Marvin

Jean Ratellle and Peter McNab are fine with me too. He passed Espo.

A few things: Sadly, I don't think the Pegulas think they are dimwits and the people in the hockey operation probably feel the same way. I think you underestimate the enervation of the players by the coaching. I am very system oriented, so I like to see what the players look like they are trying to do and how well they execute it. RK's is very passive and a mish-mash of systems. Aside from the McCabe-Ristolainen pairing and a few other bright spots, the players look like they tried to learn the system from an online course. It has flat out harmed the development of Dahlin, Jokiharu, and Olofsson. Speaking of coaches and psychology, given the node-dive which the players' performance has taken after Skinner's benching, I think that the veterans looked at that and thought, "yes, you made your point: winning doesn't matter as long as you get your way." In theory, Hall is playing for his next contract. I assumed he would push himself. Staal was a leader on Minnesota last year. It is hardly a stretch that he would play decently. Virtually everyone's play took a nose dive when Skinner was benched. I have to ask if Skinner being on the 4th line undermined their motivation. I suspect they will all play markedly better once they are moved and we we wonder, "where the **** was that guy when he was here?"

That was how I learnt how to use a music stand and a hangar as a make-shift antenna. Served me well in college in Cleveland when I wanted to watch HNIC out of Windsor.

Welcome back, even if it is only to vent.

We won't have to wait 7 more years for the Sabres, will we?

I would rather get Danault and Compher than have either of Hall and Staal next year. I also feel better about Cozens than Staal at 2C.

I take B. Money for Reinhart, Dahlin, and good character players throughout the line-up. Many solid and decent players got little more than the league minimum this year and teams are still stuck next year. Fill out a balanced line-up, please.

They listened to "Make a Move on Me" -- right album, wrong song.

Even the cartoons? J/K

The Doomsday Machine?

For those of my era: "M's 1 through 4 were not entirely successful."

The Sabres' season: Code Zero Zero Zero Destruct Zero.

I need the Amerks right now.

You just reminded me of a great quote from a mysterious "chess sage" from Alexander Kotov's _Think Like a Grandmaster_: "The presence of a plan _can_ make you look like a genius. But the absence of a plan _will_ make you look like an idiot." The Sabres look like the 2nd half of this saying.

I say this season is a pointless streak until they get a new, clearly qualified coach.

Evander Kane?

Sis. Boom. Baah. Look it up.

Thank you.

@thewookie1 Blast, you're right. There's a 7th round pick in the offing...

Look at the teams targetting our vets and see whom they are disappointed with but are still effective (e.g., Brad May), can't fit in their line-up (e.g., Mike Peca), can't afford next year (e.g., Stu Barnes), want to move for youth (e.g., Darryl Shannon), etc. who play with a gritty mindset. IMHO, you are more likely to get these players in the kinds trades the Sabres are likely to make -- even as throw-ins. Once we replace RK, flooding the organisation with these kinds of players could help the culture immediately. Imagine rolling out an analogue of May-Eichel-Reinhart (May did well with Hawerchuk and Khmylev), Skinner-Cozens-Barnes, Olofsson-Peca-Ruotsalainen, the LOG line, plus Asplund, Lazar, and Quinn in reserve at forward. Now, make our defence McCabe-Ristolainen, Dahlin-Borgen, Shannon-Jokiharu with Bryson and Pilut in reserve. Keep Ullmark and add an NHL-level goaltender. All I added were a trio of 3rd-4th liners and a bottom-pair D when the Sabres got them and then promoted a couple of youngsters. IMHO, I made a playoff-worthy line-up which is about $8M cheaper than this year's team and would be a helluvalot more fun to watch.

Undergrad applied math majors call it "sadistics" for a reason.

1. Assume we retain 25-50% on Staal, Hall, Miller, and Montour. 1.a. Do we want just a pick, a player and a pick, or just players? 1.b. For any player acquired, what percentage are AHL vets, low-end NHLers, project prospects, and decent prospects? 2. Who else do you move out? 2.a. Are there players you just want to dump? 2.b. Whom do you think you could move in a hockey trade? What would you look for in return?

In the official documentation which the NHL has released to hockey historians, the quasi-official cut-off for the points percentage of an all-time awful team is 0.250, or 28 points this year. We have a realistic shot at it.

Let's seen. 2.5 hours is 6 episodes of Doctor Who. I could watch the entire telesnap reconstruction of "Fury from the Deep." Let's see. A complete copy of the audio. 1 photograph of what was happening on screen about every 20 seconds. Splices of actual clips of the original film to remind me of what "normal" looks like. Feels just like watching the Sabres playing relative to a real hockey team.

I always assume that people have a reason for doing something that seems good to them, no matter what I think. Let me use a silly idea which my brother hit on that is consistent with the facts but would seem ridiculous from every other angle. Repeat, this is a hypothetical, silly idea merely to show that it is entirely possible that everyone we know who has spoken publicly is completely above board. Suppose you are KA and have complete control from T&KP and that money is no object. Let us assume that you want to fire RK because you agree with your fans and former peers from the Sabres that he is a bad coach. But you have a logical directive from above to keep Jack and Sam happy -- and Jack and Sam like RK so much that their condition for not demanding a trade is that RK stays coach. You would be in an impossible spot. I personally would fire RK so fast it would make your head spin even though defying your boss in this situation would essentially have you blackballed. Do you take that chance? Now this is obviously ridiculous, but KA could be in a bind like this, probably with some combination of money, control, inexperience, and players' feelings each having a role. But he would still be in a similar bind. How do you feel about taking that chance? I have taken chances like that. Most of the time, it worked out fine, but let me give you a few negative examples. I defended my religiosity against atheists in the math department I was in and would not accept that this, ipso facto, made me intellectually inferior to even the dumbest atheist.. When asked why my students did not do as well in Math Reform classes in the 1990's, I told the Math Ed specialists that I was philosophically opposed to the New New Math. Both groups made my life hell for my last 2 years of grad school and I see a psychiatrist now in part because I have so much negativity associated with what is my dream job of being a research mathematician -- and I will never take my dream job because of this. That was aside from being blackballed from the Columbus, OH. bridge centre for defending being a Buffalo sports fan in 1997; they asserted that I was inferior as a bridge player because I was from Buffalo and am an N-word. From my angle, the obvious is suddenly not so obvious.