nfreeman

Whoa there Bobby. I think JF's been lacing the poutine again.

Some of us are already there!

This looks promising: https://www.upi.com/Health_News/2020/09/17/Nasal-solution-may-stop-spread-of-COVID-19-study-finds/1881600350075/

Interesting. Go on...

I think it's less than 10% likely that 8OA makes the Sabres' roster. Ruotsie is an interesting one -- it would be great if he made it, but I think it's at least 80% likely that he starts in Rochester and only comes to Buffalo if he tears up the A.

This seems kinda like getting hung up on semantics, innit? I generally agree with the points you've been making in this thread, but the bolded is a strange, and unwelcome, directive to issue on a message board.

I would not be a-tall surprised to see the Sabres trade for Andersen. With only 1 year left on his contract and plenty of goalies on the market, he won't cost much to acquire, his cash hit is very low, as is the commitment the Sabres would be buying into, and he's a legit NHL goalie who can be either 1A or 1B with Ullmark. Most importantly, it sounds like KA understands the urgent need to upgrade in net -- yet another departure from his bozo predecessor. I would not expect the Leafs to want Risto or Montour coming back, though, as I think the Leafs' main objective is to clear cap space. The Sabres might be able to scoop him up for a mid-round pick or decent prospect. Then we'd be looking at 2 major upgrades, at their 2 biggest positions of need, accomplished without parting with any significant assets.

Interesting. I stand corrected. I hope the finger sandwiches and mimosas were good at that gender reveal party.

From California? That doesn't sound right.

What? Unacceptable. Great movie AND a great show, although season 3 was a step down from seasons 1 and 2.

Well, KA didn't say anything more specific on this than what I posted upthread, but my guess is that TP wants to see, and KA wants to deliver, a payroll entering the season in the $75MM range -- both to reduce the financial bleeding and to avoid being locked into yet another overpaid, underperforming roster. I also would guess, as I said upthread, that if the team doesn't poop the bed after New Year's yet again, and KA wants to add a good player at the deadline, that TP will be fine with it.

FWIW, on KA's media call yesterday (which is in the vault on WGR), Hammy asked him about the internal question. KA kinda dodged the question as to whether he would spend to the cap, but he emphasized that TP's continued and unchanged directive to KA is to build a cup contender, and that TP will provide whatever resources are needed. KA also said that he plans to build a roster that retains some flexibility. So, my takeaway is that they probably won't spend to the cap this summer, but won't kneecap themselves either, and if they look like a real team at the deadline, KA has the freedom to add payroll.

Mairsie and Webby! Things are starting to look up around here...

TT for all 3 questions. TT has shown flashes of being able to play in the NHL, has demonstrated an elite NHL skill with his slapper and played well in the AHL before getting hurt. Mitts has made one nice play (a nifty pass in traffic into the slot early last season that created a goal) at the NHL level in his career and has otherwise looked completely useless and outmatched. He also didn't do much in the AHL after getting sent down, either statistically or in the eye test per knowledgeable Sabrespace observers. And there have been zero signs of "OK, now I'm done screwing around, I've gotten into killer shape and I'm going to prove myself." Until I see something materially different from Mitts I'm going to assume that he's a washout.

I can see Zemgus taking the bulk of the C responsibilities in the defensive zone, plus killing penalties.

Skinner-Eichel-Reino VO-Staal-Cozens XXX-Kahun-TT Zemgus-Lazar-KO I'd watch that team.

Uh-oh.

Staal turns 36 in October. He has 1 year left on his contract at $3.25MM. (Mojo has 1 year left at $4.5MM). This year, he had 47 pts in 66 games, averaging just over 17 min per game. The previous year, he had 52 pts in 81 games, averaging just over 18 min per game. He's played 82, 82, 81 and 66 games in the last 4 seasons. He's a lock for #2C, and figuring out the rest of the top 9 just got a lot easier. Great freaking first move by KA.

Outstanding.

Who said we shouldn't care about them? The point is that the steps society takes should be tailored towards the actual risks, and most younger people are at an extremely low risk. As I said upthread, we need to be extra careful around those who are vulnerable. That's substantially different from shutting everything down for everyone. No. What I said earlier was "essentially zero risk to those under age 40." A one-in-1.45MM chance is essentially zero risk. Again: it's impossible to have a meaningful conversation if you aren't listening to the other side, or if you're going to misquote the other side in responding.

From the Athletic today -- an anonymous poll of 8 NHL scouts: https://theathletic.com/2054516/2020/09/16/nhl-scouts-poll-2020-byfield-vs-stutzle-video-views-and-an-exceptional-crop/

Dude. I said "the virus poses essentially zero risk to those under age 40 who do not have major co-morbidity factors." You responded by saying that my statement was "blatantly untrue." In support of this assessment, you linked an article (from April 8!) that cites 759 deaths of people under age 50 -- although of course the article doesn't state the US population under age 50, which is about 215MM. It also mentions that a study of about 350 people under age 50 who were hospitalized with the virus indicated that all but 7 of them had significant underlying conditions. So you posted a highly outdated article that essentially proved my point. It's not unreasonable to want to be cautious about the virus. But how can we have an intelligent conversation about it, or anything else, if we don't bother to pay attention to what the other person is saying, or to the "evidence" that we are throwing pell-mell into the discussion? Now, regardless of one's opinion of the Washington Post, certainly some unadorned and current data is useful: - The CDC recently stated that 94% of all deaths from the virus were by patients with an average of 2.6 significant other health conditions -- https://nypost.com/2020/08/31/94-of-americans-who-died-from-covid-19-had-contributing-conditions/ - Although many states don't report deaths by age group, NYS, which is #1 in total deaths and 2nd per capita, does, as does California (although neither reports the under-40 group -- NYS does under 45 and CA does under 35). NYS has about 22.6 total deaths under age 45 per 100K population -- https://www.statista.com/statistics/1101932/coronavirus-covid19-cases-and-deaths-number-us-americans/ - Critically, that includes patients with major co-morbidities. If the CDC is right, only 6% of those 22.6 deaths would've been by otherwise healthy people -- so about 1.356 healthy people under 45 per 100K -- so the average healthy New Yorker under 45 has about a 1 in 74,000 chance of dying from the virus. - Similarly, California, which is #25 in per capita deaths, has had only 218 deaths under age 35 out of about 19MM people in that age range -- about 0.0011% of that group -- and again, that includes patients with major co-morbidities. Apply the same calculations and you end up with a 1 in 1.45MM chance for the average healthy Californian under 35 to die from the virus. As I said: for otherwise healthy people under 40, the risk is negligible.

Well, I think this has been a function of poor GM execution (and, TBF, poor selection of GMs), not an organizational philosophy. We have no idea how well or how poorly KA will execute, but we'll have a much better idea in 30 days. I'm optimistic.