Taro T

Again, that's the fear. (Concern?) And why getting a REAL goalie (or not) will be such a tell. If they get a real goalie, they really are trying to not just develop but actually learn to win (which is, in itself, a huge part of development). If they don't, well, hello darkness my old friend ...

Yeah. Not a fan of publicly funding billionaires play toys. But there's no way Gov. Hochul isn't going to make this happen. So, good for us, right? And am very glad they won't be moving for a very long time. At least unlike federally wasted $'s, our kids can always move to another state to get away from that debt. 😉

Hope you're right. Just not convinced the thought of possibly bringing in a Wright & Bedard with all the guys already here isn't overly tempting to the guy calling the shots. Especially if the lottery balls don't pop up right this year. (But there's THREE of them there. There was only 1 this year.) That empty barn might be our ace in the hole forcing him to play it straight.

Agree, and to further that thinking. Why kick off the Fan Council if you're dumping the team? Why bother when it's the next guy's problem? Yep.

Again, couldn't find anything stating that 6 games was the threshold LAST year and IF the # of games to work towards that threshold was pro-rated like the ELC kicking in threshold was prorated in the COVID affected years then his 4 games last year was like 6 this year. Not positive he actually will be a rookie next year. If you've seen something official that definitively states that, cool.

Sorry, with your comments about potentially canceling tournaments rather than canceling individual players in the time period mentioned didn't see the distinction. And the other 2 examples you brought up were also Olympic years coincidentally (1 summer, 1 winter).

The interesting thing is Murray saw the glut of picks & thus prospects that were there & that was a big part of his willingness to overpay slightly to get the guys he wanted. He had THAT part right. And on paper he was following the old adage that the team ending up w/ the better player wins the trade. He just tended to go after flawed players because he couldn't look past what guys could be minus injury troubles &/or personal troubles (including Lehner's issues here though not absolutely fitting the category strictly). Hopefully Adams can get that part right unlike his predecessor.

With Girgensons availability the past 3 seasons can't see how he gets relied on as part of the veteran presence. He'll be back, but find it hard to believe he'll be relied on. Which is a shame, because he is good at what he does. Also, a minor quibble, does UPL still count as a rookie next season? With the shortened season last year his combo of games played then & this year might have him over the threshold. Expecting it does, but not positive on that.

IMHO, Fitzgerald needs to be a #'s victim or a 7. This team needs 2 good vet D-men & w/ everything they've got on the left side plus Jokiharju (all of whom are, or will be better than Fitz). There just isn't a spot for him when all that they SHOUKD have here next year are healthy. Same goes for Bryson. Not sure how he beats out Dahlin, Power, and Samuelsson & Johnson is in the wings. Had hopes for R2 Rou2 because of that killer hand eye coordination, but expect he's just not skilled enough overall to make up for his size. Asplund has been a huge disappointment & can't see him finding a top 9 role beyond Christmas next season if the team can finally remain reasonably healthy. If somebody needing cap space sees value in any of those 4 (& there may be) would not hesitate to use them as part of a package to bring in a pricier vet on a ST deal.

Yup. 100% on the same page. As said in some other thread (they all blend together it seems) they can improve the roster now (this off-season, whatever) by trading some of the prospects that are getting passed by their piers that there won't be room for (possibly w/ a 2nd rounder) that some other team that actually has a more traditionally constructed team, especially 1 close to the cap, might have room for especially w/ him bringing NHL level play & room for growth on the cheap. And, am expecting they'll need 1 more vet forward than they'd hope to bring in because with his injury history, though my expectation is he'll be back, Girgensons can't be relied on. Build a team w/ him penciled in as F13 & if he can play it's a bonus. If not, they're covered.

Did not watch his AHL game yesterday. Have watched several of them. Was at 1 of his NHL games & watched the other. Looking forward to seeing him back in the NHL after the trade deadline to see where he's at. But, don't believe he'll be ready on day 1 in October. Hoping he proves that wrong.

Pretty sure he will be very good in the NHL. But not convinced he'll be ready for the NHL from the get go next year.

Everything old is new again.

No f'n clue.

Depends on how far back one wants to peel the onion apparently. Adams absolutely willingly iced a worse team this year than necessary. HE quite clearly believes that decision will bear fruit eventually. But the Sabres didn't intentionally get to the point where that was possibly necessary. Which seems to be where the OP is finding some hair splitting definition. (Still stand by the position that this team could've been heading in the right direction w/ some judicious moves, but that train left the station months ago.)

Happen to be in the camp that believes they have to start winning SOME games before they figure out how to win enough to get into the playoffs. So, no, do not agree in any way that good (or even reasonable) goaltending is a luxury next year. It's a necessity. OR we are giving Adams a free pass to not show appreciable improvement for a THIRD year? In what line of work, other than POSSIBLY something in the public sector, can you FAIL THREE years running and get a pass?

True. But they likely thought they couldn't really say "well, we're going to sanction them a year from now for what's happening now."

Would not trust Anderson for any more than 15 QUALITY games next year. Since coming back, he plays 20 great minutes then 40 not so great minutes. Also, believe it's a fool's errand to trust UPL to any more than 20 quality starts. Agree he'll be penciled in for 41. MAYBE he's up to it to give them that or more, but wouldn't have money on it. That leaves, should they not go outside the organization, 47 games for Portillo, Levi, & anyone else (possibly Tokarski, but wouldn't expect him back if both Portillo & Levi are signed, and kind-of expect both Portillo & Levi signed) to cover. Helllllllloooooo Bedard sweepstakes.. They NEED AND can afford a legit NHL #1. Doubt they go after 1, but that doesn't negate their needing one.

REALLY believe they should expect UPL to top out as a backup & if he's better than that, well having too many good goalies is A GOOD problem to have. Especially when 2 of them will be under team control for up to 7 more years & one other for 5 or 6 more years. Make sure you don't give a full NMC to any outsider brought in & what's currently a tirefire can be a strength next year & in a best case an absolute luxury the following year or 2.

Expect UPL will be back in Buffalo right after the trade deadline. But, as long as they are only scratching 2 healthy players a night would like to see them scratching Tokarski as well. Agree that they need to find out what UPL is capable of while we're here.

That is correct. President Carter led a boycott of the '80 Summer Olympics. The Soviets thought attending the 2nd Lake Placid Olympics would get Carter to back down, but it didn't. Which led to the near bankrupting of McDonald's after the Soviet led boycott of the '84 Summer Olympics. You are correct that there was no major boycott of the Sarajevo Olympics.

Having a shot at it & being gifted it are 2 VASTLY different things. They really should bring in a guy that on paper is better than him. And if UPL wins the competition, then so be it, good for him, & likely good for us. But this team hasn't had a guy truly deserving the title #1 goalie entering the season since Miller's last year. Not looking forward to an 11th (12th?) consecutive season of that trend continuing.

Seem to recall an Olympic boycott back around '79. Now when did the US lead a western boycott of the Summer Olympics?

They do see it.

There are very few levers nongovernments can pull to highlight displeasure at a different country's actions. Withholding participation in the "fun" things life offers for citizens of the offending country is one of the few that are available to them. IMHO it is an appropriate action. Stinks for the kids that are getting effected, but unfortunately for them "that's just the way it is."