Thorner

Ukko pekka let’em-in

Dahlin has played 20 and we still have 10 mins left yeeee haw

Development year

That win actually might be one of only two times I can remember thinking, in a small whisper “maybe. No. we... are. We’re going to win the Cup”. That, and I think honestly after Briere’s 2nd goal in game 3 vs Carolina OH MY the crowd...you almost forget. It’s chills. Need this again. I need it in my bones The Sirens. AND THE GOAL SONG I mean, I love Whitney Houston. But could you imagine if Skinner scores this goal, and the sirens kick in...and it cues Dance with Somebody? Seriously, no.

Ahhhhh. Dallas game 1. It’s still a good feeling. Regardless of the rest

We got dis

That 5th goal was a keeper highlight. The beautiful redirect from Tuch, but also the vision and slap pass from Dahlin right on the mark. Exceptional

“I feel something.....a slight tingle in my fingers. I think it’s affecting me.” one mithril shirt if anyone gets that reference

Chase the goalie? Boom.

And you *actively de-value* the asset you are trading the moment you trade it because you immediately improve your team and likely alter where said picks fall in the draft. Which is of course the rub

I was kidding, ya lol

^ I feel like it’s cause they get hung up on the fact wearing the jersey means they are endorsing a lifestyle outside the arena, when in reality the jersey simply demonstrates those with a lifestyle they may not agree with are still welcome in the same spaces

But other than that?

It’s apples to oranges only in severity, but not in logic: the Cozens for a third is of course *worse*, but that in effect serves my argument: that is indeed the reason I used it, and I was hoping someone would ask, so thanks. The fact an even worse deal could be proclaimed to have “wonderful results” is exactly my point in how poor the logic is. Botterill didn’t see Top 10 scorer in Tage. If he did, Pegula never would have had to employ a deadline. And, finally, regardless, and most important, as @Dr. Who mentioned above: by far the central factor in my argument is timing

More less agree, but in this case your perspective, very notably uncharacteristically I might add, seems needlessly limited. Your initial statement was that it worked out “enormously in our favour”. Limiting your perspective to an analysis of the effects to purely a time frame of greater than three years when we *indisputably* we’re concerned/needed to be concerned with winning *at that time* is just argumental bias. It didn’t work out well for us for the first 3-4 years, no reason to ignore that, and it’s where my Cozens example and @Taro T’s Dahlin hypothetical factor in, to answer your question

Would you pay 2 first if he couldn’t be had for less, and the fallback was UPL? ( understand they could target elsewhere, I’m just curious)

But this is troubling Actually nm I think

You were flirting with an “agree” from me until the last sentence 10/10

^ Always my favourite part of making the winning argument

Exactly, and not only that, we dealt ROR *exactly the season* Eichel started his LT contract and became a point a game guy lol. We downgraded severely at EXACTLY the time you want to supplement the talent we have it’s a putrid trade

Just hit play

Come on dude think about it - it’s not just willingness on the part of the player that presents an obstacle - it’s a matter of competition with the other teams attempting the same trade. The will on the part of the GM. Just because goalie A, in 2019, went to team X because they paid a first and a second, doesn’t mean goalie A couldn’t have gone to team Y, instead, had they paid 2 firsts it doesn’t matter what the market says if your evaluation is accurate. The will to act.

It’s only exceptional if you don’t consider the more immediate results, and you have not come close to, or as far as I can tell even attempted to formulate an argument for why how the deal affected the team during the first 3 years after the trade was made shouldn’t matter If the key principles of your argument could literally apply, word for word, for a defence of a Cozens for 3rd round pick argument, where in 3 years from now that pick becomes another Brayden Point, you have a faulty argument The only thing overwhelmingly apparent is that your argument is critically faulty, John! I’m sorry to say

Undoubtedly. My next drinking well: the 2023/24 Sabres season. Playoffs, baby!