LTS

He probably thought they got screwed on their first shot on net in the 2nd. The fans all gave a wonderful Bronx cheer. Only it wasn't a shot on net. It was to the side of the net and was held by Halak. So, even the fans were wrong. :) He's not a train wreck on the ice. You can say what you want about him but he shows up and plays his game. He's not a liability out there like most of the team. For example.. Stewart was a joke last night. He didn't win one battle for the puck that I can recall. He wasn't good. Some missed passes and a few other errors but then the entire team wasn't good. Myers was much worse in my opinion. On a different note.. I was there. Because.. free tickets and when I get a chance to take my son to the game, I do. Even if I have to drive in that weather from Rochester to Buffalo. We walked inside the gates, got up the escalators and an older gentleman with 200 level seats approached us and offered his VIP Rope Line for Pre-game. So.. right there the entire trip was worth it. The pre-game shenanigans are entertaining to say the least. I need to see if I can get a shortened video clip of Zadarov punching Deslauriers in the ass before going on the ice. It's.. strange? Also. .clearly Deslauriers is loved by his teammates.. he's pretty vocal before going on the ice.

A UFA who isn't signed is nothing to the team if he leaves. You trade him and then attempt to sign him in the off season. If he wants to be here, he will sign. Never in a million years would I give up any of those players for Kane. I never liked Kane. His attitude issues are what make him toxic. Not everyone needs to be big. I would never trade Ennis for Kane and Ennis seems to be improving and I see hope for him in the future. He has no attitude issues and is a play maker.

Careful there. If they end up eligible for the lottery your malice may come back to bite you in them receiving the number 1 pick. Rather they make last seed and lose in the first round.

I disagree here. It's just not that cut and dry. If I have a top 5 pick this year, would I rather have another pick at 23 this year or would I prefer to have a pick in the top 10 next year? If I have a top 5 pick this year, and 2 more in the 1st round, would I rather have another pick in this year or a top 10 next year? I think it really depends on where the pick projects next year. While drafting 4 first round players in one year speeds up development it also brings about additional problem that are not as easily solved. Such as 4 players (assuming they hit) reaching RFA status, UFA status, etc. near the same time. Of course there are even more factors that go into it... I just couldn't blanket say that this year > next year.

And the spelling bee.

Curious how you think anyone would take this as anything other than an insult and you positioning yourself as a jerk. It feels, to me, the kind of statement someone makes just so they can be heard. Moreover, I feel you are 100% incorrect in your assessment. Just because I happen to be a fan of a team does not automatically lessen any win prediction. By your logic, if I were not a Sabres fan and I were predicting they win tonight it might be construed as a bold prediction. However, because I am a Sabres fan the prediction is now not bold. All factors that impact the outcome of a game have not changed and yet suddenly the level of BOLDNESS to the prediction has? That's completely irrational. As for the game itself.. so be it.

The Day the Sabres played their first game: October 10th, 1970. The # of Stanley Cups won since Day 1: 0 The # of days between then and today: 16,188. Every day that passes without the Sabres winning only adds to that value. Therefore, the furthest the Sabres have ever been from winning the Cup was the day they played their first game. (assumption: they were not eligible to win a cup until they played an NHL game). They were in the cup Finals, but did not win and thus remained as far from winning the Cup as ever. Anyway.. they suck and in theory have a great future. And if another 16,188 days pass between today and the Cup it would be May 29, 2059.

You are incorrect. The day the Sabres were formed and played their first game is the furthest they've ever been from winning a Stanley Cup.

Thanks everyone for clearing up the college scenario. Good stuff!

Yep. Happened during practice.. shooter on the grassy knoll? Says GM MacT: "You know guys, Buffalo is coming. They're bad. Like, really bad. Our front end talent might be too much for them." <slight pause...> "Hey.. get me Smith's number. Ol' Stevie's always been good at picking off Oilers. Maybe he can help us out."

Can college players go become re-entry draft players? I know in Juniors it's two years after being drafted and still below 20 or something like that. Not sure about college. Would that give pause to not signing a college player sooner?

Even if the Lindros type deal could be pulled off. Edmonton is not the team to do it with. If they couldn't win with the stars that they have why do we think the Sabres could? The Oilers might actually come out on top in that one. No chance I would consider the trade, not with the Oilers.

GMTM: "So, I see you are removing one of your most talented forwards in an effort to reduce the chance you score against my team. I shall counter by removing Zadarov from the lineup. This should provide ample chances for your lesser talents forwards to hit the net." The chess game of pre-game scratches begins.

Isn't that the point? :w00t:

Wow. Insanity abounds in this thread. Panic. Holy crap.. everything sucks. Please... what a non-issue.

I like the look.. the red star and everything. One thing I noticed is that when I multi-quote (perhaps when I quote as well, but I haven't tried that) the board tags no longer appear. It threw me at first thinking that the post wouldn't show up as quoted but it did. Not sure if that's a results of anything or if others see it. Keep it going.

I agree that lower skill level guys will no longer be on the ice. However, that doesn't mean the level of play improves. The All-Star game is probably not the best way of proving that however as no one really tries there. However, your point did trigger a separate thought which is National competitions are a fairly good indication of what the kind of play we would see. My only problem with using that is that we are talking about only 4-5 teams that are true powerhouses in the National arena. The NHL would not be a 6 team league again. I just think that contraction, unless massive would not improve the level of play significantly. And any major contractions would kill the sport.

They are a special kind of special I guess.

See? The new skating coach is paying off!

How many cities have managed to lose a team twice in their history? That's what I want to know.

This is the perfect kind of technology for replays between whistles and for alternate cameras for online broadcasts.

I honestly hope this is your last post on this board.

This concept of talent dilution got me thinking. What is talent dilution and how would you measure it? Let's set a few basic assumptions. 1. Perfect decision making on who makes a team. 2. There are tiers of player talent. Where those tiers break is not up for discussion, just that there are tiers. So, let's say at any given time there are 20 tiers of talent in hockey players. It is not evenly distributed as the lower tiers will absolutely be larger than the upper tiers. Let's say with 30 teams in the league, the teams are comprised of the top 10 tiers of hockey players. Let's say you contract the league such that you remove the bottom 3 tiers of hockey players. Naturally the on-ice skill level improves as the lesser skilled players are removed. However, the difference level between the top and bottom tier is also reduced. Therefore, the top tier talent should, in theory, have their overall effectiveness reduced because they won't succeed as often against higher skilled players. Overall, the teams skill level improves but so does the skill level of their competition. So, you have skilled offense, but is it negated by skilled defense and skilled goaltending? Is there an increase in scoring? Why? The same holds true for expansion. The overall skill level goes down as more players are needed. Overall each team declines in ability as does their competition. The difference between top tier and bottom tier grows and therefore there should be an increase in scoring as the top tier players should have MORE success against the lower tier players. Even if the tiers themselves grow it would take the growth of a Tier out of line with the tier below it to dramatically impact the game. For example, if the top 10 tiers are in and the skill level of the Tier 5 players improves and grows such that it is closer to 4 and further from 6 it would stand to reason that the overall trend of talent as taken an uptick. However, if this is perfectly distributed across the league, would it make a difference? In the end, no matter the number of teams you have, imperfect decision making and the randomness of humanity will still cause disparity between teams. I'm not sure how we judge talent level as completing an amazing pass should be more difficult if the player defending the pass is less likely to be out of position and more likely to intercept any given pass. If a goaltender is more likely to make a save than less likely then it would negate the effectiveness of top level shooters. All in all, shouldn't it remain relatively the same?

So, is that where you think Terry's head is?

I'd wonder if all the January stubs are like that. You'd think they use an automated system to print that feeds from a database so it would have January only entered once and if they misspelled it there it should appear on all January tickets.