nfreeman

I like it.

This was a good, long interview and well worth the listen IMHO for anyone interested in the topic. I thought RR acquitted himself pretty well although there was certainly a fair amount of corporate spin. I thought Jeremy and Sal did an OK but not great job of questioning him. They elicited a good amount of info that fans would be interested in, but shied away from tough questions. For example, they didn’t press RR on why exactly a new stadium is “needed” when he asserted that it was and they didn’t ask for specifics when he asserted that every NFL team has gotten public funding for their stadiums.

I can't see KA, or any NHL GM, deciding to unload Eichel because Eichel wasn't enthusiastic enough. An insufficiently positive attitude, or even a neutral attitude, is qualitatively different from a negative attitude. I think realistically we're looking at one or some combination of the following factors in driving KA's decision: - Jack having an actively negative/toxic attitude - Jack making it clear that he didn't want to be a Sabre - Jack's injury

As to the question of whether Jack's disenchantment started when he learned that KA was shopping him (if that's indeed what happened) -- I think the question probably oversimplifies the situation. We all saw how good Jack was a couple of seasons ago. KA saw it too. And yet KA putatively decided that Jack had to go. Why on earth would KA make that determination if there weren't other, serious, issues with Jack? It just seems insane to think that KA would decide to unload a franchise #1 C without a really good reason.

There is zero possibility that the stadium is completed anywhere close to on time or on budget.

I get @Punch's point here, and it's valid, but I still can't get too worked up about this. Whether it's a tank year or just a rebuilding year, I don't think the mix of Sabres fans/Leafs fans will be that different with the game in Hamilton as opposed to Buffalo. In the meantime the team lost an enormous amount of money due to Covid last year and will incur large losses this year as well due to suckitude. If they want to stanch the bleeding a little with an outdoor game I can't begrudge them. The players will probably enjoy it. And, if they bring in a goalie and the team is better than expected and plays an exciting game, it could reflect well on them and help repair their reputation around the league. I agree that I would not want them to do this after next season.

Surprising timing, but Newton has been terrible for a couple of years now. He can't throw it anymore.

I read somewhere last night that this is exactly what they are working on.

Excuse me while I kiss the sky.

Interesting. He certain paints a picture of a highly dysfunctional locker room. Great job, GMTM!

I agree with much of this but I think you are glossing over the injury, which IMHO continues to be the primary reason that he hasn't been traded yet. He has a spinal injury that hasn't responded to rest/rehab. He most likely needs surgery, and the type of surgery he wants has never been performed on an NHL player (or, I believe, on an NBA, NFL or MLB player). The Sabres are not going to permit him to have that type of surgery. That is an enormous obstacle that simply can't be overcome unless and until either (i) another GM decides to live with the $50MM risk on Jack's contract AND with paying KA's presumably steep price or (ii) KA decides to drop his price to an ROR-or-lower level. I do not think option (i) will happen. We're in an indefinite stalemate that IMHO will only end with Jack somehow getting healthy and showing top form again in NHL games OR by KA agreeing to a fire-sale price.

Now that is an interesting development.

After requests from a number of posters and discussion among the mods, we've moved the main Covid thread to the politics club. FWIW, I'm not active on TSW, but I believe they took a similar step some time ago. It wasn't my idea, but I think it's the right call. The Covid thread was getting pretty contentious. Happy to discuss via PM or otherwise if anyone would like.

You've just been exposed in a pretty dishonest bit of spin. You don't need to worry about how others are treated (although I'll note that a different poster who overreached in a claim about the status of the vaccines was similarly criticized just a few posts upthread). Just do better, which shouldn't be hard to do -- if the facts are on your side, just show them with links and quotes -- or keep quiet.

That is NOT what you claimed she said, which was this: If the Director "literally" said what you claimed she said -- let's see that quote. Otherwise, your prior post was spin to the point of dishonesty, which is not OK. Do the work, provide the links and the quotes, and tell the truth. If you want to use facts and quotes to build an analytical case, then by all means do so. But do NOT spin like this. As ought to be crystal clear by now, this GD virus is a serious matter, and everyone needs to be honest about what is known and what isn't.

OK -- so you accuse me of saying something and then refuse to show me saying it? Nice. So when you claimed upthread that "the vaccine is now approved," despite the fact that only Pfizer has been approved -- was that an "outright lie?" Is it OK then for people to start "blasting" you? Or should your posts just be automatically deleted from now on, as @Eleven seems to want the mods to do with other posters? Just be civil, and being logical and analytical would be nice as well. In reading your posts, I don't think that should be much of a heavy lift for you. Despite my concerns about incivility and shouting down, you need to start bolstering these claims with links and quotes. Otherwise you're just flapping your lips and pouring gasoline on the fire. And you need to cease and desist immediately with the political swipes.

If that poster wants his claims to be taken seriously, he should provide credible links and quotes to support those statements.

I don't doubt your lack of surprise, but I also don't think I did this -- please provide a link. Did I say that?

I don't think anyone disputes that we are not entitled to our own facts. The question, of course, is where "fact" ends and spin and opinion begin. For example, it was asserted upthread that "the vaccine is now FDA-approved" -- but only one of the 3 main vaccines has been approved. It was also asserted upthread that NY's government-issued covid numbers -- and what is more factual than a number? -- were trustworthy, which of course has now been disproven. Similarly, concerns raised by me and others about this being the first vaccine to use the mRNA technology, and that the vaccines themselves are quite new and have been developed and produced on an unprecedentedly accelerated timeline, have been waved away as silly or fear-mongering (among other, less-pleasant responses). For that matter, just a couple of posts upthread, you have asserted that "the vaccine works." It seems awfully early to call that assertion a "fact." So far, it seems to be working, but it's been generally available in this country for only a few months and worldwide for less time than that. Maybe those who aren't ready to accord this vaccine the same reliability and safety as the polio vaccine -- which wasn't mandated for something like 25 years after its introduction, btw -- aren't "liars" but rather just want to see some more data before getting comfortable that it works. As for knowing exactly what you mean -- I expect you know exactly what I mean as well. For example, one of the few actual medical professionals here, who knows substantially more about this than you or I do, has been met with hostility and repeatedly insulted for giving his views on the virus and the vaccine.

Perhaps I missed the respectful and reasoned responses that apparently predated your voice becoming "bolder." I'm sure a mod would be happy to remove "misinformation that will result in people dying" if and when someone cares to take the time to establish it as such, instead of simply throwing out "bold" statements characterizing it as such.

I agree with most of this, but as I've said previously, I think the most likely outcome -- not certain, but most likely by a plurality -- is that KA unloads Eichel just before the season starts for the best deal he can get at that time -- which will be a crappy deal for the Sabres. I hope I'm wrong about that.

If you think someone is distributing misinformation, perhaps a better approach would be to calmly and respectfully point out, in a reasoned and supported manner, why their statements constitute misinformation. Scorning, lashing out, calling people liars, exulting in people contracting serious illnesses -- in addition to constituting poor behavior, these are tactics that are pretty much guaranteed not only to fail but to harden the other person's stance.

I agree that the price will go up and I sure hope that happens. One of the difficult issues of course is that it's pretty hard to see Eichel playing games again for the Sabres to get us to that point.

If that in fact were all, @New Scotland (NS) and I, among others, wouldn't be so put off and disappointed by the tone and statements made by a small, but vocal, group of posters in here. There has been quite a bit of invective and ad hominem attacking going on in here, including by you, that has gone well beyond noting that the scientific community generally has recommended getting vaccinated.

Since Anaheim has historically been a budget-minded team, I think they are highly unlikely to take the economic risk on Eichel's injury without first seeing him playing NHL games at full throttle again.