carpandean

Except Reebok has their logo ... actually, now "REEBOK" ... above the nameplate, not on the tail like the old CCM/KOHO (etc.) jerseys. There is no Reebok logo down there to hide.

Empire Records reference?

Coho at 1:00 and 1:24 mark (based on socks and dark helmet.) http://youtu.be/sFIg1cDwlRs Also at 0:30. His defensive coverage is harder to spot ... since he's out of the frame.

Been Teemu's nickname for a long time. He's Finnish and fast, so ...

It's on in the background, but I'm mostly just tooling around the internet.

Coffee

Fixed for you. :thumbsup:

:blush: :( :huh:

Yes, but pointing out the few positives while acknowledging the glaring problems is OK, too. A good GM would have to recognize the diamonds in the turd pool, so that he doesn't flush them out with the rest of the crap. It's actually harder to spot the good players on a bad team than it is to spot the bad ones; much like it's hard to spot the bad ones on a good team (i.e., the guys who are being carried.) Both are there. If you're Darcy, you have to know which of your players to keep and which players on the good teams not to pick up. Too often, Deluca gives the impression that both those lists are empty.

Darcy's waiting for the market to be set, so he knows what to add his premium to. (Zing!!)

In all fairness, Kuilikov does like to hit (84 in 34GP this year and 104 in 58GP last year.) I'm sure GoDD could tell you how many of our defensemen you'd have to add up to get that. I'm not saying that I wouldn't take Kuilikov; I just agree with inkman that I was/am more interested in what Kassian's and Hodgson's could potentially become than what he could.

Unfortunately, it will take a lot more than one or two players to set an example for someone like Stafford. You need an established team mentality like the Bruins built before a player like that (e.g., Horton) sees the light. You can have one or two guys who need the example to be set, but they need to be the exception, not the rule. Ott has exactly the blue-color, hardest working team in hockey mentality that this team needs more of. I want him setting the example for years to come, but I also want more of his type brought in. It sounds like Girgensons is that type of player, so that's a start.

I don't know about everyone else, but for me, that had as much to do with Kuilikov as it did with Kassian. I wasn't and am not that high on him. Yes, he looked like he would be a good defenseman and is progressing that way, but he wasn't/isn't exciting enough for me to pass up what Kassian might have (and still might) become. Fast forward several years, I wouldn't trade Hodgson for Kuilikov, so it's still not a problem for me.

He was already two in 1989. ;)

Really think this kid is going to be a great player, so I feel we should have a thread about him. :P

He also wore 14 in Kitchener and 21 in Rochester.

No disassemble! Number five ... is alive!

The 6-4 is irrelevant when it comes to playoffs, so you're left with 9-12. So ... we'll talk again once Darcy is gone? Top picks don't guarantee anything if you have a GM who can't draft or manage a roster well. But, neither does anything else when that's the case. Darcy's latest, and as far as I can see last, excuse was that they haven't picked high enough to get top-level talent. If we keep picking in the 10-20 spots, then he will continue to have that excuse. Take a real chance, fail if the talent is not there, and let him draft high-tier talent. If the picks and/or roster don't work out, then he has no more excuses. If they do, then we're Pittsburgh or Chicago. For the record, I don't think Ron did a terrible job and I do think some players improved. I simply think that much of what was perceived as an improved record was simply the result of exploiting rules that don't help us achieve the long-term goal.

Yeah, but if you rely on the stupid part ("loser points") to get a big portion of your points, then when it comes to the post season, where that all goes away, you won't do well. The point is that just making the playoffs is no longer a major goal; winning the Cup is. So, playing a style that covers for deficiencies and, at best, allows them to squeak into and subsequently make an early departure from the playoffs, does not help, but rather hinders achieving the real goal. It perpetuates a cycle that they've been stuck in for six seasons: barely make/miss the playoffs, exiting early if they make it, and then drafting middling talent. I'd rather that they play a style that will allow them to win if they have a contending team, but reveals holes if they don't.

No, I do think that his record (at least, how it really matters) wasn't significantly better, and only looked that way because of the stupid point system in the NHL that has nothing to do with the post season. Good for him that he exploited that system, but as I said, it's a recipe for the worst possible finish. In other words, it was bad for the Sabres in the long run. If they had kept up Lindy's pace, they would have drafted in the top 5, if not top 3. Some players did perform better, but as others have pointed out, the best predictive statistics (puck possession) for success show that as a team, they weren't much better.

Unfortunately, all that it did last year was cost us a top-5 pick. His record was not significantly better than Ruff's. The big difference was that he pushed more games to SO's, where they performed pretty well. I don't feel like going back and finding my post with the breakdown, but they had a ridiculously low number of regulation (or even OT, if remember correctly) wins. Basically, it was a recipe for getting points in the regular season and not much else. Good for that same 8-10 (in conference) finish that they've been getting recently, which I consider to be the absolute worst season that a team can have.

I think you are missing his point. He's admitting that the Sabres' D was and likely will be overpriced doo-doo, so using them to measure the Rangers' D is a poor choice of measuring stick. Compare them to a real defense - which, again, the Sabres don't have - and he feels that you find them less impressive. Oh, and side note: using the Rangers' hit statistics is always misleading. Whoever counts hits at MSG clearly wants to prove to someone that they are working hard.

I agree with that, but I'm still not sure why posters here thinks it's a big deal that the Stars just signed him. I don't believe that will affect his chances of not ending up back in Russia, since (I believe) his contract would be on hold if he doesn't make the NHL roster and goes back. So, I figured either people were implying that Darcy was taking too long to sign our top prospects or that we should have drafted him instead.

What am I missing about Dallas signing a draft pick to an entry-level contract? There's no big rush to do that. Grigorenko signed his last year on 7/18 ... was anyone worried? Nichushkin will either be in the NHL or the KHL next year, so might as well sign him. I believe that if he goes back to Russia, his contract won't kick in (anyone confirm?) Or, is it because we passed on Nichushkin? The Sabres already have one Russian that they can't develop outside of their NHL roster (Grigs would go back to junior; Nich would go back KHL), and I'd be far more worried about "the Russian factor" from a player who actually stated that it's the NHL or back to Russia. If they didn't already have Grigs, I might have said take the chance, but if we had come out with both after the draft, I would have been even more uneasy about our position.

I don't think it makes any sense for the Sabres or for Danny, especially since it is rumored that something like 15 teams are interested in him. Just move on.