Thorny

Personally, I think it’s been 2 years now I’ve been saying I’d pick Quinn to end up our best forward. But it’s super early days, and the race is wide open

Way too early to know who’ll be the better player between the two. their production difference is minuscule thus far, JJ is pacing for 1 more goal, and 5 less assists than Quinn over 82 i know JJ has played more games, but it’s not so much so as to suggest he’s realized more of his potential than Quinn has, his: over the 57 games JJ has played that go beyond Quinn’s 104, JJ’s ppg over 82 improved to the extent he’d be registering 44 points over 82 compared to the 41 he would be averaging extrapolating out the earlier portion of his career. I mean there’s some development there but really both are in the same boat re: hypothetical unlocked potential relative to what they have to give But if you think Quinn has a greater store of tools to draw on while converting that potential, it makes sense you’d expect him to be the better player

This is what I was saying about Byram. Not only do you not need to hit to be good, it’s more often indicative of the opposite Lidstrom’s tactical positioning was always too good, his stick work too disruptive to find himself being caught chasing and “laying the body” on the regular

Makes sense to me - they aren’t independent events, there’s a ton of causation where the group as a whole benefits from the increase of the individual (1 goal often comes with 2 helpers). It also doesn’t appear as strange mathematically when you remember it’s the top 12 and not the only 12: some guys on the roster CAN have their point totals fall by the wayside it only looks like a “clean sweep” cause the parameter stops at 12, and it doesn’t need to be the same 12 on each side of the ledger

Does it weigh expected games played? Or are these all per 82? 50 more goals would be a lot…interesting thing is I see no reason why the athletic would be inclined to be biased in our favour…so clearly we have a lot of talent the idea all 12 improve upon last year at once seems to suggest a flaw in the model imo, however As mentioned, 50 more would be a lot: but I suppose not astronomical; would have been good for 4th last season We had 296 and finished 3rd two years ago 🤷‍♂️ The 50 more I suggested the numbers implied puts us exactly at 296 again. So there’s a method to the madness

Does it ever: they are projecting all top 12 scoring finishers finishing ahead of where they finished last year, a clean sweep 59 > 80 59 > 72 56 > 70 50 > 67 47 > 63 33 > 48 30 > 42 29 > 37 28 > 32 21 > 32 20 > 29 19 > 24 All told an increase of 141 points in the top 12 …divided by around 3 points per goal…the numbers seem to suggest we improve our goal total by 50

Apparently after this move, and once Boston finalizes Swayman and co, Sabres will be solidly bottom 5 in payroll again and bottom 3 for actual dollars spent

And is sometimes charged with murder for doing so. It’s not undermining anything. To suggest otherwise is dangerous and willfully ignorant, even on a message board. The charge does not require premeditation as you wrongfully stipulated, nor does it necessarily even require specific intent in all cases.

Not a single Canadian skater in the top 18, kinda wild also, I’m starting to not recognize some of these names. What is happening to me, I’m scared..

Didn’t even want to chime in here. Feels wrong to even wade into what’s become an embarrassing discussion. But the willful ignorance on display is just infuriating and eventually dangerous. Anyone who thinks murder needs to be “premeditated” or even done with specific intent necessarily, doesn’t understand the law, didn’t read your link, and beyond engaging in a semantic discussion when it’s so obviously not the time displays an inability to grasp the truth when presented with clear facts. To argue against the wording in the thread title, right now, is absurd - - - It’s an unjust world. I hope the family can somehow find peace through this sickening tragedy

There’s so much raw, exceedingly high pedigree talent on our defensive end, so much losses-turned-into-draft-capital asset value spent on our defensive group, that rightly or wrongly my mind automatically sort of goes to a “they’ll be good, or what are we even doing here, anyway?” mindset: if 1oA + 1oA + 4oA (all 3 higher draft position than any forward on team I think?) don’t amount to the strength of this team, the whole operation is shot. It’s like it necessarily needs to be taken for granted. Dallin and Power certainly need to be good enough to buoy whatever partner. I have confidence they will. The biggest question mark always seems to be ETA: our D unit will be very good at some point I think, but is it this coming season? It’s really the only thing that matters right now which, speaks to the difficulty of answering your poll. They are still young. At least, Power and Byram. Whether they prove ready for focal-point prime time on a playoff team THIS year probably, in my estimation, comes down to how strenuously we need the unit to be the impetus of our success: if there is balance achieved across the roster, and Dahlin isn’t running around filling in the blanks.. we should be ok - - - went with the second option on polls 1 and 2, and the first option for poll 3

It’s only one more season…

Honestly, I thought they probably would be, but doing a little digging, it looks like last year’s global series games were NOT nationally televised and only aired on NHL network. Derp. maybe down to the timing of the games? https://www.nhl.com/news/nhl-national-television-schedule-for-week-of-november-13-19 ..still, you’d think it’d be something the league would want..

You don’t “use” these vices you partake

Accurate, and it’s not just B/c they “aren’t paying attention” either: there is an element of that, we “see” more, but we are also more biased by nature: all fans feel this way about their prospects We talk about our system strength but there’s no way we are all digging into the nitty gritty upside of every team’s 6th best prospect etc. We’ll tout where there’s more familiarity

A moderator publicly criticizing what a veteran poster painstakingly takes the time to detail day in, day out, adding content to the board. Were you guys posting about Casey when you made this statement? I thought it was supposed to be about the post, not the poster? Obnoxious

It’s always about the take

Even this I find off base and vaguely offensive. Or is it just dismissive? You can hide behind erroneous statements like this if you like, but it doesn’t change the fact it’s not about venting: maybe you just don’t often have people tell you you are flat out wrong about something? There doesn’t have to be some hidden agenda. Some sort of emotion behind it that explains the disagreement: I literally just strenuously, vividly disagree with your ***** and bull stance that, “this is what accountability looks like.” Which is, indeed, what I initially responded to. It’s not just a bad take, it’s a really bad take. It should be called out imo you don’t have to take the L on it, as much as you should, but pretending it’s about something other than me legitimately disagreeing is where I’ll draw the line, myself Ps - thank you so much for graciously “looking past” the emoji I stamped on your post by way of the website features SDS implemented specifically to be used lol. Don’t hate the player, hate the game pps - I’ve given out, checks notes, all of 12 “puke” emojis in…9 years of posting nearly 40 000 times. 12. ( and I’ve received 30) you should be honoured

If anyone thinks the primary reason for buying out Skinner was “accountability” as opposed to cap savings, I have some magical beans you might be interested in. seriously. Stop carrying weight for a rich owner. It’s not sith. Im not saying they don’t want to win. I’m saying they are focusing on doing so at a cheaper cost than necessary, by choice. if you can’t see that…. “well then you are lost.”

Helen Hunt, more likely

There’s no way they could look themselves in the mirror and say the priority wasn’t savings, if they don’t spend the money. The Sabres DO NOT have plausible deniability, here. That’s my point. You want to grant them the “they actually are doing their very best (regardless of what I, dudacek think)” out and I absolutely will not do it. It’s definitely a line in the sand, we do not mostly agree, it’s paramount in my views on this regime. the failure to PRIORITIZE winning. If you can’t see that as always having been central to my arguments, one of our stances has certainly changed can’t believe I even have to formulate arguments to this, at this point. Just read Brawndo’s posts. There’s an internal cap. The priority isn’t winning. It’s winning while spending less How many times does the quiet part have to be said out loud at this point

It’s true, we don’t

I mean, I was legitimately asking if you changed your mind. I appreciate the attempt at clarification, but no, you’ve switched from “exceedingly arrogant” and “malformed” (strong, strong condemnations) to a paragraph in bold above that doesn’t critique the move at all until point 3, after defending it within the first 2, and even under point 3 keeps the door open for KA to address in season full disclosure: I’m really struggling with your motive/bias, here. Look, I always say you are the best poster. I’m not trying to be a d*ck. I think your take here, though, in this one case, is rank. Even a perfectly functioning clock is wrong once a..wait what - - - Fit and talent can be a factor: but it would be, imo, disingenuous to claim the SAVINGS weren’t the PRIMARY factor when the cost went *unspent*, yet the talent unaddressed. They cared less about addressing talent and fit, afterwords: but they certainly didn’t use the money. The priority was keeping the money saved. That’s where the focus went after the move: which proves the priority can they get lucky and it work out? Sure. But it’s a dicey situation because we all know, in our heart of hearts (come on, now) the impetus behind the move was $. The other factors you listed were merely justification. Haven’t you ever heard that old thing about how humans make the choice, first, then come up with the reasons to support their choice, retroactively? we were all right the first time, when the move happened: “it depends what they do with it.” we got our answer. Don’t move the goalposts. Out of respect for this community forum and the conversation we engage in, here, we really shouldn’t.

Honestly? Probably not. I think it’s pretty darn safe to say the move wasn’t born out of accountability if they didn’t even use the space gained. If we are looking at the simplest explanation here, you’d have to be severely drinking the KA kool aid to buy the idea it was done for accountability when they refuse to be accountable themselves. It was done out of accountability, but they just *happened* to not want to spend the money? it’s sort of getting to be a case of how willingly blind we want to be. They cut him because of cost, obviously You said it yourself: the idea it would be addition by subtraction is malformed

So, which is it? They didn’t use the money they saved. And as you already said, it’s not addition by subtraction. You had it right the first time, and switched for some reason. They aren’t better simply without the guy, so the theory the aim was accountability in the name of success gets thrown out the window: the team itself wasn’t accountable in utilizing the space gained Is it arrogant, or in the name of accountability? You are clearly playing both sides here. Did you change your mind in the last 7 days?