nfreeman

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 So you posted a highly outdated article that essentially proved my point.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.

Yes, Eichel will probably get fed up at some point if things don't improve, and yes, he might ask to be traded. That doesn't mean the Sabres will grant his request -- especially in light of the debacle that ensued when it happened with ROR -- and it sure doesn't mean the team will relocate.

So you hope he catches a disease and dies? How nice.

First bolded -- I agree that these items aren't a huge ask. The problem is that this is far from a complete list. Schools are not reopening in many parts of the country. This imposes an enormous cost, both on the quality of the education and on the parents' ability to go to work. Similarly, restaurants, hotels, theaters and similar establishments are closed or operating at fractional capacity, which results in millions of jobs staying vaporized. Not to mention the thousands of companies that went bankrupt and won't be coming back. 2nd bolded -- again, the assumption assumes away the discussion. Those numbers aren't even close to established. Continental Europe has more than double the US population, and they have largely re-opened to a greater degree than we have. Do you think they expect to incur millions of deaths in a 2nd wave?

Oh FFS. They aren't trading Eichel and they aren't moving. Some people don't know how to be anything other than vituperative.

... but probably not until the end of the Finals, innit?

C'mon. This isn't about not being able to attend hockey games or dine out. Let's not pretend that millions of people out of work, the related increases in depression, addiction, family breakups, etc., millions more unable to obtain non-Covid-related medical care for months, the loss of close to a year of school for millions of kids, a huge reduction in GDP, huge reductions in tax revenues -- and thus much less money available for social programs, schools, government services, parks, trash removal, pensions, etc. -- isn't an enormous cost.

Both of the bolded items embody major assumptions that essentially assume away the discussion. Who are these "most people?" Much of this country, and most of Europe, has gone back to school, in person, full time, and in many cases without masks. And what behavior is "dangerous?" And is it really "dangerous?" I read a stat a few days ago to the effect that something like 26,000 college students have tested positive for the virus just this fall, with zero hospitalizations. It seems increasingly clear that the virus poses essentially zero risk to those under age 40 who do not have major co-morbidity factors, and a very low risk to those under age 65 without major co-morbidity factors. Maybe the right answer is, and has always been, to be very careful around the vulnerable segments of the population, but otherwise to go back to normal -- because the cost of doing what we've been doing is and has been enormous.

He's really something, innit? Brown is really good and Diggs is a clear step up from Brown.

@thorny raises a good question: for those turning their noses up at Bjuggy (heh), how confident are you that the Sabres will bring in 2 centers better than he is?

God bless you and them @SwampD. I bet they like Stefon Diggs.

Out of the employees that have left PSE, how many do you think have been fired vs left voluntarily? Separately: for those unhappy about the possibility of an internal cap: how much money do you think the team will lose next year at a $72MM payroll? And how much do you think it's reasonable to expect TP to lose? $10MM? $20MM? More?

I sure hope you're right, and I agree that the signs of immaturity are there, and that this often improves over time. My bigger concern though is that Casey's alleged talent simply doesn't exist. I do not see any signs whatsoever of Mitts being able to process the game at NHL speed. When he has the puck in the o-zone -- which is pretty rare, as his line spends most of its time chasing the puck in the d-zone -- the opposing defender is able to simply take it away like Mitts isn't even there. And it didn't sound like it was much better when Mitts was in Rochester either. Time will tell. Max was also able to produce in the AHL substantially better than Casey did (18 pts in 15 games vs 25 pts in 36 games for Casey). Max was also essentially a 40-pt guy in his 1st 3 NHL seasons, other than the 11-pt season, which he missed more than half of with a concussion, and the following season, in which he had 31 pts. Apples and crabapples. Overall, I will reiterate that, as with Nylander last year, I'm in no hurry to cut Casey loose. The Sabres should not do so until he needs to clear waivers or they have to make a significant contractual commitment to keep him. Until then, he should stay in Rochester. In the meantime, I'm happy to include him in a package for a good player if the other team wants him, and I'm definitely not counting on him.

Yes please, although I doubt Vegas will include Glass, as he is their top prospect. Someone will probably take MAF off their hands for Vegas' first-rounder this year.

Well, I think this is fair for the early part of Max's career, but over time he developed into a major, and not occasional, contributor -- not on par with Drury or Briere (and I agree with your point on leadership), but right there IMHO with Vanek, Roy, Pommer, etc. His speed put a ton of pressure on the opposing D. He was also an underrated playmaker who could pass it as well, if not better, than he shot it. Also, the Sabres sending him out with a couple of talented linemates on their 3rd line created major matchup problems for the opponent. If Mitts ends up contributing as much as Max did, it will be a major win for the Sabres and a big surprise to me. I never saw Max looking anywhere near as lost and hopeless as Casey looked this past season.

I generally agree that the Sabres aren't as far away as some might think -- but I also think Mitts has many miles to go before he can play in the NHL, and that there is a good likelihood that he won't get there.