Stoner

That's OK. I'm not here to try and prove to other fans that I'm a brilliant hockey analyst or that I know more than whoever is the GM and could do his job better. I'm smarter than Terry and Kim, that's enough for me. What got me going was the pity party for Jack. It's not quite the right tone. By the way, you can relax. I don't actually have the power to trade Jack.

Say manipulation again, Frank. num num num num num num

The "last resort/better than nothing" wording, if I'm not mistaken, was CDC guidance very early on for healthcare workers who were being exposed to sick people with the virus — a large and long exposure. It dates back to late March or early April when PPE was in short supply, and the public was deliberately misinformed so there wasn't a run on masks. I've heard this latest narrative about societal manipulation. The fact no one can explain the purpose of the manipulation is pretty telling. As for the quote marks in the sign, auto mechanics aren't ironic people. Lots of people who didn't do so goodly in English class put quotes around words in order to emphasize them. "HUGE BOGO SALE TODAY!"

On to important things. Why was Jack audio only? If he was taking some stand to the effect that no one needs to see inside my home I think I'd back him.

This should make people feel good. Have any of your big picture predictions ever panned out? Exactly how many lifers should a perennial non playoff team have?

Assuming an Eichel trade will bring back trash isn't the right way to go about debating the proposition, nor are insults and self congratulation. You seem to be suggesting that Jack is so good it would be impossible to trade him and win the trade. You would have hated the idea of trading Pierre Turgeon. Trading Jack is a thought experiment. In mine the Sabres have a good GM and win the trade. Your experiment relies on that GM's ability to put the right pieces around a 10 million player to just get into the playoffs... because we just learned near-peak Eichel isn't enough. Sorry, I'm not married to the guy. Win the trade and he's another guy who gets booed in Buffalo. Lose it... we suck. We already suck. The Sabres are hydrochloroquine to me. I'll take my chances with a risky cure. What do we have to lose? That said he's not getting traded.

I didn't love the ROR trade nor did I hate it. The beat went on. Nor do I argue for trading Eichel. But it would be fine with me. Trade the whole team. What are we clinging to? The notion that The Plan is going to gloriously succeed one of these years? Trade the whole team and if we're in a playoff run in the spring of 2021 I can guarantee it's going to be, "Rasmi who?" It's the nature of fandom. I cheer for the crest on the front.

I was hoping for more than a fanboi response. It's good to consider all angles. Maybe Jack is such a massive Masshole he's intolerable to his teammates and there's a toxic atmosphere in the lockerroom. It's not just put your stick on the ice and be the team's best player and get absolved of all blame for one terrible year after another.

I clearly qualified my comment.

Alternate view and hot take: the Sabres can lose with or without Jack Eichel. How many regimes are going to be ousted because not enough is put in place around him to overcome some deficiency of his? It's odd hearing some of these guys sound like they're not part of the problem.

No. What did Lindy say during a losing streak? The hope tank is low? Kim said it all. Their goal is to keep the Sabres sustainable and viable. Alive, barely. Like the people in Coma. No one caught Jason saying he's been asked to double-up his hockey department staff? Does that mean scouts will work in analytics, trainers will create videos, Rip will don the SabreTooth costume?

It was a dark and stormy night on the bayou of East Texas, alongside a lonely old dirt road said to be the route that doritos smugglers used in the 1800s, but I digress. A middle-aged bicyclist saw up ahead a young man squatting next to a broken down Schwinn. The man was wearing a fur coat that was practically molting in the heat and humidity. He didn't appear to be wearing anything else. "You OK there, young fella?" When the young man turned to face the rider, the older man was aghast. His face was white as a ghost. "Drew? Drew Stafford? What the hell are you doing out here? And why are you wearing that fur coat from lockerroom celebrations in 2009-2010?" Lightning sizzled across the sky in a jagged bolt as an armadillo let loose a bark in the distance. "It's all I have left from those days, sir. I'm broke. Is there any chance I could stay with you for the night, until I get myself back on my feet in the mornin'?" Something about the way Drew said "mornin'," putting on his best Texas accent, drew Doohickie in. "Sure, son. This isn't a tandem bike, but you're welcome to jump aboard."

I'm not sure how you could sneeze while wearing a cloth mask and not stop any droplets. The cloth would have to catch the biggest droplets. Maybe the best way to think about it is two people, one with Covid (asymptomatic, let's assume), standing three feet apart having a 10-minute conversation. What's the risk of the uninfected person having droplets land directly in his or her mouth or breathing in droplets? I have no idea how to quantify that. Maybe the risk isn't super high, but maybe it's statistically significant (10%). Now, what's the risk if both people are wearing cloth masks? The risk of having droplets land in his or her mouth goes to practically 0. The risk of breathing in droplets is cut significantly. The overall risk is not zero, but it's much lower. That's the benefit. What is the cost? Is there any cost? This seems like common sense. I think we're all guilty of overthinking things. Sorry for mixing up the church stories. There was a story about a church choir super spreader event. 75% chance of being exposed even with masks? No way I'm going in there. The five weeks I was off work, the riskiest thing I did was have pizza delivered. I used InstaCart for shopping. Starting in late April I began venturing out. I had to. I have no family here, and my friends either are in high risk groups like me or have young children, and I wouldn't ask them to assume ANY risk to help me out. The risk I now accept is the risk of going into a store for 10 minutes wearing an N95 mask (brother sent it used after wearing it during a home remodeling) with other shoppers few in number and masked (mostly homemade or surgical). I deem that to be very low risk. I walk outside without a mask, but now I'm reconsidering that, because what if someone else is at even higher risk than I am, and I pass by too closely? I have to practice what I preach, no?

Folks aren't mentioning several asterisks Bettman mentioned. The virus is in charge, really (another wave probably ends the season); testing has to be available (it's likely currently available, but is it reliable enough, and in the setting of a sports tournament, is it fast enough?); government has to be on board (might not be an issue if cities on the list have agreed to be on the list).

I see ink jamming the whole thing in his mouth (heyo), washing it down with beer, then doing the packet as a line.

I just feel very strongly that Jason's replies to Harrington's questions are so telling and get to the heart of the matter (maybe it's even what's really wrong with Dad). Mike's questions were fair, not flame-throwers by any means, but at the heart of them, they should have been extremely offensive to the GM. They implied you're not an NHL team, that you don't care about winning. The answers were a bunch of heartless mush. That there was no passionate blowback on Mike's assertions is a discouraging — you might not care what I thought of it, but imagine the players' reactions. "You're wrong, Mike. We sure as hell are an NHL team and we're going to be one next season. It's about winning, it always is and always should be." I suspect the players hear this constant drumbeat from Botterill and Pegula ("hey, only one team gets to win the Cup") and become so dispirited and demoralized it's hard to function as a professional athlete whose very nature is to want to win, period.

I think your characterization of Jason's answer about moving the first round pick is a little off. The key phrase I heard was, "at least consider" moving the puck. Given his earlier answer to Harrington's question, IMHO they are not moving that pick.

First of all the Zoom presser is way better than the in-person. Seeing the questioner's face and actually hearing the question help. Background viewing has definite entertainment value. Harrington offered up two pretty big softballs, although pointed in nature, and I think Botterill whiffed on both of them. Or maybe told the truth, and we should be all the more depressed. What is the team's identity/when will the Sabres join the NHL? When will it stop always being about the future, when will the present arrive? A: Developing young players in Rochester/"puck movers"; You always have to have a pipeline of good young players, we won't trade first round picks, we surround the youth with depth players, veteran players, players who've won, citing Skinner, Johansson and Simmonds. I want eyes on Eichel, perhaps insert a team of mental health professionals in full PPE. I don't see how his head isn't eventually going to explode.

I know dark's real name. Reagan Kissinger.

You look like Pope Francis!

I like this. I just wish I cared enough to play along. Didn't you read Wawrow's piece yesterday. Botterill will "finally" (John's word) have the chance to reshape the roster this offseason, whenever that is. No one should wonder why John gets the scoops from Kim.

Also — I honestly don't believe there was any snark in Kim's fan comment. But she should be smart enough to not say it. And she's not. These are not smart hockey owners!!!!!! Maybe somehow they gain intelligence and moxie when they travel out of the city to OP. I don't really care what they do with the Bills. Please sell the Sabres. HAM! HANDS!

If I had to guess, she has noticed what a fine young man Jason is and how he treats people well and has put in place a positive, forward-leaning work culture that enables a multi-generational, multi-cultural ethos of human capital efficiency. I don't think it's this. But, hey, look, meddling! It's in quotes, but I'll take it. Baby steps.

As long as it's iceberg it can go on the outside as far as I care.

You guys better start putting out.