nfreeman

A nugget from Elliotte Friedman:

I agree with most of this, but I think the bolded might be a bit imprecise. If you mean "are the players willing to effectively put more of their salaries into escrow, and thus available for ensuring they don't exceed their half of total revenues" -- then I agree. But simply deferring a portion of salaries and repaying that portion in full in a couple of years, doesn't do anything to enforce the 50/50 split, which is IMHO the critical issue, and which will require true economic concessions.

I should add that I think although the players will fight hard against economic concessions, they ultimately will make significant concessions and there will be a season. Even in a compressed economic climate, both the players and the owners would be throwing away a ton of money if the season were cancelled.

Based on RK's choices last year, I too think the most likely spot for Reino is with Jack and Hall, although I too would much prefer to see Reino with Staal and Skinner.

We’ve also seen the reverse several times.

Yes indeed, but I think it’s pretty likely to be somewhat more bullish and some owners will probably be substantially more bullish. Ultimately I think Reino will get his $6MM to $6.5MM per year, either next summer or the following summer, and either from the Sabres or elsewhere. He hasn’t been shy about signing short-term deals and will likely do so again if he thinks it’s the path to the big contract. The bigger variable is Dahlin. It’s not clear yet whether or when he will explode into dominance, or what his risk tolerance is on waiting for a big contract. I just think the most likely outcome is that either Hall or Reino gets a big contract from the Sabres and the other one gets it elsewhere.

I am interpreting "players owe us more than anyone imagined" as an indicator that the NHL's revenues have taken a huge hit, which has resulted in the players receiving well over their half of revenues for 2019-20 -- i.e. much more than can be made good via the escrowed portion of the players' salaries from last season. I would also interpret this as the NHL expecting another huge decline in expected revenues for 2020-21, half of which will need to be borne by the players one way or another -- and the measures that the NHL and the players agreed on this a few months ago don't come close to accomplishing this (and it's fair to wonder why the NHL thought those measures would get the job done, when it appears that they have fallen far short of that goal). I think that we are going to see either no season, or some combination of across-the-board pay cuts or increases in escrow adding up to close to 50% of player salaries.

With Mitts not signed yet, it doesn't seem like the Sabres are banking on him becoming a major contributor either.

I agree with most of this and would just add that based on statements from KA, RK and Hall, I think everyone is hoping and semi-planning that Hall and Eichel are great together, the Sabres make the playoffs and Hall signs an extension. I also think that Reino's one-year contract, plus the other contracts the Sabres signed this offseason, were designed to allow for that possibility. Bottom line is that Eichel and Skinner already have big contracts and Dahlin is likely to get one. There probably isn't cap space for both Hall and Reino to get one as well -- so it will likely be one of them signing a fat extension and the other one moving on.

Most excellent. Thanks.

You can, but you have to go to the SabreSpace home page. It would be nice if it could be restored to the Aud Club page.

Whoa. If he can do that, @LGR4GM may need to start formulating his retraction.

I too would like to see this top 6, but I think Hall will be stapled to Jack unless they really struggle. I think they want it to work and for Hall to be happy and sign an extension. I agree with all of this, but I think both of these 2 are really fast, not just one of them.

Food coma.

Well, @PASabreFan can be awfully persuasive when he’s got you tied up in the basement in the gimp costume.

Holy narrative buster batman! I thought it was "proven" by "evidence" that he was a "meddler!"

My guess is that something is going on -- i.e. it's not just that everyone is on vacation. It could be as simple as KA trying to send Mitts a message.

Of course, it should be noted that no one really has any idea what percentage of the US population has had the virus already.

I don't love multigrain, but I don't mind it, and I prefer it to white bread.

My wife and I went on vacation in Mexico some years ago and traveled around to a number of places, most of which were great. Some of our travel was by bus, and at one point we had to change buses with a bit of a layover in a nondescript town called Iguala. In 2014 there was a major drug cartel massacre there. Yeeeesssh.

I think a specific discussion of the flaws/benefits of the distribution plan is fine, but not, e.g., "the president/governor/prime minister is distributing the vaccine this way because he's an idiot/corrupt/in the pocket of the pharma companies."

I think discussion of methods is fine, unless it's used as a vehicle to make political jabs. E.g. "full lockdowns work -- here's data from country X supporting that approach" is fine, but "the president/governor/prime minister is an idiot for not supporting lockdowns" is not OK.

Well, Sweden has a much lower per capita Covid death rate than Belgium, Spain, France, Italy and the UK, both cumulatively and in the last 14 days. https://www.statista.com/statistics/1111779/coronavirus-death-rate-europe-by-country/ https://www.ecdc.europa.eu/en/cases-2019-ncov-eueea So, regardless of how sure one is in one's position, there is plenty of data to support a different view. I'll also note that I wasn't even advocating for the Swedish approach vs the UK approach -- just pointing out that "the science" isn't "settled."

It would be pretty cool if he just seized a spot in camp and was clearly too good to be sent down, innit?

Please remove panties from wringer. I didn't mention those items, and I'm not referring to "political influences". I'm referring to lockdowns, school closures, how to weigh consequences, including health consequences, like depression, substance abuse, alcoholism, delay or loss of other needed health care, economic loss, job loss, family breakups, etc, against the virus' immediate health consequences, whether approaches like Sweden's are better than approaches like the UK's, and other important issues relating to handling the virus. None of these has been settled by anything remotely resembling an "overwhelming consensus."