JohnC

The real issue has little to do with partying or focusing on hockey. The issue is character and a degree of humanity. His lack of maturity was exhibited in Arizona and also on cruel display in the eastern part of the country. A punk is a punk regardless of where you are at. @nfreeman was potently succinct with the word that best describes this incident: Disgraceful.

This is a case where you don't need the full story to know what the story is. The son is a punk.

None of us can say for sure. But when it is widely reported (which means a variety of different sources), it is very probable that the numerous unsubstantiated claims are true. Certainly, the numerous claims would not be allowed to be presented in a court room trial, but for our level of standard I am more than comfortable to give credence to the claim.

As @GASabresIUFAN stated, it was widely reported that the owner insisted that ROR be traded before the bonus clause kicked in. And that's exactly what happened.

No, I stand by my words that it's not likely that the GM will make a deal for a high-end goalie this offseason. A few of the goalies in the upper tier would require not only giving up a first rounder or two but also require one of our top tier prospects (such as Savoie/I don't consider Rosen to be in the Savoie class) to be included in such a deal. In my opinion, the hesitation comes more from not wanting to give up a premium prospect than draft picks. I agree with others here (I think including you?) that the acquisition of a top-shelf goalie would have a major impact on this team. Listening to what KA have said, I believe that he is more inclined to rely on the pipeline that also probably includes Levi. I've said it before that I believe that the GM made a glaring mistake in not signing Ullmark to the contract that the player wanted. The GM's insistence on staying within his established contract boundaries for this particular player was a damaging decision, especially after seeing how this season has unfolded.

You basically made a convincing argument why KA is very likely going to stay the course and not bring in another goalie.

That's a fair assessment where he should be slotted. Also, his size and toughness/grit add an element that this roster can use.

The Caps are dealing with a number of injuries and banged up players (as we also are) that is affecting their play. The organization took an honest assessment in what the status of this team was. It then dealt some players around the trade deadline. It wasn't a major sell-off but it did indicate that a reworking of the roster was at hand. If Ovechkin wasn't chasing the Gretsky record, there would have been a bigger tear down. The key to this game is for the Sabres to play a fast-paced game and outrun them. They can't keep up. If this team allows itself to get distracted by physical play and foolishly falls into that trap of tit-for-tat, we will being playing into their hands and neutralizing our asset of speed. The Caps played last night in NY and lost. Ovechkin did not play. If the Sabres play their game they should come away with a win. We are at the stage where each game is important, there are no more meaningless games. It's simply a case of taking care of one's own business and not worrying about what you can't control. These next two road games will determine if we stay in the hunt or if we fall by the wayside. (I'm so glad that Tuch is back.)

As you are pointing out, there are a number of players who won't have a letter on their jersey who are still leaders on ice and in the locker room. As far as I'm concerned, the issue of who is going to wear the letter is not a big issue at all. Okposo was once asked about being assigned with the letter C or A after the Jack era. He said whether he is wearing the letter or not he is going to conduct himself exactly in the same way on the ice or in the room. A leader is a leader. What's a good sign is that the discussion revolves around a number of people who would be quality candidates to wear the designation.

I'm excited with the probability that Levin will soon be joining the organization. His acquisition could turn out to be the GM's most significant transaction. But the next issue becomes should the GM make a move to get an upper tier goalie such as Saros to buy time for his development and also hedge one's bet on the position? I've felt after hearing the GM talk on a number of occasions about the "process" that he is going to go with what he has inside the system and let it unfold. Would that be a mistake? I'm not sure? After seeing how this youth laden team has progressed, and in my estimation is on the precipice of making a leap up the ranks, would it be wise to utilize some assets to get a goalie next year, such as Saros, to accelerate the process to being a consequential team next year? I would say yes. If I had to make a bet, I would say the GM would firmly say: Stay the course. It's a tough call.

The conundrum is do you become proactive this offseason and try to bring in one of the top tier goalies that you listed? Or do you wait another year to see what level of goalie UPL falls into? If I had an opportunity to get a goalie such as Saros for a first round pick plus a prospect such as Rosen (not Savoie), I would make the deal. I just think that such a deal would have a significant impact on the team. There are no guarantees but of a goalie such as Saros or Ullmark was on our current roster the Sabres would be playing post season games.

The issue of striving for success is not so much about the market value as it is what does the transaction do for your team. There are transactions for player/s that one could say is too much for one team and for another team the value of the transaction is worth more. Would I give up a first-round pick and Rosen for a goalie such as Soros? Without any hesitation. For another team the departing assets wouldn't make sense. Ask yourself, if we had a Soras or Ullmark as our primary goalie this year, would the Sabres be a playoff team? I say yes. Would KA consider such a deal for a goalie? I don't think so. I believe he is resolute in staying the course and for the most part working from within.

We are both sitting in the same ballpark.

The way you portrayed the ROR episode is the way I remember it. The indignant billionaire was not going to give more money away to this publicly disgruntled athlete. I don't blame the owner for his negative response to this particular player.

I don't think you will get many dissenters from the proposition that Pegula screwed up in directing this franchise when he took it over. This franchise was ping ponging back and forth with foolish deals and the constant churning of staff. That ignominious period has been well documented. What I can say is that when KA took over he had a plan and for the past couple to three years has systematically and successfully executed his plan. I also believe that Pegula was on board with KA's rebuild plan when he hired him, and that since his installation Pegula has not interfered with the operation other than being kept informed and signed off of contracts.

If you sniff the weeds you will probably sneeze and not get mellow.

What would be your offer? Then it would be easier to comment on your proposal.

Should I call you Hairy? 🤡

There are up and down cycles for franchises. Smart managers know exactly where their team is on the spectrum and the direction it wants to go. It has to establish a course of action to get where one wants it to go. It is not surprising that our organization decided to tear down and thus spend less money after jettisoning of the original core. What's foolish is spending more money than one needs to when cleaning out the cupboard thus handcuffing yourself when you are about to get to the stabilizing and upward trajectory point. One doesn't haven't to agree with everything our GM has done. But taking a broader perspective you have to be impressed by how he has cleaned out what he needed to clean out, and then worked to augment the talent that was already on board. And included within this issue is the judicious and wise manner in which he has spent on contracts.

It's not about age. If you don't have unsightly hairs coming out of your nose and ears and you don't need to have your eyebrows clipped and you don't have a need to constantly pee at night, then I consider the person to be a young assss punk!

No, I am not overreacting to the critical comments about Joki. What I have seen is the same BS reflexive commentary that Mitts was subjected to. Now the narrative for Mitts has changed to the positive. Based on Joki's recent play I suspect that narrative will swing in the more positive direction. The reality is that he has been a consistent player for us. Little has changed in his play other than some skewed perceptions are now altered. I have constantly stated that the organization needs to bring in another defenseman or two to buttress the unit. What it doesn't need is a Joki subtraction that will increase the need to bring in more defensemen. It's simple arithmetic that some people don't seem to understand: When you have a minus you need to add, not subtract to get to an acceptable level.

Name 3-5 players that you believe could be on the roster within two years. And then name one or two of the longer developing prospects that you believe will come to fruition as NHL players.

https://www.audacy.com/wgr550/authors/howard-and-jeremy-show Attached is a WGR link with Don Granato on the Jeremy White Show. It is a 17 min segment. What's interesting about his comments is the emphasis that he is going to keep with his emphasis on internal improvement. There is also a Paul Hamilton segment within this link.

After watching this game, I come away suspecting that Dahlin is hurt. He is not playing with the same verve that he usually has. To his credit he appears to be gutting it out and giving all that he can give. In some ways by not playing with his usual offensive abandon, he is playing a more disciplined and structured defensive game. I give him credit for his dedication to the team. He's a leader that his teammates certainly appreciate.

You are looking at the trading of the old core with too small of a lens. You need to have a broader perspective. It's not only about who you got back, although the additions of Tuch and Krebs are a plus. You also have to look at the trade that dealt the old core and how those departures affected the roles of the players who remained. Without question, the dynamic of the team has changed dramatically with multiple players stepping up and filling the vacuum. The Jack team did have a different vibe from this Dahlin/Thompson/Tuch team. In a team sport the internal dynamic is a significant factor in winning. You may have not noticed it but there was and is a change in it for the good.