegula's reign in all the important positions, and since he took over they have missed the playoffs every single year he was owner of the team for a full year. (unless you mean fire and hire a new owner?)

4 different GMs, 7 (or 8, depending if you count Ruff twice) different head coaches. Countless front office changes.  No one, nor no number of 'many' moves have made a difference in the past. I see no reason to think one single move (without flushing everyone/everything around that person out) would be enough.

[Sidc3000]

23 hours ago, JohnC said:

Terry P. Would make significantly more money with or without a write off if he had a serious team. The fan support and revenue generation would be much higher. The obvious fact based on his record is that his own ineptitude has cost him money.

Like the saying goes “you got to spend money to make money.”  He doesn’t want to spend his money on the Sabres so he is just using it as a tax write-off. One way or another it’s helping him financially either way. 

[JohnC]

3 minutes ago, Sidc3000 said:

Like the saying goes “you got to spend money to make money.”  He doesn’t want to spend his money on the Sabres so he is just using it as a tax write-off. One way or another it’s helping him financially either way. 

The biggest fault that can be attributed to Pegula isn't providing enough financial support for the franchise as it is hiring bad staff. If you hire a bad GM who hands out bad contracts, that is a money loser from an investment on the dollar calculation. If you hire a coach when there were better options for the position, regardless how much you pay for your selection, you are not only not getting a return on your investment in salary, but you are also not getting the results on the ice resulting in less fan support causing additional revenue loss. The bottom line is that management ineptitude costs you more money. It's stupid and a consistent theme during Pegula's tenure. When one is stubborn you don't learn from your mistakes. 

[PerreaultForever]

7 hours ago, Taro T said:

Didn't say 1 minute.  Said 1st opportunity with less than 100 seconds left.  You have your best scorers out there for an extended shift, but you have your best out there when the pressure is the greatest.  When they know they MUST score on THAT shift or they're leaving the building with another L.

You have a true urgency.  And when there's an urgency, you stop trying to be pretty.

But when you pull the goalie with 3 or so to go, you lose that urgency.  And without urgency, you turn the puck over and end up pulling the puck out of your own net. 

okay but they shouldn't "lose the urgency" that's sort of the issue isn't it.