LTS

If sending Benson down brings up Kulich or Rosen would you change anyone change their mind? Although I think it would more likely be Biro that got brought up.. at which point I know, people want Benson here. Although Biro has more goals. 🙂

8?

Good 'ol Hockey Canada. The BEACON of integrity and great decision making.

Right, understand now. The problem with temporary ban or indefinite suspension is that they seem arbitrary. I know they usually have a clause "eligible for re-applying after 1 year" for example. I think he should be out of the league, complete some significant work on cleaning up his life, get off the alcohol, and then let it be possible for re-entry. I think it should be 2 years minimum assuming he's convicted. Under ANY circumstance he should not be eligible to return until he gets his life cleaned up. The hurdles are often not high enough, not just in sports.

You know it's not the coach who calls up a player right? He might have a say in it, but it's the GM.

Did I say banned for life? I don't think I did. If I did I certainly did not mean to. I thought my arguments have been solely about not wanting someone like that where I work or to work around someone like that. I feel like I even called out if a person in that situation goes through meaningful change they might eventually get to the point where I would want to give them a second chance. Note that I am saying *I* might want to... I fully accept others might do it sooner.

I guess you could say the Sabres are focused on D. Truth be told I cannot speak to how the Amerks are playing now but the prevailing trend is that the minor league team employs the principles of the NHL team to get youth acclimated to the way of playing. It's possible the Amerks are focused purely on the offensive side now. It's also possible they are just not that good at D. Although I feel like the AHL tends to have more goals scored overall as it's played more wide open. In the end, the Sabres aren't very good at D and from what I've seen in the scoring, the Amerks very much aren't. The other thing both teams have in common is that they struggle to keep a lead. No insight into that either.

His actions were not an assault on public security. They were allegedly an assault on his spouse. Banning him from the NHL demonstrates consequences to his actions away from the game. The criminal justice system can demonstrate consequences to his actions in the courts. I am in favor of revoking their ability to work for me or with me, yes. Everyone has their own standards. If someone else wants to give him a shot then that's great for them. If the person seeks help and turns their life around, then great. At some point if I were close enough to the situation, I might actually give them another chance. But this isn't about a second chance, this is about messing up your first chance. It takes a conscious decision to assault another human being especially how it was described. Some people get angry when they drink. Those people should be told that and they should stop drinking before their anger boils over. I've been WAY too close to that situation in my life. If a person who tends to rage when they drink won't stop drinking I'm 100% getting away from that.

Appert runs the system the Sabres want so the players get trained. It's systemic in the organization. Aaaaaand yep.

Yes. 100% of the time, every time, without question. It's not an athlete standard. I wouldn't work with someone who engaged in that behavior. If I was managing someone like that I would want them out from under me, out of the company. They are an HR nightmare waiting to happen. Do they work again? Not my problem. They can go get themselves all the help they need and hope someone gives them a chance. The fear of consequences should weight into decisions to engage in violence.

If someone demonstrates the potential to engage in that kind of behavior, do you want it in your organization? Not even just hockey. Cancel culture would be if he said something someone disagreed with. Assaulting another human being is not that. It's easy to discard and denounce people like that because they are scum. I think people should be better with their words and how they treat others, but words are just words. Physical altercations on the other hand are much more than that. They are a direct assault on the personal security everyone should enjoy. It is much harder to make a positive impact in the world. Most people prefer to look at others and analyze them and tear them down. Not many want to engage in introspection and apply the same criteria. I'm not going to make snide comments on Lucic because there is a victim in this scenario and making light of it, in my opinion, is disrespecting the other party impacted.

Very nicely done "typo". In other news.. I'll tune in.. but if they lay the egg and no effort, I'll find something more productive to do. It IS Friday night after all.

Clearly not, since the BS of HF Boards has been brought to us. There are no winners in this, only losers.

I know. I wasn't attempting to refute you either. Straight away I merely said that looking at records can be misleading. I think any fan scoffing at another team is just dumb. I would expect Buffalo fans to know this all too well. But apparently not. But I do dislike surface generalizations. When the team isn't doing well it's easy for people to come out of the wood work and begin pointing fingers. The Ducks are a team with nothing to lose. There were low expectations on them and that 100% factors into a team's performance. The Sabres are the opposite, they have a ton of expectation heaped on them and they aren't handling it. I don't make that statement to absolve them of their performance or make excuses. They are a team that needs to play far better than they are. Calling out their youth and inexperience is fair. Calling out their performance is fair. Calling out the lack of addressing goaltending and team defense is fair. There are issues to be fixed.

The gist of my point is that to you, it's the little things. I did not give it a second thought. Other thought of it differently. Each to their own and all, but it's not like there is some consensus opinion that Granato was wrong here. Some people are more attached to their Jump to Conclusion mats than a yoga instructor to their yoga mat. He said he would have more on Monday and he did. That's about as straightforward as one can get.

Not that this wouldn't ultimately have merit, but the problem with a sample size like this or record comparison's overall is that you really have to account for strength of schedule during the time frame being evaluated. Granted, in the full picture, the number of points is the number of points, but deeper analysis might show that the Sabres have played higher quality competition, or have played teams who were playing better at the time they met. Again, I'm not doing the analysis here because I don't have time nor desire. But just saying that putting something like this out there doesn't hold much water for me because I don't know that their records being so similar is necessarily a negative thing (if you look into it deeper). At quick glance though, the Ducks play in a conference where 7 teams have point totals below them. The Sabres conference has 3. it would appear that the Eastern Conference presents a greater challenge than the West. But of course it matters who they've played.

Unless at the time there was a situation that needed to play out more before they felt comfortable saying "family issues" which would immediately trigger the media to begin looking for what those family issues were. Implications are your interpretations. Some people thought he went out drinking with Savoie. I would not put that at more than a family emergency. Some people thought he was being traded. I would not put that as more than a family emergency. What would be more than a family emergency? What is more personal that one's family? What is more important?

There's an assumption that yelling and screaming make a difference. I worked for a leader who used to nitpick everything and make bombastic statements, threaten my job. I never once listened to what he had to say. He was a moron and it showed. He tried to manage out of fear and I just tuned him out. After awhile I wanted him to fire me. Eventually I forced his hand. I also worked for a leader who managed thoughtfully. He didn't berate or insult or threaten. He put me in my place once and I didn't even realize it happened until 5 minutes after he walked out of the room. I was standing there and hit it me.. hard. Bottom line, just because Granato doesn't fiery words or demonstrate the hard ass demeanor... does not mean he can't make an impact.

Could be Gallant... almost positive it will be someone with years of experience. I'm not a huge Gallant fan as others are. I don't know that Bruce is the right guy either. I don't think the coach is the biggest problem in Edmonton... the GM? Yeah.. that's where I'd be looking for a change.

You just keep pushing that rock up the hill. You've been given so many reasons as to why he was sent down. The most immediate being the need to clear a roster spot. He wasn't going to be the answer this year, a second game would not have changed anything. So, he was moved down so they didn't have to risk a player on waivers, etc. Sometimes the decision that has to be made is choosing the best worst option. it's not all Happily Ever After all the time.

There was a clip of him walking off the ice after losing to San Jose and the lip readers thought he said "I think that's it". They know.. the win wasn't going to change things. it was time. Could it be "Bruce, there it is!" for replacement? 🙂

If the situation is that Buffalo is going to make a trade to demonstrate they are all in and get Kane then I am fine with it. They need to shake something up and bring in some more veteran leadership to drive the kids. I feel like a Kane - Mitts - Greenway line could be fun. That sets up Tuch-Thompson-Skinner, and then Cozens-Peterka-(placeholder- Biro?) until Quinn is ready. Your 4th is Rousek/Jost - Girgensons - Okposo. Anyway... it's something.

But you think Savoie would have changed things last night? He wouldn't have. And his parents got see his debut in the NHL. You should probably go ask them how they feel instead of deciding for them. There are a ton of reasons on how managing a team come into play that explain why Savoie got 1 game and was sent down when he was sent down. But it ultimately boils down to: He was not going to be the one to improve the team. Period.

But I doubt JJP will be the one getting flogged.

Let's be honest... even if it's not true that's your likely end state. I am surprised they pulled the trigger but I suspect it's a roster decision that drove the timeline just as stated above. People are coming back and he's the odd man out. Even if he scored 3 last night I suspect he was already going to get sent down. They just had a chance to give him a taste last night. We might think he'd be upset but I would bet they were very clear with him. If I were a player in his position and the GM told me that I was going to get sent down, but they could give me 1-2 games depending on how others on the team recovered I would take those 1-2 games.. every time. I wouldn't be mad I got sent down.. I would be happy that I got to play a game in the NHL. Yeah, I am sure his goal is to make it back, but sometimes stuff happens in life. It's not like he'd say, don't play me unless you are going to give me a fair shot at sticking. Not a chance. I do suspect Benson follows as well. To the point, this year is the year to make the playoffs and I don't think either of those players are going to make the change that puts the Sabres over the edge. I do suspect we'll see some other AHL players come up soon.. and I still think there is a move to be made.