nfreeman

Interesting article on the Risto-Montour pairing: https://www.diebytheblade.com/2019/12/11/21010520/buffalo-sabres-have-found-something-in-the-brandon-montour-and-rasmus-ristolainen-pairing

Well, it looks like the Caps will have a hard time keeping Backstrom, as they already have over $76MM committed for next year. IF (and IMHO only if) the Sabres make the playoffs this year and look like they've finally turned the corner, it's not impossible that Backstrom would consider it. Backstrom will turn 33 one month into next season. He's been very productive and very durable for his entire career. He's currently making $6.7MM in the final year of a TEN-year contract. Would he come here for, say, 4 years x $8MM? If so, I would give him that in a heartbeat. Or would the Sabres need to go to 5 years x $9MM?

Correct. @Hank -- when has an average of one point per game ever meant ".500"? As a factual matter, ".500" means "50%". IMHO, in the sports context, it has always meant "winning 50% of your games." When the NHL eliminated ties, I think it also introduced the bastardized ".500" concept as a way to deceive fans of lousy teams into thinking that their teams had better chances of making the playoffs than they actually did. E.g.: "we're 18-18-9 -- we're .500 -- so we must be in the playoff race! [even though that record actually has them 8 points out of the playoffs with less than a 10% chance of making it]" But SabreSpace knows better, I hope.

IMHO, "elite" = "undisputed top-5 player in the NHL." Jack certainly hasn't been at that level prior to this year, but he may be there now. I think this is a question best answered at the end of this season.

Except that they've lost 2 games more than they've won...

I hate the idea of healthy-scratching 2 Dmen once Dahlin returns. They've all been playing fairly well.

THAT just happened.

In the abstract yes please on Holtby, but I'd have a hard time giving him, say, 7 years x $7MM, which is probably what it would cost to get him here.

If the Sabres are a bubble team at the deadline, I would not trade any of the pending UFAs. Only a couple of them (probably Scandy and Bogo) might bring back a third-rounder or better, and that's only if they are playing well -- and if they are playing well, I don't want to subtract them from the lineup. I want to make the freaking playoffs already.

From the Athletic -- regarding Mitts being healthy-scratched vs the Oilers:

I love this guy.

This has all the feel of a classic 0-3 Buffalo sports weekend, innit?

I'm not sure I'm at "terrible", but it was pretty disappointing IMHO. In Allen's defense, the Bills' O-line could not handle Baltimore's pass rush, and Beasley and Knox each dropped a well-thrown pass that would've converted a big 3rd down. I think they will have a good D as long as McD is here.

Great effort by the D. Lousy games for Allen, the O-line and most of the rest of the offense.

Oh, the refs, the refs! They're always out to get us!

OK, so JB and RK have summoned you to an emergency meeting. The NHL trade market is in lockdown, or maybe the Sabres just look so bad that no one is willing to give them anything good for anyone other than Eichel or Dahlin. In any case, JB and RK want your advice as to roster and coaching moves that they can implement immediately, assuming no trade is Main the offing. What do you tell them? Here is my action plan: - Mittlestadt and Hutton share an Uber to Rochester -- I don't even trust them to drive themselves at this point. As @freester has noted, Hutton has fallen off the table. I'd rather see Hamburglar as the #2 goalie -- he can't possibly do any worse than Hutton. And the only reason Mitts hasn't fallen off the table is that he was never on the table. He is a net negative on the ice and is not remotely an NHL player at this point. I don't want to see him again in Buffalo until he is tears up the AHL for 30 games or more. I won't be at all surprised if he never gets there. - The Sabres bring in a new assistant coach in charge of special teams. As I and others have noted, the debacles that are the PP and PK are not talent issues (except for the PK when Hutton is in net) -- they are coaching issues. The rest of the NHL has solved the Sabres' schemes here, and the Sabres haven't figured out how to respond. This is a direct result IMHO of hiring a coach who hasn't been in the NHL in 6 years. It's fixable with the right coaching, but the Sabres don't have the right guy running the STs. Find that guy and get him here right now. - Make Bogo the healthy scratch on D and roll with McCabe-Montour, Risto-Miller and Joker-Scandy as the 6 regular d-men. - When Dahlin is recovered, don't rush him back. Let him play in Rochester for 5-10 games until he looks solid on both ends. - Roll the following forward lines: VO-Eichel-Reino Skinner-Larsson-Mojo Vesey-Asplund-Sheary Erod-Zemgus-KO - Stop playing that stupid "Let me clear my throat" song at home after they score.

Take it down a notch here please.

Of course. My point was simply that ".500" as used by certain troglodytes upthread (i.e. not DeLuca .500) has no meaning whatsoever, whereas DeLuca .500 is a much better indicator of making the playoffs.

This is fine, and I agree that DeLuca .500 is far from scientific (although I think it's much more correlative than "sometimes they do, sometimes they don't"). But saying a 17-17-7 team is a .500 team and therefore they're doing OK, which is what some posters were saying upthread, is completely misplaced IMHO and is not what the actual standings use either.

I agree with the bolded. Nobody is going to trade for him. If Hutton doesn't improve over the course of this season, I expect JB to bring in another goalie for next year. But not before then.

FWIW: after starting off 3-0 with Sheldon Keefe, the Leafs are 1-3 in their last 4.

Just so we are clear: - last year, one out of 16 playoff teams was below DeLuca .500, and the lowest-ranked EC playoff team had 46 wins -- i.e. 4 games over DeLuca .500. - the year before last, zero out of 16 playoff teams was below DeLuca .500, and the lowest-ranked EC playoff team had 42 wins -- i.e. exactly at DeLuca .500. - the year before that, two out of 16 playoff teams was below DeLuca .500, and the lowest-ranked EC playoff team had 40 wins -- i.e. 2 games below DeLuca .500. So, the literalists are correct that it is possible to make the playoffs with a sub-DeLuca .500 record, but only 1 of the last 32 playoff teams (and 3 of the last 48) was below DeLuca .500, and it hasn't happened in the EC in the last 2 years. If you want the Sabres to be a playoff team, you should understand that they almost certainly need to win a few more games than they lose, regardless of OTLs.

OK boys. Time to rally and avenge a disappointing OTL to Cal-gary 8 days ago. After a brutal, disheartening stretch of 9 losses in 10 games, the Sabres have won 3 out of their last 6 (and gotten points in 2 of the 3 losses) and have looked much better overall. Five of the Sabres' next eight games are against teams currently in the playoffs, and the other three opponents are Toronto, Nashville and tonight vs the Flames. Calgary is 3-0-1 in their last 4 despite (or perhaps because of) cashiering their nut case coach. Go Sabres.

Max was the fastest Sabre I’ve seen. Runner-up: Geoff Sanderson.

Except that this is wholly false. They have left the arena having lost the game 15 times, and left the arena having won the game 13 times. As for whether or not DeLuca .500 is relevant -- do you think that teams have generally made the playoffs if they are above BS .500 but below DeLuca .500?