JohnC

I don't disagree with your descriptive word.

The last couple of years the place was half empty and the environment was similar to a morgue. Yesterday's attendance was double the normal size for this year. And the jump in attendance was due to his presence. That is pathetic. You are as usual missing my point. You are right the fans' response is fair game. And so is his response. That's the point!

You are absolutely right that fans have a right to respond in a manner that they want to (within reason). And so does he.

Jack did not have to do the post game interview. I don't care who went out to get him. If he didn't want to do it, he doesn't do it. You got it backwards. The fans have every right to respond in the manner they want. And so does he within reason. If fans can't handle his candid comments, that their problem. He didn't have to do the interview. To his credit he did.

Jack stated what he felt. For some people he was honest to a fault. I have no problem with that. He made a reference in his post game comments about the lack of attendance and interest by fans while he was there. What's sad is not that he said it so much as it is true. There were 12,000 plus fans at a game that was double the normal size. The size of the crowd was double the normal size because he was in this game. It was a barb but it was true. As I said before, fans can boo all they want. That's their prerogative. What I find ironic is that when some shade is thrown back at some of them by someone who was booed throughout the game they act as if it uncalled for. That's nonsense. He's entitled to express his thoughts as others are able to.

I have no problem with him responding in the unvarnished manner that he did. I understand why most fans don't. His response simply reflected how he felt. It's blown out of proportion.

You don't have to be happy with how he handled the interview. The reality is that he didn't have to go out and be interviewed after the game. But he still did it. (We have had this discussion before about Jack and interviews.) He doesn't hide his feelings and does show his emotions in interviews and on the ice. He's far from being a placid person. And during the interview he didn't throw all the fans under the bus. (As you state it.) He commented that some fans booed him while others didn't. My point in the original post is that those who booed throughout the game shouldn't be so sensitive when some shade is thrown back on them. It goes both ways.

I'm not criticizing him or anyone else for giving an honest response. Emotion certainly was factor in his response. He is entitled to express his genuine feelings.

If you think that I'm acting out of a sense of superiority, you are wrong. The targeted player responded in a negative way to how he was treated in this game. He gave an honest response to the question/s in the post game interview. The fans are allowed to behave within reason the way they want. They are paying customers. So the player gave an honest response on how he felt about it. As I said in the prior post: If you throw crap, then don't complain when it is thrown back.

Your response is a classy and mature response. Too much attention about this game is directed toward the player and the response directed at him when the biggest takeaway should have been about how the Sabres played and how jacked-up the crowd was (beyond the booing) in this arena. As you clearly and pointedly stated the Sabres played better and harder than the opposition. Allow me to give a minority view here. If the fans want to boo throughout the game when Jack was on the ice, that is their prerogative. As a paying customer they are allowed to do so. But the backside to the unrelenting booing is that when after the game the targeted player responds in a somewhat petulant and critical manner, that is also his prerogative. Fans act as if he is not entitled to sarcastically respond to the same fans who booed him throughout the game. I give credit to Jack for giving an honest answer about how he felt after the game. The people who are the loudest to indict him for his negative response after the game are the same boorish fans who put more effort in booing a traded player than in cheering their own team on in a game they played well. For the obnoxious fans, please spare me the sensitive act that a player didn't show class in an interview after he was subjected to a game full of boos. The moral of the story is: If you throw shiiiit, then don't be offended when it is thrown back at you.

You make a good point about a player like Hinostroza. He could be a good low line player that adds some production. For the past number of years there has been little production from the lower lines. As the team adds talent players will be more appropriately slotted. Because of the talent deficit they are playing above their paygrade. The same line of thinking applies to the defensive pairings.

I wouldn't give up Olofsson for Comtois. The Sabres are one lowest scoring teams in the league. We need shooters. I'm aware that he hasn't done so well in that area this season but an injury has been a factor in his low goal number. Max Comtois is the type of player that the Sabres should go after this offseason. He is a promising player who is struggling this season. As others have stated he may need a change of scenery to reinvigorate his career. Just as Florida was able to make a trade with Calgary to get Bennett (who needed a change of scenery) at a low price (second round pick plus prospect) maybe a player like Comtois could be had at a discounted price. I wouldn't be reluctant to give up our lowest first round pick for him or trade second round picks in consecutive years for him. He is 24 yrs old. He is a young player who fits within our rebuilding plan. And what would make such a deal even more appealing is that he could play right away.

Goal highlights on this link. https://www.nhl.com/sabres/video/olofsson-scores-go-ahead-ppg/t-277437090/c-10877497

Try this link. https://www.audacy.com/wgr550/listen?utm_source=GoogleAds&utm_medium=SEM&utm_content=NFL-MLB&utm_campaign=SportsStations&utm_term=ConsumerGrowthMarketing&gclid=EAIaIQobChMIxrD16Oe89gIVR_TjBx103grrEAAYASAAEgJz_vD_BwE&gclsrc=aw.ds#schedule

On the radio broadcast it was said that this might be the biggest crowd of the season. Any estimates from the watching crowd? Irritated that this is not on NHL Center Ice.

Anyone who knows what the shape of a hockey puck was fully aware that this year's team wouldn't contend for a playoff spot. The question that the fans and hockey world were discussing was how close to the bottom was this team going to get. No one is surprised because the outcome was obvious and preordained before the hockey season started.

I agree with you that the organization has to do a major review to assess itself. With respect to my comment about conditioning it was directed to the younger players such as Krebs and Quinn who need to get stronger to compete against men. An example of my point is it wasn't until Tage and Mitts got stronger (took years) that they able to hold their own from a physical standpoint.

At this point I don't know what the discussion is about. I'm one that can be easily befuddled. That's okay. It isn't a big enough issue to duel over.

The fitness plan will be executed in the offseason. Krebs and Quinn will have a lot of work to do this offseason.

Mitts said the exact same complimentary things about Jack after he was traded. And after Jack was traded Okposo gave positive remarks about Jack and wished him well. Everyone knew that it was inevitable that Jack was going to be traded. After he was dealt I can't recall any negative comments about him.

How about trading our lowest first round pick for Comtois?

I agree with you that Golden Knights are a better team with Tuch and Krebs because they have an immensely better roster to begin with. But (my opinion) with a healthy and committed Jack the Sabres are a better team with him than without.

Don Granato has said on the radio on more than one occasion that he felt that Quinn has outgrown the AHL. He stated from even a developmental standpoint he would benefit more playing in the NHL.

I'll try to answer your response in simpler terms. The Sabres are a better team with a healthy and committed Jack than they are with Tuch, Krebs and minus Jack. Vegas is a better team with a healthy Jack and without Tuch and Krebs. (My opinion.) The point I'm making doesn't revolve around who is the best player in this trade because it is obvious who the best player is in this transaction. (We both agree on that.) My contention is that Jack's benefit for Vegas is greater than the sum of the two players who departed. And correspondingly, Jacks departure from Buffalo that added Tuch, Krebs and a probable late first when summarized is a minus for the Sabre. (My opinion.) With respect to Jack's health and how it plays in how this deal can be assessed I believe that by the end of the season, if not sooner, we should be able to determine if has returned to form. It also could take an offseason to get a better assessment of where he is as a player. The health issue was a gamble that Vegas was willing to take. The context that both of us recognize is that the Jack trade wasn't simply a plus/minus transaction. There were a number of considerations beyond the talent and even the health issue that motivated this trade. With all the underlying issues that were associated with Jack and with where this team was in the rebuilding process I have no problem with the deal that our GM made.

If Olofsson can be signed in the range of 4 yrs per $4 M or the contract that you that you listed at 3 yrs per $4.5, I would keep him. This bottom feeding team needs to add talent, not let them go. As far as getting winger prospects in the draft, that is fine. But any player drafted this year is mostly at the minimum two to three years away. What this season highlights is the necessity of having depth. And what is also apparent that when the organization struggles to meet the salary floor there should be little concern about the salary that VO will command.