Thorner

Great D play from Power “I never said you have a job. A meet. I’ll send you a nice box of Christmas meat.”

The whites are the best uniform we have, ya Good back check from Tuch

Think you have Chris Cuthbert Hes a legend imo I have him on the sn feed

“Imagine what the guests must think..”

Lolll

Finally, a win

Nah! 4 something I don’t remember them either but yup that’s what I’m saying

I read it in Adams’ voice and it sounded plausible

It was always needlessly premature. But it didn’t bite them in the ass and him missing some games every year doesn’t bite them in the ass either re: contract value. It’s not a steal, he’s not overpaid, he’s a 4 million dollar player. Good contract. Accurate contract. An accurately paid 2nd pair d-man functionally made a top pair guy because they other guy is SO GOOD so as to only need one “flaw*” accounted for by way of which a more limited player *can* successfully provide enough for first pair. Good player ie 2nd pair player made top pair. The “Samuelsson allows Dahlin to..” thing was always backwards. Dahlin IS a 1st pair D, Samuelsson or no. Dahlin allows SAMUELSSON to be a top pair guy, not the other way around *see, “not a flaw”

*twitches*

It’s tough to say. “Levi as job security“ only works as a Plan with large-scale buy-in from the fan base* to consciously keeping expectations manageable. It’s tough for me to guess if this would be viable, as it depends on who you ask. Lots of calls for playoffs to be the expectation next year, but there’s also a lot of conveyed sentiment that we already are on the right track, no? Almost as if “being on track” is the goal itself, in the age of “watching as GM**”. More so than tangible results. I’m having a difficulty determining if timeline is any sort of concern at all to this base: ie, do results *ever* matter if we are improving in perception? In the (obviously hypothetical) universe where we improve by one point every season, is that worthy of a 20 year GM term where we find ourselves in the playoffs at the end? Its all really interesting to me. No firm conclusions. I obviously put much more emphasis on the resource of Time (and therefore, timeline) than some others, re: the justification, viability, and analysis of the plan. * caveat here being if the owners are so bought in to a long leash it doesn’t matter what the fans think **i find this particularly interesting. Those that watch in this very principled, “arm chair GM” way often say those that watch more emotionally do so as if it’s a “video game”, and not tuned in the mechanics of how it all really works. But I do the “online GM thing (poorly, sure)” all the time, and I actually see THAT as the video game. An online simulator. THAT’s the game. I think real life sometimes is remembering this is, in its realist form, actually a professional *performance*. It’s a show. An entertainment product being delivered to store shelves. The sport and league may actually be best served by remembering its *actually ok* to value, most, seeing your team Win a Game in the only moment that, really, exists: now. Tldr: I bought LEGO: The Hobbit for PS4 years ago. Included missions for An Unexpected Journey, and Desolation of Smaug - somehow they released it as an “unfinished product” as the missions for the third film were promised to be released “for free”, as dlc later on, all you had to do was “buy in” for the initial release. Well I bought it and beat it. They never released the content for part 3.

Lance L on Marek also said he expects KO back next season.

I know dudacek looks down on my posts because I attempt to set parameters in advance that I feel fairly define success, in advance so that I’m not tempted to fall into my own personal bias - I suppose it’s my mistake for attempting to *define* success: because if you set an actual mark, you can observably fall short. Whereas if you make success less definable, less tangible, less about results it’s easier to achieve goals, as the goals can shift. but I find the numbers useful. Especially in the macro, which I speak to a lot. There’s simply miles of precedent set for how much teams can and do usually improve, points wise, year over year. Of course there are always exceptions, none of my use of the numbers is rigid, but they illustrate how common it is to take huge point jumps, etc. To me looking at the point total this year actually matters - because if we finish with 80 points and people are touting “improvement” and “wildly successful” for a 5 point year-over-year gain...logically, then, what’s to say we won’t see the same people satisfied by the same improvement should it take place next year, another 5 points? Why not? We’ve already seen it. Then, 85 points next year becomes enough. Then why not 90 the following year? Quickly creating a scenario where a guy was GM for 5 years and didn’t make the playoffs. No positive skew available there - an abject fail. They say “where you end up often depends on where you start”. If we start next season off a base of 87 points this year, hey, we improved 12 points year over year, another 12 and we make it. so ya, how big a step we take this year, which, yes, I’d argue is largely statistically definable, really matters to me. We are still on a decent pace- but I’ve found the recent stretch worrisome

No i want Dahlin to get it as it’s an accolade for my favourite player. doesnt matter re: the team as long as it doesn’t go to the absolute WRONG guy any true leader leads regardless

Sigh

I was here before I saw Dahlin practiced. Will give this a look now

Tuch can go WOOO at the camera w/o the C, he’ll be fine

It’s what I would do Dahlin has played more games as a Sabre, and will play far more games as a Sabre from here on out They had Dahlin write the letter itll be Dahlin

On Marek today, his producer asked if it was fair to classify the Sabres season as “wildly successful.” He said there’s been wildly successful moments, and stretches, and wildly successful performances..but that making the playoffs would be what makes the season itself “wildly successful”. Says Sabres took “next step”, though.

That’s not winning as priority, then but could definitely see that being an Adams selected loop hole I’m sure even this year they’d say winning games was a secondary priority. The “winning is priority but not at the expense of long term winning” is more less the same thing. not dealing futures, not acquiring a “block” of Levi, prioritizing development..all of those can be done under the prism of prioritizing the more important FUTURE winning

Hard to say

If there’s no D in range, ya, bPA. Or... *gasp/avert your eyes* we can trade the pick But we obviously aren’t going to trade it

Is it 10 spots you can move up or 9? BPA

Deluca 500, ie, not losing more than you win, will be a tough ask- one behind that mark currently, since the Sabres dominant performance against Winnipeg, the Sabres have played 17 games, winning 6, and losing 11. Coincidently, there are 17 more games remaining. While certainly possible, to finish above Deluca 500 we’d need to win 10 and lose 7