Trettioåtta

I really don't understand this. 1) Saying Hecht is criticised because people have an inability to separate Hecht as a player and Hecht has a sabres veteran means those fans are ridiculous. You can't dislike someone because it reminds you of a bad time 2) I am happy for people to criticise Hecht. But to criticise him for not doing what he isn't meant to do is stupid. I hope you also criticise Vanek for not fighting most games - he should be defending his team mates...right? 3) I say hate, because it seems it makes no sense to comment on Hecht's lack of an ability when he isn't meant to have it. It ties back to point one of disliking Hecht because he represents the Sabres old-guard and has lost a step

Leo will be gone. Myers was very much out of shape at the beginning of the season/is having a down year. Personally I wouldn't give up on a just 23yo D-man because of a bad shortened season. Stafford i'm slightly weary of - he is just so streaky

I would like to see Grigo come up against them. It would be good to see him dig deep and have the stones to carry his team against a powerhouse

I think with that comment you showed complete misunderstanding of Hecht's game. Hecht's game is not to be energetic or offensive, it is to be a defensive presence that slows down the opposing team's top players. He is 8th on the forwards in terms of points and second in +/-. He is doing his job as a shutdown player, and still chipping in on offense. I must say, I really really struggle to understand why people hate Hecht. Last year i understood it as he gets paid way too much for what he does - that was a fair criticism in his last year or so. At the beginning of this year it was the Lindy plays him too much (although how that is his fault i don't know). But I can't see why people hate him now. He is one of about 7 Sabres actually doing their job this year

The real issue is that when we trade Leo, Stafford etc. we will get better and allow fewer goals :P

Shhhhh don't say such obvious common sense things around here. This community frowns upon it. He means Hecht sucks and is our most overpaid forward. He wishes we could call up another AHL player to take Hecht's spot.

Car avatar, name begins with a J, makes a comment about Miller not being a good goalie and failing to stop two one timers by two players in the top 5 in scoring Is this one being sarcastic? Or is it the one who hates Miller with unbridled passion? :P

If people use it enough they will put it in their book. That is how (depressingly) the word literally now has two definitions...one meaning literal and the other meaning for emphasis

Myers is out of shape. That is his issue - he made a really nice rush on the PP, and won the puck on the boards, but it took all his energy. I liked how he didn't chase the guy into the corner though, as it would have given St Louis an open net

Just making fun of the NHL scoresheet

http://www.nhl.com/ice/blogpost.htm?id=15731&navid=nhl:topheads Kipper recently had a kid. He won't report if dealt

Stamkos got a penalty for roughing, then 10 seconds later got a penalty for cross-checking. This officiating is so one sided - he wasn't even thrown out the game for leaving the penalty box

Haha when Kaleta dove at the end of the first, the TB commentator made a disgusted 'urgh' Myers played 14.56 that period, not a bad effort

And in fairness to Ennis, he has a feisty side to him. Gerbe does to, but 5'9' and feisty is more effective than 5'4' and feisty

1) To be clear, i thought that is how it sounded when i wrote it. Basically, what i mean is, you have to give up assets to get something. We need a defensive centre, but it seems a waste to give up more assets to get a defensive centre who is good on the draw, when he would be partnered with Ott, who can win draws. Moreover, it would be a waste to have your two best FO guys on the same line (unless it was a really important one e.g. 30 seconds to go in the defensive zone). Does this make sense? I don't mean we have no use for them, i mean it would be a waste of resources 2) Ah I didn't know that. Thanks. Hard to defend DR then :P

Also he is like 5 times more skilled. That always helps

Without wanting to be a DR apologetic because i agree with you I will say a few things: 1) He traded a faceoff specialist who is strong defensively and through a series or moves acquired Ott - who is defensively strong and good on faceoffs. In a way Ott himself is a strange piece. He doesn't play centre but does take draws and is defensive. He is actually quite a hard player to fit in, because it means you almost need to build the line around him (i.e. you need a centre who doesn't really take faceoffs but does the rest of the duties) 2) Leino is not bad defensively, and I presume DR has some sort of stat that suggested he could fit into our system. The centre thing is a bit odd, but he did play centre in Europe, so it wasn't a wild idea, and i am still a bit confused what made it fail so badly Putting it another way, Leino was bad last season. Stafford is bad this season

Enough people have already commented on the veracity of this post, so i shall avoid doing so, lest you get trapped in your house! One thing I will say, is that I don't think this team needs to be blown up. I think it needs to be retooled. I think our team lacks identity because of this puzzle thing. Players like Leino and Stafford have also contributed to this. It is not DRs fault that Stafford and Leino have both shown top-6 ability and failed to perform this season and last season respectively. It makes it hard to get the right puzzle pieces if you are unsure you can rely on your current puzzle pieces to stay the same shape. Realistically, Leino and Stafford should be top 6 guys. But in most people's ideal line-ups they have these guys either pegged on the third line or off the roster. In Stafford and Leino we should have two 50 point scorers, we have 0 Another crucial identity issue is that of the third line. What is its purpose? We need a shutdown line, but we started the season with a third scoring line basically (if an 18yo rookie is your third line centre, it should be a scoring line not a shut-down line). If we roll 3 scoring lines then our 4th should be our shut-down line, but if our 4th is our shutdown line then why do we have Scott, Ellis, Porter or Mccormrick on it

I agree, he is playing a lot better. But it would be nice to see some points coming in from him

The lightning players were told it is either Ruff or Cooper. To me that implies they offered it to Ruff, if he said yes then he gets it, if he declines then Cooper gets it. Cooper is already in the system, if he is your number 1 guy then you bring him up within an hour of firing Guy, just like we did with Ron

Well said. I especially agree with the 'try-hard' factor - i put it forward a few weeks ago (but in a much less eloquent way :P ) Yes but in this case, the stats say that on average that pick will become a third line player, he might become a star, or he might be a bust. But on average you are having that player for 300+ games (and any playoffs). So yes there is the risk he doesn't develop, but I still think DR got better value for Goose than he deserved because on theoretical average our return was a player of equal skill who would play over 15 times longer. Even if that pick ended up being a 4th liner instead of a third liner, if they play for over 15 times more for your club, they are probably more valuable

Yes, but normally you get that third line player until they are 27, not for 20 games. So Nash gave up a first for 20 games/playoffs of Gaustad, and in turn (in theory) we traded 20 games of Gaustad for 8 years of another player

The players were told the job has been offered to Ruff, if he refuses then Cooper gets it. No idea if Ruff has accepted it though - i think that's what Chz is implying

Big physical shut-down D-man. Nice pick up - wonder what they gave up. Annoyingly this also means they won't be after Leo now