nfreeman

I think this is what it comes down to -- Jack wants the surgery, and the question is who bears the $50MM risk of a bad outcome. It's pretty reasonable IMHO for the Sabres not to want to bear that risk if 2 doctors, including the Colorado specialist who isn't affiliated with the Sabres, are advising against it.

As a related point, I've been kinda wondering whether Jack's primary goal was to force the Sabres to consent to the surgery, not to force a trade -- i.e. maybe he's OK with staying here (although he'd doubtless be fine with a trade to a good team), but no matter what he wants to quit screwing around, have the surgery and get in shape for next season.

He was asked this in the presser he called a couple of weeks before firing RK.

I found it kinda interesting that Reino wore a Bills hat during his presser and Eichel wore a plain black hat -- i.e. neither wore a Sabres hat. They both want out.

Well, I just watched the full 24-minute presser. There is no doubt in my mind that Eichel wants out (no kidding!) and is completely sideways with KA. I also think it's not impossible that after a cooling-off period, if the Sabres take positive steps (credible coach and FO moves, goaltending, extension for Reino, etc.), the relationship could be repaired and he could stay. But I think it's more likely that KA has decided -- as many GMs have done and will do so again -- that if Eichel doesn't want to be here, it will be better for the team to move him out. So I think it's more likely that he is traded. And with that, the Hindenburg-level debacle that was the tank will reach its final chapter.

Probably true, but these jobs are few and far between. I think they could bring in quality people if they are determined to do so. And doing so might just help them convince some of these players to stick around.

If there was ever a time to bring in an experienced HC and an experienced senior hockey czar, each with a successful track record, with the goal of restoring some credibility to the franchise, I think it’s now.

I have been saying for a while now that Sam’s demeanor is consistent with that of a guy who is counting the days until he can GTFO of here. As others have noted upthread, who can blame him? He might be waiting to see what moves the Sabres make this summer, and what kind of offer they give him, which would be the prudent move, but he might have made up his mind already.

I would like them to bring both guys back, but I think there is less than a 50% likelihood that both are back, and over 50% that both are gone. If Linus gets a respectable offer from a contending team like the Leafs to be their #1, he is gone unless the Sabres give him a fat long-term contract. OTOH, it's possible that no one is willing to give him more than a 2-year deal, and the Sabres might get him to stay with a 5-year deal. As for McCabe, he's not expected back from his injury until a couple of months into the season, innit? So anything could happen there. I agree with almost all of this, but I have a hard time seeing Seattle taking Zemgus, who is a decent player but very replaceable, overpaid and coming off a major injury. I think it will be Borgen or Asplund.

I thought both ROR and Kane were good players, the best players involved in their respective trades and good players to add, although poor leaders. The price was too high for Kane IMHO but fairly reasonable for ROR. The McNabb trade was terrible. It's also fair to hold TM accountable for not knowing Lehner better -- this is consistent with @dudacek's horse trader theory. I generally agree that TM gave away good draft picks like a drunken sailor and this was partially responsible for the cupboard being bare in Rochester. Overall, between lousy on-ice accomplishments and some unstable and unprofessional incidents (from TM and the players) it was fair IMHO to can TM, if a bit precipitous. As for DDB, he didn't seem like he added much, but I don't think he was a net negative like RK, either.

I think the team is dying for a coach who understands the NHL game well enough to get more offensive production out of a group that sure seems capable of much more than the rock-bottom scoring they’ve been delivering, AND who will demand that the team play with passion and stick up fiercely for each other.

Well, I appreciate your response, but here's what you said: The unavoidable implication is that my "news exposure" is driven by an agenda, either the publisher's or my own (or both). So I agree that you didn't imply that I was anti-vax, but I think you did imply something pejorative about my news sources and perhaps about my interest in learning the facts as opposed to consuming/promoting an agenda. For example, if I had responded to your post with "We have less understanding of these vaccines than your news exposure wants you to believe" -- I would not expect you to respond favorably to that statement, as I have no idea what news sources you consume and how interested you are in facts as opposed to agendas. I think a better starting place would be an assumption that the person one is conversing with is interested in learning the facts and developing an understanding of a situation. So if you had simply said something like "We have more understanding of them than you might think" -- that would have been a more collaborative comment that invited further meaningful conversation. YMMV, of course. My goal here is simply to promote constructive dialogue in this thread and to discourage antagonism.

This is a fair response, although you have no idea what "your news exposure" I've had on this point, and that type of comment contributes to the silly, destructive and unnecessary politicization of this issue in this discussion. (For the record, the mRNA point I made came from reading an article in the Economist, a center-left publication that is far from anti-vax.) Having said that, the facts remain that these are new vaccines that have not been around long enough for their long term effects to be known and that the mRNA vaccines are built on new technology that, as you note, has not been used previously on any kind of scale. My wife and I are vaccinated and our kids are in the process, so as @North Buffalo describes we have decided that on balance it makes sense to do so, but I understand why some people have reservations.

You seem to have concluded (before the FDA has) that the vaccine is indeed safe and effective, and, regrettably, that those who have concerns in this regard are either foolish or dishonest. Leaving aside the snark, why specifically are you so confident? Certainly it is the case that no one alive has had the vaccine in his/her body for more than 6 months or so. It’s also worth noting that the Moderna vaccine (and one other — I think Pfizer but not sure) is based on an entirely new, mRNA-based approach to innoculation. Does one have to be a charlatan or a dumb redneck to harbor concerns?

This view presupposes that "the science is settled" and that the vaccine has been proven to be effective and not dangerous. That isn't really the case -- e.g. when I (and I would expect most here) got vaccinated, I received a disclaimer handout at the vaccination site from NYS stating that the vaccine has not been approved by the FDA.

The question of whether people should be allowed back to work/school/sports events/stores/other public settings without being vaccinated is interesting. Private companies will most likely be able to handle this however they choose. I would expect most, but not all, will require vaccinations. Public schools and government offices though? There will be plenty of political pressure both ways. I would be shocked if NYC public schools or government offices require the vaccine in the same way they require the measles/TB/other vaccines.

I agree that it would be effective. It did seem likely that you were making a dumb redneck implication given the bolded as well as your past statements in that vein, but hopefully not.

I wonder if you'll ever be able to have a conversation with someone who disagrees with you without getting hysterical?

No. Did you not mean to make a dumb redneck implication when you said this:

Well, NYC isn't exactly NASCAR country, and vaccine rates here are below the national average, so you might want to check your facts before assuming it's all just dumb rednecks who aren't getting vaccinated.

And if it in the future emerges that he was deeply depressed and close to jumping off a bridge when he left the Sabres (which it sure sounds like was the case), and that the current accusations are nothing more than a shakedown and/or act of vengeance by some gold-digger/PO'd ex-GF of his? There's a reason it's best to wait until the facts are in before smearing someone.

How so? Please be specific and provide links.

via Google Translate:

And coaches!

It's a great story, and it's great that this misbegotten season was at least able to deliver to this young man what has to be one of the best weeks of his life. He'll never forget it.