Marvin

One thing about the 2006-2012 drafting that is forgotten: the Sabres only drafted one centre the entire time: Luke Adam. We also often forget the numerous picks Darcy sent away to buy at the deadline for players we often did not keep. That doubled the problem because we didn't get to draft AND we didn't have the extra roster spot being held by one more holdover. That compounds the offence of bad drafting.

He's the bottom of the barrel? (No sound here.)

FWIW, I had heard that only a few teams (at most 5) were OK with ADR.

I just hope he lives out a decent life. If he gets back to near 100% and does not get badly hurt, that's a bonus.

I agree, but it looks like no one wants most of our UFA's. Maybe a cap crunch can work in our favour to move the parts which are not going to stay around.

I wish.

I honestly don't see much turnover. Based on the desired players on trade boards, they basically won't trade the people other teams would want for mere picks.

This is where I am. Terry Pegula became billionaire in part by normally listening to his experts and following their advice. He did that here too.

That's not "the worst." They are well-meaning incompetents by this description, which is demonstrably true. But why assume pettiness and malice with Eichel? First, it's Pegula's money. Second, the insurers did not support ADR by refusing to cover it. Third, the doctors they consulted opposed ADR. Why is saying "no" not just a rational decision? Sure, his relationship with Eichel might have biased his position on ADR, but IMHO, the Pegula's actions are 100% defencible from a medical and actuarial point of view. Until I see evidence to the contrary, I assume that Eichel and Pegula acted in what they perceive to be their own best interests which happen to be pi radians (180°) opposed.

Why is virtually everyone on this board assuming the worst of the Pegulas with Eichel? I know the Pegula era started off with the misbegotten tank and we are living with the worst case scenario, but are they as malicious, petty, and hot-tempered as people here think? If so, what evidence do you have that is from a disinterested party? Hockey talking heads don't count because they have a clear interest to curry favour with players and agents.

What do you get when you cross an elephant and a rhinoceros? Eliphino. Seriously, I assume they were deferring to Jack and hope their actuaries are correct in their models. They may also have a higher tolerance for risk than the Pegulas do. Also, I imagine Pegula's thought process was, "we will be trading Jack Eichel and my hockey team is not going to get the benefit of Jack Eichel. Thus, why would I take the risk and be on the hook legally if it leads to a permanent injury to him when he is playing for someone else?" Selfish, but logical. CAVEAT: Because I have been the first person who has done a lot of things, I would not want a player on my team to be the first hockey player to get a surgical procedure. It is just my temperament. So the doctors' opinions would over-ride hockey decisions for me, no if's, and's, or but's.

I would have done absolutely positively the same thing that the Pegulas did once the medical advisors said that it was too risky. As a non-medical specialist, I defer to them 100%. And I would have gone down with that ship. It is because the worst-case scenario is so bad that I would not want any part if it -- even if he were staying with the Sabres. That's how bad it is to me. There is nothing personal in that analysis. IMHO, there is no reason to ascribe malice to the Pegulas in this case because the percentage thing to do is what the Sabres did from the point of view of their experts. If the Pegulas are going to over-rule the experts, then what the hell are they on the payroll for? Yes, I understand the morality of the issue. But if Jack wants it, he can get it, pay for it, and take all the risk. That's how my employer and insurance treats me -- so I want the treatment, pay for it, and take all the risk. I do not see why the Sabres and their insurers should change the rules for him. In fact, I am glad they treated him the way they would treat me because it is eminently fairer than making an exception.

It brought in a new poster. For that, I will debate.

That was the first Buffalo Braves playoff game in 1974. I saw it from my last row seat near the left baseline on the YouTube Videos of the Braves. I knew one of the guys who helped design the raising of the roof of the Aud to put in the Oranges. My first time up there when they expanded capacity to 16,325 seated (+ 108 Standing Room) I commented to him later that month that I felt like a dare-devil skier. (The last row of the Oranges behind the visitor's net was all I could afford once a year.) Still, according to an article in the Buffalo News back when Marine Midland Arena opened, the top of the Oranges was still closer to the ice than the first row of the upper bowl now.

I like your user name.

I was at a couple of those games too. Not far above beer league.

I am just glad he is on an upward trajectory.

For those who don't know: https://buffalonews.com/news/local/history/bn-chronicles-slap-shot-scenes-inspired-by-north-tonawanda-based-team/article_b6c9faf6-3f3d-11ec-bbbb-bf0006e5d7bb.html?fbclid=IwAR31LbzmizelhKs_sKol1Urob4NoIVsuOX2_N_bf-LbdvYtT0Oq0a6fEljw

Welcome back. And there is a lot of truth in what you say.

Injury-depleted, on the road, and overmatched. It sure might feel that way.

Pizza, wings, beef on weck. Start with that.

It's like Brad May. You have to have some skill to hang about that long.

I'm Hen-er-y the VIII I am.

As someone who is more into (adjusted) plus-minus than most, you need some context. The first point is the most important, but the ones after it are salient as well. 1. The +/- for most of the other forwards was even worse than Eichel. The difference between the Sabres when Eichel was on the ice and when Eichel was off the ice was mind-bogglingly wide. That points the finger at the GM because it proves much of the rest of the roster sucked. In particular, there was inadequate defence and goaltending. 2. Until they learn to backcheck effectively, offencive forwards often start their years in the debit column for +/- unless your team has defencively responsible but skilled forwards to put on his line. 3. Over the history of the league (I have statistics going back to 1967-8), talented players on bad teams -- particularly young ones -- are almost always worse than average in adjusted +/- because the team is behind and give up not only empty net goals, but a lot of extra-man rushes because they are pressing to score -- even the most defencively responsible of them. 4. The easiest way to have made Eichel's +/- better was to get some very good veteran defencemen and solid goaltending. I have stats going back to the 1920's, where teams made big jumps in the standings and offencive players got better results because of improved defence and goaltending. Think of hockey as having its version of the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle. The raw numbers we collect can not tell the whole story because you can't dissociate the player from the team. Players who go from bad teams to good ones often see a gigantic bump in their statistics no matter how good they are -- and the best see the adjusted +/- soar, sometimes by over 40 goals. For instance, in 1971-2, Gil Perreault was -39. In 1972-73, he was +10. Sure, he improved, but the team around him slashed almost 100 goals against off the previous year's total. That was not all Gil Perreault. That was Tim Horton, Don Luce, and numerous other players.

Getting used to the idiosyncrasies of being a head coach. I remember the late Elijah Pitts talking about it when Marv Levy had surgery and had to miss a few games.