#freejame

Are you telling me his first name isn't actual Sowen?

I heard it was actually all of the leftover ice cream baseball helmets

Closest to the first, but I’ve tried to wipe it from my memory. I just remember mentioning him at my little brothers hockey game and having 20 10 year olds belittle me.

I literally just reread everything I wrote and it’s really quite linear, clear cut, and presented as opinion. You have then misinterpreted what I said on multiple occasions, presented what I laid out as opinion as fact, and continued to press on sexism tropes. I said it before and I’ll say it again—sexism is for the lazy, inept, and jealous. If a person can’t come up with a bevy of reasons to dislike Kim and constantly falls into sexist tropes, that’s an indicator. You are taking my posts and applying them simply to one posting made by Kong. My posts concern all of the instances (weekly, if not daily) who believe Kim is bad at her job because she’s nothing more than a gold digger or simply because she’s a woman. All I am asking for is to be critical of her without saying it’s because she’s a woman. It’s suuuuuuuuuper easy.

Looking through this thread is kind of hysterical to me. How folks continue to refute sexism with sexism tropes is unlike anything I’ve ever seen. That’s the problem with being objective today in a reactionary would. People from both sides think you’re an idiot while you’re forced to sit with a glass of wine and wonder where the education system went wrong.

You have been consistently misrepresenting my posts. I literally put a disclaimer that is was speculation and you are accusing everything I said as fact. And while I can’t find Terry’s net worth, I can tell you he began with. $75,000 loan in the late 80s, when we met Kim natural gas was priced at $2.20 and when they sold it was priced at nearly $9.00. Also, your infatuation with the amount of money Terry had been he met Kim so very much plays into the gold digger trope. If you want I can go through and quote all of the misinterpretations in morning I can or you can just critically read what I wrote and realize you latched on to things that I presented as speculation that you are now accusing me of reciting as facts. It doesn’t get any more clear than a disclaimer at the top saying THIS IS SPECULATION. Look, if you think this team will get nowhere with Kim just give up on it. People place so much emphasis on a person for literally has zero control over hockey operations. Terry makes the personnel cuts. Terry tries to influence picks and players. Terry wants to be one of the boys. People want to say Kim is a nepotism hire and that’s why she sucks that’s fine. If people want to say Kim in inexperienced in the realm of sports that’s fine. But if you read the board, it’s about Kim being unfit as a woman to run the team (WHICH SHE DOESNT EVEN DO). Do I think Kim can fix the Sabres woes—sure. Three easy steps: 1. ***** the ***** up 2. Listen to the subject matter experts you hired, whether they tell you they need more staff or they need $6m for a signing 3. Empower them to get that done, whether is means private jets or yatch cruises You want to be mad at our last half dozen hires—blame the NHL for their recommendations You want to be mad that we’re cash strapped—blame the GMs You want to be mad your season ticket rep can’t returned your phone calls and the manager at the Sabres store isnt honoring your SabresBucks, complain to Kim. Do I think the Pegulas can right the ship? Yes. Do I think the Pegulas lack the ego to allow that to happen? TBD. Notice how ive now written a novella critical of Kim and Terry and not once did I disparage their ethnicity, financial well-being, or sex. Now please, good look back on related Kim posting and see if it’s anything like this. Like I said, sexism related to this team only becomes apparent when people lack the critical thinking skills needed to understand the largest issues.

The Kim sexism trope has been going on far longer than today and you have been here long enough to know that. That is simply you playing ignorant to advance your argument. I also didn't say that Kim will right the ship, I am saying that the idea that she is utterly incapable is nonsense. Please do ask for sources, I would love more than anything to prove everything I've said. In fact, I likely wouldn't even have to because 90% of this board understands my argument fully. However, you are continuously misrepresenting my post and putting words in my mouth. To my knowledge (you'll notice I've used these terms all throughout my postings [well, actually you haven't]) she plays no roles related to the product on the ice. Her job, and if it was Terry's job, is to shut the hell up and listen to the experts you hired and approve their decision. You can continue to convolute what I have said or claim that I am making things up, or you can use critical thinking, read what I have wrote, understand you've completely disregarding 5 years of posting, and alter your opinion.

It takes very little in her position to right the ship. One meeting in Boca with Karmonos and Adams where they sit them down and say if you want to stop being embarrassed you need to listen to exactly what we say and support our execution. If you don't you're going to continue down this same path and lose the whole franchise. Guess what? All Kim needs to do is listen. Kim wants to sit in on every meeting 365 to gain more insight and understanding to the plan who gives a *****? If Kim wants to stand on a Podium on city hall and say wow I can't even begin to describe what it means to be the first woman to lead a Stanley Cup who the ***** cares if her only role was sitting in meetings and asking questions to gain a better understanding? There's a whole lot of ways Kim can right the ship by doing very, very little. Do I think the Pegula's will roll over to the demands? Probably not. But guess what, that isn't sexism, that's hardheadedness if you're a man and being a bitch if you're a woman. Lastly. if you think I have an iota of faith in the Pegulas or the Sabres as a whole I suggest you read through my posting history. There are very few with worse outlooks than myself. That doesn't make me throw out allegations of sexism. Kim Pegula sucks because she can't understand what it takes to be a president of an NHL organization. Kim Pegula does not suck because she is a woman. Not to mention, her job isn't to right the ship. Her job is to approve qualified highers to right the ship and then listen intently to what they say. Guess what? There's plenty of men in the position that suck just as bad as she does.

As far as I can see, Brown has been suspended more time than Marchand. I might being doing something wrong but it's difficult to find full suspension lists per player

I don't usually comment of these threads but I do have some thoughts that might come out terribly but read it through and it should make sense. Disclaimer: Rampant speculation below: When Terry met Kim--Terry was not wealthy, was by no means handsome, but was a burgeoning businessman When Kim met Terry--Terry was not wealthy and was by no means handsome. Kim was working through college, had a stable home life with her adopted family, and was/is very attractive ---break--- At the beginning, there is no clear evidence that Terry was looking for a trophy wife because he did not have the financial status necessary for a trophy wife. He met an employee that he connected with. This has happened in every single work-place I have ever been apart of. DIsproven: Kim met Terry with the intentions of his money bags.Terry was young, healthy, and beginning to establish himself but wasn't there yet. The timeline to death is farrrrrrr to long for your standard trophy wife scenario ---break--- Kim as a trophy wife--I am not sure how this can be true because no husband of a trophy wife will be consistently embarrassed by continuous mistakes made by her at a business level. The point of a trophy wife is to show them off and give them money so they have nothing to complain about, not to see them consistently lambasted by fans and the media ---break--- Terry met a young Kim while she was working at a restaurant. At some point, they developed a connection. Terry likely recognized the struggles and hardships faced by Kim's background and wanted to put her into positions to help her have a sense of value. That is what friends and couples do for each out. As far as my research is concerned, becoming President of two Major sport franchises was not the first trial period for her aptitude. Terry trusted her ability to MANAGE and OVERSEE, and put her into those positions. --conclusion-- Terry very much loves and supports his wife. More than anything, Terry wants to see her succeed in the the positions she is in. He is willing to ruin a sports franchise than cause internal marital strife. Is this a smart idea? No, probably not. Do I think Terry is placing Kim in these positions because he wants to see her have her own success that she has been fighting for since birth. Do these things, if true, make Terry a bad person? Not in the slightest. Does, if true, these things make him a terrible owner? Absolutely. The whole Kim is a gold-digger and a lot of the other borderline or full blown sexism, to me, comes from a place inside a person who has likely never felt the connect Terry and Kim have. Every sign points to the Pegula's being outstanding parents, who have raised tremendous kids, fully funded a D1 hockey program, and a bevy of other things. Is Kim fortunate for meeting Terry? Absolutely. Does that make either of them bad people for wanting their spouse to feel important and as a contributor? No. Does Kim need to step up her game? Absolutely. But this whole sexism thing is still. Terry loves his wife. Terry loves his kids. Terry wants to see their success probably more than he wants to see the Sabres win. The absolute cherry would be the Sabres winning with Kim in charges (which as far as my research shows would be historic). Is it nepotism? Sure. If people want to say Kim would never have this job without marrying Terry--sure. But nothing I have read about the Pegula's screams anything other than a loving family and inept at running a hockey team. Hate Kim all you want. I despise the Pegula's for what they have done the the Sabres. But to say sexism is the reason for our failures or that Kim is incapable or righting this ship is BS. Lastly, I can't believe I just wrote such a long post defending both Pegulas so I just want to say that I don't like either. But not because Kim is a woman and Terry is an idiot. Sexism is the lazy-man's go to when they can't think critically or need to reason to feel better about themselves.

I know for a fact this isn't your first time on the board in the last three years. It is never ending.

We (the Sabres) are the long dead skelton. Through the powers of black magic, we have summoned just enough strength to flip off the Leafs and their fans before finally perishing

Thank God you stopped short of Cream City. I don't follow basketball whatsoever but ever since the introduction of the Cream City merch they've become my favorite team. Interesting fact about why Milwaukee is called the Cream City. Apparently the clay and mortar (?) used to construct the city during it's origin left a distinct cream color to all of the buildings. I prefer to imagine it's a town full of orgies with a basketball team fully onboard with the shenanigans. Regardless, Go Bucks! (are they still in it?)

Assuming she is an adult, she likely understands proper elevator etiquette as well. My Sabres fandom hangs by a thread so long as Rob Ray is still associated whatsoever. I think the best solution is to stop allowing South Buffalo to follow the Sabres and then there will be nobody left who likes Rob Ray.

I know @LGR4GM responded saying there are anecdotes, and while I can't provide any data, I'd say it's about 50/50, and that goes for all sports. My hypothesis is it goes both ways. On one hand you have young, dedicated players who love being GOOD at hockey and it is what makes them happiness who advance to older ages and have to continually push themselves to be better. On the other hand, it can also lead to an attitude of look at all of this talent I have, I don't need to put in the same amount of work to get the same results. How a rookie in the CHL responses to that likely plays a significant role in their long term development (see Alexi Kovalev for riding by on skill and Martin St. Louis who did everything right every day of the week to make it to the league. I got halfway through and realized I didn't answer your question at all, but it's too late now. However, since I can relate anything to baseball, age most definitely plays an impact then. International players are able to sign to big league organizations at 16 years old, play a season of development ball in the DR, and move on to professional low-level baseball before Americans are even eligible for the draft. To me, as it relates to both hockey and baseball, the earlier you are exposed to mature, developed players, the quicker and easier the transition will be.

Do you mean this in a negative way? Everything I've watched and seen on Chabot is pretty solid. His own zone play could be improved, but his skating, passing and breakout are all top-notch. He has spent his whole career in Ottawa and for the most part has flourished in the toughest minutes. Hell, if Dahlin is Chabot at this point I will be pleased. He's a top-5 defender on 25 and I'm not sure there is a ton of arguments against that. Having Chabot and Dahlin on the ice for 45 minutes a game with responsible defensemen rapidly turns us into one of the better d-corps. Was Dustin Brown not Marchand before Marchand becane Marchand? That's how I remember Marchand and Brown.

K'Andre Miller interests me more than Kakko and is only slightly behind LaFreniere (who may still only be all hype). I have zero interest in adding to a package to the Rags that only includes Miller, Kakko/Lafreniere, and say Chytill or Buchnevich. Even if the deal is Miller, LaFreniere, and Chytill/Buch I still don't think it touches some of the other offers. Slight sidebar: Outside of Miller, is there realistically a better defenseman we can get? Bjornfot is good but hes going to be a sharp 4/5. Miller to me projects 2/3. Drysdale obviously has top pairing potential, but Zegras fills a bigger need. I guess if we could somehow pull Byram out of COL he would be better, but to me it looks like our best bet at an impact D outside of the draft is Miller, once our other needs are considered. Major hypothetical: If NYR offered Miller, Chytil, and Buchnevich for Sam while LA simultaneously offered Byfield, Turcotte, and Kaliyev for Eichel, and we knew we had the first pick for Power, do you take those deals? On their own, I don't think it's enough. But combined, I think we are set up in a better position. Sign Danault for asking price to play one C, understand you're a lottery team with a deep top-line center pool, hire Donny G to keep progressing the kids for three years and then bring in the new coach to get us over the hump. 2021 Depth Chart Skinner (meh)--Danault--Cozens Buchnevich--Chytil--Olofsson Mitts--Byfield--Kaliyev Girgs--Turcotte--R2 It's not a playoff roster, and arguably four of the players might start in the AHL, but it frees up a bit of cap to quite literally bump any player down on the depth chart by bringing in a Coleman type to shore up our bottom six. Neither trade would be my ideal trade, but I think this roster make-up is about as close to what might be achievable on the trade market. Are we a better team because of it? Not immediately. Will we be? Likely. Package Tage and RIsto for the top RHD you can find and sign a goalie and this would be the most optimistic I would be about an 80 point season in years. K'Andre Miller is the real deal and had it not been for Fox's breakout everyone would be hearing significantly more about it. I would prefer he wasn't the main deal in an Eichel/Reinhart trade, but the dude has a lot of skill.

Shhhhh there’s a trope and I’ll be damned if I don’t play into.

Peyton Manning wouldn’t have won that game with that terrible, terrible, terrible play calling on both sides.

No doubt, but even after beating Baltimore in the playoffs the talking heads were saying that it’s a shame because Lamar would be the only quarterback to stand a chance against Mahomes.

This reads as someone who has not followed Josh Allen’s tenure in Buffalo. Allen has been getting ***** on since the moment he was drafted, by the media and Bills fans alike. The only difference is those who love Josh Allen LOVE Josh Allen and shout down those people (or slams them through tables).

Like I said, it take it with a grain of salt. I like him as a player anyway and the things you’ve mentioned play a large part in it. Would I draft him solely because he’s Quinn Hughes brother? No. Does it hurt? No. Does it move him up my rankings? No. Does his family’s comments make me more excited if we do draft him? Absolutely. Besides, what’s a greater feeling than the Sabres getting the wrong brother?

Just for fun I wanted to look at his OPS and OPS+ and compare it to the first two TTO hitters that came to mind—Joey Gallo and Joc Pederson. Kingman—.750 OPS / 115 OPS+ Gallo—lifetime BA .209 / 37.2K% / 14.4BB% / 6.4HR% / .819 OPS / 115 OPS+ / 60 TTO% Pederson—lifetime BA .231 / 24.3K% / 11.9BB% / 5.0HR% / .801 OPS / 115 OPS+ / 40.2 TTO% For reference, the aforementioned Mario Mendoza (that of the Mendoza line fame) batted .215 lifetime with an OPS+ of 45 and TTO of 18.6%. Oh, and Mike Trout has a TTO over 40% of the time, to go along with a .305 life BA and a 176 OPS+. Its easy to say TTO baseball is bad baseball, but all three of these players are outperforming league average hitting by a pretty decent clip. Also of note, while many teams have adapted TTO strategies, there is no data to support it showing leading to more wins. Strikeouts, for the most part, just do not matter anymore. Players used to feel shame from strikeouts, that does not exist anymore. I don’t remember the poster saying that analytics have had a negative impact on baseball, but if anything it’s shedding more light on who should and should not be a major leaguer. If you tell a scout someone has a 40%k rate they probably won’t take a second look. Then tell them their rate stats are all higher than league average and they are good for an .800 OPS every year and now all of a sudden they are an invaluable member of the organization. These are the types of things we are going to see in advanced hockey data. We’ll have someway say “Reinhart can’t skate for *****, he falls down 10 times a game.” And then we can point to the statcast and tracking data and say well yeah, but he spends a larger amount of time in the corners and in front of the net based on X and his top speed compared the the league is X and his average ice covered during a shift is X. You can take data and make immediate inferences from it or you can take data, analyze it, and then come to a more realistic conclusion.

I always love finding out how terrible I am at pronouncing names without having heard them before. This one is pretty bad. Happened with Eichel during his BU season as well.

Like Gretzky on the Blues with the two bolds—had it, lost it! It was, a good hockey goal. It wasn’t, at the time, a good NHL goal. If that goal happens in the second period, it gets reviewed and possibly overturned. It wasn’t even looked at, which for many is a large part of the issue.