Thorny

Cackling Duff

Right. Score effects, especially in the 3rd. They just sat on it

I don’t know that I’ve seen my team enter a third period down by a goal and not told myself, “oh we can absolutely come back, just like Carolina”, since 2006 😐

Ray commenting on how slow Dylan’s shot was. I’m counting it

With Tampa’s clogging D, we’ll need: 1) a pp goal 2) a softie from Jonas

It’s the number 1 bullet point on KA’s “There and Running it Back Again: A GM’s Tale by Kevyn Adams” list for next year

Lightning aren’t even a playoff team by points %

That was the league’s best PP?

Need a big kill here. Trying to come back vs TBay’s D from 2 goals is hard enough

Well, ya me too

All Sabres fans are going through a continual-life crisis

Oops

Well said. “No” to the question about Comrie though

Remember, it’s a marathon, not a sprint. We’re only about half way through the season - we’ll see where we are after the full 12k

“Tear it down to the studs” Rivet and Peters? Well that settles it. Botterill must have begged to trade him

I don’t believe it’s ever been confirmed that Botterill didn’t want to move ROR - in fact I think it’s the opposite. @Brawndowould definitely know but I believe there were rumours Botterill had at least been entertaining the idea for a while. Regardless, I don’t believe it was ever convincingly stated that Pegula was the impetus behind the move overall: we merely know he was firm on it being done *before* the bonus. But that could easily be under the prism of it necessarily needing to be done as decided by the GM. Ie, “Fine, trade him, but I’m sure as heck not paying that dude his bonus if he isn’t even on my team. …now how about another foot rub, Kev.”

I don’t know this means. I’m just having fun arguing my case on an interesting topic - I thought that’s what this place was for. Your question is “I have no idea why you are obsessed with this.” I don’t need to engage with you if these are the types of reactions I’m triggering by discussing it. I digress

If they made the trade without any regards to competitiveness in the moment and purely in an effort to ditch ROR, it was even worse lol It’s like they can’t make a bad trade- either you don’t care that the aims were a dereliction of duty (we were indeed trying to win at the time, in the macro) or you admit the aim was to win and that the trade pushed back the talent 6 years on that front and you just don’t care And then, you’ve deemed the situation unsalvageable therefore nothing we did mattered anyways therefore any deal was inconsequential therefore the deal wasn’t bad You understand that the exact logic of your argument could be applied to, and defend, trading Tage Thompson right now for a 1st round pick, should that pick turn into a player of equal ability in 6 years? It proves your argument faulty by way of example: 1) we need to wait for talent to develop when futures are involved, ie, we need to see what that pick becomes before we compare talent in / talent out 2)You explained that it didn’t matter if the ROR trade didn’t result in winning because the aim was namely to ditch a sad sack. Presumably as long as current results aren’t important to the GM, then, and our aims in dealing Thompson, or whoever you want to use in the example, is purely to be rid of the asset, mission accomplished 3)If the aim is to win, and you accept that, trading Thompson away for a pick and an old vet in a deal that DOESN’T result in winning *still doesn’t matter* because we weren’t winning when we had him, anyways

Both trades of choice, I agree It doesn’t mean both were trades made with the same goal in mind, with the same intent. Your argument seems based on removing as much context as possible whereas I’m simply pointing out that the ROR trade failed by the prism of what it was attempting to accomplish

B2B SO 6K

Hawks were up 1-0 late in the third vs the league’s best team by record when I was in attendance last week up here. Few results today would be truly surprising. Statistically speaking

I’ll say this for the 50th time, it *wasn’t a futures trade*. You can only disregard the time component willingly if you are MAKING A FUTURES TRADE ie time isn’t a consideration because the aim is to trade now, for later. That’s what you are conflating. I still agree we can and should wait to see how the talent unfolds over time as part of our analysis: but that’s not at the expense of the time factor no longer being a key variable Trading Eichel was still a choice. Yet another factor of context you are willingly choosing to ignore: Eichel demanded a trade under the prism of Adams wanting to rebuild. The rebuild was a choice. It was still a choice to trade Eichel