etiennep99

The Amerks are deep is prospects. I see a Sabres property only line-up being like this: V. Neuchev(LF)(79) - K. Helenius(RC) - M. Jobst(C) B. Murray(LW) - J. Kulich(LF) - A. Kisakov(LF)(52) A. Wahlberg(LW/LC) - N. Östlund(LC) - I. Rosén(LF)(18) <AHL VET> - T. Kozak(LC)(44) - T. Tullio(RF) - ECHL Bound? - J. Dunne(LC) - O. Nadeau(RRW)(20) Jobst can play the wing and provide some veteran leadership and speed on the first line. I don't want to move Kulich off from centre. I like the idea of an all Swedish line.

Matteo Costantini is listed. He's played three years of college. Buffalo has one more year of control. Is he in camp because they might want to sign him now?

This really confused me with everyone wanting Eiserman. Didn't we just spend $15M to buy-out Skinner because he can score but can't defend? Isn't that exactly what the knock on Eiserman was, that he can't play defense?

I've wanted Dellandrea for years. I'm upset because he would have been a good addition to our bottom six. He plays with energy and a bit of an edge, and he's played well with Cozens in the past. And it only cost a 4th round pick. Adams sleeping on the job, especially considering that Dallas has been one of his few trading partners in the past.

Perhaps. But what I find being undudely is communicating so poorly that I have to waste time trying to discern the meaning. I used Rob Ray as an example because we've all heard him on numerous occasions. I really appreciate his hockey knowledge and his ability to explain the action on the ice. But I dislike having to "code switch" into his vernacular. You are what you eat. If all you listen to is bad grammar, then you're likely to pick that up. Where do you think Rob learned to speak the way that he did? Anyhow, that's something I don't want to be undudely forced upon me, thank you very much. I like English, not "dohngivafukish".

Yes. Guilty as charged. In fact, I'm a conservative. That means that I see value in traditional things and try to "conserve" them.

What I don't understand is how people who supposedly have eyes to read and ears to listen can continue to make mistakes that the (once) majority does not. Rob Ray will say, "I had went to the bar" or "the puck had came out to the point." These should be: "I had gone to the bar" and "the puck had come out to the point". It's called the "Past Perfect". I found these explanations online: -- "There are four past tense forms in English: Past simple: I worked Past continuous: I was working Past perfect: I had worked Past perfect continuous: I had been working" (https://learnenglish.britishcouncil.org/grammar/english-grammar-reference/past-tense) --- and --- The following is a list of Irregular Verbs in English: Verb Past Simple Past Participle ========================================== arise arose arisen babysit babysat babysat be was / were been beat beat beaten become became become begin began begun [snip]... win won won withdraw withdrew withdrawn write wrote written ========================================== * HANG - Hang has two different meanings. The first is "to attach (or hang) something in a high position" (e.g. on the wall or on a hook). In this case we use the above verbs Hang-Hung-Hung. BUT when Hang means "to kill someone by putting a rope around someone's neck and leaving them in a high position without any support", we use different verbs: Hang-Hanged-hanged. This verb is typical of public executions in the past. (e.g. They hanged him in the main square.) ** LIE - Lie has two meanings. When it means "to put your body in a horizontal position" (normally on a bed) it uses the Lie-Lay-Lain verbs. BUT it is regular Lie-Lied-Lied when it has the other meaning of "not to say the truth". [Etienne - for 4 thousand years Indo-Europeans have been able to properly distinguish between these two usages, but Americans in the last 40 years have seemingly lost this ability.] (https://www.grammar.cl/Past/Irregular_Verbs_List.htm) ----- I'll mention another more common problem. The infinitive. This is the "to [verb]" form, such as "I want *to* eat lunch" or "I will try *to* ignore bad grammar". So many people say the illogical "I will try *and* do something"; this would imply that you can read the future because you are starting that you *will* in fact do something instead of just "trying" to do something. Here's another problem to mention. It's not "where you *at*?". It is entirely sufficient, and always has been, to simply ask "where are you?". In general, it is poor English to end a sentence with a proposition. In this particular case, it is entirely unnecessary and only serves to distinguish the talker/writer as poorly grounded in English *fundamentals*. I could do this all day long. It's not "an invite", it's "an invitation". It's not "he has high compete", it's "he has a high level of competition". Blah blah blah. Learn English, folks. I did.

He's a decent player. He's got decent hockey sense and some speed. My problem is that too often he seems afraid to shoot. He is almost always looking to make one pass too many.

Starting pitchers don't throw heat 100% because you gotta mix up your pitches. And when he gets tired, you bring in relievers like a Tom Henke who would throw mostly heat. Or a Mark Eichorn threw mostly side-arm with almost no heat; and yet he was amazingly effective. But please let me know in advance which concert is going to be great and which ones are going to suck because the artist is taking a night off. Please tell me in advance which hockey games are going to have the players pulling Pierre-Luc Dubois in Columbus shifts. If you are not able to put on a good show, you're being dishonest with your fans who've payed top dollar for a ticket to the show. You're stealing from them. What's the answer? Don't play 50 concerts when you can only do well in 20 concerts.

Of course, no one can truly give 100% all of the time. The point is that you *try*. You don't go into it thinking, I'm going to slack off a good bit when nobody is paying attention, but I'm going to turn it on when "it matters". The Turtle beats out the Hare...Personally, I had no desire to be a pro athlete. I knew it was never in the cards to be a great hockey player....And now to upset people's apple carts, the Bible says that we should always give an honest effort. That's always been my personal goal. But you know, results are in they eyes of the beholder sometimes. So, I realize that some of my bosses have had other takes on my performance. That's life. I know myself better than others, and I know when I'm giving my best.

Since you know NOTHING about me personally, it seems that you're the one prone to lazy thinking at the very least.

TBH, I had wanted Byram for a long time. But his last concussion started to change *my* mind. And TBH, in another thread this morning, I was complaining that the Sabres brass felt forced to play Dahlin 30 minutes a night. I'll cross my fingers and hope that Byram stays healthy enough. This could be a good trade.

And at least for now. Erik Johnson (1st overall, RHD).

The coming draft's top 10 is seriously D heavy. I know that it takes time to develop a d-man, but I figured that we would either draft a d-man or another smaller feisty forward such as Berkly Catton who sounds like a slightly taller cross between Benson and Savoie.

Studies have shown that it's seriously more difficult to be poor than rich. Rich person: "oh sure ahead and fix the Porsche". Poor person: "Um, I know that my tires are bald and my battery needs constant jumping, but I have to buy baby food, and I'm out of tooth-paste."