rakish

Anybody have a better source for highlights? Yahoo only keeps theirs around for a day or two. Anyway this is http://sports.yahoo.com/video/buf-van-054226706.html My preconceived belief is that Murray doesn't get enough talent (defense not good enough, depth not good enough) and Bylsma doesn't use players well. We'll look at the two goals so you can watch me jam my preconceived beliefs into what actually happened. The Bogo goal. This is the downside to carrying the puck in. If you fail, there's often an odd man rush the other way. Bogo makes a bad pass to Baptiste, then somehow allows the Vancouver forward by him making it a Vancouver 2-1. Notice on the play Grant picks up the next trailer, something that someone who gets 15 minutes a game does. The PP goal. It's half way through the 3rd period on a night that Bylsma's best player will play 25 minutes. Watch O'Reilly on the PK, he has stopped moving because he is dead tired. Why are you using someone who plays too much on the PK? Vancouver makes some nice passes, it goes in the net. Similarly, the overtime goal in Calgary, another game that O'Reilly was on the ice for too many minutes followed by him being beat at the end. Outside the goals, there's a lot of bad defensive plays. In clip 1 of the highlights, Kulikov almost kicks in his own net, Lehner makes a good save. Clip 2 looks like a power play because McCabe is lost, but the puck doesn't get into the net. Clip 3 of the highlights Kulikov pinches on a power play, Ennis coughs up puck, creating a 3-1 shorthanded, McCabe makes a real nice play. Reinhart backhands puck into slot (it must have been tipped), Granland beats Gionta and Risto behind net, Lehner makes a good save.

I'll write about this in the future, but it might be 2020 before I can focus on it.

one unit on sabres over vancouver, I'm at 1950, today's line is +120

Why does Los Angeles trade their backup goaltender for a high draft pick most years. That goaltender goes to bad team, and suddenly gets bad?

Consider this. You take data on when Eichel carries the puck in. You take data on when the Larsson line dumps and chases. Eichel's line scores twice as often as Larsson's line. Is it fair to say that stats show that carrying the puck in is better? Take another angle. Eichel and Reinhart hit center ice, it's a 2-1, is this considered a carry-in? When Eichel and Reinhart hit center ice and it's 2-4, they dump it in. Does the carry in end up with better stats? Of course it does, is it fair to say that carrying the puck in is better because the stats are better? Disclaimer: The above is in no way to be considered a defense of Dan Bylsma's coaching.

I think I'm ready to do this professionally since I'm down only 50 bucks after 3 games

No, you are betting 200 to win 260

I'm at 2050 One unit on Buffalo vs Calgary, line is +130

I Don't understand. General Fanager was sold to The Nation Network a month ago. http://nhlnumbers.com/2016/9/15/the-nation-network-buys-generalfanager-com

I'm at 1895, one unit on Buffalo.

One unit on Buffalo, I believe I'm betting 105 to win 100.

We were near Sherkston

where in Ontario?

I think Buffalo will be better this year because Murray traded many of his (often iffy) assets for players in their prime, therefore, Buffalo is a much older team in the rebuild cycle. Toronto has fewer players like O'Reilly and Kane About 15 or 20 years ago, Detroit understood that there was a valuation imbalance in drafting, and that imbalance regarded Euros. They did some scouting, and were able to put together great teams for many years because of the rest of the league's Don Cherry mentality. That valuation imbalance has, for the most part, disappeared a few year ago. The current valuation imbalance is the use of data in drafting. The Leafs are killing everyone else at the draft table. It's really not close. What I get when I analyze the past 5 drafts is that most teams will have 7 good NHL players from those 5 drafts. Buffalo's 7, Eichel, Risto, Reinhart, Nylander, Borgan, McCabe, Asplund. Where you divide the 'good NHL player' from 'not' is somewhat arbitrary. Most NHL teams have about 7, the Rangers have about 0, the Blue Jackets and the Coyotes have about 10. Toronto has 14. This means that Toronto is bringing in 5 good NHL players this year, 5 good NHL players next year, and 5 good NHL players the year after that. Buffalo will be bringing in 1 to 2. The question for me isn't is Eichel better than Mathews, the question is can a team with marginal NHL hockey players (think Foligno, Casey Nelson, Gionta, etc) compete with a team that doesn't have a depth problem.

Interesting, I thought it was critical issue value wise.

Me and Hoss have been talking about this a bit. The criteria is 40 games on the roster, which is different than games played. I am fairly confident that the Sabres didn't bring him up a week or two early to get 40 games on the roster. So I think this is true, the Sabres bought 1 year, which, despite what Doug McKenzie tells you, is different than the Jones contract, which buys 2 years, and the Riily contract, which, if I remember right, buys 2 years.

Tell them to get upstairs and clean the table before Dad gets home.

Tough love, my apologies

Pick him up, he's good

Hurley was born Sept 15, on the day the league starts the draft year. In my world, he's not a propect, but his linemate is, Anders Bjork (Boston). For 2015, I have Bjork as the 27th best forward in his draft class. Hurley was in the 70's last year, but I could easily have Hurley in the wrong year. I ought to look into it.

Nonsense, they traded two firsts for Reinhart

You've been removed from our list of potential arbitors, thank you for your time

Let's take 2 examples. Let's first look at Gorgio Estephan, if he has a contract (I'm too lazy to look), it says something like he gets 900g if he plays in Buffalo, 80gs if he plays in Rochester, and Lethbridge pays him if he plays in the WHL, I believe that number is 500/wk. This year he plays in Lethbridge, so his contract slides. Our second example is Nylander. He has a contract that pays him 900g (probably more, but we're just talking here, not writing a legal memo) if he plays in Buffalo, and 80g if he plays in Rochester. As I understand it, he's going to play this year in Rochester, as such, he fulfills a year of his contract. Nylander's year in fundamentally different than Estephan's year, one is fulfilling a year of his contract, one isn't, yet both contracts slide. What the CBA is doing is making Nylander fulfill 4 (or 5) years of his ECL. This could easily cost Nylander millions of dollars. If you are the arbitrator of this argument in 3 years (The Nylander people won't mention it now, because Murray would send him to Lethbridge pronto), might you consider Nylander having a viable argument?

In the AHL? really? interesting, because he is getting paid through his contract, I though the reason it slid in junior was because he wasn't getting paid

I may have this wrong, but I think the '9 game' thing is nonsense. The 9 games has to do with the ELC sliding. If he's in Rochester, he's a professional, so his ELC doesn't slide. If he's going back to junior, he plays 9 games, his ELC slides. It is often the first 9 games, since if you are sent to junior, you can't come back (without notes from your doctor) The critical number for Nylander is 40. If he's on the roster for 40 games, he will UFA at age 25 or 26, instead of age 27, which will save the team a lot of money in 7 years.