Thorner

@Sabres Fan in NSyou can deal out all the red Xs u like because you have no way to actually refute my argument- but it’s a pretty poor reflection of your unwillingness to admit you are objectively wrong. I’m not mad, I’m just disappointed

At this point calling Samuelsson “muel” is like in cartoons where the fat guy is called “tiny”

^

I disagree. Some players demonstrably have game-styles that more often put them in the line of fire for injuries: “prone” can also be representative of the situational. Bogosian was a good example Samuelson is clearly injury prone. I’m not ready to get there with Quinn Once the sample size gets large enough

He’s a paid professional and there are paying customers and the commitment to winning would be disastrous to step back from. If he’s not fully healed at 8 weeks, of course, OF COURSE, sit him. But if he’s fully healthy he’s fully healthy. Use the remaining games to improve your own We haven’t made the playoffs in 13 years. We absolutely can’t have the hubris to act like a single solitary game can be afforded to be willingly passed up by this franchise. *Every single moment* available to them as professionals on the job should be utilized - if they have respect, at all, for the fan base.

Cody Rhodes fans might disagree

Most Words (that take this format)

@Sabres Fan in NS I meant that the contract hasn’t been justified yet: there isn’t a viable reason why we’d want that commitment right now. If we could take the deal back, we should: we would avoid being locked in long term to a player we have literally no need to sign to a risky contract there’s no value to gain. I was right, I’m sorry. He’s not worth a 7 year deal right now - we aren’t gaining anything, there’s no underpay, he’s at best accurately paid, and we could have that without the needless commitment because he’s never going to earn more than a 30 million dollar contract there’s never been a player more accurately described as a “concept”. Remember he was our “mvp” last year? We are significantly worse by record with him in the lineup this year he’s JAG and he set the standard for JAG contracts. I don’t have much inclination to beat around the bush here because I’m objectively correct: it’s not a good contract, and I’ve been saying it for years. Why back down now

you bastage

From your mouth to Chris Cornell’s ears in heaven

I can never find a way to wrap my mind around the fact people think you can..should?…evaluate whether your core is complete *without an eye to the results.*. Surely, surely, we’d only consider our core “set” by way of the most important metric, results? Why the heck wouldn’t “aptitude” be a key factor of whether or not a team considered their core set? It’s not set, it’s not anywhere near set, until we can determine it to be a core worth sticking with “Core” only has value under the context of “successful core”. Core what? Core of ineptitude? That’s not a core. That’s not traditionally how the word core was used lol

Reinhart trade might work.

It’s worth it: at best that was always my point What would samuelsson cost on a long term deal today? He certainly wouldn’t cost more than what we paid the messaging itself was as much the endgame as any potential future value. Maybe they even knew that, but it’s backfired so far. As of now there has been zero justification for that contract

Called it

It’s a used flip phone

Kucherov is a loser

Roman Reigns will get pinned

there’s there’s me caught in the middle

Absolutely. We should definitely draw a distinction between avenues cut off to us and avenues cut off to us by choice It’s a referendum on whether KA’s plan can succeed, not whether a GM of the Buffalo Sabres can

Everyone lists the same guys lol

Most players in the league do NOT have NTCs. The implication that trading is “essentially closed” to us is absurd here’s the list, about 3-4 per team https://www.thefourthperiod.com/no-trade-clauses Trading is a barrier re: the Sabres winning the Cup. You need a lot to go your way to do that. Trading isn’t a barrier to the Sabres being a playoff team, ie, mediocre, ie, 16 out of 32. Not with a shred of competence If a GM doesn’t have the competence to navigate the trade market as is, he’s not going to have the ability to navigate it from slightly higher ground

Interesting

I’ve been preaching this for a good long while: unwillingness to lose a battle to win a war I agree with your premise

I’m agreeing with you that he’ll probably approach it that way, tho. The post I responded to seemed to doubt he’d accomplish even what you mentioned: I said I could totally see 4th line upgrades

Lol oh you mean the one-liner you slipped in at the end of the post with the verbiage “wouldn’t be too angry”, from a poster who generally speaks with conviction? Nice try. You don’t believe it’s possible