Taro T

At least 2 reasons, likely more. In no particular order: 1. As teams are allowed to bank cap & then use that banked cap space to legitimately exceed the cap later in the year in order to do something the players are in favor of - get all the teams closer to the cap the players don't want the practice reined in too far.. (Though, counterintuitively, when other teams approach the cap which effectively raises nominal player salaries it reduces the ACTUAL take home pay of individual players as the players cut of revenue sharing is fixed (prior to & post COVID Recapture at exactly 50% of HRR. Don't recall exactly what the %age is during recapture) and every extra $ on paper that the players get paid increases ever so slightly the denominator bywhich everybody's post escrow salary gets adjusted.) It would be extremely cumbersome to design a system that could completely account for some BF-LTIR injuries being more BF than others AND leave the players getting exactly 50% of the pie. 2. The big spenders don't like the cap nor revenue sharing & items such as these are some of the bones thrown to those dogs to get their buy-in on a system that actually works pretty well for everyone. If the (ab)use of BF-LTIR really does become excessive, the league will make tweaks to it. Be glad that 1. it doesn't effect the Sabres in ANY material fashion (it's good to be out of the playoffs by Thanksgiving, just wish the Sabres could stay relevant past the US version rather than just the Canadian one. 😕 ) and 2. the Sabres have owners w/ deep enough pockets that the Sabres can pull the same shenanigans should it ever matter for them to do so. 😉

One thing about Skinner since being paired w/ Tuch is he is doing something he's never demonstrated any adeptness at previously. He is actually making GOOD passes to Alex. No idea why that is, but as long as it continues, keep the 2 together. It's not surprising that Tuch can pass to Jeff. The inverse is quite surprising and hopefully can become habit.

To the bolded, that's the fear.

Maybe the guy losing all the money in the desert doesn't want to sell? The whole thing is a hypothetical though, as really don't see the Pegulas selling outright nor selling a controlling majority ownership share. BUT IF they do, AND the new owner wants to move, after the dispute works through the courts, they're very likely gone. This hopefully is yours truly's last post on this because it isn't likely the Pegulas are selling & the thought of the team possibly moving is very disheartening (among other things). As much as we & Mr. Bettman don't want the Sabres to leave, court precedence says if an owner wants to move his team he can do so even if the league opposes it. And that covenant put in the last purchase agreement very likely wouldn't survive a bankruptcy which would be very easy to successfully file for at present & likely in the future as well.

He really might end up being as good at running the PP from the 1/2 wall as Eichel was. They both can 1 time that pass w/ such precision.

Nor the Bandits apparently.

He was drafted in '01, so he qualifies as "drafted this century" which was the delineation that was hoped to be usable. Unfortunately, or fortunately, it wasn't. That other date seemed a reasonable marker to highlight that they have no established NHLers at the position that aren't REALLY old by NHL standards.

See PA, we always knew you'd come around. 😉 Baby steps. 😛

And Norman Green swore up and down that he had no intentions of moving the North Stars. Not every potential owner is as overt in his intentions as Jim Ballsillie was. Really doubt the Pegulas have any interest in selling a majority stake in the Sabres so most if not this entire discussion is moot. And do agree the league will TRY to find ownership that will commit to staying in Buffalo should the Pegulas decide to sell and will set up roadblocks to a potential move. But, even with that, the NHL isn't exactly known for vetting potential owners well. See Bruce McNall & Charles Wang for reference of people that should never have been owners. And see how close Mark Hammister came to owning the Sabres. He absolutely would've pulled an Art Modell had Golisano not stepped up and beat him out because like Modell & his ownership of the Browns Hammister was ridiculously undercapitalized. And for reference, my only reason for getting in this discussion was to counter a claim that "you can't just move a team because you own it;" there is court precedence that says an owner can.

That is an assumption on your part. IF the Pegulas were to sell, it is difficult to see that assumption being better than 50/50 as there are very few potential owners with enough capital to make an ownership transfer not be underfunded with the owner based out of WNY when people that already own an are excluded. True. But if an ownership group without local ties succeeds the Pegulas then Jacobs & Bettman won't really be able to do as much as you expect. And Jacob's is already 82; he isn't going to live forever. Look. My expectation is that the Sabres aren't going anywhere. But IF the Pegulas sell the team outright, it isn't as certain a given as it has historically been.

The dream of a perfect season is done. Went down 1-0, tied it, but went down 4-1, tied it, went down 8-4 at the 1/2, tied it 9-9, but then gave up a couple of quick ones and lost 12-10. A big factor was TD Irelan winning unofficially all but 2 faceoffs. Bandits now 6-1.

The league would very much try to keep the Sabres in Buffalo. Their broadcast partners like having astronomical TV ratings. They don't want to lose that. But, if an owner was dead set on moving the team, not much the league can do to stop it when all is said & done.

And you don't seem to understand that if the NHL takes a franchise to court to keep it playing where they want it to should the league and the owner disagree that the league will most likely lose that lawsuit. Bettman can wish all he wants and can set roadblocks which can make it difficult & force the new owner to go to court, but if it gets to court, Bettman's wishes likely don't come true. Where Bettman has leverage is he and the other owners can make life difficult for the selling owners should they pick one that will move the team. But, if that sale goes through, well under Bettman's tenure the Jets moved, the Whalers moved, & the Thrashers have moved. Way fewer moves than the NFL or the NBA but they have happened.

If not for the possible repercussions regarding getting Portillo in house & the likelihood it lowers the odds of getting a competent current NHL netminder, would e fine w/ his addition to the team depth. Can't see it happening w/ the Sabres already having 3 touted prospects about his age. He has to have better opportunities available to him should he continue his excellent Olympic play.

Agreed. But especially w/ 3 of the Pegula's 5 teams (4 of 6 if you count Jessie's tennis career) playing very well right now & the 1 we care about seemingly poised to finally not stink (as soon as next year w/ the addition of a goalie not currently in the system & in 2 years w/out one) & fossil fuel prices rising, really don't see a tremendous possibility that they'll sell a majority stake in any of the franchises in the near/intermediate future. Also, still have the contract holdouts of the '90's due to undercapitalized ownership & the breakup of arguably the best Sabres teams ever due to ownership cheaping out, so really don't want to risk going back to cheap owners &/or the threat of the team moving again. (Remember those fun days of bankruptcy & receivership?) We've already suffered through ownership's growing pains. Ready the start reaping the rewards rather than breaking in new ones. 😉

At least 2 of the US goals were horrible. Neither the one where the goalie lost the puck battle behind the net & the 4th one that trickled between his arm and body should've happened. Levi might have stopped the other 2 as well, but at least they were legit hockey play goals that actually are scored on a nightly basis against good goalies.

The lawsuits won by Al Davis in his battles w/ the NFL suggest otherwise. And though the purchase agreement between Golisano & Pegula stipulated the Sabres can't be moved, those clauses are seldom upheld by courts to remain in perpetuity & through multiple team sales / purchases and would almost definitely not withstand a bankruptcy filing. It's REAL easy to declare bankruptcy when your franchise has had multiple seasons with fewer than 1/3 of the seats filled. Would really like you to be right about that. Doubt you are.

Agree to a degree. But would actually take a different tack on that comparison. Because it was highly unlikely Anderson would be both available AND playing at a high level for the majority of this season, the play of his replacement should be factored into HIS effectiveness & results. Looking at it that way, it's a no brainer which guy was the surer bet heading into the season & the better choice through the midpoint of the season & very likely the entire season.

And that's the thing that's so frustrating about this seemingly endless debate which won't end until at least 1 of Portillo & Levi are ready for the big time or Adams actually brings in a goalie. He might have wanted to bring in a goalie that 1st year & he WAS close to a deal w/ reportedly 3 different teams when the rules got changed & the potential trading partners backed out. But even the desire to get a goalie then isn't absolutely clear as Nedeljokivic was available for free but no claim was put in. IMHO he did NOT want a real goalie this year as he wanted at least 1 more high draft pick this coming season. He very well might not want one again next year to get 1 final really high pick before the Sabres reapply for entry back into the NHL the following year. Have said it before & sure it gets old to hear (well, read technically 😉 ) as it gets tiresome to say, but next year Adams might once again be in a no lose situation in his own eyes. If UPL & 1 of the college kids are ready a year (+?) early, then the kids win games & the Sabres are in the playoff chase at least, & if not then they're still in the lottery with 3 winning (Eichel quality or better) tickets available. Either way he wins. But WE, the fans, only win next season if at least 1 goalie & likely needing 2 of them defy the odds & prove to be ready for prime time next year. And, absolutely agree that planning to ride it out is a horrible plan. Though it could work, the odds are stacked against it.

Can agree w/ this. (Though w/ the team Adams has assembled expecting just a little luck will be necessary to pull it off. IF he really wants to bring an actual current NHL quality goalie in.) 🍻

The US navy unis are nearly as bad. Those look like practice jerseys. The Canadian reds look like something Nike would've come up w/ as alternates for the Cleveland Browns if they tried their hands at hockey.

And @dudacek provided a non-exhaustive listing of names, some of which do fit @JohnC's criteria. So, yes, expecting that Adams CAN'T get something done because a single poster here doesn't provide you names of who KA should sign is hyperbolic and is providing him a ready made excuse to fail for a 3rd time to fix the most glaring hole on the roster he's responsible for.

Minus the nasty, that's the guy that he does remind of.

Seriously? If one of us schmucks hanging out on a message board devoted to a losing hockey team's travails can't identify the useful goalie that can be made available at a reasonable cost & term then the man with a bevy of scouts in his employ who speaks to other GMs on a daily basis and is getting paid a very handsome sum to do just that can't possibly be expected to do so either? Holy hyperbolicly bad take there batman. 😉